It's all the rage!

[nz3m]

I was just listening to a large group of hams. They were talking about the FCC CW news, Apparently, they are going to start IDing their station using CW from now on. Everyone liked the idea. They are going to pass this idea around, and seemed very excited. One said, "nobody will hear my call in voice again".

Please note, this wasn't my idea. I was just passing along what I am hearing.

Dave

[W5MJL]

LMAO, what a great idea.

[nz3m]

It's perfectly legal, that's for sure.

Dave

[ai4ep]

Ok you folks that know all about the rules ....is that legal ?

------
Now how could that occur on fm repeaters ?

[W5MJL]

Yes it is legal.

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ July 19 2005,21:29)]------
Now how could that occur on fm repeaters ?
From what I understand, it's only going to be done on HF. I could be wrong though. You could use a practice key on FM, as long as it is readable.

Dave

[kf4lne]

build a in-line device that connects to your mic plug and you can plug the mic into it. Attach a CPO to that device and enjoy http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I have a device I use to connect my mic and my PC for SSTV so I can send a pic via the same radio we are having a comversation on (simplex only)

[KM5FL]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ July 20 2005,22:31)]Yes it is legal.
You're wasting your breath..
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif


KM5FL

[W5HTW]

Completely legal. But, before using F3 "CW" on a repeater, one should get the repeater owner's permission. And remember, an audible tone into the microphone is technically voice transmission, not CW, so it not legal on two meters below 144.1 mhz. Only on/off carrier is CW.

Oddly, we had a fellow check into an HF SSB net on CW, but that was yesterday, before the NPRM hit the fan! I didn't get to listen tonight to see if any CW checkins occurred.

For now, that is legal. In the future it may not be, as the FCC may reserve voice bands for voice only. That is, though, NOT in any current proposal before them.

Ed

[kj5t]

It may be legal, but if there is a voice net going, you should check in using voice. I also understand that its legal to operate FSK RTTY anywhere in the CW parts of the band, so what if I checked in to your 20 meter CW net using FSK RTTY?

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ July 21 2005,01:08)]It may be legal, but if there is a voice net going, you should check in using voice. #I also understand that its legal to operate FSK RTTY anywhere in the CW parts of the band, so what if I checked in to your 20 meter CW net using FSK RTTY?
You would probably have a bunch of irate CW operators cussing you out in their individual ham shacks ! #And the Net Control Operator would probably ask who the LID was that was messing up the net!

Actually, I can remember when the F.C.C. required us RTTY operators to ID in Morse code CW, regardless of whether we sent our call letters in Baudot or not. #The only legal identification, was the CW one ! # What a relief it was when they eliminated that requirement ! #

73, #Jim

[kj5t]

3Y

I suspect if you tried to check-in to an SSB using CW, there would be an irate NC. So there is not much difference. I don't support the recent NPRM, but I also don't support CW people trying to force a mode on someone. I will leave the CW ops alone and stick on the digital parts of the band and voice parts of the band. I don't mind CW being used in the voice parts of the band, but I don't see why you should try checking in a voice net using CW.

[ka5s]

Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ July 20 2005,22:08)]It may be legal, but if there is a voice net going, you should check in using voice. #I also understand that its legal to operate FSK RTTY anywhere in the CW parts of the band, so what if I checked in to your 20 meter CW net using FSK RTTY?
CW ID is legal. A device used only to ID in CW may not be set faster than 20 wpm.

Quote[/b] ](b) The call sign must be transmitted with an emission authorized for the transmitting channel in one of the following ways:

(1) By a CW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute; 97.119 (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/b.html#119)

Not everything legal is a good idea. and I am unsure about this one. Some folks seem to enjoy offending others by "pushing the envelope," and that is really not in keeping with what our avocation ought to be.

Having seen the immoderate sentiments some of our fraternity here post, I will not be surprised if some "kind gentlemen" decide to overwhelm operators who don't know CW with what will be to those operators only meaningless QRM.

Such action, even if legal, would if it occurred harm our fellowship by provoking resentment and anger -- and would invite an unsolicited Rulemaking to remedy the situation. We would therefore do well to exercise some restraint in showing our devotion to CW.

Cortland
KA5S

[w8znx]

ahoy gang

Art Bell and other 75 meter fone ops
been
ID ing using morse code for years now

there was
a morse auto id kit
would send your call
in morse code code every 10 min
( note did not say cw )

big round table
every body shooting bull
sometimes mis the 10 min
id time

the auto morse id machine
helps save OO's the stamp money

oh yes i have checked in to more
than one fone net on cw

but you got to
make hello guys
im here reading the mail
exchange
then tnx cul es call and sk

funny how if the code test
is realy dropied

being able to copy morse code
will become even
more elitist
then ever

yours truly
dit dit
Mac

[N8CPA]

In one of my meanest spirited moments a few years ago, I think I told someone I would only ID in Morse if NCHF came to pass. Whether I'd actually do that is another matter. But I like it!


If an NCO will get upset because someone checks in using CW, he's not qualified to be a net control. One of the reasons it is legal on every traditional allocation is that it might be the only mode that can be understood under certain conditions. Most nets used to issue special calls for weak signal check-ins, and most weak respondents would check in via CW. It is even likelier to happen when requesting check-ins from disaster areas.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ July 20 2005,23:27)]It's perfectly legal, that's for sure.

Dave
I think a case could be made that this would be a violation of "good amateur practice," thus not strictly legal under the changes that are proposed.

If nothing else, it shows an utter lack of maturity on the part of those amateurs who would advocate such a policy in a fit of pique. Childish tantrum not much different than lying on the floor kicking and screaming.

In the old days, there was a clause in Rocks and Shoals about "silent insolence," which was just as punishable as open insubordination.

Such conduct may be amusing on QRZ, but it is clearly unbecoming and I would advise against it on the air.

[N8CPA]

Look at it this way. They have been called "elitists" for so long, that they are now acting like they really are. If they acted any other way, it would prove the name callers wrong. And being wrong might hurt the name callers' feelings.

So I want to be among the first to congratulate them for protecting the feelings and self-esteem of the name callers. You have shown true sensitivity to diversity. Way to go, guys! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[wa4brl]

It's the only way I know of sending my callsign when operating CW. What's all the fuss about? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ai4ep]

...it dont take much to git sum of yew fowlkes awl rilled up, does it ?

A couple of yew fowlkes could bite nails in half rite about now.

go git another beer and chill out...87 degrees in the shade in north Alabama.

Beer for me ? No thank you...I never drink anything stronger than POP, but POP would drink mite near anything...

ai4ep http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif :rock:

[kj5t]

Quote[/b] ]If an NCO will get upset because someone checks in using CW, he's not qualified to be a net control.

So if the NCO of that CW net got angry because I checked in using FSK RTTY, he is not qualified to be a net control operator? Or do we have doube standards?

[K9STH]

KA5S:

If the CW identifier is manually activated then it can be at any speed. If is only if the activation is automatic that it cannot exceed 20 wpm.

Glen, K9STH

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ July 21 2005,12:33)]Quote[/b] ]If an NCO will get upset because someone checks in using CW, he's not qualified to be a net control.

So if the NCO of that CW net got angry because I checked in using FSK RTTY, he is not qualified to be a net control operator? #Or do we have doube standards?
NO. We're talking about phone nets requesting check-ins from weak signals, and generally that means a CW station, because it can be read by ear, as opposed to other text modes. There is no double standard, but a standard of flexibility of skills on the part of an NCS.

[kj5t]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 21 2005,16:44)]Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ July 21 2005,12:33)]Quote[/b] ]If an NCO will get upset because someone checks in using CW, he's not qualified to be a net control.

So if the NCO of that CW net got angry because I checked in using FSK RTTY, he is not qualified to be a net control operator? Or do we have doube standards?
NO. We're talking about phone nets requesting check-ins from weak signals, and generally that means a CW station, because it can be read by ear, as opposed to other text modes. There is no double standard, but a standard of flexibility of skills on the part of an NCS.
I have ran several HF nets, and though I have never heard a CW station trying to checkin, I am not really sure what I would do. Here is where you say "You should have taken 20wpm code and then you could copy worth a damn and could get the weak CW stations who try to check into the phone net". Well I took the 5wpm code that I was required to take to get on HF, but that does not mean I have used any code since, does not mean I have listened to code, and no where in the FCC rule book does it require me to operate code in order to keep my license. If I am on a phone net, I am not there to operate CW, and unless its an emergency net, I don't see ANY reason why CW should be there.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] ] If I am on a phone net, I am not there to operate CW, and unless its an emergency net, I don't see ANY reason why CW should be there.

I agree on that point.

[N8CPA]

Part of the point of routine nets is fullfilment of 97.1 in regards to Emergency preparedness.
If it's an emergency, hopefully one check-in or another will have the necessary skill to relay the information--at least, under current requirements.

Because you've never encountered a CW check-in on a phone net, doesn't mean they never happen. I hear them mostly on the Waterway net, when they do happen. I have heard them happen even on RV and _CARS, from time to time.

And, Steve, your 5 WPM chip is showing. I never said anything about the qualifications you met. You brought that up, and you put words on my keyboard. I won't comment further if you're as self-conscious as that projection makes you appear.

[kj5t]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 21 2005,17:03)]Part of the point of routine nets is fullfilment of 97.1 in regards to Emergency preparedness.
If it's an emergency, hopefully one check-in or another will have the necessary skill to relay the information--at least, under current requirements.

Because you've never encountered a CW check-in on a phone net, doesn't mean they never happen. I hear them mostly on the Waterway net, when they do happen. I have heard them happen even on RV and _CARS, from time to time.

And, Steve, your 5 WPM chip is showing. I never said anything about the qualifications you met. You brought that up, and you put words on my keyboard. I won't comment further if you're as self-conscious as that projection makes you appear.
The nets I have ran have the been the NAYN SSB and PSK net, and the HHH Net. Not really "Traffic" nets, and the NAYN net does have a CW net. As for me being self-conscious, that comes from those who don't feel I am qualified because I don't choose to use CW. Though not everyone who took the 13/20wpm code exams use code, or even know very much code anymore. I applaud those who love code, and I do not support getting rid of code, code will be useful, and people will learn it to get their generals (which I don't support changing that). Some will improve and run CW traffic nets, others will use other modes.

Again, I am not against getting rid of code in the voice part of the band. I am not against a station IDing in morse code. I am against someone coming to a regular net (like NAYN) and checking in with CW. You mentioned that CW can be copied by ear, but not by everyone. Without putting word in your mouth, I have a feeling that you might very well believe that those who can't copy a CW checkin should not be on HF. Though I could be wrong. My point is, even those who have learned it, if they have not used it (and have no desire to use it) are not going to be able to do it.

[n5tjd]

ferchristsake, to put this to rest, if they do check in, have them do it at a speed you can understand or have a relay capable of copying CW at the required speed.

The Daytime Texas Traffic Net has regular CW checkins.

-.. .. - / -.. .. - http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K0RGR]

My Echolink gateway IDs in MCW at 20 WPM. No voice ID - it is too annoying...

[WA2ZDY]

Repeaters ID in morse, commercial and public safety systems ID in morse to relieve the dispatchers of having to do it. Lots of land mobile systems over time have had morse IDers in the individual radios for the same reason.

I see no reason not to have a morse IDer attached to a ham rig to take care of the ID requirement. Saves the ops the trouble of worrying about it. Anyone who has a problem with it probably has a reason - they want to know who everyone is but can't copy the code. Oops.

I have to say, I get a chuckle out of hearing a 2m repeater ID and immediately thereafter a couple of guys come on and talk about not knowing for sure what repeater they're on. Now if they only copied the ID, they'd know. Oh, oops, sorry, they can't. Shame.

Back in the days of AM on HF, it was common for ops to ID and exchange QSL info by CW. Why? The neighbours couldn't copy it. If there was a TVI/RFI complain, the first question FCC asked was "what is the callsign of the station you hear?" Ha! A good reason a lot of guys also didn't have call sign license plates.

Yeah, morse is useless. Makes me wish I was a phone op so I could get a morse IDer too. It's worth the chuckle for sure.

[ai4ep]

...let me see if I got this straight ---]

if you are recieving TVI, but it is in CW, and you can not copy ( understand ) CW, you arent sure then WHO is transmitting the signal that your tv is recieving.

So then you dont know WHO to blame, since you have no VOICE to recognise ( male/female/slang/etc )



Isnt CW great ? No one hears your VOICE. It is hard as heck to IDENTIFY the tvi as coming from YOUR location....oops.

[wa4brl]

There's another real benefit of a built-in automatic cw identifier. If your rig is stolen, listeners know the REAL owner as soon as it is put back on the air. It doesn't matter where it might be fenced or resold.