New RM-11769 Proposed "Symbol Communication Subbands" in place of CW/Data

Does he clinch his fists, stamp his feet and cry like a baby when he doesn't get his way????? What a dork. There is always one idiot..
He's a new ham, general, and feels he has the new way for ham radio to make his days better....

 

Actually, he's been licensed since 1981. Upgraded to General in 2001.

 

[QUOTE="N1EN, post: 3845375,

Remember: be polite, be coherent, use a spell-check, and argue for or against the proposal on its merits rather than for/against an alleged ARRL/Winlink conspiracy. I'm sure the FCC would like to see responses from the amateur community be less nutty for a change.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with this 100%. And for crying out loud, leave the dumb a** bogey man 11 meter comments out of the argument. It does not apply here, and it makes us sound ridiculous.

I read the comment about guys wanting to play computer on those bands, does not sound like rouge CB'ers wanting to invade the HF bands. Leave that argument where it fits. Which these days is not as much as people think.

 

In #4 of this guys petition, he says that the CW sub bands, and the use thereof have proven to be grossly inefficient and under utilized (paraphrased).

Is this guy for real? It sounds like it's an argument from someone who wants to play computer on these bands, and instead of this wonderful use, all he hears is a bunch of beep beep beep (aka dahs and dits) gibberish.

Inefficient? Obviously someone who has no interest in CW and see's no value in it. So what the world needs (in his eyes) is more ways to computerize everything in life. We need that

 

Copied from a 2005 post on the Ham-Radio-Histroy Yahoo Group,

-----

http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/images//Navy_comm.jpg

Notice the DeForest detector, Western Electric amplifier and automated Continental Morse code transmitter in the lower left! These paper tape machines allowed transmission and reception at up to 400 WPM. The tapes were pre-punched, then played. On receive, a tape was punched, then printed or a tape was inked, then transcribed by a Navy Electrician ( radio operator in WWI)


73 from Neal McEwen, K5RW, at the "Telegraph Office", nmcewen@...

visit http://www.telegraph-office.com -- A Web Page for Telegraph Key Collectors and Historians

---------------

Consider joining that group or checking out the K5RW web site for more info on early Morse code variations and transmission methods.

73 de John - WØPV

 

If I understand part of his argument correctly, efficiency is one thing he feels CW lacks over what he would prefer to be used there. Well actually there is a more efficient way to communicate with a computer,,,,, it's called the internet!

I got sucked right in I promised myself I would not become overly opinionated on here, or rant,,,,,I have failed today in that miserably

I have a bad habit of spouting off before I understand all the facts (so far I have not done that on here very much),,,,,so knowing that, I stop now

 

I agree with most of your point and conclusion, except one. The success of the No-code licensing. Yup, some small percentage did learn Morse Code. A large majority hasn't. But the real important side effect of making everyone learn code, was that it forced operators to actually dedicate time and effort into learning to be a real operator. As some level they felt as if they earned entry into the club! This created a "pride in ownership" that is almost completely missing from newer ticketed hams. Of course there are exceptions to everything. But 75meters is simply a joke nowadays. What happened to "Gentlemen Operators"? 75m is trashed with operators that have no idea what "splatter" is or why they are putting it out because none know or cares about station monitoring. Many don't have the technical background. Widespread use of "CB lingo". I recall one late night group that required me to repeatedly check to see what band I was on! How about the classless conversation topics? While no-codes didn't invent this. It clearly has made it worse. And it's spreading to the other bands as well.

How about instead of changing rules around we concentrate on making each other better operators? As a service we have failed to self police as nobody thinks "they are the problem". I think we should start policing one another more. Politely of course!

http://www.hamradio-operating-ethics.org/
http://www.arrl.org/operating-ethics
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/DXCC/Eth-operating-EN-ARRL-CORR-JAN-2011.pdf

Thank you,

Ed

 

What I see is that hams everywhere self-police but when they attempt to push their complaints up the chain of command (to the FCC) nothing happens. We can't form a posse and take the law into our own hands so what do you recommend?

 

I hope this is joke of some sort. If so, never mind me. If you are not joking you clearly don't know anything about most digital operations... especially JT-65. Do you know how many JT-65a QSOs can take place in the band width of a signal SSB QSO? Here, I'll help you out.

http://nw7us.us/jt65a.html

I once made the mistake of trying to operate JT-65a during a recent RTTY contest. It took ONE RTTY operator to wipe out almost the entire JT-65a sub-band. His excuse was that in spite of hearing the other stations, "there is no ARRL recognized Sub-band for JT-65a"! Something wrong there? Yeah, we don't want the dozen or so, very low bandwidth, low power stations getting in the way of all of the Legal Limit ESSB operators talking bathroom humor!

Again, if I didn't get the joke. Sorry and ignore me. If it wasn't a joke... you need some better understanding.

Thank you,

Ed

 

I've puzzled over this one and I don't understand what he's getting at. I don't see his proposal changing anything except the semantics. Sorry, my fellow brass pounders, but the digital modes are already legal in all of the CW bands, except for those at the bottom of the 6 and two meter bands. And, right now, there is no bandwidth limit, so they could take the whole band if they wanted to, now, without any rules changes. Either the petitioner doesn't understand that, or he's trying to achieve something I can't see.

I suspect that may change for the worse in the future, as I am seeing more digital nets move into prime CW territory, particularly on 40 meters. I predict a range war of unprecedented scope as the digital modes continue to grow while CW remains static at best. Before you start shooting at the messenger, I just volunteered to teach a Morse Code class for people wanting to help with Field Day - because I found out Tuesday that I am the only person in a 100 member club that can really do CW! Yes, that's extremely sad, and when I go , I guess I'm taking it with me. So you might as well get used to digital modes.

Now, there are some places where changing semantics would improve things, but not this way. We should, indeed, consider the digital modes to be equivalent to CW. Novices and Techs should be able to use either digital or CW in their HF bands. But otherwise, I don't agree with most of what this petition has to say.

 

You don't understand the phrase "self-police". That means YOU make sure YOU are not the problem. Nothing more. This is where the idea fails. That used to mean something. Now, unless you actually get fined by the FCC you must be okay! And as you stated that seldom happens. Why? because there is a difference between poor operators and illegal operations. The FCC doesn't care about poor operators. Just illegal operations. And only then, it must be on the extreme side. The rest is up to us.

Also recently, it has become less acceptable to point out others shortcomings. People are more confrontational and hyper sensitive about being "that guy" when they are actually being "that guy"! As a former Marine, we walked around constantly correcting one another in all things. Because it was the culture to expect to be corrected and was a different type of "self policing". It's one of the many ways to keep the standards up.

The "self policing" as it's know in ham radio is no longer effective in keeping the standards up. So we relax the licensing standards as well? Correcting one another needs to become "expected" behavior and poor operators should learn to expect it when required. Only then will poor operators realize they are the problem and hopefully re-evaluate themselves and their actions.

Thanks,

Ed

 

I am against the RM-11769 proposal. But, not because I want to preserve CW only band allocations. I think some reserved band-space is needed in FCC rules, but the allocation/s should be based on bandwidth used, not type of transmission. When bands become congested, the only fair way to go is increase channels by decreasing allowed bandwidth or increase the size of the band itself. It is not fair to do it by reserving some particular mode for historical reasons, or otherwise. Each tx mode (including CW/Morse) needs to stand on its merit alone in competing for available band space.

Al Pawlowski - K6AVP

 

Maybe there is a point to it. But these type of filings almost NEVER clearly state the true intention of the filing! That would only assist in galvanizing any potential opposition. So unless the person filing is willing to explain why this is worth the effort it should be debated in public. Because eventually somebody will figure it out.

It's like collecting signatures on a petition. You always make it sound perfectly innocent and that any reasonable person would want this right? When in reality just the opposite is often the case. Letting my dad out of jail for that small amount of personal weed sounds like a great idea. No mention of is 15 prior, meth and dealing charges! It's how our world is nowadays!

Thanks,

Ed

 

WOW.

Did anybody notice that WB6BNQ provided a comment to the FCC using the term "WTF"?

 

BS