[Boatanchors] Petition to eliminate exclusive CW bands

[D C _Mac_ Macdonald]

And let's face it.  I can't imagine AMers and SSBers wanting to try 
to operate in the middle of hundreds of CW signals all over them! 
 
I think there might be a few XCVRS with automatic notch filters that 
MIGHT null out TWO interfering signals, but five or more?  NAH! 
 
Much ado about not much at all! 
  
* * * * * * * * * * * 
* 73 - Mac, K2GKK/5 * 
* (Since 30 Nov 53) * 
* Oklahoma City, OK * 
* USAF, Ret'd 61-81 * 
** FAA, Ret'd 94-10 * 
* * * * * * * * * * * 
 
 

> To: manualman at juno.com; boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
> From: jwiley at gci.net
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 13:30:50 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Petition to eliminate exclusive CW bands
> 
> It appears that this issue is once again generating oceans of 
> misinformation surrounding small islands of fact.
> 
> Points:
> 
> (1)  No one will lose anything!  The CW bands are not "going away".
> 
> (2)  CW will remain an authorized mode for all bands and all amateur 
> frequencies.  Ref:  FCC part 97 rules, section 97.  See 47 CFR 
> 97.305(a).  The correct mode designator for "CW" is 150HA1A, which has a 
> nominal bandwidth of 150 Hz.
> 
> (3) Each "exclusive CW segment" already includes authorizations for RTTY 
> and data transmission.  Data transmissions must use publicly documented 
> formats and codes.  There are some additional rules that apply to 
> undocumented codes, but for the most part, they are also permitted with 
> some additional reporting requirements and restrictions that must be 
> observed.
> 
> (4) Currently authorized CW, data, and RTTY modes are already,  by 
> definition,  narrowband emissions.  FSK (RTTY) and data emissions must 
> be limited to a maximum data rate of 300 baud (excepting the 10 meter 
> band, which permits 1200 baud rates) with a maximum mark/space shift of 
> 1 kHz for all MF and HF bands, including 10 meters.    The vast majority 
> of stations use 170 Hz shift.
> 
> After reading  the petition, I do not see any significant change between 
> the proposal and the part 97 rules as they exist today.  The only change 
> would appear to be in the terminology used to describe the modes, for 
> example changing existing descriptions to "symbol communications".
> 
> There is, however, one change proposed that would expand "conventional" 
> AM  transmissions between 1.8 and 29.7 MHz to 8 kHz bandwidth (2 kHz 
> more than allowed by current rules), and to 20 kHz bandwidth on 6 
> meters, 2 meters and, and 1 1/4 meters, and even higher bandwidths at 
> 430 MHz and higher.  I am not commenting on this portion of the petition.
> 
> But, returning to the original "scare" message, my opinion is that the 
> petitioner is in error as to the supposed point of the issue concerning 
> CW subbands, and I would not be surprised if the filing is rejected by 
> the FCC.
> 
> FWIW
> 
> - Jim, KL7CC
> 
> On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:00:18 -0400 Bry Carling<af4k at hotmail.com>  writes:
> 
> > CW ops your urgent attention to this matter please!!
> > You are about to lose your CW bands if this proceeds!
> 
> >> Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 21:30:28 -0700
> >> From: gfsmith at cox.net
> >> Subject:  Petition to eliminate exclusive manual   telegraphy band
> >> portions from the amateur spectrum allocations.....