FWD: Re: [CW] An AM View of the World

[Donald Chester]

>From :  "Galasso, Phil" <PhilG@g1063.com>

Subject :  RE: [CW] An AM View of the World

Date :  Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:56:35 -0400


Since I am not a member of the CW reflector,  please forward this rebuttal:

Mr. Tippett seems to pigeonhole me as someone who parks on AM mode all day.  
I have been on the air since 1968 and operate almost every emission mode 
permitted under my amateur radio license, including, yes, CW and the newest 
digital modes. And I do work CW DX on 160 and 80 meters, except, of course, 
during contest weekends, when contest QRM spreads across the bands like  
cancer.

-----Original Message-----


 >From: Bill Tippett
 >Subject: [CW] An AM View of the World
 >Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:12:55 +0100
 >
 >         Questions that come to my mind follow the quoted comments:
 >
 >"The undesirable results of FCC-mandated emission subbands may be   >heard
 >on the other HF bands.  The segments reserved for narrowband   >emission
 >modes such as CW telegraphy (Class A1A emission) are often lightly
 >used, particularly in the case of the 3500 kHz band."
 >
 >1.  This reminds me of the SSB group on 1823.  When told that they
 >were on top of CW DX there, their response was typically "CW DX?
 >I don't hear any DX.  We aren't moving."  It's unlikely most   >stations
 >can hear weak signal DX, low power beacons, or digital modes unless  >they
 >have the technical capability to do so (i.e. Beverages or other   
 >receiving
 >antennas, Spectrascan DSP software, etc.)  Of course the 1823 group
 >could hear the S9+++ USA CW stations calling the DX but they chose   >to
 >ignore them.  In my experience, most domestic wideband   >communications 
on
 >the lower bands are local ragchew nets.  There's nothing wrong with  >that
 >but I don't particularly think they should occupy the entire band.

Apparently, Mr. Tippett has never listened on the 40, 20, or 15 meter bands, 
nor has he ever listened to the DX phone band on 75/80 meters, which is 
around 3600 kHz. These are de-facto American-free zones, where Americans may 
not contact those DX stations using "wideband" modes (i.e. SSB). And what 
about the ridiculous situation on 40 meters, where we may not work DX on SSB 
at all without running split and risking an enforcement letter from the FCC? 
  This is the only country in the world where amateur radio stations may not 
transmit voice modes below 7100 kHz. Why? Why do we Americans have to be
relegated to second-class status on the radio spectrum?

 >
 >"It also tends to stifle experimentation.
 >
 >2.  Exactly how much experimentation is done on AM and SSB?  Most   >true
experimentation is
 >being done today with weak-signal CW, QRSS CW and the new digital   >modes
 >(PSK31, WSJT, QRSS, etc.)

Granted, there is little experimentation on AM and SSB. But there is even 
LESS of it on CW! Or shall we toy with the idea of building alternators for 
that mode, as was done before World War I? But subbanding WILL stifle 
experimentation with the DIGITAL transmission of voice and image, using the 
OFDM technique invented in this country, but pioneered by amateurs in Great 
Britain, a country whose government does not micromanage amateur radio 
frequency allocations. The OFDM transmissions would be considered as 
"wideband" under our rules, as they occupy the same bandwidth as SSB. But 
they offer near FM broadcast audio quality. Now take a look at Section 
97.305 of the Rules. Although CW is permitted everywhere within all amateur 
bands, other digital modes are PROHIBITED in the "wideband" (phone) segments
of the 80, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 10 meter bands. But wouldn't the encoding of 
the human voice over an OFDM set of carriers make that kind of digital 
transmission a "phone" transmission, PROHIBITED in the "narrowband, digital" 
segments of the above bands? Technology allows us to communicate digitally 
and to transmit more than slow-speed text at the dinosaur speed of 300 baud! 
Think of it. Teenage kids are downloading CDs and video clips on the 
Internet, using regular phone lines! But we hams are restricted to sending 
plain text at 300 baud! Embarrassing and disgraceful! Perhaps Mr. Tippett 
should petition the FCC to allow spark in those hallowed CW subbands?
 >
 >
 >"But the segments where wideband modes, such as AM and SSB telephony
 >(Class A3E and J3E emission, respectively), are permitted are often
 >horribly crowded."
 >
 >3.  Could this be because those modes are horribly   
 >spectrum-inefficient?
 >The lastest rage of some AM'ers is high-fidelity AM which may be in
 >violation of FCC regulations if it is wider than 6 kHz total   >bandwidth.
 >They seem to want to emulate Broadcast stations which have spectrum
 >spacing of 10 kHz.  Is using antiquated wideband modes like AM truly
 >advancing the state-of-the-art?  I don't think so.

But then, does an antiquated narrowband mode like CW justify reserving such 
wide subbands for this mode? If CW is so narrow, why do we need so much 
space to be reserved for it? Or am I goring a contester's ox (or sacred cow) 
here? The argument against AM also does not hold water, as the AM stations 
congregate on a few spot frequencies on 160 meters and in narrow "windows" 
on the other bands. SSB is the most popular voice mode on HF and, in fact, 
the most popular emission mode of any kind on the HF spectrum. And it is 
time to allow SSB operators some more elbow room on the bands.

 >
 >"Subbanding has had the effect of setting up de facto   >'American-free'
 >zones, in which foreign amateur radio stations may use voice and   >other
 >wideband modes, but Americans may not.  Because wideband modes   >prevail
 >on the frequencies inquestion, American stations refrain from using
 >narrowband modes there and the foreign stations will not communicate
 >with Americans using narrowband modes on the frequencies in   >question."
 >
 >4.  In fact, on the 75 meter band where the phone subband has   >expanded
 >below 3800 over the past twenty years, most of the 3750-3790 area   >has
 >been taken over by domestic nets, which force DX stations below 3750
 >or into the small 3790-3800 "DX window".  As a matter of fact, most
 >DX operations there use split frequency to avoid their weaker   >signals
 >being covered by stronger local USA signals.  If subbands did not
 >exist, I suspect the entire 80M band would be taken over by the same
 >type of local domestic nets that cover the 75M band today.

See my above comments regarding this band and others.

 >
 >         For those who feel we need no government regulation   
 >whatsoever,
 >they need look no further than 27 MHz for an example of the chaos   >that
 >would result.  We've "been there and done that" and I don't think we
 >need to repeat that experience on our amateur bands.

What you are telling us, Mr. Tippett, is that Americans are vile, vulgar 
slobs who, like the black people of the 1950s South, must be relegated "to 
the back of the bus" and that we American amateurs cannot run our own 
affairs without running to "Mama FCC" for more regulations! Most countries 
of the world, if not all other countries, do not micromanage amateur radio 
in the way that our FCC does. If I can go to Fidel Castro's Cuba and operate 
an amateur radio station without being strangled by government-mandated 
bandplans and excessive regulations, why can't I do this here in the "free" 
United States? Or do you hate your fellow Americans so much that you feel we 
should be punished with a straitjacket of regulations? The only chaos that I
hear is during the major contests, when it is impossible to carry on a
decent QSO due to contesters calling "CQ contest" on a busy frequency.
Perhaps we should restrict the CONTESTS if you want more regulation.....

73,
Phil K2PG




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com