[ham] Re: [CW] (Fwd) An open letter to CW opreators

Mike Brown [email protected]
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:01:11 -0000 

Just my opinion, but if commercial interest wanted
our hf bands, they would probably already have them.
I just can't see any commerical interest that would
want bands as unpredictable as the hf spectrum.

What makes them fun for us, would not be very
practical for business use.

Mike - K9MI


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "KD5NWA" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 14:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ham] Re: [CW] (Fwd) An open letter to CW opreators


> The sad thing about this is that the bussines they are going
to help
> are mostly foreign firms. But if you think about it what is
this all
> going to do besides line up the pockects of foreign
manufacturers?
>
> First you turn the ham bands into another CB band then you
have an
> excuse to give the frequencies to comercial interest.
>
> Unfortunatly too many of our own are way too happy to
cooperate in
> bringing in the demise of ham radio as we know it.
>
> On 11 Jul 2003 at 13:09, Mike Brown wrote:
>
> From:           "Mike Brown" <[email protected]>
> To:             "W2AGN" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
> Subject:        [ham] Re: [CW] (Fwd) An open letter to CW
opreators
> Date sent:      Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:09:04 -0000
>
> >
> > <Snip)
> >
> >
> > > Note: The following letter was posted on several, shall we
> > say, NON-cw
> > > oriented reflectors. Instead of fighting among ourselves,
we
> > might want
> > > to address this.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> > >
> > > IMO, if (should I say when?) the FCC drops the CW exam
> > requirement, fewer
> > >
> > > people will even bother with CW. With the requirement to
learn
> > it, some
> > > ops
> > > (even @ 5 wpm) can be expected to explore the mode and
develop
> > an
> > > interest.
> > > Without the requirement to learn code, those newcomers
will be
> > fewer and
> > > further between.
> >
> > Sad to say, but how many 5 wpm extras do we have now
> > that have never made an "on the air" cw contact? I know
> > in our local club, that number is large. A pity, because as
a
> > novice in '79, I had a blast, even with slow code. And it
> > was always easy to get an answer to your "cq" back then.
> > I think the first big mistake was giving the 5 wpm group
> > voice privledges on 10m. But, that's water under the bridge.
> >
> > The bottom line is money and selling radios. The No-Code
> > "rush" is pretty much over. I'm a VE and instructor, and
yes,
> > we still get a few, but nothing like when the "no-code"
first
> > became available. So now, I'm sure the sales of 2m/440
> > rigs isn't what it was back then, so now, let's give easy
> > access to the hf bands with a "no-code" hf license. Geez,
> > this couldn't have come at a worse time, with the sunspot
> > cycle on a decline. It will be a royal mess. Of course, cw
> > ops shouldn't feel the pinch unless the FCC realigns the
> > band plans.
> >
> > Maybe a positive thing will come of this after all. Maybe
> > some of the phone ops will get sick of all the qrm, etc,
> > and become cw ops again. Crazier things have happened.
> >
> > 73 - Mike K9MI
> >
> > >
> > > If the FCC doesn't decide get rid of subbands altogether,
the
> > existing
> > > reserves for cw/digital at least need to be substantially
> > reduced, due to
> > >
> > > the dearth of activity. The present situation, especially
on
> > 80m, is bad
> > > PR
> > > for CW; it makes the mode look lacking. Non-CW hams tune
> > through all
> > > those
> > > vacant frequencies and decide "CW is dead - nobody works
it
> > any more. The
> > > CW
> > > bands are empty. Why bother to learn to comprehend Morse
> > code?" With all
> > > the
> > > QRM, turf wars and childish behaviour in the
overly-congested
> > phone bands
> > >
> > > while 50% of the ham band lies practically idle, many
phone
> > ops are
> > > understandably becoming downright resentful of CW. If the
> > "narrowband"
> > > subbands on 80 and 40 were reduced to a maximum of 50 or
75
> > kHz, the
> > > remaining cw activity would become concentrated into less
> > space, and
> > > working
> > > CW would be more like it was 20 years ago. Often, with my
RX
> > in the 300
> > > Hz
> > > selectivity position, I find it easy to tune right past
and
> > miss a lone
> > > cw
> > > station isolated in all the vacant kHz per tuning knob
> > rotation.
> > > Reduction
> > > of the "CW bands" may very well be a key to whether or not
CW
> > survives as
> > > a
> > > mainstream mode.
> > >
> > > Of course the CW bands do come alive during contests, but
> > where do all
> > > those
> > > CW ops go when the contest is over? Contests add up to
only a
> > few days
> > > out
> > > of 365 days per year. Can we justify keeping nearly 50% of
> > some of the
> > > most
> > > heavily occupied HF bands underutilised just for the
> > convenience of
> > > contesters a few days a year? After all, many CW ops do
not
> > even operate
> > > contests.
> > >
> > > As far as the "phone" bands go, belive it or not, there
are a
> > few users
> > > of
> > > those frequencies who do more than just buy an imported
SSB
> > squawk box
> > > with
> > > mic, and get on the air to talk about the weather and
their
> > latest
> > > ailments,
> > > and cuss out anyone whe dares come within 5 kHz of "their"
> > privately-
> > > owned
> > > frequency. Actually there is a big controversy going on
right
> > now with a
> > > rulemaking petition pertaining to bandwidth. It seems that
one
> > group on
> > > 20m
> > > has declared war on a small minority of SSB operators who
have
> > dared to
> > > experiment with the mode, and (horrors!) actually take the
lid
> > off their
> > > box
> > > and probe around inside, and (double horrors!!) warm up a
> > soldering iron
> > > and
> > > make MODIFICATIONS to their latest technical marvel. Now a
> > couple of high
> > >
> > > power DX'ers have decided to play hardball by submitting a
> > petition to
> > > get
> > > the FCC involved in their turf war.
> > > Also, we mustn't forget that there are a few AM and SSTV
> > operators using
> > > the
> > > "phone" segments, and these hams ponder the vacant CW
> > frequencies while
> > > they
> > > ward off the SSB idiots (a small but vocal minority of
> > SSB'ers).
> > >
> > > Unless there is an IMMEDIATE upsurge in CW activity to
fill
> > the CW
> > > subbands
> > > 24/7 (I'm talking in terms days or weeks, not months or
> > years), the
> > > present
> > > subband situation will become increasingly disasterous to
the
> > best
> > > interests
> > > of both CW and non-CW operators.
> > >
> > > Don K4KYV
> > >
> > > ------- End of forwarded message -------
> > > --
> > > John L. Sielke W2AGN
> > > http://www.w2agn.net
> > >
> > > "Anybody who is spoken about at all is sure to be spoken
> > against by
> > > somebody; and any action, however innocent in itself, is
> > liable, and not
> > > at all unlikely, to be blamed by somebody. If you limit
your
> > actions in
> > > life to things that no one can possibly find fault with,
you
> > will not do
> > > much."
> > >                        -Dr Charles L. Dodgson (aka "Lewis
> > Carroll")
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CW mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date:
7/8/2003
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CW mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003