[CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands

Mon May 16 18:29:47 EDT 2016

He probably would not hear you, Rich, if you asked him to move.  They do not always even know CW.  However, as you were there first you could switch in that narrow audio filter, if you still know where it is, and up the power a bit and keep going.   The biggest problem your data guy represents is that it suppresses your receive on most of the common transceivers, which is why the both of you in the QSO would need a bit more power to continue.   Us QRP guys pretty much just have to sit them out.
Bill Isakson
AC6QV
Roseburg, OR

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Jones via CW <cw at mailman.qth.net>
To: CW Reflector <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: Rich Jones <michjonezee at yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2016 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands

It is my opinion there is no such thing as QRL when it comes to RTTY.  Going along for quite awhile in a nice CW ragchew on 7055, trying to help a newbe, and then next thing
you know trash beeps, blahas and crunches as mentioned before and I'm done.  No consideration what so ever.
rRspectively, Rich K8UV

 On Friday, May 13, 2016 3:23 PM, Danny Douglas <n7dc at comcast.net> wrote:

"As far as data is concerned, the recent ARRL baud-rate petition would open up the CW bands to digital data of the same bandwidth as SSB, 2.8 kHz."  This was my feeling, exactly.  I certainly do not want to try to copy weak cw thru all the trash beeps,blahas, and crunches the different digital signals of today, are providing.  If I wanted to do that, I would get up in the area where present junk is, and start calling CQ there, only to have someone come up and tell me I was interferening with "their" band, but they apparently dont have the problem with them providing such signals on top of cw.  We went thru this a few decades ago, with more and more digital signals dropping down on top of what had been pretty much the "cw bands".  We already have problems with the other two ITU zones doing that now, including SSB, AM  or just whatever they want to use on all bands, without regards to interference to stations already using the freqs.  

From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net>
To: "CW Reflector" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:00:41 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands

I have quickly read over the petition, but the guy goes so far out of his way to fill it with legalese, that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I'll have to read it several times and study it, just to figure out exactly what changes he wants to make.

I can sort of see his point about what to call the non-phone sub-bands.  I have responded to petitions and NPRMs with comments to the FCC, and it is very cumbersome to describe what we call the "CW" and "phone" bands, since the "CW" bands, except for 6m and 2m, actually allow CW, RTTY and various forms of data, so to be strictly correct you have to refer to them as the CW/RTTY/data segments.  But then, CW is allowed anywhere in the amateur bands except on the 60m  channels, while the other "symbol" modes are not, so for the rules to remain as they are, there would still have to be reference to CW distinctly from the rest of the not-phone modes.

As far as data is concerned, the recent ARRL baud-rate petition would open up the CW bands to digital data of the same bandwidth as SSB, 2.8 kHz.  If they are going to do that, what's the point of even having sub-bands at all, and not just let all the HF bands be like 160m?  A 2.8 kHz wide digital data signal with its steady white noise would cause more interference to CW and other narrow-band operation, than would SSB.  

Another consideration regarding digital data with a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit is that all digital signals are basically the same on an analogue receiver, white noise.  The only difference between a digital phone or SSTV signal and a digital text message signal, is the content of the data  stream being transmitted. That begs the question as to why wide-band digital data signals should be segregated from digital phone/image signals.  If the real purpose for having sub-bands is to protect narrow-band modes from wide-band modes, it would  seem that 2.8 kHz wide digital signals of any nature should be limited to the same segments as phone/image, and not allowed in what we call the "CW" bands.

I could live with eliminating the 25 kHz Extra Class segments at the bottom of each of the HF bands, and limiting the lower 50 kHz of each of the HF bands to CW only, much in the manner of 6m and 2m, and allowing any mode, phone, data, image or whatever, as it presently is with 160m, to operate anywhere in the rest of the band.

There have been so many petitions coming in to the FCC lately that I'm having a hard time keeping track of them all.  The FCC people must have time on their hands to give all these an RM- number. They don't have to assign a petition an RM- number just because someone filed it, and in the past they have been known to sit on frivolous petitions for years without acting, or else summarily dismissing  them without further consideration.

Don k4kyv

> From: Ron Youvan
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 2:11 AM
> To: CW
> 
> 
> RON>   Since CW is permitted everywhere, the term "CW sub bands"
> RON >  could only refer to parts of amateur bands were voice operations
> RON>   are not permitted.
> 
> You need to read his petition.  That is NOT the case.  He several times
> invokes the term "CW-only sub-bands".  "Only" means ONLY.
> 
> 
> RON>   see:  § 97 .305   Authorized emission types.

______________________________________________________________
CW mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
Unsubcribe send email to
cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

=30=

______________________________________________________________
CW mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
Unsubcribe send email to
cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

=30=

______________________________________________________________
CW mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
Unsubcribe send email to
cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

=30=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20160516/2db114cd/attachment-0001.html>