[CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands

Mon May 16 18:45:43 EDT 2016

During RTTY contests I was questioned why I kept the audio "on" while using
RTTY. I told the others that it was so I didn't step on others like the CW
operators.

Most on the new guys couldn't even copy CW.

73

DR
On May 16, 2016 6:29 PM, "Bill Isakson AC6QV via CW" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
wrote:

> 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 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 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/aa645c3c/attachment.html>