[Elecraft] Re: Improving your cw (was the international treaty thing)

Thu Jun 26 18:24:02 2003

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Vic Rosenthal wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > I find the recent banning
> > of cw from the new 60 meter allocation ominous.
>
> So do I.
>
> Although the channelization, ERP limitation, and restriction of SSB to
> USB only can be understood in terms of promoting coexistence with other
> services (whether or not the restrictions are really justified isn't the
> point), the prohibition of CW makes no sense at all.
>
> To me, the whole 60-meter business indicates that the FCC just doesn't
> 'get it' with respect to the nature of amateur radio.
>
I think you'll find that the FCC doesn't have much to say in  the
matter...they are told by other federal agencies will tolerate.

Wheter we like it or not, CW is not something most federal agencies
use/understand, and since we will be "tolerated" visitors, no one in a
federal agency has any motivation to allow us to use a mode they don't
use/don't understand for our hobby use.
On the other hand...if we play be their rules, we prove that hams could be
a resource that wouldn't cause any "extra" work for the federal
users/agencies.

IMO, the days of keeping/gaining spectrum based on contribution to the art
are severely limited...

> Paul, are the Canadian rules the same as the FCC's?  Can anyone tell me
> if the UK 5 MHz allocation permits CW?

But, in the scheme of things, ie federal agencies oither than the FCC call
the shots, what difference does it make?

Thom

[email protected]             Thom LaCosta K3HRN Webmaster
http://www.baltimoremd.com/             Baltimore's Home Page
http://www.baltimorehon.com/            Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
http://www.zerobeat.net                 Home of The QRP Web Ring and DrakeList
http://www.tlchost.net                  Web Hosting as low as $3.49/month