[Fists] Honey vs the Truth

[ATanner283@aol.com]

The following is a quote from another B.S. board. None of the current=20
handouts on the table have been made into law, and already the move starts.=20=
This is a=20
continuation of the motion set in place back when the Morse test was lowered=
=20
to 5 WPM for all classes. You remember. The one where FISTS said they were n=
ot=20
a political group and could not get involved. The same motion where almost N=
O=20
FISTS bothered to comment. Too busy "promoting CW" I 'spose. The same motion=
=20
where the battle raged RIGHT HERE and comments were made that "they will NEV=
ER=20
eliminate Morse altogether", and this VERY action of extending voice into th=
e=20
CW area was foreseen, to be met with "pooh pooh" from FISTS members. Time to=
=20
get busy. Maybe some of these "tyalk on the raydeeo" types can be converted=20=
to=20
CW??=A0 Maybe after they pass the lowest requirements in history to get a=20
ticket they will "see the light" and take up Morse because it's such a fun a=
nd=20
challenging mode?? It will be a sad day if the FCC extends to U.S.A. hams th=
e same=20
"all bands everything goes" type of mode management like Canadians have now.=
=20
SSB and RTTY are already crawling into the CW spaces clear to the band edge=20=
on=20
40 meters. We need to get busy and convert those guys to CW so they won't=20
pollute "OUR" band. You would think they would hear all the great fun that i=
s=20
going on around .o58, and this=A0 would be enuff to convince these guys to t=
hrow=20
out their mikes and join up. Become 15 to 25 WPM ops that used to populate t=
he=20
bands. At least they could go down to the extra class band and stumble aroun=
d=20
at 4 or 5 wpm. An area where previously could find competent Morse operators=
.=20
Maybe that will convince them. The challenge is there. Better get dittin' an=
d=20
dahin' and get these guys into the "fold". Make sure yer wearin' a FISTS tee=
=20
shirt too...............Al Tanner/2192 E.H.

Subject: [AMRadio] WT Docket No. 04-140, 80m phone proposal=20

Because of the length and complexity of the latest FCC "restructuring"=20
proposal, it may not be immediately obvious when first reading the=20
document that THE FCC IS PROPOSING TO ADD ONLY 25 kHz to our=20
existing 75/80m phone privileges, as petitioned by ARRL.=20

We are all aware of the overcrowding of the 75m phone band while tens=20
of kilohertz of spectrum below 3750 lies idle, even during optimum=20
wintertime condx, due to the outdated, unrealistic size of the 80m "cw=20
subband".=20
Quoting a comment by Jim, N2EY that appeared on the CW Reflector, one=20
of=20
the reasons for this lack of activity is that "80 CW/data is a huge=20
band=20
compared to the others, so it takes a lot of hams to fill it up."=20

It appears that the FCC has rejected the idea of eliminating mode=20
subbands Canadian style, but the "phone" community, including AM, SSB,=20
NBFM=20
and SSTV enthusiasts should try to persuade the Commission to adopt a=20
more realistic reapportionment between narrowband (cw/data)=20
and wideband (phone, etc.). The topic of "spectrum efficiency" is=20
brought=20
up, but little is proposed that would remedy the present=20
inefficient allocation of subbands that results in simultaneous=20
overcongestion and=20
underuse of the amateur spectrum in the 75/80m band.=20

The current proposal would extend the "phone" band down to 3725 kHz,=20
with 3725-3750 limited to Extra Class, 3750-3800 limited to Extra and=20
Advanced, and 3800-4000 open to Extra, Advanced and General.=20
Nothing is proposed to simplify the complex matrix of=20
emission mode/operator class subbands that exists today.=20

I believe at the present time it would be futile to push for=20
subband-free amateur bands in the US, and with the possibility of=20
eliminating the Morse Code testing requirement altogether,=20
cw/narrowband data modes may end up needing a reasonable amount of=20
"protected"=20
frequency space, in the (unlikely, in my opinion) case that the=20
eventual=20
no-code licence exam does result in an influx of SSB appliance=20
operators. However, the existing subbands need to be at least=20
reapportioned=20
to=20
reflect the actual level of usage of the various modes.=20

I would suggest that the "phone" or "wideband" segment be extended=20
down at minimum to 3600 kHz. 100 kHz seems more than adequate to=20
accomodate the present level of cw and narrowband data activity on 80m.=20

This is more than an AM issue. It would be in the interests of the SSB=20
and SSTV communities, as well as amateurs who might want to=20
experiment in the future with wideband digital modes including digital=20
voice transmission. This should not become a "CW vs Phone" issue; I=20
work cw myself and certainly do not want to see cw shoved off the band=20
to accommodate more bubbas with riceboxes. However, the cw=20
community seems particularly adamant in insisting on not budging an=20
inch, to keep every kilocycle of the present exclusive 80m allocation,=20
despite its sparce occupancy.=20

With the amateur community reportedly split close to 50-50 on the issue=20
of code vs no-code, it would seem that there would be much more=20
support in the US for a more equitable apportionment between phone and=20
cw, than what is reflected in this FCC proposal.=20

Maybe too many active US hf hams, especially the SSB community, are=20
content to meet daily on their one frequency to talk to their same half=20
dozen or so cronies, with little interest these matters beyond bitching=20
and=20
griping about the QRM.=20

Oughtn't we to talk up the idea of advocating more than 25 kHz of=20
expansion=20
of the US phone bands by actually filing comments with the FCC? The=20
comment deadline is the 15th of June.







--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---