[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation

To: "Ev Tupis" <w2ev@yahoo.com>,"CQ-Contest eMail Remailer" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation
From: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: k-zero-hb@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:12:17 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> [Original Message]
> From: Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com>
> To: CQ-Contest eMail Remailer <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Date: 10/13/2006 1:02:46 AM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation
> With the recent expansion of USA SSB priviledges on some 
> HF bands, let's spread the word to leave these frequencies
> "net free" for non-structured SSB operations as a gentleman's
> agreement.

I think the changes to 80m are a disaster for everyone.  FCC had a bad case
of cranial/rectal inversion.

For traffic handlers ...... almost all the section CW traffic nets just
lost their frequencies (mostly they operate above 3600).

For digital/data folks  ......  where do they go now on 80m? --- FCC
didin't even have enough basic awareness about their own existing rules to
modify §97.221(b)!

Unless they correct the R&O, they've given Generals (but not Advanced)
125kc of RTTY/data bandwidth in the Extra phone band in Regions II and III.
What's up with that?

Can you imagine SS CW in Nov 2007?  Really, you CAN?

Could we get W5ZN to send another letter saying  "Never mind, we're in no
hurry.  Take your time."?   Oh, never mind, he already wrote and thanked
them saying "The Commission's action in clearing this pending proceeding
will assist the Amateur Radio Service in meeting its objectives,
particularly with regard to providing emergency and public service
communications."  Say what??????????

Back when ARRL started this whole misbegotten mess with their proposal to
plow under and replant the Novice bands (RM-10413), I sent these (below)
comments to FCC.  I'd gladly stand behind them again today.

                             Before the 
             Federal Communications Commission 
                     Washington, DC 20554 
In the Matter of                                           ) 
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's )   RM-10413 
Amateur Service Rules Governing                ) 
Operating Privileges                                     ) 
These comments are in response to the ARRL proposal for "refarming" the
existing HF "Novice sub-bands". 
I. Discussion: 
The ARRL petition does not address the implementation of 
new technologies as repeatedly requested by the Commission in 
WT Docket 98-143. It simply proposes to eliminate the Novice 
segments and reshuffle that spectrum among existing legacy 
modes. Rather than gain consensus, the ARRL polling method 
produced a popularity poll among several non-responsive (to 
98-143) choices. 
Rather than just "more of the same old stuff", I propose 
that the Commission take this opportunity to provide the 
Amateur Radio service with a new incentive to concentrate 
on paragraph 97.1(b) of the Commission's Rules. 
While I agree that the declining Novice license population 
no longer justifies several significant chunks of spectrum 
as a "reservation" for improving their Morse skills, and that 
these "reservations" have outlived their regulatory purpose, 
I propose that we retain these 50-year old "reservations" and 
convert them to a new purpose which will ensure the future 
Amateur Radio service continues our "proven ability to 
contribute to the advancement". 
                                    II Proposal: 
 A. To "de-populate" the current Novice segments, I propose 
that all Novice (and Technician with code credit) licensees 
be authorized to use Morse code in the same band segments 
now authorized for General class licensees. 
B. I propose that the current Novice sub-bands be set aside 
as a new "Experimental Reservation" for non-traditional 
and experimental modes such as digitized voice, digitized 
image, and other "forward looking" communications methods. 
C. I propose that the current power output level of 200W 
be retained for those segments, and additionally propose 
that transmitters in those segments must be equipped with 
auto-adaptive circuitry to reduce output to the lowest 
level consistent with reliable communications. 
D. I recommend that the Commission grant broad discretion 
to amateurs operating in this "experimental reservation" 
as to innovative modulation schemes and non-traditional 
Respectfully submitted, 
H. Hans Brakob, K0HB 

CQ-Contest mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>