[CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

[Ward Silver]

By any objective measure, I am probably a certified geezer, too :-)

I see CW as a viable, useful mode - regardless of whether it's fun or 
not - for a variety of things.  It's simple to build CW rigs, requires 
no supporting systems to decode or generate, and crams all of the energy 
into a minimum bandwidth - it's the most efficient mode that can be 
copied by a human.  I wouldn't call it a "Model T" - I consider it more 
of a "Jeep" ('48 Willys in four-wheel drive?).

That said, setting aside fully half of the available data sub-band for 
it (and RTTY) is not justified on any number of considerations.  Band 
usage by the different modes should ebb and flow with need, 
effectiveness, and preference.  If there's a big CW contest on, I expect 
to hear lots of signals up to the edge of the data/RTTY sub-band and 
beyond.  When Bouvet comes on, I suspect the data stations will 
experience radiation pressure from thousands of CW geezers having fun.  
Other times, I have no problem with data modes filling up the otherwise 
unused space and requiring CW operators to tune around the band.  I am 
fully willing to mix it up and compete - that's what we're supposed to 
be doing according to 97.1.

73, Ward N0AX

On 8/23/2016 6:00 PM, Charles Harpole wrote:
> Ward, I would like to have a Model T, not because it is "up to date" 
> but because IT IS FUN.
> Lots of hams are old;  old is fun, too.
> 73, Charly
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com 
> <mailto:hwardsil at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     First, I do agree with N9NB that there needs to be a bandwidth
>     limit in the amateur bands - this has been confirmed by the FCC in
>     numerous communications and opinions about overly-wide phone
>     signals and also by 97.307(f)(1) which limits the modulation index
>     of angle-modulated phone emissions to less than 1 at the highest
>     modulating frequency.  Clearly, the idea of a maximum bandwidth is
>     considered good practice in the phone sub-bands and a similar
>     limit in the RTTY/data sub-bands does not need to strangle
>     technical innovation. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to rely
>     on the "necessary" and "good practice" wording in 97.303(1)
>     because neither is strong enough to be meaningful without creating
>     endless arguments and perceived loopholes.  So just place a
>     reasonable "roofing bandwidth" on amateur radio emissions below 30
>     MHz - 3 kHz? 6 kHz? 10 kHz? - and let us sort it out as we do
>     every day!
>