De-Reg Proposed Rule Making

[w3jn]

Cheese, anyone???

I'm actually quite happy a proposal like this didn't come from them. The essence of the proposal, "here's your band edges; play like nice people". The terms CB, "wild west", and badlands all come to mind. A proposal with 600,000 (or whatever the number is today) amateurs trying to do self-management of their operating and operating habits on the HF bands is quite a stretch.

Ahh, the old CB chestnut brought out yet again to refute any proposal  one doesn't like.  Actually, CB is a case history in WHY this proposal is a Good Thing.  Although CB and ham radio are not comparable in that one was never intended to be a hobby service and the other is populated by persons with more or less technical interests and qualifications, the absolute crowding of CB certainly has no positive effect on the conduct of that band's occupants.

Crowding of the phone bands and the inevitible conflicts that therefore arise (while other portions of the band are virtually empty) is the cause of no end of headache for the FCC.  More space = less conflict = more time for the FCC to concentrate on other, more important matters.

73 John

[Pete, WA2CWA]

If you all get an opportunity, you might to check out Rich Moseson's Zero Bias Column, in the July 2005 issue of CQ Magazine. Rich and I discussed his feelings about the ARRL proposal back in May at Dayton. If you don't get CQ Mag., go here to view the column:

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero%20Bias%20July05.pdf

Fred Maia, W5YI, also has a report about the bandwidth proposal under "Washington Readout" in the same issue, but has a glaring error for 75/80 meters in his undated proposal chart.

Also, on eHam.net, there is an article topic called "Alternative to ARRL Bandwidth Proposal", dated May24, 2005. http://www.eham.net/articles/11055
It's curious to read the responses to this pending proposal, since a number of contributors also provided "input" to Art's posting of CTT's proposal announcement on QRZ.com several days ago. In some cases, it's hard to believe the same people (extensive attitude adjustments, I guess)  wrote responses in these two locations. It's also curious that no one from the CTT group made any comments to this pending proposal.

[Art]

Yep, I saw both Pete. Observations of these suggestions and potential proposals were some of the reasons I was ready to participate in a different perspective. Both stated something needed to be done in terms of bandplan. Tims and Jims plan creates emission by bandwidth sub bands of a type that have been designated as unenforceable by the ARRL, only more restrictive and much more structured. I guess this would appeal to everyone who operated a mode that didn't conflict with the bandwidth specified but did nothing for digital voice, analog voice modes, or other 'wideband' modes except render current and most vintage equipment obsolete.
It would also appeal to the people who need the government to tell them how to behave or are willing to trade their freedom for the illusion of protection. Why would you be surprised that I wouldn't try to polish a . . . potential proposal (though it's genesis predates the CTT proposal, as did the ARRLs offerings, it is still not submitted. . . ), that I believe is fundamentally flawed, unenforceable, and based on a premise with which I disagree.
That being said Pete. I am surprised you haven't provided suggestions to move toward your opinion. Yes, yes, I saw you objected but what I didn't see was. 'This part doesn't make it for me. If you added X, Y, Z we would be going someplace . . .', like that.
I do respect your opinion Pete if you could get the wouff-hong out of your mouth. . . . that didn't come out exactly as I meant, but was pretty funny on my end. . .sorry. What I meant is it appears you think the ARRL is the way to regulate the amateur population. I disagree. The ARRL is more distant from representing amateur radio all the time. Their own statements of concern about declining membership should be a good clue. Another should be the response to the increasing regulation plan they seem to be going toward. You can observe that the CTT proposal has a fairly significant following now. These are people by definition opposed to the ARRL efforts as we know them. Add the people who are displaced and poorly represented in the ARRL proposal, and the people who would have voted for the concept but won't because it is an ARRL suggestion and it paints a sorry picture of an organization degenerating before our eyes.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Well there's better than 1700 dead from Iraq and I don't feel one bit safer in this country, The Deficit is,, well it's somewhere beyond my thinking and i don't  feel one bit happy that my children are Broke before they get a chance to make mistakes, and Rumsfield says it's going to be another 10-11 years before we see any real "evidence" that things are progressing.. Yessir We really need more Rep Gov inter"fear"ing in our lives....Yessir....

Which is more Important Being an Amateur Radio Operator..Or...Being a Mode specific Yes man Placating Special interests that charge for your involvement and Speak for what They believe to be Your interests.

and that's all from me,..


Arty I still like and Support your view, and the work you Men have done.


Somewhere Somebody Wake up and Smell the coffee, it needs Changing...

[W2VW]

Oh yes, I forgot...we Americans are grossly inferior to amateurs in other countries, we forget to pick up the toilet seat (or to put it back down), we wear dirty underwear, our feet stink, we sit on the front porch in our underwear while swilling our Pabst Blue Ribbon, and we pee in our flower beds...so we and only we deserve to be confined to our own little ghetto in the amateur spectrum. You seem to feel that we Americans are the ni---rs that should be herded into the back of the bus! Well, baby, sorry to disappoint you, but these times, they are a changing!

DEREGULATION NOW!

With apologies to the late John Lennon:

The American Ham IS THE NIGGER OF THE WORLD LYRICS
   
 

   
American ham is the nigger of the world
Yes he is...think about it
American ham is the nigger of the world
Think about it...do something about it

We make him paint his face and dance
If he won’t be a slave, we say that he don’t love us
If he’s real, we say she’s trying to be a contester
While putting him down, we pretend that he’s above us

American ham is the nigger of the world...yes he is
If you don’t believe me, take a look at the one you’re with
Segragationalized American ham is the slave of the slaves
Ah, yeah...better scream about it

We make him bear and raise our skyhook
And then we leave him flat for being a fat old mother net control
We tell him home is the only place he should be
Then we complain that he’s too unworldly to be our friend

The American ham is the nigger of the world...yes he is
If you don’t believe me, take a look at the one you’re with
W/K/A/N is the slave to the slaves
Yeah...alright...hit it!

We insult him every day on tv
And wonder why he has no guts or confidence
When he’s young we kill his will to be free
While telling him not to be so smart we put him down for being so dumb

The ugly American ham is the nigger of the world
Yes he is...if you don’t believe me, take a look at the one you’re with
Yankee is the slave to the slaves
Yes he is...if you believe me, you better scream about it

We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance

[Tom WA3KLR]

AM Buzzards swinging in the dead of night,
Take those broken rigs and fry away,
fry, fry, fry ......

[W2VW]

When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the band
and I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
and I get to the bottom and I don't hear any CW againnnnnn
yeah yeah yeah yeah

but do you don't you want me to propose a rule making
I'm coming down to QRZ fast but I'm miles above all the trolls
tell me tell me tell me the anSWeR
you may be a lover but you ain't no DXer.

[Art]

Since we are waxing philosophical . . . this was written some time ago:

ORDO AB CHAO

Others have described it as: PROBLEM -- REACTION -- SOLUTION in that firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn't have been able to achieve under normal circumstances.

The puppetmasters create "disorder" so the people will demand "order". The price of "order" always entails a handing over of control and loss of freedom on the part of the citizenry. Out of "chaos" comes "order" - THEIR order.

Orwell described it as REALITY CONTROL

[W2VW]

Since we are waxing philosophical . . . this was written some time ago:

ORDO AB CHAO

Others have described it as: PROBLEM -- REACTION -- SOLUTION in that firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a solution.

Well hopefully a couple of clowns will show up during the fanning of the flames and butcher some old Beatles songs....

[W2VW]

And in the end
the QRM you make
is equal to the NAL you take.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Come All Ye Hams

Come all ye hams in radio land,
And flip your mode switch to good old AM.
It's the sound of a voice that makes him a man,
Unlike Donald Duck on sideband.
Open your bandpass to a wide 12 kc,
And listen to the sound of high fidelity.

Throw away your ricebox, it's nothing but junk,
Get a boatanchor - something with spunk.
An Apache, Valiant or homebrew will do,
A carrier and two sidebands.
With the flip of the plate switch there's mighty loud arc,
Cause real radios glow in the dark.

It's more than a mode, it's Angel Music,
To be in a QSO and not feel sick.
It's six foot tall racks of iron and steel,
807's piled high.
It's the warmth of a carrier that quiets the noise,
It's AM Radio makin' men from boys.

So all ye hams in radio land,
Flip your mode switch to good old AM.
It's the sound of a voice that makes him a man,
Unlike Donald Duck on sideband.
Open your bandpass to a wide 12 kc,
And listen to the sound of high fidelity.

http://www.amwindow.org/audio/ra/allyeham.ram

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Yep, I saw both Pete. Observations of these suggestions and potential proposals were some of the reasons I was ready to participate in a different perspective. Both stated something needed to be done in terms of bandplan. Tims and Jims plan creates emission by bandwidth sub bands of a type that have been designated as unenforceable by the ARRL, only more restrictive and much more structured. I guess this would appeal to everyone who operated a mode that didn't conflict with the bandwidth specified but did nothing for digital voice, analog voice modes, or other 'wideband' modes except render current and most vintage equipment obsolete.
It would also appeal to the people who need the government to tell them how to behave or are willing to trade their freedom for the illusion of protection. Why would you be surprised that I wouldn't try to polish a . . . potential proposal (though it's genesis predates the CTT proposal, as did the ARRLs offerings, it is still not submitted. . . ), that I believe is fundamentally flawed, unenforceable, and based on a premise with which I disagree.

I guess all 7 of your members must feel the same way.

That being said Pete. I am surprised you haven't provided suggestions to move toward your opinion. Yes, yes, I saw you objected but what I didn't see was. 'This part doesn't make it for me. If you added X, Y, Z we would be going someplace . . .', like that.

I'll answer this maybe later today.

I do respect your opinion Pete if you could get the wouff-hong out of your mouth. . . . that didn't come out exactly as I meant, but was pretty funny on my end. . .sorry.

Seems to be a common practice to mock someone with "digging phrases" who firmly believe in the organization they are supporting. You're not the first one to do it.  I guess it's part of the ARRL "hate" campaign.

What I meant is it appears you think the ARRL is the way to regulate the amateur population. I disagree.

The ARRL doesn't regulate amateur population. FCC does the regulating. I thought you knew that. The ARRL provides recommendations and proposals based on the perceived view of  current and future trends in amateur radio with inputs from many sources.

The ARRL is more distant from representing amateur radio all the time.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to respresent "all" amateur concerns and "all " amateur activities all the time.

Their own statements of concern about declining membership should be a good clue. Another should be the response to the increasing regulation plan they seem to be going toward. You can observe that the CTT proposal has a fairly significant following now. These are people by definition opposed to the ARRL efforts as we know them. Add the people who are displaced and poorly represented in the ARRL proposal, and the people who would have voted for the concept but won't because it is an ARRL suggestion and it paints a sorry picture of an organization degenerating before our eyes.

The declining membership is probably due to a number of factors but probably has little effect on it's financial stability. If you review the latest Annual Report, you would notice that they are very financially solid.

As far as the CTT proposal "following", not counting "AM buddies", I think I saw two on the QRZ responses.

My comments to your last paragraph in red:[/i]
"These are people by definition opposed to the ARRL efforts as we know them. Or maybe they will support the third or fouth proposal[/i] Add the people who are displaced and poorly represented in the ARRL proposal, The only one I see getting screwed in the ARRL proposal is the ESSB crowd; who got displaced?[/i] and the people who would have voted for the concept but won't because it is an ARRL suggestion That's natural; it's the "hate" syndrome[/i] and it paints a sorry picture of an organization degenerating before our eyes." You have a very vivid imagination. I don't see any degenerating. In large organizations, with so many "special interest" groups, there will always be dissent. It's natural and healthy for the organization.[/i]

[Art]

"You have a very vivid imagination. I don't see any degenerating. In large organizations, with so many "special interest" groups, there will always be dissent. It's natural and healthy for the organization."

Yes Pete, I imagined the mail I get from the ARRL asking for contributions and stating the membership is declining.

The other topics re the ARRL I am being intentionally obtuse about and so are you. That is, we are looking for the most SPIN to support our points. Therefore, both our minds are probably already made up and this part of the discussion is a waste of time.

Let's drop the ARRL topic based on the preceding and go on to building something.  You stated something much more interesting; that you would get back to me on how to make the CTT proposal better or more in alignment with your ideas of what would work. I look forward to your response and promise I won't bring up the ARRL at all.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I look forward to your response and promise I won't bring up the ARRL at all.

WHEW! Thank goodness. There's an ARRL Forum for that.

[K1JJ]

Why don't we d' do it on AM...

Why don't we d' do it on AM

Why don't we d' do it on AM?

Why don't we d' do it on AM.

Nobody will be watching us -

Why don't we d' do it on AM.

Thank you, Ringo, your lyrics are enlightening..

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

"T" is one of our More Creative and Spontaneous members and is a Great Help, a much needed Asset.

[Art]

".Should I list every frequency every other mode may use?  And if I did, what does that have to do with a flexible band plan..one that will follow the popularity of current technology, and allow advancement of new methodologies?"

'right on the button. Pre defining frequencies that will be used for a specific mode is an exercise in futility. Winlink operation has taken over the thread as a good example of this concept. However, it applies to all modes on all frequencies. I think we can listen before transmitting, respect others and use the amateur bands more effectively. As has been enthusiastically pointed out, there will be exceptions (propagation changes, somebody in QSO in the band pass you didn't hear, etc. etc.). There will be more bandwidth to QSY to under the petition. This maximizes the probability the intentional interference will be dealt with in a less contentious manner and lowers the "temperature" of accidental interference.

There are many who will say this is utopian. I also agree with this view. To expect all ops to solve their interference problems in a gentlemanly manner is naive at best. Those hard-core types who will not cooperate to solve problems will behave the same whether restrictive rules are in place or not. Therefore the restrictions would constrain only  law/regulation abiding ops. Regulation of ops who would behave in accord with good amateur practice is like directing an ice cube to melt in July.

Before we get into a heated discussion of what a gentlemanly manner is, and how it is difficult to attain . . . . There is only one answer . .  If you have to ask, I am not the one to tell you . . . . and I agree, it is difficult to cooperate to resolve issues. There is no single act or process that applies in all cases. Good amateur practice is general guidelines, not a checklist of specific actions that will solve all problems. . . . and if something is not covered its "their fault". You are responsible for your interaction with others. The CTT petition puts this concept front and center.

There will always be those who feel it is their duty and right to tell you how to behave on behalf of be greater good. I find them more annoying than any interference I have experienced on the amateur bands. . . . plastic badges . .  well, we don't need no stinking badges. They use fear of chaos and inability to survive in a "wild west" or wide-open environment to forward their attempts to control  us. There  are also those pathetic individuals (are they individuals?) who speak this way and do not have a plan to control others.

All modes and all people are treated equally under this petition. The real question is: Can we handle the privileges and the responsibilities of freedom?

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Very Well Art,

 I think you hit one on the head, "Responsibilities of Freedom" No I don't think it's possible, this is not a mark against your cause, it's a truth, and by it's very nature it Scares the average Joe into Reality.

 Today is all consumed in "It being taken care of", "We have Laws for that", "That's someone elses Job", get my drift, it's all to easy Now, everything, Just exsist and "We'll Handle everything".... the better part of Liberty is the Responsibilities, Personal Responsibilities.

This is Scary Now I'm sounding like IRB..

[Art]

I was thinking the same thing after my post . . . next thing you know I'll be rattling chimes and eating oatmeal on 3885.

Unfortunately, Irb is a classic example of the opposite of freedom. Ask him. He will tell you exactly how to live your life and why.

The CTT petition puts that responsibility squarely where it belongs . . . check out that mirror . . .

-ap

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

I'm all for it Arty, I hope there is some interest from the Commision and Lord only knows what they'll decree, But we Can Hope, and Support your endeavours.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Art/CTT:

In reviewing your proposed changes to Section 97.301, I see that General Class operators lose the ability to operate between 7.225 to 7.300 MHz in ITU Region 2. Why?

For Advanced Class, the first line of 20 meter information indicates that Advanced Class operators can operate from 14.025 to 14.350 MHz. Shouldn’t the 14.350 MHz actually be 14.150 MHz?

For Amateur Extra Class, on 75 meters, ITU Region 3, you indicate 3.75 to 4.00 MHz. Shouldn’t this be 3.75 to 3.90 MHz?

Your Appendix A, “An Analysis of Band Occupancy by Mode”, was added, I assume, to help validate your conclusions as to why there should be a discontinuation of sub band definition by mode in the HF bands. Curiously, there is no mention of where the actual test was done. Since Art penned the report, should we also assume he manned the equipment and collected the data at his location and at no other location? The data was also curious in that it did not show, nor made any mention of, any “digital” modes. In a 12-hour period, your data suggests you either heard no digital modes or possibly you couldn’t identify signals as digital modes or digital type transmissions.

Quoting your survey process:
”The object of the survey is to demonstrate amateur radio band occupancy by mode. Test scheduling, execution, and data collection were accomplished in a consistent manner to yield accurate observations of actual conversations in progress (QSOs).”

If you ignored digital modes as part of your survey, it seems your survey is incomplete. If you couldn’t identify them as digital (QSO) transmissions, how do you plan to identify signals on the band at your station before transmitting as part of  “good operating practices” if your proposal is cast into stone by the FCC?

Quoting your conclusion:
”This report demonstrates and quantifies amateur radio band occupancy by mode of operation during a typical operating day. Data was collected in a consistent manner with validating statistical and graphical analysis.

We may conclude from this study that CW occupancy of the bands evaluated is significantly less than phone use of the same bands at the same time and utilizing consistent sampling techniques.”

I’m still fuzzy on what a “typical operating day” is in your/CTT analysis, given that propagation  conditions, weather phenomena, local type interference, etc. varies from hour to hour, day to day, and location to location all the time.

Further, what’s missing from this statement, “We may conclude from this study that CW occupancy of the bands evaluated is significantly less than phone use of the same bands at the same time and utilizing consistent sampling techniques”, are the words that this conclusion is based on data analysis taken at one location (if that is the case) and, in all probability, data collected using the same equipment and sampling techniques at other locations across the FCC’s jurisdiction (typically from Florida to Alaska and Maine to Hawaii), may not result in the same conclusions. Given that you haven’t proved that the same ratios of phone to CW occupancy exist across the FCC’s entire jurisdiction, it seems premature for your team to have requested a total deregulation of the bands that affects “all” of the FCC’s jurisdiction. All you have proven here is that at the testing location (SE PA?) on a “typical operating day”, during a defined time frame, phone QSO’s outnumbered CW QSO’s. More convincing validity to your analysis and eventual conclusions would have resulted if your data collection included reception analysis from such locations as Maine, Florida, Texas, Iowa, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Alaska. To me, if you had provided analysis of data collected at locations such as these, it would have provided the necessary depth and breath to substantiate your conclusions and requests in your proposal.

Pete, WA2CWA
Back from several days of fun, sun, & nightlife

[Art]

Welcome back Pete. We missed you. (To the conspiracy theorists, Pete and I enjoy discussing issues of the day. . .  often from very different perspectives.)

"Art/Paul: Not sure if you're checking both(QRZ and AM) forums, so I put this post in both places."

Thanks Pete. We have over 700 inputs on this topic at this time. I just have QRZ, eham, and AM forum and it is seriously cutting into my on the air time but the input is well worth it.

"In reviewing your proposed changes to Section 97.301, I see that General Class operators lose the ability to operate between 7.225 to 7.300 MHz in ITU Region 2. Why? For Advanced Class, the first line of 20 meter information indicates that Advanced Class operators can operate from 14.025 to 14.350 MHz. Shouldn’t the 14.350 MHz actually be 14.150 MHz? For Amateur Extra Class, on 75 meters, ITU Region 3, you indicate 3.75 to 4.00 MHz. Shouldn’t this be 3.75 to 3.90 MHz?"

Good eyes and thanks for reading the petition. This was an error. The intent is to allow all modes of operation on any frequency permitted by a given license class. . . . Including novice . . . That should rattle some cages.

"Your Appendix A, “An Analysis of Band Occupancy by Mode”, was added, I assume, to help validate your conclusions as to why there should be a discontinuation of sub band definition by mode in the HF bands."

Actually no. It was done before the final conclusions were drawn. I must admit we were well along the way but I worked to keep conditions as neutral as possible. I have worked in commercial radio for some time and utilized many of the techniques devised to illustrate band occupancy for commercial applications. Such surveys have been used by many utility, public safety, and commercial, entities across the US.

"Curiously, there is no mention of where the actual test was done. Since Art penned the report, should we also assume he manned the equipment and collected the data at his location and at no other location?"

The data was collected at my shack and I was one of three operators who collected the data. I stated the equipment in use and the rationale for the test period in the test description. In summary, I chose a Saturday during a CW contest because I wanted to illustrate a peak use period. Previous surveys during the week yielded a significantly greater advantage to phone QSOs in process during observations. A longer test would have included these periods and, I believe, would have favored phone more than the test period and day chosen.

"The data was also curious in that it did not show, nor made any mention of, any “digital” modes. In a 12-hour period, your data suggests you either heard no digital modes or possibly you couldn’t identify signals as digital modes or digital type transmissions."

Though we did collect digital mode information we were focused on CW vs phone. Keyboard digital was a distant third and other digital signals, some of which I couldn't demod, were very few.

"Quoting your survey process:
”The object of the survey is to demonstrate amateur radio band occupancy by mode. Test scheduling, execution, and data collection were accomplished in a consistent manner to yield accurate observations of actual conversations in progress (QSOs).”
If you ignored digital modes as part of your survey, it seems your survey is incomplete. If you couldn’t identify them as digital (QSO) transmissions, how do you plan to identify signals on the band at your station before transmitting as part of  “good operating practices” if your proposal is cast into stone by the FCC?"

Please see the preceding response. However, just like on 60M, I don't need to know what type of QSO is in process, I need to avoid it. If there is someone else operating I go someplace else to do my transmitting. That's my definition of good amateur practice.

"Quoting your conclusion:
”'This report demonstrates and quantifies amateur radio band occupancy by mode of operation during a typical operating day. Data was collected in a consistent manner with validating statistical and graphical analysis.
We may conclude from this study that CW occupancy of the bands evaluated is significantly less than phone use of the same bands at the same time and utilizing consistent sampling techniques.”
'I’m still fuzzy on what a “typical operating day” is in your/CTT analysis, given that propagation  conditions, weather phenomena, local type interference, etc. varies from hour to hour, day to day, and location to location all the time."

Yep, I agree it is a snap shot in time. Statistical validation was by relative percentage error on two or more passes conducted by different operators who were isolated during their collection of the data. Graphical analysis was a visual analog of the statistical validation.

"Further, what’s missing from this statement, “We may conclude from this study that CW occupancy of the bands evaluated is significantly less than phone use of the same bands at the same time and utilizing consistent sampling techniques”, are the words that this conclusion is based on data analysis taken at one location (if that is the case)"

Yes.

" and, in all probability, data collected using the same equipment and sampling techniques at other locations across the FCC’s jurisdiction (typically from Florida to Alaska and Maine to Hawaii), may not result in the same conclusions."

That is possible. Once again, it is a snapshot in time.

"Given that you haven’t proved that the same ratios of phone to CW occupancy exist across the FCC’s entire jurisdiction,"

This is neither within the scope nor intent of the test. It was a demonstration of activity on a given day chosen to illustrate CW vs phone operation. If you did the same test under the same conditions at your location I am quite sure your ratios would be similar unless you have a particularly dense phone (as you do, Pete) or CW population in your area.

"it seems premature for your team to have requested a total deregulation of the bands that affects “all” of the FCC’s jurisdiction. All you have proven here is that at the testing location (SE PA?) on a “typical operating day”, during a defined time frame, phone QSO’s outnumbered CW QSO’s."

I am in south central PA and the antennas are arrayed such that most of the US is served. This was well illustrated by the number of call areas represented in the data.

"More convincing validity to your analysis and eventual conclusions would have resulted if your data collection included reception analysis from such locations as Maine, Florida, Texas, Iowa, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Alaska. To me, if you had provided analysis of data collected at locations such as these, it would have provided the necessary depth and breath to substantiate your conclusions and requests in your proposal."

Actually, the data did include locations such as you describe except I didn't get Hawaii and Alaska. Remember, we didn't just count blips on a scope. We listened to each QSO long enough to determine if there was a US op involved. That involved acquiring their call. I know this isn't what you meant. You would like a test from all those places. My bet at this time, such a survey would yield a 1.75:1 ratio (or more) phone to CW US op QSOs in process.  Between us, Pete. Don't take that bet. : )

I would be the first to say the survey is a snap shot in time. In fact, I was. The typical response of those who reviewed the data was skepticism that the CW count was way higher than they expected and from their experience.

Further, spectrum analysis and band displays from commercial equipment was used to get a sense of 'where the action was' to validate the process of using 1 or 2 bands below the MUF to Europe as the band selection criteria. The pictures are worth a thousand words. They show phone transmissions rather densely packed and CW transmissions as notably less prevalent. This type of analysis was also done in Ohio as well and yielded similar results. I admit, Ohio is not all that far away from south central PA but it did provide geographic diversity of sorts while we made date, day, and time selection for the survey.

The survey was not the sole motivation for the petition. There were many others. Even the ARRL understands something must be done to reorganize the amateur bands.

This is one perspective. There seems to be no middle ground but good data has been collected and people are ready with their action points.

I think with input such as the CTT petition and the 500 or so inputs the ARRL has already received, maybe, just maybe, they will do something remarkable in the near future.

[Art]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-143A1.doc

I just finished reading the NPRM. The thrust is the elimination of all morse requirements for all classes of amateur licenses.

The NPRM took many issues, including license class modifications and requested examination changes, and evaluated them critically issue by issue. It is EXTREMELY significant that the FCC disagreed with the ARRL and FISTS several times. We will not be having any new Novice class license or expansion of their priveleges and there will be no additional "grandfathering" if this NPRM becomes law.

What this NPRM does tell me is the FCC may be looking at the CTT proposal favorably. In the act of eliminating the morse requirement for licensing, they essentially recognize CW as an operating mode used by amateurs just like any other. They also downplay it's importance in emergency communications by noting that in common practice, morse is rarely used.

[GEORGE/W2AMR]

I was thinking the same thing after my post . . . next thing you know I'll be rattling chimes and eating oatmeal on 3885.

Unfortunately, Irb is a classic example of the opposite of freedom. Ask him. He will tell you exactly how to live your life and why.



-ap

 
ob·sess [ əb séss, ob séss ] (past and past participle ob·sessed, present participle ob·sess·ing, 3rd person present singular ob·sess·es)


verb  
 
1. transitive verb never stop thinking about something: to occupy somebody's thoughts constantly and exclusively
The desire for vengeance obsesses him.

 
2. intransitive verb be preoccupied: to think or worry about something constantly and compulsively

[Herb K2VH]

ANNOY n.  Archaic. An annoyance.

--v.t. 1. To disturb or irritate, esp. by repeated acts; to vex.

2. To molest; harass; as to annoy an army by impeding its march.

--v.i. to be troublesome or irritating. -- annoyer. n.

editorial addition:  irritating, as in Irritating Radio Buckshot