APPENDIX B
4744 respondents
License Class of Respondent as Reported:
|
Novice |
30 (0.6 %) |
|
Tech |
232 (4.9 %) |
|
Tech Plus |
124 (2.6%) |
|
General |
895 (18.9 %) |
|
Advanced |
384 (8.1 %) |
|
Extra |
2889 (60.9 %) |
|
Foreign |
51 (1.1 %) |
|
[None] |
139 (2.9 %) |
Respondents grouped by CW usage shows:
34 percent (1611) use CW from 1-25 % of their operating time
26.3 percent (1249) never use CW
12 percent (568) use CW from 26-50 % of their operating time
14 percent (664) use CW from 76 --99 % of the time
9.8 percent (466) use CW from 51-75 % of the time
2.9 percent (137) use CW 100 % of the time
1 percent (49) are not active
Respondents by DIGITAL usage shows:
45.2 percent (2142) use digital modes from 1-25 % of their operating
time
39.8 percent (1889) never use digital modes
8.8 percent (417) use digital modes 26-50 % of the time
3.1 percent (145) use digital modes 51-75 % of the time
1.5 percent (73) use digital modes 76-99 % of the time
1.3 percent (60) are not active
0.4 percent (18) use digital modes 100 % of the time
Respondents by VOICE usage shows:
25.5 percent (1209) use voice 1-25 % of the time
23.3 percent (1105) use voice 76-99 % of the time
17 percent (805) use voice 26-50 % of the time
16.2 percent (767) use voice 51-75 % of the time
12.4 percent (586) use voice 100 % of the time
4.3 percent (206) never use voice
1.4 percent (66) are not active
Among the specific band options
80 Meters
|
Option 3: |
39.7 percent |
|
Option 2: |
31.4 percent |
|
Option 1: |
23 percent |
|
Option 4: |
6 percent |
Option 3 is:
3.500 -- 3.525 Extra CW
3.525 -- 3.700 All license classes (except Technician) CW
3.700 -- 3.725 Extra Class phone
3.725 -- 3.800 Extra/Advanced phone
3.800 -- 4.000 Extra/Advanced/General phone
40 Meters
|
Option 3: |
48.5 percent |
|
Option 2: |
24 percent |
|
Option 1: |
20.9 percent |
|
Option 4: |
6.6 percent |
Option 3 is:
7.000 -- 7.025 Extra CW
7.025 -- 7.125 All license classes (except Technician) CW and
7.125 -- 7.175 Extra/Advanced phone
7.175 -- 7.300 Extra/Advanced phone
15 Meters
|
Option 3: |
48.7 percent |
|
Option 2: |
23.1 percent |
|
Option 1: |
22.5 percent |
|
Option 4: |
5.7 percent |
Option 3 is:
21.000 -- 21.025 Extra CW
21.025 -- 21.175 All license classes (except Technician) CW and
21.175 -- 21.200 Extra phone
21.200 -- 21.250 Extra/Advanced phone
21.250 -- 21.450 Extra/Advanced/General phone
10 Meters
|
Option 2: |
54.5 percent |
|
Option 1: |
39.2 percent |
|
Option 3: |
6.3 percent |
Option 2 is:
28.000 -- 28.300 All license classes (except Technician) CW
28.300 -- 28.500 All license classes (except Technician) phone
28.500 -- 29.700 Extra/Advanced/General phone
Novice respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 1 (40.0 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (36.7 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (20.0 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.3 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 2 (56.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (26.7%) |
|
|
Option 3 (13.3 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.3 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 2 (60.0 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (33.3 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (3.3 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.3 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (50.0 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (46.7 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (3.3 %) |
Technician respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 2 (39.2 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (23.3 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (20.7 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (16.8 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (31.9 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (23.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (23.7 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (20.7 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (28.0 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (27.2 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (26.3 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (18.5 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (47.4 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (27.6%) |
|
|
Option 3 (25.0 %) |
Technician Plus respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 2 (48.4 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.6 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (16.1 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (12.9 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 2 (35.5 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (29.0 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (21.8 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (13.7 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 2 (38.7 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (25.0 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.6 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (13.7 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (58.9 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (29.8 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (11.3 %) |
General class respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 2 (62.9 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (17.9 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (15.9%) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.4 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (61.7 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (22.1 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (13.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (2.7 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (62.1 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (19.1 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (15.4 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.4 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (58.8%) |
|
|
Option 1 (37.8 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (3.5 %) |
Advanced class respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 3 (47.4%) |
|
|
Option 1 (27.9 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (20.1 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (4.7 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (45.6 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (26.0 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (22.9%) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.5 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (50.5 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (24.7 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (19.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.2 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (58.3 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (35.2 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (6.5 %) |
Extra class respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 3 (48.9 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (24.1 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (21.6 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.4 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (47.3 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (23.8 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.4 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (6.4 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (47.6 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (24.3 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (23.2 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (4.9 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (53.1 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (41.4 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (5.6 %) |
Foreign respondents prefer:
|
80M: |
Option 3 (41.2 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (37.3 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (17.6 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.9 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (49.0 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (25.5 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (21.6 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (3.9 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (45.1 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (25.5 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (23.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.9 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (56.9 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (37.3 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (5.9 %) |
|
|
Those
using voice modes |
Those
using CW |
|
80M: |
Option 2 (38.7 %) |
Option 1 (43.1 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (36.0 %) |
Option 2 (29.2 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (18.6 %) |
Option 3 (23.4 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (6.7 %) |
Option 4 (4.4 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (59.4 %) |
Option 2 (40.1 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (18.4 %) |
Option 1 (35.0 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (14.8 %) |
Option 3 (19.7 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (7.3 %) |
Option 4 (5.1 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (60.4 %) |
Option 2 (38.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (18.3 %) |
Option 1 (37.2 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (14.7 %) |
Option 3 (19.7 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (6.7 %) |
Option 4 (4.4 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (58.4 %) |
Option 1 (53.3 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (34.1 %) |
Option 2 (41.6 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (7.5 %) |
Option 3 (5.1 %) |
|
Those
using voice modes |
Those
using CW |
|
|
|
80M: |
Option 3 (47.4 %) |
Option 1 (33.6 %) |
|
|
|
Option 2 (30.6 %) |
Option 2 (31.6 %) |
|
|
|
Option 1 (16.7 %) |
Option 3 (31.0 %) |
|
|
|
Option 4 (6.7 %) |
Option 4 (3.8 %) |
|
|
40M: |
Option 3 (62.1 %) |
Option 2 (38.7 %) |
|
|
|
Option 2 (16.2 %) |
Option 3 (29.4 %) |
|
|
|
Option 1 (16.0 %) |
Option 1 (28.2 %) |
|
|
|
Option 4 (5.7 %) |
Option 4 (3.8 %) |
|
|
15M: |
Option 3 (62.4 %) |
Option 2 (35.1 %) |
|
|
|
Option 1 (17.0 %) |
Option 3 (31.2 %) |
|
|
|
Option 2 (15.2 %) |
Option 1 (30.9 %) |
|
|
|
Option 4 (5.3 %) |
Option 4 (2.9 %) |
|
|
10M: |
Option 2 (56.0 %) |
Option 2 (51.4 %) |
|
|
|
Option 1 (38.4 %) |
Option 1 (45.3 %) |
|
|
|
Option 3 (5.6 %) |
Option 3 (3.3 %) |
|
|
Those
using voice modes |
Those
using CW |
|
80M: |
Option 3 (41.7 %) |
Option 3 (40.3 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (28.7 %) |
Option 2 (27.3 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (21.4 %) |
Option 1 (27.0 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (8.2 %) |
Option 4 (5.4 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (49.5 %) |
Option 3 (39.5 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (20.5 %) |
Option 2 (32.2 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (20.3 %) |
Option 1 (22.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (9.6 %) |
Option 4 (5.8 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (49.2 %) |
Option 3 (38.0 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.9 %) |
Option 2 (32.4 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (20.2 %) |
Option 1 (25.8 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (7.7 %) |
Option 4 (3.9 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (50.6 %) |
Option 2 (56.2 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (40.7 %) |
Option 1 (39.1 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (8.7 %) |
Option 3 (4.7 %) |
|
|
Those
using voice modes |
Those
using CW |
|
80M: |
Option 3 (43.2 %) |
Option 3 (44.9 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (30.6 %) |
Option 1 (24.8 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (21.7 %) |
Option 2 (24.3 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.8 %) |
Option 4 (6.0 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (49.2 %) |
Option 3 (44.2 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (23.6 %) |
Option 2 (25.4 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (20.9 %) |
Option 1 (23.1 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (6.3 %) |
Option 4 (7.4 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (47.5 %) |
Option 3 (42.4 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (24.3 %) |
Option 2 (25.5 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (23.1 %) |
Option 2 (25.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.1 %) |
Option 4 (6.5 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (56.1 %) |
Option 2 (50.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (37.8 %) |
Option 1 (42.6 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (6.1 %) |
Option 3 (6.7 %) |
|
|
Those
using voice modes |
Those
using CW |
|
80M: |
Option 3 (33.7 %) |
Option 3 (44.4 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (31.0 %) |
Option 2 (30.4 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (30.2 %) |
Option 1 (20.4 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.0 %) |
Option 4 (4.8 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 2 (34.8 %) |
Option 3 (54.6 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (34.2 %) |
Option 2 (20.5 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (25.4 %) |
Option 1 (19.2 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.5 %) |
Option 4 (5.6 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (34.7 %) |
Option 3 (55.7 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (32.6 %) |
Option 1 (20.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (28.0 %) |
Option 2 (19.1 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (4.7 %) |
Option 4 (4.5 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (53.8 %) |
Option 2 (55.8 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (41.2 %) |
Option 1 (39.2 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (5.0 %) |
Option 3 (5.0 %) |
|
|
Those
using voice modes |
Those
using CW |
|
80M: |
Option 1 (38.8 %) |
Option 3 (37.6 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (32.0 %) |
Option 2 (37.1 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (24.3 %) |
Option 1 (16.4 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (4.9 %) |
Option 4 (9.0 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 2 (41.7 %) |
Option 3 (59.2 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (31.1 %) |
Option 1 (16.2 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (22.3 %) |
Option 2 (15.1 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (4.9 %) |
Option 4 (9.4 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 2 (39.8 %) |
Option 3 (58.8 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (30.6 %) |
Option 1 (16.7 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (25.2 %) |
Option 2 (15.6 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (4.4 %) |
Option 4 (9.0 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 1 (48.5 %) |
Option 2 (56.5 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (46.1 %) |
Option 1 (33.1 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (5.3 %) |
Option 3 (10.4 %) |
|
|
Those
using digital modes |
Those
using digital |
|
80M: |
Option 3 (50.0 %) |
Option 2 (35.6 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.2 %) |
Option 3 (28.8 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (16.7 %) |
Option 1 (21.9 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (11.1 %) |
Option 4 (13.7 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (50.0 %) |
Option 3 (39.7 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (27.8 %) |
Option 1 (23.3 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (11.1 %) |
Option 2 (20.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (11.1 %) |
Option 4 (16.4 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (50.0 %) |
Option 3 (42.5 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (22.2 %) |
Option 1 (20.5 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (16.7 %) |
Option 2 (20.5 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (11.1 %) |
Option 4 (16.4 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (55.6 %) |
Option 2 (50.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (33.3 %) |
Option 1 (35.6 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (11.1 %) |
Option 3 (13.7 %) |
|
|
Those
using digital modes |
Those
using digital |
|
80M: |
Option 2 (40.0 %) |
Option 3 (40.3 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (30.3 %) |
Option 2 (31.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.8 %) |
Option 1 (19.7 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (6.9 %) |
Option 4 (8.4 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (46.9 %) |
Option 3 (48.7 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (24.1 %) |
Option 2 (25.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (20.7 %) |
Option 1 (18.2 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (8.3 %) |
Option 4 (7.4 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (48.3 %) |
Option 3 (44.4 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (22.8 %) |
Option 2 (27.1 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (21.4 %) |
Option 1 (20.6 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (7.6 %) |
Option 4 (7.9 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (55.2 %) |
Option 2 (55.6 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (37.9 %) |
Option 1 (35.7 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (6.9 %) |
Option 3 (8.6 %) |
|
|
Those
using digital modes |
Those
using digital |
|
80M: |
Option 3 (42.4 %) |
Option 3 (37.4 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (30.2 %) |
Option 2 (32.1 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (21.5 %) |
Option 1 (25.4 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.9 %) |
Option 4 (5.1 %) |
|
40M: |
Option 3 (49.9 %) |
Option 3 (47.5 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (23.6 %) |
Option 2 (23.9 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (19.6 %) |
Option 1 (23.0 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (6.9 %) |
Option 4 (5.6 %) |
|
15M: |
Option 3 (50.0 %) |
Option 3 (48.5 %) |
|
|
Option 2 (23.1 %) |
Option 1 (24.7 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (21.1 %) |
Option 2 (22.3 %) |
|
|
Option 4 (5.7 %) |
Option 4 (4.4 %) |
|
10M: |
Option 2 (55.6 %) |
Option 2 (53.0 %) |
|
|
Option 1 (38.6 %) |
Option 1 (40.8 %) |
|
|
Option 3 (5.8 %) |
Option 3 (6.2 %) |
John Birkett, KC2HTP General -- I basically agree with the committee recommendation, including the 200 watt caveat. I do not think an extra 25 Khz should be given up (from the Novice Sub Band) for phone ops. The General CW segments seem to be getting more crowded with the suprisingly renewed interest in brass pounding, plus the newer digital modes need more room, too.
Mike Perryman, K5JMP Tech -- I would like to see a small portion of the
10m band opened to Technician class licensee's in the phone mode. I think this
will whet ones appetite to study code and upgrade their license. Other than
that, I see no reason to change the current spectrum allotments. I work as a
FCC Consulting Engineer (well over 20 yrs. in the field) and am certainly
responsible enough from a technical and operational standpoint to be allowed to
operate in a small window in the 10m band. The current allotments in the 6m
band for Tech.class licensees is great, but the hope of working any DX is
spotty at best. Please hear our pleas for a more stable "window" as a
"carrot" to dangle within our grasp, to inspire the Tech class to move
forward.
Sincerely,
John Phillips - K2QAI -- I have no problem with allowing all users
access to all frequencies, but my real point is that, official or not, we need
to set aside a place for beginners to get their feet wet without feeling
intimidated. A real "novice" segment, not necessarily a "Novice
Class" segment.
Nick Leggett, N3NL -- Please request that the current Novice CW bands
on 80, 40, and 15 meters be reallocated exclusively to DIGITAL voice operation.
Allow the Novices and Tech Plus operators to use the General Class CW portions
of 80, 40 and 15. Let's provide a real incentive for hams to get on the air
with DIGITAL voice. ARRL Member for over 30 years
Dennis Smith, NE4O Extra -- Why can't you just leave the bands alone like they are and try to find us more space instead of making waves with the fcc. Let the holders of novice licenses keep what the have and let them renew the novice if that's what the want to do, I personally work a lot of novices in their bands running 5 watts and slow speed cw. This is the only place they can get the practice to upgrade to general or extra. Outside the novice band can sometimes be frightning
Robert Mitilieri, N9EF Extra -- With the increased use of digital modes, and the introduction of new digital modes, the size of the CW subbands should be maintained to provide adequate spectrum.
James Worsham, W4KXY Extra -- You need to look at some even more aggressive options for expanding the phone bands. There are MANY more phone ops today than CW ops. Also, phone requires more spectrum than CW. Just listen around any band that is open and the phone portion is a mess with QRM. The CW portion will have a dozen guys on and they are mostly on the low end working DX. I would support 50 to 100 kHz of spectrum per band (including 20) for CW and the rest phone. Do what you want with the Novices. Who really cares? I haven't meet someone with a Novice license in years. I was suprised that there are any left.
Duane Traver, WV2B Extra -- Need more space for phone operation. good to have all classes on most of CW, new ops who wish to take part and learn would have the opportunity, rather than being isolated in thier own band where they can't take place in contests, etc. Better to give more SSB space to Generals. All nets, etc. try to jam into General portion so everyone can take part. More bandwidth would spread it out and the generals might have a chance to find a spot between all the nets.
Gene Fuller, W4SZ Extra -- Why does *anything* need to be done? The Novice frequencies are already open to all license classes except Technician. How many people actually operate over 200W? QRP rules! The ARRL proposals seem essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. The proposals are little more than slight, but confusing, tweaks to frequency limits for various license classes.
Brendan Wahl, WA7HL Extra -- It's about time to re-farm the "novice" bands. Perhaps some bandplan "suggestions" for slow speed CW folks would also be appropriate. This would allow for slower folks to congregate and work up their speed to join the rest of the world.
Jim Pratt, N6IG -- Although I operate and prefer CW over phone, I
welcome the expansion of the phone bands for extra class operations, especially
on 75 meters. And I am glad to see that extra class CW bands remain in place on
those bands where they existed before. The choices given all seem logical, good
work.
Richard A. Meznarich, AG5M Extra -- I like the idea of expanding the phone bands. And I strongly support the idea to allow Novice and Tech Plus hams to a wider portion of the HF bands for CW use. We need more users of the HF spectrum, more hams who will demand the right to install HF antennas at their homes hopefully putting an end to the almost 100% prohibition on external HF antennas due to the overly restrictive CC&R's currently in place throughout the country. I would also support a limited phone section (perhaps a 15 or 20 KHz slice someplace) for Novice and Tech Plus hams on the 80 and 15 meter 15 meter bands. Just enough to get a person interested in HF voice and coming back for more. But not on the 40 meter band. There should always be something left to create an incentive for upgrading. The more users of the HF spectrum we have the better for all of us when it comes to dealing with Congress and the FCC regarding spectrum protection and antenna restrictions. Once hooked on HF operation we may see a lot more upgrades to General which again will benefit us all. Ten meters looks just fine the way it is. There is currently plenty of room for Novice and Tech Plus CW operation and it allows for some incentive to someday upgrade to Extra. Don't completely do away with incentives. Thanks.
Timothy W.D. MacDonald, KB1GFV Tech --I suggest that consideration be
given to to allowing technicians some access to this spectrum. One option would
be to allow tech-plus, access to the novice spectrum. I would argue that the
novice phone portion ought to be available to a straight technician. I am newly
lisenced an have just recently got equipment for six meters, it is a different
experience from the higher frequency bands. This exposure will probably be the
driving influence for me to learn code and upgrade. Additional access to phone
on 10 meters would only add to the draw.
For me if I never up-grade, access to six meters will keep me interested and
involved, phone on ten meters would only help keep my interest. Your proposals
all appear to either absorb the spectrum into the existing higher classes or
support a class that you indicate has little sustaining interest. I would
suggest considering options that might attract new hams, people like me. I
think your suggested options fail on this accord.
Eric Raub, NM0X Extra -- I don't support any of these plans because we NEED an area for wide band digital and narrow band digital modes that does not include CW.
Dave Curtis, N6NZ Extra -- About time! The Novice CW band should have always overlapped the General CW band. The "Novice Ghetto" was a bad ideas from the get-go. It's much better for beginners to have experience hams to talk to and learn from, than to learn each others bad newbie habits. (I was first licensed in 1972, and started out rock-bound.)
Anonymous -- With Digital Modes becoming easier and easier to work. A small slice of each band should be available for ALL license classes. I am a no code tech and feel that I can work PSK31 on 20 meters far more responsibly then another licensee who has NEVER used PSK31. Just my 2 cents:)
Alan Applegate, KØBG Extra -- If we really want to protect our
spectrum, we need to embrace two static rules: #1 There is safety in numbers,
and #2 Use it or lose it. Toward that goal, we need to think about band
utilization. Most of the 10M and 6M bands are under-utilized. Let's give the
Novices and Pluses full privileges on both bands. And while we're at it, we
should look at the allowable modes usable by these classes. In other words,
give them a taste of the upper classes.
Gregg Buonomo, KE2SX Advanced -- I keep reading about how operating
privileges should be expanded. (See July QST, page 24). Rather than continually
watering down the requirements, we should insist that those who want additional
privileges should study the theory and code. It really isn't that difficult
these days. I started my ham career in the early 70's, when novices had small
portions of 3 bands and were restricted to crystal controlled operations. I
didn't make the upgrade to general then, but my interest in HF cw work remained
strong, and I came back to the hobby. If we keep doling out operating privileges
without requiring some work on the part of the applicants, we will have nothing
left to distinguish our hobby from the Citizen's Band mess of the mid-70's.
Bob Wolbert, K6XX Extra -- Although I am generally in favor of having
the least restrictions possible (like 160m for instance) the CW bands must
never be eliminated. the first 60kHz of all bands (except perhaps 40m...)
should stay CW-only on the band plan, and legally restricted to CW if
necessary. Specific Comments: 1. Instead of waiting forever for the novices to
die off, the lesser evil is to grandfather them to general. Then delete the
novice bands. 2. 75m phone should start below 3700kHz to relieve the split
problem. 3600-3750 is pretty quiet around here. 3. As much as I hate to say it,
the 40m Phone should start below 7100 (ouch!). Delete the novice band and start
phone at 7100 at least. Pray for a 300kHz international allocation at WRC. 4.
15m... CW only to 21,175 is the best compromise. Contest activity fills the
band to at least 21,150 when things are hopping, so that point (21,150) is the
worst-case acceptable "encroachment" for phone. 5. Due to the 10m
beacons from 28,200--28300, this range should stay CW only.
Michael Byrd, WD4MFB General -- Most of my choices for the lower bands promote increasing the voice subbands. I am a CW only operator and hate to lose any spectrum, but I do realize the necessity. We gained more space with the introduction of the WARC bands and I am hoping the future will produce more frequencies on 5 mhz and an increase in the size of the 40 meter band. I have seen several surveys on the topic of who is using what mode on what band. We can't just automatically add more spectrum at the drop of a hat, so the only logical thing to do is reorganize how we use the available space. In the spirit of brotherhood, I will give up space in the CW sections to accomodate my fellow hams. My final answer...more space for phone operators.
Tim Jarman, K0UX Extra -- The only "fine tuning" I would propose to the options chosen by me are: On 80 meters phone, the Advanced/Extra segment should be 3750 to 3800 with the Extra class exclusive segment from 3700 to 3750. On 15 meters phone, the Extra class exclusive segment should be 21,150 to 21,200. My reasons for this include the fact that no more Advanced Class licenses are being issued. As a result, it makes sense to provide more exclusive space for Extra Class licensees. The incentive to upgrade will be greater with more exclusive space.
James M. Galm, W8WTS Extra -- I am concerned that the continuous expansion downward of general and advanced phone bands will eventually reduce the incentive for license class upgrading. While I agree that the novice and plus bands should align with general cw bands, I see no rationale for expanding general and advanced phone bands downward. If the division between cw and phone bands is to be lowered, the new phone space should be extra class only, to increase, rather than decrease, upgrading incentive.
Tom Champlin, W0HH Extra -- With "Morse Code" in decline the world over, I think it is a very good time to reduce the inordinately large "CW" bands. Most new hams are really not into the code at all. This is an appropriate time to expand the SSB/Digital bands and leave the dots and dashes back in the 20th century. I am a former Military CW operator. 73, Tom Champlin W0HH
Scott Pederson, KI5DR Extra -- In General, I think there will always be
CW ops on the band (for at least another Generation or so), just as there are
still AM operators. I would like to see specific sub-bands dedicated to digital
modes, such as PSK31, and even an expansion of the Phone sub-band to allow more
space for SSB and SSTV. I think it would also have a generally positive impact
if there was a space for No-Code technicians to operate SSB below 30 Mhz. I
understand this is currently not allowed due to IARU rules, but should be
something discussed for the future. The general feeling should be of Incentive,
not blockade. I am a younger ham (mid-30's) and I am concerned that I am often the
youngest ham attending local club meetings. What kind of issues will I be
facing 25 years from now? Food for thought.
Thanks for soliciting my input.
George B. Beeler, N8AHT Extra -- Dropping the floor of the 40 m novice band to somewhere in the 7.050-7.075 area would certainly help with the 40 meter broadcast interference problem for novices and might peak a bit more interest in this area. I do notice quite a few QSO's in this band anyway. It appears to me that most of the survey alternatives take away incentive to upgrade from General to Extra, which should not be one of your aims in changing the allocation.
Noel A. Taylor, N9CJT Extra -- In spite of my answers above, I am uncomfortable with the idea of allowing 1.5 KW power levels throughout these CW bands, and prefer maintaining a sub-band-related (as opposed to operator-related) restriction on power output. Correlating a specific segment for each CW band with the low-power allocations of other IARU member countries (15 and 10 meters), and/or placing it outside of current broadcast band activity (40 meters) would be most helpful not only to Novice operators but also to the large number of QRP enthusiasts here and abroad.
David Webb, WB2HVF Advanced -- I think a better plan would be to leave all classes alone EXCEPT allow novices CW only over the ENTIRE GENERAL CW portions of 80, 40, and 15. I like the proposed 10 meter changes
Paul D. Manuel, K4PDM Extra -- Although I operate a lot of CW and enjoy it, I feel that the Novice bands are definitely under-utilized since the FCC decision. Phone band expansion won't hurt a thing.
Jess Colvin, AI9L Extra -- The so called Novice band wasd not really the Novice band it was just the CW portion of the bands where Novice operators were allowed. it was every ones CW band. So just because the Novice license is discotinued is no reason to give the band to SSB
Kevin Anderson, K9IUA Extra -- I am happy to recommend the expansion of
N/P CW allocations to include the General portions of each band. It would be
good to let them come down and find more operators to train with. I personally
do want to see any downward movement of phone bands. So I selected all options
that maintained the same divide between phone/etc and current CW/digital
portions as currently allocated for that reason. At the same time, I would like
to see the non-CW digital modes to be encouraged to be moved up into the former
N/P subbands, and NOT recommend any further downward shift of non-CW digital
into the CW portions of each band (below say 60 khz). (In this regard, the
operator courtesy guide needs to be reinforced, and any agreements with may
have with the Canadian and Mexican radio leagues need to be renegotiated to get
their phone operators further up in the bands.)
Finally, I would recommend that the FCC permit the former N/P portions of each
band to include experimental modes such as digitized voice, as this is not
"phone" in the traditional methods. But the FCC should at the same
time limit these new modes to just these segments and not permit them below
into the areas more traditionally the terrain for CW and RTTY/Amtor, etc. or up
into the phone bands. These changes in
combinations permit, and indeed will encourage, the experimentation and expansion
of digital phone, while at the same time not interfering with much other
CW/digital traffic or SSB/AM phone users.
James J. Craswell, W0VNE Extra -- I would like to suggest that all the "Novice" sub bands be made open to all modes. Similar to what we have with the 160 meter band. Let these places be open to whatever modes we now have and a more open place for future modes. One example Digital Voice would would be a huge shock for the Phone fellows. This would be similar to what was done when 11 meters was a ham band. A good place for experimentation. This would not preclude folks operating CW of course. I would like to see a less structured approach. If we bring in the FCC to over regulate us we will be stuck with that and won't be as easily able to cope with new technology. In addition allow the Tech+ and Novices to operate CW down in the General area while they continue to operate the Novice sub band. If we allow them some more possibilities for modes it might motivate them to operate more and desire to upgrade. I'm not 100% sure about the last part. Thanks for letting me put in my two cents worth
Greg Caliri, N1AMA Extra -- The tradition of cooperation, patience, and comraderie found in the Novice bands will disappear if the Novice sub-bands cease to exist. I can run CW at 15-18 words a minute, but I also find more enjoyment in going into the Novice bands. I can always make a contact. I can always find someone who wishes to chat and not demonstrate how fast he or she can go. QSOs in the Novice sub-bands generally are more relaxed. And last but not least, if the Novice bands were re-farmed, and Novices had to mix it up with everyone else, there would be no safe, relaxed area for the Novice to practice his code. When I go into the Novice sub-bands, I know I am expected to slow down. I also know that when I was a Novice, I liked the idea of having a place where you didn't have to be a code hotshot to make a QSO. If Morse Code is to survive, we need a training ground for new operators, and the Novice sub-bands are that training ground. These sub-bands are special places with special expectations. Keep things as they are - I like the Novice sub-bands. They're a no-pressure, high-enjoyment part of our great hobby.
Henry F. Monton, W0IE Extra -- I don't see the need for a change.
Historically
those areas withing the bands were for the beginners to learn and practice the
art of the radio amateur hobby. I would only suggest two things (1) return the
Novice to a reduced power, and the Plus licensee and (2) remove the extra only
portion of the CW bands and provide 25KHz for extra in the phone bands.
William Carter, KG4FXG General -- It would be nice to have to
Novice/Tech + portions still remain as a place for "New" generals
especially new CW operators to have a place to learn their skills. I find CW
very valuable, but a qso is different while you are in the learning stage,
thank goodness for the "Learning part" of the bands. I found it very
difficult to have qso say on 30 meters, very high speed CW, lots of
abbreviations, and not the correct place for the "New" operator.
While there will not be any more Tech+ licenses issued there are still Tech+
band priveleges for those who get there CSCE (From e-mail from Hollingsworth).
There really needs to be a "Newbie" place on the bands, I can't tell
how many times I hear new operators on 2 meters, one correction for an old ham
and they are never heard from again.
Please, lets protect our new operators and give them a "safe haven"
in which to learn skills so that they can eventually jump in with the experienced
ones. I still work new operators and love it and have the patience to work with
them. New operators are very important to the hobby - lets not scare them off
and allow them a place to make mistakes.
George B. Lampere, KF4KOW General -- CW was an obsticle to obtaining my ticket. However, since I now have my general license I want to work to improve my CW. I look to the novice segments to send code with others who work slow CW. Otherwise, I have found that if I work other parts of the band, I will not get a reply. We may not need all areas currently assigned, but I feel we do need some segment. I suggest the 10 Meter segment. That area works well for DX and is generally open during the day and early evening hours.
Jamey C. Brookover, NT4D -- I would like to see the Extra CW portions
of the band be designated for CW mode ONLY. I enjoy several of the digital
modes as well as CW, but with the ease of attaining the Extra ticket now, I am
afraid that operation on the other digital modes will at some time move into
this space, and cause severe problems for serious DX'ers and contesters. I
realize that in a perfect world everyone would obey the self designated
considerate operator's frequency assignments, but from my observation of the
younger generation(s) today, sadly my children included to some extent, the
"honor" systems and values and traditions that were important to
individuals at one time have been replaced by the attitude of "it's mine
and I'll do with it what I want", and if someone interferes, just sue
them. [End of Soapbox!]
I applaud the League's efforts in spearheading the effort to help re-align the
frequencies to better fit with the new licensing structure. Please do not
construe from above comments that I am negative about the new structure. While
I personally feel that the CW requirement should be kept, I realize, again from
experience with my own children, that there is too much competition for young
people's time and attention in today's world, and that changes were necessary
to accommodate today's lifestyle. I just really like CW operation, and I feel
that many of the newcomers will also develop this appreciation for the mode. I
do not wish to over regulate the Amateur FCC rules, but I also wish to protect
the CW aspect of the hobby. After all... The US government sees fit to
establish historical places and afford them protection. Is 25khz of historical
preservation too much to ask? [End of 2nd soapbox!]
Marshall D. Johnson, Sr., KK7CW Extra -- As few as 10 years ago, the novice hf sub-bands were replete with cw operators. A cw qso was relatively easy to establish. Today I can send CQ for nearly an hour with no response. Plus the band propagation is the best its been for years. My philosophy: use it ot lose it. The sub-bands should be allocated so that they will be used. Allowing Novice and Technician Plus licensees to use 100w/phone on these band areas may also present some interesting possiblities, especially for 40 meters.
Ken Alan, K6PSI General -- Dear Fellow Hams, For any question on
spectrum allocation, whether it be for the Novice bands or any other, I would
like to urge that these two guiding principles be adopted:
1. Encourage the greatest possible use by licensed amateurs (No silent bands!)
2. Keep it simple. Complexity discourages use, and complicates testing and
policing.
You noted in your overview that "Recent studies of the Novice portions of
most HF bands show that those frequencies, once a hotbed of new amateurs, are
almost totally unused." Lack of use is an alarming problem on ALL of the
amateur bands. If we fail to encourage greater use of our allocated spectrum we
will surely lose it to commercial interests. The next big technology boom will
be in wireless communications (and I don't mean ham radio). The FCC has indicated
it wants the amateur community to set its own policies rather than have the
government dictate band plans. I think we should take them up on this offer and
get band planning out of Part 97. This is not to say there should not be
spectrum management and "gentlemen's agreements" on how the spectrum
will be used, but FCC R&Rs are too rigid and inflexible. We have vast areas
of our HF frequencies assigned to CW. That was probably fine 50 years ago, but
today most people operate by phone not code. Yet we're stuck with these rigid
mode assignments and the resulting silent bands. With this in mind, I recommend
the following as a first step in simplifying all of the HF Bands:
1) Make operating power the same across all bands: 1500 watts.
2) Make operating modes unrestricted insofar as Part 97 is concerned. The ARRL
may still overlay a band plan, but even here I would recommend caution. People
don't want to have to carry around charts when operating on the fly.
3) Eliminate the bottom-end restrictions on each band, e.g. on 15 meters,
21.000 MHz to 21.025 MHz would be opened to all license classes for any mode.
4) For mid-band sectors reserved for higher licenses, such as 21.200 to 21.300
on 15 meters, these should be available only to Extra Class. For grandfathered
Advanced Class operators, I think we have to let them have Extra Class band
privileges. I know that may discourage some from upgrading to Extra when there
are no band privileges to be gained, but I must follow the guiding principles
of greatest use and simplicity. I do not want to have a complicated Advanced
Class overlay on the spectrum chart. The band plan should be so simple that it
can be memorized in a few days.
5) What to do with Novice and Tech plus operators? Probably the simplest thing
to do is give them General Class spectrum privileges at 200 watts maximum
power. I think this is in keeping with the guiding principles. It's another
complication, but only one. We don't have to memorize sets of special
frequencies and powers across multiple bands.
Fred Langeneckert, WA0US Advanced -- I agree with adding a little more to the low end of each phone band. CW is declining, and other digital modes and phone need more space in the bandplans. But we must still preserve the incentive to upgrade with additional spectrum privileges at each license class.
Jim Laughter, W4EE Extra -- ARRL, I don't feel there is justification
at this point to change current novice frequencies. Your efforts to lower the
standards of amateur radio are not welcome at this member's home.
Melvin J. Morenz, N3EKZ General --Do away with "incentive licensing". Provide all Amateur frequencies to all Amateurs.
Larry Spinner, N2ICZ General -- I have a number of thoughts here (what
ham wouldn't) :) And I only speak for the code portion of the bands...that's
all I operate. I was first licensed as a novice in the early 1980's. The novice
portions of the bands were sort of a safe haven for me as I learned code and
basic operating procedure. My fear is that if we don't have a place for
"slow coders" or neophytes, it might turn away a number of hams who
are trying to get their feet wet on CW. I'm also concerned that if we
"homogenize" the Novice portions, then we run the risk of more RTTY
and PSK encroachment, thus striking another blow at CW... I think instead of
"refarming" the novice portions, simply "relabel" them.
Give the remaining novice and Tech pluses, privileges in just the general
portions of the bands. There are slow and fast CWers there all the time and
wouldn't scare the heck out of a neophyte. THEN set aside the already existing
novice portions and reallocate it for just digital operation and devote it to
psk and rtty... Or...make it QRP only! How terrific would that be. QRP is one
of the hottest commodities in ham radio today. Allow all license classes in
these portions BUT only allow QRP operation. I think more thought needs to go
into this. Otherwise I fear we'll lose more ranks in the CW areana.....
Gene Zimmerman, W3ZZ Extra -- The important part of this survey has nothing to do with novice/tech+ privileges. It is a chance to expand the overcrowded HF phone bands, which makes eminent sense now that cw is being strongly deemphasized worldwide. There is also no reason to restrict novice/tech+ cw privileges to their old boundaries.
Jeff Breitner, KA8NCR Advanced -- It's my belief that the extra CW portions should be converted to advanced/extra subbands. There is no secret that there's a steady decline in CW operators, and really there's little need for the "incentive" bandplans for CW -- either you work it or you don't. The CW ops have their own gentleman's bandplan in effect anyway, faster fists at the lower end of the band with slower operators moving up the band. However, it's my humble opinion that extra operators should be permitted to operate phone in all novice subbands. Because of the lightened code requirements, I would expect the general phone bands to see more congestion, and possibly a little more rowdy.
Louis Hodges, W9IL Extra -- I have indicated "no change" for any of the bands because I don't care for the available options. I believe that the Novice bands should be "refarmed," but I don't believe that we should be expanding General Class privileges without expanding the Extra class sub-bands. These proposals provide additional space for all classes, but the size of the sub-bands for Extras remains the same. Now that the Extra license is so easy to obtain, the number of Extra class licensees has increased dramatically and more exclusive space should be allocated. It is OK to expand the phone privileges for General and Advanced a little, but your expansion of General privileges is out of proportion to the others.
Fred Bonavita, K5QLF Extra --
1.
All frequencies below the existing Novice
subbands remain CW territory.
2. The Novice subbands are split 50-50 between digital and voice use, with the
expanded voice segment allocated to those with an Extra Class license. This
would be another, strong incentive to upgrade.
This simple, two-step approach would require not only FCC approval but would
mean a new "gentleman's agreement" that would keep digital
transmissions out of the CW portion of the bands where they now wreak havoc
regularly. I could not support a policy that deviated far from this. The fact
the FCC has said it would not entertain changes in the structure of Amateur
Radio without a clear "consensus" should give your committee extra
reason to consider carefully the full impact of what it recommends and whether,
as I pointed out earlier, you are fixing something that "ain't
broke."
In closing, I congratulate the spinmeister who coined "refarming" in
an attempt to make palatable the fact that existing privileges would be taken
from one group to benefit another - in this case, a reverse Robin Hood.
Anthony R Gargano, N2SS -- Despite the fact I am a 'big gun' DXer I think best use of these frequencies would be to allocate them for restricted power, digital mode operations. Digital modes would include digital audio. This accomplishes two things: in this era of RF environmental concerns we need to promote the use of less power and second, in this digital era we need to both promote the use of digital technology within the hobby and to develop new digital techniques (ala PSK31) to demonstrate our continued technology contribution.
Gunnar Carlson, AE4W -- I want no reduction of CW only frequencies. If you do not see enuff CW use take action to increase CW use. So far all I see is action to reduce or eliminate CW!
Thomas Russo, KM5VY Extra -- I am essentially in favor of granting novice and "coded technician" additional CW privileges, but not at the expense of CW bands for other licensees. Your 80 meter choices other than "leave it alone" all reduce the available CW frequencies. Where your plans widened the "novice" frequencies without expanding the phone part of the band I was content to consider the change.
Rick Burton, KC4WBE /7 General Y 1-25 1-25 51-75 4 4 4 3 Gentlemen,
1. Attracting children and youth into ham radio should be a serious priority.
Make them really welcome. The ARRL school project is a beginning. But I think
existing restrictions on Novice/Tech+ SSB and PSK-31 privileges are not fun
enough to retain them.
2. SSB DX whether across the US or the World is THE BIG THING to young boys. My
10 year old son KD7IVB, started as a Novice and is now a Tech+ who loves Field
Day etc, but is stuck on 10m. He really wants to upgrade to General, but at his
age is struggling with the General requirements. To keep from losing him, as
10m fades w/o sunspots, give him slivers of SSB and psk31 on 80/40/ and 15m.
QRP at least. FM repeater chat is not very interesting to him. He is part of
our Emergency Response group and checks in on our FM net, but that's about it.
3. Give young hams a small taste of the real stuff if you want to keep them
interested. By the time they are in high school and more able to deal with the
math etc of the General license, they are getting more interested in the fumes.
(cars and girls). My 14 and 18 year olds are there, and won't take the time to
try radio. I was a Novice back in 1967 in high school. Because of the
difficulty to upgrade, and the short (non-renewable) term of the ticket back
then, I fell out of ham radio for over twenty years. Where was the incentive in
that? I am convinced it is far better to give beginners small enduring slivers
of the real thing on all but maybe the warc bands. This may be the only way to
keep their interest long enough to get them upgraded. We should see the Tech+
as a desirable and growing license (sub)class. It is THE logical stepping stone
from tech to general for youth.
4. The FCC tells us to make a comprehensive plan, and warns us not to bring
piecemeal changes to them for rulemaking. In fact, I get the impression, they
really want to leave the breakdown of privileges inside our bands to us (if
only they could trust us not to melt down from the internal squabbles). Let's
earn that trust by doing this right the first time. I notice that all of the
Novice Committee proposals for 80/40/15m also affect General Class privileges.
As a General, I guess I should jump at the offer. But, I'd rather, if we are
going to address more than just novice/tech+ priveleges, (and I think we
should), then shouldn't we address digital modes and the whole nine yards?
5. It's time to address HF band plans as a whole. CW, Digital, SSB,
weak-signal, QRP, Beacons, Wide vs Narrow Band, Spread Spectrum,
Contesting/non-Contesting, DX/Ragchew/Nets, Experimental. Every few years, we
need to adjust the segments based on useage and to make places for new ideas.
PSK-31 is an excellent example of a new mode that asks for little space yet
returns much value. Other new modes should also respect the limited spectrum we
have, and not drive other modes off the air. Perhaps, some of the new
wideband/ss activity should start out on less-used segments of 220mhz and 160m
until they prove they can co-exist peacefully.
6. Since I voted OTHER in your survey, I owe you a counter-proposal, so here it
is (in principle if not in detail):
a) Novice subbands are not going away, they are being re-named
"Tech+", and need expanding into SSB and Digital. As a General, I'm
willing to share some of MY space with Tech+'s to help welcome them into HF and
get them upgraded. The remaining Novices retain existing privileges, until they
upgrade to Tech+. I recommend keeping the 200w limit in the Novice/Tech+ bands
to protect them from the big guns. There should even be QRP-only segments
inserted.
b)Advanced sub-bands really are going away (in 10 years except for renewals)
and I propose that most (if not all) of them be retained as Extra only. Giving
me and other Generals more incentive to upgrade. Perhaps some of this space can
be used for new experimental modes (w/o destroying the DX windows). c) Don't be
quick to take space from the CW bands at the top of the sunspot cycle. In a
very few years we will all remember how useful and fun they are. I loved 40m CW
when I was getting back into radio. Let's reclaim it from the broadcasters. If
it seems under-utilized, maybe illegal QRM is the main reason.
Brad Mugleston, KI0OT Extra -- I enjoy having a small section of the
bands designed for the NEW CW operator (call it what you want Novice, Tech+ or
NEW it's all the same). There needs to be someplace where a NEW operatior can
go to Learn the ropes. Now if I am in the NOVICE section of a band I know the
person on the other end may have very few if any QSO's under their belt and I
can be very forgiving. I know in some areas of the band the expected speed and
quality is enough to scare anyone away - even if those out there are willing to
go the extra mile and work anyone most people feel better knowing there is a
small section of Practice area to learn. By expanding the NOVICE section it no
longer exists as a practice area.
Jonathan Till, N7OCD General -- This was a hard one for me because I do
not work CW and do not know how the proposed CW changes will effect those that
use the mode. On the other hand I was glad to see that the proposed changes did
not reduce the SSB privileges for the Extra class license. In fact, depending
on the option chosen it increased it. I feel that those folks that have earned
the Extra license worked really hard for it and they deserve the band segments
that have been set aside for them. With the current 5wpm CW requirement I
suspect there will be more people using the phone segments of the HF bands. So
I chose options # 2 on the 80m, 40m, and 15m because that should allow more
room in the phone portions of those bands.
Randy Thompson, K5ZD Extra -- Why not have the 40m Phone band expand down to 7100 instead of just 7125?? Good luck! These proposals would be a much better utilization of available spectrum
Brian Wood, W0DZ Extra -- While I enjoy CW exclusively on HF, I know I
am a dwindling minority. The reality is that more phone band space is needed,
and it might as well come from the vast unused areas of the cw bands above 100
KHz from the bottom band edges.
However, I think we need some more incentives for people to try cw. True, it's not
going to be required after wrc2003 (probably), but it's still a fun aspect of
the hobby. Not sure how best to do this. Advanced licenses are also a fast
disappearing breed. I think maybe incentive licensing has served its purpose,
and it's time to go back to just two cw segments and phone segments for each
band. Continue to save the first 25 KHz of each band segment (cw and phone) for
Extras (there must be SOME advantage to getting the Extra!), but let everyone
use the rest. I can see the day when the first 25 KHz is for cw (all license
classes) and the rest is phone (all license classes). Heavy sigh.
Seth Koster, KC8ROE Tech -- Because the 6m band and above are so
limited in distance, it is hard to find someone to work code on it. I try daily
and have yet to make a code contact, even though I spend more time trying to
work code contacts than voice contacts! Consequently, I feel that 10m should
have some CW only area for Tech operators. This will accomplish two things:
1) New hams will experience some of the excitement of DX.
2) New hams will have much more opportunity and impetus to learn and use code.
While I am taking my code test soon (and element 3), I know many Techs who have
completely lost interest in amateur radio due to the limited bands open to us,
and the limitations of those bands.
William B Herstam, KM4P Extra -- Do what is best to encourage more people into amateur radio and to encourage the continuing use of cw.
Neil Collesidis, AA1SB Extra -- On 15, 20, and 80 the obvious choice of leaving all the phone bands as they are and allowing novices the general cw privilages was missing. I worry that the way that these selections were presented will sway votes towards sliding down the phone spectrum into the cw area, which I am very much against.
Dan, KB9W Extra -- I am not in favor of expanding the phone bands at
the expense of reducing the CW bands. I do feel that since the Novice and
Tech.+ have CW privileges already these CW privileges should be expanded for
them to mix them in more with other CW operaters. I don't think it would hurt
to give Novice operators back 2 meter phone privileges since it was open to
novices many years ago. With repeaters available to them they may get involved
more with local clubs and become more active amateurs on all bands and upgrade
their tickets with renewed interest.
Our CW bands are a treasure that should not be given up in favor of
spreading the phone bands with it's problems even wider. (example: 75 meter
phone in the evenings) I answered the questions options above to give the
Novice/Tech.+ more CW room to mix with other amateurs, not to expand the phone
bands.
Tim Duffy, K3LR Extra -- I think the 40 meter SSB Extra band should start at 7.100. (It should be 7.100 to 7.150 for Extras) I think the 15 meter SSB Extra band should start at 21.125. (It should be 21.125 to 21.175 for Extras) You should also suggest the 20 meter SSB Extra band start at 14.125. (14.125 to 14.175 should be Extra SSB only) The SSB Extra only segments should be 50 KHz wide, not 25 KHz. As there are MANY more Extras now (and lots more coming) and there will be no more Advanced class licenses issued, I don't understand why you suggest only 25 KHz Extra SSB bands.
Kyle D. Carr, KM5P Extra -- A reasonable increase in SSB modes without wiping out the CW/DIGITAL bands is warranted. Also NOVICE bands aligned with General CW bands is reasonable.
Tom McDermott, N5EG Extra -- The Novice frequencies allow the possibility of spectrum to experiment with future high-speed, wider bandwidth digital modes (digital-voice, digital-SSTV, data, etc.) Currently these have no home (narrow, low-speed data modes in the CW segments only). While this would require changes to FCC regulations regarding emission bandwidths and signalling rates, it's the only spectrum hams can use to move the state-of-the-art forward in this area. Witness the problem trying to get MFSK-16 started on 20 meters - "not in my backyard" wars erupted at 14.080 - effectively stunting a promising mode. Much of the Novice spectrum (and in fact the upper-portions of the CW spectrum) are almost unused, as the activity occupies the lower parts of the CW sub-bands traditionally. The phone bands need more room during contests, but surprisingly not as much anymore during non contest periods (a big change from 15 years ago). The restructuring of the Novice bands should consider the CW/Phone subbands as a whole, and allocate space for these experimental modes as well. The proposals in this survey are very incremental, and 15,20, and 40 meters should be rethought in order to make the spectrum more maximally usable (and thus, more maximally used!).
David J. Vest, K8DV Extra -- It is hard to beleive that not so many years ago, that you could not find a place anywhere in the novice band to call CQ. Today I sometimes tune through the novice band only to hear static coming from the speaker, not a signal to be heard. Sometimes I miss those days as a novice but I guess nothing remains the same. Opening the whole CW band up with the exception of the Extra subband is a fantastic idea, maybe it will help drive some activity on the bottom end of the bands. How many of us today, think as I do, some of the best times I had on Ham Radio was as a Novice.
Larry Esau, AD6W Foreign -- Even though I'm not now a user of digital modes on HF, I think we need generous dedicated subbands for digital modes, and I don't see that reflected in the survey. Reapportionment of the Novice CW subbands might be our best opportunity to create these digital subbands. The majority of future technical breakthroughs will probably occur in digital modulation. It's just a matter of time until narrow band digital modes on HF include digitally encoded phone conversations, and that will severely impact all digital users crammed together into a small space at the top of the CW subbands. Use of digitally-encoded phone operation will explode when that technology becomes mainstream, much as SSB did when it finally caught on. It will naturally create conflicts with pre-existing digital users until it becomes mainstream enough to be allowed into the existing phone subbands.
Bob Dunn, K5IQ Extra -- For years I have made special effort to operate in the Novice sub-bands in order to give newcomers, slow-speed operators, etc. a QSO. In the past few years I have largely met other Extra/Advanced operators doing the same thing, or often no one at all. The Novice sub-bands are largely under utilized.
Richard Miller, K1RDM Extra -- The CW requirement is a good
discriminator to ensure that only the truly initiated are granted broad HF
privileges. 5 words per minute, while a hurdle, is not terribly difficult. It
would be great to allow the technician class operators a portion of the 10
meter CW band where they could practice and hone their skills on the air. This
would be a learners permit of sorts for CW.
Marvin Bloomquist, N5AW Extra --Segregating novices/super techs to a little used portion of the CW band is counter productive in my opinion. Though basically a CW operqtor I believe the ham community would best be served by additional phone spectrum made available by doing away with the old novice frequencies.
Dave Dekker, KØERM General -- Being primarily a CW operator I would
hate to see the CW portion shrink but I have noticed, in the past couple of
years, that there is a definite lack of CW operators on the bands as compared
to a few years ago. The exception, of course, is during contests when some
really fine ops show their stuff. If the CW portion needed to be reduced
SLIGHTLY, I would have no objection. And that statement is from a real "CW
Nut".
Bill Thompson, N9BT Extra -- There should be a band plan that suggests a slower speed CW portion for new 5 wpm ops. Experienced ops should be encouraged to call CQ at 5-10 wpm in that area. This would give new ops a chance to get some practical experience with CW like we used to get as novices.
Joe Bushel, W2DWR Extra -- I am glad to see this subject being considered. We can't afford to waste band space with allocations which don't meet current needs. Thank you for the chance to express my opinion.
John Kennedy Larmon, K7TL Extra -- I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to any expansion of phone subbands at the expense of CW or other Digital modes. With the new popularity of PSK31, MT63, Throb, Hellschreiber and other new digital modes, as well as the renewed interest in RTTY, I think that we should be looking at a new digital mode bandplan. If anything, we should cut down the current phone bands... especially 80 meters, where all those congenital idiots congregate.
Douglas K. Ward, W9DCQ Extra -- I believe the current phone sub-bands should be retained as they are. Digital communications (including CW as the entry level for this mode)represent the cutting edge technology. AM and its variant, SSB, and FM are the outmoded technologies and should not be accorded more band space at the expense of digital modes including CW.
Phil Strack, N9PS Extra -- The gutting of the cw requirement is going to inevitably lead to an increase of activity in the Extra & Advanced portions of the phone bands. It makes sense to take some of the underutilized novice freqs, slide the phone bands down and increase the allocations for Extra & Advanced class licensees.
William M. McRay Jr, KG6EMW General -- When I first came into the hobby I wasn't interested in the code. To upgrade I had to learn it though. That was the best thing to happen to me. I perfer code before any digital modes. It was that little added boost to get me to understand what code is all about.I would really like to see it stay as a stepping stone to get into the HF bands and I'm sure many new comers will agree once they have learned the fun of code!
Daniel Ostroy, K2UL Extra -- The absolute WORST thing we could do is to
increase the size of the SSB segments. Let's focus on the digital technologies
of the 21st century and resist efforts to turn the ham bands into CB squawk
bands. I would also support the right of Novices and Tech+'s to use RTTY and
digital modes, in addition to CW, in their segments.
Robert E. Helms, AF5Z Extra -- I would like to see the bottom 25 KHZ of
ALL MF and HF bands be CW ONLY. That is, ALL other modes (including ALL forms
of digital or analog modulation except CW) be prohibited from these segments.
The widespread use of computer sound cards to generate poor quality signals has
seriously degraded weak signal reception in much of our present CW bands.
Second to this problem is the popularity of the Yaesu FT-1000MP with its CW key
clicks audible for several kilohertz either side of even an S9 signal.
Firestone had to recall tires - - I wish Yaesu had to recall all FT-1000MPs!
Carl W. Hickman, N5XE Extra -- Although I work mostly CW, I recognize
additional space is needed for SSB work, especially on 80 and 40 meters. Also,
it seems that activity in the current Novice CW band segments is somewhat
"inactive" (i.e., not very busy). This seems like a good
compromise....it allows additional phone band segments, and increases activity
on this area of the bands. I believe that additional band privileges should be
"earned" - not given. Allowing Novice and Tech-Plus ops full access
to the CW bands should not happen. This would keep an incentive for upgrading
in the licensing program.. I am glad to see the Extra portions of the bands
retained.
Walter Siddoway, KC7HPD General -- As a fairly new general class operator I enjoy all that we have at present, and do not feel changes are necessary at this time, maybe in the future. We need to focus on teaching those such as myself, and promote interest to our youth, instead of to many changes. Lets keep what we have.
Eric Scace, K3NA Extra -- I would prefer to see all USA phone bands aligned with the general practice of other countries wherever possible; e.g., USA phone privileges beginning at 3600, 7100, 14100, and 21100. While 20m is not a subject of this discussion, the principles of (a) simplifying intercontinental communications on voice, and (b) fully utilizing all the frequencies available to amateurs, can only improve our ability to serve the public good.
Dick Wilson, K6LRN Extra -- I believe the bottom ends of the voice bands should be kept intact. We need to be considerate of the countries around us that would only push their phone operators further and further into our CW/digital bands.
Anonymous -- Why is the ARRL so adamant against phone. Open up that
unused spectrum to alleviate the overcrowding of the 'phone bands. In all
honesty, I think you should be shooting for pre-war spectrum to get rid of the
overcrowding on the bands, 'phone bands in particular. Those 40K or so novice
licensees can upgrade if they really want to stay on the air. I think all
novice licenses should just expire at the end of there current license term.
Upgrading under the VEC method is so easy there is no excuse not to.
John Thomason, K5VG Extra -- Although I am primarily a CW user, I do not believe that the CW and phone segments are equitably distributed between the two modes. Therefore, I tend to lean toward solutions that provide more SSB space. We have plenty of space for CW-only activities.
Rik Stallings, N7XZ Extra -- Although I am an Extra, I operate CW almost exclusively within the Novice subbands as the code speed in the rest of the bands is much too high for me to copy. I wouldn't care so much what happens with the Novice sub-bands if a "slow code" section could be added to the band plan. Even though I don't operate CW as much as other modes I do not support any reduction in the CW-only sub-bands.
Don Kerouac, K9NR Extra -- While I have mixed feelings about handing out unearned spectrum, I think that wider exposure to CW operation is vital to the future of this important mode in light of the instant gratification codeless license. Consequently I endorse additional Novice/Tech+ bandwidth in the CW bands.
Courtney Duncan, N5BF/6
Extra -- One must realize that there is no longer any power in the tiny
gradations of HF incentives. All of the choices you give maintain a privilege
distinction between General, Advanced, and Extra which should be eliminated in
the same spirit of simplification by which Novice and Advanced class licenses
are no longer issued.
Here is what I recommend:
Above 30 MHz, all licenses except Novice have all amateur privileges. (No
change.)
Below 30 MHz, Novice and Tech Plus have all CW bands (including 30, 20, 17,
12), limited to 250 watts. General and above have all amateur privileges. Non-phone bands are reduced to 1/3 or less
of the whole band. For example, 3500-3600 and 7000-7100 non-phone. 3600-4000
and 7100-7300 phone. Data modes besides CW to be counted as non-phone and
shared by agreement rather than regulation. There are no longer any Extra or
Advanced sub-bands. There is no need for an exclusive gathering place or
special access for these classes.
The Extra class license is distinct because of its special VE status and
callsign access only.
General, Advanced and Extra have all amateur privileges. The realization that
drives this is that there are now two major categories of amateurs and three
licenses. The two categories are VHF and above "local users" for
which the Technician license is provided, and those who do something more,
typically but not exclusively HF. General class is for these who are more
serious. Extra is for the leadership but there is no need to segregate them on
the air. The days when someone aspired to upgrade just to attain access to 3510
are long gone.
An intermediate step from "local user" to "everything" is
Technician with Morse credit. This still provides a little CW incentive and
oppportunity for practice. The current system of little sub-bands all over HF
over emphasizes HF, over complicates the allocations, burdens the licensing and
regulatory processes, and presumes an appeal to upgraders that is just as out-
dated as the long-gone crowds in the Novice bands are. If we're really going to
re-farm the Novice bands and/or re-arrange all the bands, we need to do it with
modern realities in mind. We must really learn
to stop redrawing the same old charts with slightly different boundaries and to
re-plan our allocations from a new perspective.
William Evans, VE4UD Foreign -- I am particularly concerned about 80m and any move to extend US phone operations below 3750 KHz. That would have major deleterious impacts on Canadian nets and phone operations in the band 3725 - 3750 KHz, likely causing Canadian stations on phone to move below 3700 KHz. Maybe the no-code (which is also no-digital) group would not be bothered about this, but there is lots of phone spectrum on 75/80m. Re 40m, I am already concerned at phone excursions below 7100 into precious digital and cw spectrum. Digital use is growing and phone really interferes. Much of this operation is Canadian - new hams who don't appreciate the worldwide importance of the precious 7000 - 7100 band for non-phone modes. I would rather see the US authorities open up 7100-7150 to digital modes. I operate above 7150 when on phone and use the novice band for cw frequently. I realize the BC interference is a problem on 40m for phone, but its not that bad. We need a realignment of usage in the entire 6800 - 7300 KHz area, but that is a WRC issue.
Gerard Jendraszkiewicz, KE9I Extra -- 40 & 80/75 have long needed
to be reorganized ! Its nice to see the league finally asking the membership in
general for their input ! Lets get it done !!!
Patrick Barkey, N9RV Extra -- 80 meters: I favor the status quo except that the extra class band should be expanded down to 3725. 40/15 meters: Your survey seems to very little to say about dealing with the novice band. If that were your aim, you would have selections that would expand the phone band down in frequency, as was the case with your 80 meter choices. Rather, you seem to offer a menu of ways to expand general class privileges. Why do you label it as a proposal for disposition of the novice bands? 10 meters: I think it would be good to promote any kind of amateur presence on 10 meters, particularly on the low end of the CW band, as a means of combatting the freebanders who are an epidemic!
Jon Ogden, NA9D Extra -- The biggest thing that should be lifted from the novice segments is the power restriction to 200 Watts.
Tom Schwinn, W4NBS Extra --
Allowing SSB for novices/techs between 28.300-28.500 definitely
increased activity. Although I prefer CW, I am willing to sacrifice some of the
lesser used CW freqs to accommodate the more popular mode (SSB). I would rather
have hams of varying licenses and experience populating our bands as opposed to
the CB community. So, on 10 meters I would support opening the whole band with
only mode restrictions to all license classes in the hopes of increasing 10
meter activity. In fact, I would go as far as to drop the lower SSB limit from
28.300 to 28.250.
Michael Dinelli, N9BOR Extra -- This "survey" is invalid as it was intended to be. The introduction paints a picture as to the desired outcome. The sidebar committee note is a further example of leading the respondent. It is appalling that the ARRL that claims to represent member interests would conduct a "survey" in this manner.
Caitlyn Martin, KU4QD Extra -- I disagree with the
premise behind the above suggestions altogether. Why should there be Novices
and Tech Plusses for the forseeable future? The General class written exam is
far less technically involved than it once was. The Novices and Tech Plusses
should be grandfathered in to the General class, and these licenses should be
phased out.
My recommended band plans are something like this:
Bottom of each band to bottom +25kc: Extra CW -- no digital modes
Bottom +25 to +50: Extra/General CW -- no digital modes
10, 15, 20, 75/80 meters:
Bottom +50 to bottom +150 -- Extra/General CW & digital
+150 to +200 -- Extra phone
+200 to top of band -- General/Extra phone
40 meters only:
7.050-7.075 General/Extra digital/CW
7.075-7.125 Extra phone (DX window)
7.125-7.300 General/Extra phone
This plan respect the fact that most ham operation is now SSB and digital, not
CW. It creates a haven for CW ops free from interference from digital modes. It
gives additional incentive to upgrade from General to Extra, especially on 40m.
The choices the ARRL Board of Directors offers above are backwards-looking, and
not reflective of the likely future of the hobby. I would like to think that
the Board can recognize that their mission is not to preserve the past; it is
to promote the hobby so that it grows in the future.
Glenn O'Donnell, K3PP Extra -- The current restrictions on Novice class spectrum in the HF bands not only limits HF enjoyment for Novice and Tech-Plus licensees, but it severely restricts other uses of that spectrum. The expansions proposed will benefit all US hams.
J.P. Finn, K4JPF Extra -- While I am NOT opposed to meaningful change I can't help but observe that the sort of outlines presented can only serve to reduce any meaningful incentive to upgrade. The benefits accompanying the extra class license aren't that extensive as it is. Extending operating privileges as suggested only serves to diminish them more.
Thomas M. Renegar, K3UE Extra -- I am vehemently opposed to extending any more spectrum or privileges to Novices and/or Tech Plus hams. I was opposed to dropping the required Morse Code rates and I cannot see how Novices or Tech Plus operators would have any incentive to progress to a higher class license class when they already nearly have it all. If the trend to extend more and more privileges for less proven competence in electronics, Morse, and other digital modes as well as knowledge of FCC rules continues, then why bother to hsve any amateur radio operator test and license system. Just go buy a rig and an antenna and have at it. The ham bands will rapidly become clones of the "hidden band" between 10 meters and the CB band.
Russell Kleinman, WA5Y Extra -- I am totally alarmed at the bias in this survey...all the options seem to be a frequency grab for phone ops. I am a CW op, and it looks like all these options represent a shrinking of CW freqs or an expansion of phone freqs. The ARRL stands to lose considerable support if this kind of bias becomes standard operating policy.
Scott Sherratt, N6VB Extra -- Most of your proposals shrink the Advanced & Extra phone privileges. I support increasing the phone portions of the band slightly, but I do not support expanding the General Class phone band at the expense of the exclusive Advanced & Extra phone band. In doing so, you also decrease the incentive to upgrade.
Roger Simpson, NQ6C Extra -- I dont think this re-farming is a big deal one way or the other. However, I think that Extras should still have some tangible exclusive band portion on the major bands since the Extra is higher than the other classes. So I don't favor farming out the extra-only segment on 10m.
Ward Silver, N0AX Extra -- I have always felt that Novices (and all
entry licenses) should be given privileges that overlap with the most popular
segments, albeit with lesser power. This would greatly assist their integration
with the rest of the ham community. Also, phone expansion would by far be the
best use of the Novice sub-allocations.
Stephen Sarasohn, W2ZR Extra -- Hi, I don't see the importance of
expanding the Novice sub-bands. There will be no new Novice licenses issued and
we're supposed to be encouraging the Novices to upgrade, not give them more
reasons to stay Novices. I don't see any crowding of the General sub-bands
since the code speed was reduced to 5 wpm though that may change in the future.
The only change I see of value is expanding the 40m phone sub-band, making it
easier to dodge the foreign broadcast stations. If we can move the 40m ham band
to 6.9 to 7.2 worldwide at WARC 2003, that will become moot.
Timothy M. Ford, KD5ITM Tech Plus -- Hi my name is Timothy M. Ford KD5ITM (age 19) Been a ham for almost 2 years. Just passed my 5 WPM exam on July 14 2001 and I try to spend at least 30 min. each night (aprx. 2 to 3 hours) and I like CW. I dont want to chang the band plan because if you give the Tec w/ HF more of the band to use then I think that that would make it to where they would not be in a rush to get a higher class of license. I still think that to become an Extra you should have to pass like a 10 WPM exam.
Ricky L. Whitford, KC2DWZ Tech -- I would like to see
the technician class license include the 10 mtr novice phone privelegs. My
reasons are as follows:
1. With technician's such as my son and I having more of a DX capablity might
spark the needed interest into upgrading ones license.
2. I have a freind who is a novice who had all but let his license expire. I
sparked his interest and covinced him he should renew his ticket. He made a
comment to me that he has no one to talk to on the 1.25 mtr band. By giving the
technician the novice phone privileges it would give the novice two places in
the amateur spectrum that he/she could make phone contacts.
3. If the novice phone privileges were extended to the technician it would
allow me to stay in daily contact with my son who will be in college soon.
Sid George, AB5XU Extra -- I think that CW should be made an endorsement to a license, not a reqirement for a license. If the ARRL continues to ask members who have had to work very hard to pass the current code test, if they think future members should have to pass the same test - then the vast majority of the members will have the the opinion that since they had to pass that 50+ year old requirement so should everyone else. This hobby has become very inbred. It is a static hobby in a dynamic world and it is losing membership and popularity. It is not keeping up with the times. Who needs Ham Radio for emergencies when everyone has a cell phone? Not only should CW be made an endorsement, so should all other digital forms of communication. The ARRL needs to take some dynamic leaderships on this subject or this hobby will continue on the decline.
Roy S. Hradilek, AD5Q Extra -- I think it is very important that wherever possible, unused spectrum be given to the digital modes. These modes are currently encroaching down toward the lower ends of the CW bands, instead of moving upwards into the novice bands. They need a place of their own. With the ARRL promoting the digital modes so heavily in every issue of QST, with almost no mention of CW except in a QRP context, the CW bands are being overrun by digital ops.
Ed Eyerdom, K8NVR Extra -- I am a new ham licensed in Feb, 2000. I love CW but I am in the minority and too much CW spectrum is unused, especially on 80 & 15. I voted for the greatest expansion of priveleges on all bands. We need to promote this hobby and use all of our frequencies to the fullest, or risk losing them.
Tom McCulloch, WB2QDG General -- Thanks for soliciting the opinion of
the membership. Anything that approaches "squaring off" the band allocations
is an improvement as far as I'm concerned (that is giving as much of the
frequencies to all license classes as is possible) I suppose it's time to let
go, but quite frankly I'm still pretty upset about the losses many of us
"amateurs" took as a result of incentive licensing, back in the
sixties. I'm a CPA, not an electrical engineer, so don't punish us who don't
spend all day over a soldering iron. This is a hobby, not a profession, or an
obsession.
Arthur Harris, N2AH Extra -- Convert the Novice bands entirely into
RTTY/Data bands. I feel strongly that the phone bands should NOT be expanded at
all at the expense of the CW/RTTY/Data segments. I WOULD favor Novice and Tech
Plus licensees having full General Class CW privileges.
Peter C. Albright, AA2AD Extra -- I have earned the
right to an opinion on the basis of being licensed for the majority of my 49
years, having upgraded to Extra ten years ago, operating mostly CW (but some
phone) in the HF bands, and actively recruiting, training and testing new hams.
I base my opinions on the following logic:
1. Although I am a pretty hard-core cw enthusiast, I don't expect that we will
ever need MORE cw subband than we presently have. We will, however, certainly
need more spectrum allocated to digital modes. I therefore vote for keeping the
cw/DIGITAL bands as large as possible.
2. The subbands reserved for higher class licensees are under-utilized, which
suggests that they do not create a strong incentive to upgrade. I know that my
own reasons for upgrading to Extra didn't have much to do with earning extra
spectrum. As long as there is enough space reserved for cw and DIGITAL modes,
go ahead and give everybody as much phone spectrum as possible. Reducing the
amound of spectrum reserved for Advance and Extra class licensees will
effectively give more spectrum to the average phone user.
3. Consistent with the spirit of the above, I vote that we give cw neophytes
the largest piece of cw spectrum possible. This will make it much easier for
them to hook up with the hams who have been using CW for years. These hams are,
in my experience, the most gracious and courteous hams of all.
Fred Wagner, KQ6Q Extra -- Let's encourage CW as a stress-reducing art form, as well as a communications medium. I find PSK31 to be more exciting, less relaxing, but quite challenging to stay on top of my computer, using the memories - CW is the ultimate in simplicity, kind of like fly fishing! Getting the Novices and Tech plus into the mainstream CW sub-bands is a great idea - there are few enough people on CW, the Novices and Tech Pluses need to be able to work everybody else who is ON CW - even though I'm an extra, I generally work above the extra sub-band, in the QRP general segment. Good work on preparing the proposal. The CW and PSK31 folks use spectrum very efficiently, and the Phone subbands will also be used for SSTV and such, so more spectrum will be well used there. Nice work!
Doug Bender, WW6D Extra -- You may be surprised to see my survey selections from a "CW op". But my feeling is that the primary mode most hams use, and the public can relate to, is SSB/phone. Also, considering the bandwidth required for SSB vs. CW, and because today's modern receivers allow much better selectivity for the CW op (and RTTY/PSK31 for that matter), less spectrum is needed for the CW/Digital modes. Thanks for conducting this survey!
Kay Craigie, WT3P Extra --It is essential to keep ample spectrum available for narrow-band modes, i.e., modes other than SSB voice. Once we turn spectrum over to SSB voice, which is darn near as much of an antique as CW, we can never get it back for innovative modes, because too many people would bellow that they're being deprived of privileges. There is enough spectrum for SSB yakking now. It's not a question of preserving spectrum for dear old CW, much as I enjoy CW. Rather, as *new* narrow-band modes emerge, we must have enough spectrum for them, so operators on CW and the various new digital modes will not be QRMing each other all the time and causing hostility. Permitting voice on larger segments of the HF bands is NOT progressive spectrum management! It does not facilitate experimentation. It does not give us any more ammunition in the battle to protect our access to spectrum. I see nothing wrong with giving Novice and Tech Plus people more CW spectrum, not that they're going to use it! But let's think of the old Novice/Tech Plus CW segments as an area where digital modes can supply activity where now there is mostly silence.
KD5FNV Extra -- I learned to copy CW by listening to the slower novice operators. When restructuring took place and CW speed requirement was reduced, it was sad to find how those band segments had been vacated. Generally, I'm in favor of allowing novice operators to mingle with seasoned higher class operators across a larger spectrum. This will increase their code speed, number of contacts, and therefore their interest to upgrade and participate in amateur radio. As it is now, they have only very quiet parts of the spectrum that could be better used for expanded phone spectrum. I am also in favor of more exclusive Extra class phone spectrum as an incentive to upgrade.
Sam Neal, N5AF Extra -- This is long overdue and I believe the outcome will be for the overall betterment of amateur radio.
Louis House, KD5GM (From email). It is my opinion, first, that CW operations are still very much important to many in the Amateur ranks. There are a number of Slow Speed (ARRL NTS Affiliated) training nets that are every day/evening of the week on the 80 meter band. The one that I manage is the Texas Slow Net on 3719 kHz meeting at 8:00 PM CDT. This net has been active for more than 20 years now and like many other training nets has been a proving ground for many operators who work the NTS nets both CW and phone. I really fail to see how reallocating the novice subbands on any of the HF bands will make an improvement for the use of phone operations. If a 50 kHz segment is reallocated for phone use, the number of conversations that could take place at one time would only be 16, if the many operators would honor a 3 kHz spacing. Which they won't.