[Boatanchors] I agree

[Bry Carling AF4K]

Dear David,

I echo all of the sentiments below. I think that in retrospect, it was a huge 
mistake to 
take away so much CW spectrum from the General Class CW operators on 80m.

I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion of WINLINK / PACTOR and any 
other UNATTENDED digital mode operations on our HF bands! They cause QRM 
and are a nuisance no matter what is done to claim that they have been cleaned 
up!

Many of my ham friends and I confess to having missed the April 2015 QST 
article 
and your It Seems to Us page in the September 2015 issue. These articles 
discuss 
proposed changes to accommodate digital modes, while eliminating or reducing 
extra 
class phone privileges on 80 meters. Many of us have now been awakened to the 
ARRL´s conclusions and the proposed recommendations to its executive committee, 
and to the FCC. And while the door may be closed to the initial polling (only 
1,000 
respondents), we nevertheless feel the need for clarification, and if necessary 
an 
appeal for a reconsideration of these ARRL´s proposals.
First, this may be simply a matter of clarification. I read, and then re-read 
both the 
September and April articles several times. I can find no assurance that the 
proposal 
would provide that the remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be retained for 
the 
exclusive use of Amateur Extra Class licensees. While this may be merely an 
oversight, the absence of this assurance seems suspicious. A clear statement in 
your 
recap like "while the extra class phone exclusivity will be reduced by 50 kHz, 
the 
3650-3700 segment will be protected for the exclusive use of holders of Amateur 
Extra Class licensees," would have eliminated much anxiety. Would you please 
clarify this via email and through QST as soon as possible.
Next, many of us earned extra class licenses through hard work and devotion to 
the 
hobby. I earned mine shortly after incentive licensing was introduced in the 
1970s. 
Incentive licensing is, in my opinion, one of the ARRL´s most significant 
initiatives. 
I was very proud to be awarded my new license, the extra band operating 
privileges, 
and the right to request special call signs. Many of us I am sure had the 
feeling that 
we were in the top of the class! Today of course, some of these hard earned 
"extras" 
have either disappeared or made available to a broader base of hams without 
that 
extra effort. Then there is the dropping of the 20 WPM code requirement, and 
the 
code requirement completely, etc., which further eroded the 
merit-based/privilege 
system that incentive licensing had launched. Moreover, remember that many of 
us 
are in our 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and so on, and we continually hear about the 
erosion of 
our other hard-earned rights in other areas of life (Social Security, Medicare, 
Veteran´s benefits, etc.).
My recent posting to the qrz.com posting on this subject Friday rapidly became 
a 
popular topic. And discussions on nets to which I belong and among club members 
proved that many extras class licensees were totally unaware of these 
proposals. I 
have also received an extraordinary number of private emails since Friday 
questioning the ARRL´s motives, and the protection of our operating privileges.
So David, would you kindly send your reply to me (via email) as soon as 
possible 
addressing the above points? Please address these specific questions:
1. Is it true that the ARRL proposal will protect exclusive Amateur Extra Class 
80 
meter phone frequencies (either 3650-3750, or even 3650-3700) and thus add that 
specific language to this proposal? And if not, why not?
2. Will you reopen this issue for further input now that a wider audience has 
had the 
time to become informed? (As of noon today, Sunday, there have been nearly 
12,000 
views on the qrz.com forum.)
3. When is the ARRL Executive Committee supposed to take this matter up, and 
where do we find a listing of the members of this committee?
Thank you for your time, David. And thank you for the many fine things you and 
the 
ARRL do for our hobby.
Respectfully,
73,

Brian Carling, Af4K
___
Boatanchors mailing list
Boatanchors@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors

[Boatanchors] historical question who many running CW compared to the 60s?

[Ed Sharpe via Boatanchors]

historical question :How many operators are running CW now compared to  the 
60s?  numbers? percentage?   I am curious.
Ed Sharpe Archivist  for SMECC 



In a message dated 11/29/2015 7:14:43 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
boatanchors@puck.nether.net writes:

The ARRL  has been, seemingly, pushing for more WINLINK / PACTOR 
availability for some  time.  One speculation is that they hope to increase 
membership 
through  more boat, and yacht, owners getting licenses specifically for 
operating using  those modes because they do not want to have to pay for 
Internet access using  considerably more expensive commercial links.  Of 
course, 
being able to  afford, and to operate, such watercraft usually requires a 
substantial  investment and yet those same people don't want to spend any money 
to be able  to use the Internet while on the water.  Then, again, amateur 
radio  operators also have a reputation as to being "cheap" and, I suppose, 
boat /  yacht owners are no different where money is concerned!
Although the ARRL  does not normally make the actual number of members 
public, if one takes a  look at the mailing notice that has to be published, 
periodically, that is in  small print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy to 
get a pretty good idea as  to the number of members.  
For some time, the ARRL has "pushed"  EMCOMM to get new members to replace 
other members who have abandoned the ARRL  and, it seems, that they are 
doing the same thing with boat owners.
I  abandoned the ARRL some time back because they have long stopped 
supporting  what I believe the direction that amateur radio should take.  Since 
I 
am  not an ARRL member, I do not comment on the internal workings of that  
organization.  However, when the ARRL submits petitions to the FCC, or  even 
when they are proposing such, that affects the entire amateur radio  
population then I definitely do have the right to comment!
Several years  ago, the ARRL submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded 
WINLINK / PACTOR  operations that they retracted after quite an uprising 
within the membership.  It appears that they might be trying it again.
I realize that thing  are changing and have been changing for some time 
during the over 56-years  that I have been licensed and some of those changes 
have been for the good of  amateur radio and some have not been good for 
amateur radio.  However, I  definitely believe in doing everything possible to 
stop changes that are  definitely not in the best interests of the Amateur 
Radio  Service.
Glen, K9STH 
Website: http://k9sth.net


From: Bry Carling AF4K 
To:  k...@arrl.net 
Cc: flboatanch...@yahoogroups.com; tetr...@googlegroups.com;  
novice-r...@mailman.qth.net; amra...@mailman.qth.net;  
arizona...@yahoogroups.com; 
dcboatanch...@mailman.qth.net;  carolinahams...@yahoogroups.com; 
boatanchors@puck.nether.net
Sent: Sunday,  November 29, 2015 4:46 PM
Subject: [Glowbugs] I agree

Dear David,
I echo all of the sentiments below. I think that in  retrospect, it was a 
huge mistake to take away so much CW spectrum from the  General Class CW 
operators on 80m.
I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion  of WINLINK / PACTOR and any other 
UNATTENDED digital mode operations on our HF  bands! They cause QRM and are 
a nuisance no matter what is done to claim that  they have been cleaned up!
Many of my ham friends and I confess to having  missed the April 2015 QST 
article and your It Seems to Us page in the  September 2015 issue. These 
articles discuss proposed changes to accommodate  digital modes, while 
eliminating or reducing extra class phone privileges on  80 meters. Many of us 
have 
now been awakened to the ARRL’s conclusions and the  proposed recommendations 
to its executive committee, and to the FCC. And while  the door may be 
closed to the initial polling (only 1,000 respondents), we  nevertheless feel 
the need for clarification, and if necessary an appeal for a  reconsideration 
of these ARRL’s proposals.First, this may be simply a matter  of 
clarification. I read, and then re-read both the September and April  articles 
several 
times. I can find no assurance that the proposal would  provide that the 
remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be retained for the  exclusive use of 
Amateur Extra Class licensees. While this may be merely an  oversight, the 
absence of this assurance seems suspicious. A clear statement  in your recap 
like “while the extra class phone exclusivity will be reduced by  50 kHz, the 
3650-3700 segment will be protected for the exclusive use of  holders of 
Amateur Extra Class licensees,” would have eliminated much anxiety.  Would you 
please clarify this via email and through QST as soon as  possible.Next, 
many of us earned extra class licenses through hard work and  devotion to the 
hobby. I earned mine shortly after incentive licensing was  introduced in the 
1970s. Incentive licensing is, in my opinion, one of the  ARRL’s most 

Re: [Boatanchors] [Glowbugs] I agree

[Glen Zook via Boatanchors]

The ARRL has been, seemingly, pushing for more WINLINK / PACTOR availability 
for some time.  One speculation is that they hope to increase membership 
through more boat, and yacht, owners getting licenses specifically for 
operating using those modes because they do not want to have to pay for 
Internet access using considerably more expensive commercial links.  Of course, 
being able to afford, and to operate, such watercraft usually requires a 
substantial investment and yet those same people don't want to spend any money 
to be able to use the Internet while on the water.  Then, again, amateur radio 
operators also have a reputation as to being "cheap" and, I suppose, boat / 
yacht owners are no different where money is concerned!
Although the ARRL does not normally make the actual number of members public, 
if one takes a look at the mailing notice that has to be published, 
periodically, that is in small print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy to 
get a pretty good idea as to the number of members.  
For some time, the ARRL has "pushed" EMCOMM to get new members to replace other 
members who have abandoned the ARRL and, it seems, that they are doing the same 
thing with boat owners.
I abandoned the ARRL some time back because they have long stopped supporting 
what I believe the direction that amateur radio should take.  Since I am not an 
ARRL member, I do not comment on the internal workings of that organization.  
However, when the ARRL submits petitions to the FCC, or even when they are 
proposing such, that affects the entire amateur radio population then I 
definitely do have the right to comment!
Several years ago, the ARRL submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded 
WINLINK / PACTOR operations that they retracted after quite an uprising within 
the membership.  It appears that they might be trying it again.
I realize that thing are changing and have been changing for some time during 
the over 56-years that I have been licensed and some of those changes have been 
for the good of amateur radio and some have not been good for amateur radio.  
However, I definitely believe in doing everything possible to stop changes that 
are definitely not in the best interests of the Amateur Radio Service.
Glen, K9STH 
Website: http://k9sth.net


  From: Bry Carling AF4K 
 To: k...@arrl.net 
Cc: flboatanch...@yahoogroups.com; tetr...@googlegroups.com; 
novice-r...@mailman.qth.net; amra...@mailman.qth.net; 
arizona...@yahoogroups.com; dcboatanch...@mailman.qth.net; 
carolinahams...@yahoogroups.com; boatanchors@puck.nether.net
 Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:46 PM
 Subject: [Glowbugs] I agree
   
Dear David,
I echo all of the sentiments below. I think that in retrospect, it was a huge 
mistake to take away so much CW spectrum from the General Class CW operators on 
80m.
I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion of WINLINK / PACTOR and any other 
UNATTENDED digital mode operations on our HF bands! They cause QRM and are a 
nuisance no matter what is done to claim that they have been cleaned up!
Many of my ham friends and I confess to having missed the April 2015 QST 
article and your It Seems to Us page in the September 2015 issue. These 
articles discuss proposed changes to accommodate digital modes, while 
eliminating or reducing extra class phone privileges on 80 meters. Many of us 
have now been awakened to the ARRL’s conclusions and the proposed 
recommendations to its executive committee, and to the FCC. And while the door 
may be closed to the initial polling (only 1,000 respondents), we nevertheless 
feel the need for clarification, and if necessary an appeal for a 
reconsideration of these ARRL’s proposals.First, this may be simply a matter of 
clarification. I read, and then re-read both the September and April articles 
several times. I can find no assurance that the proposal would provide that the 
remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be retained for the exclusive use of 
Amateur Extra Class licensees. While this may be merely an oversight, the 
absence of this assurance seems suspicious. A clear statement in your recap 
like “while the extra class phone exclusivity will be reduced by 50 kHz, the 
3650-3700 segment will be protected for the exclusive use of holders of Amateur 
Extra Class licensees,” would have eliminated much anxiety. Would you please 
clarify this via email and through QST as soon as possible.Next, many of us 
earned extra class licenses through hard work and devotion to the hobby. I 
earned mine shortly after incentive licensing was introduced in the 1970s. 
Incentive licensing is, in my opinion, one of the ARRL’s most significant 
initiatives. I was very proud to be awarded my new license, the extra band 
operating privileges, and the right to request special call signs. Many of us I 
am sure had the feeling that we were in the top of the class! Today of course, 
some of these hard earned “extras” have either disappeared or made available to 

Re: [Boatanchors] historical question who many running CW compared to the 60s?

[Glen Zook via Boatanchors]

Interestingly enough, the number of people who are now actually learning the 
International Morse code is increasing even though a working knowledge of the 
code is no longer required.  However, at least when listening to the bands, the 
actual percentage of operators using CW, as opposed to using SSB, is quite 
small.  Of course, on one of the few weekends during the year, when there is a 
major CW contest, like this weekend, the usage is considerable.  But, after 
Z this evening, the number of signals dropped to almost zero!

Remembering back to the 1960s, if I am remembering correctly, the actual number 
of CW stations operating, at any 1 time, was considerably more than what it is 
today.

Of course, in those "goode olde dayes", considering the average wages of 
people, equipment was considerably more expensive in terms of percentage of 
wages.  Back then, CW equipment was often barely affordable, by most amateur 
radio operators, AM transmitters were expensive, and, until at least around 
1966, SSB equipment was, generally, VERY expensive.

Of course, low powered AM equipment, like the Heath DX-40 and DX-60, were not 
that expensive.  But, especially on 80, 40, and 20-meters, after dark, when the 
"big boys" came on, those with the low powered equipment went to CW or stopped 
operating completely.  Today, when inflation is taken into consideration, and 
the effective purchasing power of money is considered, equipment is dirt cheap! 
 One can get, today, a 100-watt SSB, AM, FM, CW HF transceiver for quite a bit 
less than what a 100-watt output AM / CW transmitter cost, in equivalent 
purchasing power, in the 1960s and that equipment is light years ahead in terms 
of performance. 
Glen, K9STH 

Website: http://k9sth.net
  From: "couryho...@aol.com" 
 To: gz...@yahoo.com; bcarl...@cfl.rr.com 
Cc: boatanchors@puck.nether.net; tetr...@googlegroups.com; 
novice-r...@mailman.qth.net
 Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 8:54 PM
 Subject: historical question who many running CW compared to the 60s?
   
 historical question :How many operators are running CW now compared to the 
60s?  numbers? percentage?   I am curious.Ed Sharpe Archivist  for SMECC 

 
___
Boatanchors mailing list
Boatanchors@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors

Re: [Boatanchors] [Glowbugs] I agree

[Wilson]

I think we should all belong to and support ARRL.
Agree with everything or not, they are far and away our best lifeline and 
guardian.
Dropping out over an issue is petty.  They can't please everyone all the 
time!
Pactor may have some EMCOMM use, but I consider its boater use a scourge and 
antithetical to "real" ham operation.
Routine use on boats (or anywhere) is contrary to all stated ham principles. 
There's no techie involvement and no goodwill generation.
The exam is a joke and everyone on the boat will likely use it, ham or not. 
Just buy it, pay someone to install it, and use "our" spectrum.
Sure, it can be another digi mode for hams, but pushing it out to consumers 
is nuts.

So let's get some cards and letters going to the right places.
Wilson
W4BOH
Also getting old

-Original Message- 
From: Glen Zook via Boatanchors

Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 9:14 PM
To: bcarl...@cfl.rr.com
Cc: boatanchors@puck.nether.net ; tetr...@googlegroups.com ; 
novice-r...@mailman.qth.net

Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] [Glowbugs] I agree

The ARRL has been, seemingly, pushing for more WINLINK / PACTOR availability 
for some time.  One speculation is that they hope to increase membership 
through more boat, and yacht, owners getting licenses specifically for 
operating using those modes because they do not want to have to pay for 
Internet access using considerably more expensive commercial links.  Of 
course, being able to afford, and to operate, such watercraft usually 
requires a substantial investment and yet those same people don't want to 
spend any money to be able to use the Internet while on the water.  Then, 
again, amateur radio operators also have a reputation as to being "cheap" 
and, I suppose, boat / yacht owners are no different where money is 
concerned!
Although the ARRL does not normally make the actual number of members 
public, if one takes a look at the mailing notice that has to be published, 
periodically, that is in small print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy 
to get a pretty good idea as to the number of members.
For some time, the ARRL has "pushed" EMCOMM to get new members to replace 
other members who have abandoned the ARRL and, it seems, that they are doing 
the same thing with boat owners.
I abandoned the ARRL some time back because they have long stopped 
supporting what I believe the direction that amateur radio should take. 
Since I am not an ARRL member, I do not comment on the internal workings of 
that organization.  However, when the ARRL submits petitions to the FCC, or 
even when they are proposing such, that affects the entire amateur radio 
population then I definitely do have the right to comment!
Several years ago, the ARRL submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded 
WINLINK / PACTOR operations that they retracted after quite an uprising 
within the membership.  It appears that they might be trying it again.
I realize that thing are changing and have been changing for some time 
during the over 56-years that I have been licensed and some of those changes 
have been for the good of amateur radio and some have not been good for 
amateur radio.  However, I definitely believe in doing everything possible 
to stop changes that are definitely not in the best interests of the Amateur 
Radio Service.

Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.net




___
Boatanchors mailing list
Boatanchors@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors