Some of us choose to go with the faster CWID, coupled with very short courtesy tones, no "shelf" time and very short hang times to further reduce the duty cycle of our portable event/disaster repeaters...
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Paul Plack <[email protected]> wrote: > "...Information other then the callsign can be sent at any speed..." > > "...Interesting how different controllers/ID boards seem to have different > definitions of 20 WPM..." > > Creative interpretations aside, there's nothing vague about 97.119(b)(1). If > the "device" (in my case a microprocessor-controlled tone generator) used to > generate my ID is also used for anything else, whether it's courtesy beeps, > paging tones or doorbell sound effects, I'm exempt from the 20 WPM limit on > the ID. It would be completely black-and-white, if not for the FCC's > subsequent interpretation of "audio CW" as a phone mode, which would seem to > eliminate any relevance of the "CW" speed limit completely. > > On the definition of "words per minute," I would expect to have to justify > my CWID speed to the FCC based on an argument more scientific than "they're > all different...I chose the one that's fastest." The 50-time-unit "PARIS" > appears to be the standard word in the US, while a version with slightly > shorter inter-word spacing is used in some other countries. If you set your > controller for 20 WPM, and its output is actually faster than 20 WPM, take > it up with the programmer of the chip, or set it for 17, or 18, or whatever > produces a measureable 20 WPM. > > This is all highly theoretical. The early Icom ham repeaters were shipped > with the same uP controller as the comercial repeaters, ID-ing at about 35 > WPM, and it was not adjustable by the user. I heard lots of grousing about > it on the air back in the late 80's when these machines came out, but was > anyone ever actually cited? > > Does the FCC have time to enforce a CW speed limit on IDs, when other modes > are allowed to ID using techniques which can only be decoded by computers? I > doubt it. > > If the pitch or deviation of the ID are disruptive, that's a problem > regardless of the speed. Modern controllers allow separate pitch settings > for "polite" and "impolite" IDs. If you choose settings which allow users to > be heard over the polite ID, the speed at which it's sent shouldn't be a > factor. > > When I hear a CW ID sent really fast, I can't help wondering why someone's > trying to conceal his callsign. I guess it's also possible modern hams find > CW an embarrassment. I will at least admit that a CWID at ANY speed is > probably undecipherable to any recently-licensed ham. > > Whatever the case, I find the CWID an interesting and subtle clue to the > operator's philosophy on operating his repeater. They could even be > entertaining, if your call was something like K5EE or W5ESE. It's part of > your machine's signature, your "fist," in a way. I'll continue to enjoy > hearing the CW until everything goes digital, at which time audible IDs will > probably be declared obsolete. > > By then, perhaps many of us will also be declared obsolete! > > 73, > Paul, AE4KR > > >
