Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Barry OGrady
writes:
On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17
GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on
Hams?
How many people here even use the GHz bands?
Are there enough Hams to even justify further use?
They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters.
We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m
frequency pairs are used up.
The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams
some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in
what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone
signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro-
processors became commonplace.
Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF
as an amateur.
No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no
knowledge of morse.
So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring
that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a
specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago]
Barry would appear to be from Australia, Len. I'm not up on the
Australian amateur rules, but I guess they are different than the US
with regard to HF access.
My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range
of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those
few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs.
Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF
and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service.
An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating
a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the
personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland.
Sure isn't! Some are just born that way - then they get a ham license! 8^)
- Mike KB3EIA -