Thread
:
AB5S WT 05-235 Comments to FCC
View Single Post
#
145
September 3rd 05, 12:37 AM
Mike Coslo
Posts: n/a
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote
I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur
bands.
Period.
No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications
emergency activations?
Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore
inherently
part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN.
Fox News and CNN don't seem to cover the situation in the detail
needed by those in the affected area.
No code practice sessions?
No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can
now be self taught.
??
It's always been possible for code to be self-taught.
That's how I learned - listening to hams on 80 meters.
With a homebrew two-tube regenerative receiver and a wire
out to the crab apple tree.
Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no
anyhow.
If someone wants to learn Morse Code in order to actually
*use* the mode, rather than just to pass the test, being
able to listen to real live ham stations is the best way
to learn. Code practice like W1AW is predictable, dependable,
high quality and of known speed.
Is there no room on the bands for a few hours of Morse Code
practice?
No remote control of satellites?
That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way
communications
The first amateur radio satellite, launched more than 40
years ago, only carried a transmitter. It sent some basic
telemetry. Under your rules it would not have been allowed.
No remote control of model airplanes?
Is that us?
Yes.
No remote control of repeaters?
That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way
communications.
Sounds like bafflegab to me. If the repeater sticks on and I
send a shutdown command, and the repeater goes dead, that's
one way.
No telemetry from satellites?
That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way
communications.
Only if the satellite is capable of two way. See Oscar 1,
above.
No propagation beacons?
No. Try calling CQ! ;^)
The beacons are useful because they are a known quantity.
No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)
That is part of a two way system. (balloons)
Not necessarily.
I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based
APRS to make
an informed judgment.
No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater
system?
Still part of two way comms.
Bafflegab.
No................
"Period"
There is a big difference between what happens when
a repeater or
satellite is used, and when someone starts yappin
or beepin with no
intention of getting a reply.
So it's really all about *intent*, not about two-way
or one-way communications.
That much I can agree with!
The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the signals are used in two way transmissions or not.
Why?
What's wrong with beacons? Radio control? Code practice?
Telecommand and telemetry?
Seems the "no one way" stuff would really cut out a lot
of good things from the ARS, for no good reason.
btw, the pactor robots are not one-way devices - they are trying to
carry out two-way comms, right?
73 de Jim N2EY
OKAY! I give up!
One way transmissions are okay! they are a great thing for amateur
radio, and I was a hopelessly reactionary for even suggesting that they
weren't. I apologize for the transgression.
I'm now on record that I accept and encourage one way transmissions
however you may define them.
We need more of them.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Reply With Quote
