"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't like
on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
allowed to operate on by your class.


Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't have
that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies.


Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
another question that would be better on the test than the simple
statement of frequencies.


I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can
be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't
understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class,
I try to emphasize this.

Dee, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't
like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
allowed to operate on by your class.


Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't
have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies.

how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will

only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue the
insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still
issue)


Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
another question that would be better on the test than the simple
statement of frequencies.


I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can
be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people
don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a
class, I try to emphasize this.

I thought it was such a question

Dee, N8UZE

"konstans" wrote in message

: : "Dee Flint" wrote in message
: : ...
: : :
: : : "Michael Coslo" wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : : [snip]
: : : : Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated
: : : : that what I don't like on the tests is questions
: : : : about what particular frequencies you are allowed
: : : : to operate on by your class.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yet there are times such as mobile or portable
: : : operation that we don't have that band chart with us.
: : : So it's nice to know our frequencies.
: :
: : how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none
: : of mine will

They can be programmed or modified to.

For example my Icom IC-V82 2m handie will transmit anywhere from 136-174
MHz. This was apparently necessary to allow it to operate on the US 2m
band 144-148 MHz. Here in Region 1 (UK) we only have 144-146 on 2m so so
in order to keep the warranty intact, I asked the importers to modify it
for the US band when I bought it, as I travel there on holiday regularly.
They told me that opening it up to 134-174 was the only way it could be
done, apparently the firmware in US versions that cover 144-148 only is
different.


73 Ivor G6URP

"konstans" wrote in message
...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't
like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
allowed to operate on by your class.


Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't
have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies.

how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will


All HF rigs that I have permit one to set and transmit SSB in the CW/Data
portion. That is operating out of band. Happened to a lot of continental
US folks last weekend in the CQ WW contest. I suppose they got excited and
weren't paying attention to the frequency readout.

only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue
the
insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still
issue)

You are overlooking the splits by mode. For example it is against FCC rules
for continental US stations to transmit any voice mode in the CW/DATA
portion.



Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
another question that would be better on the test than the simple
statement of frequencies.


I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one
can
be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people
don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach
a
class, I try to emphasize this.

I thought it was such a question

Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual
test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to
insure that one does show up on the actual test taken.

Dee, N8UZE

On Nov 1, 7:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:

All HF rigs that I have permit one to set and transmit SSB in the CW/Data
portion.

All the HF amateur rigs I have seen will also permit one to transmit
data modes in the 'phone/image subbands, which is also against US
regs. Some will permit things like too-wide-for-the-regs FM on HF,
too.

That is operating out of band. Happened to a lot of continental
US folks last weekend in the CQ WW contest. I suppose they got excited and
weren't paying attention to the frequency readout.

Or they don't know the rules well enough to apply them all the time.

For example it is against FCC rules
for continental US stations to transmit any voice mode in the CW/DATA
portion.

Whether we like it or not, subbands-by-license-class are a reality for
FCC-licensed amateurs. That's a reality which isn't going to change
soon, because FCC has repeatedly denied all proposals to eliminate
subbands-by-mode or subbands-by-license-class on the HF amateur radio
bands. We might someday go to subbands-by-bandwidth, if someone can
come up with a reasonable proposal, but the situation won't change
much if that happens. We'll still have the case of 'you can't transmit
that mode on this frequency'.

There's also the fact that we US amateurs - all of us - are allowed
by the regs to design, build, repair and modify our rigs, and they
don't have to be formally type-accepted or certified. So it makes
sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to
prevent our mistakes.

Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual
test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to
insure that one does show up on the actual test taken.

Even if the question shows up on the test, the person can get it
wrong.

IMHO, one of the fundamental weaknesses of the written tests today is
that all subjects and questions are lumped together so that a person
can have huge holes in their knowledge yet still pass. This is of
particular concern because the holes can be in subjects like safety
and regulations.

I think it would be better if each test were broken down into
subelements-by-subject, and marked in such a way that you'd need a
passing grade in each subelement to pass the whole exam.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

So it makes
sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to
prevent our mistakes.

I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind.

The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit
of computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
"know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit
completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step
and not allow SSB in the CW band?

I don't think that most folks who find themselves doing something stupid
like using SSB outside of the US sub-bands do so because they don't know
the regulations. They get caught up in the excitement of a contest or
chasing DX or their mind slips out of gear, and when they realize what
they've just done they feel about two inches tall. I would like to see
the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
bucks for to keep me from doing this, while at the same time giving me
the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class
or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different.

Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
not having bought any HF equipment in this century.

73, Steve KB9X

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:51:51 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:

I would like to see
the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
bucks for to keep me from doing this,

That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station
from the "appliance operator".

while at the same time giving me
the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class
or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different.

An interesting thought.

Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
not having bought any HF equipment in this century.

I acquired an Elecraft K2/100 about 18 months ago. It has been
augmented by the K3 now. Both are top-of-the-line HF rigs in kit or
modular form (think of a Heathkit on steroids). Neither has the
feature that you are describing.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:51:51 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:

I would like to see
the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
bucks for to keep me from doing this,

That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station
from the "appliance operator".

while at the same time giving me
the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class
or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are
different.

An interesting thought.

Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
not having bought any HF equipment in this century.


You can program many new rigs to auto mode switch based on frequency but
they also allow you override that auto mode at any time.

Dee, N8UZE

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
wrote:

So it makes
sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to
prevent our mistakes.

I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind.

The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit of
computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
"know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit
completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step
and not allow SSB in the CW band?


This will cause a problem for those who use AFSK for RTTY rather than FSK.

The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the receiving
end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to do RTTY..
If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate using AFSK for
RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended consequences".

Dee, N8UZE

"
The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the
receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to
do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate
using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended
consequences".

Dee, N8UZE


Indeed, it is also a problem if you use the HF set as the driver for a
transverter to a band where the bandplan is entirely different.

73
Jeff