Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 06:28 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

wrote:

does it we have only your word on that or do we have even that


Look it up for yourself, Morkie. The content of the FCC communications
addressed to me are easy to obtain via Google. No where do they mention
"good amateur practice", nor do they mention any violation of Part 97 (or
any other federal regulation, for that matter).

Sorry if that gets your panties in a wad, but thems the facts.


your own private jet now?


Well apparently (according to Lennie) I own an ocean-going trawler named
Hornblower, so hell I must be able to afford my own private jet too.


insteresting nonresponse but then you jerks can't deal with facts


No, we can't deal with the gibberish you spew.




  #22   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 06:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WRC-07


From: Alun L. Palmer on Sun, Jan 21 2007 4:30 pm

"KH6HZ" wrote in
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:


I doubt if Carl would be interested in attending. His single issue was
abolition of code testing, and he WON that back in 2003.


The No-Code War Rally will simply change focus now. In another year or
so, they'll set their focus on getting the FCC to reduce, or even
eliminate entirely, the CW/data portions of the bands.


For most, the No-Code War isn't (and never was) about code testing. It
is about destroying a mode they feel, for whatever bizzare reason,
threatened (or 'persecuted') by.


You will no more see the No-Code Warriors disappear than you will see
the Race Pimps disappear.


That has nothing to do with WRC-07.


Quite true, Alun. The FCC Overseas Bureau has had
documentation on WRC-07 for over a year...all the
agenda items. No "mode sub-bands" for amateurs there.

There are no ITU requirements for mode
subbands. There never have been. So my stetment that I doubt if Carl would
be interested still stands. Of course, that's really for him to say.


Carl did not effect the almost-total revision of
Radio Regulation S25 at WRC-03. The IARU wanted
that for a couple years prior to 2003. While that
included making the code test an option for all
administration, there were many other changes also
done to S25. It helped greatly that the chief
representative of No-Code International was AT
WRC-03, but the S25 changes would have been made
regardless. The ARRL did not side with the IARU
on removing the code test absolute requirement.

It is true that there will still be pressure on the FCC from phone ops to
widen the phone subbands in the US. This is because the phone subbands are
still narrower in the US than everywhere else on three bands - 40, 20 and
15. Some of us want to fix this, but I don't know anyone who wants to go
beyond that.


If there is a movement of US citizens to change the
amateur radio sub-bands, then that will be handled
in normal fashion at the FCC, not in Geneva. A
Petition will be sent, the FCC may publish that and
as for Comments...or issue an NPRM on proposed
revisions also asking for Comments. After the
Comment period is over, there's a long, long wait
for decisions, whether to be or not to be an R&O.
After the R&O there will be a much longer period
of cry-baby losers moaning, bitching, making threats
and other fun stuff...some predicting the End Of
The World...which it may be for some losers. :-)


None of this has ever been about wanting to destroy CW as a mode. you can
dit and dah to your heart's content for all I care.


Quite true, Alun. However, I suspect the REAL
problem is the PCTA attempting to keep their
perceived power which they enjoyed prior to
FCC 06-178...that and the readily-available (and
standard) boasting of being a "20 WPM Tested"
Extra. That made them "better" than anyone else
and many got drunk on that "better-than-thou"
elixir.

Some went too far...such as the stunt that
Deignan, Michael P. did in obtaining a Hawaii
P.O. Box "address" in order to change from his
old vanity KD1HZ to KH6HZ...plus inventing a dozen
"clubs" (that never existed) and getting amateur
radio "club" calls for them. While Deignan didn't
quite do an illegal act, his actions DID violate
the SPIRIT of the law. The FCC made him give up
those calls for nonexistant clubs and forced him
to identify his regular amateur call mailing
address to his real residence.



  #23   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 06:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WRC-07


From: Alun L. Palmer on Sun, Jan 21 2007 4:30 pm

"KH6HZ" wrote in
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:


I doubt if Carl would be interested in attending. His single issue was
abolition of code testing, and he WON that back in 2003.


The No-Code War Rally will simply change focus now. In another year or
so, they'll set their focus on getting the FCC to reduce, or even
eliminate entirely, the CW/data portions of the bands.


For most, the No-Code War isn't (and never was) about code testing. It
is about destroying a mode they feel, for whatever bizzare reason,
threatened (or 'persecuted') by.


You will no more see the No-Code Warriors disappear than you will see
the Race Pimps disappear.


That has nothing to do with WRC-07.


Quite true, Alun. The FCC Overseas Bureau has had
documentation on WRC-07 for over a year...all the
agenda items. No "mode sub-bands" for amateurs there.

There are no ITU requirements for mode
subbands. There never have been. So my stetment that I doubt if Carl would
be interested still stands. Of course, that's really for him to say.


Carl did not effect the almost-total revision of
Radio Regulation S25 at WRC-03. The IARU wanted
that for a couple years prior to 2003. While that
included making the code test an option for all
administration, there were many other changes also
done to S25. It helped greatly that the chief
representative of No-Code International was AT
WRC-03, but the S25 changes would have been made
regardless. The ARRL did not side with the IARU
on removing the code test absolute requirement.

It is true that there will still be pressure on the FCC from phone ops to
widen the phone subbands in the US. This is because the phone subbands are
still narrower in the US than everywhere else on three bands - 40, 20 and
15. Some of us want to fix this, but I don't know anyone who wants to go
beyond that.


If there is a movement of US citizens to change the
amateur radio sub-bands, then that will be handled
in normal fashion at the FCC, not in Geneva. A
Petition will be sent, the FCC may publish that and
as for Comments...or issue an NPRM on proposed
revisions also asking for Comments. After the
Comment period is over, there's a long, long wait
for decisions, whether to be or not to be an R&O.
After the R&O there will be a much longer period
of cry-baby losers moaning, bitching, making threats
and other fun stuff...some predicting the End Of
The World...which it may be for some losers. :-)


None of this has ever been about wanting to destroy CW as a mode. you can
dit and dah to your heart's content for all I care.


Quite true, Alun. However, I suspect the REAL
problem is the PCTA attempting to keep their
perceived power which they enjoyed prior to
FCC 06-178...that and the readily-available (and
standard) boasting of being a "20 WPM Tested"
Extra. That made them "better" than anyone else
and many got drunk on that "better-than-thou"
elixir.

Some went too far...such as the stunt that
Deignan, Michael P. did in obtaining a Hawaii
P.O. Box "address" in order to change from his
old vanity KD1HZ to KH6HZ...plus inventing a dozen
"clubs" (that never existed) and getting amateur
radio "club" calls for them. While Deignan didn't
quite do an illegal act, his actions DID violate
the SPIRIT of the law. The FCC made him give up
those calls for nonexistant clubs and forced him
to identify his regular amateur call mailing
address to his real residence.



  #24   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 11:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

wrote:

The FCC made him give up
those calls for nonexistant clubs and forced him
to identify his regular amateur call mailing
address to his real residence.


You would be wrong.


  #25   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 11:54 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

spewed forth the following gibberish:

somehow I just don't beleive you


Well now, that's your problem, isn't it?




  #26   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 06:40 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default WRC-07

KH6HZ wrote:
spewed forth the following gibberish:

somehow I just don't beleive you


Well now, that's your problem, isn't it?



Didn't the bible say something like:

Don't attempt to remove the toothpick in the other guys' eye, until
first you have removed the log in your own?

JS
  #27   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 07:45 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

wrote:

obviously not


I wasn't forced to surrender all my club callsigns, nor was I forced to
change my address.

So, Lennie would be wrong, no matter how much you'd like to attempt to
rewrite history.


  #28   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 11:45 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

spewed forth the following rubbish:

right I believe you NOT if you were nothing wrong then Ril;ey
just out of the blue started picking on you


lol. Don't need to believe me, Morkie. Look it up for yourself.

My license had a Rhode Island mailing address long before Riley wrote me
(easily verifiable via ULS, not to mention, I believe the online copies of
the coorespondence clearly states it was mailed to my RI address) and I
still am the holder of a club callsign, actively in use today as a beacon
for foxhunts.

Of course, I doubt you'll look it up... Facts would tend to get in the way
of your deluded reality.


  #29   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 07, 11:59 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

spewed forth the following gibberish:

I know you had a number of club calls you don't now you amdit you
got a letter from Riley and now you don't have em enough said


I can't parse this. Want to try in English again Morkie?


  #30   Report Post  
Old January 24th 07, 12:19 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default WRC-07

lol @ busted.

Once again...

What violation of Part 97 was I cited by the FCC for violating?

Which federal statute was I charged with violating?


Free clues for ya: None, and none.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017