Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #381   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 04:04 AM
Larry Roll K3LT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Had Larry included "digital" with his cry to preserve CW spectrum, I
would figuratively stand with the both of you as well.


Brian:

I'm all for expanding digital allocations, but I'd take it out of the SSB
side!

As it stands, all spectrum except the new 5MHz channels are CW
capable. Is it really necessary to keep that much of it CW exclusive?


How much spectrum is exclusively CW now? Not that terribly much.
I just don't want any of it given over to phone operation, which would
automatically cause it to become an extension of the existing phone
wasteland.

Personally, I think the amateur bands should be aligned worlwide, with
respect to not only frequency, but also mode.


Good luck.

If the DX doesn't want
to come out and play with Americans or anyone else, I'm sure some
other jet-setting hams, dept of state, or UN experts will be happy to
fill in the voids for a couple of IRCs or greenstamps.


Why would the DX *not* want to "come out and play with Americans?"
If they didn't they'd only be hurting themselves.

ditto personal opinion deniability


I never deny responsibility for my personal opinions. When I "speak" here,
I'm always giving my personal opinions, and not those of my employer,
or the members of any organization to which I may belong. That is
understood, unless I specifically state that I am speaking as a member of
the ARRL or whatever. This goes for you and everyone else in this NG.
Such disclaimers are unnecessary and are usually given as a self-serving
ego stroke.

73 de Larry, K3LT


  #382   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 04:22 AM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message


...provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.


John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

How do you manage to be wrong so often, Brian? I worked about forty
Europeans on 6m this past week. About half of those QSOs were made on
CW. About half of the CW QSOs were made using relatively slow speeds.
Those contacts were not made using Aurora. Had they been, all of the
QSOs would have been made using slow CW.

Were any of them French?


Look it up in my online logs after you've finished eating your words on
6m, Brian.

Dave K8MN


Oh, my! Another guy who can't answer a simple question.


You didn't bother to respond to my corrections of your erroneous 6m
comments and yet you want me to respond to mere blather?

Dave K8MN
  #383   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 04:38 AM
Brian Kelly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...



Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least
partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American
arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps
something approaching "Yankee imperialism."


Wrong. The fact that the FCC does not allow us to run phone as far
down the bands as the DX does shelters the DX from the U.S. hordes.
That's about as "anti Yankee Imperialism" as it gets in ham radio.


Brian,

How many heads of Latin American radio regulatory agencies do you
know personally? (If the answer is "None." how can you presume to
know their likely reaction to the US trying to tell them how to do things
in their own country?)


I don't think I need to know them to come to the obvious answer.

Again, I *presume* that Jim's question was tongue in cheek.
I do know those folks and meet with them several times a year ...
they wouldn't take kindy to being ordered around in the
way that Jim jokes about above ...


I guess. Something maybe. Maybe not.

Moving along here my personal bottom line without knowing a soul below
the border except those I've met on the air: I strongly (VERY
strongly) support retention of the existing xx.150 lower phone band
limits particularly on 20 & 40 primarily because (1) I for one am sick
of the Gringo/Ugly American crappola we've managed to take to the
level of a fine art, the buck needs to stop here at least in ham radio
(2) Downward expansion of the U.S. phone bands would immediately shove
the DX phone ops farther down the band (which they can do with a flick
of the wrist) to get away from U.S. QRM and into the space
traditionally used for CW and digital operations globally. Net gain
for the U.S. phonies comes up zip as far as being able to force
(OhYeah, that's the real agenda) the DX to hear them and the CW and
digital types get screwed (also globally) with orders of magnitudes
more DX SSB QRM than we have now.


Carl - wk3c


w3rv

#!^%#!(*)fuggemall^^3
  #384   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 02:05 PM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

You didn't bother to respond to my corrections of your erroneous 6m
comments and yet you want me to respond to mere blather?

Dave K8MN


Dave, respond only if it gives purpose and meaning to your life.

bb
  #386   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 11:21 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed?
approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules.


Works for me.


But we both know the concept is bogus.


Not entirely. FCC has turned over testing and test development to hams, yet
retains supervisory control. Or look at repeater coordination - hams determine
the coordination, and FCC enforces their decisions!

However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the
needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of
hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler.


So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any
rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have
any interfernece issues related to them...such as
band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test
requirements, etc.?


Nope. Not at all.


The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's
a good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that
FCC enacted the rule.


The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't
make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable
or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may
be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't
or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what
it does for ham radio.


That much I agree with. But it's also true that just because FCC does something
is no guarantee that the something is good for the ARS.

Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of
the motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it
stayed on the books for decades.


Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare)
of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was
the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress
getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry
who wanted the 55 limit.


Doesn't matter - the point is that the "expert agency" enacted it for one
reason and kept it for another, even though many if not most of those affected
thought it was a bad idea.

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.


Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services so that they can coexist.


That's only part of their purpose.


What's the rest?


Others include need for the service, use, benefit of
the service to the public good, etc.
IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you
doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio
as a service even though there was no coexistence problem?


It would take a lot of dwindling. And that's not happening - amateur radio in
the USA is not only growing, but it's growing faster than the population.


We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist
since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was
only by
intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in
there.

All of which happened about 80+ years ago.


Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago.


Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so.


The point is that the threats are more recent. Lookit BPL - that's today.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.

Which makes all this discussion rather academic.


Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better future
for amateur radio.


The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as
it was in the past. that's what the public input process
is all about.


'zactly. But all too few hams take a part in it. Look at the restructuring NPRM
- 675,000 hams, less than 2300 comments.

73 de Jim, N2EY


  #387   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 12:30 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained
radio operators" Dee. The vagueness of that
can create some issues, such as what type of
training???

Being able to handle message traffic, would be
an extremely important detail in training IMHO.
How many people can formulate a formal
message gram?? Even though I am one of those
low-life code free techs, I still can.



Since our purpose is clear, I don't see that vagueness. For example, one
primary purpose is to provide emergency communications. Skills are obviously
needed to do that. However, the served agency establishes which skills, not
the FCC (one reason the FCC does not require specific training in emergency
communications). For example, if a person volunteers to work with the Red
Cross, the person needs to know or learn the skills that agency is seeking.
If that agency does not handle message traffic or formulate message-grams,
those skills are entirely worthless. Therefore, it would be a waste to train
all operator in those skills (again, one reason the FCC does not require
such training).

If you look at each purpose in the same manner, very little vagueness
really exists.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

  #388   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 03:22 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo


writes:

I would propose that "200 Meters and Down" be required reading and have
a few questions on the tests!

While "200" is very good, it stops in 1936. I would recommend the

following:

- "Calling CQ" by Clinton B. Desoto, W1CBD, available for free download as
a PDF file. May be around as a printed book. Stories of 1920s and 1930s
amateur radio.

- "The Wayback Machine" by Bill Continelli, W2XOY, available for free
download
or for viewing on a website. Multichapter history of amateur radio from
the earliest days to the present.


As entertaining depicitions of the history of ham radio, these may be GREAT
works.


Have you read any of them?

As "models for the future," I think we need to look more forward than
backward.


Sure. But we need to know the background to knwo how we got where we are, and
how to avoid mistakes made in the past.

While I admit that history can be valuable in terms of learning
from past mistakes, so as to avoid similar mistakes in the future, I think
leaning on past events/conditions/etc. too heavily and trying to "keep
things
as they were in 'the good old days' " is a BIG mistake ... a mistake that
too many of us are inclined to make.


I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned
manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that!

--

And while we're on the subject of the future - what's YOUR vision for the
future? Besides getting rid of the code test?

73 de Jim, N2EY


  #389   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 03:23 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default



N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
.com...

Alun Palmer wrote in message


...

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2

would

be sufficient

Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region
2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line
with the USA?


Because they are soverign nations with the right to regulate the use of
the radio spectrum within their jurisdictions as they see fit and according
to their needs, as long as they are not in violation of the ITU Radio
Regulations.



That's not a reason, just a fact.

Because most of the rest of the world does it the same way they do
and the US is virtually alone in its sub-band by mode regulations.



We were talking about Region 2.


Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least
partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American
arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps
something approaching "Yankee imperialism."



What about anti-American arrogance?

I think you completely misread what I was saying. Wasn't tongue in cheek at
all, just an opposing idea. Nowhere do I suggest that any sort of coercion be
applied to other countries - why do you read that into my words?


As I recall, the person suggesting that we align ourselves to the rest
of the world's standards was from another country. When Jim retorted,
he was accused of American arrogance. Ohhhhkkkkay, then what was the
first suggestion? Logic? Something that wasn't arrogance, suggested by
someone else, but arrogance if an American suggests it?

Simply Wrong, Carl!

The fact of the matter is that the reason we have limited 'phone bands here in
the USA is twofold: One, to give the DX a place to operate 'phone without
having to deal with Yankee pileups every time they try to operate when the band
is open, and two, to give US hams an incentive to use modes other than 'phone.
Both are good ideas.


Very good ideas, and if the rest of the world would want to adopt
something like this, it could be cool (not even a suggestion, just a
"hey folks, look what we do")

- Mike KB3EIA -

  #390   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 05:00 AM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed?
approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules.

Works for me.


But we both know the concept is bogus.


Not entirely. FCC has turned over testing and test development to hams,

yet
retains supervisory control. Or look at repeater coordination - hams

determine
the coordination, and FCC enforces their decisions!


But the FCC still sets the regulations.

However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the
needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs

of
hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler.


So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any
rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have
any interfernece issues related to them...such as
band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test
requirements, etc.?


Nope. Not at all.


The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean

it's
a good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is

that
FCC enacted the rule.


The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't
make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable
or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may
be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't
or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what
it does for ham radio.


That much I agree with. But it's also true that just because FCC does

something
is no guarantee that the something is good for the ARS.


Agreed.

Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests

of
the motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it
stayed on the books for decades.


Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare)
of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was
the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress
getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry
who wanted the 55 limit.


Doesn't matter - the point is that the "expert agency" enacted it for one
reason and kept it for another, even though many if not most of those

affected
thought it was a bad idea.


There was NO expert agecy involved at all. The NJ rep was a memeber
of congress (house of representatives). I would certainly NOT
call the house an "expert agency."... would you?

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.


Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services so that they can coexist.


That's only part of their purpose.


What's the rest?


Others include need for the service, use, benefit of
the service to the public good, etc.
IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you
doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio
as a service even though there was no coexistence problem?


It would take a lot of dwindling. And that's not happening - amateur radio

in
the USA is not only growing, but it's growing faster than the population.


I agree...my hypothetical was just
a discussion point.

We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist
since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was
only by
intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in
there.

All of which happened about 80+ years ago.

Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago.


Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so.


The point is that the threats are more recent. Lookit BPL - that's today.


BPL isn't however, a desire for another service
to get rid of hams. I agree BPL is a major threat
to all of us, but for different reasons.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.

Which makes all this discussion rather academic.

Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better

future
for amateur radio.


The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as
it was in the past. that's what the public input process
is all about.


'zactly. But all too few hams take a part in it. Look at the restructuring

NPRM
- 675,000 hams, less than 2300 comments.


But not filling comments doesn't mean all hams
haven't looked at a proposed rule and simpy
said to themselves....OK by me for this one and
not filed a comment at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK





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 01:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017