Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
|
#382
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|