| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
CW Testing Question
If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a
Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Because then they couldn't call themselves "Pro CW Testing Amateurs." :-) Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. I disagree. It would be Removal of Amateur Radio As They Know It and they won't, can't have that. Blasphemy against the Church of St. Hiram. Liken this period of time to the Dark Days of the Catholic Church. The late Don Stoner (the "S" in SGC Corporation*, makers of the SG-2020 HF transceiver) may be the counterpart of a Martin Luther from his editorial (quoted by Hans Brakob many times) in nailing "theses" to the "church door...or the NECVEC petition (RM-10870) may be part of that also. "Tradition" of always having a code test for amateurism is so firmly implanted (or brain-washed into) in minds that any suggestion of removal of the code test is considered by those PCTA as heresy, almost an abomination to some god. Amateur radio = radiotelegraphy is an equation which those stubborn soles of see-double-you require all to walk on. * The "G" of SGC, Pierre Goral, passed on several months ago. LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Because then they couldn't call themselves "Pro CW Testing Amateurs." :-) Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. I disagree. It would be Removal of Amateur Radio As They Know It and they won't, can't have that. Blasphemy against the Church of St. Hiram. Liken this period of time to the Dark Days of the Catholic Church. The late Don Stoner (the "S" in SGC Corporation*, makers of the SG-2020 HF transceiver) may be the counterpart of a Martin Luther from his editorial (quoted by Hans Brakob many times) in nailing "theses" to the "church door...or the NECVEC petition (RM-10870) may be part of that also. "Tradition" of always having a code test for amateurism is so firmly implanted (or brain-washed into) in minds that any suggestion of removal of the code test is considered by those PCTA as heresy, almost an abomination to some god. Amateur radio = radiotelegraphy is an equation which those stubborn soles of see-double-you require all to walk on. * The "G" of SGC, Pierre Goral, passed on several months ago. LHA / WMD |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - Because we can do that right now Mike. I don't consider it being elitist to want to continue with a known effective mode. Those that want to get rid of it are world class fools. Dan/W4NTI |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. Dan/W4NTI |
I run CW on any ham freq I want to.
The sub bands mean nothing to me. MWAHAHAHAH "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article . net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - Because we can do that right now Mike. I don't consider it being elitist to want to continue with a known effective mode. Those that want to get rid of it are world class fools. The REST OF THE RADIO WORLD GOT RID OF TELEGRAPHY. Are all those other radio services "fools" that they got rid of radiotelegraphy? I guess you think so. shrug How's your therapy coming along? LHA / WMD |
|
Yes,
Dan/W4NTI "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - Because we can do that right now Mike. I don't consider it being elitist to want to continue with a known effective mode. Those that want to get rid of it are world class fools. The REST OF THE RADIO WORLD GOT RID OF TELEGRAPHY. Are all those other radio services "fools" that they got rid of radiotelegraphy? I guess you think so. shrug How's your therapy coming along? LHA / WMD |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - Because we can do that right now Mike. I don't consider it being elitist to want to continue with a known effective mode. Those that want to get rid of it are world class fools. Dan/W4NTI DAN, Dan, dan, it is the -EXAM- that we are getting rid of. If we got rid of the psk practical exam, would you think we are trying to get rid of the mode? |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message .net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements right now. After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for CW portions. I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler! The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our bands anyhow? The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab. But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if they decide to work there? I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in :
N2EY wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements right now. After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for CW portions. I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler! The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our bands anyhow? The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab. But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if they decide to work there? I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held? - Mike KB3EIA - I've never pretended I don't want more phone spectrum, but there again, I have no connection with NCI either. There are a couple of different issues here, and they are getting mixed up. As a phone operator, it annoys me that the FCC rules give me _smaller_ subbands than in the gentleman's agreement known as the IARU Region 2 (North & South America) bandplan (not the one drawn up by the Antiquated Radio Relay League, which of course is a subset of the FCC rules, as they couldn't very well suggest illegal operation). Repealing code testing will put more people on HF who don't do CW, although some of them will be into PSK31, etc., so there will be more pressure to do something about this. I actually agree that NCI is not the appropriate vehicle for that, unless the name were changed? I also agree that they said they would go away when they won, but I'm not them. From the CW perspective, no doubt the CW segments of any bandplan are less than the sum total of the FCC CW and data allocations, but the data guys have to have somewhere to go! Do you really need CW only segments to protect yourselves from them? (I don't know the answer, this is a genuine question, and I'm not a data person so I really have no axe to grind). If you do think that, and that may be a reasonable position to take, I only have one point of disagreement. Above 1842 is available to phone in the 160m bandplan, and no I'm not talking about the League, I mean the IARU bandplan again. Since 1810-1850 is the amateur exclusive part of the band, it just wouldn't be right for all of that to be reserved for CW (although you could have more CW somewhere else as far as I am concerned). 8 kHz is not too much to ask for as a DX window for phone, and at least the FCC doesn't prohibit it even of the League have failed to recognise it. If you ask the FCC to prohibit phone there, then you can be sure I will file a comment to the contrary. Alun, N3KIP |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. The short answer is "because we're not 'elitist snobs' and our feet are not 'firmly planted in the past' The longer, more accurate answer is that it's not as simple as some folks would like you to think. For some, it really is "just about the code test". But for others, the real issue is something variously called 'standards' or 'achievements'. That's where the real disagreement is. And it comes out in a whole bunch of ways. For example, how often have you heard the buzzphrases "it's a hobby" or "it's just a hobby" or similar, given as an argument against some requirement or another? Think about what the person pushing those phrases really means. They're usually *not* saying "it's not a job". Instead, what they're really saying is "don't expect much" or even "don't expect anything". Look at how the *written* exams have changed over the years, despite claims that "it's just about the code test". Yet we have vocal support for free upgrades and further written test reductions. Did you see the article on "is training class efficient?" which detailed a one-day-to-Tech cram course? They boasted an 85% success rate - meaning that after just one day of class, 85% of their students passed the Tech test. This was done by rote memorization of the written exam question pool. Is this really what's best for the future of the ARS? Some folks think so! When you see arguments for "one class of license" ask "with what requirements?" - but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. When you see people railing about "standards and requirements of the 1930s", ask what they propose as the "standards and requirements of the 2000s" - but again, don't hold your breath waiting for a detailed answer. Some folks don't think there should be *any* standards or requirements beyond a bare bones set of rules and regs from FCC. Of course we know what happens in a radio service where that is the norm. It isn't pretty. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
"William" wrote in message om... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - Because we can do that right now Mike. I don't consider it being elitist to want to continue with a known effective mode. Those that want to get rid of it are world class fools. Dan/W4NTI DAN, Dan, dan, it is the -EXAM- that we are getting rid of. If we got rid of the psk practical exam, would you think we are trying to get rid of the mode? There is no psk practical exam. The ONLY PRACTICAL exam we have in ham radio is the CW TEST. Most of the rest is mainly BS memorization, that for the most part is not even relevant to real world ham radio. Dan/W4NTI |
"N2EY" wrote in message m... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... 73 de Jim, N2EY I like it. And of course not. Dan/W4NTI |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message .net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements right now. After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for CW portions. I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler! The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our bands anyhow? The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab. But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if they decide to work there? I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held? - Mike KB3EIA - And I wonder how a DSP filter will handle a drifty, chirping CW signal? Dan/W4NTI |
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. The short answer is "because we're not 'elitist snobs' and our feet are not 'firmly planted in the past' The longer, more accurate answer is that it's not as simple as some folks would like you to think. For some, it really is "just about the code test". But for others, the real issue is something variously called 'standards' or 'achievements'. That's where the real disagreement is. And it comes out in a whole bunch of ways. For me, it is about standards. For example, how often have you heard the buzzphrases "it's a hobby" or "it's just a hobby" or similar, given as an argument against some requirement or another? Think about what the person pushing those phrases really means. They're usually *not* saying "it's not a job". Instead, what they're really saying is "don't expect much" or even "don't expect anything". Right. "Mongo say Learning BAD"! Look at how the *written* exams have changed over the years, despite claims that "it's just about the code test". Yet we have vocal support for free upgrades and further written test reductions. Did you see the article on "is training class efficient?" which detailed a one-day-to-Tech cram course? They boasted an 85% success rate - meaning that after just one day of class, 85% of their students passed the Tech test. This was done by rote memorization of the written exam question pool. Is this really what's best for the future of the ARS? Some folks think so! This is what almost all university students do. It's "cramming". And it kind of works. The "kind of" part is that the knowledge does not make it into long term memory. So while a person can take and pass a test using this method, the knowledge gained goes away right after the test for the most part. But it isn't the fault of question pools - it is how they are used. I used the pools and on line tests when I went for my tickets. First thing I did was take an on line test. Then with the aid of the pool, reference books and even the web, I looked up the answers to the questions that I missed. I kept taking tests, and kept going back and learning what I missed. By the time I was finished, I KNEW the answers, and it wasn't from memorization, save the band edge stuff. I put forth the proposition that it is just as easy to cram with textbooks as it is with question pools. I can read a textbook as easily as I can a question pool. It is all a question of how we use th etools we are given. And no one can control that. When you see arguments for "one class of license" ask "with what requirements?" - but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. I like one class - Amateur Extra. When you see people railing about "standards and requirements of the 1930s", ask what they propose as the "standards and requirements of the 2000s" - but again, don't hold your breath waiting for a detailed answer. Some folks don't think there should be *any* standards or requirements beyond a bare bones set of rules and regs from FCC. Of course we know what happens in a radio service where that is the norm. It isn't pretty. Amazing that some of those people are otherwise smart. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . cv.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements right now. After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for CW portions. I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler! The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our bands anyhow? The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab. But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if they decide to work there? I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held? - Mike KB3EIA - And I wonder how a DSP filter will handle a drifty, chirping CW signal? Dan/W4NTI I've never tried it, but I suspect that it might be a great method to make the signal go away? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message .net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely for the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty crowded place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on any CW sub-bands. 73 de Bert WA2SI I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the exclusive subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been. I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW. We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands. I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this: CW-only subbands: 160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz 80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz 40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz 30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz 20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz 17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz 15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz 12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz 10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good operating practice. Why not? You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the nocodetest folks... Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements right now. After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for CW portions. I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler! The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our bands anyhow? The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab. But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if they decide to work there? I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held? - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, it sounds like you are confusing band plans and regulated segment divistions. The HF bands have segments where only CW and data modes are allowed by regulation. Phone and slow scan TV cannot be used at all in those segments. However there is the "gentleman's agreement band plan" layered on top of that. For example, in the CW/data portion, RTTY is operated in certain segments by agreement. Up in the phone portions, the SST enthusiasts operate in certain segments by agreement. If new hams try to operate voice outside the voice segments on HF, they will not only be in violation of the bandplans but will be in violation of FCC regulations, which could cost them their licenses. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and
then... Kim W5TIT |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "Dee" == Dee D Flint writes: [...] Dee Mike, it sounds like you are confusing band plans and regulated Dee segment divistions. The HF bands have segments where only CW and Dee data modes are allowed by regulation. Phone and slow scan TV Dee cannot be used at all in those segments. However there is the Dee "gentleman's agreement band plan" layered on top of that. For Dee example, in the CW/data portion, RTTY is operated in certain Dee segments by agreement. Up in the phone portions, the SST Dee enthusiasts operate in certain segments by agreement. If new Dee hams try to operate voice outside the voice segments on HF, they Dee will not only be in violation of the bandplans but will be in Dee violation of FCC regulations, which could cost them their Dee licenses. Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these "gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd just like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had to ask around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup -- if I'd known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance of finding it on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally operating on a portion of the band which is traditionally for a different type of mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from a CW CQ if I'm not calling on the RTTY portion, etc. Dee Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Jack. - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAtYJJGPFSfAB/ezgRAkpGAKCrcL+B7tVTtQGPgaD85JFIa/jDBgCg3+lp 8KEIKeHmbpIIG0zArUPBL/E= =FrQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
wrote in message ...
Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Welcome back, Kim. Hope the new home is all you expected it to be. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Kim W5TIT Kim, Larry's been gone since you left. Group has just about disintegrated. PCTA's have all but imploded. Otherwise, same stuff, different millenium. bb |
"Jack Twilley" wrote in message ... Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these "gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd just like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had to ask around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup -- if I'd known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance of finding it on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally operating on a portion of the band which is traditionally for a different type of mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from a CW CQ if I'm not calling on the RTTY portion, etc. www.arrl.org - The website has a page listing the basics The ARRL Operating Manual Various ARRL publications on data modes and slow scan TV For VHF/UHF, the ARRL repeater directory Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "Dee" == Dee D Flint writes: Jack Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these Jack "gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd Jack just like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had Jack to ask around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup Jack -- if I'd known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance Jack of finding it on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally Jack operating on a portion of the band which is traditionally for a Jack different type of mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from Jack a CW CQ if I'm not calling on the RTTY portion, etc. Dee www.arrl.org - The website has a page listing the basics The ARRL Dee Operating Manual Various ARRL publications on data modes and slow Dee scan TV For VHF/UHF, the ARRL repeater directory I was more interested in URLs to specific agreements. I've cruised through the website from time to time but I hadn't happened to see them. I lost my repeater directory in a car accident (how bizarre) otherwise I'd check the front of that. I'm more interested in HF, of course, so if you could point me to specific agreements, I'd be dearly appreciative. Stuff like "weak signal work is done here, beacons are done there, blah blah blah" are exactly what I'd like to keep posted in my shack, and this kind of information should be consolidated in a single source online. Dee Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Jack. - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAtho2GPFSfAB/ezgRAuvpAJ9sG6DBnHCksZysr5NDBzsr2S2tbQCgndNm JDX8dp+0QzDcMIL4yIwuDp4= =9pTV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
"Jack Twilley" wrote in message ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Dee" == Dee D Flint writes: Jack Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these Jack "gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd Jack just like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had Jack to ask around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup Jack -- if I'd known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance Jack of finding it on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally Jack operating on a portion of the band which is traditionally for a Jack different type of mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from Jack a CW CQ if I'm not calling on the RTTY portion, etc. Dee www.arrl.org - The website has a page listing the basics The ARRL Dee Operating Manual Various ARRL publications on data modes and slow Dee scan TV For VHF/UHF, the ARRL repeater directory I was more interested in URLs to specific agreements. I've cruised through the website from time to time but I hadn't happened to see them. I lost my repeater directory in a car accident (how bizarre) otherwise I'd check the front of that. I'm more interested in HF, of course, so if you could point me to specific agreements, I'd be dearly appreciative. Stuff like "weak signal work is done here, beacons are done there, blah blah blah" are exactly what I'd like to keep posted in my shack, and this kind of information should be consolidated in a single source online. Dee Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I already referenced the web site of the ARRL. All you have to do is enter the words "band plan" in the box to search the site. Then scroll down until you see the listing for band plans. I will NOT do this for you. The type of information you seek is contained on the web page. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:59:05 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Kim W5TIT Welcome back. I recently rejoined the group here myself, after a hiatus of several months due to getting fed up with trying to participate using open servers. Having just switched to a new ISP that has proper NNTP access, I've been lurking for a few weeks, amusing myself by reading the running battle between two of the regulars (you'll no doubt discover that thread soon enough)...have noticed several of the regulars that I can remember through the years seem to have vanished. In the case of one or two of those, you'll probably find that a good thing. 73 DE John D. Kasupski Tonawanda, New York, USA Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), HF/VHF/UHF Monitoring (KNY2VS) Member ARATS, ARES, RACES, WUN |
|
You came back - to news group like this (:-(
Famous quote from Eli Wallach in the Magnificent Seven, The (1960) -- Keyboard In The Noise Opinions are the cheapest commodities in the world. Author unknown but "right on" --------------------------------------------------------------- "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Kim W5TIT Hi Kim ....ya ain't missed a thing ......if fact I am sure your time was put to better use ... God Bless .... KI3R Tom |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Kim W5TIT Who cares wanna bee hippie. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net...
"William" wrote in message om... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs...... Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals? Removing the test would be the ultimate filter. - Mike KB3EIA - Because we can do that right now Mike. I don't consider it being elitist to want to continue with a known effective mode. Those that want to get rid of it are world class fools. Dan/W4NTI DAN, Dan, dan, it is the -EXAM- that we are getting rid of. If we got rid of the psk practical exam, would you think we are trying to get rid of the mode? There is no psk practical exam. Well, whaddayaknow? You finally got it. Since there is no psk practical exam, how can there be psk??? If the Morse Code exam goes away, how can there be CW??? The ONLY PRACTICAL exam we have in ham radio is the CW TEST. But it's become imPRACTICAL to continue to exclude people based upon a Morse Code exam. Most of the rest is mainly BS memorization, that for the most part is not even relevant to real world ham radio. Which is exactly how you got into amateur radio. So now what??? If I said it once, I've said it a thousand times. "What I fear most about the restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of restructuring." Most people are basically good. Some aren't. People like Riley are necessary. You need to reconcile the hatred you have for your fellow ham. |
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:03:51 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: I already referenced the web site of the ARRL. All you have to do is enter the words "band plan" in the box to search the site. Then scroll down until you see the listing for band plans. I will NOT do this for you. OK...then I will: AMATEUR FREQUENCY OPERATION RECOMMENDATIONS (ARRL Band Plans) Reprinted from "The Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide", January 1993 QST, page 61 and the ARRL Repeater Directory. Copyright 1993 by the American Radio Relay League, Inc. All rights reserved. This information is for quick reference only - refer to the band plan listings in the Operators Manual, The FCC Rule Book or the ARRL Repeater Directory for full details. For sharing arrangements, see Section 97.303 of the FCC Rules. For detailed packet frequencies, see QST, September 1987, page 54 and March 1988, page 51. 160 METERS (1.8-2.0 MHz): 1.800-1.830 CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes 1.830-1.840 CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes, Intercontinental QSOs only 1.840-1.850 CW, SSB, SSTV, other wideband modes, Intercontinental QSOs only 1.850-2.000 CW, phone, SSTV and other wideband modes 80 METERS (3.5-4.0 MHz): 40 METERS (7.0-7.3 MHz): 3.590 RTTY DX 7.040 RTTY DX 3.580-3.620 RTTY 7.080-7.100 RTTY 3.620-3.635 Packet 7.171 SSTV 3.790-3.800 DX window 7.290 AM 3.845 SSTV 3.885 AM calling frequency 30 METERS (10.1-10.15 MHz): 17 METERS (18.068-18.168 MHz): 10.130-10.140 RTTY 18.100-18.105 RTTY 10.140-10.150 Packet 18.105-18.110 Packet 20 METERS (14.0-14.35 MHz): 15 METERS (21.0-21.45 MHz): 14.070-14.095 RTTY 21.070-21.090 RTTY 14.095-14.0995 Packet 21.090-21.100 Packet 14.100 NCDXF Beacons 21.340 SSTV 14.1005-14.112 Packet 14.230 SSTV 12 METERS (24.89-24.99 MHz): 14.286 AM calling frequency 24.920-24.925 RTTY 24.925-24.930 Packet 10 METERS (28-29.7 MHz): 28.000-28.070 CW 28.070-28.150 RTTY 28.150-28.190 CW 28.190-28.200 New Beacon subband * 28.200-28.300 Old Beacon subband * 28.300-29.300 Phone 28.680 SSTV 29.000-29.200 AM 29.300-29.510 Satellite Downlinks 29.510-29.590 Repeater Inputs 29.600 FM Simplex 29.610-29.700 Repeater Outputs * Note: The FCC states in 97.203(d) that automatically controlled beacons may only operate on 28.20-28.30 MHz. 6 METERS (50-54 MHz): 50.0-50.1 CW, beacons 50.060-50.080 beacon subband 50.1-50.3 SSB, CW 50.10-50.125 DX window 50.125 SSB calling 50.3-50.6 All modes 50.6-50.8 Nonvoice communications 50.62 Digital (packet) calling 50.8-51.0 Radio remote control (20-kHz channels) 51.0-51.1 Pacific DX window 51.12-51.48 Repeater inputs (19 channels) 51.12-51.18 Digital repeater inputs 51.62-51.98 Repeater outputs (19 channels) 51.62-51.68 Digital repeater outputs 52.0-52.48 Repeater inputs (except as noted; 23 channels) 52.02, 52.04 FM simplex 52.2 TEST PAIR (input) 52.5-52.98 Repeater output (except as noted; 23 channels) 52.525 Primary FM simplex 52.54 Secondary FM simplex 52.7 TEST PAIR (output) 53.0-53.48 Repeater inputs (except as noted; 19 channels) 53.0 Remote base FM simplex 53.02 Simplex 53.1, 53.2, Radio remote control 53.3, 53.4 53.5-53.98 Repeater outputs (except as noted; 19 channels) 53.5, 53.6, Radio remote control 53.7, 53.8 53.52-53.9 Simplex Note: The 6-meter band plan was adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors at the July 1991 meeting. The band plan is currently being studied by the ARRL Ad Hoc Spectrum Management Committee. 2 METERS (144-148 MHz): 144.00-144.05 EME (CW) 144.05-144.10 General CW and weak signals 144.10-144.20 EME and weak-signal SSB 144.200 National calling frequency 144.200-144.275 General SSB operation 144.275-144.300 Propagation beacons 144.30-144.50 New OSCAR subband 144.50-144.60 Linear translator inputs 144.60-144.90 FM repeater inputs 144.90-145.10 Weak signal and FM simplex (145.01,03,05,07,09 are widely used for packet) 145.10-145.20 Linear translator ouputs 145.20-145.50 FM repeater outputs 145.50-145.80 Miscellaneous and experimental modes 145.80-146.00 OSCAR subband 146.01-147.37 Repeater inputs 146.40-146.58 Simplex 146.61-146.97 Repeater outputs 147.00-147.39 Repeater outputs 147.42-147.57 Simplex 147.60-147.99 Repeater inputs Notes: The frequency 146.40 MHz is used in some areas as a repeater input. This band plan has been proposed by the ARRL VHF-UHF Advisory Committee. 1.25 METERS (222-225 MHz): 222.0-222.150 Weak-signal modes 222.0-222.025 EME 222.05-222.06 Propagation beacons 222.1 SSB & CW calling frequency 222.10-222.15 Weak-signal CW & SSB 222.15-222.25 Local coordinator's option; weak signal, ACSB, repeater inputs, control 222.25-223.38 FM repeater inputs only 222.40-223.52 FM simplex 223.52-223.64 Digital, packet 223.64-223.70 Links, control 223.71-223.85 Local coordinator's option; FM simplex, packet, repeater outputs 223.85-224.98 Repeater outputa only Note: The 222 MHz band plan was adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors in July 1991. 70 CENTIMETERS (420-450 MHz): 420.00-426.00 ATV repeater or simplex with 421.25 MHz video carrier control links and experimental 426.00-432.00 ATV simplex with 427.250-MHz video carrier frequency 432.00-432.07 EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) 432.07-432.10 Weak-signal CW 432.10 70-cm calling frequency 432.10-432.30 Mixed-mode and weak-signal work 432.30-432.40 Propagation beacons 432.40-433.00 Mixed-mode and weak-signal work 433.00-435.00 Auxiliary/repeater links 435.00-438.00 Satellite only (internationally) 438.00-444.00 ATV repeater input with 439.250-MHz video carrier frequency and repeater links 442.00-445.00 Repeater inputs and outputs (local option) 445.00-447.00 Shared by auxiliary and control links, repeaters and simplex (local option) 446.00 National simplex frequency 447.00-450.00 Repeater inputs and outputs (local option) Note: The 440 MHz band plan is under review by the ARRL VHF-UHF Advisory Committee 33 CENTIMETERS (902-928 MHz): 902.0-903.0 Narrow-bandwidth, weak-signal communications 902.0-902.8 SSTV, FAX, ACSSB, experimental 902.1 Weak-signal calling frequency 902.8-903.0 Reserved for EME, CW expansion 903.1 Alternate calling frequency 903.0-906.0 Digital communications 906-909 FM repeater outputs 909-915 ATV 915-918 Digital communications 918-921 FM repeater inputs 921-927 ATV 927-928 FM simplex and links Note: The 902 MHz band plan was adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors in July 1989 23 CENTIMETERS (1240-1300 MHz): 1240-1246 ATV #1 1246-1248 Narrow-bandwidth FM point-to-point links and digital, duplex with 1258-1260. 1248-1258 Digital Communications 1252-1258 ATV #2 1258-1260 Narrow-bandwidth FM point-to-point links and digital, duplexed with 1246-1252 1260-1270 Satellite uplinks, reference WARC '79 1260-1270 Wide-bandwidth experimental, simplex ATV 1270-1276 Repeater inputs, FM and linear, paired with 1282-1288, 239 pairs every 25 kHz, eg 1270.025, .050, etc. 1271-1283 Non-coordinated test pair 1276-1282 ATV #3 1282-1288 Repeater outputs, paired with 1270-1276 1288-1294 Wide-bandwidth experimental, simplex ATV 1294-1295 Narrow-bandwidth FM simplex services, 25-kHz channels 1294.5 National FM simplex calling frequency 1295-1297 Narrow bandwidth weak-signal communications (no FM) 1295.0-1295.8 SSTV, FAX, ACSSB, experimental 1295.8-1296.0 Reserved for EME, CW expansion 1296.00-1296.05 EME-exclusive 1296.07-1296.08 CW beacons 1296.1 CW, SSB calling frequency 1296.4-1296.6 Crossband linear translator input 1296.6-1296.8 Crossband linear translator output 1296.8-1297.0 Experimental beacons (exclusive) 1297-1300 Digital Communications 2300-2310 and 2390-2450 MHz: 2300.0-2303.0 High-rate data 2303.0-2303.5 Packet 2303.5-2303.8 TTY packet 2303.9-2303.9 Packet, TTY, CW, EME 2303.9-2304.1 CW, EME 2304.1 Calling frequency 2304.1-2304.2 CW, EME, SSB 2304.2-2304.3 SSB, SSTV, FAX, Packet AM, Amtor 2304.30-2304.32 Propagation beacon network 2304.32-2304.40 General propagation beacons 2304.4-2304.5 SSB, SSTV, ACSSB, FAX, Packet AM, Amtor experimental 2304.5-2304.7 Crossband linear translator input 2304.7-2304.9 Crossband linear translator output 2304.9-2305.0 Experimental beacons 2305.0-2305.2 FM simplex (25 kHz spacing) 2305.20 FM simplex calling frequency 2305.2-2306.0 FM simplex (25 kHz spacing) 2306.0-2309.0 FM Repeaters (25 kHz) input 2309.0-2310.0 Control and auxiliary links 2390.0-2396.0 Fast-scan TV 2396.0-2399.0 High-rate data 2399.0-2399.5 Packet 2399.5-2400.0 Control and auxiliary links 2400.0-2403.0 Satellite 2403.0-2408.0 Satellite high-rate data 2408.0-2410.0 Satellite 2410.0-2413.0 FM repeaters (25 kHz) output 2413.0-2418.0 High-rate data 2418.0-2430.0 Fast-scan TV 2430.0-2433.0 Satellite 2433.0-2438.0 Satellite high-rate data 2438.0-2450.0 WB FM, FSTV, FMTV, SS experimental Note: The 2300 MHz band plan was adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors in January 1991 Note: The following band plans were adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors in July 1988 3300-3500 MHz: 3456.3-3456.4 Propagation beacons 5650-5925 MHz: 5760.3-5760.4 Propagation beacons 10.00-10.50 GHz: 10.368 Narrow band calling frequency 10.3683-10.3684 Propagation beacons 10.3640 Calling frequency All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands: 24.0-24.25 GHz 165.0-170.0 48.0-50.0 240.0-250.0 71.0-76.0 All above 300 The ARRL members and HQ staff would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this information file: K1CE WB8IMY NU0X Send any additional information or changes to . 73 from ARRL HQ. 73 DE John D. Kasupski, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York, USA ARRL Western New York PIO |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Thank you for the useful information. Out of curiosity, do you know how these agreements came about, and who agreed to what? Is this something the ARRL just announced one day, or did these band plans arise out of years of usage clustering, or what? I figure you might know, considering your position in the organization, or at least you'd be able to find out. :-) Thanks again. Jack. - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAtuY3GPFSfAB/ezgRAo1UAJ9oIKCGVAE8qs26jUrmVzSHtq/7UACfRmNg XbrP/dBWjW/1EstdC21rp3k= =ulCL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:59:05 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and then... Hello again, Kim. Hope you're all settled in in the new house and all is well. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com