"Theatre of the Mind" wrote in message
groups.com...

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html

Looks to me like another lame-assed attempt
by the Apple Rubbing Reamers League to
eliminate AM from the 75 and 40 Meter bands.

Pathetic......

Go read the proposal on the ARRL site. You will see that AM is NOT being
regulated out of this proposal.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html

Smacks of overegulation. Bloody white of 'em to "let us see it" before
they take it to the FCC this time.

w3rv

Remember the letting Novice, non cw, ops on HF Phone??????? There was
such
a loud cry they at least payed attention this time.

Maybe more like they just tossed us a bone Dan. I keeps compulsively
shipping my dues to Newington and I keeps wanting to WRING THEIR
SCRAWNY POLITICALLY-CORRECT NECKS!

Dan/W4NTI

w3rv

It's election time for the Board of Directors. I have brought this up for
the last month at club meetings, on the air, announced it on VHF and HF
nets. Any interest? Nope.

I give up.

Being a Director is one more hobby within the hobby. It's all politics
and hams who are big into being politicians get into it and the rest
of us ignore it.


Dan/W4NTI

w3rv

It's election time for the Board of Directors. I have brought this up
for
the last month at club meetings, on the air, announced it on VHF and HF
nets. Any interest? Nope.

I give up.

Being a Director is one more hobby within the hobby. It's all politics
and hams who are big into being politicians get into it and the rest
of us ignore it.


Dan/W4NTI

w3rv

Of course, but my point is no one is interested in nominating anyone either.

Dan/W4NTI

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

- No CW-only subbands

There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF.

That's true - but there should be!

Personally, I'd propose a regulation similar to what currently exists on
160M --- "Here are your bands. Stay inside of the edges. Have a nice
day."

The result would be chaos. All you have to do is tune around 160 a bit
to come to the conclusion that the ops who get on 160 are with very
rare exceptions a whole different breed of cat from the hordes of
HF-only spectrum dwellers from a number of perspectives. The
"misbehavior ratios" being one of those. If there was a simplistic
"unisolution" like you're proposing it would have been implemented
decades ago.

Agreed but there's even more to it.

160 used to have subbands-by-mode. Then hams all but lost the band to LORAN. We
got it back in little bits and pieces over a couple of decades. The lack of
subbands-by-mode today is a result of that, not any special characteristic of
160.

btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m contest
scores.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m
contest
scores.

73 de Jim, N2EY

....or just get OTA.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 7:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

- No CW-only subbands

There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF.

That's true - but there should be!

Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M.

Wonder what kind of subbands those were?

Narrow band modes, Brainless Twerp, in as much as Conditionals, Generals,
Advanced and Extras could STILL exercise the full breadth of thier privileges
there.

The NOVICES may ahve been limited to using only CW, however NONE of those
"subbands" was restricted to CW only.

Never.

btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m
contest
scores.

73 de Jim, N2EY

What was your score?

What was YOURS? (More logbooks locked away, no doubt........)

Steve, K4YZ

"William" wrote in message
om...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

- No CW-only subbands

There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF.

That's true - but there should be!

Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M.

Wonder what kind of subbands those were?


General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here.
Thus they are not "CW only."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 8/19/2004 8:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"William" wrote in message
. com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...

Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M.

Wonder what kind of subbands those were?

General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here.
Thus they are not "CW only."

We gotta go easy on him, Dee...Brain does not assimilate facts very well,
and getting him to acknowledge them even when they are glaring and well known
is pretty "iffy"...

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:08:04 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"N2EY" wrote


- No CW-only subbands


There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF.

Sure there has, ever heard of the "Novice subbands"?

Stacey/AA7YA