(William) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"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

Now tell me about the Novices.

I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the
HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere
on HF. On VHF, of course, there is.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim - AA2QA

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (Jim Hampton)
Date: 8/19/2004 11:33 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(William) wrote in message
.com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

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

Now tell me about the Novices.

I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the
HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere
on HF. On VHF, of course, there is.

Of course it wasn't about license classes...At least NOT until AFTER Brain
realized that he was backed into yet another corner after stepping in the
verbal cow patty he'd laid. Then he had to find SOME way of trying to keep
everyone from looking at his shoes.

Too late.

Steve, K4YZ

The proposed division by bandwidth hasn't even gone through, and I'm already
hearing from digital buffs who have plans to be able to utilize much more
bandwidth than they currently do. - More bandwidth by a factor of three or
four.

It sure is good to know that this has all been carefully thought over so
that nobody would be edged out or marginalized by the new proposal - Not!

Charles, N5PVL
(digital enthusiast)

(Jim Hampton) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"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

Now tell me about the Novices.

I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the
HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere
on HF. On VHF, of course, there is.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim - AA2QA

Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only
subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to
abide by the mode and power restrictions.

Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes?

"William" wrote in message
om...
(Jim Hampton) wrote in message
. com...
(William) wrote in message
. com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"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

Now tell me about the Novices.

I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the
HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere
on HF. On VHF, of course, there is.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim - AA2QA

Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only
subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to
abide by the mode and power restrictions.

Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes?

Look at your FCC rule book. They had to abide by the power restrictions on
15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband.
In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit.
In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode
requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been
in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of
the rule books for this time period.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(William) wrote in message . com...
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

No. It isn't. You and Kelly are wrong. There was a whole class of
amateur that was allowed nothing but CW on HF, and other hams had to
abide by mode and power limits of those subbands.

HeeHeeHee!

You don't even know the difference between a mode and a set of operating priveleges.

Nitwit.

Figgers.


- but there should be!

Ask the FCC to make you a Novice and you can have all the CW you can
stomach in what Hans calls the "novice ghetto." Maybe some benevolent
Extra will come along and give you a pity QSO. Hi, hi!

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 8/20/2004 7:54 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"William" wrote in message

Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only
subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to
abide by the mode and power restrictions.

Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes?

Look at your FCC rule book. They had to abide by the power restrictions on
15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband.
In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit.
In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode
requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been
in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of
the rule books for this time period.

Dee, your operating on the presumption that Brain can read, let alone
comprehend what he reads. Big stretch there!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
(Jim Hampton) wrote in message
. com...
(William) wrote in message
. com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"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

Now tell me about the Novices.

I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the
HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere
on HF. On VHF, of course, there is.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim - AA2QA

Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only
subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to
abide by the mode and power restrictions.

Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes?

Look at your FCC rule book.

I don't have one from 15 years ago. I thought they had to abide by
the Novice restrictions.

They had to abide by the power restrictions on
15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband.
In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit.
In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode
requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been
in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of
the rule books for this time period.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thanks Dee. Looks like I was wrong, and I stand corrected.

Apologies to Jim and Kelly.

bb

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: s. hanrahan
Date: 8/19/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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"?

They were/are for Novices, with the exception of 10M.

In article , s. hanrahan
writes:

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"?

Yep. They're not CW-only. While Novices and Tech Pluses can only use CW on
their parts of 80/40/15, higher class licensees can use digital modes there.

Point is there's no place on amateur HF where a ham can go and only have to
deal with CW QRM. I think it would be a good idea if there were.

Take 80 meters for example. Make 3500-3575 CW-only, 3575-3725 digital and CW
(with digital having precedence) and 3725-4000 analog voice and image.
"Digital" refers to any mode other than analog voice or image - meaning digital
voice, too.

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY