RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27662-arrl-propose-subband-bandwidth-regulation.html)

William August 20th 04 11:50 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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


Wrong again, diminuitive man. Read my next reply to Dee.

Steve Robeson K4CAP August 21st 04 02:16 PM

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/20/2004 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


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.


Who needs one from 15 years ago, Brain?

Band assignments still exist fo Novice class licensees in present Part 97.

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.


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

Apologies to Jim and Kelly.


SOMEONE DIAL 9-1-1 IN PICKERINGTON OHIO AND FIND OUT WHO KIDNAPPED BRIAN
BURKE! ! ! ! ! ! !

Bravo, Brian. Bravo.

Now, let's work on the truth about the authorization for your alleged
Somalia operation and try and get some validation for that assertion about
"unlicensed devices playing a major role in emergency communications" thing
working while you're on a roll!

73

Steve, K4YZ






Steve Robeson K4CAP August 21st 04 02:20 PM

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/20/2004 5:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
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


Wrong again, diminuitive man. Read my next reply to Dee.


I did Brian! I did!

And it only took YOU a week of hammering the same thing through to
you for you to FINALLY get it!

Kudos again on sucking-it-up and apologizing to Jim Miccolis and Brian
Kelly. You forgot to add Dee in the mix, but hey, it was a first for you so we
can let you make it up later.

73

Steve, K4YZ







Len Over 21 August 22nd 04 08:07 PM

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"William" wrote in message
. com...
(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, the FCC dates back to 1934 and ARRL dates back to 1914.

FCC os 70 this year and ARRL is 90.

Many, many rules have CHANGED in that time.

FCC doesn't use OLD rules for new regulations.

Were there "CW-only subbands" in 1976?

My old 1976 ARRL Handbook says there were.





Len Over 21 August 22nd 04 08:07 PM

In article ,
(William) writes:

(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?


I could post exerpts of ARRL-reprinted FCC rules from their 1976
Handbook...showing that there were (!) "CW-only subbands on HF."

Problem is, Rev. Jim would immediately misdirect, point out flaws
in my character and repeatedly chant "Incorrect! Incorrect!"





Jim Hampton August 23rd 04 04:57 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(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?


I could post exerpts of ARRL-reprinted FCC rules from their 1976
Handbook...showing that there were (!) "CW-only subbands on HF."

Problem is, Rev. Jim would immediately misdirect, point out flaws
in my character and repeatedly chant "Incorrect! Incorrect!"




Nope, I wouldn't do that. I re-read the thread. Nothing said about
CW only *now*, the question is "never was". In that case, there
certainly was CW only sub-bands (at least I'm pretty sure). The
novice portions of the bands when I was a novice in 1962 were portions
of 80, 40, and 15 meters (there was 2 meter phone available back then
for novices). Novices were crystal contol only and all amateurs were
limited to 75 watts *input* in the novice bands (but higher class
licensees could use VFOs). I don't recall at all where rtty was
permitted, but not in the novice bands. The only 'digital' modes
would have been cw and rtty. I do wish I had the old handbook from
1960 however. Lost that once I went into the service in January of
1967. Gawd, I wanna cry when I think of the *tons* of QSTs and 73s
that I got rid of at that time .....

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Len Over 21 August 23rd 04 06:17 AM

In article ,
(Jim Hampton) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:



I could post exerpts of ARRL-reprinted FCC rules from their 1976
Handbook...showing that there were (!) "CW-only subbands on HF."

Problem is, Rev. Jim would immediately misdirect, point out flaws
in my character and repeatedly chant "Incorrect! Incorrect!"




Nope, I wouldn't do that. I re-read the thread. Nothing said about
CW only *now*, the question is "never was". In that case, there
certainly was CW only sub-bands (at least I'm pretty sure). The
novice portions of the bands when I was a novice in 1962 were portions
of 80, 40, and 15 meters (there was 2 meter phone available back then
for novices). Novices were crystal contol only and all amateurs were
limited to 75 watts *input* in the novice bands (but higher class
licensees could use VFOs). I don't recall at all where rtty was
permitted, but not in the novice bands. The only 'digital' modes
would have been cw and rtty. I do wish I had the old handbook from
1960 however. Lost that once I went into the service in January of
1967. Gawd, I wanna cry when I think of the *tons* of QSTs and 73s
that I got rid of at that time .....


Back in '76 the ITU and FCC were still using "A1, A2, F1, F2..."
designations for emissions. [was 28 years ago]

Bringing back the old, obsolete technical terms isn't too hard
(but why innaheck do that) and a simple one-page scan of one
page of band designations with modulations would prove it all.

But, lotsa folk in here wanna argue the Whichness of the What
in a flame fest of minutae. Nonsense activity.

No huhu on getting old copies of QST. ARRL sells them on CD.
ARRL also resells CQ's 3-CD set of all 22 years of articles of
Ham Radio magazine. Lots more solid radio information in HR
than them old QST hi-jinky reportings of past contests and glories
in (hah!) "radiosport." :-)

"Radiosport!" Like NBC would broadcast ANY of that! :-)

Beep, beep...



William August 23rd 04 11:31 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

"Radiosport!" Like NBC would broadcast ANY of that! :-)

Beep, beep...



Missed it at the Olympics. Maybe itsa "winter" sport.

William August 23rd 04 11:33 AM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...


SOMEONE DIAL 9-1-1 IN PICKERINGTON OHIO AND FIND OUT WHO KIDNAPPED BRIAN
BURKE! ! ! ! ! ! !


Len, that would be just like crazy Steve to try to get someone else to
make a false distress call. Maybe that's how they train them in the
CAP?

Len Over 21 August 23rd 04 09:51 PM

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


SOMEONE DIAL 9-1-1 IN PICKERINGTON OHIO AND FIND OUT WHO KIDNAPPED

BRIAN
BURKE! ! ! ! ! ! !


Len, that would be just like crazy Steve to try to get someone else to
make a false distress call. Maybe that's how they train them in the
CAP?


Gunnery nurse Yellyell wants to "make calls." He threatened!

Obey him or get committed! He has the Power!

Must be the corps trains them that way.

Ptui.

LHA / WMD


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com