"N2EY" wrote


- No CW-only subbands


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

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."

73, de Hans, K0HB

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


- No CW-only subbands


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

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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

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

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?

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

What was your score?

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

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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.

Is this the part where The World's Greatest DXer comes in and mentions
that you consistently spell "thier" incorrectly?

You guys are so predictable.

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

Never.

"Ahven't" they?

They were to Novices.

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........)

What was yours?

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
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.

Is this the part where The World's Greatest DXer comes in and mentions
that you consistently spell "thier" incorrectly?

And does THAT negate the fact that you were WRONG about YOUR assertion
that there are "CW only" subbands on HF...?!?!

You guys are so predictable.

As are you, Brain.

Try to hide your own inadequacies behind a typo I made...?!?!

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

Never.

"Ahven't" they?

Nope.

They were to Novices.

That's not what was said.

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........)

What was yours?

On my desk. Didn't participate in the 160 test, though...Have in the
past, but not this time.

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