"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.

Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 1:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"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.

Why? You'll only try to redirect the reply behind a typo or some
irrelevent point.

The facts are there are NO "CW-Only" subbands on HF.

Steve, K4YZ

(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

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

(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.

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