| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
August 25th 04, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
August 26th 04, 09:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (Brian) Date: 8/25/2004 3:10 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message ... But for me the important question is: Should there be CW-only subbands? I say yes - about the lowest 15-20% of each HF/MF hamband. Including 160. Why not? Would it really bother anyone if 3500-3575 and 7000-7050 were CW only? Only if it were to include all other "digital" (hi,hi) modes... As it is, CW is allowed in ALL MF/HF -amateur- spectrum. As it is, Brian, do you understand WHY it's allowed? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#4
August 27th 04, 05:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
Things are changing with more and more citizens able to lobby the FCC without having to join special interest groups. Changes are coming.... You've lobbied. I don't see any changes in your status vis a vis amateur radio. You're still not a participant after decades of self-declared interest. You're still not involved despite a boast of getting an "Extra right out of the box" years back. Some changes must come very slowly. Dave K8MN |
|
#5
August 28th 04, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Things are changing with more and more citizens able to lobby the FCC without having to join special interest groups. Changes are coming.... You've lobbied. I don't see any changes in your status vis a vis amateur radio. Don't hold yer breath, Dave! You're still not a participant after decades of self-declared interest. You're still not involved despite a boast of getting an "Extra right out of the box" years back. January 19, 2000, to be exact. Right in this-here newsgroup. Of course he was "Lenof21" then. Some changes must come very slowly. Fun facts: - Despite his claims of being online since dirt was new, Len could not get ECFS to work for him back in early 1999. Couldn't keep up with the times, I suspect. Most of us poor old backward hams got ECFS to work for us, though. He wound up submitting his 98-143 comments by US mail, on disk and paper. He's been a busy wordsmith since then, though, deluging the FCC with commentary. Most of it is obvious cut-and-paste. Poor Bill Cross. - FCC got about 2500 comments on 98-143, the last big restructuring. Back in the mid-1960s, FCC got over 6000 comments on "incentive licensing", most of them from individuals, even though there was no ECFS back then and all commentary was plain old words-on-paper. - ARRL lobbied to increase the code test speed from 10 to 12.5 wpm in 1936. That was the last time ARRL lobbied for an increase in code test speeds. Indeed, the 1963 ARRL incentive licensing proposal called for no increase in code test speeds (full privileges would have been allowed to Advanceds under that plan) and ARRL *opposed* the FCC idea of a new 16 wpm test for "Amateur First Class" which FCC wanted in 1965. - No class of US amateur radio license has required more than 5 wpm code test since 2000. No class of US amateur radio license has required more than 5 wpm code test since 1990 (with an easily-obtained medical waiver, and a long list of possible accomodations). Yet Len's sole involvement is the harangue of an outsider. Kibitzer. Sidewalk superintendent. Gladys Kravitz effect. "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
August 29th 04, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Things are changing with more and more citizens able to lobby the FCC without having to join special interest groups. Changes are coming.... You've lobbied. I don't see any changes in your status vis a vis amateur radio. Don't hold yer breath, Dave! Oh, I won't. I don't expect Leonard (despite often writing of "getting into" amateur radio) to actually obtain a license during his present incarnation. You're still not a participant after decades of self-declared interest. You're still not involved despite a boast of getting an "Extra right out of the box" years back. January 19, 2000, to be exact. Right in this-here newsgroup. Of course he was "Lenof21" then. I remember that one and Cutey Boy's memorable statement. They are, you'll have to admit, quite similar in outcome. Some changes must come very slowly. Fun facts: - Despite his claims of being online since dirt was new, Len could not get ECFS to work for him back in early 1999. Couldn't keep up with the times, I suspect. Most of us poor old backward hams got ECFS to work for us, though. He wound up submitting his 98-143 comments by US mail, on disk and paper. He's been a busy wordsmith since then, though, deluging the FCC with commentary. Most of it is obvious cut-and-paste. Poor Bill Cross. It'd be interesting to see if our resident r.r.a.p. g.o.m. (grumpy old man) is the most prolific of commenters. - FCC got about 2500 comments on 98-143, the last big restructuring. Back in the mid-1960s, FCC got over 6000 comments on "incentive licensing", most of them from individuals, even though there was no ECFS back then and all commentary was plain old words-on-paper. Did Leonard comment on incentive licensing? His declared interest in amateur radio would have taken him back to that era. - ARRL lobbied to increase the code test speed from 10 to 12.5 wpm in 1936. That was the last time ARRL lobbied for an increase in code test speeds. Indeed, the 1963 ARRL incentive licensing proposal called for no increase in code test speeds (full privileges would have been allowed to Advanceds under that plan) and ARRL *opposed* the FCC idea of a new 16 wpm test for "Amateur First Class" which FCC wanted in 1965. So the mythical "Church of St. Hiram" isn't at all as Len has attempted to portray it? - No class of US amateur radio license has required more than 5 wpm code test since 2000. No class of US amateur radio license has required more than 5 wpm code test since 1990 (with an easily-obtained medical waiver, and a long list of possible accomodations). Yet Len's sole involvement is the harangue of an outsider. Kibitzer. Sidewalk superintendent. I've pointed that out to him on numerous occasions. Len could have easily passed a no code exam. I feel sure that, despite the enormous obstacle of a 5 wpm code test, he could have met the qualifications of at least one of the HF license classes. He hasn't. If his intention is to wait until there is no code test for an HF amateur radio license, fine. He's really showing us. Gladys Kravitz effect. Does Len have a chin? "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" Dave K8MN |
|
#7
August 29th 04, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: Dave Heil Date: 8/28/2004 8:02 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: - Despite his claims of being online since dirt was new, Len could not get ECFS to work for him back in early 1999. Couldn't keep up with the times, I suspect. Most of us poor old backward hams got ECFS to work for us, though. He wound up submitting his 98-143 comments by US mail, on disk and paper. He's been a busy wordsmith since then, though, deluging the FCC with commentary. Most of it is obvious cut-and-paste. Poor Bill Cross. It'd be interesting to see if our resident r.r.a.p. g.o.m. (grumpy old man) is the most prolific of commenters. Well ya KNOW he is! I counted at least 12 "reply comments" to recent actions wherein Lennie did what Lennie does best...Tried to attack the messenger. And there were even more that I didn't open. Oh, he polishes it up well...(Or was that his ghost writer...I never can tell...), but bottom line...Lennie did his best to attack anyone who presented an effective argument by trying to diminish the messenger... Gee... Where have we seen THAT before...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#8
August 29th 04, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
I remember that one and Cutey Boy's memorable statement. They are, you'll have to admit, quite similar in outcome. I don't think Len ever "crapped his hands." |
|
#9
August 29th 04, 11:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Things are changing with more and more citizens able to lobby the FCC without having to join special interest groups. Changes are coming.... You've lobbied. I don't see any changes in your status vis a vis amateur radio. Don't hold yer breath, Dave! Oh, I won't. I don't expect Leonard (despite often writing of "getting into" amateur radio) to actually obtain a license during his present incarnation. The license is the least of it. Setting up a station and actually operating it, without government or corporate backing is the bigger challenge these days. You're still not a participant after decades of self-declared interest. You're still not involved despite a boast of getting an "Extra right out of the box" years back. January 19, 2000, to be exact. Right in this-here newsgroup. Of course he was "Lenof21" then. I remember that one and Cutey Boy's memorable statement. They are, you'll have to admit, quite similar in outcome. You mean neither has yet made good on what they said they'd do. Some changes must come very slowly. Fun facts: - Despite his claims of being online since dirt was new, Len could not get ECFS to work for him back in early 1999. Couldn't keep up with the times, I suspect. Most of us poor old backward hams got ECFS to work for us, though. He wound up submitting his 98-143 comments by US mail, on disk and paper. He's been a busy wordsmith since then, though, deluging the FCC with commentary. Most of it is obvious cut-and-paste. Poor Bill Cross. It'd be interesting to see if our resident r.r.a.p. g.o.m. (grumpy old man) is the most prolific of commenters. In sheer volume, he's probably pretty close to the top for an induhvidual commenter. Poor Bill Cross. - FCC got about 2500 comments on 98-143, the last big restructuring. Back in the mid-1960s, FCC got over 6000 comments on "incentive licensing", most of them from individuals, even though there was no ECFS back then and all commentary was plain old words-on-paper. Did Leonard comment on incentive licensing? I don't know. His recall of that regulatory proceeding is quite innaccurate. His declared interest in amateur radio would have taken him back to that era. I "have an interest" in learning Japanese. I know about a half-dozen words in that language. - ARRL lobbied to increase the code test speed from 10 to 12.5 wpm in 1936. That was the last time ARRL lobbied for an increase in code test speeds. Indeed, the 1963 ARRL incentive licensing proposal called for no increase in code test speeds (full privileges would have been allowed to Advanceds under that plan) and ARRL *opposed* the FCC idea of a new 16 wpm test for "Amateur First Class" which FCC wanted in 1965. So the mythical "Church of St. Hiram" isn't at all as Len has attempted to portray it? If you mean the ARRL, its policy and operations are quite different than what Len portrays. - No class of US amateur radio license has required more than 5 wpm code test since 2000. No class of US amateur radio license has required more than 5 wpm code test since 1990 (with an easily-obtained medical waiver, and a long list of possible accomodations). Yet Len's sole involvement is the harangue of an outsider. Kibitzer. Sidewalk superintendent. I've pointed that out to him on numerous occasions. Len could have easily passed a no code exam. I feel sure that, despite the enormous obstacle of a 5 wpm code test, he could have met the qualifications of at least one of the HF license classes. He hasn't. If his intention is to wait until there is no code test for an HF amateur radio license, fine. He's really showing us. Gladys Kravitz effect. Does Len have a chin? "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | General | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
