|
24 GHz woes?
The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17
GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. It's getting that way here in Ducktown. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Barry OGrady wrote:
On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. Barry, I think you're new to the group. As far as I can figure, Lenover21 kind of speaks out against Morse qualified Hams, or at least those who support Morse code testing every chance he gets. He has some pretty strong feelings in that way. That is how we get Morse related comments here in this thread. In the US of A, there is no Morse code testing for access to Ham frequencies above 30 MHz, so this thread doesn't have much to do with Morse code testing. But that's Len, and we all like him anyhow (at least I do) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:27:19 -0800 (PST), "Phil Kane" wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. There are no bands above 2 meters. Where you thinking of two metres? Ahhhh, now I get it. Here we use "meter" as the spelling where you would use "metres". Just like color vs. colour. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. It's getting that way here in Ducktown. Do you have more repeaters than hams? It can be a problem! In my investigations into near space ballooning, we are pretty much prevented from using 2 meters for a band unless we go for a simplex repeater. There are a LOT of 2 meter repeaters. Just about everywhere we would be hitting a lot of repeaters when we keyed up from 100,000 feet. So we will probably use the 70 centimeter band for our repeater. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:32:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
Barry, I think you're new to the group. BarryO has posted here for quite a while. He appears to be an Australian ham and keeps making statements about his license (excuse me - "licence") privileges and other off-the-wall things designed merely to pull chains rather than to contribute to the discussion at hand. On things like FCC amateur radio policy, he rarely hits the mark. I can't decide whether to put him back in my killfile or not. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article , Barry OGrady
writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. |
Hello, Phil and Barry
As a kind hearted soul who is willing to assist some folks having communications difficulties, I have asked a friend of mine in the U.K. for some assistance. Here is his reply: ********* start of copied message********** Hi James and All, I will willingly help you with your project Jim, just send me what you want to say in your words and I will convert it to an English style of your choosing. I can do you, the Queens English, London Cockney, London North, London South, not that I have ever been south of the river, Middle England, West Country or Welsh (real Welsh mind, not Canadian Welsh), LOL. ********* end copy********* So, if Barry would be so kind to inform us as to what kind of colour should be applied to our conversation, I shall ask my friend, Bernie, in the U.K. to translate for us. With all due regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:27:19 -0800 (PST), "Phil Kane" wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. There are no bands above 2 meters. Where you thinking of two metres? We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. It's getting that way here in Ducktown. Do you have more repeaters than hams? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane -Barry ======== "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." [A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)] Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information. |
|
In article , Barry OGrady
writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com