| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
August 29th 05, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN. No code practice sessions? No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. No remote control of satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications No remote control of model airplanes? Is that us? No remote control of repeaters? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications. No telemetry from satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications. No propagation beacons? No. Try calling CQ! ;^) No APRS? (Not even in balloons?) That is part of a two way system. (balloons) I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based APRS to make an informed judgment. No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system? Still part of two way comms. No................ "Period" There is a big difference between what happens when a repeater or satellite is used, and when someone starts yappin or beepin with no intention of getting a reply. The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the signals are used in two way transmissions or not. Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch! Hehe, yes, sometimes I am!..... - mike KB3EIA - |
|
#2
August 29th 05, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Coslo" wrote KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN. In other words, information bulletins from W1AW (or whoever) announcing FCC invoked communications emergencies should not be allowed? No code practice sessions? No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. Until you learn to COPY Morse code, it'll be kinda hard to "get on the air and find someone". No remote control of satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications It's still a one-way transmission. Period. No remote control of model airplanes? Is that us? Says so in paragraph 97.215 No remote control of repeaters? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications. It's still a one-way transmission. Period. No telemetry from satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications. It's still a one-way transmission. Period. No propagation beacons? No. Try calling CQ! ;^) CQ is a one way transmission. Period. No APRS? (Not even in balloons?) That is part of a two way system. (balloons) It's still a one-way transmission. Period. I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based APRS to make an informed judgment. It's still a one-way transmission. Period. No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system? Still part of two way comms. It's still a one-way transmission. Period. The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the signals are used in two way transmissions or not. None of the examples I gave "listen for a return signal", so by definition they are "one way". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#3
August 29th 05, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: | No remote control of model airplanes? | | Is that us? Some of it is, yes. The 72 mHz band is the `main' R/C plane band, and not ham radio, but there's frequencies in the six meter band allocated to R/C control. Several of my R/C planes are on channel 5, 50.900 MHz. Ham band. According to the FCC regulations, I don't have to ID myself for model control like this, but I do have to put my call sign on the transmitter. And so there's a little sticker on the module that says AD5RH and has my name and number. I'm not sure how anybody could claim that model control is not a one way transmission -- the plane doesn't have any sort of transmitter at all. -- Doug McLaren, Why is it considered necessary to nail down the lid of a coffin? |
|
#4
August 29th 05, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote:
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amat= eur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox N= ews or CNN. Fox News and CNN don't seem to cover the situation in the detail needed by those in the affected area. No code practice sessions? No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. ?? It's always been possible for code to be self-taught. That's how I learned - listening to hams on 80 meters. With a homebrew two-tube regenerative receiver and a wire out to the crab apple tree. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. If someone wants to learn Morse Code in order to actually *use* the mode, rather than just to pass the test, being able to listen to real live ham stations is the best way to learn. Code practice like W1AW is predictable, dependable, high quality and of known speed. Is there no room on the bands for a few hours of Morse Code practice? No remote control of satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications The first amateur radio satellite, launched more than 40 years ago, only carried a transmitter. It sent some basic telemetry. Under your rules it would not have been allowed. No remote control of model airplanes? Is that us? Yes. No remote control of repeaters? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications. Sounds like bafflegab to me. If the repeater sticks on and I send a shutdown command, and the repeater goes dead, that's one way. No telemetry from satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications. Only if the satellite is capable of two way. See Oscar 1, above. No propagation beacons? No. Try calling CQ! ;^) The beacons are useful because they are a known quantity. No APRS? (Not even in balloons?) That is part of a two way system. (balloons) Not necessarily. I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based APRS to make an informed judgment. No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system? Still part of two way comms. Bafflegab. No................ "Period" There is a big difference between what happens when a repeater or satellite is used, and when someone starts yappin or beepin with no intention of getting a reply. So it's really all about *intent*, not about two-way or one-way communications. That much I can agree with! The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the sign= als are used in two way transmissions or not. Why? What's wrong with beacons? Radio control? Code practice? Telecommand and telemetry? Seems the "no one way" stuff would really cut out a lot of good things from the ARS, for no good reason. btw, the pactor robots are not one-way devices - they are trying to carry out two-way comms, right?=20 73 de Jim N2EY |
|
#6
August 30th 05, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN. No code practice sessions? No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers available to teach those wish to learn. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#7
August 31st 05, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8HB wrote: cut No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers availab= le to teach those wish to learn. What? is there a part of the NPRM I missed like carting off the Code users to some kind of death camp? The ending of code testing will not reduce the number of code using hams. Time may do that though the actions of the grim reaper and the failure of Code users to recruit others to replace them, but I doubt that will kill CW USE or learning of the mode Further with computers and programs in existance today any one that wishes to make the attempt to learn Morse Code has the tools to do so =20 Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#8
August 31st 05, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "an_old_friend" on Wed 31 Aug 2005 07:09
Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8=88B wrote: cut No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taugh= t=2E Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers availa= ble to teach those wish to learn. What? is there a part of the NPRM I missed like carting off the Code users to some kind of death camp? Mark, it is The End Of Amateur Radio as the morsemen know it. Their Krystalnacht was sounded with FCC 90-53 of 15 years ago. Their Burning of The Reichstag was FCC 99-412, the R&O for Restructuring...5 WPM morse maximum and cutting classes in half. The ending of code testing will not reduce the number of code using hams. Rumor has it that Black and Decker, Makita, and other tool makers have begun development of a device to remove code keys from cold, dead fingers, to be sold to morticians. Time may do that though the actions of the grim reaper and the failure of Code users to recruit others to replace them, but I doubt that will kill CW USE or learning of the mode Morse will never die as long as there are space-faring aliens who will invade Terra but counter-attacks will be coordinated by Mighty Macho Morsemen working secret (from aliens) morse code! Further with computers and programs in existance today any one that wishes to make the attempt to learn Morse Code has the tools to do so Oh! The Ideological Conflict! Digital machinery of a very complex nature to TEACH their "most simplest, effective, low- power, basic communications skill!" Woe to the Morsemen! Let their Tennysons to be exclaim in memoriam, "Look upon my [code] works, ye mighty, and despair!" |
|
#9
September 1st 05, 12:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BEGIN QUOTE
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: cut No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers available to teach those wish to learn. What? is there a part of the NPRM I missed like carting off the Code users to some kind of death camp? The ending of code testing will not reduce the number of code using hams. Time may do that though the actions of the grim reaper and the failure of Code users to recruit others to replace them, but I doubt that will kill CW USE or learning of the mode Further with computers and programs in existance today any one that wishes to make the attempt to learn Morse Code has the tools to do so Dee D. Flint, N8UZE END QUOTE We could easily become short of code elmers as I know a number of people who taught it only out of a sense of duty to the incoming amateurs. There will of course be people who continue to learn it and use it. However what we will lose are those people who choose to never try it but would like it if they did. Some will fall prey to the "obsolete" argument. Others will think that it is "too hard" and so on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#10
September 1st 05, 01:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Flint wrote: BEGIN QUOTE "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8HB wrote: cut No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taug= ht. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers available to teach those wish to learn. What? is there a part of the NPRM I missed like carting off the Code users to some kind of death camp? The ending of code testing will not reduce the number of code using hams. Time may do that though the actions of the grim reaper and the failure of Code users to recruit others to replace them, but I doubt that will kill CW USE or learning of the mode Further with computers and programs in existance today any one that wishes to make the attempt to learn Morse Code has the tools to do so Dee D. Flint, N8UZE END QUOTE We could easily become short of code elmers as I know a number of people = who taught it only out of a sense of duty to the incoming amateurs. Well again this says a lot about the mode if it is truely that vulernable But when the student is ready the teacher will appear. There will of course be people who continue to learn it and use it. However what we will lose are those people who choose to never try it but would like it if they did. Some will fall prey to the "obsolete" argumen= t=2E Others will think that it is "too hard" and so on. and you will stop losing those that are put off by by having to learn it, but the ARS is not a Morse Code welfare system, it never should have been but it certainly ends here Morse Code will simply have to compete on a level feild rather than one in which it has built advantage =20 Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Seeking comments from Icom PCR1000 Users | Scanner | |||
| Seeking Comments from Icom PCR1000 Users | Shortwave | |||
| Citizens make inappropriate comments? | Policy | |||
| NASWA Draft BPL Comments | Shortwave | |||
| BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
