| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:59:52 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:05:49 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: cut more pronoucement from on High you make the assertion explain why Follow the url I posted for the ARRL band plans. Read them. We can discuss it when you're educated. I have nothing is stated that says CW SSB or AM are somehow not subject to adjustment or local (or repgional) varriation, indeed the ARRL would lack the power to say that Don't tell me what it doesn't say, Mark. one asshole I'll say what I like two it says not a thing about CW SSB or AM being different than FM wrt to local varriation Tell me what it says. It doesn't say anything about ending world hunger, saving the whales or any number of things. Six meters frequently opens for regional QSOs and even worldwide QSOs. Tell me what negative consequences there might be for a national band plan if guys in Podunk, Iowa began implementing a local band plan. depends on what they did. Using AM say near the top of 6M as a local window to avoid DX is unlikely to harm anything esp if they stay off the repeater pairs your assertion you back it up What was my assertion, Mark? That you go to the ARRL band plan url and read it? "For 6m AM, SSB and CW? You're simply incorrect." you aserted it and then were too dumb to remeber what you said don't be your normal lazy bum self and tell others to do your work for you do it That is *precisely* what you repeatedly ask others to do for you. I do ask it which is not what I was talking about. I don't give people ORDERS. I don't tell what what to do, except to get of when they start giving orders You ask questions about a topic of which you know little. "which is how we find out things I think I read that in maual somewhere" (drfloyd 2010) You're provided information or are pointed to where the information can be found (which you haven't troubled yourself to find and study on your own). sometimes never done with much in the way manners something the ProCoders keep telling they have more of but moving along You begin disputing the information. as is my right esp when you present things as "facts" that clearly are not It is the question of the 5 MHz frequencies all over again. and you just can't stand anyone daring to dispute anything you say You don't use a spell checking program because you can't be bothered, so you continue to post gibberish and to tell readers that it is their problem. is someone holding a gun to head and MAKING you read. if call the Cops I make no one read anything of mine I do think however as the ProCoders them selves say that if they want to read they should expect to work at it, then they will value it more. It is like poetry you make it too easy and it means nothing. In my case I seek to reach those that "will ignore the shout but strain to hear the wishper" (a ST:NG quote a trill amabssdor anmed Odan) If you want to see a lazy guy, stare into a mirror. One size does not fit all. Read your ARRL repeater guide. Notice all the caveats wrt band plans, coordination, and even spacing. Those are regional differences, not local ones. What does the repeater guide say about 6m AM operation? Do you know of any 6m AM repeaters anywhere? Do you know why there can't be? There is no reason that my house can't be chartreuse...but it isn't. Do you know of any 6m AM repeaters? Just one will get you off the hook. which matters how no reason a 6m Am repeater can be built. No reason it can be built? Did you mean "can't be built". Read my comments above. you understand the question so answer rather than evade, lazy bum The lazy bum was the guy who wrote it incorrectly and posted it without correction. stil does bother with the issue always the attack SoP of the stpid and the Lazy I know Riley was going on about a 2m AM repeater at one point Great. There've been AM repeaters on 5m, 6m and 2m in the past. I know of none at the present. Were you and the boys in the club going to start a 6m AM repeater? which mean you knoew of them? which means your point was what? I "knoew" of them? I know a lot of things, Mark. My point was exactly what I asked you: Do you know of any 6m AM repeaters in existence in the United States of America? not at this time and still what was the point? you are about as myopic as Stevie I'm sure it seems that way to a lazy dyslexic. more bashing and not even original boring Davie Dave K8MN Dave K8MN an ture oppentant to invovation of any kind in Ham radio what is Ham luddites club number Davie? _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:48:03 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:52:41 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: cut not at all I was trying to spark an On Topic discussion HERE about how folks would go about local band planing It is "band planning", Mark and it isn't done on a local basis. It can be on vhf and above frequencies. You just need to open your mind a little, a very little. It can't be done locally if there is any chance of interfering with other regional repeaters. more pronucements from on high the MM's have spoken Not "pronucements", Mark, but "pronouncements". With which of my statements do you disagree? all of them you advance the notion that nothing can be if the is ANY chance of interference. That statement is a load of **** nothing say anything like that If you are coordinating to avoid putting your local machine with one 50 or 75 miles away, you aren't dealing with local band planning. You're dealing with regional band planning. not according to the ARRL you are being pretty certain about the meaning of words I understand that the concept might be alien to a guy who has trouble with words. Yes, I'm generally pretty certain about the meaning of words. That is a tool which has served me well. do publish the dictionary of the words you choose to make up new meanings for it might help but then I forgot you can't be helpfull or constructive can you? the ARRL says local bandplaning is possible Not "bandplaning", Mark, but "band planning". shve the distintion up your ass Quote the material. I provided you a url to the ARRL band plans. Nothing is mentioned about local band planning. I am quote the text PRINTED by the ARRL but then when you see fit the ARRL lies Now, what do your comments have to do with 6m AM operation? why does it have to? ...because you brought it up. no I did not the subject was Bandplaning you myopicaly choose to focus on an example to exclusion of all other examples or posiiblities I know asking you to think is asking you to exceed your abilities, but I never asked you in particular to jump. now that you have you might try being constructive or not of course as you choose the topic was local band planing as described in the ARRL repeater guide as possible "Band planning", Mark. Please provide some evidence that the ARRL endorses local band plans. Feel free to demonstrate that you have any knowledge at all of band planning anywhere, any time. Dave K8MN _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:48:03 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:52:41 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: cut "Band planning", Mark. Please provide some evidence that the ARRL endorses local band plans. Feel free to demonstrate that you have any knowledge at all of band planning anywhere, any time. please show you have any such knowledge indeed please show us you know anything true at all Dave K8MN _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
wrote Using AM say near the top of 6M as a local window to avoid DX is unlikely to harm anything esp if they stay off the repeater pairs IIRC there are some simplex frequencies scattered between 53.0 and the top of the band. Any of them ought to be OK to use regardless of mode, without any blessing from anyone. I suggested the lower segment because of the wide-open nature down there, without the possibility of being clobbered (or clobbering) nearby WBFM repeaters. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On 19 Oct 2005 14:58:48 -0700, wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Do you think the various 6M repeater plans can't have room for another repeater? You told us of your lack of knowledge of where 6m AM activity might be found. A couple of us told you. Now you'll undoubtedly string us along for a number of posts as you did over the 60m "band". Perhaps he and other associates have no 6M crystal for where the AM activity might be found and wants a local variation. Yeah, that not being able to buy a crystal would be a significant hurdle. Sheesh. CW has been crammed down our throats since the 70's because some thirld-worlder might not be able to purchase a microphone so I think it's legitimate that a person in America might want to try out a rig with a crystal already in hand without having to special order one from Jan. Of course, your opinion is different i question your last statement. i realy don't think we are hearing Dave opinion at all I think we are hearing some rote he picked up over the years _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator OTOH neither do the emails bounce I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater sub-bands. Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans. If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit! Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions. As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of netsthat use 50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signal guys and below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AMslots with 3KHz guard channels interleaved. Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and want to do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users. He never did say what he wanted to do exactly. what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't like OK. And this is different from any other law...HOW? one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM without hearing from DX OK...Leave your coax plugged into an dummy load...(No, not him...the 50 ohm one under the desk...) If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer them. Otherwise you're at the whim of the Propagation God, and he doesn't give a hoot who you want to hear from or not. When six meters is open, it's open...When it's not, it's not. If you want to just "work the locals", select one of the 2M or 70cm coordinated simplex channels. There's more than enough and you're far enough away from any major city so as to not have to "deal" with the DX. another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places So have the guys who live north of the line use the higher channels to transmit on and below the line use the lower... Problem solved. a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222 bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks with ham in Thunder Bay Ont The beef is that we gave away the lower 2Mhz. I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than likely no one will notice. ta-DAAAAAAAAAAH! Just make sure you're not interfering with any users who ARE in compliance with the bandplan and you have no problem. I don't like that "solution" as I know it encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can, and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms Know how I avoid this problem...?!?! I start off any transmission that MIGHT cause interference with... "Is this frequency in use...?!?!" Works just as well above 50Mhz as it does below it... Steve, K4YZ |
Stevie blows mental gasket badly
K4YZ wrote: wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator OTOH neither do the emails bounce I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater sub-bands. Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans. If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit! Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions. As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of nets that use 50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signal guys and below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AM slots with 3KHz guard channels interleaved. Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and want to do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users. He never did say what he wanted to do exactly. what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't like OK. And this is different from any other law...HOW? well it is different since bandplans are not laws in any sense you are realy over the edge the ARRL does not make laws the FCC does not make laws neither of these bodies has the power to make laws thank you for showing off your mental breakdown ... cuting the rest of Stevie raving |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
"K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
raped_an_old_friends_husband wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator OTOH neither do the emails bounce I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater sub-bands. Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans. If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit! Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions. As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of nets that use 50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signalguys and below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AM slots with 3KHz guard channels interleaved. Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and wantto do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users. He never did say what he wanted to do exactly. what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't like OK. And this is different from any other law...HOW? well it is different since bandplans are not laws in any sense Sure they are. The FCC has said that Amateur coordination groups were the defacto band planning resources, and that persons who operated in such a way as to cause interference to those plans was violating FCC rules and regulations. you are realy over the edge the ARRL does not make laws "really" I didn't say ANYthing about the ARRL, Mark... So I'd have to say YOU are over the edge. the FCC does not make laws neither of these bodies has the power to make laws thank you for showing off your mental breakdown ... No breakdown, Markie. The FCC regulates numerous forms of communications in direct response to thier mandate in the Communications Act of 1934 and others as ammended. Congress has delegated those parts of THIER responsiblities TO the FCC in said Act The Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission as publsihed by them in the Federal Register ARE laws. cuting the rest of Stevie raving "cutting" Reinserting since there was NO "raving" QUOTE one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM without hearing from DX OK...Leave your coax plugged into an dummy load...(No, not him...the 50 ohm one under the desk...) If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer them. Otherwise you're at the whim of the Propagation God, and he doesn't give a hoot who you want to hear from or not. When six meters is open, it's open...When it's not, it's not. If you want to just "work the locals", select one of the 2M or 70cm coordinated simplex channels. There's more than enough and you're far enough away from any major city so as to not have to "deal" with the DX. another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places So have the guys who live north of the line use the higher channels to transmit on and below the line use the lower... Problem solved. a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222 bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks with ham in Thunder Bay Ont The beef is that we gave away the lower 2Mhz. I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than likely no one will notice. ta-DAAAAAAAAAAH! Just make sure you're not interfering with any users who ARE in compliance with the bandplan and you have no problem. I don't like that "solution" as I know it encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can, and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms Know how I avoid this problem...?!?! I start off any transmission that MIGHT cause interference with... "Is this frequency in use...?!?!" Works just as well above 50Mhz as it does below it... Steve, K4YZ UNQUOTE |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
K4YZ wrote: raped_an_old_friends_husband wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote cut and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't like OK. And this is different from any other law...HOW? well it is different since bandplans are not laws in any sense Sure they are. no they are not The FCC has said that Amateur coordination groups were the defacto band planning resources, and that persons who operated in such a way as to cause interference to those plans was violating FCC rules and regulations. which are not laws either you are realy over the edge the ARRL does not make laws "really" I didn't say ANYthing about the ARRL, Mark... but the ARRL adpots the bandplans So I'd have to say YOU are over the edge. the FCC does not make laws neither of these bodies has the power to make laws thank you for showing off your mental breakdown ... No breakdown, Markie. The FCC regulates numerous forms of communications in direct response to thier mandate in the Communications Act of 1934 and others as ammended. agreed Congress has delegated those parts of THIER responsiblities TO the FCC in said Act no they have not The Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission as publsihed by them in the Federal Register ARE laws. wrong they are not laws cuting the rest of Stevie raving agian |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". Sigh...... Bandplans are mutually agreed upon frequency sharing arrangents that the FCC has repeatedly stated the violation of will get the violator "busted". While not codified in thier own right, they are, none the less, enforced BY the Federal Communications Commission. Refer to the current FCC list of NOV's, NAL's and Warnings. There are, unfortunately, numerous folks who have violated non-law "laws" that the FCC has demanded corrective action for. Close enough for me. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". for an occasion we find ourselfs in absolute agreement and as amateur they are subject to modifcation by us which proves they are not laws |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
K4YZ wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". Sigh...... Bandplans are mutually agreed upon frequency sharing arrangents that the FCC has repeatedly stated the violation of will get the violator "busted". While not codified in thier own right, they are, none the less, enforced BY the Federal Communications Commission. Refer to the current FCC list of NOV's, NAL's and Warnings. There are, unfortunately, numerous folks who have violated non-law "laws" that the FCC has demanded corrective action for. Close enough for me. still can't admit you were wrong lying sack of **** 73 Steve, K4YZ |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
still_more_stupid_than_an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: raped_an_old_friends_husband wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote cut and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't like OK. And this is different from any other law...HOW? well it is different since bandplans are not laws in any sense Sure they are. no they are not Sure they are. The FCC has said that Amateur coordination groups were the defacto band planning resources, and that persons who operated in such a way as to cause interference to those plans was violating FCC rules and regulations. which are not laws either Sure they are. you are realy over the edge the ARRL does not make laws "really" I didn't say ANYthing about the ARRL, Mark... but the ARRL adpots the bandplans And I STILL didn't say anything about the ARRL, Mark...YOU did. I N*E*V*E*R even REMOTELY suggested that the ARRL "makes laws". That the ARRL may "adopt" any certain coordinating agency's plan is irrelevent. So I'd have to say YOU are over the edge. the FCC does not make laws neither of these bodies has the power to make laws thank you for showing off your mental breakdown ... No breakdown, Markie. The FCC regulates numerous forms of communications in direct response to thier mandate in the Communications Act of 1934 and others as ammended. agreed I am so underwhelmed. Congress has delegated those parts of THIER responsiblities TO the FCC in said Act no they have not Sure they have. The Supreme Court has said so. The Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission as publsihed by them in the Federal Register ARE laws. wrong they are not laws Sure they are. Break one in such a way as to incur the FCC's wrath and see what happens. cuting the rest of Stevie raving agian "cutting" "again" There was no "raving" in the first place. QUOTE: one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM without hearing from DX OK...Leave your coax plugged into an dummy load...(No, not him...the 50 ohm one under the desk...) If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer them. Otherwise you're at the whim of the Propagation God, and he doesn't give a hoot who you want to hear from or not. When six meters is open, it's open...When it's not, it's not. If you want to just "work the locals", select one of the 2M or 70cm coordinated simplex channels. There's more than enough and you're far enough away from any major city so as to not have to "deal" with the DX. another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places So have the guys who live north of the line use the higher channels to transmit on and below the line use the lower... Problem solved. a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222 bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks with ham in Thunder Bay Ont The beef is that we gave away the lower 2Mhz. I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than likely no one will notice. ta-DAAAAAAAAAAH! Just make sure you're not interfering with any users who ARE in compliance with the bandplan and you have no problem. I don't like that "solution" as I know it encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can, and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms Know how I avoid this problem...?!?! I start off any transmission that MIGHT cause interference with... "Is this frequency in use...?!?!" Works just as well above 50Mhz as it does below it... Steve, K4YZ UNQUOTE |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
an_old_friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". for an occasion we find ourselfs in absolute agreement "occassion" "ourselves" and as amateur they are subject to modifcation by us which proves they are not laws Sure they are. Once again, Markie... The FCC has stated that those cooperative agreements ARE the defacto band plans, and although they will not specifically codfify them, they expect Amateurs to abide by them or find themselves in trouble. If I get an NAL from the FCC for a "verbatim" rule violation or because I tied to operate contrary to an established band p[lann is irrelevent...The FCC will prosecute it in the very same fashion. Steve, K4YZ |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
cheated_on_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". Sigh...... Bandplans are mutually agreed upon frequency sharing arrangents that the FCC has repeatedly stated the violation of will get the violator "busted". While not codified in thier own right, they are, none the less, enforced BY the Federal Communications Commission. Refer to the current FCC list of NOV's, NAL's and Warnings. There are, unfortunately, numerous folks who have violated non-law "laws" that the FCC has demanded corrective action for. Close enough for me. still can't admit you were wrong lying sack of **** Wrong about what? And what's with the ugly profanity? Getting frustrated, Markie? Steve, K4YZ |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". for an occasion we find ourselfs in absolute agreement "occassion" "ourselves" and as amateur they are subject to modifcation by us which proves they are not laws Sure they are. once again no they are not laws you are not telling the truth you are lying not moving off till you deal with the facts rules and regs are NOT laws, that is a fact i know you don't care about facts you have proven over and over agian cuting the bull**** that follows |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
K4YZ wrote: cheated_on_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote cut Close enough for me. still can't admit you were wrong lying sack of **** Wrong about what? about Bandplans being laws And what's with the ugly profanity? no ugly profanity at all Getting frustrated, Markie? not at all I expect you lie about anything that suits you Steve, K4YZ |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
molested_by_an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not"laws". for an occasion we find ourselfs in absolute agreement "occassion" "ourselves" and as amateur they are subject to modifcation by us which proves they are not laws Sure they are. once again no they are not laws Sure they are. you are not telling the truth Wrong. you are lying Nope. not moving off till you deal with the facts I could care less WHERE you move to, Markie. rules and regs are NOT laws, that is a fact I don't care WHAT you think, Markie...Congress delegated thier responsibilities to regulate radio to the FCC in the Communications Act. i know you don't care about facts you have proven over and over agian Uhhhhhhhhh...If I have "proven" them of COURSE I care baout them! Idiot! cuting the bull#### that follows "cutting" Then you're announcing your intention to inflict harm upon yourself? QUOTE: one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM without hearing from DX OK...Leave your coax plugged into an dummy load...(No, not him...the 50 ohm one under the desk...) If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer them. Otherwise you're at the whim of the Propagation God, and he doesn't give a hoot who you want to hear from or not. When six meters is open, it's open...When it's not, it's not. If you want to just "work the locals", select one of the 2M or 70cm coordinated simplex channels. There's more than enough and you're far enough away from any major city so as to not have to "deal" with the DX. another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places So have the guys who live north of the line use the higher channels to transmit on and below the line use the lower... Problem solved. a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222 bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks with ham in Thunder Bay Ont The beef is that we gave away the lower 2Mhz. I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than likely no one will notice. ta-DAAAAAAAAAAH! Just make sure you're not interfering with any users who ARE in compliance with the bandplan and you have no problem. I don't like that "solution" as I know it encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can, and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms Know how I avoid this problem...?!?! I start off any transmission that MIGHT cause interference with... "Is this frequency in use...?!?!" Works just as well above 50Mhz as it does below it... Steve, K4YZ UNQUOTE |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On 19 Oct 2005 21:47:45 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
molested_by_an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". for an occasion we find ourselfs in absolute agreement "occassion" "ourselves" and as amateur they are subject to modifcation by us which proves they are not laws Sure they are. once again no they are not laws Sure they are. you are just plain wrong you are not telling the truth Wrong. yep you are lying Nope. yep not moving off till you deal with the facts I could care less WHERE you move to, Markie. then why do stalk me to keep tabs on it rules and regs are NOT laws, that is a fact I don't care WHAT you think, Markie. proof of yet another Stevie lie if you did not care you would not bother ..Congress delegated thier responsibilities to regulate radio to the FCC in the Communications Act. and you are just wrong nobody but nobody can make laws except the Congress with the sigiture of the President (or by overiding his veto) learn your facts i know you don't care about facts you have proven over and over agian Uhhhhhhhhh...If I have "proven" them of COURSE I care baout them! if you had maybe but you never bother to prove much of anything the fact is you don't care about facts Idiot! cuting the bull**** that follows "cutting" Then you're announcing your intention to inflict harm upon yourself? no recuting the bull**** _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
|
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On 19 Oct 2005 22:07:43 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 21:47:45 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: molested_by_an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". for an occasion we find ourselfs in absolute agreement "occassion" "ourselves" and as amateur they are subject to modifcation by us which proves they are not laws Sure they are. once again no they are not laws Sure they are. you are just plain wrong Nope. of you are plain wrong cuting arep not moving off till you deal with the facts I could care less WHERE you move to, Markie. then why do stalk me to keep tabs on it I don't stalk you. you surely do so we calk up anoth lie I don't need to. My goodness a true statement from Stevie I may die of the shock If I wanted to find you, I'd follow the trail of dead flies....... back to bull**** I see My heart thanks you rules and regs are NOT laws, that is a fact I don't care WHAT you think, Markie. proof of yet another Stevie lie Nope. yes it is if you did not care you would not bother Sure I would. no you would not if it were for the statement I noted a up the post a bit id say you can't tell the turth you care intensely what I what I write what I think you prove it over and over again ..Congress delegated thier responsibilities to regulate radio to the FCC in the Communications Act. and you are just wrong Nope. ah I see you enaged in spin Break out the Act, PaganBoy. but the FCC still does not make laws nobody but nobody can make laws except the Congress with the sigiture of the President (or by overiding his veto) "signature" The Congress. only the congress State legislatures. Commonwealth senates. State, County, City, Burgh, Village and Township boards can make laws. but not concerning Radio And they too, just like COngress did with the FCC, delegate some of thier responsibilites to a subordinate agency under thier control. responiblities yes you are right but not the power to make laws learn your facts I laready have. "laready" losing it spelling cop? but you have not you still tell the lie that the FCC and the ARRL have the power to make US law i know you don't care about facts you have proven over and over agian Uhhhhhhhhh...If I have "proven" them of COURSE I care about them! if you had maybe Hey Markie...It was YOUR butchered English that I got to take advantage of! yes you took the cheap shot fairer than you normaly are but still a cheap shot but you never bother to prove much of anything Sure I have. name something That you refuse to accept it is beyond my control. another true stament you are tryng to kill me by inducing shock aren't you the fact is you don't care about facts Sure I do. no you don't And it's a fact that you're an idiot. wrong again Idiot! cuting the bull**** that follows "cutting" Then you're announcing your intention to inflict harm upon yourself? no recuting the bull#### "re-cutting" Replacing that which Mark C. Morgan is too cowardly to address. recuting yet again _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
|
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
|
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
"K4YZ" wrote in KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote And this is different from any other law...HOW? Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws". Sigh...... Bandplans are mutually agreed upon frequency sharing arrangents Agreed (I said that above) that the FCC has repeatedly stated the violation of will get the violator "busted". Disagree entirely. Riley Hollingsworth hasn't (and won't) bust anyone for violating a bandplan. He has (and will) bust you for interference with a coordinated repeater. While that distinction might seem subtle, consider this. Mark and his friends in the UP may examine the records of the coordination body and find that no repeater has been coordinated for the frequency 52.200 (random selection by me). In good faith they listen for several days and also do not hear any uncoordinated repeater on that QRG. Having a clear frequency they establish a nightly AM (or FM or CW or SSB --- all legal modes) ragchew net at 52.200. They are now "in violation" of the bandplan, and the local coordinator may have a hissy-fit, but no FCC violation has been perpetrated and Riley will decline to become involved. I'm not recommending that Mark follow this course of action (there is plenty of room in the bandplan without parking on an unused repeater pair) but until a repeater is coordinated on that vacant spot they are not in any danger of being busted. Ridiculed maybe, but not busted. In summary --- nobody ever got busted for violating a bandplan --- they got busted for interference with a coordinated user. Sigh! Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
"an_old_friend" wrote rules and regs are NOT laws Technically correct. But they carry the force of law (ie., you can get fined, etc.) Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:07:43 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote rules and regs are NOT laws Technically correct. But they carry the force of law (ie., you can get fined, etc.) agreed Beep beep de Hans, K0HB _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
K4YZ wrote: If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer them. I was under the impression that it's good operating practice to Always answer DX on 6M, even if they are out of band. |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:58:48 -0700, wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Do you think the various 6M repeater plans can't have room for another repeater? You told us of your lack of knowledge of where 6m AM activity might be found. A couple of us told you. Now you'll undoubtedly string us along for a number of posts as you did over the 60m "band". Perhaps he and other associates have no 6M crystal for where the AM activity might be found and wants a local variation. Yeah, that not being able to buy a crystal would be a significant hurdle. Sheesh. CW has been crammed down our throats since the 70's because some thirld-worlder might not be able to purchase a microphone so I think it's legitimate that a person in America might want to try out a rig with a crystal already in hand without having to special order one from Jan. Of course, your opinion is different i question your last statement. i realy don't think we are hearing Dave opinion at all I think we are hearing some rote he picked up over the years I don't. I've seen his snobbishness before. |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On 20 Oct 2005 16:59:10 -0700, wrote:
wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 14:58:48 -0700, wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut cut CW has been crammed down our throats since the 70's because some thirld-worlder might not be able to purchase a microphone so I think it's legitimate that a person in America might want to try out a rig with a crystal already in hand without having to special order one from Jan. Of course, your opinion is different i question your last statement. i realy don't think we are hearing Dave opinion at all I think we are hearing some rote he picked up over the years I don't. I've seen his snobbishness before. and you may be right i merely question and offer possible alterenative explantion _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
On 20 Oct 2005 16:54:23 -0700, wrote:
K4YZ wrote: If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer them. I was under the impression that it's good operating practice to Always answer DX on 6M, even if they are out of band. it also doesn't work to try and ignore em tif they can hear you they can get kida pushy esp when a fiend for a very rare county is one (few hams live in one the counties round here) _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com