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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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