|
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
nobodys old friend wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Where's my sideswiper? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - doesn't 10 meters run from 25 MHz to 32 MHz? Or something like that? given the flaming I got over not knowing what some aphabet soup meant I wonder what will happen to Jim for blowing that one 10 meters BTW extends from 28MHZ to 29.7MHZ 12 meter as an aside runs from 24.890 *24.990 Stand-by for more "flaming", Mark. I know the concept may be a bit foreign to you, but Jim hampton was being facetious. Those who participate in "freebanding" consider that part of the spectrum (25Mhz to 32Mhz) to be "theirs". That is the range that many "export CB's" cover when "opened" for "freeband" operation. meaning jim has called the B band and the 10 meter combined with a section above that as 10 metters amuch bigger error i sghould think than my not knowing some alphabet soup "B band"...?!?! I won't even venture a guess. Your scope of awareness of present day reality of "radio policy and practice" is far too narrow, Mark. As for "alphabet soup", it's part of what you're supposed to know as a Commission licensee... No one expects you to memorize them, however you should be able to RECOGNIZE them, realize what they are and look them up in the proper regulation and then comply with the regulation. but Stevie will show his double standard again Nope. Just pointing out that you are, once again, ill-prepared to address the subjects, Mark. You tried to "redress" Jim Hampton based on YOUR lack of understanding, not HIS "error" for refering to it as "10 meters". Steve, K4YZ |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY That's fine by me as just 20% of hams who use HF also use CW on a regular basis. |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... nobodys old friend wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Where's my sideswiper? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - doesn't 10 meters run from 25 MHz to 32 MHz? Or something like that? given the flaming I got over not knowing what some aphabet soup meant I wonder what will happen to Jim for blowing that one 10 meters BTW extends from 28MHZ to 29.7MHZ 12 meter as an aside runs from 24.890 *24.990 Stand-by for more "flaming", Mark. I know the concept may be a bit foreign to you, but Jim hampton was being facetious. Those who participate in "freebanding" consider that part of the spectrum (25Mhz to 32Mhz) to be "theirs". That is the range that many "export CB's" cover when "opened" for "freeband" operation. meaning jim has called the B band and the 10 meter combined with a section above that as 10 metters amuch bigger error i sghould think than my not knowing some alphabet soup "B band"...?!?! I won't even venture a guess. Your scope of awareness of present day reality of "radio policy and practice" is far too narrow, Mark. As for "alphabet soup", it's part of what you're supposed to know as a Commission licensee... No one expects you to memorize them, however you should be able to RECOGNIZE them, realize what they are and look them up in the proper regulation and then comply with the regulation. but Stevie will show his double standard again Nope. Just pointing out that you are, once again, ill-prepared to address the subjects, Mark. You tried to "redress" Jim Hampton based on YOUR lack of understanding, not HIS "error" for refering to it as "10 meters". Steve, K4YZ Hello, Steve Yep, tongue way way into cheek LOL :)) Especially when I say "or something like that" ... BTW, double sideband with a 90 shifted full carrier yields phase modulation. I would almost suspect that might be legal under the "regulation by bandwidth", but am not sure. Currently, only in the high end of 10 meters and above (along with standard FM). Something like 29 to 29.7 MHz. Somewhere around there. At this point, I'd mention that if I were to fire up FM on 10 meters, I'd sure as heck break out the rules as I am not exactly sure where it is permitted on 10 or the exact frequency of the FM repeaters on 10. Ya can't know everything; as long as you can look it up, you'll be fine ;) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... 73, Hans, K0HB Hey Hans, back when I was in the Coast Guard, they told us all Radiomen had two dried shriviled up little balls. Is there any truth to that? Nick former brown water navy |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) No. Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Yep. Of course it doesn't explain why it's OK to run AM at a bandwidth of 9 kHz but not some new data mode at a bandwidth of 4.5 kHz. Where's my sideswiper? Yep. 73 de Jim, N2EY (yes I got the "10 meter" joke...) |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Where's my sideswiper? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - doesn't 10 meters run from 25 MHz to 32 MHz? Or something like that? given the flaming I got over not knowing what some aphabet soup meant I wonder what will happen to Jim for blowing that one 10 meters BTW extends from 28MHZ to 29.7MHZ 12 meter as an aside runs from 24.890 *24.990 Stand-by for more "flaming", Mark. I know the concept may be a bit foreign to you, but Jim hampton was being facetious. menaing we see again your doublt standard |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
wrote in message oups.com... Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) No. Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Yep. Of course it doesn't explain why it's OK to run AM at a bandwidth of 9 kHz but not some new data mode at a bandwidth of 4.5 kHz. Where's my sideswiper? Yep. 73 de Jim, N2EY (yes I got the "10 meter" joke...) Hello, Jim I'm going to have to really read up on the proposal. Why 9 KHz AM and not allow a data mode at 4.5 KHz doesn't make a whole lot of sense; then again, we are discussing government involvement in which case one shouldn't expect a whole lot of sense anyway. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"6H4Ballast" wrote in message groups.com... wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY That's fine by me as just 20% of hams who use HF also use CW on a regular basis. And I'm not afraid to switch to CW right in that phone band when someone tries to jump on me. Been there, worn that T-shirt. Funny how 75 watts of cw can get through a kilowatt AM station. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
raped an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Where's my sideswiper? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - doesn't 10 meters run from 25 MHz to 32 MHz? Or something like that? given the flaming I got over not knowing what some aphabet soup meant I wonder what will happen to Jim for blowing that one 10 meters BTW extends from 28MHZ to 29.7MHZ 12 meter as an aside runs from 24.890 *24.990 Stand-by for more "flaming", Mark. I know the concept may be a bit foreign to you, but Jim hampton was being facetious. menaing we see again your doublt standard "Menaing" that we see that you are ill-prepared mto discuss radio policy issues and that you have no understanding of what's going on around you. Steve, K4YZ |
Tennessee Nurse Steven J Robeson, LPN was: Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
K4YZ wrote: raped an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth). Audioooooo ... ;) Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting effects too ... Where's my sideswiper? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - doesn't 10 meters run from 25 MHz to 32 MHz? Or something like that? given the flaming I got over not knowing what some aphabet soup meant I wonder what will happen to Jim for blowing that one 10 meters BTW extends from 28MHZ to 29.7MHZ 12 meter as an aside runs from 24.890 *24.990 Stand-by for more "flaming", Mark. I know the concept may be a bit foreign to you, but Jim hampton was being facetious. menaing we see again your doublt standard "Menaing" that we see that you are ill-prepared mto discuss radio policy issues and that you have no understanding of what's going on around you. Steve, K4YZ Steve, it appears that you changed Mark's attribution from "an old friend" to "raped an old friend." Why did you do that? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com