|
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
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 |
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 Interesting too that the petition and rules changes recommended make no subdivision of HF band segment usage/permissions as a function of being Novice/Tech+, General, Advanced or Extra. If that is so, then what becomes the "incentive" for upgrading? Just my observation...or did I miss something.. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
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 While the principle of division by bandwidth instead of mode is basically sound, it does look like they are trying to "sneak through" a change in the phone bands. They need to be upfront and honest that their intent is to widen the phone bands. My director will hear my opinion on this and I'll probably file a comment ont the petition and if the FCC puts out an NPRM. I'm not necessarily against some widening of the phone bands (afterall the "Novice" segments are lightly used) but I am against the idea that they are not bothering to state that it is part of the purpose of this petition. And I believe that 30m is way too narrow to add a SSB segment. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
wrote http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 If Bill Cross really meant it when he said ''Detailed regulation of the nitty gritty of communication services, including the Amateur Service, is not in the picture, rather the FCC is shifting to strong and effective enforcement of truly necessary regulations.'', then this petition should receive favorable consideration by the Commission. Personally, I think ARRL's petition is waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative. Let's all propose the following re-write of Part 97. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 97.1 You are required to pass a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of .....blah, blah, blah. You will be issued a callsign when you pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when on the air. 97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna. 97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them. 97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and launch communications satelites into space and other technical radio stuff you may think up. The government doesn't care what mode you use for any of this. 97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair. Any deliberate interference or other assinine behaviour on your part will cause Riley to come and kick your ass off the playground. 97.6 Have fun. Love always, /signed/ FCC --------------------------------------------------------------------- 73, Hans, K0HB -- Support the National Endowment for Creative Misology. |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... 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 Interesting too that the petition and rules changes recommended make no subdivision of HF band segment usage/permissions as a function of being Novice/Tech+, General, Advanced or Extra. If that is so, then what becomes the "incentive" for upgrading? Just my observation...or did I miss something.. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I noticed the same thing and didn't know what to make of it. Perhaps they mean to keep the same segments as now for the different licenses? I suppose that would work as you can always use a mode that is narrower than the max. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... 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 Interesting too that the petition and rules changes recommended make no subdivision of HF band segment usage/permissions as a function of being Novice/Tech+, General, Advanced or Extra. If that is so, then what becomes the "incentive" for upgrading? Just my observation...or did I miss something.. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I noticed the same thing and didn't know what to make of it. Perhaps they mean to keep the same segments as now for the different licenses? I suppose that would work as you can always use a mode that is narrower than the max. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE they are probably trying to keep the technical 'what mode where' discussion separate from the licensing 'who goes where' discussion. they probably think they can win each one separately, but argue them together and there may be too many people who won't buy one or the other and come out against both. right now they happen to line up on the same dividing line, but there is no practical reason that they must. |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
KØHB wrote: wrote http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 If Bill Cross really meant it when he said ''Detailed regulation of the nitty gritty of communication services, including the Amateur Service, is not in the picture, rather the FCC is shifting to strong and effective enforcement of truly necessary regulations.'', then this petition should receive favorable consideration by the Commission. Personally, I think ARRL's petition is waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative. Let's all propose the following re-write of Part 97. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 97.1 You are required to pass a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of .....blah, blah, blah. You will be issued a callsign when you pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when on the air. 97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna. 97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them. 97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and launch communications satelites into space and other technical radio stuff you may think up. The government doesn't care what mode you use for any of this. 97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair. Any deliberate interference or other assinine behaviour on your part will cause Riley to come and kick your ass off the playground. 97.6 Have fun. Love always, /signed/ FCC --------------------------------------------------------------------- 73, Hans, K0HB -- Support the National Endowment for Creative Misology. What happened to "97.01 You are required to know Morse Code"? |
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 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? |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
From: "K0HB" on Sat 19 Nov 2005 19:10
wrote http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1 If Bill Cross really meant it when he said ''Detailed regulation of the nitty gritty of communication services, including the Amateur Service, is not in the picture, rather the FCC is shifting to strong and effective enforcement of truly necessary regulations.'', then this petition should receive favorable consideration by the Commission. Personally, I think ARRL's petition is waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative. Let's all propose the following re-write of Part 97. snip All very good and logical but it doesn't have the full support of the elite ruling NAAR (formerly ARRL) membership. Here is a much shorter version: 97.1 Amateur Radio Service is whatever NAAR says it is. 97.2 Refer to 97.1. ======== There, that should give NAAR what what it has wanted all along, assures the ARRL Press division to keep on printin' and making money for the League, thereby keeping Dave S. assured of pulling down $150K a year for as long as he is Trustee of the "Residence Radio Club." The Church of St. Hiram can be assured of a full collection plate and all may live happily ever after on Fantasy Island with Mr. Roarke and Tattoo and reruns. Everyone licensed before 11 Sep 01 gets a lovely medal for being "homeland security before there was homeland security" and a nice certificate, suitable for framing. Amen, |
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 ... ;) 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 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 but Stevie will show his double standard again |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com