| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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 |
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? |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
Jim Hampton wrote: "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 Mighty Macho Morse Man? |
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. nope meaning you are bent on flaming for anything I type at all you are a fraud your bigest fraud is presenting yourself as human at all Steve, K4YZ |
Tennessee Nurse Steven J Robeson, LPN
|
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
an old friend wrote: 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. nope meaning you are bent on flaming for anything I type at all Nope...MEANING that you are ill-prepared to duscuss radio policy issues and that you have no understanding of what's going on around you. you are a fraud your bigest fraud is presenting yourself as human at all The "fraud" here is the drafted gay pagan Army Chemical Corps colonel who doesn't know that freebanders operate from 25 to 32Mhz. Steve, K4YZ |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"6H4Ballast" wrote in message
That's fine by me as just 20% of hams who use HF also use CW on a regular basis. "20% of hams", or "20% of hams who responded to a particular survey"? Now if you ran that same survey by a group of QRP homebrewers, the result would be closer to 100%. Statistics is a powerful tool only if care is taken in how the sample population is chosen. But remember, the results only apply to that *sample*, not an *entire* population (unless sample = entire, which is quite rare). 73, Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
Tennessee Nurse Steven J Robeson, LPN
an old friend wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: raped an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: cut 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? becuase he is a sick SoB that thinks rape is the proper subject of jokes set that against his "outrage" over my caling some one an elitist bitch (iw ould have called her an elitist bastartd had she been male that seems the convetions) now by Stevies other statement in that thread I suppose that we may asume by HIS use of the word he endorses rape and similar sex crimes and is in fact guilty of them himself in real life Steve is many things. I'd put "ass" as #1 on his list, followed by "liar" then "delusional," not necessarily in that order. Actually, "liar" could be listed several times. I don't think there's enough bandwidth to complete the list, though. He made an agreement to be civil and couldn't last even 24 hours. |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
wrote in message oups.com... Jim Hampton wrote: "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 Mighty Macho Morse Man? Nope, just reality. W2OY learned that lesson the hard way :)) I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. Assuming, of course, the teletype operator could type that fast or was using an automatic send/receive teletype (with tape reader where the tape could be typed in advance of sending it). A lot of folks can't even type 40 or 50 words per minute. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"anon" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Didn't take you long to reply. Who's ingesting alcohol? I've to go to work tomorrow morning (like 5:00 AM). What is your excuse? I've put perfect copy on paper using a manual typewriter at 40 words per minute. A number of minutes' worth. My mention of 40 or 50 words per minute was a reference to some of the wonder boys whose great exploits simply consist of 'cut and paste' on the Internet. I'm simply saying that a good operator can likely keep up with most folks that are trying to enter original content and not simply pass along a digital picture, or a 'cut-and-paste' from someone else. Then again, original content might be something you aren't familiar with. With due regard, Jim AA2QA |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "anon" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Didn't take you long to reply. Who's ingesting alcohol? /////////*MORE* B.S. Snipped////////// I I I I I I I I I, me me me me me me me me me me That's the way your type tells stories of grandeur and how wonderful I am........ |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"anon" wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Jim is a great guy. You must have mis-read him. |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
Steveo wrote: "anon" wrote: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Jim is a great guy. You must have mis-read him. moparholic at hotmail dot com is a great gay, I mean guy. a great guy at being gay. |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
anon wrote: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "anon" wrote in message "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Didn't take you long to reply. Who's ingesting alcohol? /////////*MORE* B.S. Snipped////////// I I I I I I I I I, me me me me me me me me me me That's the way your type tells stories of grandeur and how wonderful I am........ Jim...Looks like the works of Fans of the Feeble Five. Consider the source. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
steve is coward afraid to asnwer a simple question
K4YZ wrote: anon wrote: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "anon" wrote in message "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... what has sexuality got to do with radio |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"anon" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! A fantastic tale in its day but back to present day what is the benefit? I think you will find most people will know you can say anything via Morse just like you can talking so being amazed at what can be passed via Morse seems a strange thing to highlight. You can pass much more information by talking. In the past fair enough but times have moved on. Morse is now an out-dated form of communication practised now by just radio Amateurs. To any Amateurs who like Morse then that's fine for them. They will learn it and use it where they like and I have no problems at all about that. But... to ramble on about it constantly and belittle anyone not really interested in "just the Morse" side of radio is a bit unfair branding them as inferior radio users (not aimed at you personally here) Amateur radio can still be a fascinating Hobby without it, or as I would like, not a forced issue but one of choice. Regards, Graham -- --------------- Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "anon" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Didn't take you long to reply. Who's ingesting alcohol? I've to go to work tomorrow morning (like 5:00 AM). What is your excuse? Wow thats early. I dont need to get into work until 8am. Not a dustman are you? I've put perfect copy on paper using a manual typewriter at 40 words per minute. A number of minutes' worth. My mention of 40 or 50 words per minute was a reference to some of the wonder boys whose great exploits simply consist of 'cut and paste' on the Internet. If that is adiquate then whats wrong with cut and paste? Only an idiot would sit there re-typing out something that could just as easily be cut and pasted unless it was an original work of course. I'm simply saying that a good operator can likely keep up with most folks that are trying to enter original content and not simply pass along a digital picture, or a 'cut-and-paste' from someone else. A good operator? Depends on your impression of a good operator. A good operator to me is someone who uses the radio sensibly, stays legal and cares about interference and deals with it if caused. Someone who goes on about ooh i can do this or i can do that trying to put themselves above other operators in my opinion have a vanity problem. As far as pictures go id rather use the internet as its a more appropriate media for that. Then again, original content might be something you aren't familiar with. With due regard, Jim AA2QA Also with due regard and no disrespect intended. Just my 10p worth. Graham -- --------------- Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"The Magnum" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "anon" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! Didn't take you long to reply. Who's ingesting alcohol? I've to go to work tomorrow morning (like 5:00 AM). What is your excuse? Wow thats early. I dont need to get into work until 8am. Not a dustman are you? I've put perfect copy on paper using a manual typewriter at 40 words per minute. A number of minutes' worth. My mention of 40 or 50 words per minute was a reference to some of the wonder boys whose great exploits simply consist of 'cut and paste' on the Internet. If that is adiquate then whats wrong with cut and paste? Only an idiot would sit there re-typing out something that could just as easily be cut and pasted unless it was an original work of course. I'm simply saying that a good operator can likely keep up with most folks that are trying to enter original content and not simply pass along a digital picture, or a 'cut-and-paste' from someone else. A good operator? Depends on your impression of a good operator. A good operator to me is someone who uses the radio sensibly, stays legal and cares about interference and deals with it if caused. Someone who goes on about ooh i can do this or i can do that trying to put themselves above other operators in my opinion have a vanity problem. As far as pictures go id rather use the internet as its a more appropriate media for that. Then again, original content might be something you aren't familiar with. With due regard, Jim AA2QA Also with due regard and no disrespect intended. Just my 10p worth. Graham -- --------------- Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham Hello, Graham I couldn't agree with you more ;) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
"The Magnum" wrote in message ... "anon" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I really don't care one way or the other about code - but most folks have no idea how much information can be passed via that keyer. In my day, I'd pass dang near as much info in a given time as a teletype. /////// B.S. Snipped here///////// Oh how the tales of dariing do and "how great I am" grow taller and taller and more spectacular, as the years go by and more alcohol is ingested..........ROTFLMAO! A fantastic tale in its day but back to present day what is the benefit? I think you will find most people will know you can say anything via Morse just like you can talking so being amazed at what can be passed via Morse seems a strange thing to highlight. You can pass much more information by talking. In the past fair enough but times have moved on. Morse is now an out-dated form of communication practised now by just radio Amateurs. To any Amateurs who like Morse then that's fine for them. They will learn it and use it where they like and I have no problems at all about that. But... to ramble on about it constantly and belittle anyone not really interested in "just the Morse" side of radio is a bit unfair branding them as inferior radio users (not aimed at you personally here) Amateur radio can still be a fascinating Hobby without it, or as I would like, not a forced issue but one of choice. Regards, Graham -- --------------- Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham Hello, Graham I also do not see the need to force cw on anyone. Still, when one attempts to tell me that more information can be passed via voice, I can only agree if the communications is something like "meet me at Joe's bar at 10:00 PM". If there is something like "medium pizza with cheeze and sausage to 1235 W. Cauncy Blvd", then someone is going to have to write down that information. This *will* slow the maximum data transfer to what can be put on paper. Assuming one is not connected to the Internet where they can simply print the information, I must admit that I cannot print nor write as fast as I can copy cw to a keyboard (or typewriter). In that case, cw might be as efficient as anything else. This is, of course, a questionable case. The time I mentioned (the perfect copy at 40) was a weather bulletin which gave latitude, longitude, and a multitude of other data to boot. This could, of course, be transmitted by voice, but would absolutely *have* to be put on paper (unless someone had a photographic memory that *never* made a mistake). In that case, sans digital data transmission (citor, amtor, teletype, or whatever), voice could not possibly be faster as it had to be put to paper. In this case, the limit would be how fast this could be transcribed to paper. In closing, I would reiterate that I agree about cw should not be a forced issue. My only issue is that some folks feel that it is terribly slow. Compared to the Internet or other digital transmissions, sure. Compared to voice .... it all depends ;) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN, was: Regulation-by-Bandwidth Petition Filed by ARRL
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ changed Mark's attribution from "an old friend" to "nobody's old friend." Why does Steve do that? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com