Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 06:36:01 -0800, K4YZ wrote:

The 220-225Mhz band wound up in North American Amateur's hands for
the most part as a buffer between commercial users and the Armed Forces
"band" from 225Mhz to 400Mhz (among other reasons). It was never meant
to be an unrevokable allocation...(Not that any are...) That we've
kept it this long has been nothing short of a miracle.

If they loes it we shoud give them half of oeurs becaues we don't need
all that much and we are theyr friends. I say give them a megahurtz
from 221 too 222.

Marky, you can't even operate 2 meters worth a darn.

I do ok I am getting to like 2m SSB more consitant than 6m SSB and
queiter to operate

It's quieter for you because no one wants to talk to an idiot.

oTOH 222 is even quieter but few people on and 440 sssb i can leave on
all day and still satnd the static but still make some contact even a
bit on 1.2 g

You're talking to someone on 1.2 grams?

all nice bands the range kida suck but range is being worked on by the
FCC

I am wondering how it is you think the FCC has anything to do with
the propagation of the bands at all...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
steve comited a crimnal act (anying posting

If that is so, then you should get a life sentence for all of your
posts, Marky.
nope since I sign my posts I am not in violation fo the law

You never sign your posts, dumbass. You are in violation of the "law"
yourself. You would have to have signed it, Mark C. Morgan in order to
comply, but you won't do that under this or any of the other names you
post under.

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 11:27:14 -0800, wrote:


all nice bands the range kida suck but range is being worked on by the
FCC

Your stupidity is never ending, is it, Marky?


Soon FCC will make biger range legale and then wecan talk 400 or
500 miles with simple. You so stipid not to know it for yerself,
crotch rabbit.

And you would still lack the technical expertise to do anything but PTT
on 2 meters, to a repeater.

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 06:36:01 -0800, K4YZ wrote:

The 220-225Mhz band wound up in North American Amateur's hands for
the most part as a buffer between commercial users and the Armed Forces
"band" from 225Mhz to 400Mhz (among other reasons). It was never meant
to be an unrevokable allocation...(Not that any are...) That we've
kept it this long has been nothing short of a miracle.

If they loes it we shoud give them half of oeurs becaues we don't need
all that much and we are theyr friends. I say give them a megahurtz
from 221 too 222.

Marky, you can't even operate 2 meters worth a darn.

I do ok I am getting to like 2m SSB more consitant than 6m SSB and
queiter to operate

It's quieter for you because no one wants to talk to an idiot.

oTOH 222 is even quieter but few people on and 440 sssb i can leave on
all day and still satnd the static but still make some contact even a
bit on 1.2 g

You're talking to someone on 1.2 grams?

Marky snorts cocaine!

all nice bands the range kida suck but range is being worked on by the
FCC

I am wondering how it is you think the FCC has anything to do with
the propagation of the bands at all...?!?!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

On 18 Jan 2006 08:47:54 -0800, wrote:


raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
steve comited a crimnal act (anying posting

If that is so, then you should get a life sentence for all of your
posts, Marky.
nope since I sign my posts I am not in violation fo the law

You never sign your posts, dumbass. You are in violation of the "law"
yourself. You would have to have signed it, Mark C. Morgan in order to
comply, but you won't do that under this or any of the other names you
post under.

but I do

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

On 17 Jan 2006 06:49:27 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

snip

...At the end of the day, I am glad I work in a US ER.

.....so are we!

73, Leo

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

From: Leo on Jan 18, 2:53 pm

On 17 Jan 2006 06:49:27 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

snip
...At the end of the day, I am glad I work in a US ER.

....so are we!

Heh heh heh...I wish we (down here south of you) could say
the same. :-)

So...Leo, what's the word from Canadian amateur radio on
the IC reallocation of "220?"

[not that it matters directly to me, but such an actual
subject of discussion would be preferable to the sniping and
general name-calling on personalities in here...where
every day is Boxing Day...in the literal sense of the word]

By the way, a good example of "220" in operation is the
Condor Net covering most of the length of California and
reaching into states of Nevada and Arizona. Over two
decades of operation and begun before repeater micro-
processor control was the common thing in repeater control.

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

wrote:

Over two
decades of operation and begun before repeater micro-
processor control was the common thing in repeater control.

And in service all those years WITHOUT Lennie Anderson to tell
them how to do it...Who wudda thunk it...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

On 19 Jan 2006 04:07:37 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:


wrote:

Over two
decades of operation and begun before repeater micro-
processor control was the common thing in repeater control.

And in service all those years WITHOUT Lennie Anderson to tell
them how to do it...Who wudda thunk it...?!?!

i guess steve just wanted to clear the deck to go back after Len

Steve, K4YZ

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
 

On 18 Jan 2006 18:04:24 -0800, wrote:

From: Leo on Jan 18, 2:53 pm

On 17 Jan 2006 06:49:27 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

snip
...At the end of the day, I am glad I work in a US ER.

....so are we!

Heh heh heh...I wish we (down here south of you) could say
the same. :-)

So...Leo, what's the word from Canadian amateur radio on
the IC reallocation of "220?"

I have not been a user of the 220 MHz band (hmmm - maybe that's part
of the problem!), and cannot add much to what the original ARRL
bulletin stated.

I do recall receiving warning bulletins from the RAC back in 2004
stating that the 220 - 222 MHz Amateur allocation was under review by
Industry Canada, and we would lose it if we were not sufficiently
active on it. Commercial interests (specifically for multi-use radios
(MURS), trunked mobile and fixed wireless access applications, medical
telemetry and utility telemetry applications) had petitioned for this
spectrum to be released to them.

In short - we did not sufficiently utilize this band - and lost it,
despite significant lobbying by RAC to hang on to it.

Goes to show ya that our Amateur frequency allocations are not crafted
in stone - they can be taken away if we cannot demonstrate that we are
actively using them!

[not that it matters directly to me, but such an actual
subject of discussion would be preferable to the sniping and
general name-calling on personalities in here...where
every day is Boxing Day...in the literal sense of the word]

Agreed!

hey..... I think I said that! That's my line!

Clear breach of copyright here - I'll sue you! :) :) :)


By the way, a good example of "220" in operation is the
Condor Net covering most of the length of California and
reaching into states of Nevada and Arizona. Over two
decades of operation and begun before repeater micro-
processor control was the common thing in repeater control.



73, Leo