Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #43   Report Post  
Old January 28th 06, 07:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz


K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

I've never called you "little." I have called you "Bozo" before, but I
was just being kind.


No...you were being Lenniesque.

Steve, K4YZ


If you say so herr dipschidt.

  #45   Report Post  
Old January 29th 06, 05:27 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
an_old_friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz


wrote:
From: Leo on Thurs, Jan 19 2006 5:30 pm

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:


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.


On the other side of the coin, there were more non-amateur
radio users desiring VHF spectrum?

[I will ignore some readers who want to carp about "big
money interests" and other Bravo Sierra...]


ofcourse the big money interest are forbiden unles the Coders can use
em for meassge point like Jim on the CW network

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!


That's always the case. However, presenting a case is not always
done properly (or realistically). In the USA there was a petition
for the "60m band" for U.S. amteur use and the FCC granted only
a few CHANNELS in that region of HF. That was in spite of other
(non-amateur, non-broadcasting) users not using that part of the
HF spectrum often or heavily.




  #47   Report Post  
Old January 30th 06, 05:25 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
 
Posts: n/a
Default learn to spell steve

On 30 Jan 2006 03:50:11 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kalamazoo Cuckoo' ND8V GLENN B General 0 October 19th 04 03:15 AM
Once upon a time in America there came to be a giant of an organization called the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). KC8QJP General 3 October 11th 04 10:44 AM
New ARRL Proposal N2EY Policy 331 March 4th 04 12:02 AM
The Pool N2EY Policy 515 February 22nd 04 03:14 AM
Some comments on the NCVEC petition D. Stussy Policy 13 August 5th 03 04:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017