Jim Higgins wrote in
:

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:53:34 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

cmdr buzz corey wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

There is an element on 75 meters that just seems to hate
the idea of
Hams having fun, and want to spoil it for others.

There are a lot of cbers on the ham bands who happen to have ham
licenses.

I would respectfully note that the problems cannot all be laid at
the
feet of those who use/used Citizen band radios. It is a kind of
convenient word to generalize with, but in the end can add to the
problems.

But more importantly, what are we going to do about it? Somewhere
between the world of "You will not say the word "roger" lest ye be
banned from my repeater", and the Dodge City of 75 meters is a middle
ground that needs explored.

Basically, Hams need to accept that there are some of us who have
different accents from us, and may talk differently.

We need to not get spun up when someone says "My handle is...".
Or
Roger, or whatever. People who speak Q-signals and give 5 of 9 reports
should not berate others for silly language.

On the other hand, people who interfere with others communications
need dealt with, and dealt with harshly once found.

I like your approach, Michael.

That last suggestion, if successful, would go a long way to ward
cleaning up 75M! ;-)

Not sure what rock I've been living under, but I've never heard that
"Roger" wasn't kosher on a repeater. Do you maybe mean "10-4?"


Nope. A few months ago, I did a little investigation on repeaters.
Surprisingly enough to me, a lot of the repeater pages had guidelines of
"how to speak" Roger was in a few.

Keeping in mind that that is quite legal - a repeater owner can
bring down the repeater or kick someone off it if s/he doesnt want anyone
to say "Chewbacca", it isn't a freindly sort of thing to do.

Some of the best - friendly, courteous, etc. - hams I know were former
CBers. They may not be all very technically inclined, but all have
well set up stations - good effective antennas, proper grounding, etc.
- and they did it themselves. And more importantly they treat their
fellow hams decently on and off the air. All the ones I know deserve
the respect and tolerance you suggest above and when you get down to
it don't really need it because they don't stand out as former CBers.

My experience has been the same. A local Ham who is a truck driver
just happens to be an excellent ham, in all ways. We're bringing him up
on the technical end too. He does occasionally say "roger that". Big
deal. I'll take ten of him for every grump.


And if a new ham does happen to say "10-4" or "my handle is" it's easy
enough to privately Elmer him on the sensitivity some have to that
lingo. Those who refuse that simple courteous approach might do well
to look for another hobby. We have enough grouchy old men as it is.
;-)

Right! We can lead by example, and if need be, I can make a mention
of it if it is egregious. Mention it off the air, and in a constructive
way. I wouldn't browbeat anyone for saying roger, or even first personal,
but would make an exception if people were delving into the
"avoidance/defeat" of law enforcement activities that I've heard on 11
meters.

My personal pet peeve comes from reading the FCC enforcement letters.
If it's not an Extra class licensee involved then it tends to be
someone who has been licensed for 20+ years. It's definitely not the
newcomers. They make their occasional mistakes, but they don't do
anything wrong with malicious intent. If everyone just met that one
simple standard the bands would be an entirely different place, esp
75M.

Seeing the enforcement letters, I read much the same. There is the
occasional Technician that is operating beyond their priveliges, but
unlicened operation, repeater jammers, and plenty of hams who have been
licensed for a very long time.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:30:26 EDT, Jim Higgins
wrote:

And if a new ham does happen to say "10-4" or "my handle is" it's easy
enough to privately Elmer him on the sensitivity some have to that
lingo. Those who refuse that simple courteous approach might do well
to look for another hobby. We have enough grouchy old men as it is.
;-)

This really not-too-grouchy old man remembers the use of "my handle
is...." or "handle here is..." on HF as "good amateur practice" even
before CB was invented.

Of course the use of "first personal is...." still grates on my ears
but give them time....they'll learn eventually.

My two electrons....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote in
:

Of course the use of "first personal is...." still grates on my ears
but give them time....they'll learn eventually.


My own personal pet peeve is when someone speaks "HI HI". In Morse it does
sound kind of like laughter, but when spoken it sounds quite strange.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 13, 1:08 am, "Howard Lester" wrote:


Yeahhhhh, the personal here is Howard....


Talked to a young fella on the repeater the other day who introduced
himself by saying "my first personal is Jim and you're my first
contact, QSL?".

He seemed like a nice sort, delighted that he had just received his
shiny new call sign, and was anxious to make some new friends. Kinda
sounded like I felt when I put my new call sign on the air the first
time way back when, except probably brighter, cuz Jim is one of those
young computer jocks. Me, I still got problems with the LL scale on
my
Pickett slide rule. Yep, I think Jim sounded brighter than me, quick
to
catch on to things.


But I don't think Jim will be back on the repeater. Before I had a
chance to really get to know much about Jim, or even wrangle an
invite
to lunch, another station, with an impressive "senior" call sign
joined
the contact, flashed his shiny Radio Cop badge, and proceeded to
issue
Jim a "verbal speeding ticket" for improper lingo on the radio.
"Radio
Cop" said the term "personal" (and for that matter "handle") were
unwelcome in ham radio, and that Q-signals were not to be used on VHF
voice. Just generally made my newfound friend feel like an unwashed
interloper. (Gosh, I've been saying "handle" since I was a
conditional
class. Slow to catch on, you know.)


Now I should point out that "Radio Cop" took pains to appear very
well
meaning. Didn't use any bad words that I noticed, was quite polite,
even seemed like he was trying to be "helpful." In other words, he
thought he was doing Jim a favor by pointing out his transgression
from
our sacred Amateur Radio way of doing things. I think Jim felt just
the
same way I did back in a new school in third grade when the well
meaning teacher pointed out that "we don't keep our pencil behind our
ear in this room." Sure enough, I looked around and none of my new
classmates had pencils behind their ears. Sure was embarrassing, and
at
that moment I really wished I was back with my good old buddies in
second grade. Now, if I'd been allowed to hang out a couple of days,
I'm sure I would have learned how to properly stow my pencil. And if
Jim would have hung around a couple of days on our repeater I just
bet
he would have noticed that his lingo, perhaps learned in another
radio
service, was a bit out of place, and pretty soon Jim would sound
"just
like the rest of us." Like I said, he seemed pretty bright to me,
quick
to catch on to things.


"Radio Cop", you have kept our hobby uncorrupted. I heard Jim down
around 27 Mhz this morning, and saw his ad on eBay trying to sell his
barely used 2-meter HT. I'm gonna miss my new friend Jim, because I
think I could have learned something from him. Maybe you could have
also.


Like I said, he seemed pretty bright to me, quick to catch on to
things. What do think it was that he caught on to about us from
"Radio
Cop".


73, de Hans, K0HB


~~~
When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
~~~

On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.


My
reasons for doing so are probably typical: I do it because it reminds
me of the first transmitter I owned, and of other rigs and earlier
times, before I had the money to buy new equipment and linear
amplifiers. I also have many good friends who operate AM, and I like
to talk to them as well as to my friends who use CW or SSB.

I used to do some 75 meter AM - because it was fun. I hope to do more
soon. But the fun was definitely reduced by the behavior of a few bad
apples.

I'm writing this to ask that hams who don't favor AM make allowances for us:
it seems that the "AM Window" on 80 meters is being taken over by hams
operating SSB, sometimes with blunt, on-the-air comments to the effect that
those running AM aren't entitled to use the space. There have been skirmishes,
complaints, acrimonious debates, and even outright jamming lately, and I'm
afraid it will escalate to the point that FCC action will be needed.

Long history of that. I don't know why, because AM activity is
concentrated on a few well-known frequencies.

I'm going to be blunt he I'm not a psychologist, but I think those who
oppose AM are making a big mistake by not treating AM operators with the
same standard of on-air behavior that they show to other hams. I'm not sure
why this "range war" has started, but it's only logical endpoint is with
reduced privileges for ALL hams, not just those who use AM.

Our hobby is at a crossroads: with young technophiles gravitating to the
Internet, and military forces needing neither CW operators nor technicians,
the future we face at the frequency-bargaining table and in the public's mind
is no longer in the hands of benevolent government agencies eager for
trained personnel who can be pressed into service quickly. In fact, the
future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together
and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're
going to fade away without anyone noticing.

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)
even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:37:38 EDT, wrote in .com:

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

I seem to remember reading something yesterday about a defense contractor
getting an experimental permit for something right spang in the middle of
1.8-2.0 MHz. I need to review the bidding on that, and will write more once
I find it.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

The ARRL is holding the FCC's collective feet to the fire, and that sort of
action is one of the very few reasons that the ARRL still gets any of my
money.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)
even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Apparently not. But there's certainly plenty of room for the Hi-Fi SSB
crowd. *sigh*

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO

Tired old sysadmin

wrote in
oups.com:

On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.

Really odd, in that the ARRL lumps them together as 80 meters. The
whole thing is not accurate anyhow, so I guess it is more by convention
than anything else.


I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

Agreed. HF "suffers" from unpredictability, or perhaps more accurately,
it's wildly varying characteristics. One part of the day, a flea power
signal can make its way around the world, the next part it won't. Then
the sunspots can do the same thing. Those are all the characteristincs
that we have fun with, but are really bad for the control that is needed
by other groups. I like to think about what would happen during good
propagation to all those competing signals.


What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all the
battles.


As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)

That would be quite a trick! (joke)

even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Not for the miscreants! 8^(

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 16, 2:19?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com:
On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.

Really odd, in that the ARRL lumps them together as 80 meters. The
whole thing is not accurate anyhow, so I guess it is more by convention
than anything else.

Yup. Why FCC considers them different bands, even though they are
right next to each other, is a mystery.

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

Agreed. HF "suffers" from unpredictability, or perhaps more accurately,
it's wildly varying characteristics. One part of the day, a flea power
signal can make its way around the world, the next part it won't. Then
the sunspots can do the same thing. Those are all the characteristincs
that we have fun with, but are really bad for the control that is needed
by other groups. I like to think about what would happen during good
propagation to all those competing signals.

There's also the size of simple, effective antennas on the lower
frequencies, particularly if you want broadband, no-tuner performance.
I saw a neat design for a 40-10 meter discone in the ARRL Antenna Book
- it's not exactly small.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all the
battles.

I don't know about politics losing all the time. If the licensed
services are not protected, all kinds of havoc can happen.

In the bad old days, 27 MHz was an ISM band, reserved for things like
diathermy and heat-sealing machines. I remember one case, here in
Philadelphia, where a heat-sealing factory's machines put a strong
harmonic right on the Philadelphia Police dispatcher channel.

Of course FCC was all over them in a big way. But imagine if FCC had
dragged its feet...

Of course amateur radio isn't the same as the police channel, but once
the camel's nose gets in the tent, things get very odd.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)

That would be quite a trick! (joke)

Yup. But they did it anyway.

even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Not for the miscreants! 8^(

'zactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:50:33 EDT, wrote:

In the bad old days, 27 MHz was an ISM band, reserved for things like
diathermy and heat-sealing machines. I remember one case, here in
Philadelphia, where a heat-sealing factory's machines put a strong
harmonic right on the Philadelphia Police dispatcher channel.

The major problem with the 27 MHz heat sealers was the 4th harmonic in
the aviation bands. The local FCC engineer in charge had the legal
authority to shut the plant down immediately without a warning or
hearing and the plant could not resume operation until it certified
by measurement and an FAA overflight that the IX was corrected. The
necessary shielding to accomplish compliance is the reason that the
characteristic "heat sealer buzz" is no longer a problem on 11 or 10
meters.

Of course FCC was all over them in a big way. But imagine if FCC had
dragged its feet...

Even today, FAA complaints take first priority, but in reality that
was a different FCC... g

In my first year with the agency we went out on about a half-dozen
such complaints in the San Francisco area, but 30 years later when I
retired we hadn't received such a complaint in many years.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

wrote in
oups.com:


On Jun 16, 2:19?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:

some snippage

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all
the battles.

I don't know about politics losing all the time. If the licensed
services are not protected, all kinds of havoc can happen.

Then the politics loses. The world is full of examples where
politicians have decided what the truth is. I'll spare us the details to
avoid going off topic, but BPL, which is one really minor example of that
sort of thought, will almost certainly fail unless Amateur radio is
outlawed in all BPL deployment areas. While it does indeed interfere with
our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting
legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access
for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far,
however.
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -