| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
August 21st 04, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William) Date: 8/20/2004 2:47 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... (Jim Hampton) wrote in message . com... Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? Look at your FCC rule book. I don't have one from 15 years ago. I thought they had to abide by the Novice restrictions. Who needs one from 15 years ago, Brain? Band assignments still exist fo Novice class licensees in present Part 97. They had to abide by the power restrictions on 15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband. In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit. In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of the rule books for this time period. Thanks Dee. Looks like I was wrong, and I stand corrected. Apologies to Jim and Kelly. SOMEONE DIAL 9-1-1 IN PICKERINGTON OHIO AND FIND OUT WHO KIDNAPPED BRIAN BURKE! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bravo, Brian. Bravo. Now, let's work on the truth about the authorization for your alleged Somalia operation and try and get some validation for that assertion about "unlicensed devices playing a major role in emergency communications" thing working while you're on a roll! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#43
August 21st 04, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William) Date: 8/20/2004 5:50 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 8/20/2004 7:54 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? Look at your FCC rule book. They had to abide by the power restrictions on 15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband. In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit. In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of the rule books for this time period. Dee, your operating on the presumption that Brain can read, let alone comprehend what he reads. Big stretch there! 73 Steve, K4YZ Wrong again, diminuitive man. Read my next reply to Dee. I did Brian! I did! And it only took YOU a week of hammering the same thing through to you for you to FINALLY get it! Kudos again on sucking-it-up and apologizing to Jim Miccolis and Brian Kelly. You forgot to add Dee in the mix, but hey, it was a first for you so we can let you make it up later. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#44
August 22nd 04, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "William" wrote in message . com... (Jim Hampton) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message .com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? Look at your FCC rule book. They had to abide by the power restrictions on 15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband. In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit. In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of the rule books for this time period. Dee, the FCC dates back to 1934 and ARRL dates back to 1914. FCC os 70 this year and ARRL is 90. Many, many rules have CHANGED in that time. FCC doesn't use OLD rules for new regulations. Were there "CW-only subbands" in 1976? My old 1976 ARRL Handbook says there were. |
|
#45
August 22nd 04, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Jim Hampton) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message .com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? I could post exerpts of ARRL-reprinted FCC rules from their 1976 Handbook...showing that there were (!) "CW-only subbands on HF." Problem is, Rev. Jim would immediately misdirect, point out flaws in my character and repeatedly chant "Incorrect! Incorrect!" |
|
#46
August 23rd 04, 05:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Jim Hampton) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? I could post exerpts of ARRL-reprinted FCC rules from their 1976 Handbook...showing that there were (!) "CW-only subbands on HF." Problem is, Rev. Jim would immediately misdirect, point out flaws in my character and repeatedly chant "Incorrect! Incorrect!" Nope, I wouldn't do that. I re-read the thread. Nothing said about CW only *now*, the question is "never was". In that case, there certainly was CW only sub-bands (at least I'm pretty sure). The novice portions of the bands when I was a novice in 1962 were portions of 80, 40, and 15 meters (there was 2 meter phone available back then for novices). Novices were crystal contol only and all amateurs were limited to 75 watts *input* in the novice bands (but higher class licensees could use VFOs). I don't recall at all where rtty was permitted, but not in the novice bands. The only 'digital' modes would have been cw and rtty. I do wish I had the old handbook from 1960 however. Lost that once I went into the service in January of 1967. Gawd, I wanna cry when I think of the *tons* of QSTs and 73s that I got rid of at that time ..... 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#47
August 23rd 04, 07:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Jim Hampton) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: I could post exerpts of ARRL-reprinted FCC rules from their 1976 Handbook...showing that there were (!) "CW-only subbands on HF." Problem is, Rev. Jim would immediately misdirect, point out flaws in my character and repeatedly chant "Incorrect! Incorrect!" Nope, I wouldn't do that. I re-read the thread. Nothing said about CW only *now*, the question is "never was". In that case, there certainly was CW only sub-bands (at least I'm pretty sure). The novice portions of the bands when I was a novice in 1962 were portions of 80, 40, and 15 meters (there was 2 meter phone available back then for novices). Novices were crystal contol only and all amateurs were limited to 75 watts *input* in the novice bands (but higher class licensees could use VFOs). I don't recall at all where rtty was permitted, but not in the novice bands. The only 'digital' modes would have been cw and rtty. I do wish I had the old handbook from 1960 however. Lost that once I went into the service in January of 1967. Gawd, I wanna cry when I think of the *tons* of QSTs and 73s that I got rid of at that time ..... Back in '76 the ITU and FCC were still using "A1, A2, F1, F2..." designations for emissions. [was 28 years ago] Bringing back the old, obsolete technical terms isn't too hard (but why innaheck do that) and a simple one-page scan of one page of band designations with modulations would prove it all. But, lotsa folk in here wanna argue the Whichness of the What in a flame fest of minutae. Nonsense activity. No huhu on getting old copies of QST. ARRL sells them on CD. ARRL also resells CQ's 3-CD set of all 22 years of articles of Ham Radio magazine. Lots more solid radio information in HR than them old QST hi-jinky reportings of past contests and glories in (hah!) "radiosport." :-) "Radiosport!" Like NBC would broadcast ANY of that! :-) Beep, beep... |
|
#49
August 23rd 04, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#50
August 23rd 04, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | General | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
Linear Mode
