Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites ..
) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic
control of a digital station.
as issues he asked the
I must have missed something but what are IED's? The only acronym that I
have heard are improvised explosive device and clearly that would be
an odd reference in this case.
Even though there are those who strongly oppose clarity on what really
is appropriate and inappropriate behavior with
Hi Andy,
That's just nonsense.
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
At 09:03 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites ..
) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200
At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
do this and now some of us have had to take action
I certainly agree. Now, given the FCC's position, why do we amateurs need all
the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our ranks sending
queries to the FCC concerning
practices by other control operators? We are all responsible for our
own operations. Right?
Chuck AA5J
At 10:14 AM
At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote:
PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively,
interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that
the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing
activity, or lying about being at the control
All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not
welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take
action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd
arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good
situation.
When you
You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to
radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power
than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation?
Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so
Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone
has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss.
I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something
that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand
the rules. The people
At 01:54 PM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote:
You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to
radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power
than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation?
Beacon stations also tend to run
Chuck,
Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur
bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing
and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be
interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have
At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
Chuck,
Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur
bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing
and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be
interpreted as perfectly legal ... but
Maybe it is nonsense. It is certainly not worth any more effort on my part.
I hope you and Bonnie and the Winlink folks can one day see eye-to-eye.
I think all three groups are cliques and all are trying to have it their way.
Adios.
At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
Chuck,
Enough of your
13 matches
Mail list logo
