Dave:
This is scary... we actually agree...
I even like your wording.. which makes a Heck of a
lot of sense...
__________________________________________________________ Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA Website: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished" "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:56
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We
should replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:
"No
automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied frequency,
or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning of each 5 minute
interval of operation."
Polite automatic stations can operate where
they like. Control operators for rude automatic stations will lose their
licenses. No sub-bands. No mercy.
73,
Dave,
AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > why would we re-do regulations
which have been in effect for 50 years, or longer, allowing SSB down
to 14100 and 7050 in Canada? > > Lately those regulations are no
longer in effect but I have yet to see anyone operating below those
freq's, so far respecting the > "gentleman's agreement" which is how
our band plan is now run. > > I can't , for the life of me,
understand why you guys keep getting mired in the desire for more
regulations, completely out of step with the rest of the globe. >
> > John > VE5MU > ----- Original
Message ----- > From: jgorman01 > To:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, February 06,
2006 7:37 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF > > >
As long as countries like Canada would redo their regulations
and > prevent stations from simply moving lower since it is
legal to so. > > Jim >
WA0LYK > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
"Danny Douglas" <n7dc@> wrote: >
> > > The exact reson we need INTERNATIONAL
subbands. > > > > ----- Original
Message ----- > > From: "jgorman01"
<jg6164@> > > To:
<digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Monday,
February 06, 2006 3:09 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re:
ARRL proposal removes baud rate > limitations
on > > HF > > >
> > > > The real problem right now is not
expanding our SSB segments, but > > > rather that
expansion forcing other countries SSB even lower. > >
> Canadian, Mexican, and Central American SSB stations are already
far, > > > far down in the lower parts of 80m and
40m. So far in fact that > > > sometimes it
is hard to have CW or PSK qso's. How many more will
show > > > up if our SSB segments expand.
Sometimes we forget we are not the > > > only hams
in the world. > > > > > >
Regardless of what is officially said, hams in other countries
are > > > allowed to operate this low for only one
reason, to avoid qrm from US > > > SSB
stations. They will continue to do, making it harder and
harder > > > for both CW and the narrow digital
modes. > > > > > >
Jim > > > WA0LYK > >
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Douglas" <n7dc@> wrote: > > >
> > > > > > > > >
----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "KV9U"
<mrfarm@> > > > > To:
<digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > > > > Sent:
Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM > > > > Subject:
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate >
> > limitations > > > > on
HF > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Danny, > >
> > > > > > > > Even if the CW subbands
shrink, it does not mean that there will > > > be
any > > > > > shortage of spectrum for CW. From
what I have read of the > > > proposals,
any > > > > > narrow mode can always be used in
a wider mode subband. Just > like
you > > > > > can today. No one loses anything.
In fact, it is the exact > opposite >
> > > > because other hams will gain the privelege to use more
modes > over a > > > > >
wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are the >
overwelmingly > > > > > most popular modes and
use the most bandwidth for a given > amount
of > > > > > communication
intelligence. > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >
> > > > Other areas of
interest: > > > > > > The MixW
Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >
> > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol
(band plan policy > > discussion) >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo!
Groups Links > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming
message. > > > Checked by AVG Free
Edition. > > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database:
267.15.2/251 - Release Date: >
2/4/2006 > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of
interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol
(band plan policy discussion) > > > > >
> SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby
and craft supply
> Icom ham radio
Yaesu ham radio > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- >
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit
your group "digitalradio" on the
web. >
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group,
send an email to: >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- >
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- >
> > No virus found in this incoming
message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >
Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date:
2/4/06 >
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|