At 03:44 PM 9/26/06, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator
>is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan.
Given normal circumstances, I'd certainly agree with you, Dave.
But a more relevant question might be this: would there be any fa
Anthony,
Is a 1KHz guard band really required? At 22 WPM, these beacons are not very
wide bandwidth-wise, something like 88 Hz. So, if you were operating at
14100.4 you were not really interfering - as if they ran a very narrow
filter they would be able to hear the CW beacons with no QRM from you.
radio product being taken to the
commercial marketplace.
Like I said, maybe it's time for the beacon system to move to the next level
too.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
- Original Message -
From: Michael Keane K1MK
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator
> is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
Seems reasonable when explained that way.
While it is not a problem for people with modern radios
and well calibrated
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:40:54 -0700, Chris Jewell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Whether the FCC (and other national administrations) treat violating
>an IARU Region band plan as violating the "good amateur practice"
>provision of the rules is unclear to me. However, an OO notice,
At 11:51 PM 9/25/06, Patrick Soileau wrote:
>I fail to see where beacons are more important than QSOs.
They're not. Which is why the FCC rules do not permit US stations to
operate automatically controlled beacons on HF; and why W6WX and
KH6YY require STAs for their beacon operations.
73,
Mike
Dave Cole (NK7Z/NNN0RDO) writes:
...
> Unless there has been a rule change, enforcement of this must be on a
> voluntary basis, period, I saw a post about involving the OOs, and the FCC.
> Has this frequency been officially allocated? If not, then involving an OO
> would be real abuse of power
Hi!
Inspite of the global characteristics of this Group, wich I proudly
subscribe, most of the messages are writtten by US citizens, regarding US
rules and US practices and US bandplan (Region 2).
However most of the writers forget that there are two other IARU Regions and
National Bandplans.
You
Hi
Jose Amador has hit the proverbial nail in the head:
"...the world is wider."
Monitoring the Beacons since 2003
Best regards
Sal
CT2IRJ
On 9/25/06, Jose A. Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If the beacons are moved, I am not sure where they would receive less QRM,
> if on the low
I asked a while back about how many logging and contesting programs
have band plans in them. Given that 14.100 is in the IARU Band Plan, we
should be encouraged to follow it.
Leigh/WA5ZNU
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW R
Could not agree more. Unless some infraction of the rules are being
made, it is highly improper for any ham to criticize another ham for
their legal operations.
To my knowledge, the amateur radio rules here in the U.S. only restrict
the 14.100 frequency from use by the fully automatic 500 Hz st
If the beacons are moved, I am not sure where they would receive less QRM,
if on the low end contending with CW DX or in the high end contending
with the
"family radiotelephones"
Something elseOO's only have jurisdiction within the US...the world
is wider.
So, a well thought solution i
Hi,
While I enjoy the use of the beacons, (and try and stay away from the
freqs), I agree with the last post, the idea of putting them in the middle
of the band was not a scaleable, or even a well thought out solution.
Unless there has been a rule change, enforcement of this must be on a
voluntary
>> There certainly have been plenty of reports of
>> callsign-unidentifiable Pactor-like signals QRMing
>> ... doc, KD4E
>>
> I have not seen any pactor-like signals on 14100.0. All the
> interfering stations have been conventional RTTY FSK.
> Bonnie KQ6XA
Interference between modes is not limit
If 14.100 turns out to be a particular problem, maybe an automated
webpage archive of all text decoded from 14.100 (in various modes) woukd
be useful.
I did an SSTV archive page once, but I had to discontinue it because of
all of the P0RN images... I didn't want that on my website.
Leigh/WA5ZN
> Paul Elder wrote:
> Certainly this is not a good thing, but wouldn't
> it be more advantageous to instruct these folks
> privately rather than post this list where it
> really serves no benefit? Even if they happen
> to be members of this group and would read this
> post, is this they way
16 matches
Mail list logo
