146.440-147.435 repeater
Andre Dusablon
so. About a week ago someone brought a repeater on-line that has an
input of 146.440 and out of 147.435. The ARRL Repeater Directory says
that 147.435 is a simplex freq. Is this a legal repeater? Also the
language being used is incredible! People calling others "niggar",
"faggot", etc and saying, "fuck your momma." This repeater is located
somewhere in the Portland area and has the call of wm1j I'm pretty sure
that's the call sign. What actions are we allowed or obligated to take
to stop this behavior? Should we record the freq for proof of violation?
Will the FCC get involved?
Andy
--
---
fal...@pacifier.com
Drew Durigan
Not likely. Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the guy, and then
take appropriate measures to remove the station from the air. A pin in
the coax works wonders.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Christopher K Greenhalgh
Drew Durigan <VUB...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>Again, Steve...what would YOU do to solve the problem? Playing footsie
>with the guy by "asking him nicely" or wasting time with the FCC just
>isn't gonna cut it. A well-placed pin shorts the whole works out and
>immediately puts an end to the offending transmissions. Do you have a
>better idea? Let's hear it.
>
>-Drew in Charlotte-
> KF4DDM
It certainly shouldnt be an illegal act...which dru subscribes, however,
he has proclaimed other illegal activities in the past, hence, no
surprise here.
Take care all, & 73.
--
Christopher K. Greenhalgh, N8WCT
Computer/Electronic Tech. II at The Ohio State University
E-Mail: ck...@osu.edu (cgre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Radio : n8wct@w8cqk.#cmh.oh.usa.noam
Landing
> fal...@pacifier.com (Andre Dusablon) wrote:
>
> Not likely. Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the guy, and then
> take appropriate measures to remove the station from the air. A pin in
> the coax works wonders.
>
> -Drew in Charlotte-
> KF4DDM
>
>
Be sure to have plenty of insurance cause if you follow this fools advise, you're gonna get yourself shot.
Someone stick a pin in Drew..see if it will short out his brain...oopppsss TOO LATE
Michael P. Deignan
Christopher K Greenhalgh <cgre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>It certainly shouldnt be an illegal act...which dru subscribes, however,
>he has proclaimed other illegal activities in the past, hence, no
>surprise here.
Very true. Drew epitomizes the very CB-radio scum that the no-code
license has let into the hobby.
MD
--
--
-- "Who needs looks when you've got taste?"
--
Drew Durigan
>
>> VUB...@prodigy.com (Drew Durigan) writes:
>> fal...@pacifier.com (Andre Dusablon) wrote:
>
>>
>> Not likely. Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the guy, and
then
>> take appropriate measures to remove the station from the air. A pin
in
>> the coax works wonders.
>>
>> -Drew in Charlotte-
>> KF4DDM
>>
>>
>Be sure to have plenty of insurance cause if you follow this fools
advise, you're gonna get yourself shot.
Common-sense disclaimer: DON'T GET CAUGHT!
kc7...@primenet.com
>In article <4cs5mf$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> Christopher K Greenhalgh <cgre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>>It certainly shouldnt be an illegal act...which dru subscribes, however,
>>he has proclaimed other illegal activities in the past, hence, no
>>surprise here.
>
>Very true. Drew epitomizes the very CB-radio scum that the no-code
>license has let into the hobby.
Well I am a former CBer and a no-coder. I don't agree with Drew either but does
that make me a scum bucket too? I got out of CB because of those idiots. If
upgrading only means I get to meet people like you that call all CBers scum then
I think I will stay where I am. I have met nicer people on 70cm and 2m than I
have ever heard listening to the hf bands on shortwave. Sounds just like CBers to
me. Besides I love packet and building antennas for vhf and uhf. Just because I
don't want to learn code does not mean that I am not a ham like you.
73 de KC7GNM
Greg
Drew Durigan
>
>In article <4cs5mf$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> Christopher K Greenhalgh <cgre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>>It certainly shouldnt be an illegal act...which dru subscribes, however,
>>he has proclaimed other illegal activities in the past, hence, no
>>surprise here.
>
>Very true. Drew epitomizes the very CB-radio scum that the no-code
>license has let into the hobby.
And you too, Mikey...what would YOU do to solve the problem? Personal
insults and name calling are not a credible solution.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Christopher K Greenhalgh
Drew Durigan <VUB...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>It certainly shouldnt be an illegal act...which dru subscribes, however,
>>he has proclaimed other illegal activities in the past, hence, no
>>surprise here.
>Okay Chris...since you have once again chosen to butt into that which
>does not involve nor concern you merely for the purpose of making a
>personal attack against me, I will ask you the same question I asked
This newsgroup belongs to everybody. Nobody "butts" in...if they have
an opinion, input, or (as in my case) facts pertaining to the post, then
they may post it. If dru wants to have a private chat, then simply take it
to e-mail.
>What would YOU do to solve the problem?
I am the ARRL Local Government Liaison for Franklin countny in Ohio
(Columbus area). I have been called on to help settle these types of matters
exactly. I also handle all the interfacing between the cities, and the Ham
in a dispute over antenna regulations, interference, ect. I am currently
lobbying a small city counsil right now, to ammend some unfair antenna
hieght restriction.
There is a procedure that you follow when a problem arises. Most of it
is common sense, but starting at the bottom, and working your way up
LEGALLY. I do not suggest, practice, or condone ILLEGAL activity including
vadalisim, as dru suggests.
In Ohio, if you are caught doing what dru suggest, and his feedline cost
was over $500, it is a 4th degree mistermenor, and would go to jail for
up to 2 years.
>Again, Chris...put up or shut up (recent history has shown that you don't
>do too well in this department)
And Im not sure what he is talking about here...I simply dont waste my time
addressing liars, name callers, assumption makers, one who mislablels fact,
and who partakes in, and reccomends criminal acts.
Drew Durigan
>
>In article <4cs0dg$1q...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Drew Durigan <VUB...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>>Again, Steve...what would YOU do to solve the problem? Playing footsie
>>with the guy by "asking him nicely" or wasting time with the FCC just
>>isn't gonna cut it. A well-placed pin shorts the whole works out and
>>immediately puts an end to the offending transmissions. Do you have a
>>better idea? Let's hear it.
>>
>>-Drew in Charlotte-
>> KF4DDM
>
>It certainly shouldnt be an illegal act...which dru subscribes, however,
>he has proclaimed other illegal activities in the past, hence, no
>surprise here.
Okay Chris...since you have once again chosen to butt into that which
does not involve nor concern you merely for the purpose of making a
personal attack against me, I will ask you the same question I asked
Steve:
What would YOU do to solve the problem?
Again, Chris...put up or shut up (recent history has shown that you don't
do too well in this department)
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
na...@pacifier.com
Well, for one not a single one of you people are dumb, yet brave enought
to risk getting shot by the person who own's the private property that
that rpt is on. Hell if you get lucky we will just beat the hell out of
ya.
And by the way, the fellow that said it was only a misdermeanor. Well if
you check your law books, it is a federal violation to damage any FCC
type accepted equipment, so therefore you would be no better than those
you CLAIM to want to stop.
Looks to me like the guy from pacifier, needs to buy one and stick it in
his mouth!
So stay safe...............
Jeff
Michael P. Deignan
<kc7...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Well I am a former CBer and a no-coder. I don't agree with Drew either but does
>that make me a scum bucket too?
Of course not. My comment was not "all CBers are scum" (although a vast
majority of them are). It was that Drew epitomizes the very type of CB radio
scumbags that we have let into the hobby by creating a codeless license.
Drew Durigan
>Of course not. My comment was not "all CBers are scum" (although a vast
>majority of them are). It was that Drew epitomizes the very type of CB
radio
>scumbags that we have let into the hobby by creating a codeless license.
How do you explain the fact that I am not, nor never have been a no-code
Technician?
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Eddie Caffray
>
> In article <4cshb0$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
> <kc7...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Well I am a former CBer and a no-coder. I don't agree with Drew either but does
> >that make me a scum bucket too?
>
> majority of them are). It was that Drew epitomizes the very type of CB radio
> scumbags that we have let into the hobby by creating a codeless license.
>
> --
> --
> -- "Who needs looks when you've got taste?"
> --
Well Im a no code tech, and have to agree. The no code licence has
opened up the doors for all sorts of trouble. But I think it has (had)
its plus sides too. I know alot of no coders that are great ham ops, I'm
glad their in the hobby. I for one came into the hobby on the no code
licence. I will upgrade, I'm sure I could pass the 5wpm test now, but I
want to go right to the 13wpm. I seem to be able to learn the code
better at a higher speed. At 5wpm I catch myself counting dits and dahs.
I think that the real trouble is yet to come. With the FCC closing many
of its offices, I think Ham Radio will get like CB. I feel that Amateur
Radio Ops should be given more power to report and locate unlicenced ops
and the bad ones already out there. Just a thought.....
--
Eddie N2XDS
Hans Brakob
>"it is a federal violation to damage any FCC
>type accepted equipment"
Really? Ohmygawd, I'm going to jail! I damaged the
bandswitch on my leenyer last night. Please don't
tell the feds I did it!
73, de Hans, K0HB
ps: Could you point me to the chapter and verse which
states this offense?
--
- - - Visit my homepage at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/k0hb
Drew Durigan
>
>
>Well, for one not a single one of you people are dumb, yet brave enought
>to risk getting shot by the person who own's the private property that
>that rpt is on. Hell if you get lucky we will just beat the hell out of
>ya.
You're assuming that the party doing the...uh, "disabling" of the
offending station will not have a firearm of his own and be quicker on
the draw than you are.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
kc7...@primenet.com
>In article <4cshb0$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
> <kc7...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Well I am a former CBer and a no-coder. I don't agree with Drew either but does
>>that make me a scum bucket too?
>
>Of course not. My comment was not "all CBers are scum" (although a vast
>majority of them are). It was that Drew epitomizes the very type of CB radio
>scumbags that we have let into the hobby by creating a codeless license.
Well I agree a lot of people are getting in and screwing it up for the rest of us.
Myself I am happy being a tech no-code. I am studing to upgrade but it is
taking time. Right now I love packet radio and building antennas. When I do
learn the code enough to get my general you will probably never hear me using
the code over the radio. I still say it is an outdated mode. I am not bitching
about having to learn the code or anything like that. I just get tired of hearing
everyone complain that it is the no-code license that has brought down this
hobby. Like a lot of people have said before, if it was not for the new license
then a lot of spectrum would be lost today. Besides mose tech-no code's
upgrade after finding out there is a lot more out there. Good way to find out
what is out there without killing yourself studying for the code. If you don't
like it then that person will probably never be on the air again.
73 de KC7GNM
Greg
Jerry B Altzman
>And by the way, the fellow that said it was only a misdermeanor. Well if
>you check your law books, it is a federal violation to damage any FCC
>type accepted equipment, so therefore you would be no better than those
That is wrong. You can flagellate your type-accepted equipment, damage it,
burn it, whatever. What you cannot do is modify it and then transmit with it
on frequencies which require type-accepted equipment.
Besides, the vast majority of ham equipment isn't type-accepted.
>Jeff
//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@columbia.edu jba...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML (HEPNET) NEVIS::jbaltz
Landing
>
> If someone attempts to draw on you first, it is most definitely self-
> defense.
>
> -Drew in Charlotte-
> KF4DDM
>
does this mean that if you stick a pin in someone's coax, they could stick a pin in you??? psssssssss, wow, look at
him go!!!! must be all that hot air........
how do you walk thru doors with such a swelled head?????
John Minger
Andre Dusablon <fal...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>I have been using the 147.435 freq for simplex ops for the last year or
>so. About a week ago someone brought a repeater on-line that has an
>input of 146.440 and out of 147.435. The ARRL Repeater Directory says
>that 147.435 is a simplex freq. Is this a legal repeater? Also the
>etc.......
This is really deja vu or something like that. If you ever visit Los
Angeles, you will find such a problem repeater on (guess what) 147.435 MHz.
This one uses 146.400 (another simplex frequency) for input.
When hams bemoan the situation and say "They oughta shut it down..",
the reply is usually something like "If we take 435 off the air, then
all the foulmouthed jammers will come over to our repeaters".
BTW, I don't agree with that.
-John
--
___________________________________________________________________________
John A Minger KE6DTC Opinions expressed are those of the author
Los Angeles, CA and not those of anyone or anything else.
Drew Durigan
>I see now that you really are as stupid as the rest of the group says
you
>are. Possesion of a firearm in the commision of a crime.
If someone attempts to draw on you first, it is most definitely self-
defense.
>By the way I doubt you are faster than me, but hey ya never know.
>jeff
Well, hey...I'm no Clint Eastwood...but I can hold my own on a firing
range.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Dana Myers
Eddie Caffray <caff...@magnum.wpe.com> wrote:
[deletia]
>I think that the real trouble is yet to come. With the FCC closing many
>of its offices, I think Ham Radio will get like CB. I feel that Amateur
>Radio Ops should be given more power to report and locate unlicenced ops
>and the bad ones already out there. Just a thought.....
How would hams need more power to report unlicensed operators? We're
no different than any other citizen in that we all can DF interference
and call the FCC. There *is* the Amateur Auxiliary, but my confidence
in the integrity of the Official Observer system is very poor. How
would you suggest extending the authority of radio amateurs?
--
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are *
* (310) 348-6043 | mine and do not necessarily *
* Dana....@West.Sun.Com | reflect those of my employer *
Christopher K Greenhalgh
Drew Durigan <VUB...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>If someone attempts to draw on you first, it is most definitely self-
>defense.
Dru is (sigh) wrong again...when he comes onto your property to criminaly
vandalize, you have a RIGHT to protect your property. If you come out, and
draw a gun on him, and dru pulls his...you have every RIGHT to blow his
little pointy head off. In acuallity, dru doesnt even have to have a gun
for you to shoot him...all you have to do is prove that you felt you or
your family's life may be in danger...at least in Ohio.
Michael P. Deignan
> Well I agree a lot of people are getting in and screwing it up for
> the rest of us.
Yup, and some of them pass a "code" test. Of course, I really wouldn't
call a multiple-guess 7-out-of-10 code examination a code test, but
what can you do.
> I just get tired of hearing
> everyone complain that it is the no-code license that has brought down this
> hobby.
I believe that it has. The no-code license lowered the standards.
Any lowering of standards lets scum into the hobby. That's not to say
that some good people haven't gotten into the hobby because of it. But
should you rob Peter to pay Paul?
> Like a lot of people have said before, if it was not for the new license
> then a lot of spectrum would be lost today.
They can keep saying it, but that doesn't mean its true. Actually, if
you count the number of bands where the amateur radio service has been
religated to secondary status, you could say that we've lost more spectrum
after the codeless license than before.
> Besides mose tech-no code's
> upgrade after finding out there is a lot more out there.
There are no statistics that show this to be true.
Christopher K Greenhalgh
>Well, drew.
>I see now that you really are as stupid as the rest of the group says you
>are. Possesion of a firearm in the commision of a crime. That is not even
>considerd self-defense.
>By the way I doubt you are faster than me, but hey ya never know.
>jeff
Yes...in Ohio, the use of a firearm in the commision of a crime,
automaticly adds 4 years to your sentence. Dru would spend 6 years
in prison...and Im sure he would make a lot of 'special' friends
in there too. :)
Take care all, & 73.
--
James W. KELLEY
John Minger <jam...@pb2esac.esac.pacbell.com> wrote:
Glad you posted this John. I am also within range of the LA 435
repeater, and it's a real embarrassment. For selfish reasons, I'm glad
they keep it on the air, because it's true. Those guys will spread like
a cancer if they lose that one. In fact they have begun to infest
another nice repeater in the area now - the Palos Verdes repeater. When 435
goes down from time to time, it's bedlam all over the southland. I don't
know why they even need to use a repeater. I can hear most of them when
I scan across the input frequency 60 miles away!
And for all of you out there that like to think that this kind of thing is
caused by all the new no-code techs coming on the air - think again.
Most, if not all of the worst offenders on that frequency were licensed
prior to 1987.
It's not necessarily the license class an operator holds, or how much
sweat and blood expended to acquire the license that determines how a guy
is going to operate. It's the type of personality, and the particular
mental/emotional character of the individual that will be the determining
factor. Some of those people are really mentally ill, socio paths who
unfortunately happen to hold amateur tickets.
It's not the repeater owner's fault. The FCC needs to start pulling
licenses - liberally! Yes, they're pretty easy to get - maybe they
should be easier to lose.
Jim, KE6JPO
Drew Durigan
rest of us.
That's true of all classes of license. "YE OLDE FAHRTZ" blame the no-
coders for all their problems. You never hear them talking about what
"their people" are doing on 75-meters these days, do you?
>Myself I am happy being a tech no-code. I am studing to upgrade but it
is
>taking time. Right now I love packet radio and building antennas. When I
do
>learn the code enough to get my general you will probably never hear me
using the code over the radio. I still say it is an outdated mode.
You're right, Greg. You shouldn't even have to learn it. What's the
point since you will never use it (as is the case with the large majority
of those who hold "coded" licenses.) In time, we will eliminate the code
requirement and then amateurs can spend their time learning things that
will be of greater use to them than an antiquated system of dots and
dashes that almost nobody outside the amateur community even uses anymore.
We're working on it. :-)
>I am not bitching about having to learn the code or anything like that.
I just get tired of hearing
>everyone complain that it is the no-code license that has brought down
this
>hobby. Like a lot of people have said before, if it was not for the new
license
>then a lot of spectrum would be lost today.
You will never get these old duffers to see the issue logically because
they don't have the same set of objective beliefs as we do. They think
the amateur bands are their own little playground. They want to keep it
all to themselves, and Morse is their little "initiation rite" to keep
their club private. That's fine if you want to have a private golf club,
but it doesn't work when you are using public frequency spectrum. The
FCC basically said so when, despite their kicking and screaming,
initiated the no-code Technician license class in 1991. My guess is that
the code requirement will first be dropped to 5WPM for all classes of
licenses and then eliminated completely within the next several years.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Eddie Caffray
>
> How would hams need more power to report unlicensed operators? We're
> no different than any other citizen in that we all can DF interference
> and call the FCC. There *is* the Amateur Auxiliary, but my confidence
> in the integrity of the Official Observer system is very poor. How
> would you suggest extending the authority of radio amateurs?
>
Well Hams would not need more POWER, but the Official Observer program
could be redone. It would still need the FCC to ACT upon getting reports
from the OO's. The goverment could still downsize, but they would still
have to ACT when a complaint is made.
bjo...@aramco.com
Most amateur equipment is not and does not have to be FCC type
accepted...
If QRM is excessive contact and file an official complaint with your
local ARRL Section Manager (SM), call your local FCC office (before it
closes down) and file a complaint. If the FCC will not take action,
contact your local congressman/woman, if that won't work complain to
Prez. Clinton (not after early Janurary '97)...
The OM's tell me QRM has been around since spark-gap. Vandalizm will
just get people hurt, it is a good idea to totally ignore QRM clowns,
change frequencies or if you must, almost all radios have an OFF
switch...
73 de KC5EVD
Billy
Muenzler, Kevin
11 Jan 1996 19:44:26 GMT VUB...@prodigy.com (Drew Durigan) writes:
<snip>
-
-You're right, Greg. You shouldn't even have to learn it. What's the
-point since you will never use it (as is the case with the large majority
-of those who hold "coded" licenses.)
A large majority? What do you consider a large majority, 35 percent?
In a semi-recent issue of QST (November I think) there was an article
about upcoming WARC conference. There was a statistic in that
issue that stated that SIXTY FIVE percent of amateur operators
[that use HF] use CW on a regular basis. They didn't define "regular
basis" but I'm sure it is more than "never" as you stated above.
-In time, we will eliminate the code
-requirement and then amateurs can spend their time learning things that
-will be of greater use to them than an antiquated system of dots and
-dashes that almost nobody outside the amateur community even uses anymore.
Sorry Drew, not in the near future "we" won't. It isn't even going
to be an issue at the next WARC conference.
- We're working on it. :-)
-
<Snip>
-You will never get these old duffers...
I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK! Just because I've been a
Amateur Radio operator 20 years doesn't make me old.
-...to see the issue logically because
-they don't have the same set of objective beliefs as we do.
Objective <==> Liberal? I don't think so...
Logically? So we must eliminate the CW requirements just because
a _small_ group of amateurs doesn't like them. Eliminate it because
"it's too hard." Or because it's antiquated? Tubes are antiquated
but the theory is still in the test. Many think that it is just a "weeding
out" step. Well, so be it. It's a pretty good one. Those who don't
want to take the time and put forth the effort to learn CW at 5 WPM
should not have the privilege of operating on the HF bands.
"Privilege you say....?" YES PRIVILEGE! That's why they call them
"HF privileges." They are not HF rights as some might say. If one
has to work hard to earn something he is not likely to play around
and lose it. Although most every month in QST there is someone
with an Extra class license that has done something stupid and
lost his license so the weeding out doesn't eliminate all the
"bad apples."
-They think
-the amateur bands are their own little playground. They want to keep it
-all to themselves, and Morse is their little "initiation rite" to keep
-their club private.
The "club" as you say is not private. Anyone who wants to put
forth a small effort can "join." Again, you have to work to get
HF _privileges_, they won't be given to you.
-That's fine if you want to have a private golf club,
-but it doesn't work when you are using public frequency spectrum.
Hardly. Private golf clubs won't let just anyone in. Anyone can
have HF privileges but they must be earned.
<snip>
- My guess is that
-the code requirement will first be dropped to 5WPM for all classes of
-licenses and then eliminated completely within the next several years.
I don't think so Drew. The FCC is against it, the IARU in general is
against it. So far England (Great Britain) is the only country in the
IARU (Canada is leaning) that is in favor of a no-code HF license class.
--Drew in Charlotte-
- KF4DDM
Kevin, WB5RUE
muen...@uthscsa.edu
The opinions herein are my own and not necessarily those of the staff,
faculty, administration, or lab animals (woof!) of The University of
Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio or anyone else who is not
me.
Justin Bousquet
obligated to
a > take to stop this behavior? Should we record the freq for
proof of
a > violation?
a > >Will the FCC get involved?
a > Not likely. Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the
guy, and
a > then take appropriate measures to remove the station from
the air. A
a > pin in the coax works wonders.
a > -Drew in Charlotte-
a > KF4DDM
Drew - I am the repeater owner of the 147.435 repeater in
Portland. My name
is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish. The
repeater
is located on private family owned property. ANY intrusion
would
be met with a 12 guage or 45 cal.
Besides that, tampering with a federally licensed transmitter
is a federal
offense & prosecuted by the FBI. (they have teeth, unlike the
FCC) Perhaps
you don't realize it, but a ham radio repeater is a federally
licensed
transmitter.
Your call sign indicates you are a new ham, so go learn a
little and
come back when you have lost the CB mentality & understand ham
radio.
BTW - Repeater systems use hardline for the antenna feed, not
coax. Your
pin would never work.
VJKu...@spacetech.com
> >Well, drew.
> >I see now that you really are as stupid as the rest of the group says
> you
> >are. Possesion of a firearm in the commision of a crime.
>
> defense.
>
>
> >jeff
>
> range.
>
>
> -Drew in Charlotte-
> KF4DDM
>
>
>>>>
N2YZS and in case you are wondering, I'm a Tech Plus and have been from the beginning.
Muenzler, Kevin
Justin Bousquet <jus...@psg.com> writes:
-Drew - I am the repeater owner of the 147.435 repeater in Portland.
-My name is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish.
I was thinking of a different word but foolish applies too.
<snip>
-Besides that, tampering with a federally licensed transmitter
-is a federal offense & prosecuted by the FBI.
-(they have teeth, unlike the FCC)
-Perhaps you don't realize it, but a ham radio repeater is a federally
-licensed transmitter.
So is any other Amateur Radio transmitter, homebrew or otherwise.
-
-Your call sign indicates you are a new ham, so go learn a little and
-come back when you have lost the CB mentality & understand ham
-radio.
I think that this is Drew's biggest problem, he has learned a little
and knows just enough to be dangerous (to himself and others)
by giving bad advice. Drew may be an example of the biblical
analogy of what happens when you put pearls around the neck of a pig.
It's still a pig no matter how you dress it up. A bad CB'er
will be a bad ham operator. He may be like so many amateur
operators in the past that learn the day they lose their
license for doing something stupid, like modifying their
transmitter to transmit back on CB.
-BTW - Repeater systems use hardline for the antenna feed, not
-coax. Your pin would never work.
Hardline is not RG-8 that has been left out in the cold, although
if you have never worked with RG-8 when the temperature is
below freezing you might not be able to tell the difference. {;)
Kevin, WB5RUE
muen...@uthscsa.edu
P.S. - The above analogy between Drew, CB and pigs is strictly for
the purpose of making a point.
Disclaimer:
The above characters are purely fictional, with the exception of Drew.
Any resemblance to any characters, whether animal or vegetable,
is purely coincidental and completely unintentional.
Justin Bousquet
a > Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
a > Subject: 146.440-147.435 repeater
a > Date: 7 Jan 1996 20:00:50 GMT
a > I have been using the 147.435 freq for simplex ops for the
last year
a > or so. About a week ago someone brought a repeater
on-line that has an
a > input of 146.440 and out of 147.435. The ARRL Repeater
Directory says
a > that 147.435 is a simplex freq. Is this a legal repeater?
Also the
a > language being used is incredible! People calling others
"niggar",
a > "faggot", etc and saying, "fuck your momma." This
repeater is located
a > somewhere in the Portland area and has the call of wm1j
I'm pretty
a > sure that's the call sign. What actions are we allowed or
obligated
a > to take to stop this behavior? Should we record the freq
for proof of
a > violation? Will the FCC get involved?
a > Andy
a > ---
a > fal...@pacifier.com
Hello Andy-
Welcome back to the Mainland US.
I own the 147.435 repeater in Portland, which uses an input on
146.400. My
name is John and my call is KA0SSF. The repeater callsign at
this time is
WM1J. The repeater is located in the Portland West Hills at a
private
residence owned by my uncle. The call of the repeater will
change in the
future as we rotate the call of the repeater between the
members of the group.
The repeater is a General Electric commercial repeater running
50 watts, it
is capable of 90 watts continous and uses a Cellwave duplexer.
Your issues regarding the repeater appear to be in two parts.
First, you feel
the repeater is operating on simplex frequencies. Second, you
do not like
the way some of the users of the repeater conduct themselves.
You cite the ARRL repeater directory as a basis for judging
that the repeater
is on a simplex frequency. I would like to refer you to the
FCC part 97
rules (97.205(b))which include 147.435 as within the repeater
sub-band on 2
meters. Part 97 FCC rules govern amateur radio, not the ARRL
Repeater
Directory. Also, that frequency pair is used in San Francisco &
Los Angeles.
Orginally, that repeater was on 147.000 with the 146.400 input.
But the
coordination council rescinded our coordination on 147.000
because of
interference due to a grandfathered system on the frequency
about 120 miles
away. So we needed to find a new repeater pair but there are
no more
standard 600 Kc channels available in the Portland area. Thus
we went to
the current repeater pair. If you are unhappy with the current
frequency
pair we use, I suggest you contact the Oregon Region Relay
Council and urge
them to find an alternate channel to replace what they
rescinded.
The repeater was put on the air to take the load off of another
repeater in
the Portland area. This repeater had several rowdy types
regularly hanging
out on that repeater. A club which operates from the center of
Portland
contacted the owner of that repeater and threatened to contact
his
employer if he didn't do something about his users. Of course,
it is
foolish to think that a repeater owner can control what a user
does.
(encourage/discourage YES, control NO) Knowing this, I was
asked to
put a repeater on the air to distract those individuals from
that repeater
and attract them to mine thus taking the load off the repeater
& the
individual who was receiving the threats from the radio club
located
in Portland.
Regarding your comments of the activities of the users. You
should talk
to those users. A repeater owner can not force any certain
type of
activity from a user. So far in the 2 years that the repeater
has been
on the air I have not heard anything that I haven't heard on
shows like Saturday Nite Live, Rosanne, Married with Children,
& other
TV or morning FM radio rock shows which are broadcast to
millions
of prople all across the country every day. We all fall under
the
Communications Act of 1934.
Your callsign indicates you are resonably new to ham radio,
perhaps within
the last 5 years or so. Maybe as you progress in your hobby of
ham radio
these things will become more apparent to you.
One question does come to mind. You state you have been using
147.435 as
a simplex channel. Why have you been using a frequency within
the FCC
repeater sub-band rather than a designated simplex?
If you have any further issues, perhaps you would like to talk
the
GoodWill Ambassador/Public Relations Chairman for our group? I
could put you
in touch with him if you like. His address is
Na...@Pacifier.com, you
can direct your concerns & comments to him.
BTW - You are not obligated or allowed to take any actions to
stop the
repeater. The government has this authority, not private
individuals. Perhaps
you can relax with this question of yours now answered.
You are invited to use the repeater anytime you like provided
you get along
with the current users. In a few weeks a weekly net will be
starting, it will
be called the Politics & Religion Net.
Sincerely,
John Mackey, KA0SSF
Extra Class Amateur / Commercial General RadioTelephone Optr
kc7...@primenet.com
>First, you feel
>the repeater is operating on simplex frequencies. Second, you
>do not like
>the way some of the users of the repeater conduct themselves.
>
>You cite the ARRL repeater directory as a basis for judging
>that the repeater
>is on a simplex frequency. I would like to refer you to the
>FCC part 97
>rules (97.205(b))which include 147.435 as within the repeater
>sub-band on 2
>meters. Part 97 FCC rules govern amateur radio, not the ARRL
>Repeater
Well if he would have read further in the ARRL Repeater Directory on the 2m
band plan he would have seen an asterick on the 147.42-147.595 Simplex
freqs. The note say this:
Due to differences in regional coordination plans, the simplex frequencies listed
may be repeater inputs/outputs as well. Please check with local coordinators
for further information.
Although there is nothing stoping him from using the freq as a simplex freq.
All freqs that you are authorized to transmit on can be used. Common sense
would tell you that if you use a repeater output freq then you can be not every-
one can hear you and you will get interfered with.
73 de KC7GNM
Greg
Justin Bousquet
do have the
f > right to ban anyone from using your machine.
I realize that you have never managed a repeater before but
banning is not
the answer. That only moves or worsens the problem.
f > I only listen to the
f > radio at night when this kind of crap happens.
If you don't like the "crap" then why do you listen?? Your
radio has dials
for adjusting the volume, frequency, and on/off status.
F > The type of users I've
f > heard on the air led me to believe that either no one
cared about the
f > behavior or that this was a pirate station. I have had my
license for
f > only three years but I was raised in a ham family who
values the
f > service. If I were content with the cb mentality I would
have simply
f > bought a cb.
I have been a ham for 13 years and 2 meters is only about 1
notch above CB,
if that much. The repeater was put up to act as a magnet for
that sort of
activity and prevent it from spreading or dispersing to other
systems.
Therefore, it will be confined to one system rather than all
over the band
(in theory, anyway). So be thankful you are hearing it there
rather than
everywhere. Sometimes it is best to count your blessing rather
than complain.
f > Both my brother and I have listened to
f > conversations full of (asshole, motherfucker, etc) with
bogus call
f > signs or not signing off at all. I understand your
defensiveness
f > toward me but I did not intend to attack you. I am
attacking the
f > people who degrade the system.
Then please attack them rather than asking others how to stop
the repeater.
Myself as the owner & WM1J as the licensee are responsible for
the repeater
operation, not the discussion or practices of the users.
Perhaps you should
spend a week or so in LA or San Francisco and you'll realize
how tame
Portland really is.
RCL1
CBer's are dorks.
odd ball splits are they actually illegal?
Rick-KD0XD--on the 444.225 +5.0 KD0XD/R
73
Drew Durigan
>
>In article <4d19v9$q...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <kc7...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>
>> the rest of us.
>
>call a multiple-guess 7-out-of-10 code examination a code test, but
>what can you do.
Nothing. Get used to it. Coming soon to HF, whether you like it or not.
>> I just get tired of hearing
>> everyone complain that it is the no-code license that has brought down
this
>> hobby.
>
>I believe that it has. The no-code license lowered the standards.
>Any lowering of standards lets scum into the hobby. That's not to say
>that some good people haven't gotten into the hobby because of it. But
>should you rob Peter to pay Paul?
The only "robbing" that would've been done is the taking of more amateur
frequencies by commercial interests. Strength in numbers. The no-code
license increased the number of operators on VHF & UHF immensely.
>
>
>> Like a lot of people have said before, if it was not for the new
license
>> then a lot of spectrum would be lost today.
>
>They can keep saying it, but that doesn't mean its true. Actually, if
>you count the number of bands where the amateur radio service has been
>religated to secondary status, you could say that we've lost more
spectrum
>after the codeless license than before.
Huh? Seems to me that we lost 40% of the 220 band BEFORE the codeless
license was introduced! BTW, it was people like you who delayed the
process as long as possible and probably cost all of us spectrum space in
the process. If no-code had been introduced in '81 instead of '91, the
raw numbers would have made the taking of 220 a bit more difficult, don't
you think?
>
>> Besides mose tech-no code's
>> upgrade after finding out there is a lot more out there.
>
>There are no statistics that show this to be true.
Why should they? After hearing the garbage on 75-meters and the "holier
than thou" attitudes of "YE OLDE FAHRTZ" on HF, why would anyone want to
be part of that? Can you blame them?
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM--
James W. KELLEY
raise an interesting issue in your post, and I'm curious about how to
interpret your comment.
It is true that certain portions of the band are
allocated for simplex use, presumably to prevent repeaters from being
established on those frequencies. However I wonder about your
implication that the converse is also true. In other words, you seem to
be implying that using simplex communications on a frequency that happens
to be occupied by a repeater is a violation of some sort.
It is certainly true that transmitting on a frequency that is already in
_use_ by another operator is harmful interference. But if the frequency
is not in use, it seems to me, any frequency within the FM portion of the
band is available for simplex communications.
The repeater owner owns the equipment, not the frequency. He is
protected from the establishment of interfering repeater equipment by
local coordination. But I do not believe that coordination
customarily addresses the issue of simplex use by individual operators.
The FCC allows FM repeaters to operate within the FM repeater sub-band,
but more importantly it prevents them from operating within the simplex
portion of the band. I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I
do not believe the FCC intends to prevent simplex communication within the
FM repeater portion of the 2 meter band.
Hopefully the private repeater owners, which have totally usurped the 440
band here in Southern California, will take note of this distinction.
73
KE6JPO
KA0SSF wrote: >
>One question does come to mind. You state you have been using
>147.435 as
>a simplex channel. Why have you been using a frequency within
>the FCC
>repeater sub-band rather than a designated simplex?
>
>
Justin Bousquet
are the repeater owners... please refrain from flaming me
personally... he will see the replies...but he cannot post...
Thanks & 73's
Justin AB7NG
Drew Durigan
criminaly
>vandalize, you have a RIGHT to protect your property. If you come out,
and
>draw a gun on him, and dru pulls his...you have every RIGHT to blow his
>little pointy head off. In acuallity, dru doesnt even have to have a
gun
>for you to shoot him...all you have to do is prove that you felt you or
>your family's life may be in danger...at least in Ohio.
But guess what, Chris? He's not IN Ohio, he's in OREGON!! If you would
have bothered to read the thread closely, you would have realized that.
I have lived in Oregon; the gun laws out there are much looser than in
Ohio.
Once again, you and your remarks have proven to be irrelevant. Do us all
a favor and go away...please?
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Dana H. Myers
[Comments about the LA 435 repeater deleted]
>It's not the repeater owner's fault. The FCC needs to start pulling
>licenses - liberally! Yes, they're pretty easy to get - maybe they
>should be easier to lose.
How does the loss of a license prevent someone from continuing to
operate when that person has already demonstrated no interest
in the existing rules?
Something to think about...
Landing
>
> Nothing. Get used to it. Coming soon to HF, whether you like it or not.
>
Not for at least another 2-3 years...so we all get to hear Drew piss and moan about His Olde Fartz..just what we
always wanted!!!
>
> The only "robbing" that would've been done is the taking of more amateur
> frequencies by commercial interests. Strength in numbers. The no-code
> license increased the number of operators on VHF & UHF immensely.
> >
What has that got to do with HF..HF freqs aren't in danger of being sold out. Get your facts straight Drew!! what
has increased numbers in VHF/UHF got to do with HF.
> Huh? Seems to me that we lost 40% of the 220 band BEFORE the codeless
> license was introduced! BTW, it was people like you who delayed the
> process as long as possible and probably cost all of us spectrum space in
> the process. If no-code had been introduced in '81 instead of '91, the
> raw numbers would have made the taking of 220 a bit more difficult, don't
> you think?
> Why should they? After hearing the garbage on 75-meters and the "holier
> than thou" attitudes of "YE OLDE FAHRTZ" on HF, why would anyone want to
> be part of that? Can you blame them?
Perfect..stay where you are...who needs no-it-nots like you anyway. Code is required by law.....learn..love it..use it...
If you spent 1/10th the time trying to use code...than you would be hear boring everyone to tears.
oh BTW..happy anniversary...you've been a ham 4 months now
>
> -Drew in Charlotte- (C.B. Dx'er supreme!!!!)
> KF4DDM--
>
Michael P. Deignan
Dana Myers <my...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
>How would hams need more power to report unlicensed operators? We're
>no different than any other citizen in that we all can DF interference
>and call the FCC. There *is* the Amateur Auxiliary, but my confidence
>in the integrity of the Official Observer system is very poor. How
>would you suggest extending the authority of radio amateurs?
If the FCC is unwilling to enforce the ham bands, then give authority
to someone who will.
Michael P. Deignan
had to respond anyway.
In article <4d4v9d$8...@maureen.teleport.com>,
Justin Bousquet <jus...@psg.com> wrote:
> Of course, it is foolish to think that a repeater owner can control
> what a user does. (encourage/discourage YES, control NO)
...
> A repeater owner can not force any certain type of activity from a user.
This statement shows that you are wholefully ignorant regarding repeater
operations.
As a repeater trustee, if someone uses my machine and doesn't play by my
rules, I have the absolute authority to deny them access to the machine.
So do you.
Thus, if you tolerate ignorant behaviour on your machine, you have nobody
to blame but yourself. Saying that you can't control your users and "gee,
sorry" is a pile of bull-excrement and merely shows that you condone their
activity and are unwilling to take the necessary steps to correct it.
The League will happily provide you with a photocopy of a letter from
the FCC which clearly states that repeater owners are fully within their
rights to deny access to other licensed amatuers.
>Your callsign indicates you are resonably new to ham radio, perhaps
>within the last 5 years or so. Maybe as you progress in your hobby of
>ham radio these things will become more apparent to you.
Your callsign indicates that you've been around a while but apparently
haven't learned anything anyway.
> One question does come to mind. You state you have been using 147.435 as
> a simplex channel. Why have you been using a frequency within the FCC
> repeater sub-band rather than a designated simplex?
The terms of my license convey the privileges of operating FM voice within
a certain range of frequencies. While it is "good amateur practice" not to
operate on a repeater input or output, legally if I am authorized to operate
on a frequency, I can operate there. Someone once told me that I couldn't
on 146.525, that I had to operate on 146.520. Sorry, guess again.
The same
applies to 147.435. If I can reasonably operate on that frequency without
interfering with a repeater (which I can do in my area), then you have no
basis for complaint.
>BTW - You are not obligated or allowed to take any actions to stop the
>repeater. The government has this authority, not private individuals.
Actually, private citizens are fully within their rights to complain
to the FCC about your ignorance, and to suggest whatever course of
action they feel is appropriate.
Charles Hobbs
John Minger (jam...@pb2esac.esac.pacbell.com) writes:
> In article <4cp8pi$a...@news.pacifier.com>,
> Andre Dusablon <fal...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>I have been using the 147.435 freq for simplex ops for the last year or
>>etc.......
>
> This is really deja vu or something like that. If you ever visit Los
> Angeles, you will find such a problem repeater on (guess what) 147.435 MHz.
> This one uses 146.400 (another simplex frequency) for input.
Geez, that's what I though the original message was about (until I
saw the callsign, mention of Portland ME, etc.)
>
> When hams bemoan the situation and say "They oughta shut it down..",
> the reply is usually something like "If we take 435 off the air, then
> all the foulmouthed jammers will come over to our repeaters".
> BTW, I don't agree with that.
I don't either; the "normal" repeaters run a tight ship.
Charles Hobbs
Yeah, there were (and are) people on the LA .435 repeater
that not only bootlegged there, but openly admitted it.
(I think at least one guy was caught and busted. . .ended up in
jail for awhile, too)
>
KY1T Luck
>Well Hams would not need more POWER, but the Official Observer program
>could be redone. It would still need the FCC to ACT upon getting reports
>from the OO's. The goverment could still downsize, but they would still
>have to ACT when a complaint is made.
>--
Careful! Every time we decided to "redo" the OO program, we ended up with
LESS teeth, not more; Less action from FCC, not additional assistance,
until we got to the point where we are today...
73
-----------------------------------------------------
Byron (Luck) Hurder, KY1T KY1T...@AOL.COM AX.25 - KY...@N4GAA.CT
53 Broadview St. Newington Ct 06111 (860)666-4399
Amateur Radio TCP/IP address - KY1T%KY1...@gw.w1mx.ampr.org
Web Page -- http://home.aol.com/KY1TLUCK
Software Engineer/Consultant -- Will work for bytes (or even money)
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerry B Altzman
Justin Bousquet <jus...@psg.com> wrote:
>is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish. The repeater
>is located on private family owned property. ANY intrusion would
>be met with a 12 guage or 45 cal.
Sheesh! I hope that I'm never lost up Portland way.
>Besides that, tampering with a federally licensed transmitter is a federal
>offense & prosecuted by the FBI. (they have teeth, unlike the FCC) Perhaps
>you don't realize it, but a ham radio repeater is a federally licensed
>transmitter.
I've seen others claim this. What is the relevant federal statute and case
law?
//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@columbia.edu jba...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML (HEPNET) NEVIS::jbaltz
Brian Reed
--
---
pacifier.com - Vancouver's Public access Internet (360) 693-0325
telnet or dial the above and type "new" at the prompt to register
Drew Durigan
amateur
>> frequencies by commercial interests. Strength in numbers. The no-
code
>> license increased the number of operators on VHF & UHF immensely.
>> >
>
>What has that got to do with HF..HF freqs aren't in danger of being sold
out. Get your facts straight Drew!! what
>has increased numbers in VHF/UHF got to do with HF.
Who said anything about HF? In this particular thread, I was talking
about VHF. 220 is VHF, not HF, in case you weren't aware. If the no-
code ticket had been in effect a few years earlier, it is quite likely
that there would be more users of the band...thus decreasing the
likelihood that we would have lost 40% of the band. By kicking, dragging,
and fighting the no-code proposals, your kind may well have cost us 220-
222.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Phil Kane
CKG> Dru is (sigh) wrong again...when he comes onto your property to
CKG> criminaly vandalize, you have a RIGHT to protect your property. If you
CKG> come out, and draw a gun on him, and dru pulls his...you have every
CKG> RIGHT to blow his little pointy head off.
That will get you a 25-to-life sentence for murder in California
and most other places in this country. It is long settled law
that there is no right to use deadly force to protect property.
CKG> In acuallity, dru doesnt even
CKG> have to have a gun for you to shoot him...all you have to do is prove
CKG> that you felt you or your family's life may be in danger...at least in
CKG> Ohio.
Lots of luck in proving that under the condition where your
firepower is grossly superior than his (again settled law for
many years). You wouldn't need a lawyer, you would need a
MAGICIAN. (I'm the former, not the latter. I don't think you
are either of the two.).
The "wild west" approach to justify killing trespassers is,
thankfully, getting flushed out of our legal system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: phil...@toadhall.com (Phil Kane)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana H. Myers
Would you please suggest just who, then? I certainly wouldn't want anyone
without proper training involved in law enforcement, would you?
na...@pacifier.com
simplex are used. As far as the law reads you are legally authorized to
transmit where ever and what mode you want. The little geeks at the ARRL
simply have a band plan.
THE BAND PLAN is not a law, mearly a reccomendation.
KY1T Luck
>If the FCC is unwilling to enforce the ham bands, then give authority
>to someone who will.
>
>
GIVE it? Right. Last time Congress enacted a law (PL 97-259) to enable
the "authority" to be gently transferred to other bodies, a grand total of
ONE organization made the attempt. And a very poor one at that; they
screwed it up so badly that nobody in their right MIND would ever make
that mistake again.
I mean why WOULD anybody take it? The FCC is absolutely unwilling (and
forbidden from) allowing a true transfer of authority relative to Amateur
Radio Service enforcement. Besides, it wouldn't take a whole lot of
intelligence -- and merly a smattering of cursory investigation -- to
spot the extreme expense involved, not to mention the severe ill will
between FCC and the previously-mentioned organization, due directly to the
utter failure of the agreements to work out to ANYBODY's satisfaction.
Drew Durigan
>>In time, we will eliminate the code requirement
>
>You have a better chance getting a date with Cindy Crawford.
You know it's going to happen. It's not a matter of "if" anymore, but
"when." The ITU regulations will have to be changed and, admittedly,
that will take time. My guess is that the requirement will first be
dropped to 5WPM for all classes of licenses and then eliminated entirely.
The genie was let out of the bottle 5 years ago with the introduction of
the no-code Tech license. When it happens, I'll be the first to say "I
told you so." (Looking forward to it, BTW)
>
>
>>You will never get these old duffers to see the issue logically because
>>they don't have the same set of objective beliefs as we do.
>
>That's right. You're into instant gratification and handouts from the
>government. You are unwilling to put the time in that it takes to
>earn something. When someone has to exert himself, and must earn
>something, he appreciates it more. That's what we call character --
>something you are lacking.
Doesn't have anything to do with "character" but rather, an outdated
mandate that people learn an antiquated form of communication as a
condition of earning the privilege to transmit on publicly-owned radio
frequencies. Unjustifiable, no matter how you look at it.
>>They think
>>the amateur bands are their own little playground. They want to keep
it
>>all to themselves, and Morse is their little "initiation rite" to keep
>>their club private.
>
>I, and others, are perfectly willing to accept new people into the
>hobbies. We routinely elmer people (sounds like you don't have an
>elmer, do you, Drew?) and teach them the proper way of things.
"The proper way of things" according to WHOM? As long as I comply with
all rules and regulations in regards to operating my station, who are YOU
to say that I'm doing things "the proper way?"
>
>
>>That's fine if you want to have a private golf club,
>>but it doesn't work when you are using public frequency spectrum.
>
>Uh-oh. Here comes that "ITS PUBLIC SPECTRUM! ITS MY RIGHT!!! WAAAAAAA!"
Lots of truth to this. This will be one of the primary arguments used to
lessen/drop the CW requirements on HF. "Tradition" or "because I had to
do it" is not a valid, legal basis for denying someone access to public
frequency spectrum.
>>The
>>FCC basically said so when, despite their kicking and screaming,
>>initiated the no-code Technician license class in 1991.
>
>Several major ham radio organizations that "represent" amateur radio
>were in favor of the move. Shortly after the loss of 220mhz spectrum
>to UPS, they made a tactical error: they decided to sacrifice quality
>for quantity. Instead of getting a few dedicated, knowledgable
>people, we got alot of people like you instead.
This doesn't address the fact that the loss of 220 occured BEFORE the
introduction of the no-code Tech license. You pro-coders all know, but
won't dare to admit that if the no-code license had been introduced
earlier, the increased number of licensed amateurs would have lessened
the chance that we would have lost 40% of 220 like we did.
>
>> My guess is that
>> the code requirement will first be dropped to 5WPM for all classes of
>> licenses and then eliminated completely within the next several years.
>
>See Cindy, above.
See "wait and see", above.
Michael P. Deignan
Drew Durigan <VUB...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>That's true of all classes of license. "YE OLDE FAHRTZ" blame the no-
>coders for all their problems. You never hear them talking about what
>"their people" are doing on 75-meters these days, do you?
Well Drew, you are older than I am. If I'm a "FAHRTZ", what does that
make you?
>You're right, Greg. You shouldn't even have to learn it. What's the
>point since you will never use it (as is the case with the large majority
>of those who hold "coded" licenses.)
Do you have a verifiable source for this, or are you lying again Drew?
>In time, we will eliminate the code requirement
You have a better chance getting a date with Cindy Crawford.
>You will never get these old duffers to see the issue logically because
>they don't have the same set of objective beliefs as we do.
That's right. You're into instant gratification and handouts from the
government. You are unwilling to put the time in that it takes to
earn something. When someone has to exert himself, and must earn
something, he appreciates it more. That's what we call character --
something you are lacking.
>They think
>the amateur bands are their own little playground. They want to keep it
>all to themselves, and Morse is their little "initiation rite" to keep
>their club private.
I, and others, are perfectly willing to accept new people into the
hobbies. We routinely elmer people (sounds like you don't have an
elmer, do you, Drew?) and teach them the proper way of things.
>That's fine if you want to have a private golf club,
>but it doesn't work when you are using public frequency spectrum.
Uh-oh. Here comes that "ITS PUBLIC SPECTRUM! ITS MY RIGHT!!! WAAAAAAA!"
>The
>FCC basically said so when, despite their kicking and screaming,
>initiated the no-code Technician license class in 1991.
Several major ham radio organizations that "represent" amateur radio
were in favor of the move. Shortly after the loss of 220mhz spectrum
to UPS, they made a tactical error: they decided to sacrifice quality
for quantity. Instead of getting a few dedicated, knowledgable
people, we got alot of people like you instead.
> My guess is that
> the code requirement will first be dropped to 5WPM for all classes of
> licenses and then eliminated completely within the next several years.
See Cindy, above.
kc7...@primenet.com
>: Well I am a former CBer and a no-coder.
>
> Isnt no-coder and CB'r the same thing.
>
> I don't agree with Drew either but does
>: that make me a scum bucket too? I got out of CB because of those idiots. If
>: upgrading only means I get to meet people like you that call all CBers scum
>***** Geee lok at this cb'r, if you notice he says THOSE, somewhat
>reffering that all cb'ers are those. But yet he counters that and says "
>people like you call all cbers scum"
>
>: I think I will stay where I am. I have met nicer people on 70cm and 2m than I
>: have ever heard listening to the hf bands on shortwave.
>*** Again he makes refferences to CB'ERS as if they are all the same,
>however i happen to agree with that. O, and how nice he likes to build
>antennas, probably 1/4 so-239's, WOW even the dumbest of all cb'ers
>"no-coders" can do this.
Matter of fact I design and build yagi antennas. I suppose the so-239 antenna
is about the only one you can build. Besides I bet you got your start in radio on
the CB band. Most all amateurs got their start there. Besides I never said I was
not going to learn code. I am gonna upgrade but only to use hf for packet.
73 de KC7GNM
Greg
Christopher K. Greenhalgh
> CKG> Dru is (sigh) wrong again...when he comes onto your property to
> CKG> criminaly vandalize, you have a RIGHT to protect your property. If you
> CKG> come out, and draw a gun on him, and dru pulls his...you have every
> CKG> RIGHT to blow his little pointy head off.
> That will get you a 25-to-life sentence for murder in California
> and most other places in this country. It is long settled law
> that there is no right to use deadly force to protect property.
Read the post again...I wasnt useing 'deadly force' to protect my property, I
was useing 'deadly force' to defend myself.
> CKG> In acuallity, dru doesnt even
> CKG> have to have a gun for you to shoot him...all you have to do is prove
> CKG> that you felt you or your family's life may be in danger...at least in
> CKG> Ohio.
> Lots of luck in proving that under the condition where your
> firepower is grossly superior than his (again settled law for
> many years). You wouldn't need a lawyer, you would need a
> MAGICIAN. (I'm the former, not the latter. I don't think you
> are either of the two.).
I checked with a lawyer...this was his information for Ohio. It may be
different in other states, and you can claim Ohio is backwards, but Thats the
way it is now. And again I state; you see a menacing figure tresspassing on
your land, you interpert him to be a threat, you MAY grab a gun for defense,
and approach him. If he pulls his own gun on you (concealed weapons are also
illegal in Ohio), you MAY defend yourself with that firepower. Im not sure
where you get the idea that 'my' guns firepower is "grossly superior" to his,
but that doesnt matter either...perhaps you need to read a little more
closely, and follow the thread effectively. This was a reply to a statement
dru made that he could 'out draw' the homeowner.
73.
Christopher K. Greenhalgh, N8WCT
Computer/Electronic Tech. II at The Ohio State University
E-Mail: ck...@osu.edu (cgre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Radio : n8wct@w8cqk.#cmh.oh.usa.noam
Landing
To quote you Drew..SO WHAT!!!! Hey I don't use 220, never did, probably never will. Let em take all the freq. 220
os used for antiquated communications links (1200 baud packet, etc) Out dated, OLD!!!!!
face it...you non coders (see, I didn't say no code) are gonna lose out to big $$$'s anyway. And when it happens,
I'll be the first to say...see I told you so!!!
Drew...get a life
John Minger
Let me try to push it back the other way again......
I'd like some more said about the philosophy that by letting the lids
and scofflaws abuse a repeater/frequency, we gain some breathing room
on all the other repeaters. This is a simplistic solution to the problem.
Does anyone really think it will not have some negative long term
consequences?
I submit that the real place that our newest radio amateurs learn
their operating practices is from what they hear on the air. It's
human nature to listen to whatever is "interesting", much as the
current bunch of tabloid shows have gotten a TV audience.
Although I don't like the profanity, it is only a small part of
what is going on here. What else goes on is a public forum for
anybody who wants to demean other hams, jam their transmissions,
publicly break the laws (with apparent impunity), and drive away
anyone who doesn't behave the same way.
I can tune to another frequency and I do, but I know that the
new operator who just got his license, and even the listener who
might be a great asset to ham radio someday, are hearing what is
out there. The best ones may never come to ham radio at all,
while the bad actors can't wait to get that ham license.
Answering these malcontents on the air is just playing their own
game. You can't expect to be the winner. Ham operators need to
make the laws work and make them better. They need to refuse to
be driven off a good repeater for long. When the verbal vandals
come on, just keep it cool and deal with the problems. Don't
waste time telling them the law, or what you are "going to do"
to them. Just document what happens, do the DF work, and don't
ever give up. Be the example for those newbies out there.
Well, at least I feel better now....;-)
-John
--
___________________________________________________________________________
John A Minger KE6DTC Opinions expressed are those of the author
Los Angeles, CA and not those of anyone or anything else.
Michael P. Deignan
John Minger <jam...@pb2esac.esac.pacbell.com> wrote:
>I'd like some more said about the philosophy that by letting the lids
>and scofflaws abuse a repeater/frequency, we gain some breathing room
>on all the other repeaters. This is a simplistic solution to the problem.
>Does anyone really think it will not have some negative long term
>consequences?
Its a sad commentary on the state of amateur radio when repeater
owners have to put up a "sacrifical lamb" to attract the scumballs.
Maybe if the FCC had more balls we would have less scum.
Vincent Biancomano
>...This doesn't address the fact that the loss of 220 occured
>BEFORE the introduction of the no-code Tech license. You
>pro-coders all know, but won't dare to admit that if the no-code
>license had been introduced earlier, the increased number of
>have lost 40% of 220 like we did.
Amazingly, the argument almost rings true, but falls apart because
the explanation is totally WRONG! Amateurs lost 220 MHz because
they DEFIED FCC's 1982 no-code proposal, period---numbers per se
had absolutely nothing to do with it! Speaking at the 1984 ARRL
National Convention in New York, former FCC PRB Chief Foosaner,
putting the finishing touches on a 4 year effort by Ray Kowalski
and Co. to bring no-code to ham radio, said:
"Because amateurs have refused to accept the no code proposal,
the Commission can no longer guarantee that frequencies in the
VHF/UHF spectrum will not be in jeopardy of being lost."
The issue of "low band occupancy" given later by the Commission
to reclaim allocation was a tack-on, and the technique is one that
has been used selectively by the FCC as it sees fit. For the low
end of 80 meters has been essentially empty for the past 15 years,
yet we have not lost those frequencies. As an aside, the issue of
total numbers of amateurs is also bogus. Today, there are about six
times the number of amateurs per capita than there were in 1939, yet
we have had to fight that much harder for our frequencies. That's
because the VHF/UHF frequencies have worth to commercial interests,
and the Amateur Service can't quite justify their frequencies to
the extent it once did, in large part because it has been cajoled
into believing an easing of entry requirements into the hobby
would be beneficial. What has happened instead is that we've
compromised our justification for being here, while our numbers
have grown substantially. The Citizens Band Service has 6-12 million,
but didn't gain any frequencies because they didn't provide a unique
service. Amateur radio will always provide emergency service to the
public, but we're finding it's not enough to justify all the frequencies
we now occupy. Without a technical base, we're headed more completely
into that personal radio service, and away from amateur radio.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Michael P. Deignan
> You know it's going to happen. It's not a matter of "if" anymore, but
> "when."
I have no doubt that the Sun is going to nova some day too, but that
doesn't mean its going to happen any time soon -- similar to your dreams
about no-code HF.
> The genie was let out of the bottle 5 years ago with the introduction of
> the no-code Tech license.
Which is one reason why many of us were against it. We knew it would let
the camel's nose into the tent. Also it would let a large number of
scumbags into the hobby.
> Doesn't have anything to do with "character" but rather, an outdated
> mandate that people learn an antiquated form of communication as a
> condition of earning the privilege to transmit on publicly-owned radio
> frequencies. Unjustifiable, no matter how you look at it.
If CW is antiquated, then so is SSB voice, since SSB voice is only
a few years younger than CW. I fail to see how a skill that, as
someone else recently quoted, 65% percent of regular HF users operate
is "antiquated".
As far as radio spectrum being "publically owned", that's a hoot. A
public RESOURCE maybe -- but publically "owned"? Nah, don't think so.
Why don't you hold a spectrum auction and let us know how you make out.
Or better yet -- go set up a microbroadcast station in your
neighborhood on 89.3+ MHZ FM and let's talk in a few months.
> "The proper way of things" according to WHOM? As long as I comply with
> all rules and regulations in regards to operating my station, who are YOU
> to say that I'm doing things "the proper way?"
Whether you like it or not there are "acceptable" ways to do everything,
even though they may not be written in stone. Life is full of such
examples. In the case of amateur radio, one such example would be
not calling "Breaker! Breaker! Radio Check!" on your local repeater --
instead "Is anyone around that can give me a radio check?"
By the way, you didn't answer my question: No elmer, huh, Drew? Not
surprising.
> Lots of truth to this. This will be one of the primary arguments used to
> lessen/drop the CW requirements on HF. "Tradition" or "because I had to
> do it" is not a valid, legal basis for denying someone access to public
> frequency spectrum.
Neither is frequency spectrum a right. Its a public resource owned and
controlled by the government, that you are given **privileges** to operate
on, just as your driver's license gives you privileges to drive a motor
vehicle on public throughways.
> This doesn't address the fact that the loss of 220 occured BEFORE the
> introduction of the no-code Tech license. You pro-coders all know, but
> won't dare to admit that if the no-code license had been introduced
> earlier, the increased number of licensed amateurs would have lessened
> the chance that we would have lost 40% of 220 like we did.
Amateurs have "lost" spectrum since the introduction of the codeless
license -- in fact, we've lost *more* spectrum since the no-code license
than before. By loss of spectrum I also include cases where amateur
radio has been demoted to secondary status on frequencies where we once
held primary status -- now we have to share frequency spectrum with other
services where we never had to before.
> See "wait and see", above.
No since in waiting, since I'd be sitting here forever.
BCol...@aol.com
debate...........
>
>>That's fine if you want to have a private golf club,
>>but it doesn't work when you are using public frequency spectrum.
>
>Uh-oh. Here comes that "ITS PUBLIC SPECTRUM! ITS MY RIGHT!!! WAAAAAAA!"
>
>
I'm not so sure using the "public frequency spectrum" is a right. We have
public highway systems, costing millions of tax dollars per mile to build,
millions of tax dollars to maintain, yet driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
Bob
KD8WU
James W. KELLEY
>
>Which is one reason why many of us were against it. We knew it would let
>the camel's nose into the tent. Also it would let a large number of
>scumbags into the hobby.
You do yourself an injustice, sir. A more moderate tone would go far in
lending some credibility to your point of view. Besides, scumbags were
apparently allowed into the hobby prior to the advent of the no-code
license, as evidenced by your presence in it.
>If CW is antiquated, then so is SSB voice, since SSB voice is only
>a few years younger than CW. I fail to see how a skill that, as
>someone else recently quoted, 65% percent of regular HF users operate
>is "antiquated".
Perhaps the fact that telegraphy replaced the Pony Express might date the
origin a little more precisely for you. By definition, anything over 100
years old is considered an antique. A lovely mode nevertheless.
JK, KE6JPO
Andre Dusablon
The wm1j repeater is NOT coordinated. The wm1j repeater is not coordinatable.
The freq usage of 146.440 in and 147.435 out is used in California but it is NOT
used in the northwest. Simplex frequencies are at a premium in the pdx area.
Putting a repeater in that does not fit into the coordinators plan is rude and
lacks common sense. Also, the operator and license holder for this repeater know
that questionable language (like: fuck, dick, cocksucker) is being used on this
repeater. The obviously condone this behavior and should be held accountable.
Along with illegal language some of the wm1j repeater users are not using valid
call signs. More common for some wm1j repeater users is to not use a call sign at
all. For all practical purposes this is a pirate repeater with no concern for
common courtesy for licensed amateur radio operators.
Just another amateur radio operator speaking out for what is right.
Andre Dusablon
KB7VTY...and this is a real call sign.
Drew Durigan (VUB...@prodigy.com) wrote:
: fal...@pacifier.com (Andre Dusablon) wrote:
: >
: >I have been using the 147.435 freq for simplex ops for the last year or
: >so. About a week ago someone brought a repeater on-line that has an
: >input of 146.440 and out of 147.435. The ARRL Repeater Directory says
: >that 147.435 is a simplex freq. Is this a legal repeater? Also the
: >language being used is incredible! People calling others "niggar",
: >"faggot", etc and saying, "fuck your momma." This repeater is located
: >somewhere in the Portland area and has the call of wm1j I'm pretty sure
: >that's the call sign. What actions are we allowed or obligated to take
: >to stop this behavior? Should we record the freq for proof of violation?
: >Will the FCC get involved?
: Not likely. Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the guy, and then
: take appropriate measures to remove the station from the air. A pin in
: the coax works wonders.
: -Drew in Charlotte-
: KF4DDM
--
---
fal...@pacifier.com
Justin Bousquet
a > violation?
a > >Will the FCC get involved?
a > Not likely. Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the guy, and
a > then take appropriate measures to remove the station from the air. A
a > pin in the coax works wonders.
a > -Drew in Charlotte-
a > KF4DDM
Drew - I am the repeater owner of the 147.435 repeater in Portland. My
name
is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish. The repeater
is located on private family owned property. ANY intrusion would
be met with a 12 guage or 45 cal.
Besides that, tampering with a federally licensed transmitter is a federal
offense & prosecuted by the FBI. (they have teeth, unlike the FCC) Perhaps
you don't realize it, but a ham radio repeater is a federally licensed
transmitter.
Your call sign indicates you are a new ham, so go learn a little and
come back when you have lost the CB mentality & understand ham radio.
BTW - Repeater systems use hardline for the antenna feed, not coax. Your
pin would never work.
--
|Fidonet: John Mackey_Jr 1:105/40.234
|Internet: dirtroad!105-40-234!John.Ma...@postes.gaylord.org
|
| TIDR (The Information Dirt Road, Wilsonville OR USA (503)682-3299)
|
Andre Dusablon
be chaos filled...but maybe this is your intent?
na...@pacifier.com wrote:
: By the way, the FCC has nothing to do with where and what modes, rptr or
--
---
fal...@pacifier.com
Justin Bousquet
f > This kind of language is common on your repeater and you do have the
f > right to ban anyone from using your machine.
I realize that you have never managed a repeater before but banning is not
the answer. That only moves or worsens the problem.
f > I only listen to the
f > radio at night when this kind of crap happens.
If you don't like the "crap" then why do you listen?? Your radio has dials
for adjusting the volume, frequency, and on/off status.
F > The type of users I've
f > heard on the air led me to believe that either no one cared about the
f > behavior or that this was a pirate station. I have had my license
for
f > only three years but I was raised in a ham family who values the
f > service. If I were content with the cb mentality I would have simply
f > bought a cb.
I have been a ham for 13 years and 2 meters is only about 1 notch above
CB,
if that much. The repeater was put up to act as a magnet for that sort of
activity and prevent it from spreading or dispersing to other systems.
Therefore, it will be confined to one system rather than all over the band
(in theory, anyway). So be thankful you are hearing it there rather than
everywhere. Sometimes it is best to count your blessing rather than
complain.
f > Both my brother and I have listened to
f > conversations full of (asshole, motherfucker, etc) with bogus call
f > signs or not signing off at all. I understand your defensiveness
f > toward me but I did not intend to attack you. I am attacking the
f > people who degrade the system.
Then please attack them rather than asking others how to stop the
repeater.
Myself as the owner & WM1J as the licensee are responsible for the
repeater
operation, not the discussion or practices of the users. Perhaps you
should
spend a week or so in LA or San Francisco and you'll realize how tame
Portland really is.
Michael P. Deignan
> I realize that you have never managed a repeater before but banning is not
> the answer. That only moves or worsens the problem.
We've found banning quite effective here. Of course, a letter from our
attorney does help things along quite well.
> If you don't like the "crap" then why do you listen?? Your radio has dials
> for adjusting the volume, frequency, and on/off status.
So the vast majority of people, who find these types of actions
distasteful, must leave and make room for the few?
> I have been a ham for 13 years and 2 meters is only about 1 notch above CB
No argument there.
> The repeater was put up to act as a magnet for that sort of
> activity and prevent it from spreading or dispersing to other systems.
I find this a lame excuse for not dismissing antisocial behaviour.
> Myself as the owner & WM1J as the licensee are responsible for the repeater
> operation, not the discussion or practices of the users.
You as the owner are probably not responsible for anything, but certainly
the repeater trustee is responsible for all signals that the repeater
retransmits. That includes foul language and other infractions of Part
97. The trustee is the "control operator" (or his designee is) of the
repeater and is responsible for its transmissions.
Andre Dusablon
: Drew - I am the repeater owner of the 147.435 repeater in
: is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish. The
: repeater
: is located on private family owned property. ANY intrusion
: would
: be met with a 12 guage or 45 cal.
: Besides that, tampering with a federally licensed transmitter
: is a federal
: offense & prosecuted by the FBI. (they have teeth, unlike the
When did the FBI become a memeber of the judicial branch of the government...or
did it sound impressive to use the initials.
We're dealing with pure ignorance here:(
Andre Dusablon
KB7VTY
Andre Dusablon
: f > I only listen to the
: f > radio at night when this kind of crap happens.
: If you don't like the "crap" then why do you listen?? Your
: radio has dials
: for adjusting the volume, frequency, and on/off status.
The problem here is that this is NOT my cable access tv. Although it is obvious
that you hold amateur radio in the same light. This "crap" is a violation of fcc
law. It's truely sad that you condone and encourage such behavior.
Andre Dusablon
KB7VTY/RACES/MARS/RM3
Drew Durigan
>
>> You know it's going to happen. It's not a matter of "if" anymore, but
>> "when."
>
>I have no doubt that the Sun is going to nova some day too, but that
>doesn't mean its going to happen any time soon -- similar to your
dreams
>about no-code HF.
Within the next 10 years. Probably closer to 5. I'd be willing to put
money on it.
>
>> The genie was let out of the bottle 5 years ago with the introduction
of
>> the no-code Tech license.
>
>Which is one reason why many of us were against it. We knew it would
let
>the camel's nose into the tent. Also it would let a large number of
>scumbags into the hobby.
Oh, here we go with the name calling again. And just what constitutes a
"scumbag", in your professional opinion?
>
>
>> Doesn't have anything to do with "character" but rather, an outdated
>> mandate that people learn an antiquated form of communication as a
>> condition of earning the privilege to transmit on publicly-owned radio
>> frequencies. Unjustifiable, no matter how you look at it.
>
>If CW is antiquated, then so is SSB voice, since SSB voice is only
>a few years younger than CW. I fail to see how a skill that, as
>someone else recently quoted, 65% percent of regular HF users operate
>is "antiquated".
SSB voice is still widely used. Morse is not. Every institution
worldwide has discontinued it's use, except for the holdouts on the
amateur bands. BTW, "65% of regular HF users", while it may be accurate,
is an extremely limiting statement. What percentage of the TOTAL number
of licensed amateurs actually use CW on a regular basis? What percentage
of all radio operators worldwide still use it? Not many.
>As far as radio spectrum being "publically owned", that's a hoot. A
>public RESOURCE maybe -- but publically "owned"? Nah, don't think so.
>Why don't you hold a spectrum auction and let us know how you make out.
>Or better yet -- go set up a microbroadcast station in your
>neighborhood on 89.3+ MHZ FM and let's talk in a few months.
Ever hear of "Radio Free Berkeley?" That's exactly what they are doing
(operating an unlicensed broadcast station) Guess what? The judge
refused to act against them. Why? Because the frequency they are using
is PUBLICLLY OWNED SPECTRUM. (I suppose now you're going to say that the
judge ruled incorrectly, right?)
>
>> "The proper way of things" according to WHOM? As long as I comply
with
>> all rules and regulations in regards to operating my station, who are
YOU
>> to say that I'm doing things "the proper way?"
>
>Whether you like it or not there are "acceptable" ways to do everything,
>even though they may not be written in stone. Life is full of such
>examples. In the case of amateur radio, one such example would be
>not calling "Breaker! Breaker! Radio Check!" on your local repeater --
>instead "Is anyone around that can give me a radio check?"
Agreed. But this is common sense. However, it WOULD be perfectly legal
for someone to call "Breaker! Breaker! Radio Check!" on a repeater, and
there would be absolutely nothing that you could do about it.
>By the way, you didn't answer my question: No elmer, huh, Drew? Not
>surprising.
What for? Why in the world would I want some old, "holier-than-thou",
upper-class, code-preaching, know-it-all type to tell ME how to operate
MY radio? With 12 years' worth of commercial experience under my belt, I
believe I'll do just fine on my own, thank you. Besides, even if I did
want an "elmer", it would be pretty difficult to find one. These days,
it seems like all the would-be elmers are too busy arguing with the new
hams about how wonderful Morse code is and whining about what a "mistake"
it was to allow no-code Techs, etc.
>
>> Lots of truth to this. This will be one of the primary arguments used
to
>> lessen/drop the CW requirements on HF. "Tradition" or "because I had
to
>> do it" is not a valid, legal basis for denying someone access to
public
>> frequency spectrum.
>
>Neither is frequency spectrum a right. Its a public resource owned and
>controlled by the government, that you are given **privileges** to
operate
>on, just as your driver's license gives you privileges to drive a motor
>vehicle on public throughways.
Yes...and therefore, it is subject to the politics of the day which
controls the direction of the government. As soon as the numbers of
those demanding no-code HF access become sufficient to convince the
politicians to change the laws, it will happen. A simple look at the
*huge* increases of no-code Techs on the planet, both in terms of raw
numbers and also as a percentage of the total number of licensed amateurs,
should tell you that it's only a matter of time.
>> This doesn't address the fact that the loss of 220 occured BEFORE the
>> introduction of the no-code Tech license. You pro-coders all know,
but
>> won't dare to admit that if the no-code license had been introduced
>> earlier, the increased number of licensed amateurs would have lessened
>> the chance that we would have lost 40% of 220 like we did.
>
>Amateurs have "lost" spectrum since the introduction of the codeless
>license -- in fact, we've lost *more* spectrum since the no-code
license
>than before. By loss of spectrum I also include cases where amateur
>radio has been demoted to secondary status on frequencies where we once
>held primary status -- now we have to share frequency spectrum with
other
>services where we never had to before.
That may be. But the simple equation of eliminating the code requirement
= more licensed amateurs = less likelihood of the government taking
frequency spectrum from amateur radio because it is "underutilized" would
seem to apply in all cases. The greater the numbers, the more difficult
it is to justify taking of frequencies because they are "underutilized"
(the FCC's argument for taking 220)
>
>> See "wait and see", above.
>
>
>No since in waiting, since I'd be sitting here forever.
Again, 5-10 years. I'd be willing to put money on it.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Drew Durigan
Nah, he's just a "tough guy" who thinks he's gonna scare us all away with
his 12-gauge and "federal offense" threats.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Andre Dusablon
Drew Durigan
> the Commission can no longer guarantee that frequencies in the
> VHF/UHF spectrum will not be in jeopardy of being lost."
So, the end result was the same. Amateur radio LOST spectrum space
because of their refusal to accept any sort of no-code licensing proposal.
A direct quote from the FCC!
>The Citizens Band Service has 6-12 million,
> but didn't gain any frequencies because they didn't provide a unique
> service.
Sure they did! On January 1, 1977, the number of (legal) Citizens Band
frequencies increased by more than 70%, from 23 to 40 allocated
frequencies. As you mentioned, no unique service was provided by the CB
operators. Rather, the sheer NUMBER of CB stations, which were then
increasing at an alarming rate, was directly responsible for the FCC's
allocation of additional frequencies.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Michael P. Deignan
> So, the end result was the same. Amateur radio LOST spectrum space
> because of their refusal to accept any sort of no-code licensing proposal.
> A direct quote from the FCC!
...and the amateur service has lost even MORE spectrum when you count
the amount of frequency space where we have been demoted to secondary
status, so clearly the "no code" license hasn't "saved" spectrum either.
> Sure they did! On January 1, 1977, the number of (legal) Citizens Band
> frequencies increased by more than 70%, from 23 to 40 allocated
> frequencies. As you mentioned, no unique service was provided by the CB
> operators. Rather, the sheer NUMBER of CB stations, which were then
> increasing at an alarming rate, was directly responsible for the FCC's
> allocation of additional frequencies.
I'm sure you have a quote from the FCC to support this, right?
Justin Bousquet
f > This kind of language is common on your repeater and you do have the
f > right to ban anyone from using your machine.
I realize that you have never managed a repeater before but banning is not
the answer. That only moves or worsens the problem.
f > I only listen to the
f > radio at night when this kind of crap happens.
If you don't like the "crap" then why do you listen?? Your radio has dials
for adjusting the volume, frequency, and on/off status.
F > The type of users I've
f > heard on the air led me to believe that either no one cared about the
f > behavior or that this was a pirate station. I have had my license
for
f > only three years but I was raised in a ham family who values the
f > service. If I were content with the cb mentality I would have simply
f > bought a cb.
I have been a ham for 13 years and 2 meters is only about 1 notch above
CB,
if that much. The repeater was put up to act as a magnet for that sort of
activity and prevent it from spreading or dispersing to other systems.
Therefore, it will be confined to one system rather than all over the band
(in theory, anyway). So be thankful you are hearing it there rather than
everywhere. Sometimes it is best to count your blessing rather than
complain.
f > Both my brother and I have listened to
f > conversations full of (asshole, motherfucker, etc) with bogus call
f > signs or not signing off at all. I understand your defensiveness
f > toward me but I did not intend to attack you. I am attacking the
f > people who degrade the system.
Then please attack them rather than asking others how to stop the
repeater.
Myself as the owner & WM1J as the licensee are responsible for the
repeater
Justin Bousquet
have to do it. My email address is not jus...@psg.com, I am not sure why
it posts the message with that but my address is jus...@psg.com.
Pls do not flame me I have nothing to do with this. Just third party
traffic...
73's,
Justin AB7NG
Drew Durigan
>
>Drew - I am the repeater owner of the 147.435 repeater in Portland. My
>name
>is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish. The
repeater
>is located on private family owned property. ANY intrusion would
>be met with a 12 guage or 45 cal.
>
>Besides that, tampering with a federally licensed transmitter is a
federal
>offense & prosecuted by the FBI. (they have teeth, unlike the FCC)
Perhaps
>you don't realize it, but a ham radio repeater is a federally licensed
>transmitter.
>
>Your call sign indicates you are a new ham, so go learn a little and
>come back when you have lost the CB mentality & understand ham radio.
>
>BTW - Repeater systems use hardline for the antenna feed, not coax.
Your
>pin would never work.
>
This is a repost of the same message you posted earlier. The least you
could do would be to come up with new threats, don't you think?
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Drew Durigan
>
>kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>>VUB...@prodigy.com (Drew Durigan) writes:
>
>>> The genie was let out of the bottle 5 years ago with the introduction
of
>>> the no-code Tech license.
>>
>>Which is one reason why many of us were against it. We knew it would
let
>>the camel's nose into the tent. Also it would let a large number of
>>scumbags into the hobby.
>
>class license result in letting "a large number of scumbags into the
>hobby" ? Can you define "scumbag" in this context? Can you do this
>objectively?
No, he can't. I have asked him repeatedly for his "professional"
definition of "scumbag." All I get in response is more name-calling and
personal insults.
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Dana H. Myers
>> The genie was let out of the bottle 5 years ago with the introduction of
>> the no-code Tech license.
>
>Which is one reason why many of us were against it. We knew it would let
>the camel's nose into the tent. Also it would let a large number of
>scumbags into the hobby.
How exactly did the removal of the 1(A) requirement from the Technician
class license result in letting "a large number of scumbags into the
hobby" ? Can you define "scumbag" in this context? Can you do this
objectively?
--
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are *
* (310) 348-6043 | mine and do not necessarily *
* Dana....@West.Sun.Com | reflect those of my employer *
Vincent Biancomano
The difference between understanding that amateurs lost frequencies
because they refused to knuckle under to FCC demands for a no-code
license, versus believing that accepting no-code would have brought
in increased NUMBERS to save our frequencies, is what separates
the men from the boys when it comes to understanding why the
Amateur Service is in the trouble it is in today.
With respect to the Citizens Band Service, 70 percent of virtually
no frequency space equals virtually no frequency space. And OUR Service
has lost useful frequency spectrum since no-code was enacted, and
despite a SIXFOLD increase in the number of hams per capita from
1939 to the present. Numbers of hams per se never were and never
will be the answer to furthering the aims of the Amateur Radio Service.
Increased numbers, however, is a fairly good means by which to
extend the personal radio service that you seek.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Justin Bousquet
>Anybody remember what it was we were "discussing"?
>
>Let me try to push it back the other way again......
Thank you...
>I'd like some more said about the philosophy that by letting the lids
>and scofflaws abuse a repeater/frequency, we gain some breathing room
>on all the other repeaters. This is a simplistic solution to the problem.
>Does anyone really think it will not have some negative long term
>consequences?
>
>I submit that the real place that our newest radio amateurs learn
>their operating practices is from what they hear on the air. It's
>human nature to listen to whatever is "interesting", much as the
>current bunch of tabloid shows have gotten a TV audience.
When we are all under the same rules and laws laid down back in 1930, how
is it that a morning radio show can get off having a caller swear over the
air, or Rosanne grab her crotch and scream "shit" on prime time regualr
broadcast TV, or football player yell "fuck" when they miss the extra
point. All of this is intended for "public broadcast" and governed by the
same rules and regulations as ham radio. Why can't a local ham swear on
the air...technically it can't be labeled as "broadcast"?... Think about
it..
>
>Although I don't like the profanity, it is only a small part of
>what is going on here. What else goes on is a public forum for
>anybody who wants to demean other hams, jam their transmissions,
>publicly break the laws (with apparent impunity), and drive away
>anyone who doesn't behave the same way.
I wasn't driven away, infact it forced me to my extra to kind of get away
from them if I want to... But what is wrong with having a little fun over
the air. I am only 19 (on Monday), but I don't believe that all of those
elmers out there didn't and don't have fun over the air... ie playing
squish games etc. In fact I know of MANY elmers that did much worse that
jamming and swearing...(some still curse over the air).
>
>I can tune to another frequency and I do, but I know that the
>new operator who just got his license, and even the listener who
>might be a great asset to ham radio someday, are hearing what is
>out there. The best ones may never come to ham radio at all,
>while the bad actors can't wait to get that ham license.
I can't really argue with this...but it depends on the person. I can see
how one would me driven away. But I think amateur radio kind of has a
"geeky, tight-ass" attitude to the public that doesn't really understand
it. That made me think about whether I was going to get into the hobby or
not. But I did get it and it has changed my life and become like my
central focus now. But the tight-asses attitude drives away a lot of my
friends.
>
>Answering these malcontents on the air is just playing their own
>game. You can't expect to be the winner. Ham operators need to
>make the laws work and make them better. They need to refuse to
>be driven off a good repeater for long. When the verbal vandals
>come on, just keep it cool and deal with the problems. Don't
>waste time telling them the law, or what you are "going to do"
>to them. Just document what happens, do the DF work, and don't
>ever give up. Be the example for those newbies out there.
Or we could just RELAX and follow the rules like those that are watched
closer than us, major broadcasting stations. Who cares what the carrier
contains as long as it is meant in pure fun. And I hate to say it, but
even if you do DF the guy and log every little infraction, you will still
be ingored and pushed away. Maybe if you're lucky they will accept your
complaint and just recycle it in the trash... Save the environment you
know.
>
>Well, at least I feel better now....;-)
>
>-John
I guess I feel that if those that are under more pressure that us hams can
get away with it, why can't we just relax. "Can't we all just get along?!"
John I am impressed by your comments and thank you for bringing the post
back to the subject.
I feel better too...but the problems are still there.
73's
Justin AB7NG
---
Justin Bousquet - AB7NG - Portland, Oregon
jus...@psg.com - 147.36+ 224.92- 449.00- XXX.XX+-
Justin Bousquet
Justin Bousquet
Justin Bousquet
Muenzler, Kevin
VUB...@prodigy.com (Drew Durigan) writes:
<snip - CW "gone">
-Within the next 10 years. Probably closer to 5. I'd be willing to put
-money on it.
The next WARC conference (2 years off I think) is not even going
to consider eliminating CW as a requirement for HF privileges.
There isn't another one for several years...how much money Drew?
-SSB voice is still widely used. Morse is not. Every institution
-worldwide has discontinued it's use, except for the holdouts on the
-amateur bands. BTW, "65% of regular HF users", while it may be accurate,
-is an extremely limiting statement. What percentage of the TOTAL number
-of licensed amateurs actually use CW on a regular basis? What percentage
-of all radio operators worldwide still use it? Not many.
I posted that statistic. It is not limiting at all. The statistic was
65% of all Amateur Radio operators who are licensed to use CW use it
on a regular basis. Of course if you are a no-code tech you would probably
never use it.
-Ever hear of "Radio Free Berkeley?" That's exactly what they are doing
-(operating an unlicensed broadcast station) Guess what? The judge
-refused to act against them. Why? Because the frequency they are using
-is PUBLICLLY OWNED SPECTRUM. (I suppose now you're going to say that the
-judge ruled incorrectly, right?)
The judge refused to act against them because the entity that brought the
charges didn't have the authority to bring those charges. The same thing
would happen if I took my Yaesu FT-890 and modified it for 11 meters. If
the City of San Antonio or The State of Texas tried to bring charges against
me they would be thrown out of court because neither the State of Texas
nor the City of San Antonio has jurisdiction.
-kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
->By the way, you didn't answer my question: No elmer, huh, Drew? Not
->surprising.
-What for? Why in the world would I want some old, "holier-than-thou",
-upper-class, code-preaching, know-it-all type to tell ME how to operate
-MY radio?
That's not what Elmering is all about. Perhaps if you had one (that would
tolerate your attitude) you would see that. The ' "holier-than-thou",
upper-class, code-preaching, know-it-all type' wouldn't seem that way
if you weren't so arrogant. You are just like many of the young people
coming into the hobby today. They ridicule what they don't understand.
They envy someone's achievements so they have to find some way
of ridiculing them and/or some achievements to justify their laziness.
-With 12 years' worth of commercial experience under my belt, I
-believe I'll do just fine on my own, thank you.
Know-it-all, eh? puff puff!
- Besides, even if I did
-want an "elmer", it would be pretty difficult to find one. These days,
-it seems like all the would-be elmers are too busy arguing with the new
-hams about how wonderful Morse code is and whining about what a "mistake"
-it was to allow no-code Techs, etc.
Not too difficult, all you have to do is drop your pride and ask for help.
>Neither is frequency spectrum a right. Its a public resource owned and
>controlled by the government, that you are given **privileges** to
>operate
>on, just as your driver's license gives you privileges to drive a motor
>vehicle on public throughways.
-Yes...and therefore, it is subject to the politics of the day which
-controls the direction of the government. As soon as the numbers of
-those demanding no-code HF access become sufficient to convince the
-politicians to change the laws, it will happen. A simple look at the
-*huge* increases of no-code Techs on the planet, both in terms of raw
-numbers and also as a percentage of the total number of licensed amateurs,
- should tell you that it's only a matter of time.
There are no "laws" to be changed. The treaty that the United States
has in the IARU requires that CW, at least 5 WPM, be required for
any HF privileges. The next WARC has no interest in changing this.
Check the statistics, there is no *huge* increase in no-code Techs.
Of all the licenses granted in 1994 (the last full year available)
13 percent were no code techs; 12 percent were Extra Class, 14 percent
were Advanced Class, 22 percent were General Class and 39 percent
were Novice/Tech+. I don't see any statistical significance in the
number of no-code Techs issued over all the others. These statistics
do not differentiate between new licenses and upgrades. For instance
an upgrade from General to Advanced would constitute one Advanced
Class license granted.
<snip - comments about 220 losses>
The losses of portions of the 220 MHz band has nothing to do with
license classes. It has to do with the number of people using that band.
As far back as I can remember 220 MHz has been a practically unused
band. There have been very few rigs that would operate on 220 MHz.
It wasn't wide enough for ATV like 450 MHz and 2 meters was very
popular so 220 was never used.
-Again, 5-10 years. I'd be willing to put money on it.
I thought it was only 5....
--Drew in Charlotte-
- KF4DDM
Kevin, WB5RUE
muen...@uthscsa.edu
Justin Bousquet %1:2619/211.9
From: Justin Bousquet <jus...@psg.com>
Subject: Re: 146.440-147.435 repeater (I thought...)
Organization: psg.com
Thank you...
73's
Justin AB7NG
# Origin: Usenet:psg.com (1:2619/211.9)
# Origin: Gateway ARNet <-> HamNet by HB9EBW (12:320/100.666)
--
|Fidonet: Justin Bousquet %1:2619/211.9 2:301/249.666
|Internet: Justin.Bousquet.%1:2619/211.9
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Justin Bousquet %1:2619/211.9
Landing
> >>VUB...@prodigy.com (Drew Durigan) writes:
> definition of "scumbag." All I get in response is more name-calling and
> personal insults.
>
> -Drew in Charlotte-
> KF4DDM
^^^^^^^^^
see above for the concise and accurate definition that you require
get a life loser.
-. --- -.-. --- -.. . ... ..- -.-. -.- ...
translateit drew..i dare you
michael silva
writes:
>Who cares what the carrier contains as long as it is meant in pure
>fun.
and then...
>why can't we just relax. "Can't we all just get along?!"
In the real world these two attitudes are simply incompatible. Just as
"good fences make good neighbors", so good operating practices and
manners make for harmony on the bands. Anybody who believes that such
controlled behavior is "geeky, tight-assed" just has a lack of
understanding about how people interact in groups. One person's "pure
fun" can be hundreds of other peoples irritating BS, especially with
the large soapbox provided by a radio transmitter.
73,
Mike, KK6GM
michael silva
writes:
> If The Congress gave the FCC more money it would have more
> balls....
>
> What do you want, more enforcement or a "balanced budget"?
False dichotomy. For a good part of this century we've had both.
73,
Mike, KK6GM
Phil Kane
MPD> Maybe if the FCC had more balls we would have less scum.
If The Congress gave the FCC more money it would have more
balls....
What do you want, more enforcement or a "balanced budget"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: phil...@toadhall.com (Phil Kane)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Durigan
> -SSB voice is still widely used. Morse is not. Every institution
> -worldwide has discontinued it's use, except for the holdouts on the
> -amateur bands. BTW, "65% of regular HF users", while it may be
accurate,
> -is an extremely limiting statement. What percentage of the TOTAL
number
> -of licensed amateurs actually use CW on a regular basis? What
percentage
> -of all radio operators worldwide still use it? Not many.
>
>I posted that statistic. It is not limiting at all. The statistic was
>65% of all Amateur Radio operators who are licensed to use CW use it
>on a regular basis. Of course if you are a no-code tech you would
probably
>never use it.
Oh...so now we're counting only those "who are licensed to use CW", huh?
That is most certainly a limiting statement. Question: what about the no-
code techs...which, according to the most recent bulletin that was posted
on here just a few days ago, now comprise 41% of ALL amateur operators?
Don't they count? They most certainly do! Let's do the math here...if
41% are no-code techs, then only 59% of all amateurs are "licensed to use
CW." So, that means only 65% of 59%...or just over 36% of licensed
amateurs use CW "on a regular basis" (and this is using your statistic
that 65% code-capable amateurs use the mode on a regular basis.
Personally, I think this is a bit high, judging from what I hear on the
bands) Now that we've run the numbers, how do you justify mandating your
code requirements on the 64% of amateurs who do NOT use it, nor have any
apparent interest in doing so?
>> -Ever hear of "Radio Free Berkeley?" That's exactly what they are
doing
> -(operating an unlicensed broadcast station) Guess what? The judge
> -refused to act against them. Why? Because the frequency they are
using
> -is PUBLICLLY OWNED SPECTRUM. (I suppose now you're going to say that
the
> -judge ruled incorrectly, right?)
>
>The judge refused to act against them because the entity that brought
the
>charges didn't have the authority to bring those charges. The same
thing
>would happen if I took my Yaesu FT-890 and modified it for 11 meters.
If
>the City of San Antonio or The State of Texas tried to bring charges
against
>me they would be thrown out of court because neither the State of Texas
>nor the City of San Antonio has jurisdiction.
Bottom line is that they're still on the air, and with the blessing of
the courts. What's going to happen when the Morse requirements are
brought before the courts as imposing an unwarranted and unnecessary
burden, impinging on an individual's right to use the public airwaves?
> -kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>
> ->By the way, you didn't answer my question: No elmer, huh, Drew? Not
> ->surprising.
>
> -What for? Why in the world would I want some old, "holier-than-thou",
> -upper-class, code-preaching, know-it-all type to tell ME how to
operate
> -MY radio?
>
>That's not what Elmering is all about. Perhaps if you had one (that
would
>tolerate your attitude) you would see that. The ' "holier-than-thou",
>upper-class, code-preaching, know-it-all type' wouldn't seem that way
>if you weren't so arrogant. You are just like many of the young people
>coming into the hobby today. They ridicule what they don't understand.
>They envy someone's achievements so they have to find some way
>of ridiculing them and/or some achievements to justify their laziness.
>
More rhetoric about laziness, huh? As far as arrogance goes, I would
suggest that it's you old guys who get the award for that. Mistakenly
believing that the ham bands belong to you and using Morse code as a
means to keep the "undesierables" out. Enjoy the party while it lasts;
those days are numbered. If the ARRL and the FCC doesn't see to it, the
courts will.
> -With 12 years' worth of commercial experience under my belt, I
> -believe I'll do just fine on my own, thank you.
>
>Know-it-all, eh? puff puff!
No, I don't. But it shoots a big hole in the assumption of you pro-
coders that anyone who is in favor of reducing/eliminating the Morse
requirements has got to be a lazy, uneducated, no-code tech with little
knowledge and experience in radio, doesn't it?
> - Besides, even if I did
> -want an "elmer", it would be pretty difficult to find one. These days,
> -it seems like all the would-be elmers are too busy arguing with the
new
> -hams about how wonderful Morse code is and whining about what a
"mistake"
> -it was to allow no-code Techs, etc.
>
>Not too difficult, all you have to do is drop your pride and ask for
help.
If I need help with something, I ask. I need no help in operating my
radio, thank you very much.
>>Neither is frequency spectrum a right. Its a public resource owned and
>>controlled by the government, that you are given **privileges** to
>>operate
>>on, just as your driver's license gives you privileges to drive a
motor
>>vehicle on public throughways.
>
> -Yes...and therefore, it is subject to the politics of the day which
> -controls the direction of the government. As soon as the numbers of
> -those demanding no-code HF access become sufficient to convince the
> -politicians to change the laws, it will happen. A simple look at the
> -*huge* increases of no-code Techs on the planet, both in terms of raw
> -numbers and also as a percentage of the total number of licensed
amateurs,
> - should tell you that it's only a matter of time.
>
>There are no "laws" to be changed. The treaty that the United States
>has in the IARU requires that CW, at least 5 WPM, be required for
>any HF privileges.
Nope. Better read again. The treaty makes no mention of specific code
speed. The requirement could be dropped to 1WPM and still satisfy the
international requirement. My guess is that it will first be lowered to
5WPM for all license classes, and eventually dropped entirely.
> The next WARC has no interest in changing this.
However, several amateurs worldwide DO have an interest in changing this.
I would expect it to be a hot topic in the next few years.
>Check the statistics, there is no *huge* increase in no-code Techs.
>Of all the licenses granted in 1994 (the last full year available)
>13 percent were no code techs; 12 percent were Extra Class, 14 percent
>were Advanced Class, 22 percent were General Class and 39 percent
>were Novice/Tech+. I don't see any statistical significance in the
>number of no-code Techs issued over all the others. These statistics
>do not differentiate between new licenses and upgrades. For instance
>an upgrade from General to Advanced would constitute one Advanced
>Class license granted.
The significance is that 41% of ALL amateurs are now no-code techs. The
numbers are increasing at a substantial rate, while the percentage of
upgrades is dropping. What does that tell you? It tells me that the
political pressure exerted by this group will cause the rules to be
changed.
><snip - comments about 220 losses>
>
>The losses of portions of the 220 MHz band has nothing to do with
>license classes. It has to do with the number of people using that band.
>As far back as I can remember 220 MHz has been a practically unused
>band. There have been very few rigs that would operate on 220 MHz.
>It wasn't wide enough for ATV like 450 MHz and 2 meters was very
>popular so 220 was never used.
>
>
> -Again, 5-10 years. I'd be willing to put money on it.
>
>I thought it was only 5....
I said "5-10 years, and probably closer to 5"
-Drew in Charlotte-
KF4DDM
Jeffrey Herman
>Drew wrote:
a > Your best bet is to get out the loops, DF the guy, and
a > then take appropriate measures to remove the station from
a > the air. A
a > pin in the coax works wonders.
a > -Drew in Charlotte-
a > KF4DDM
>Drew - I am the repeater owner of the 147.435 repeater in
>Portland. My name
>is John & my call is KA0SSF. Your advice is very foolish. The
>repeater
>is located on private family owned property. ANY intrusion
>would
>be met with a 12 guage or 45 cal.
>....
>BTW - Repeater systems use hardline for the antenna feed, not
>coax. Your
>pin would never work.
Say Justin, reread what Drew wrote. He talks of DF'ing the offending
station ("guy"), and removing that station from the air. At no point
did he mention pinning the coax of the repeater. Why are you putting
words in his mouth?
Jeff NH6IL
Jerry B Altzman
Steve - KF2TI <ad...@planet.net> wrote:
>> VUB...@prodigy.com (Drew Durigan) writes:
>> No, he can't. I have asked him repeatedly for his "professional"
>> definition of "scumbag." All I get in response is more name-calling and
>> personal insults.
>> -Drew in Charlotte-
>see above for the concise and accurate definition that you require
>get a life loser.
> -. --- -.-. --- -.. . ... ..- -.-. -.- ...
N O C O D E S U C K S
>translateit drew..i dare you
So. having nothing to say and being reduced to name-calling, you concede your
point and admit that Drew is right?
//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@columbia.edu jba...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML (HEPNET) NEVIS::jbaltz
Hans Brakob K0HB
tune of 66.6%. The pattern, which most of us probably would
think was almost solely due to the new Technician license,
is actually more diverse than I expected.
Certainly the Technician class has been a major and welcome
contributor to our growth. A decade ago there were no codeless
Technicians, and today they comprise 20.6 percent of the
total licensees.
In other classes the growth patterns are as follows:
Class 1986 1995 Gain/Loss
Extra 40,455 71,900 (+31,447)
Adv. 98,294 117,398 (+19,104)
General 116,944 130,021 (+13,077)
Tech+ 86,025 139,529 (+53,054)
Novice 79,359 97,468 (+18,109)
There was no class which lost numbers, and the heaviest
growth was in the Extra (77.7%) and Tech-Plus (61.6%)
classes. The General class was the slowest growth class,
both in numbers and percentage.
--
-- My homepage is at:
"http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/k0hb"
-- It's still a hardhat area... under construction
Hans Brakob K0HB
I want both, but as long as I'm paying for it, I want
more enforcement.
73, de Hans, K0HB