Freebanders all over 10m like roaches
Robert Casey
of 10m. 28.055 with roger beeps. Another at 28.035 Spanish
I think. Earlier something at 28.045
We ought to camp out on these freqs and operate some RTTY or
packet or such. Something to use our allocation to discourage the
freebanders. Be sure to use 28.0X5 MHz.
J. Manley
"Robert Casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3D1D041B...@ix.netcom.com...
Yup, and their numbers increase more each week. Moreover, the
commission is powerless to stop them. You will not discourage them.
They just move up higher, into more of the ten meter band. My
company uses HF freqs. in the 6, 8, & 10 mHz bands. You ought to
hear the unlicensed activity there, AND much of it is of stateside origin!
JJ
One Angry Man
And if the FCC would let us _- Tech Class Amateurs-_ use HF without
a morse code test we could fill it up to the point the freebanders
wouldn't have room on 10m or anywhere else to do their thing.
It pisses me off that freebanders can get on there and yak it up
with no worries BUT if I get on there I'll loose my license for
it! Damn the FCC and their double standards.
--------------------------------
One Angry Man
President and only member
No Code Liberation Army (NCLA)
Answer to everyone's first question.
YES I AM LICENSED!
Answer to everyone's second question.
NO I DON'T WANT TO PUBLISH MY CALLSIGN HERE!!
Answer to everyone's third question.
YES I AM PROUD OF IT, I'M JUST NOT STUPID
ENOUGH TO USE IT ON THE INTERNET, DUH!!!
Jerry Oxendine
One Angry Man <onean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c61e9d6.02062...@posting.google.com...
How many explanations of WHY there is a Morse Code requirement does it take
for it to sink in? I read this same whine over and over and over and over:
if the FCC would do this, if the FCC would do that, if the FCC would do such
and so, then.......
Once again gently read carefully: The FCC does not have the POWER to grant
world-
wide DX access to the citizens of the USA because that requirement is there
by treaty.
Spell it: T R E A T Y. Got it? It MAY go away next year in Geneva, but
there are some rumblings among the member nations who are having second
thoughts about doing away with it completely. Only time will tell if this
requirement is abolished, and
even then, it doesn't necessarily mean that the door will be flung wide
open. Likely, it
will be replaced with higher technical testing standards (I hope).
We Americans often forget that there are other nations who have a say in
what happens
to the radio spectrum and that the domestic FCC isn't the do all-be all of
radio.
J
Jerry Oxendine
Much of the domestic activity is done by truckers. The answer to this
problem for ALL hams to become VERY active in attempting to protect what we
worked for lest
we lose it. NOW is the time to strike when the "iron" is hot, so to speak.
Amateur Radio has received much favorable publicity in the US in the wake of
9/11,
and this is a wonderful stepping stone upon which to launch a campaign to
our Congresspersons. Write your Congressman explaining what Amateur Radio
is (they may already know) its value to our Nation as a resource, and the
problem that is tak-
ing place on our 10 AND 12 meter bands. Explain that, due to short funding,
FCC has
been much unable to respond to the problem in the measure needed to curb it.
Suggest
ideas that could be used to stop the incursions. Here are a few:
1) Increase funding to FCC, at least in the short term, to publicize,
mobilize, and
enforce the rules on CB.
2) Increase visits by agents to truck stops and CB shops to locate and
remove such
illegal radios as make these illegal incursions so easy.
3) Get Customs to more closely inspect containers and crates for illegal
"export" radios
and stop them at the port of entry.
4) Amend the "Local Enforcement" law to allow state and local police and DOT
officers to inspect, fine, or otherwise punish truckers who have in
their trucks those
radios and amplifiers already on FCC's list of unapproved equipment.
5) Suggest that, due to more modern technology (cellphones, Family Radio,
MURS,
etc) that Citizens Band as currently constituted is outdated and could
be "sunsetted":
IOW, after, say, 5-7 years, a date be set after which 27 MHZ CB would
no longer
be legal for use in the USA. Suggest combining that with rigid, even
if temporary,
enforcement, to make sure that 27 MHZ is vacated. Moreover, if
Congress can
be made to see that CB on 27 MHZ is causing more trouble to nearby
services than
it is worth, then a better case can be made for sunsetting it. Explain
that, because of
the short-range characteristics of VHF/UHF FM, much of the illegal
activity (DX,
amplifiers, and interference) would be abated by that characteristic
alone. Make it
clear that straying onto nearby bands such as remaining Public Service,
common
carrier, and the 2 meter hams bands would be met with strict
enforcement.
If enough hams write their Congresspeople, then they can be made AWARE of
this
problem we are having, whereas if we just sit here and whine about it,
NOTHING will
get done. Of course, everything I have suggested is not viable, but let's
get off our duffs
and DO something about it. Send a copy of your letter to Mr. William
Tauzin, Chair-
man of the House Sub-Committee on Communications. Make Congress aware that
Amateur Radio is valuable to our public welfare, defense, and recovery from
disasters.
AND that we have a problem with people that are trying to take that space
away from
us.
In the meantime, here is something else you CAN do:
1) When you are driving the Interstate, listen to 28.085 AM for the stupid
beeping and
squeaking. If your car happens to have, either multitudes of ham
antennas, or a big
unusual looking HF antenna like a screwdriver, sometimes the trucker
will comment
on "the 4 wheeler" with the big antenna, or even call you hoping you
will answer.
Do NOT reply, and do not get excited. Calmly slow down gradually and
allow the
truck to pass you while you get his tag number (you may have to read
it backwards
in your rearview), the name of the company on the door, and the
trailer number as
well as a description. Keep a small tape recorder in the car and try
to record the
truck's transmissions. Attenuate (if available) the receiver, back
down on sensiti-
vity, remove the coax, etc to assure you have the correct truck.
Forward this info
to fcc...@fcc.gov . A number of trucking companies have already
received
warnings in this very manner. Try to keep the truck from becoming
suspicious of
your activities. You may want to send a few "CQs" on 28.85.6 if you
can (rem-
ember, he is on AM and you have to go up about.6 for him to hear you.
By sud-
denly coming on so strongly, you may elicit comment from him on which
to record
further evidence.
If we are SERIOUS about combatting this problem, we cannot sit around on our
hands
and "hope" 'somebody' does something. WE are supposed to police our own
bands and be pro-active in protecting our bands. Sitting around whining
about the CBers using our bands won't cut it. Get out there, listen,
report, and eventually those crimi-
nals will get the word AND what they deserve.
73
Jerry
K4KWH
In the meantime
>
horseshoe7
While I tend to agree with the technical parts of your argument, I disagree
with your "solution". We don't want these clowns on MURS, any more than you
want them on 10m. As with the W6NUT repeater in SoCal, 11m serves as a
"pigpen" for these types to congregate - we've got them just where we want
them, thank you very much.
Look, if an occassional pig gets out of the pen, you've got to throw 'em
back in, or you're going to have pigs running loose all over the barnyard...
you don't just don't call animal control to "send the whole lot of 'em over
to the neighbor's house"... Even if you could somehow convince the
dog-catcher to do your dirty work, all you're going to end up with is a
bunch of pissed-off pigs, neighbors, and dog-catchers.
I'll tell you what the more likely scenario is, if you can't contain these
jokers to 11m... the FCC will have no choice but to "expand the pigpen", and
open 10m up as an unlicensed service.
"Keep the pigs in their pen".
- Stewart, N0MHS, horseshoe7, E Pluribus Unum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN
Jerry Oxendine
horseshoe7 <horse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LBtT8.60975$Ok1.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
There's that almighty FCC again that people think can do just anything they
want with
the radio spectrum. You are forgetting that 10 meters is a treaty band, and
the decisions as to what is done with 10 meters is NOT up to FCC alone.
Jerry
>
>
horseshoe7
"Jerry Oxendine" <jox...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0jvT8.5090$wj4.7...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>
> There's that almighty FCC again that people think can do just anything
they
> want with
> the radio spectrum. You are forgetting that 10 meters is a treaty band,
and
> the decisions as to what is done with 10 meters is NOT up to FCC alone.
Ah, but individual countries can do as they see fit with frequency
allocations, as long as it would not unduly affect other countries... so,
extending the existing11m CB regulations to the 10m band would probably not,
in itself, be in violation of international treaty.
There is a far greater possibility of this happening, than of having 11m
shut down. Think about it - if some government fool was stupid enough to
even start to attempt to have 11m shut down, all the truckers on the middle
eastern seaboard would descend on Washington, DC, and SHUT THE PLACE DOWN...
and the resolution would be rescinded in a heartbeat.
I suggest you concentrate on keeping the pigs in their pens, rather than
trying to have the dog catcher relocate them to the neighbor's property...
especially when the neighbor lives on a very small plot of land in the
middle of a commercial district.
"Keep the pigs in their pens"
... otherwise, we are just going to have to expand the pigpen.
> Jerry
- Stewart
Bert Craig
>MURS,
> etc) that Citizens Band as currently constituted is outdated and could
>be "sunsetted":
> IOW, after, say, 5-7 years, a date be set after which 27 MHZ CB would
>no longer
> be legal for use in the USA. Suggest combining that with rigid, even
>if temporary,
> enforcement, to make sure that 27 MHZ is vacated. Moreover, if
>Congress can
> be made to see that CB on 27 MHZ is causing more trouble to nearby
>services than
> it is worth, then a better case can be made for sunsetting it. Explain
>that, because of
> the short-range characteristics of VHF/UHF FM, much of the illegal
>activity (DX,
> amplifiers, and interference) would be abated by that characteristic
>alone. Make it
> clear that straying onto nearby bands such as remaining Public Service,
>common
> carrier, and the 2 meter hams bands would be met with strict
>enforcement.
I agree with your post with the exception of this little gem. Many folks (like
six or seven MILLION!) happen to like the 27 MHz CB. Let's not punish the
entire town because of the misdeeds of a few (Realtively speaking.) miscreants.
Aside from the fact that it just CAN'T be done, (Heck, you can't even catch the
dopes with the kilowatt amplifiers.) you might actually achieve the opposite
reaction and turn the law-abiding folks rebellious.
73 de Bert
WA2SI
Brian P Burke
There is only ONE explanation. It is required in the ITU treaty. After
2003, it probably won't be required in the treaty, and each country can go
their own way.
One Angry Man
Yea, and I also know that CB (26.965 - 27.405MHz) is in the HF band
and does NOT require code to use. So if the FCC can get away with not
requiring code on cb to comply with the treaty why can't they do the
same with 10m?
> It MAY go away next year in Geneva, but
> there are some rumblings among the member nations who are having second
> thoughts about doing away with it completely. Only time will tell if this
> requirement is abolished, and
> even then, it doesn't necessarily mean that the door will be flung wide
> open. Likely, it
> will be replaced with higher technical testing standards (I hope).
Works for me!
>
> We Americans often forget that there are other nations who have a say in
> what happens
> to the radio spectrum and that the domestic FCC isn't the do all-be all of
> radio.
>
> J
Now why can't the FCC just do to 10m the same that they did on 11m.
They allow CB to talk on HF frequencies with a milage limit, why not
let techs (not just +) on from 28.3 - 28.5 MHz with a U.S.A. only
qso rule. Any U.S. tech caught talking DX outside FCC admin area gets
a letter and some sort of punishment, like 50MHz and up only for
a year or so.
Just something to think about!
Dick Carroll
One ignorant Man wrote:
>
I also know that CB (26.965 - 27.405MHz) is in the HF band
> and does NOT require code to use. So if the FCC can get away with not
> requiring code on cb to comply with the treaty why can't they do the
> same with 10m?
>
Hey, "licensed" one - Might check the regulations. In case you ever
do, you will note that amateur radio and CB are under entirely different
rules. That's because they are different SERVICES. That holds true for
the "treaty" also, so for your education and edification, they have no
relationship to each other.
stewart
>
> Now why can't the FCC just do to 10m the same that they did on 11m.
> They allow CB to talk on HF frequencies with a milage limit, why not
> let techs (not just +) on from 28.3 - 28.5 MHz with a U.S.A. only
> qso rule. Any U.S. tech caught talking DX outside FCC admin area gets
> a letter and some sort of punishment, like 50MHz and up only for
> a year or so.
>
While 11m and 10m are allocated to different base purposes(10m is an
Amateur allocation, and 11m is a mobile allocation), it doesn't appear
that it would be against the treaty to extend the 11m CB rules to the
10m Amateur band, as individual countries are free to modify the
allocations, as long as those allocations don't unduly interfere with
other countries.
I'm not saying this should be done... I'm just saying it wouldn't be
against the treaty if it were done, per se.
The fact that the United States is "getting away" with allowing CBers
to operate with virtual impunity on 11m, would seem to indicate that
we could also "get away with it" on 10m. As long as our rules forbade
practices that could generate international interference, and the
government made a good faith effort to enforce those rules, we would
be meeting our international treaty obligations.
I'm curious about this freebander "problem"... what is the motivation
of these individuals to operate out of band? Are they running out of
room on 11m, or are they doing it simply because their equipment
allows them to do it, or is it a combination of both?
It would seem to me that if Amateurs wanted to "solve the problem" of
freebanders operating on 10m, they should DF the violators, and turn
them in. Trying to have them relocated would make it appear that hams
were simply trying to "pass the buck" to another service.
"Keep the pigs in their pens"
- Stewart
horseshoe7
"Bert Craig" <eccr...@cs.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020630093931...@mb-de.news.cs.com...
> I agree with your post with the exception of this little gem. Many folks
(like
> six or seven MILLION!) happen to like the 27 MHz CB. Let's not punish the
> entire town because of the misdeeds of a few (Realtively speaking.)
miscreants.
Not to mention punishing an entire county... as you would now be affecting
other services too.
> Aside from the fact that it just CAN'T be done, (Heck, you can't even
catch the
> dopes with the kilowatt amplifiers.) you might actually achieve the
opposite
> reaction and turn the law-abiding folks rebellious.
It would be a CIRCUS... I agree - a proposal like this could never get off
the ground.
Anyway, how hard is it to DF these freebander kooks? It seems like it would
be sort of fun to try to catch 'em... kind of like greased-pig rasslin'.
"Keep the pigs in their pens"
> 73 de Bert
> WA2SI
- Stewart
horseshoe7
> commission is powerless to stop them.
Why? Aren't Amateurs providing enough details, so the FCC can make "easy
kills"? Why are you blaming the FCC? Don't hams have some responsibility
to police their own bands? ... or has 10m gotten to the point like on some
of the VHF/UHF ham bands... where they have become virtually unused, so
there is nobody there to care, or to police them.
> You will not discourage them.
> They just move up higher, into more of the ten meter band.
I actually tend to agree with "One Angry Man" on this point... if these
frequencies were more utilized, it would discourage illegal use, and there
would be more individuals to help precisely locate the offenders.
However, due to international treaty rules, this isn't presently an option
on the HF bands... however, some of the VHF/UHF bands could be opened up a
bit more - especially 1.25m.
- Stewart
horseshoe7
While it sounds like a good idea, it doesn't appear that there are enough
active hams out there to make it work. Apparently, the freebanders are
being allowed to get the upper hand in this "turf war".
- Stewart, N0MHS
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: horse...@yahoo.com (stewart)
>Date: 06/30/02 14:38 Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5f4fe4c2.02063...@posting.google.com>
>The fact that the United States is "getting away" with allowing CBers
>to operate with virtual impunity on 11m, would seem to indicate that
>we could also "get away with it" on 10m.
The FCC is not "allowing" them to do anything, Stewart. Just like trying
to kill roaches, you can only do so much so fast. Witness recent enforcement
actions.
>I'm curious about this freebander "problem"... what is the motivation
>of these individuals to operate out of band? Are they running out of
>room on 11m, or are they doing it simply because their equipment
>allows them to do it, or is it a combination of both?
Or...."I am breaking the law and I dare you to stop me..."
73
Steve, K4YZ
Brian P Burke
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:afn7h6$681$0...@208.207.71.163...
Was the rule in place when 11m was amateur radio?
What magic happened when 11m stopped complying with physics?
horseshoe7
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020630161838...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Freebanders all over 10m like roaches
> >From: horse...@yahoo.com (stewart)
> >Date: 06/30/02 14:38 Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <5f4fe4c2.02063...@posting.google.com>
>
> >The fact that the United States is "getting away" with allowing CBers
> >to operate with virtual impunity on 11m, would seem to indicate that
> >we could also "get away with it" on 10m.
>
> The FCC is not "allowing" them to do anything, Stewart. Just like
trying
> to kill roaches, you can only do so much so fast. Witness recent
enforcement
> actions.
That was exactly my point regarding allowing CBers free access to 10m at 4W
or less, as long as the FCC was doing the best it could to keep them running
4W and not interfere with other countries, it wouldn't violate the treaty
provisions... again, I'm not saying that this would be the right thing to
do - just that it wouldn't violate the treaty (just as we aren't considered
to be violating the treaty on 11m now).
I still prefer the "pigs out of their pens" analogy to the "stomping
roaches" analogy... because just with the pigs, you really can't KILL them,
the most you can do is catch them, punish them, and then throw the dirty,
noisy troublemakers back in their mud pen.
> >I'm curious about this freebander "problem"... what is the motivation
> >of these individuals to operate out of band? Are they running out of
> >room on 11m, or are they doing it simply because their equipment
> >allows them to do it, or is it a combination of both?
>
> Or...."I am breaking the law and I dare you to stop me..."
Hams shouldn't expect that the FCC is going to do everything for them...
we've got an obligation to help track down these weasels as well.
> 73
>
> Steve, K4YZ
- Stewart, N0MHS
One Angry Man
Is that so? Then that means the CBers who get on 10m are
NOT in violation of the treaty because they are not licensed
under Part 97? So if I get on the lower part of 10m and
holler BREAKER 10 meters and don't use a callsign I'm OK?
Sorry OM but that one don't wash!!
BTW The ITU RR S25.5 reads as follows:
Any person seeking a licence shall prove that he is able to
send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts
in Morse code signals. The administrations concerned may,
however, waive this requirement in the case of stations
making use exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz.
Point #1 If I'm NOT SEEKING A LICENSE it don't apply to me?
Point #2 26.965 thru 27.405 MHz is NOT BELOW 30 MHz? Since when?
Point #3 When CB was a licensed service it still fell below 30 MHz
so when I got my CB radio license where was MY CODE TEST?
I was seeking a license and my use of frequencies was not
exclusively above 30 MHz!
It's still radio and it's still a part of the FCC's responsibility
which means they have to comply with ALL of the ITU Treaty (not just
S25.5) for all services under their authority (including both
Part 95 and Part 97).
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 06/30/02 18:55 Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <R%LT8.62744$Ok1.4...@news2.west.cox.net>
>That was exactly my point regarding allowing CBers free access to 10m at 4W
>or less...(SNIP)
You are on some SERIOUS mind-altering substances if you think that CBers
who are ALREADY breaking the law by being in the Amateur allocations would sate
themselves with 4 watts.
>.....as long as the FCC was doing the best it could to keep them running
>4W and not interfere with other countries, it wouldn't violate the treaty
>provisions... again, I'm not saying that this would be the right thing to
>do - just that it wouldn't violate the treaty (just as we aren't considered
>to be violating the treaty on 11m now).
It's stupid to even suggest it. The FCC already made two major mistakes
with the Citizen's Radio Service. The first was to ignore the warnings it
received at the outset about putting such a radio service in a globally
propagating band. The second was to remove all vestiges of control by dropping
any licensing requirements.
It's made two more by establishing FRS and MURS. Now that Wally-world has
realized that they can ALSO sell GMRS radios which are compatible (to some
degree) with FRS radios that consumers have already purchased, that once usable
band is quickly on it's way to trashy-dom.
MURS won't be far behind. Somewhere along the way the "word" will get out
to "Joe Average Citizen" that a $100 2 meter radio will give him 50 (or more)
watts on MURS...THEN he'll get tired of being elbow to elbow with the rest of
the trash on that band and find out how easy it is to "trick out" the radio and
everything from 136 to 170mHz will be at their mercy.
>... because just with the pigs, you really can't KILL them...(SNIP)
Sure you can.
>Hams shouldn't expect that the FCC is going to do everything for them...
>we've got an obligation to help track down these weasels as well.
We (I) don't. Hence the Amateur Auxiliary and the Official Observers.
Some are real sharp, others just like the paper on the wall, but it's a start.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 06/30/02 19:14 Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8c61e9d6.02063...@posting.google.com>
>Point #1 If I'm NOT SEEKING A LICENSE it don't apply to me?
If you're not seeking a license in the Amateur Radio service, no.
>Point #3 When CB was a licensed service it still fell below 30 MHz
> so when I got my CB radio license where was MY CODE TEST?
If S25 pertained to CB, you'd be correct. CB radio was a "land mobile"
service", not Amateur. No code test required.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Jim Hampton
passed the 20 wpm exam for my extra TWICE (1966 and again in 1993) plus my
commercial telegraph, I can only say that CW has become outmoded. As to the
rest of the question(s), cb is supposed to be a low power local
communications available for citizens to use. Of course, many are using
excessive power (I can understand the use of perhaps 50 watts to maintain
local communications because of a large number running that and MUCH more),
running on frequencies not authorized to them, and running on frequencies
allocated to other services. The big problem is underfunding at the FCC;
enforcement necessarily suffers. My gut feeling is that if there weren't
this problem it would be likely that the authorized channels for cb would
have been expanded further. The amateurs are also not likely to want to
water down the exams (forget the cw, it may go away in a few years; again,
it may not) simply because they are nervous about letting in a large number
of people who may not respect rules. Certainly there are some problem
amateurs. A number of them no longer have tickets, but the problem remains
that without enforcement, there will be more problems. The easiest way to
contain the problems a little bit is not to open up more authorizations to
folks that haven't paid a bit of a price and therefore have little to use by
abusing the privilege. As to the double standard - it really doesn't exist.
Anyone known to the FCC (and, by a license, you are) will be easier to
track. Certainly you don't want to be stupid enough to sign your amateur
callsign whilst freebanding or running on cb, but the directional array is
fairly accurate and will likely trace any hf signal to within a mile or two.
Who does the FCC know within that mile or two? It doesn't mean you or I did
it, but they'll be watching that licensed station closer since they have no
idea of unlicensed stations might be.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim
"One Angry Man" <onean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c61e9d6.02063...@posting.google.com...
Jim Hampton
people will find out about scatter. They may not understand scatter, but
they will find that 50 watts will work much farther than 2 watts. Once the
hobbiests get on MURS, the 2 watt stations will be buried. It won't be long
before a few enterprising folks find out what a few HUNDRED watts will do.
With a good beam, expect communications ranges of 100 miles and much more.
Heh - wait until a good tropo when a number of people are running a few
hundred watts. It won't be as severe as cb, but thousands of people will
discover (even though they may not understand it) capture effect. Of
course, 2 meter signals have spanned oceans - without the aid of satellites
or moonbounce. Goodbye business operation. Guess why Motorola and Radio
Shack reversed themselves on the MURS question. My guess is they figure a
lot of businesses are going to remember who sponsered the fiasco. Opening
up frequencies for unlicensed operation or reducing license requirements is
not a good idea unless the FCC gets up to the manpower (and enforcement
power) that it had in the 1960s and before. Then, and only then, it may be
a good idea.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020630192049...@mb-mn.aol.com...
Jim Hampton
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"horseshoe7" <horse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nXIT8.61994$Ok1.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
Jim Hampton
shared. Some of them are EXCLUSIVELY amateur allocations - worldwide.
Unfortunately, there are a number of countries that believe that the US
government does whatever it wants and to heck with the rest of the world.
That does not serve our interests in the least. Would you add fuel to that
fire?
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"horseshoe7" <horse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2jxT8.61383$Ok1.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
Jim Hampton
another trucker 5 miles down the road, and both are running 100 watts, it is
doubtful there will be any ham close enough for enough time (I assume they
are moving down the road) to produce meaningful interference. A distant
station may hear them 10 over 9, but those trucks, 5 miles apart running 100
watts, won't likely hear that distant station trying to jam them.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"horseshoe7" <horse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3aJT8.61997$Ok1.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
Jerry Oxendine
>
> "Steve Robeson K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020630161838...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Freebanders all over 10m like roaches
> > >From: horse...@yahoo.com (stewart)
> > >Date: 06/30/02 14:38 Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <5f4fe4c2.02063...@posting.google.com>
> >
> > >The fact that the United States is "getting away" with allowing CBers
> > >to operate with virtual impunity on 11m, would seem to indicate that
> > >we could also "get away with it" on 10m.
> >
> > The FCC is not "allowing" them to do anything, Stewart. Just like
> trying
> > to kill roaches, you can only do so much so fast. Witness recent
> enforcement
> > actions.
>
> That was exactly my point regarding allowing CBers free access to 10m at
4W
> or less, as long as the FCC was doing the best it could to keep them
running
> 4W and not interfere with other countries, it wouldn't violate the treaty
> provisions... again, I'm not saying that this would be the right thing to
> do - just that it wouldn't violate the treaty (just as we aren't
considered
> to be violating the treaty on 11m now).
Anybody that thinks that allowing CBers free access to ANY band at "4 watts"
or
less is dreaming. They've managed to trash all 40 channels, frequencies
above and
below that, and now are squeaking and beeping their sh** on 10 and 12
meters. The
CB band is "land mobile", is governed by different rules than ham, and the
two do not
mix. All that is is an attempt to open the gates so that people can have
their potatos
without having to dig them up--typical of the modern attitude of
"entitlement" without
responsibility. That said, are you actually telling me that you think,
given the history of
CB in the past, that they would abide by rules on other bands as well?
>
> Hams shouldn't expect that the FCC is going to do everything for them...
> we've got an obligation to help track down these weasels as well.
That is what I said further down in this thread. If the problem is going to
be solved,
WE, the licensed Amateurs, will have to become involved, and aggressively
so. Just
today, I took a trip down into South Carolina. I made it a point on the
return trip to
visit all the Travel Plazas on my route (about 5). In the Flying J, at Exit
70 on I-20E,
I found for sale a Magnum Delta Force "CB" radio. On the face, it clearly
states 10
Meter Radio". There is NO FCC approval sticker anywhere. Guess what. If I
have
my way, they are busted! Yes, they *may* or may not get a warning. But
that info,
as well as a "Take to Cashier for Purchase" tag is going to FCC tomorrow
along with a
catalog from a certain seller of unapproved radios and splattering
amplifiers. That is
what it will take; ALL of us getting involved, searching out illegal
operators, visiting Travel Plazas and CB shops as we travel, monitoring the
lower end of 10 meters, and
recording and reporting what we find! I am serious, folks. If we want this
handled, WE will have to prove to Congress, especially, that Amateur Radio
is valuable (many
already know this), is worth protecting from unlicensed intruders, and that
we have a
problem that needs attention. Sitting around, whining, griping, and, yes,
criticizing ideas
that are put forth as possible ways to abate this problem will NOT solve it.
Also, I was hailed on 28.085 by a trucker as I listened for such activity
between Chester and Rock Hill, SC on I-77 ("How 'bout that thar Z34
Northbound and down,
break-break"). I plan to make his a** "famous" in the morning as well. I
just wrote down his truck tag, company name, and hopefully, we will read
about him on the ARRL enforcement page.
73
Jerry
Jerry Oxendine
>
> I agree with your post with the exception of this little gem. Many folks
(like
> six or seven MILLION!) happen to like the 27 MHz CB.
And the question is WHY do they like 27 MHZ? Those that would like to have
a local, quiet 2 way radio service would not mind that it happened to be on
VHF
and that they now have much less noise and interference. Let's not beat
around the
bush: the ones that like 27 MHZ and would scream like stuck pigs are the
ones who
are already breaking the laws governing the CB "Service". OF COURSE, they
wouldn't like having 27 MHZ taken away because their precious DX, their SSB
"clubs", and their assinine "Worldwide-worldwide" foolishness would be
eliminated.
Either Congress will HAVE to face the music and restore funding to FCC to
regulate
the mess that CB is now, or they will have to face the music and take it
away so that
legitimate services can conduct their business unmolested. There is NO
"right" to oper-
ate a transmitter; it is a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. If that
privilege is
abused, the offender must face the consequences OR the privilege needs to be
revoked.
Jerry
Len Over 21
<bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
>> Hey, "licensed" one - Might check the regulations. In case you ever
>> do, you will note that amateur radio and CB are under entirely different
>> rules. That's because they are different SERVICES. That holds true for
>> the "treaty" also, so for your education and edification, they have no
>> relationship to each other.
>
>Was the rule in place when 11m was amateur radio?
45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF. Dick was alive
then...well, as alive as he could be...
>What magic happened when 11m stopped complying with physics?
Dick got on CB and changed the physics...or took one?
Len Over 21
<horse...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Look, if an occassional pig gets out of the pen, you've got to throw 'em
>back in, or you're going to have pigs running loose all over the barnyard...
>you don't just don't call animal control to "send the whole lot of 'em over
>to the neighbor's house"... Even if you could somehow convince the
>dog-catcher to do your dirty work, all you're going to end up with is a
>bunch of pissed-off pigs, neighbors, and dog-catchers.
That's a good analogy.
Problem is, no one in here (other than yourself and a very few) want
to debate the subject. To most this venue is simply a place to
vent spleens, cuss, and act guru-like. :-)
CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago. Hams of that time
were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
that befell hams! :-)
>I'll tell you what the more likely scenario is, if you can't contain these
>jokers to 11m... the FCC will have no choice but to "expand the pigpen", and
>open 10m up as an unlicensed service.
It seems to me that a group of dedicated hams could just as well
exercise their talents and will by organizing and DF-ing on the
freebanders, logging those times and frequencies and content,
then informing the FCC.
I don't think anyone in here is serious about doing that. It's so much
easier to sit back and bitch and whine about it in a newsgroup. No
real effort and it makes the bitchers and whiners happy?
Back in half the time that CB has been around there were no
cell phones on VHF or UHF. At the end of December 2001
there were no less than 129 million cell phone subscribers in
the USA (statement of the FCC in a Public Notice). That's
about one in every three citizens. In less than two decades
the cellular telephone industry has grown at an explosive rate.
That should be an indicator that new radio services (cell phones
are little two-way radios) can be accepted by the citizenry, can
grow at an amazing rate, and be supported by industry.
CB is only about four decades into its existance and its
unlicensed users outnumber all licensed hams by about 7:1
or 8:1. Since the allocated frequency band is small (about
400 KHz), I am surprised that there aren't more freebanders
looking for more EM space.
The "tough talkers" in here will come on strong about legality,
"technical competency through license testing," and a lot of
other noble, good, and true words...but there's little evidence
that any of those "tough talkers" among the hams are DOING
ANYTHING other than bitching and whining.
Organizing, planning, monitoring, DF-ing, logging are the key
activities to reporting illegal operation. Bitching and whining
and talking tough doesn't solve any problems.
>"Keep the pigs in their pen".
That's all well and good up to a certain point of usership among
the citizens. After four decades of CB and (perhaps) 6 million
citizens using CB radios, trying to toss out a band (of any
service) that is in-use is like "teaching a pig to sing" (it doesn't
acomplish anything but annoys the pig).
The FCC is responsive to citizen demands. It cleared hundreds
of MHz in two decades of cutting off the higher TV channels,
has made that spectral space available to several radio services.
It established the VHF and UHF cell phone bands, a lot of low-
power-RF-device spectral places. Those "Part 15" devices
number in the tens of millions in the USA now...despite lots of
whining and bitching about "raising the noise floor in [UHF] ham
bands."
The 10m band is 1700 KHz wide, has been allocated to hams
for over 5 decades. That allocation is man-made and NOT an
ever-living constant. A divinity did not assign it nor is it a
cast-iron guarantee. If some group of citizens wants part of it for
a new radio service, the FCC is obliged to listen.
Patriotic rhetoric by hams is a poor reason for retention
regardless of hams' emotional feelings. The old 11m ham
band went away because of little use by hams with more
promise shown by a new radio service called CB. Part of 10m
could go the same way.
Len Over 21
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>>Hams shouldn't expect that the FCC is going to do everything for them...
>>we've got an obligation to help track down these weasels as well.
>
> We (I) don't. Hence the Amateur Auxiliary and the Official Observers.
>Some are real sharp, others just like the paper on the wall, but it's a
>start.
Class D CB was created 43 years ago. Where are all the AA and OO
corps that you brag about and what are they doing?
Amateur radio has had over four decades to do something and there
is little evidence that hams are doing anything.
You are just blowing smoke and talking tough. That doesn't cut it.
Phil Kane
>45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF.
Both "original" Citizens Radio Serviced - Class A (now GMRS) and
Class B (now abolished) - were in place before 1956 (46 years ago)
when I looked into them for the Scout Troop that I was leading.
---
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
stewart
> >
> > I agree with your post with the exception of this little gem. Many folks
> (like
> > six or seven MILLION!) happen to like the 27 MHz CB.
>
>
> And the question is WHY do they like 27 MHZ? Those that would like to have
> a local, quiet 2 way radio service would not mind that it happened to be on
> VHF
> and that they now have much less noise and interference. Let's not beat
> around the
> bush: the ones that like 27 MHZ and would scream like stuck pigs are the
> ones who
> are already breaking the laws governing the CB "Service". OF COURSE, they
> wouldn't like having 27 MHZ taken away because their precious DX, their SSB
> "clubs", and their assinine "Worldwide-worldwide" foolishness would be
> eliminated.
> Either Congress will HAVE to face the music and restore funding to FCC to
> regulate
> the mess that CB is now, or they will have to face the music and take it
> away so that
> legitimate services can conduct their business unmolested. There is NO
> "right" to oper-
> ate a transmitter; it is a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. If that
> privilege is
> abused, the offender must face the consequences OR the privilege needs to be
> revoked.
Come on now, Jerry - this thread started out about freebanding CBers
operating on 10m... now you want hams and the FCC to waste time trying
to do something about CBers operating illegally within their own 11m
pigpen - by displacing them to other bands? As you've pointed out,
they don't WANT to go to VHF/UHF - that is clear, because they haven't
already(which has been my point all along regarding the bullshit urban
legend myth that CBers are operating high-powered external amplifiers
on MURS/FRS/GMRS). If the government tried to shut down 11m, and move
these lamebrains to MURS/GMRS, it would be a complete fiasco, for a
number of reasons.
Leave 'em be. Like with the W6NUT repeater... we've got 'em just
where we want 'em.
If you want to do something productive, help track down a few of these
freebanders that are operating on 10m, and turn 'em in to the FCC.
But - if the pigs are staying in their pens, who gives a hoot how
muddy they get... They're PIGS, that's just the way they are... you
aren't going to change anything by trying to move the pigpen to the
neighbor's dry little farmyard, they're STILL gonna be pigs, and they
aren't gonna want to stay over at the neighbor's house, because they
like the muddy conditions(DF) over in the old 11m pigpen.
Have you ever heard of NIMBY?
N2EY
> CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago.
That is incorrect.
Class A and Class B CB (UHF) were created in the USA in 1948. That's
54 years ago. Class C and D CB (27 MHz) were created in the USA in
1958.
Now be a big boy and admit your mistake. ;-)
> Hams of that time
> were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
> spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
> of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
> that befell hams! :-)
Should the hams of the time have simply allowed the reallocation of
the band without protest?
Hams dislike being blamed for RFI caused by CB users. Hams who have
earned licenses and comply with the rules also dislike being
categorized with unlicensed folks who break the rules. It's a bit like
serious astronomers being confused with astrologers.
> >I'll tell you what the more likely scenario is, if you can't contain these
> >jokers to 11m... the FCC will have no choice but to "expand the pigpen", and
> >open 10m up as an unlicensed service.
>
> It seems to me that a group of dedicated hams could just as well
> exercise their talents and will by organizing and DF-ing on the
> freebanders, logging those times and frequencies and content,
> then informing the FCC.
Sounds like a plan. But it is important to note the source of a
problem, rather than simply attack the symptoms. Many of the invaders
are not in the USA at all.
> Back in half the time that CB has been around there were no
> cell phones on VHF or UHF. At the end of December 2001
> there were no less than 129 million cell phone subscribers in
> the USA (statement of the FCC in a Public Notice). That's
> about one in every three citizens. In less than two decades
> the cellular telephone industry has grown at an explosive rate.
Sure - as part of an overall growth in telecom over the past 20 years
or so. Note, however, that the telecom bubble has burst. WorldCom's
admission of billions of dollars of accounting goofs is simply one
example.
> That should be an indicator that new radio services (cell phones
> are little two-way radios) can be accepted by the citizenry, can
> grow at an amazing rate, and be supported by industry.
Because there is money to be made, and the cellphones are under the
control of the industry (for the most part).
>
> CB is only about four decades into its existance and its
> unlicensed users outnumber all licensed hams by about 7:1
> or 8:1.
Pure speculation, probably wishful thinking. FCC gave up licensing CB
a quarter-century ago. Without licenses or other registration, how can
you determine the number of CB users with any accuracy? The ratio
could be 1:1 for all anyone knows.
How do you KNOW how many CB users there are? You claim there are
roughly 4.7 to 5.4 million of them - how did you get those numbers?
25 years ago, 27 MHz CB antennas were a common sight on vehicles and
homes in this area. Today they are rarer than ham radio antennas. Even
truckers are turning to MURS, cell phones and other radio services.
> Since the allocated frequency band is small (about
> 400 KHz), I am surprised that there aren't more freebanders
> looking for more EM space.
Why are you surprised? Do you think freebanding is somehow justified?
Sounds like it.
>
> The "tough talkers" in here will come on strong about legality,
> "technical competency through license testing," and a lot of
> other noble, good, and true words...but there's little evidence
> that any of those "tough talkers" among the hams are DOING
> ANYTHING other than bitching and whining.
>
> Organizing, planning, monitoring, DF-ing, logging are the key
> activities to reporting illegal operation. Bitching and whining
> and talking tough doesn't solve any problems.
Why is it the responsibility of hams to act as enforcement agents for
the FCC, particularly when the violations are committed by nonhams?
Are the free speech rights of the law-abiding unimportant?
> The old 11m ham
> band went away because of little use by hams with more
> promise shown by a new radio service called CB.
Incorrect.
11 meters was reallocated by the FCC for two reasons:
1) The FCC could easily reallocate it under the treaties in effect at
the time.
2) Low powered channelized AM voice equipment for 27 MHz could be
manufactured inexpensively using late-1950s technology.
It was not a smart choice by the FCC.
FCC intended CB for short-range business and personal communications.
They never thought that large numbers of users of the new service
would simply ignore FCC rules. But that's what happened, and FCC found
it had created a mess without the resources to clean it up.
In the mid 1970s there was an effort to clean up the mess by creating
"Class E" CB - by reallocating the 220-225 MHz ham band to channelized
FM. "Industry" (the EIA) liked this idea, in part because almost none
of the 27 MHz equipment and accessories would be usable on 220-225. CB
users hated it for that reason, and others (like no "skip" and
more-expensive "linears"). End result was 40 channel CB - on 27 MHz.
> Part of 10m could go the same way.
Sounds like you would like for that to happen.
Jim, N2EY
Brian P Burke
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9f4bfe89.02070...@posting.google.com...
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote in message
news:<20020630231143...@mb-mo.aol.com>...
>
> > CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago.
>
> That is incorrect.
>
> Class A and Class B CB (UHF) were created in the USA in 1948. That's
> 54 years ago. Class C and D CB (27 MHz) were created in the USA in
> 1958.
>
> Now be a big boy and admit your mistake. ;-)
Some mistake! 27 MHz CB is not 43 years old?
> > Hams of that time
> > were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
> > spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
> > of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
> > that befell hams! :-)
>
> Should the hams of the time have simply allowed the reallocation of
> the band without protest?
>
> Hams dislike being blamed for RFI caused by CB users.
Hams dislike being blamed for RFI caused by even Ham users. They dislike it
so much so that they say they DON'T cause it. The ARRL position is that it
isn't cause by amateur RF emissions. Its caused by poor design of the
consumer electronics device being interfered with.
Hams who have
> earned licenses and comply with the rules also dislike being
> categorized with unlicensed folks who break the rules. It's a bit like
> serious astronomers being confused with astrologers.
I also dislike being categorized with licensed folks who break the rules,
such as the ARRL and W5YI VECs, Dick sending bad code, and Dave working
French hams out of band. Time to clean up our act!
> > >I'll tell you what the more likely scenario is, if you can't contain
these
> > >jokers to 11m... the FCC will have no choice but to "expand the
pigpen", and
> > >open 10m up as an unlicensed service.
> >
> > It seems to me that a group of dedicated hams could just as well
> > exercise their talents and will by organizing and DF-ing on the
> > freebanders, logging those times and frequencies and content,
> > then informing the FCC.
>
> Sounds like a plan. But it is important to note the source of a
> problem, rather than simply attack the symptoms. Many of the invaders
> are not in the USA at all.
We invade foreign lands and kill terrorists, spray Coca Plantations, seize
financial assets.
It's not the responsibility of hams to do this, but it could be considered
community service. If a ham has enough free time to learn Morse Code at
20wpm, then DFing a couple of hundred freebanders shouldn't be any big deal.
> Are the free speech rights of the law-abiding unimportant?
DF the law-abiding? Whatever for?
> > The old 11m ham
> > band went away because of little use by hams with more
> > promise shown by a new radio service called CB.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> 11 meters was reallocated by the FCC for two reasons:
>
> 1) The FCC could easily reallocate it under the treaties in effect at
> the time.
Being easy doesn't say "why" it was done.
> 2) Low powered channelized AM voice equipment for 27 MHz could be
> manufactured inexpensively using late-1950s technology.
And? Why did they do it?
Then why a 10-10 organization? Maybe they didn't want to lose 10M, too?
> It was not a smart choice by the FCC.
>
> FCC intended CB for short-range business and personal communications.
> They never thought that large numbers of users of the new service
> would simply ignore FCC rules. But that's what happened, and FCC found
> it had created a mess without the resources to clean it up.
Finally the why.
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 06/30/02 23:11 Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020630231142...@mb-mo.aol.com>
>>Was the rule in place when 11m was amateur radio?
>
>45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF. Dick was alive
>then...well, as alive as he could be...
ERROR! ERROR! The Citizen's radio Service predates MY arrival into this
world, Oh Errant One.
Sheesh, Lennie! Asleep at the wheel again! Any opportunity to try and
"diss" Hams blows up in your face AGAIN!
Pfui!
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20020630232737...@mb-cm.aol.com>
>Class D CB was created 43 years ago. Where are all the AA and OO
>corps that you brag about and what are they doing?
Well golly-gee whillikers, Lennie! That's why it's called the AMATEUR
Auxiliary, NOT the CITIZENS BAND Auxiliary, now isn't it?
>Amateur radio has had over four decades to do something and there
>is little evidence that hams are doing anything.
As long as you say that from a position of having your head in the sand, I
guess you might be right...Any other circumstance is erroneous. The
accomplishments are matter of countless archives, including the Federal
Register. Sorry you disagree.
>You are just blowing smoke and talking tough. That doesn't cut it.
You mean like making assertions that I am going to obtain a license "out
of the box" and then not doing it? That doesn't cut it either, Lennie.
You mean like making assertions that "CB" radio, even the original UHF
version (you were ALMOST right, Lennie), did not exist 45+ years ago?
GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR RECTUM, LENNIE!
Stupid jerk.
W1RFI
>> Spell it: T R E A T Y. Got it?
>
>Yea, and I also know that CB (26.965 - 27.405MHz) is in the HF band
>and does NOT require code to use. So if the FCC can get away with not
>requiring code on cb to comply with the treaty why can't they do the
>same with 10m?
The treaty requires Morse code knowledge for Amateur Radio HF access.
Knowledge of Morse code is not required for other HF radio services.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>Was the rule in place when 11m was amateur radio?
Yes.
>What magic happened when 11m stopped complying with physics?
The 11-meter band complies with the laws of physics, Brian. Why do you think
it does not?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>Is that so? Then that means the CBers who get on 10m are
>NOT in violation of the treaty because they are not licensed
>under Part 97?
Individuals are not "in violation" of the treaty. Those that operate on 10
meters without having met the FCC licensing requirements are in violation of
federal law.
> So if I get on the lower part of 10m and
>holler BREAKER 10 meters and don't use a callsign I'm OK?
If you operate on 10 meters without a callsign, you are in violation of federal
law.
>Sorry OM but that one don't wash!!
You are correct; your premise doesn't wash.
I think I understand where your anger comes from, or at least where it is
headed.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
stewart
> >Subject: Re: Freebanders all over 10m like roaches
> >From: "horseshoe7" horse...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 06/30/02 18:55 Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <R%LT8.62744$Ok1.4...@news2.west.cox.net>
>
> >That was exactly my point regarding allowing CBers free access to 10m at 4W
> >or less...(SNIP)
>
> You are on some SERIOUS mind-altering substances if you think that CBers
> who are ALREADY breaking the law by being in the Amateur allocations would sate
> themselves with 4 watts.
I don't think that, I just said it would be within the treaty
provisions.
> >.....as long as the FCC was doing the best it could to keep them running
> >4W and not interfere with other countries, it wouldn't violate the treaty
> >provisions... again, I'm not saying that this would be the right thing to
> >do - just that it wouldn't violate the treaty (just as we aren't considered
> >to be violating the treaty on 11m now).
>
> It's stupid to even suggest it. The FCC already made two major mistakes
> with the Citizen's Radio Service. The first was to ignore the warnings it
> received at the outset about putting such a radio service in a globally
> propagating band. The second was to remove all vestiges of control by dropping
> any licensing requirements.
I'm not suggesting it... I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't be
against the treaty to do so.
> It's made two more by establishing FRS and MURS. Now that Wally-world has
> realized that they can ALSO sell GMRS radios which are compatible (to some
> degree) with FRS radios that consumers have already purchased, that once usable
> band is quickly on it's way to trashy-dom.
Let's stick to 11m, for now, could we?
> MURS won't be far behind. Somewhere along the way the "word" will get out
> to "Joe Average Citizen" that a $100 2 meter radio will give him 50 (or more)
> watts on MURS...THEN he'll get tired of being elbow to elbow with the rest of
> the trash on that band and find out how easy it is to "trick out" the radio and
> everything from 136 to 170mHz will be at their mercy.
The point of this tangent to the thread was that I was arguing AGAINST
these buffoons being re-located to the VHF and UHF bands.
> >... because just with the pigs, you really can't KILL them...(SNIP)
>
> Sure you can.
... now you're being a bit unreasonable. I support busting and
punishing these offenders when they venture out of their pigpen... but
I don't support KILLING them.
> >Hams shouldn't expect that the FCC is going to do everything for them...
> >we've got an obligation to help track down these weasels as well.
>
> We (I) don't. Hence the Amateur Auxiliary and the Official Observers.
> Some are real sharp, others just like the paper on the wall, but it's a start.
If I had any free time, it sounds like it would be a fun endeavour.
> 73
>
> Steve, K4YZ
- Stewart
stewart
> Am I missing something? Are you saying it is the AMATEURS' fault?
For jamming, no... for leaving loads of frequencies unused, yes.
- Stewart, N0MHS
Brian P Burke
"W1RFI" <w1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020701173721...@mb-dd.aol.com...
One day it required a morse code exam, the next day it didn't require a
morse code exam.
Brian P Burke
If its important enough to force hobbyists to learn it it otta be important
enough for paid professionals to learn it.
I mean, shouldn't they have to know it to prevent interference?
W1RFI
>One day it required a morse code exam, the next day it didn't require a
>morse code exam.
Perhaps this explains why you are so confused about Morse code testing, Brian.
Morse code testing does not change the laws of physics.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
N2EY
(Len Over 21) writes:
>In article <jBKT8.942$j93.42...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, "Brian P
>Burke"
><bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
>>> Hey, "licensed" one - Might check the regulations. In case you ever
>>> do, you will note that amateur radio and CB are under entirely different
>>> rules. That's because they are different SERVICES. That holds true for
>>> the "treaty" also, so for your education and edification, they have no
>>> relationship to each other.
>>
>>Was the rule in place when 11m was amateur radio?
>
>45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF.
Incorrect. As pointed out in another post, Class A and Class B CB (UHF, 460 MHz
region) were created by the FCC in 1948. That's 54 years ago.
Now be a big boy and admit your mistake, "Lenover21". Set a good example for
young Brian.
Jim, N2EY
N2EY
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
>"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:9f4bfe89.02070...@posting.google.com...
>> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote in message
>news:<20020630231143...@mb-mo.aol.com>...
>>
>> > CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago.
>>
>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> Class A and Class B CB (UHF) were created in the USA in 1948. That's
>> 54 years ago. Class C and D CB (27 MHz) were created in the USA in
>> 1958.
>>
>> Now be a big boy and admit your mistake. ;-)
>
>Some mistake! 27 MHz CB is not 43 years old?
Lenover21 stated that CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago. That is not
correct.
>> > >I'll tell you what the more likely scenario is, if you can't contain
>these
>> > >jokers to 11m... the FCC will have no choice but to "expand the
>pigpen", and
>> > >open 10m up as an unlicensed service.
>> >
>> > It seems to me that a group of dedicated hams could just as well
>> > exercise their talents and will by organizing and DF-ing on the
>> > freebanders, logging those times and frequencies and content,
>> > then informing the FCC.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan. But it is important to note the source of a
>> problem, rather than simply attack the symptoms. Many of the invaders
>> are not in the USA at all.
>
>We invade foreign lands and kill terrorists, spray Coca Plantations, seize
>financial assets.
Works for me.
>> 11 meters was reallocated by the FCC for two reasons:
>>
>> 1) The FCC could easily reallocate it under the treaties in effect at
>> the time.
>
>Being easy doesn't say "why" it was done.
It explains why 27 MHz and not some other part of the spectrum that made more
sense for a short-range mobile radio service.
>
>> 2) Low powered channelized AM voice equipment for 27 MHz could be
>> manufactured inexpensively using late-1950s technology.
>
>And? Why did they do it?
Isn't it clear? UHF CB had been around for 10 years but had few takers because
the available equipment that worked well was very expensive.
>> It was not a smart choice by the FCC.
>>
>> FCC intended CB for short-range business and personal communications.
>> They never thought that large numbers of users of the new service
>> would simply ignore FCC rules. But that's what happened, and FCC found
>> it had created a mess without the resources to clean it up.
>
>Finally the why.
>
It was a dumb move by the FCC. But the FCC could not and cannot say "We made a
really dumb move", so they have been trying to contain the porcines for four
decades or so.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Len Over 21
(N2EY) writes:
>> CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago.
>
>That is incorrect.
:-)
Reading problems? Look at the word before "43."
Is that or is that not the word "about?" Do you need a dictionary
definition for "about?" Would you like me to change "about" to
"approximately" or possibly "nearly?"
2002 - 1958 = 44. Now, what was the MONTH of the FCC R&O
creating Class C and D Citizens Band radio service? Are you
going to quibble about FRACTIONS of a month and make a big
federal case out of that? :-)
Hmmm...let's see...Jimmie was a tiny child when the Class D
R&O was made law. I was a working adult then, also a year
later (in 1959) when I bought an E. F. Johnson Viking
Messenger Class D CB and installed it in my car (1953 Austin-
Healey sports car, later into a 1960 Chevy convertible). Did
Jimmie have a driver's license back then? [LICENSING is very
important to Jimmie, yes?] :-)
I guess it's terribly, terribly important to be supremely accurate
on time spans with Jimmie...especially if they are within his own
life experience. :-)
Tell you what...I might take out a full-page ad in RF Design News
magazine anouncing this TERRIBLE ERROR that did not make
"about 43" be EXACTLY 44 years ago. Would that please your
royal whatever? :-)
>> Hams of that time
>> were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
>> spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
>> of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
>> that befell hams! :-)
>
>Should the hams of the time have simply allowed the reallocation of
>the band without protest?
Ho ho ho...big INCOMPLETE HISTORY buff! "Hams of the time" DID
protest and in every venue they could find...including audiences at
work where most folks didn't give a damn about their protests. Oh,
the evil of it all...the ungodly allowance of ORDINARY CITIZENS on
the sacred ground of HF without so much as taking one radio
operator test! Oh, oh, oh...and NO morse code test involved!
Oh, oh, oh, the terrible shame of it all! :-)
The FCC listened to all sides and made the decision. The 11m
band wasn't used much at all by radio amateurs at the time.
Hams had their biggest HF band just "next door" in the spectrum,
all 1700 KHz of it...same as what they have now.
The creation of CB was OVER FOUR DECADES AGO, renowned
history lister. That's approximately two generations ago.
You were NOT aware of the climate then, took NO part in it,
indeed COULD NOT, yet you make yourself sound like an
"expert witness" to the times...and then you demand
absolute accuracy. All you have is a lot of emotional claptrap
working on a band that was taken away from radio amateurs
way back before you could possibly be licensed.
>Hams dislike being blamed for RFI caused by CB users.
You have polled every single US licensed radio amateur for this
gem?!?!? Oh. YOU "represent" all of them! [I should have known]
>Hams who have
>earned licenses and comply with the rules also dislike being
>categorized with unlicensed folks who break the rules. It's a bit like
>serious astronomers being confused with astrologers.
Make up your mind. First you jabber about happenings over
four decades ago and now you switch to the here and now.
Try to stay in focus...and we will get the picture clearly... :-)
>> It seems to me that a group of dedicated hams could just as well
>> exercise their talents and will by organizing and DF-ing on the
>> freebanders, logging those times and frequencies and content,
>> then informing the FCC.
>
>Sounds like a plan. But it is important to note the source of a
>problem, rather than simply attack the symptoms. Many of the invaders
>are not in the USA at all.
Are you hinting at ALIEN INVADERS?!?!? Did you rent a video
of "Independence Day?"
:-)
>> Back in half the time that CB has been around there were no
>> cell phones on VHF or UHF. At the end of December 2001
>> there were no less than 129 million cell phone subscribers in
>> the USA (statement of the FCC in a Public Notice). That's
>> about one in every three citizens. In less than two decades
>> the cellular telephone industry has grown at an explosive rate.
>
>Sure - as part of an overall growth in telecom over the past 20 years
>or so. Note, however, that the telecom bubble has burst. WorldCom's
>admission of billions of dollars of accounting goofs is simply one
>example.
OH WOW!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! Insert a SPECIAL
BULLETIN underbar on the video and prep the news team!
128,700,000 Cellular telephone subscribers have all been
PUT OFF THE AIR according to Jimmie!!!
Fraud by one corporation's executives has NOW NEGATED
TELECOM ENTIRE!!!
Film at eleven...
>> That should be an indicator that new radio services (cell phones
>> are little two-way radios) can be accepted by the citizenry, can
>> grow at an amazing rate, and be supported by industry.
>
>Because there is money to be made, and the cellphones are under the
>control of the industry (for the most part).
Oh, oh! Evil MONEY brought up in the picture!!!
Why are you making some kind of federal case on EVIL MONEY
"justifying" a new radio service? Is the EM spectrum to be
awarded only for non-profit, noble, good, and saintly "free" use?
Hey...doomsayer of evil capitalists...have HRO give away radios
to hams or at least AT COST...let the ARRL give away member-
ship and books and periodicals...because MONEY and PROFIT
are evil! Sounds like what you are implying... :-)
>> CB is only about four decades into its existance and its
>> unlicensed users outnumber all licensed hams by about 7:1
>> or 8:1.
>
>Pure speculation, probably wishful thinking.
Well, Mr. Error-Spotter, the EIA (Electronic Industries Alliance,
formerly Electronic Industries Association) used to keep tabs
on different electronics product areas manufactured and sold.
Some figures remembered from a dozen or so years ago had
the number of CBs sold at over the ten million mark.
I don't say that all of them are still being used. I'm not even
into "wishful thinking" even though you insist on a sideways
pejorative by putting that phrase into your nastygram.
>FCC gave up licensing CB a quarter-century ago.
Are you going to issue another hissy-fit about EXACT number
of years? :-)
>Without licenses or other registration, how can
>you determine the number of CB users with any accuracy?
While the hills of my residence area make NVIS techniques
almost a must on HF, there are still a couple low points to
Interstate 5 which runs past only a mile away (four lanes each
direction, a major vehicle route for the L.A. area). ANY HF
receiver tuning the CB band will result in an abundance of
heterodynes, enough to make this part of the urban area
next to useless for CB.
>The ratio could be 1:1 for all anyone knows.
Is this "wishful thinking" on your part? :-)
How did you arrive at that ratio? Is it ACCURATE?
You can't stand the slightest ERROR...how can you live with
yourself on posting INEXACT numbers?!?
>25 years ago, 27 MHz CB antennas were a common sight on vehicles and
>homes in this area. Today they are rarer than ham radio antennas. Even
>truckers are turning to MURS, cell phones and other radio services.
WOW! You'd better write an Op-Ed piece for QST and lay into
those evil radio users! Good grief, lowly truckers using ANY
kind of radio for their jobs!
>> Since the allocated frequency band is small (about
>> 400 KHz), I am surprised that there aren't more freebanders
>> looking for more EM space.
>
>Why are you surprised? Do you think freebanding is somehow justified?
>Sounds like it.
FLAME WAR IGNITION ALERT!! Jimmie wants a FLAME WAR!!!
Casual listening on HF doesn't reveal to me any sort of DRASTIC
CAUSE FOR ALARM about freebanders. All two of them heard
don't sound like there is an "invasion of the spectrum snatchers."
Yet you want to make everyone think I am "supporting freebanders!"
Misdirection, misdirection. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
>Why is it the responsibility of hams to act as enforcement agents for
>the FCC, particularly when the violations are committed by nonhams?
I'd call it an aspect of "citizenship." You ever hear of "citizenship"
or "civic duty?"
If unlawful RF transmission occurs WITHIN amateur radio bands,
are you going to sit around and DO NOTHING? Will you wait for
the ARRL to your job for you on reporting?
Or will you just sit around newsgroups and make yourself sound
all-important, all-knowing, and starting flame wars with those who
don't share your opinions?
>Are the free speech rights of the law-abiding unimportant?
SAYING NOTHING is a weird, perverse way to exercise "free
speech." :-)
>> The old 11m ham
>> band went away because of little use by hams with more
>> promise shown by a new radio service called CB.
>
>Incorrect.
Prove your charge. [go ahead, don't bother to make my day... :-)]
>FCC intended CB for short-range business and personal communications.
>They never thought that large numbers of users of the new service
>would simply ignore FCC rules. But that's what happened, and FCC found
>it had created a mess without the resources to clean it up.
OK. Do you think the FCC has "ignored" the experience?
Do you think the FCC will go ahead and make other new radio
services with the same arrangement of regulations? The FCC
has made a large number of new radio services in the four decades
since CB was created.
Yes, everyone gets the picture...if the FCC doesn't satisfy YOUR
wishes or the ARRL's wishes, then the FCC is making a "dreadful,
evil, stupid mistake." Of course... :-)
>In the mid 1970s there was an effort to clean up the mess by creating
>"Class E" CB - by reallocating the 220-225 MHz ham band to channelized
>FM. "Industry" (the EIA) liked this idea, in part because almost none
>of the 27 MHz equipment and accessories would be usable on 220-225. CB
>users hated it for that reason, and others (like no "skip" and
>more-expensive "linears"). End result was 40 channel CB - on 27 MHz.
Now, now...two and a half decades ago in ANOTHER radio service
wasn't part of the subject thread. Why do you go and introduce
extraneous, non-relevant information (other than try to misdirect)?
Where is this "Class E" CB now? :-)
>> Part of 10m could go the same way.
>
>Sounds like you would like for that to happen.
WARNING...ANOTHER FLAME WAR IGNITION POINT!!!!
Poor baby, is that the best you can do for word-twisting?
Do you need a Yiddish-English dictionary to get some nice,
mittle-Yurpean swear words? [I know one user in here who
does...:-) ]
You don't want to admit it, but there is NOTHING sacred about
amateur spectrum space allocations...no divinity will protect
them since all the allocations for all radio services are man-made.
Radio amateurs aren't given resources because they think they
are superior in radio or are noble, honest, good, and true saints.
The 10m band is 1700 KHz wide. It is much wider than any
other HF band allocation. Is it used enough to qualify for
continued amateur allocation even on a secondary basis?
You don't "prove" anything by becoming upset at another who
points out that OTHER radio services and OTHER citizens
MIGHT want a piece of that spectrum. You can't stop
anything by making nastygrams to me or anyone else for
pointing out that spectral allocations are negotiated and
handled by administrations. If you can't prove your case to
the administrations, you don't keep the allocation.
Go ahead, bitch and whine about not being "given your rightful
due." In newsgroups. Try to start whatever flame war you
want. That sort of fire doesn't help your case one bit, is sooty,
dirty, with a lot of smoke that will blow away.
Brian P Burke
Jim, I thought you said that CB came in in 1958 - the year I was born. I'm
43 years old. Wouldn't that make Len correct?
73, Brian
Brian P Burke
So other modes could be used, not just Morse/CW? Its not physics?
Why did the FCC condemn Novices to CW?
;^)
There, I remembered the smiley face.
Brian P Burke
> In article <do1U8.1350$fH3.57...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, "Brian P
> Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> >"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:9f4bfe89.02070...@posting.google.com...
> >> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote in message
> >news:<20020630231143...@mb-mo.aol.com>...
> >>
> >> > CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago.
> >>
> >> That is incorrect.
> >>
> >> Class A and Class B CB (UHF) were created in the USA in 1948. That's
> >> 54 years ago. Class C and D CB (27 MHz) were created in the USA in
> >> 1958.
> >>
> >> Now be a big boy and admit your mistake. ;-)
> >
> >Some mistake! 27 MHz CB is not 43 years old?
>
> Lenover21 stated that CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago. That
is not
> correct.
What number system are you using?
> >> > >I'll tell you what the more likely scenario is, if you can't contain
> >these
> >> > >jokers to 11m... the FCC will have no choice but to "expand the
> >pigpen", and
> >> > >open 10m up as an unlicensed service.
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me that a group of dedicated hams could just as well
> >> > exercise their talents and will by organizing and DF-ing on the
> >> > freebanders, logging those times and frequencies and content,
> >> > then informing the FCC.
> >>
> >> Sounds like a plan. But it is important to note the source of a
> >> problem, rather than simply attack the symptoms. Many of the invaders
> >> are not in the USA at all.
> >
> >We invade foreign lands and kill terrorists, spray Coca Plantations,
seize
> >financial assets.
>
> Works for me.
But we can't say "boo" to foreign governments that we donate millions to to
crack down on freebanders?
> >> 11 meters was reallocated by the FCC for two reasons:
> >>
> >> 1) The FCC could easily reallocate it under the treaties in effect at
> >> the time.
> >
> >Being easy doesn't say "why" it was done.
>
> It explains why 27 MHz and not some other part of the spectrum that made
more
> sense for a short-range mobile radio service.
> >
> >> 2) Low powered channelized AM voice equipment for 27 MHz could be
> >> manufactured inexpensively using late-1950s technology.
> >
> >And? Why did they do it?
>
> Isn't it clear? UHF CB had been around for 10 years but had few takers
because
> the available equipment that worked well was very expensive.
I've never heard of UHF CB. I've only heard of GMRS. Is that what you're
trying to call CB?
> >> It was not a smart choice by the FCC.
> >>
> >> FCC intended CB for short-range business and personal communications.
> >> They never thought that large numbers of users of the new service
> >> would simply ignore FCC rules. But that's what happened, and FCC found
> >> it had created a mess without the resources to clean it up.
> >
> >Finally the why.
> >
> It was a dumb move by the FCC. But the FCC could not and cannot say "We
made a
> really dumb move",
Why not?
Brian P Burke
"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020701201537...@mb-bj.aol.com...
Jim, like Mike Deignan, will damn you for being ever so slightly inaccurate,
but will never say how far off you are because it is such a petty amount.
By saying how far off you were, would show his pettiness.
He simply states that you are wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!
>
> >> Hams of that time
> >> were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
> >> spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
> >> of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
> >> that befell hams! :-)
> >
> >Should the hams of the time have simply allowed the reallocation of
> >the band without protest?
>
> Ho ho ho...big INCOMPLETE HISTORY buff! "Hams of the time" DID
> protest and in every venue they could find...including audiences at
> work where most folks didn't give a damn about their protests. Oh,
> the evil of it all...the ungodly allowance of ORDINARY CITIZENS on
> the sacred ground of HF without so much as taking one radio
> operator test! Oh, oh, oh...and NO morse code test involved!
> Oh, oh, oh, the terrible shame of it all! :-)
>
> The FCC listened to all sides and made the decision. The 11m
> band wasn't used much at all by radio amateurs at the time.
> Hams had their biggest HF band just "next door" in the spectrum,
> all 1700 KHz of it...same as what they have now.
Was the Ten-Ten International a defensive reaction to losing the 11M band ?
> The creation of CB was OVER FOUR DECADES AGO, renowned
> history lister. That's approximately two generations ago.
>
> You were NOT aware of the climate then, took NO part in it,
> indeed COULD NOT, yet you make yourself sound like an
> "expert witness" to the times...and then you demand
> absolute accuracy. All you have is a lot of emotional claptrap
> working on a band that was taken away from radio amateurs
> way back before you could possibly be licensed.
Kind of like Val coming on here saying all the "right" things about Morse/CW
and bashing the NCTA - before he even had a license.
Phil Kane
>
>> The 11-meter band complies with the laws of physics, Brian. Why do you
>> think it does not?
>>
>One day it required a morse code exam, the next day it didn't require a
>morse code exam.
Several years before that, operation on the 15m band didn't
require.a Morse code exam or an amateur license. The next day it
did.
One day being the operator at a television transmitter required
holding a license that had a touhh exam. The next day it didn't.
So what?
Phil Kane
>> The treaty requires Morse code knowledge for Amateur Radio HF access.
>> Knowledge of Morse code is not required for other HF radio services.
>If its important enough to force hobbyists to learn it it otta be important
>enough for paid professionals to learn it.
>
>I mean, shouldn't they have to know it to prevent interference?
Operators handling manual Morse traffic on HF in the Fixed, Mobile,
or Marine services on HF are required to pass Morse tests which are
more rigorous than the former Amateur Radio Service tests.
Phil Kane
>Why did the FCC condemn Novices to CW?
"Because I'm the Mommy, that's why."
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20020701201537...@mb-bj.aol.com>
>Is that or is that not the word "about?" Do you need a dictionary
>definition for "about?" Would you like me to change "about" to
>"approximately" or possibly "nearly?"
It doesn't matter. You were wrong. Wrong is wrong, Lennie.
>Are you
>going to quibble about FRACTIONS of a month and make a big
>federal case out of that?
Why not? You have before.
>Hmmm...let's see...Jimmie was a tiny child when the Class D
>R&O was made law. I was a working adult then...(SNIP)
I am sure you were "working"....Hollywood and Vine, wasn't it?
>I guess it's terribly, terribly important to be supremely accurate
>on time spans with Jimmie...especially if they are within his own
>life experience.
The post made by Lennie the Liar that created all this uproar was one in
which he asserted that CB, including the UHF allocations, was not in existance
45 years ago. That was significantly in error.
Lennie has left that part out.
It was put upon him to acknowledge his mistake. He has not.
Lennie the Gutless has not disappointed us, that's for sure.
Steve
Dave Heil
>
> "N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9f4bfe89.02070...@posting.google.com...
> > leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote in message
> news:<20020630231143...@mb-mo.aol.com>...
>
> > earned licenses and comply with the rules also dislike being
> > categorized with unlicensed folks who break the rules. It's a bit like
> > serious astronomers being confused with astrologers.
>
> I also dislike being categorized with licensed folks who break the rules,
> such as the ARRL and W5YI VECs, Dick sending bad code, and Dave working
> French hams out of band. Time to clean up our act!
I wasn't out of the band when working French hams, Brian. I've chosen
to ignore the rest of your tirade as the rant of a guy who reall enjoys
amateur radio. After all, you've told us as much.
Dave K8MN
N2EY
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
One day hams could use it for ham radio, the next day they couldn't.
One day many modes were allowed, the next day it was AM and RC only
One day VFO was allowed, the next day it was channelized
One day 1000 watts input was allowed, the next day it was 5 watts
There are lots more.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dick Carroll
N2EY wrote:
>
> Now be a big boy and admit your mistake, "Lenover21". Set a good example for
> young Brian.
>
That or change his screen name to correspond to reality, something such
as
"Lenunder6"
Len Over 21
Len Over 21
writes:
>>> Now be a big boy and admit your mistake. ;-)
>>
>>Some mistake! 27 MHz CB is not 43 years old?
>
>Lenover21 stated that CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago. That is
>not correct.
What part of "about 43" isn't correct?
Oh, you found out that UHF CB was around BEFORE 1958!
Bully for "your side."
Ah so, in the "engineer's" anal-retentive NEED for accuracy,
such words as "about," "approximate," or other qualifiers
don't qualify!
Right..."43" is NOWHERE CLOSE to "44!"
:-) :-) :-) :-)
Len Over 21
writes:
>>>Was the rule in place when 11m was amateur radio?
>>
>>45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF.
>
>Incorrect. As pointed out in another post, Class A and Class B CB (UHF, 460
MHz
>region) were created by the FCC in 1948. That's 54 years ago.
>
>Now be a big boy and admit your mistake, "Lenover21". Set a good example for
>young Brian.
Yes! STOP THE PRESSES!!! FLASH THE SPECIAL BULLETIN ON VIDEO!!!
I MADE A MISTAKE!
Yes, I typed "45" instead of "55."
SOUND THE HUE AND CRY! MOUNT THE CRUSADES AND KILL THE
INFIDELS!!! AN OUTSIDER MADE AN ERROR!!! :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Now, now, Jimmie, anal-retentive activity doesn't reflect well on presenting a
good picture of amateur radio to others...but this IS a double-standard
"extra thing," isn't it? :-)
Len Over 21
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 00:32:36 GMT, Brian P Burke wrote:
>
>>Why did the FCC condemn Novices to CW?
>
> "Because I'm the Mommy, that's why."
Really? Gender bending is a prerequisite for FCC personnel?!?
:-)
Len Over 21
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
"So what" seems to be the new buzzword in here. :-)
Is that something from the legal profession, Phil?
Len Over 21
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
Whoa!
Did I read right? You wrote "...pass Morse tests which are more
rigorous than the former Armateur Radio Service tests."
That would mean THERE ARE NO MORE HAM TESTS!!! :-)
When did that happen? :-)
Len Over 21
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
I know...but it does go to show everyone the general attitude
of the PCTAs. :-)
>> >> Hams of that time
>> >> were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
>> >> spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
>> >> of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
>> >> that befell hams! :-)
>> >
>> >Should the hams of the time have simply allowed the reallocation of
>> >the band without protest?
>>
>> Ho ho ho...big INCOMPLETE HISTORY buff! "Hams of the time" DID
>> protest and in every venue they could find...including audiences at
>> work where most folks didn't give a damn about their protests. Oh,
>> the evil of it all...the ungodly allowance of ORDINARY CITIZENS on
>> the sacred ground of HF without so much as taking one radio
>> operator test! Oh, oh, oh...and NO morse code test involved!
>> Oh, oh, oh, the terrible shame of it all! :-)
>>
>> The FCC listened to all sides and made the decision. The 11m
>> band wasn't used much at all by radio amateurs at the time.
>> Hams had their biggest HF band just "next door" in the spectrum,
>> all 1700 KHz of it...same as what they have now.
>
>Was the Ten-Ten International a defensive reaction to losing the 11M band ?
I have no information on that. :-)
Now watch some more anal-retentive types jump in here and say
"I should have!"
Another one is going to make a federal case out of "not having any
practical experience [in ham radio] so I couldn't know!"
:-)
>> The creation of CB was OVER FOUR DECADES AGO, renowned
>> history lister. That's approximately two generations ago.
>>
>> You were NOT aware of the climate then, took NO part in it,
>> indeed COULD NOT, yet you make yourself sound like an
>> "expert witness" to the times...and then you demand
>> absolute accuracy. All you have is a lot of emotional claptrap
>> working on a band that was taken away from radio amateurs
>> way back before you could possibly be licensed.
>
>Kind of like Val coming on here saying all the "right" things about Morse/CW
>and bashing the NCTA - before he even had a license.
Well, I'm told that Extras (pre-restructuring licensees) got some
sort of "divine revelation" when their licenses arrived in the mail.
That may or may not be true, but the story elaborates on them
becoming "brothers in tradition (or something)" during the
revelation and thus knowing EXACTLY how it was like back
before they were born.
Val's case is just a typical computer-modem newbie who can't
take the tag-team atmosphere of a newsgroup. They get all
bent out of shape on criticsm of the slightest sort, magnifying
it to way-exaggerated heights. He can't be a bad sort...he was
the salvation of an entire Army Brigade with his little PRC-25!
:-)
Jim Hampton
endorsement - but the 2nd was 20 words per minute - the same as the extra.
When I went to the FCC in Buffalo, NY, in 1966, I wanted to take both the
2nd telegraph (I was both too young and didn't have sea time to be able to
try the 25 wpm code test) and the amateur extra, the examiner set up the
code exam and gave me credit for both the extra and the telegraph. I
mentioned to him that I noticed the machine was set to 22 words per minute -
to which he replied 'you didn't want to wait all day, did you?'. In any
case, it was 100% copy for the entire exam. Then the theory. Fun. And I
had to be back at WROC-TV for the evening shift! The tests were not
particularly difficult, but they were very honest. You passed or failed.
No one could help you, you were under the steely eyed FCC examiner.
However, I was proud of those tickets (2nd telegraph, 1st phone, radar
endorsement, and amateur extra). They meant more to me then than my current
extra class ticket issued in 1993 (after over a 10 year lapse). I can
understand where some of the guys are comming from, but honestly don't see
where cw proficiency really means a whole hill of beans today.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.attbi.com...
N2EY
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
>I've never heard of UHF CB. I've only heard of GMRS. Is that what you're
>trying to call CB?
FCC called it CB from the start in 1948. GMRS and FRS are just new names,
created when the rules were changed.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
Not me. You are mistaken, just like "Lenover21".
Class C and Class D (27 MHz) CB started in 1958. Class A and Class B CB on UHF,
started in 1948. FCC called it CB, even back then.
Note that "Lenover21" writes:
"45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF."
This is simply incorrect, because CB has existed in the USA for the past 54
years.
--
>I'm 43 years old. Wouldn't that make Len correct?
Nope. See above. Len is just plain wrong, but he won't admit it.
--
Did you ever check out those end-fed antenna links? One was a reprint of a 1991
QST article, and the other was by a Dutch ham.
73 de Jim, N2EY
>
N2EY
(Len Over 21) writes:
>In article <9f4bfe89.02070...@posting.google.com>, n2...@aol.com
>(N2EY) writes:
>
>>> CB was created in the USA about 43 years ago.
>>
>>That is incorrect.
>
>:-)
No joke. You are flatout wrong. Live with it.
>
>Reading problems? Look at the word before "43."
>
>Is that or is that not the word "about?" Do you need a dictionary
>definition for "about?" Would you like me to change "about" to
>"approximately" or possibly "nearly?"
You're off by at least a decade.
>2002 - 1958 = 44. Now, what was the MONTH of the FCC R&O
>creating Class C and D Citizens Band radio service? Are you
>going to quibble about FRACTIONS of a month and make a big
>federal case out of that? :-)
Nope. You're off by at least 10 years.
>Tell you what...I might take out a full-page ad in RF Design News
>magazine anouncing this TERRIBLE ERROR that did not make
>"about 43" be EXACTLY 44 years ago. Would that please your
>royal whatever? :-)
Try 54 years.
>>> Hams of that time
>>> were generally incensed at this terrible intrusion into their precious
>>> spectrum (the small 11m band below the big 10m band) and, worst
>>> of all (!), the FCC taking it away from them! Oh, horrors, the evil
>>> that befell hams! :-)
>>
>>Should the hams of the time have simply allowed the reallocation of
>>the band without protest?
>
>Ho ho ho...big INCOMPLETE HISTORY buff! "Hams of the time" DID
>protest and in every venue they could find...including audiences at
>work where most folks didn't give a damn about their protests.
That's a good thing.
>
>The FCC listened to all sides and made the decision. The 11m
>band wasn't used much at all by radio amateurs at the time.
>Hams had their biggest HF band just "next door" in the spectrum,
>all 1700 KHz of it...same as what they have now.
So what?
>
>The creation of CB was OVER FOUR DECADES AGO, renowned
>history lister. That's approximately two generations ago.
Five decades ago. 1948.
>>> CB is only about four decades into its existance and its
>>> unlicensed users outnumber all licensed hams by about 7:1
>>> or 8:1.
Five decades.
>>
>>Pure speculation, probably wishful thinking.
>
>Well, Mr. Error-Spotter, the EIA (Electronic Industries Alliance,
>formerly Electronic Industries Association) used to keep tabs
>on different electronics product areas manufactured and sold.
Used to.
>Some figures remembered from a dozen or so years ago had
>the number of CBs sold at over the ten million mark.
So what? Doesn't mean a thing about the current number of CB users.
>
>I don't say that all of them are still being used.
You have no idea how many are currently in use.
>I'm not even
>into "wishful thinking"
Yes, you are. You have no idea how many cb users there are today, and have
presented no reliable data.
>>Without licenses or other registration, how can
>>you determine the number of CB users with any accuracy?
>
>While the hills of my residence area make NVIS techniques
>almost a must on HF, there are still a couple low points to
>Interstate 5 which runs past only a mile away (four lanes each
>direction, a major vehicle route for the L.A. area). ANY HF
>receiver tuning the CB band will result in an abundance of
>heterodynes, enough to make this part of the urban area
>next to useless for CB.
So what? Heterodynes are caused by all sorts of things. The fact that you have
a poor receiver is no proof of how many CB users exist.
>>> Since the allocated frequency band is small (about
>>> 400 KHz), I am surprised that there aren't more freebanders
>>> looking for more EM space.
>>
>>Why are you surprised? Do you think freebanding is somehow justified?
>>Sounds like it.
>
>FLAME WAR IGNITION ALERT!! Jimmie wants a FLAME WAR!!!
>
>Casual listening on HF doesn't reveal to me any sort of DRASTIC
>CAUSE FOR ALARM about freebanders. All two of them heard
>don't sound like there is an "invasion of the spectrum snatchers."
>
>Yet you want to make everyone think I am "supporting freebanders!"
Not me. Your words here do the job quite well.
>>Why is it the responsibility of hams to act as enforcement agents for
>>the FCC, particularly when the violations are committed by nonhams?
>
>I'd call it an aspect of "citizenship." You ever hear of "citizenship"
>or "civic duty?"
You ever hear of "following the rules"?
>>FCC intended CB for short-range business and personal communications.
>>They never thought that large numbers of users of the new service
>>would simply ignore FCC rules. But that's what happened, and FCC found
>>it had created a mess without the resources to clean it up.
>
>OK. Do you think the FCC has "ignored" the experience?
Yes.
>Do you think the FCC will go ahead and make other new radio
>services with the same arrangement of regulations?
They already have.
>The FCC
>has made a large number of new radio services in the four decades
>since CB was created.
>
Five decades. And FCC has made some really dumb mistakes. Ask Newt Gingrich.
Len, it's quite clear that you hate the amateur radio service and want it to
die out. It's also clear that you are not interested in any sort of civil
discussion. Nor are you man enough to admit when you've made a mistake.
Val Germann is right.
Jim, N2EY
CAM
> >morse code exam.
>
> Morse code testing does not change the laws of physics.
But Dick said that 11m is completely different from 10m. :-)
--
cheers, CAM http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
CAM
> Jim, I thought you said that CB came in in 1958 - the year I was born. I'm
> 43 years old. Wouldn't that make Len correct?
It may not have been clear but the Citizen's Band Radio Service
pre-existed 11m CB by years. CB radio did not originate on 11m.
CAM
> I've never heard of UHF CB. I've only heard of GMRS. Is that what you're
> trying to call CB?
My 1956 Reference Data for Radio Engineers lists the UHF Citizen's Band
as 460-470 MHz.
Jerry Oxendine
stewart <horse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f4fe4c2.0206...@posting.google.com...
> "Jerry Oxendine" <jox...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<eePT8.19172$
> >
> >
> > And the question is WHY do they like 27 MHZ? Those that would like to
have
> > a local, quiet 2 way radio service would not mind that it happened to be
on
> > VHF
> > and that they now have much less noise and interference. Let's not beat
> > around the
> > bush: the ones that like 27 MHZ and would scream like stuck pigs are
the
> > ones who
> > are already breaking the laws governing the CB "Service". OF COURSE,
they
> > wouldn't like having 27 MHZ taken away because their precious DX, their
SSB
> > "clubs", and their assinine "Worldwide-worldwide" foolishness would be
> > eliminated.
> > Either Congress will HAVE to face the music and restore funding to FCC
to
> > regulate
> > the mess that CB is now, or they will have to face the music and take it
> > away so that
> > legitimate services can conduct their business unmolested. There is NO
> > "right" to oper-
> > ate a transmitter; it is a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. If that
> > privilege is
> > abused, the offender must face the consequences OR the privilege needs
to be
> > revoked.
>
> Come on now, Jerry - this thread started out about freebanding CBers
> operating on 10m... now you want hams and the FCC to waste time trying
> to do something about CBers operating illegally within their own 11m
> pigpen - by displacing them to other bands? As you've pointed out,
> they don't WANT to go to VHF/UHF - that is clear, because they haven't
> already(which has been my point all along regarding the bullshit urban
> legend myth that CBers are operating high-powered external amplifiers
> on MURS/FRS/GMRS). If the government tried to shut down 11m, and move
> these lamebrains to MURS/GMRS, it would be a complete fiasco, for a
> number of reasons.
>
> Leave 'em be. Like with the W6NUT repeater... we've got 'em just
> where we want 'em.
Maybe YOU do, but I want the sons of bitches OFF 10/12 meters. Period.
Whatever it takes to get those #%^@*#&^ ba*****ds off the bands I worked for
the privilege of using, I say, let's DO it.
>
> If you want to do something productive, help track down a few of these
> freebanders that are operating on 10m, and turn 'em in to the FCC.
I am doing JUST THAT! See other posts of mine suggesting that hams become
agressively involved in the 10 meter issue. Just this weekend, I discreetly
visited
5 Travel Plazas. I found one selling "Magnum Delta Force '10 meter radios'.
That
info is being forwarded to FCC this date! I pinpointed, recorded, and noted
pertinent
data on the truck who hailed me on 28.085 with "How 'bout the Z34 Northbound
and
down"---if I have my way that son of a bitch is BUSTED!!
>
> But - if the pigs are staying in their pens, who gives a hoot how
> muddy they get... They're PIGS, that's just the way they are... you
> aren't going to change anything by trying to move the pigpen to the
> neighbor's dry little farmyard, they're STILL gonna be pigs, and they
> aren't gonna want to stay over at the neighbor's house, because they
> like the muddy conditions(DF) over in the old 11m pigpen.
No they are NOT "staying in their pen", and I see the removal of the DX
ability
as one way to make the operation on illegal frequencies less attractive--and
I have
already suggested that very thing to various Congressional reps and
committeemen.
>
> Have you ever heard of NIMBY?
>Nope,
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20020701232531...@mb-cm.aol.com>
>In article <RL6U8.1500$Mi5.63...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, "Brian P
>Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
>>Was the Ten-Ten International a defensive reaction to losing the 11M band ?
No it wasn't. Tenten was created in the late 60's or early 70's as the
spin off of a popular 10 meter only net. It's purpose was to foster and
promote more 10 meter activity.
>I have no information on that.
And why should you?
>Now watch some more anal-retentive types jump in here and say
>"I should have!"
And why should they, Lennie? You ae neither licensed nor active in any
Amateur Radio related activity other than this NG.
No practical experience...Just as we've been saying all along.
>Another one is going to make a federal case out of "not having any
>practical experience [in ham radio] so I couldn't know!"
You got one right, Lennie. Maybe thre's hope for you yet.
>Well, I'm told that Extras (pre-restructuring licensees) got some
>sort of "divine revelation" when their licenses arrived in the mail.
>That may or may not be true, but the story elaborates on them
>becoming "brothers in tradition (or something)" during the
>revelation and thus knowing EXACTLY how it was like back
>before they were born.
Nope. Just well versed in research techniques and an individual passion
for things related to radio.
>Val's case is just a typical computer-modem newbie who can't
>take the tag-team atmosphere of a newsgroup.
"Tag team atmosphere"...That atmosphere might be a bit clearer if you'd
launder your "athletic supporter", Lennie.
>They get all
>bent out of shape on criticsm of the slightest sort...(SNIP)
Yeah, I get a bit perturbed when called a Nazi because I choose to not
"side" with Lennie's point of view...Sorry.
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20020701224636...@mb-mo.aol.com>
>
>I MADE A MISTAKE!
Well I'll be....In caps, even....
>Yes, I typed "45" instead of "55."
Well well....Maybe that's why there's a shipment of parkas enroute to Hell
tonight...????
W1RFI
>If its important enough to force hobbyists to learn it it otta be important
>enough for paid professionals to learn it.
I disagree, Brian. When did you become a pro-code test advocate? Did
something happen to you in your "sayonara" hiatus?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>> Morse code testing does not change the laws of physics.
>But Dick said that 11m is completely different from 10m. :-)
Then Dick and Brian have something in common.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
N2EY
onean...@hotmail.com (One Angry Man) writes:
>"J. Manley" <jma...@manleyconsultants100.org> wrote in message
>news:<afk8ch$gbm$0...@pita.alt.net>...
>> "Robert Casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:3D1D041B...@ix.netcom.com...
>> > Was tuning about the bands and found freebanders in the bottom end
>> > of 10m. 28.055 with roger beeps. Another at 28.035 Spanish
>> > I think. Earlier something at 28.045
>> >
>> > We ought to camp out on these freqs and operate some RTTY or
>> > packet or such. Something to use our allocation to discourage the
>> > freebanders. Be sure to use 28.0X5 MHz.
>>
>> Yup, and their numbers increase more each week. Moreover, the
>> commission is powerless to stop them. You will not discourage them.
>> They just move up higher, into more of the ten meter band. My
>> company uses HF freqs. in the 6, 8, & 10 mHz bands. You ought to
>> hear the unlicensed activity there, AND much of it is of stateside origin!
>>
>> JJ
>
>And if the FCC would let us _- Tech Class Amateurs-_ use HF without
>a morse code test we could fill it up to the point the freebanders
>wouldn't have room on 10m or anywhere else to do their thing.
That's what was said in the late 1980s about amateur VHF/UHF. Supposedly,
having a nocodetest VHF/UHF ham license would bring in so many new hams that
our VHF/UHF bands would be full of activity, bandedge to bandedge, and this
would help protect bands like 220-225. Didn't happen.
>
>It pisses me off that freebanders can get on there and yak it up
>with no worries BUT if I get on there I'll loose my license for
>it! Damn the FCC and their double standards.
The FCC IS going after freebanders and other violators.
It is almost certain that the code test will simply be removed late next year.
First step will be the deletion of S25.5 at WRC 2003 (that's the treaty
provision requiring a code test). Second step is the USA ratifying the changes
agreed to at the WRC. Third step is FCC dropping the test completely.
Some folks think FCC will have an NPRM, but my guess is that they will simply
drop the code test ASAP.
So you have two options: Learn enough to pass the code test now, or wait for it
to go away in 18 months or so.
Jim, N2EY
N2EY
eccr...@cs.comnospam (Bert Craig) writes:
>I agree with your post with the exception of this little gem. Many folks
>(like
>six or seven MILLION!) happen to like the 27 MHz CB.
Where does that number come from? CB licenses are long gone, and there is no
form of registration or other formal way to know how many cb users exist today.
Twenty years ago, cb antennas on homes and vehicles were a common sight in this
area. Today they are more rare than ham antennas.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dick Carroll
Yeh! He got religion and came back as a PCTA!
Dick Carroll
Of course Dick said no such thing.
CAM
>
> W1RFI wrote:
> >
> > From: CAM w5...@hotmail.com
> > >But Dick said that 11m is completely different from 10m. :-)
> >
> > Then Dick and Brian have something in common.
>
You said CB radio and ham radio are completely different.
Presumably, that includes the frequencies they use and the
physics under which their transceivers and antennas operate.
Doesn't "completely different" mean they have absolutely
nothing in common?
One Angry Man
> From: onean...@hotmail.com (One Angry Man)
> You are correct; your premise doesn't wash.
>
> I think I understand where your anger comes from, or at least where it is
> headed.
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
Here's the bottom line Ed. The anger comes from
Extra class operators who don't know how to solder
or how to check swr with their own equipment.
But are able to get on hf JUST BECAUSE they can
pass a code test and a couple of written tests.
I know one Extra who is a science teacher
in the local school who asks me questions that a
beginner in CB would know the answer to.
I also have a friend who is a General who is also
a former CBer who just happened to pass his tests
but can't figure out the most simple of problems
with his equipment. When I try to help him he
thinks I don't know what I'm talking about. Then
later (days to weeks) he tells me he found out
what was wrong and it's just what I had told him
in the first place.
It's also from the HOLIER-THAN-THOU PCTAs killing
people's interest in our hobby with their anal
retentive chant of NO CODE = NO HAM along with the
other ELITIST crap that they espouse!
I understand electronics and radio theory pretty
well BUT because I have not taken a code test
I'm not allowed on HF at all, but at this time
the freebanders are everywhere (including 10m)
and VERY FEW if any ever get in trouble for it.
That's the FCC's double standard I'm upset about!
IF I HAD HAIR I'D PULL IT OUT BY THE ROOTS!!!
BTW I do know that Willam Flippo got in trouble
for his jamming, but he was being a REAL pain in
the ass to a LOT of people, they HAD to do
something with him. Not like the 10m freebanding
cockroaches we started talking about here. They
aren't showing up on the FCC's radar like
Flippo did.
--------------------------------
One Angry BALD-HEADED Man
President and only member
No Code Liberation Army (NCLA)
Answer to everyone's first question.
YES I AM LICENSED!
Answer to everyone's second question.
NO I DON'T WANT TO PUBLISH MY CALLSIGN HERE!!
Answer to everyone's third question.
YES I AM PROUD OF IT, I'M JUST NOT STUPID
ENOUGH TO USE IT ON THE INTERNET, DUH!!!
Brian P Burke
There! You said it again! I knew I wasn't mistaken. The service commonly
thought of a CB is at 27 MHz.
Class A and Class B CB on UHF,
> started in 1948. FCC called it CB, even back then.
>
> Note that "Lenover21" writes:
>
> "45 years ago there was no CB...not even on UHF."
So he was wrong about UHF. The service commonly thought of a CB is at 27
MHz.
> This is simply incorrect, because CB has existed in the USA for the past
54
> years.
>
> --
>
> >I'm 43 years old. Wouldn't that make Len correct?
>
> Nope. See above. Len is just plain wrong, but he won't admit it.
If "CB" began in 1958, and I was born in 1958 and I'm 43 years old, then
what's the problem
> Did you ever check out those end-fed antenna links? One was a reprint of a
1991
> QST article, and the other was by a Dutch ham.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
Yes, I did. Thanks.
Brian P Burke
"CAM" <w5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D212CE9...@hotmail.com...
> Brian P Burke wrote:
> > Jim, I thought you said that CB came in in 1958 - the year I was born.
I'm
> > 43 years old. Wouldn't that make Len correct?
>
> It may not have been clear but the Citizen's Band Radio Service
> pre-existed 11m CB by years. CB radio did not originate on 11m.
> --
> cheers, CAM http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
It's what I think of whenever Bruce comes on here. Not GMRS.
Brian P Burke
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020702032004...@mb-dd.aol.com...
I hope they have the real coyote fringe - they're gonna need it!
;^), Brian
Brian P Burke
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.attbi.com...
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 00:04:40 GMT, Brian P Burke wrote:
>
> >> The treaty requires Morse code knowledge for Amateur Radio HF access.
> >> Knowledge of Morse code is not required for other HF radio services.
>
important
> >enough for paid professionals to learn it.
> >
>
> Operators handling manual Morse traffic on HF in the Fixed, Mobile,
> or Marine services on HF are required to pass Morse tests which are
> more rigorous than the former Amateur Radio Service tests.
>
> ---
> 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Phil, are you saying that Ed was mistaken when he said, "Knowledge of Morse
code is not required for other HF radio services."?
Brian P Burke
"W1RFI" <w1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020702054530...@mb-cr.aol.com...
You guys let Cecil change his mind, didn't you?
Brian P Burke
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:afs73r$r7$0...@208.206.142.67...
You obviously have no ability to read AND comprehend.
It is of no importance for hobbyists to learn it if even professionals
don't.
Brian P Burke
The no-coders DID populate VHF and UHF. Then the wars started and no one
populates even VHF anymore.
220 "was a done deal" according to you PCTA. Equipment was scarce and
expensive.
> >It pisses me off that freebanders can get on there and yak it up
> >with no worries BUT if I get on there I'll loose my license for
> >it! Damn the FCC and their double standards.
>
> The FCC IS going after freebanders and other violators.
>
> It is almost certain that the code test will simply be removed late next
year.
> First step will be the deletion of S25.5 at WRC 2003 (that's the treaty
> provision requiring a code test). Second step is the USA ratifying the
changes
> agreed to at the WRC. Third step is FCC dropping the test completely.
>
> Some folks think FCC will have an NPRM, but my guess is that they will
simply
> drop the code test ASAP.
>
> So you have two options: Learn enough to pass the code test now, or wait
for it
> to go away in 18 months or so.
>
> Jim, N2EY
If he was going to use Morse code he would have already learned it. If I
wasn't going to use it I'd wait.
Brian P Burke
"Dave Heil" <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D21034F...@earthlink.net...> > news:9f4bfe89.02070...@posting.google.com...
> > > leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote in message
> > news:<20020630231143...@mb-mo.aol.com>...
> >
> > Hams who have
> > > earned licenses and comply with the rules also dislike being
> > > categorized with unlicensed folks who break the rules. It's a bit like
> > > serious astronomers being confused with astrologers.
> >
> > I also dislike being categorized with licensed folks who break the
rules,
> > such as the ARRL and W5YI VECs, Dick sending bad code, and Dave working
> > French hams out of band. Time to clean up our act!
>
> I wasn't out of the band when working French hams, Brian.
Congratulations!
Brian P Burke
"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020701232531...@mb-cm.aol.com...
> Val's case is just a typical computer-modem newbie who can't
> take the tag-team atmosphere of a newsgroup. They get all
> bent out of shape on criticsm of the slightest sort, magnifying
> it to way-exaggerated heights. He can't be a bad sort...he was
> the salvation of an entire Army Brigade with his little PRC-25!
> :-)
Someone else needs to ask about his Morse progress.
Jim Hampton
10 meters? Different bands are used for different purposes. For short
range communications, cb would have served well except that no one respects
the rules. Now, unless you run a lot of power, you may well be limited to 5
miles or less. If people want to use radio for experimentation or as a
hobby, the license is required (and isn't that tough). Simple reasoning:
the world doesn't want millions of hobbiests using lower hf for
broadcasting, roger beeps, swearing, etc. The amateurs are not particularly
enthusiastic about turning one or more amateur bands into such a sewer as
you find on 11 meters either (yeah, there are a few bad amateurs; licensing
helps eliminate the bad ones and tends to keep a number from straying too
far as well). I have to chuckle about the 'large number of unused
frequencies'. There are many repeaters active on 2 and 440, with a lesser
number on 10, 6, 220, 900, and 1.2 GHz. Check this for what is available in
my area: http://www.geocities.com/d_fravel/rlist.html
You have claimed they are largely unused; not true. Granted, at any given
time most will be unused, but if you are traveling mobile and wish to
maintain a qso with another station, you will often change repeaters as you
move further away. Locally, the WB2KAO repeater has a nice range; I've
talked to a mobile in Buffalo over it, but you will find the coverage
spotty. The mobile will drop out at times; it is easier to switch to a
repeater located between Rochester and Buffalo (or, with a good base, you
might simply fire up a Buffalo repeater) and enjoy solid communications.
I've heard Tim, WB2KAO, many times on a trip to see his dad. He'll start on
his machine in Rochester, then, once 20 or 30 miles out, switch to the
Bristol Mountain machine while talking with someone. Pass on a chunk of 220
or 440 to hobbiests with nothing to lose, and there will be problems. I
suspect that MURS will head that way once folks discover what can be done
with a couple of hundred watts. Then MURS as well as the buisness band
adjacent to it will be rendered useless. This will take a bit of time, but
with high power you can cover well over 100 miles 24/7 - and with
propogation enhancements, California stations WILL be heard in Hawaii on
MURS. This won't happen for a time, but it will likely happen. Care to bet
coffee for a week?
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"stewart" <horse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f4fe4c2.02070...@posting.google.com...
> For jamming, no... for leaving loads of frequencies unused, yes.
>
> - Stewart, N0MHS
>
CAM
> Here's the bottom line Ed. The anger comes from
> Extra class operators who don't know how to solder
> or how to check swr with their own equipment.
> But are able to get on hf JUST BECAUSE they can
> pass a code test and a couple of written tests.
I obtained ALL amateur frequency and power privileges in
1953 without knowing how to solder or how to check SWR.
There were no Q&A on soldering. Heck, I didn't even know
what SWR was because the only test question on SWR was
so easy to rote memorize.
**********************************************************
Q: What is the formula for determining the standing-wave
ratio in a transmission line?
A: The formula for determining the standing-wave radio
in a line is: SWR = Imax/Imin or Emax/Emin
**********************************************************
No need to know that 'I' is current and 'E' is voltage.
No need to know what Imax, Imin, Emax, or Emin means. Just
be sure the three letter "max" part is on top and the three
letter "min" part is on bottom. Since "max" is virtually always
higher than "min", it was a no brainer to rote memorize. Any
ratio that involves either 'I' or 'E' with 'max' on top and
'min' on bottom was the correct answer. Absolutely no knowledge
needed. All that was needed was an IQ above 57.325. If you had
trouble recalling, just remember that Mighty (Maxi) Mouse is on
top of Minnie Mouse (at least that's the way it was in 1953 :-).
If the system is broken, it has been broken for the 51
years that I have been licensed.
Does getting angry change anything in reality? Yep, it decreases
your life span. Everyone is ignorant of something, even you. Why
not try for a kinder, gentler approach to your fellow hams?
--
cheers, CAM http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
CAM
>
> "W1RFI" <w1...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I disagree, Brian. When did you become a pro-code test advocate? Did
> > something happen to you in your "sayonara" hiatus?
>
Nope, they were simply powerless to prevent it. There's a moral
in there somewhere.
Phil Kane
>Phil, I'm not sure. Granted, to get the 1st telegraph one had to had a sea
>endorsement -
It was one year of aggregate service either at sea or at a
coast station handling public correspondence by manual Morse.
Certain Navy stations qualified for that purpose. The "sea
tine" requirement was 180 days "signed on the articles" for the
Six Months Service endorsement necessary to be the solo
operator on a cargo vessel. One got that as a second op on
either a US flag passenger or cargo vessel.
>but the 2nd was 20 words per minute - the same as the extra.
20 WPM plain text, 16 WPM code groups, with receiving and sending
tests for both. I always considered that combo as tougher than a
plain 20 wpm receiving test with maybe a sending test, and we were
less lenient on the grading (one had to be a handwriting detective
sometimes).
>When I went to the FCC in Buffalo, NY, in 1966, I wanted to take both the
>2nd telegraph (I was both too young and didn't have sea time to be able to
>try the 25 wpm code test) and the amateur extra, the examiner set up the
>code exam and gave me credit for both the extra and the telegraph.
If he didn't give you the 16 wpm code group tests, he wasn't doing
his job properly per the (internal) Examination Manual.
I
>The tests were not particularly difficult, but they were very honest.
The Commercial Element 6 (theory for the telegraph exams) required
drawing and/or correcting several diagrams. `The examiners always had
to snag an engineer to grade those questions.
>understand where some of the guys are comming from, but honestly don't see
>where cw proficiency really means a whole hill of beans today.
Unless one wants to operate CW....
Len Over 21
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
I'm glad you are on the job! [the PRC-25 didn't have a key...]
:-)
Len Over 21
Burke" <bpb...@prodigy.net> writes:
This is AMATEUR RADIO, Brian...hams have no use for pros.
[several very important amateur extras have stated so...]
If ham radio had morse code test requirements when Dickie was
learning all about TV production in the US Army, then they
MUST CONTINUE TO HAVE MORSE CODE TESTING!
That's all there's to it...it's the amateur way. :-)