RM-11305 & RM-11306
N2...@aol.com
73 de Jim, N2EY
an old friend
i see little point in either, little chance that much will come of
either except maybe to decide to end all mode based frequency
assignments
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
I did ask my ARRL director a few questions about it.
Sorry, just don't have strong emotions about it one way or another.
Kind of a solution in search of a problem.
bb
an old friend
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > Anybody comment on these two proposals?
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> I did ask my ARRL director a few questions about it.
you are a ARRL member?
John
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Anybody comment on these two proposals?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
The comments are reaching close to 1000. Scanning them,
not a real count, there seems to be very little support for either.
Biggest objection to the ARRL one is that it would allow robot
operations to spread across much more of the band. Part of this is
objecting to their use of proprietary equipment (e.g. PACTOR III or
WINLINK) so that checking for illegal content would be difficult.
Other commoncomplaints are a very narrow CW area for 40 and not
including 160. There is also a group objecting loudly to elimination of
AM but I didn't think the proposal said that. 11305 seems to have even
fewer proponents; most think it will cause chaos since they have no
trust in gentlemen's agreements.
There was a comment here concerned that there would no longer be a CW
only segment on 6; I did not see that comment filed but I haven't read
them all.
73, John
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Til May.
kb9...@mark.morgan.com
ah i see
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
UdqZ
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1139368076.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody comment on these two proposals?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
You are an idiot! Why do you keep posting this off topic
trash here?
73
UdqZ
kb9...@mark.morgan.com
wrote:
it is hardly off topic
>
>
>73
>
>UdqZ
Radio Beer Bake
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
<kb9...@Mark.Morgan.com> wrote in message
news:4n0nu1hs0m4lohp8c...@4ax.com...
an old friend
hardly off topic
>
>
> 73
>
> UdqZ
Slick
Stop posting this Off Topic crap about RM this and that.
kb9...@mark.morgan.com
>
>Stop posting this Off Topic crap about RM this and that.
how is it off topic
that Steve has hijacked the gruop ofr years doesn't count
the RM is not very omprtant but it is on topic
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
kb9...@Mark.Morgan.com wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006 18:34:48 -0800, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >an old friend wrote:
> >> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> > > Anybody comment on these two proposals?
> >> > >
> >> > > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> >> >
> >> > I did ask my ARRL director a few questions about it.
> >>
> >> you are a ARRL member?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, just don't have strong emotions about it one way or another.
> >> > Kind of a solution in search of a problem.
> >> >
> >> > bb
> >
> >Til May.
> ah i see
Actually August. There was a coffee cup ring and I misread the 08 as
05. It didn't sound right so I checked on the members website.
kb9...@mark.morgan.com
did your director hae anything to say about the RM's
after he would b mine if I was arrl member I think (ohio is part of
the great lakes division isn't it)
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
kb9...@Mark.Morgan.com wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 16:02:19 -0800, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >kb9...@Mark.Morgan.com wrote:
> >> On 8 Feb 2006 18:34:48 -0800, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >an old friend wrote:
> >> >> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> >> > > Anybody comment on these two proposals?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I did ask my ARRL director a few questions about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> you are a ARRL member?
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry, just don't have strong emotions about it one way or another.
> >> >> > Kind of a solution in search of a problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > bb
> >> >
> >> >Til May.
> >
> >> ah i see
> >
> >Actually August. There was a coffee cup ring and I misread the 08 as
> >05. It didn't sound right so I checked on the members website.
>
> did your director hae anything to say about the RM's
>
> after he would b mine if I was arrl member I think (ohio is part of
> the great lakes division isn't it)
I asked him about the hand-wringing on QRZed over robot WinLink
stations operating in the present phone segments of the bands. He said
that the Pactor and Winlink stations have ben around for a while and
didn't see them taking over.
I suggested that the ARRL might be paving the way for more spectrum for
WinLink as I recall them advocating WinLink for emergency
communications. He said he didn't think the ARRL had advocated any
particular software.
The devil will be in the band planning and agreements which must follow
if the ARRL proposal is accepted. I don't know if that will also have
to be codified into law or if American hams are up to "gentleman's"
agreements. That's my opinion, not his.
bb
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
kb9...@Mark.Morgan.com wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:30:01 -0500, "Slick" <an...@anonzdone.org> wrote:
>
> >Stop posting this Off Topic crap about RM this and that.
>
> how is it off topic
>
> that Steve has hijacked the gruop ofr years doesn't count
>
> the RM is not very omprtant but it is on topic
One of the very few on-topic threads in a long time.
Wonder where the originator went?
an old friend
the roginator doesn't seem to have that good an attetion span
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
These proposals go to policy, where in there is it off topic?
--
DE N7ZZT
Eric Oyen
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: n7zzt(at)hotmail(dot)com
the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
N2...@aol.com
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > Anybody comment on these two proposals?
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> >
> The comments are reaching close to 1000.
I just checked for comments (9:55 PM EST Feb 10):
RM-11305: 286 comments
RM-11306: 883 comments
1169 total (includes some filed after the official deadline but shown
on ECFS)
> Scanning them,
> not a real count, there seems to be very little support for either.
That's my impression, too.
> Biggest objection to the ARRL one is that it would allow robot
> operations to spread across much more of the band.
Within the proposed bandwidth rules, RM-11306 would allow 'robots'
anywhere on the bands. RM-11305 would allow robots anywhere on the
bands - with *no* bandwidth limits!
> Part of this is
> objecting to their use of proprietary equipment (e.g. PACTOR III or
> WINLINK) so that checking for illegal content would be difficult.
Not just illegal content but ID as well.
> Other commoncomplaints are a very narrow CW area for 40 and not
> including 160.
Agreed.
> There is also a group objecting loudly to elimination of
> AM but I didn't think the proposal said that.
Both proposals would increase the spectrum available for AM. RM-11306
is a bit odd in this regard in that it specifies 3.5 kHz maximum
bandwidth, but then makes a special exception for
double-sideband-with-carrier AM voice. Which means it isn't 100%
'regulation by bandwidth'.
Under RM-11306, an AM voice signal that's, say, 8 kHz wide would be OK,
but a data signal 4 kHz wide would not be. Odd, to say the least.
> 11305 seems to have even
> fewer proponents; most think it will cause chaos since they have no
> trust in gentlemen's agreements.
There's also the fact that 11305 would remove an important incentive to
use spectrum-efficient modes.
> There was a comment here concerned that there would no longer be a CW
> only segment on 6; I did not see that comment filed but I haven't read
> them all.
I didn't see it either.
One thing I find very unusual is that FCC allowed only 30 days for
comments. That's a very short comment period compared to other recent
RMs. Perhaps FCC wanted to keep the number of comments down? Or perhaps
they wanted to speed up the process?
73 de Jim, N2EY
kb9...@mark.morgan.com
>John wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> > Anybody comment on these two proposals?
cut
>
>One thing I find very unusual is that FCC allowed only 30 days for
>comments. That's a very short comment period compared to other recent
>RMs. Perhaps FCC wanted to keep the number of comments down? Or perhaps
>they wanted to speed up the process?
I think it is the defference between in RM petions vs a NPRM
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
BARF HQ
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message //////FLUSHED///////
Who gives a crap what you think about this off topic crap?
BARF HQ
"N7ZZT - Eric Oyen" <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
/////////FLUSHED/////////
Hey Half-Wit, we'll ask the questions here, especially
when it comes to this off-topic crap you are fascinated with.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
N2EY asked the question that we are all replying to.
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
"notices of proposed rulemaking" directly affect policy on Amateur radio (as
well as other services).
so? answer the question: where in the subject line is this "off topic"?
btw, it takes one to know one (which is implied by your statement that you
are one as well, eh?)
cab
"N7ZZT - Eric Oyen" <n7...@127.0.0.1> WHINED & CRIED
////////////FLUSH////////////
go back to CB you fruit
an old friend
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote:
> BARF HQ wrote:
>
> >
> > "N7ZZT - Eric Oyen" <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > /////////FLUSHED/////////
> >
> >
> > Hey Half-Wit, we'll ask the questions here, especially
> > when it comes to this off-topic crap you are fascinated with.
>
> "notices of proposed rulemaking" directly affect policy on Amateur radio (as
> well as other services).
It is an RM not NPRM but that is being picky
>
> so? answer the question: where in the subject line is this "off topic"?
they are refereing to the fact they prefer the thrashathon
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
whats the matter? did I hit a nerve? :)
an old friend
and what is the likelyhood they will inplement this ort of thing