Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[olivia] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Olivia?

Expand Messages
  • garylinnrobinson
    ... Then it was the wrong word that I used. There are apparently stations that are not attended OR the control operators don t do their jobs. I have heard at
    Message 1 of 31 , Jan 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <w0jab@...> wrote:
      >
      > WRONG AGAIN !
      >
      > There are no "unattended stations" in USA under FCC rules.
      > All stations *MUST* have a control operators by one means
      > or another.
      >
      > If you would like to keep the narrow away from the wide modes.
      > Just where would you put the narrow modes? since they are
      > the modes that seem to be needing the protection.
      >
      > At 09:09 AM 1/2/2008, you wrote:
      > >You ARE correct and I was WRONG. I did not see the difference
      > >between image and data. Incidentally, I posted my comment against the
      > >petition last week for other reasons. I am in favor of keeping wide
      > >modes out of the same freqs as narrow modes AND especially interested
      > >in restricting unattended stations but this proposal was not all that
      > >good even for that.
      >

      Then it was the wrong word that I used. There are apparently stations
      that are not attended OR the control operators don't do their jobs.
      I have heard at least several modes used by hams at mumerous times in
      THIS country that consistently cause interference and would like them
      to be regulated more. Just one example is PROPNET and they are not
      alone. I wonder how many of those people and the Pactor crowd leave
      their stations unattended? And while I certainly don't want to see
      any modes eradicated I don't think it is wise to have too many wide
      modes taking up the whole data spectrum. I personally thought the
      ARRL idea of sectioning off areas of the bands by bandwidth had merit.
      The exact implementation they had in mind may or may not have been
      acceptable to many but I still think that something of that nature
      needs to be done.

      Between the nets, contests, and automated (or whatever you want to
      call them) stations, and die hards who think they own frequencies -
      usuable ham radio spectrum space is shrinking. Is it really necessary
      to have 3-10 contests a week? Does W1AW really need to semi own a
      frequency for all the broadcasting it does?

      I think we need a little more structure to protect everyone and the
      recent proposal was not proper or adequate.
    • garylinnrobinson
      ... Then it was the wrong word that I used. There are apparently stations that are not attended OR the control operators don t do their jobs. I have heard at
      Message 31 of 31 , Jan 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In oliviadata@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <w0jab@...> wrote:
        >
        > WRONG AGAIN !
        >
        > There are no "unattended stations" in USA under FCC rules.
        > All stations *MUST* have a control operators by one means
        > or another.
        >
        > If you would like to keep the narrow away from the wide modes.
        > Just where would you put the narrow modes? since they are
        > the modes that seem to be needing the protection.
        >
        > At 09:09 AM 1/2/2008, you wrote:
        > >You ARE correct and I was WRONG. I did not see the difference
        > >between image and data. Incidentally, I posted my comment against the
        > >petition last week for other reasons. I am in favor of keeping wide
        > >modes out of the same freqs as narrow modes AND especially interested
        > >in restricting unattended stations but this proposal was not all that
        > >good even for that.
        >

        Then it was the wrong word that I used. There are apparently stations
        that are not attended OR the control operators don't do their jobs.
        I have heard at least several modes used by hams at mumerous times in
        THIS country that consistently cause interference and would like them
        to be regulated more. Just one example is PROPNET and they are not
        alone. I wonder how many of those people and the Pactor crowd leave
        their stations unattended? And while I certainly don't want to see
        any modes eradicated I don't think it is wise to have too many wide
        modes taking up the whole data spectrum. I personally thought the
        ARRL idea of sectioning off areas of the bands by bandwidth had merit.
        The exact implementation they had in mind may or may not have been
        acceptable to many but I still think that something of that nature
        needs to be done.

        Between the nets, contests, and automated (or whatever you want to
        call them) stations, and die hards who think they own frequencies -
        usuable ham radio spectrum space is shrinking. Is it really necessary
        to have 3-10 contests a week? Does W1AW really need to semi own a
        frequency for all the broadcasting it does?

        I think we need a little more structure to protect everyone and the
        recent proposal was not proper or adequate.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.