[CW] Re: CW digest, Vol 4 #187 - 4 msgs

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Thomas,

That was one beautiful reply.  If you send CW as well as your write, you
would be a dream to work.

IMAGINE  !!! Someone who sends beautifully and who writes beautiful things
to send.

I'd love to hear a recording of your email in Morse!!!

73

DR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Beaudry" <k8la@arrl.net>
To: "CW" <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CW] Re: CW digest, Vol 4 #187 - 4 msgs


> >>> Well, they need to write an ending chapter to the excellent book
> >>> about the
> >>> history of amateur radio "200 meters and down" so future generations
> >>> can see
> >>> how the Board of Directors and Officials manipulated its membership
> >>> on the
> >>> demise of CWand its sub-bands, Five Channels were gainied on 60
> >>> meters for
> >>> usb to compensate the loss of 300Mhz of frequency.
> >
> >   PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I CAN READ A FACTUAL STATEMENT DOCUMENTING "THE
> > LOSS OF 300 MHZ OF FREQUENCY".
>
> He's obviously talking about the microwaves but he's not being
> realistic either.  Since radio began, hams have been given all the
> spectrum that was not usable by other services.  When the technology
> and economics advanced enough that some of that spectrum was usable to
> others, our allocations were cut back to make space for those others.
> As much as it may hurt, I don't find that to be unreasonable.  To claim
> otherwise and to carry it out to it's logical conclusion, you would
> have to say that it's not right that we don't have all the spectrum
> from (as the book is titled) 200 meters and down, our first allocation.
>
> So yes, we've probably lost 300 MHz of spectrum, in fact more if you go
> back to that original allocation.  But it is also true that the radio
> spectrum is a finite resource that we must share with others.  I wonder
> how many would give up their cell phones?  That was once allocated to
> amateurs.  How about your TV sets?  Air traffic control radar?  The
> list goes on...
>
> I don't see the gaining of 60M as compensation for losses in the
> microwaves.  I don't see the two connected in any way.  And if you want
> to stop the loss of further microwaves, bitching about/to the FCC is
> going to do absolutely zilch.  They were given a congressional mandate
> to commercialize the microwaves as much as possible once Congress
> realized they could make tons of money off of them.  The FCC obviously
> cannot tell Congress to go to hell.  And that is the reason the ARRL
> keeps trying to get the Spectrum Preservation Act enacted, to partially
> nullify that congressional mandate.
>
> 73,
>
> --
> Thomas M. Beaudry
> k8la / ys1ztm
> K2 # 3422
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>