[Icom] Summary of 60 Meter Performance of IC-765 (long)

Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:18:47 -0400

REAGANOMICS DID WORK! Clinton had a nice long free ride.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of David J. Ring Jr - N1EA
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Icom] Summary of 60 Meter Performance of IC-765 (long)

You're right on the money - did you notice ONE thing?

The channel bandwidth is specified, and the center of the channel is
specified, but the carrier frequency is NOT specified.

THERE IS NO SERVICE THAT THE FCC ADMINISTERS THAT HAS CHANNELS FOR U.S.B.
AND THE CARRIER FREQUENCY IS NOT SPECIFIED.

How dumb can the FCC get?  As far as I'm concerned it has been a steady
decline in sense since about 1975.

Reaganomics didn't work - the FCC DID make $$$ in Auctions, but HOW will we
get on the same channel when the carrier frequency isn't named?

Channel up those ICOMs.

73

DR

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Icom] Summary of 60 Meter Performance of IC-765 (long)

> In a message dated 6/4/03 5:06:49 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected]
> writes:
>
> > Between now and July 3 midnight local time, let's all spend a little
time
> >  measuring our rig's transmit bandwidth and do whatever it takes at the
> audio
> >  end to ensure that we do not inadvertently slip outside the channel.
>
> Look, I know we can probably make this channel business work. I'm just not
> sure it will be worth the trouble it will take to obtain and maintain a
signal
> that is sufficiently narrow, centered and squeaky clean.
>
> Whaddya say we tell the FCC to kiss off on this channel crap until they
can
> come up with something that is more suitable to Amateur operation and
practice?
> I know the old "use or lose it" song well (how many of you have been on
222?)
> but what are the risks associated with "misuse"? Might that be used
against
> us in the future?
>
> Be sure to drop a line to the NTIA to thank them for their part in
creating
> this mine field for US Hams. Depending on who is checking what, this could
well
> wind up being the RF version of a speed trap!
>
> I mean think about it - No CW, only USB and with a bandwidth limitation on
> discrete channels. You almost couldn't dream up a more restrictive
scenario
> given normal Amateur operating practices. And, what's going to happen to
the Ham
> who violates the upper, or lower, end of a channel by 100 Hz?
>
> I can see it now, certificates for those with the most 60M OO 'contacts' .
. .
>
> And, before you say it, I will: If you can't stand the heat . . . Reread
my
> second paragraph.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
> ----
> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
> Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.315 MHz
> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>

----
Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan W6OLD, [email protected]
Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.315 MHz
Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/