Does anyone have the email address for K2GM
lu7dw at abaconet.com.ar
lu7dw at abaconet.com.ar
Sun Jun 23 12:30:40 EDT 1996
I'm needing the email address or phone # for Dave K2GM.
Any hints can help me.
Thanks,
73 Claudio LU7DW
>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) Sun Jun 23 16:48:18 1996
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:48:18 -0600
Subject: ETO/Alpha--Obtain the facts and THEN write, please!
Message-ID: <199606231548.JAA24962 at lynx.csn.net>
>Also......June 21, was RAY HEATON's last day at E.T.O.
It would be amusing to watch the ETO rumors fly if I didn't know
Dick Ehrhorn and appreciate his committment to the Alpha
line of amateur radio amplifiers.
As far as the latest rumor goes, I called Dick yesterday (June 22)
and told him about the Ray Heaton story floating around. He was
stunned and said, and I quote, "That is absolutely untrue."
I also know FOR A FACT that he just hired a top rate man
specifically to help sort out the rough spots associated with
the recent change of ownership. A technical manager whose
job is to get deliveries and repairs back on track, and who will be
starting within a week. Other key people will also be added in
the near future.
Dick is absolutely committed to the success of the Alpha
line and any rumors to the contrary just aren't true, and will only
make the originator look foolish six months down the road.
Dick is very candid about admitting the problems during the recent
transition period and he is very serious about fixing them.
I could certainly use some EASY money to put up more antennas.
If anyone wants to place a little wager on the viability of the
Alpha line a year from now, I will be happy to take your money!
(That's putting my money where my mouth is!)
73 John W0UN
John Brosnahan
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz at csn.net
>From kr4dl at mindspring.com (Steven R. Schmidt) Sun Jun 23 21:39:03 1996
From: kr4dl at mindspring.com (Steven R. Schmidt) (Steven R. Schmidt)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:39:03 -0400
Subject: 21st Century Licensing
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960623203903.006e91f0 at pop.atl.mindspring.com>
At 08:33 PM 6/22/96 -1000, you wrote:
>I sent to the ARRL the following; was stimulated by posts by
>Gary, KN0Z:
>
>"To: Stephen A. Mendelsohn
> First Vice President, ARRL
>
>Aloha Steve,
>
>With regard to your memo to the ARRL Board of Directors,
>"The Coming Storm....or Opportunity": I wish to suggest
>the following "solutions" for consideration. It is the result
>of a reasonable quantity of discussion among amateurs subscribing
>to various amateur radio interest reflectors and discussion
>groups on the world-wide internet. Our attempt has been to
>keep a broad outlook on the present state of affairs in amateur
>radio as expressed by the April document realesed by the IARU
>"The Future of the Amateur Radio Service". Also, we are
>mindful of the interests of the ARRL, as outlined by you; and other groups
>who have an interest in the future of the amateur
>radio service, for example, the equipment
>manufacturers.
Jim: I can't help but comment on this letter. First, what is a "reasonable
quantity of discussion"? I don't remember being polled on this proposal. I
note you went from "I..suggest" to "We propose" very quickly in this text.
Who is this "we"?
>We propose the following for your review:
>
>1. Whatever the future Amateur operating spectrum bands are
>determined to be made available by the ITU between 1.8 and
>30 mHz, each band is divided into exclusive mode operating
>frequency segments (in proportions and frequency range
>increments to be determined) among three types of exclusive
>Amateur operating activity: analog mode, digital mode and
>CW mode.
Interest thought..I don't have a problem with it as long as the allocations
are reasonable and uniform. I'd still like to know more about the ambiguous
group who is proposing these changes.
>2. All countries will issue only three classes
>of Amateur Operating/Station licenses. The two higher grade
>licenses, General and Expert, will be endorsable with one, two or
>three operating privilege certifications: analog mode band access;
>digital mode band access; CW mode band access. The licensee
>may hold any or all of the endorsements as his interests in
>learning the material and passing the tests to earn the
>endorsements is demonstrated by appropriate examination.
Reasonable on its face, but difficult to administer. How do you determine,
for instance, that a licensee has a particular endorsement?
>3. This idea, if adopted, might result in the United States, in
>something similar to the following set of license classes and
>operating privleges:
>
>3.1 Basic Phone----28mhz and up...license examination includes
> basic electronics and radio theory
> including VHF, UHF and microwave
> propogation theory, regulation rules,
> and basic phone modulation theory (SSB
> and FM) and operating procedures tests.
Ouch! Every licensed amateur in the US has full access to 10 meters?
You've just diluted this wonderful band (at least in periods of high
sunspots..nobody would care at the low end of the cycle). Have you and your
group just proposed to eliminate a CW subband for 10 meters? What about the
satellite service?
>3.2 General-----18mhz and up...Hold/pass Basic Phone elements as
>above, plus HF propagation theory test and
> HF band rules as applicable, 18 to 30mHz.,
> plus 5 WPM code for access endorsement
> for CW subbands; OR, plus digital mode
> theory for access endorsement to digital
> mode subbands; OR, plus analog mode (SSB,
> SSTV) theory for access endorsement
> to the phone subbands; OR any two OR all
> three privilege endorsements.
Are you, perhaps, a Geologist? Why do you look at band allocation as slices
of strata? The band rules test would be easy enough, with this layer
approach. I'm not in favor of granting CW privileges from 18 mHz up based
on a 5 wpm code test.
>3.2 Expert---- All HF Amateur Bands..Hold/pass Basic Phone and
>General elements as above, plus advanced radio
>and lower band propagation theory; plus 12 WPM
>for access endorsement for CW
> subbands; OR, plus advanced digital mode
> theory for access endorsement to digital
> mode subbands; OR, plus advanced analog
> mode theory for access endorsement to the
> phone subbands; OR, any two OR all
> three privilege endorsements.
>
>Under this license structure, all present license class holders
>would be "grandfathered-in". That is, in the US, all present
>General, Advanced and Extra Class holders become licensed as
>Expert with all band/mode access privileges. All Novice
>and Technician Plus license holders become General Class
>license holders; Technician/No-Code license holders become
>licensed as Basic Phone holders. Also, all present
>Novice and Technician Class license holders are
>granted CW frequency mode allocation access in all HF
>amateur bands, a privelge they now partially hold.
So it is your intent to lower the standards for licensing? I suggest your
license classes should be termed "Novice", "Basic", and "Standard", though
12 wpm is clearly not the standard in today's CW bands. I vehemently
disagree with the premise of making everyone, General class and up, an Extra
class equivilent. I worked for my Extra privileges; I suspect you did too.
While it wasn't terribly difficult, I don't approve of granting those
privileges to one who won't make the modest effort. Newcomers to this
license class would only have to pass a 12 wpm test to have full access to
all portions of the CW bands? I'm beginning to suspect that you are not a
CW fan. You've "grandfathered" everyone into your "expert" class based on
code proficiency..but what about the written tests?
>In this way, no one has to ever learn Morse Code skills to
>be licensed to operate somewhere within each world wide
>allocated amateur HF frequency band, and those that care
>to be CW operators may do so, and have clear CW frequency
>bands available to pursue that mode.
I agree with your effort to provide ways for non-coders to upgrade and gain
additional spectrum.
This plus is more than outweighed by the negatives inherent in your
proposal. Novice and Tech Plus licensees may enjoy being upgraded to your
"General" class (my "Basic"), but they won't be quite as appreciative during
the low sunspot cycle, when the loss of 40 and 80 meter privileges are not
adequately replaced with the less-useful spectrum above 18 mHz.
>This proposed licensed structure should offer plenty of
>incentive for the amateur, not interested in learning
>the CW Morse code, to continue to upgrade his/her skills
>as a radio operator and to be examined as such. This will
>continue to demonstrate the committmint to self-training,
>a tradition of the international amateur radio service.
>
>If, for whatever reason, a nation should choose not to
>offer a CW examination or license endorsement to citizens
>of that nation, they may so elect. Under the new (coming)
>international reciprocal license structure, should an
>amateur live in a nation not offering CW endorsement,
>he/she may be examined and licensed for CW endorsement by
>any other nation offering such examinations/endorsements
>and then may operate with the CW mode in the applicable
>HF band segments from within any ITU treaty signing nation,
>including the nation of his native/home citizenship.
Fascinating idea, but who's going to administer/enforce it? I'd sure love
to get those phone stations out of the 40 meter CW band... While you're at
it, can you get your group to move those international broadcast stations?
>These ideas should provide a way for the amateur radio service to
>continue to grow during the 21st century,
I would substitute the word "dilute" for "grow" in this sentence.
> and satisfy most,
>if not all elements within the current discussion regarding
>the future of the amateur radio service, as outlined in
>the April 1996 IARU "Future of the Amateur Radio Service"
>document. These thoughts can also provide input to the
>solution of issues introduced by you in your notes to the
>ARRL Board of Directors.
>
>Mahalo for reading this wordy submittal, Steve.
>
>73, Jim, AH6NB
Jim, I obviously disagree with your proposal. I oppose any lowering of the
standards for licensing and think your "layer cake" approach to license
classes is simplistic and unweildy. It doesn't provide uniform access to HF
during various portions of the sunspot cycle.
I also object to your inference that this proposal is the result of a
substantive polling of the amateur community on the internet. Your
definition of a "reasonable quantity of discussion" and mine clearly differ.
Just my opinion, submitted without the weight of substantial discussion on
the internet (yet).
73, Steve KR4DL
>From qrotec at bright.net (QRO Technologies, Inc.) Sun Jun 23 17:38:46 1996
From: qrotec at bright.net (QRO Technologies, Inc.) (QRO Technologies, Inc.)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:38:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: QRO Technologies Updated Web Site
Message-ID: <199606231638.MAA10836 at brutus.bright.net>
We have made a major revision of our web site. Some interesting stuff. I
would appreciate everyone stopping by for a look. URL address is
http://brutus.bright.net/~qrotec. Thank you!
73's
Ray W. Connin KB8VU
QRO Technologies, Inc.
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list