License re-structuring

[w2xx at cloud9.net]

Hi Chris:

These seem like questions that are better directed toward your
division director/vice director.  They can explain the ARRL's
point of view and reasoning to you better than anyone else.

Very 73,

J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX
Vice Director, ARRL Hudson Division

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Kris Mraz, N5KM wrote:

> Just a few questions to help clarify the situation for me.
> What is the ARRL's reason for wanting to change the US licensing
> structure?
> Why are the recommendations needed for WRC-99? Are not the proposed
> changes
> a matter soley for the FCC?
> 
> -- 
> 
> 73
> Kris N5KM 
> mraz at aud.alcatel.com
> 


J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX  (fdba AA2DU)
E-mail:  w2xx at cloud9.net

As we say in the software business:  "You are hosed."  



>From silver at ax.apc.org (Carlos Augusto S. Pereira)  Mon Feb  3 18:27:49 1997
From: silver at ax.apc.org (Carlos Augusto S. Pereira) (Carlos Augusto S. Pereira)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:27:49 -0200
Subject: ICE's beverage box
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970203182749.0067cc48 at ax.apc.org>

Does anyone know if the ICE's beverage box works with other types of
receiving antennas? I'd like also to know the price. It's interesting also
some notes about the product's performance.

73 and thanks,

Carlos - PY1CAS


>From n0ss at socketis.net (Tom Hammond)  Mon Feb  3 19:19:54 1997
From: n0ss at socketis.net (Tom Hammond) (Tom Hammond)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:19:54 -0600
Subject: CW contest filters
Message-ID: <199702031919.NAA01328 at mail.sockets.net>

Matt:

I suspect I'm the exception, and this may be one reason why my scores
aren't any better than they are, but I run with NO supplemental
filtering for probably 80% or so of my contesting.  With my TS-930,
I do run the variable bandwidth a bit more narrow than wide open,
probably 1.5-1.8 kHz, but I use a 500Hz filter only when it's
really necessary... e.g. REALLY congested.

In the past, I've found that there are more than enough folks who 
call off-frequency that if I used a narrow CW filter most of the time, 
I'd miss a LOT of calls.  Furthermore, I find that if I do use the
CW filter I have to do significantly more 'touch-up' tuning of the
main VFO or the RIT to locate callers than if I just let 'er rip
and used a better than normal pair of ears to do the majority of
my filtering for me.  I can run 'em a LOT faster if I don't have to 
fiddle with tuning between calls.

Personally, I'd think that for most general operations, including
anything other than big gun contesting, a 500 Hz filter should be
all he'll need.

17 years old... start him out with NO filter and let him develop
his proficiency picking them out with his brain... it'll serve him
very well in the years to come... AND in times when a filter's
no available.  I've seen some ops virtually PARALIZED if they can't
have access to a narrow filter, even when the QRM's not nearly that 
bad.  A good set of 'tuned' ears is hard to beat.

73 - Tom Hammond   N0SS

At 09:04 AM 2/3/97 -0700, you wrote:

>There may have been some discussion on this topic a year or so ago, but I
>can't remember the verdict if there was.--A young budding contestor friend
>of mine is planning on getting a cw filter for his FT900. In a ragchew last
>night he said since the 250hz is only $10 more than the 500hz he is planning
>on getting the 250hz.  I advised him that that may be too narrow for working
>contests, especially in the "run" mode. He doesn't run power or big antennas
>and he advised me he does a lot more S&Ping than running. Well, he may have
>a point there.

>I run 500hz and we were wondering what advice the experts could offer before
>he spends his donero?  What would you advise him? He is AB7QE BTW (17 yrs old).