| |
ZL1UA > CB 05.03.01 20:45l 21 Lines 832 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : A80008ZL1UA
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: CB by another name.....
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<DB0END<DB0ACC<
DB0PKE<DB0QS<ON5VL<LX0HST<HA3PG<PP5BLU<YV6BTF<EA5DVS<EA3RKU<EB4CTD<
EA4F<EA4Q<EA2BBS<EA5VDR<EA5RQ<GB7GUR<ZL2BAU<ZL2WA<ZL1UX<ZL1IB
Sent: 010218/0235Z @:ZL1IB.#30.NZL.OC #:63702 [Tauranga] $:A80008ZL1UA
From: ZL1UA@ZL1IB.#30.NZL.OC
To : CB@WW
Further to Allen, ZL1UIC's rundown on CB's fall from grace.
At the time CB was first mooted in New Zealand the Waihi Branch of NZART
submitted a paper to whatever quango was in charge of communications at
that time outlining perceived problems. Most of the perceived problems, as
Allen has outlined were caused by the choice of the 26meg frequency and
the branch recommended strongly that a UHF frequency be allocated. The use
of a UHF frequency would have met the criteria for low power short
distance communications and none of the subsequent problems would have
arisen.
I have no memory of what the reply said, or if we even got a reply but we
all know they took no notice and created this pernicious blot on the
spectrum.
73 - Jack, ZL1UA @ ZL1IB
Message timed: 14:23 on 17 Feb 01
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
