If you can't hack it you don't really own it, your just renting it. On 7 Apr 2015 15:32, "Harry Yingst via Elecraft" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I used to be a Mars Operator many years ago while in the Navy. (I was a > shipboard MARS operator). > > I do agree that it should be a Menu item, Having to get approval from the > manufacturer for a piece of equipment that I Own does not sit well with me. > (and is the reason I refuse to do business with another well know radio > vendor, over this very point). > > > > > > > From: Mike Morrow <[email protected]> > To: > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 2:48 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 2-30 MHz Transmit? MARS > > > ...Military Amateur Radio System... > > ...Military Affiliate Radio System... > > ...Military Auxiliary Radio System... > > MARS has stood for *all three* of the above proposed phrases since its > creation after WWII for the Army and (later) Air Force as a formal > organization of military and amateur stations operating on military > frequencies to handle written and phone patch traffic for military > servicemen. Because an amateur license was used only as an individual's > technical qualification for membership while MARS conducted none of its > business on amateur frequencies, AMATEUR was changed to AFFILIATE shortly > thereafter. The Navy/Marine Corps finally created its own MARS in the > early 1960s. Throughout the first 25 years of MARS's existence the primary > task was to serve the serviceman as one of the limited means he had to > communicate rapidly with his family. That mission was last carried out to > any great extent during the Vietnam war. MARS has had to create an > Emergency Communications mission to justify its existence since. About a > decade ago, for reasons best understood by builders of bureaucr > acies, AFFILIATE was changed to AUXILIARY. MARS HF gear as yet does not > need to meet NTIA specs. > > Once "CAP" was often cited along with MARS...the Civil Air Patrol operates > HF/VHF nets similar to MARS, on Air Force frequencies. But about a decade > ago CAP required communications equipment to meet NTIA specs...something no > ham gear is going to meet. > > With respect to the issue of a manufacturer artficially limiting the > transmit frequency coverage of its equipment to ham bands only, I find such > an attitude paternalistic and condescending. It plainly conveys the > attitude that the customer is too stupid to avoid improper or illegal > operation of the equipment. There should be a menu item that allows either > full or ham-band-only coverage. That is all. I have over several decades > found full band transmit coverage to be routinely useful for test signal > generation in addition to MARS work. > > The manufacturer should not presume to become enforcer of regulations. > > Mike / KK5F > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to [email protected] ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
