Re: [digitalradio] Linux Adds Real Time Features.
Danny, It depends upon the politics of the country. As a farmer, and one who follows this kind of thing fairly closely, it is clear to me that there is currently enough food to go around although there is going to come a time where we simply can not support the world population which is increasing a billion people, primarily in the developing world, just over each decade. Sadly, food withholding was used to control and kill millions of people in the past and it is still being used as a weapon in some parts of the world. Libya may be the first country to put this many computers in the hands of each child but they don't actually have that many kids, just over a million and should have plenty to eat considering the oil revenues and changes in the politics of that country in recent time. It is going to be interesting to see the long term effects of allowing this kind of technology to the masses in a developing country. My guess is that it will cause changes, some unintended, because children easily accept their environment as normal. Look at the kids of today in developing countries that live as if we have always had current technology of cell phones, ipods, notebooks, internet, HDTV, etc:) Rick W. Danny Douglas wrote: It sounds like a fine idea. I just hope they want to insure the kids have food to eat, before they feed them from the screen. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
John K8OCL wrote: The ARRL HSMM Working Group recommended at least the same bandwidth for HF digital research and advancement as the current ARRL bandplan recommended for a old legacy mode such as AM. Hi John, There is really no sensible reason that AM should get special treatment in a bandwidth-based spectrum management plan. Especially, when bandwidth-based definitions may be used to allow AM on par with other emission types. In 2005, I suggested the use of a power/bandwidth mask that would accomodate AM, as well as provide for other emissions at wider bandwidth, but with similar spectrum use impact as AM... See this image: http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/spectrum_mask.jpg Basically, the power mask definition principle is simple... If transmitter necessary bandwidth exceeds 3kHz, then: Power must not exceed 1500W PEP in 3.5kHz occupied bandwidth, and power must not exceed 200W PEP in 10kHz occupied bandwidth. So, when necessary bandwidth doesn't exceed 3kHz, there is no need for the operator to measure or calculate bandwidth. It is only when wider bandwidth is used, that it puts the responsibility upon the operator to control power vs bandwidth according to the stepped power mask. Just think about the kB/s throughput you could deliver with a stepped power 200W/1.5kW OFDM signal within this mask! Or, alternatively, a flat response signal with 10kHz bandwidth at 200W. Using time-share techniques, there are a lot of interesting new things that could be done. Certainly, there is enough spectrum space to carve out 50kHz of spectrum for this in the 80m, 15m, and 10m bands for this. On the 20m and 40m bands, with a small chunk, maybe 20kHz of spectrum could be used, and a slightly lower-powered mask could be defined: 100W @ 3.5kHz Occupied Bandwidth 20W @ 10kHz Occupied Bandwidth Certainly, this would have less spectrum impact than the kilowatt AM phone signal that everyone knows and loves so much. Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
OK let me chime in as a long time 6 meters user ... FIRST .. NO ONE OBJECTS TO DIGITAL MODES . In fact they do have a place in this hobby however the problem as we see it is the tiying up of large amounts of space ( 200 ver 3 kHz ) on bands that ARE widely used and do cross borders. SECOND ... NO 6 METER GROUPS WERE CONTACTED I contacted SMIRK and several other national groups and no one was asked for there input and when we contacted the ARRL we were ignored. If your going to ask for space ( 90%) of a band it would be nice if someone at least informed all of the thousands of users on your plans. THIRD .. The term LEGACY mode explain that to all of us who have no idea where you came up with that and it does seem derogatory. I don't see any SSB or AM groups using any such terms. Bruce WA4GCH on 6 since 66 SMIRK# 70 issued 2/74 OOTC, QCWA and LIFE MEMBER ARRL --- Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know some have asked for chunks that way, but at the same time for chunks with larger signal bandwidth. What I am concerned about is some 3 kc signal getting on top of us when we are using cw or psk or some other narrower signal, and wiping us out. Already happens with RTTY , contesia, etc. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
At 10:05 PM 10/15/2006, you wrote: I know some have asked for chunks that way, but at the same time for chunks with larger signal bandwidth. What I am concerned about is some 3 kc signal getting on top of us when we are using cw or psk or some other narrower signal, and wiping us out. Already happens with RTTY , contesia, etc. It has been a very long time since I have heard a RTTY signal near .070 on any band. That is other then contest weekends. John Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
Bonnie, Agree completely. It makes little sense to give AM such special treatment at the expense of shutting down future digital technical developments on HF. Power masking! Very interesting approach to a solution for the dilemma. The HSMM WG still has one final report to submit by the EOY. Perhaps John, KD6OZH, may wish to modify his / our original recommendation to the Board to include this concept. John, what say you? Thanks! John - K8OCL From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:12:04 - John K8OCL wrote: The ARRL HSMM Working Group recommended at least the same bandwidth for HF digital research and advancement as the current ARRL bandplan recommended for a old legacy mode such as AM. Hi John, There is really no sensible reason that AM should get special treatment in a bandwidth-based spectrum management plan. Especially, when bandwidth-based definitions may be used to allow AM on par with other emission types. In 2005, I suggested the use of a power/bandwidth mask that would accomodate AM, as well as provide for other emissions at wider bandwidth, but with similar spectrum use impact as AM... See this image: http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/spectrum_mask.jpg Basically, the power mask definition principle is simple... If transmitter necessary bandwidth exceeds 3kHz, then: Power must not exceed 1500W PEP in 3.5kHz occupied bandwidth, and power must not exceed 200W PEP in 10kHz occupied bandwidth. So, when necessary bandwidth doesn't exceed 3kHz, there is no need for the operator to measure or calculate bandwidth. It is only when wider bandwidth is used, that it puts the responsibility upon the operator to control power vs bandwidth according to the stepped power mask. Just think about the kB/s throughput you could deliver with a stepped power 200W/1.5kW OFDM signal within this mask! Or, alternatively, a flat response signal with 10kHz bandwidth at 200W. Using time-share techniques, there are a lot of interesting new things that could be done. Certainly, there is enough spectrum space to carve out 50kHz of spectrum for this in the 80m, 15m, and 10m bands for this. On the 20m and 40m bands, with a small chunk, maybe 20kHz of spectrum could be used, and a slightly lower-powered mask could be defined: 100W @ 3.5kHz Occupied Bandwidth 20W @ 10kHz Occupied Bandwidth Certainly, this would have less spectrum impact than the kilowatt AM phone signal that everyone knows and loves so much. Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
Last weekend, or was it the one before, during a RTTY contest, I heard them as low as 14.055 , and smack dab inside the PSK portion around 14.060 upward. When there are contests every other weekend of one kind or the other, that doesnt leave many free weekends for those who still have jobs during the week. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future At 10:05 PM 10/15/2006, you wrote: I know some have asked for chunks that way, but at the same time for chunks with larger signal bandwidth. What I am concerned about is some 3 kc signal getting on top of us when we are using cw or psk or some other narrower signal, and wiping us out. Already happens with RTTY , contesia, etc. It has been a very long time since I have heard a RTTY signal near .070 on any band. That is other then contest weekends. John Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 10/14/2006 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Many FCC Errors: Voice/Phone/Digi 3600-3700kHz Re: What is mode?
It may be that the FCC is preparing hams for voice meaning any human voice equivalent including digital or analog. My view is that some modes don't play very well together, but when it comes to wide band digital modes, we are now at the point that all kinds of content can be inside a digital transmission and you would have no way to determine the content by ear, only by machine decoding. It is possible that the FCC might drop all automatic operation on 80 meters. Currently, that is what we have with the current RO. My strong preference would be to have a small area just above the non-phone areas for digital wide band modes and automatic/semi automatic modes but that is probably impossible now. What we really have is a significant loss of data frequencies, the complete opposite of what some of us wanted to see happen and expected to happen. As far as automatic modes go, they always need to be carefully segregated from human modes, unless they have real time busy channel detection. That should be written into the rules now that it is technically possible to do this. Luckily, the damage has been done on a band that is mostly used for shorter range transmission and is less often used for inter-region traffic. Imagine if this had been done on 20 meters! At least many of us can agree that this RO is flawed and has created some serious errors and conflicts. Somehow, the engineering people dropped the ball and did not explain to the commissioners the interrelated effects some of these decisions would have. You can not expect the commissioners themselves to be all that aware of the technical aspects as they have to look at this more as a political decision. But they still need to insure that the decisions are sound policy. (By the way, when I say political decision, I do not necessarily imply that means something bad). 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Hi Rick and others, I noticed something peculiar about this recent FCC RO: they are talking about Voice instead of Phone. Previously, the only definition for subbands was phone. The only ham band having a Voice rule that I know of is the 5MHz channels. The rest of the bands are Phone. In particular, the 5MHz Voice rule has the effect of keeping us from using selective calling there :( Isn't it getting very clear that the content of our transmissions should no longer be a method of defining them? Isn't this nearing the point of being absurd? With digital, it is much too difficult to control the content or for anyone to easily check what the content is. ARRL mentioned in their new band chart available on their recent FCC RO FAQ: There are some apparent errors in the rules as released. The charts reflect ARRL's best understanding of what the FCC intended. Clarifications are being sought and the chart will be amended as required. See the band chart at: http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt04-140/faq.html http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt04-140/Hambands3_grayscale.pdf As for the supposed loss or disappearance of the automatic band at 3620kHz to 3635kHz, I do not believe this FCC error should be allowed to stand for very long. Perhaps the FCC's interim correction to the rulemaking will be one of these options: 1. Simply move the automatic band to 3575kHz-3600kHz, although this is incompatible with bandplans of other IARU regions. 2. Drop all band restrictions for automatically controlled stations on 80 meters. Some form of automatic control will be working its way into many of the different systems we use, anyway. So the definition of what is automation, and what is operator-helping computer programs is becoming as blurred as the antique definition of mode itself. But there is a bigger problem! Internationally, this area of 80m above 3600kHz is used by all modes at bandwidths of 2.7kHz or more in the various IARU bandplans, including automatic data stations. In IARU Region 1, the area below 3600kHz is confined to bandwidth 500Hz. If USA shoves all digi below 3600kHz, this now presents a step backward in the larger international compatibility issue that will actually prevent communication between the various regions for 2.7kHz bandwidth data or digi stations! :( Another possible FCC option exists where they will issue a larger omnibus bandwidth-based rulemaking that will either make all of this previous stuff moot or create even more confusion! I don't give this option a very high probability within the next few months, so we may be sadly at the mercy of their mistakes for while. Bonnie KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To
[digitalradio] Attn: K3UK
Andy, Need the CONVER file I sent you for WinDRM. Thanks, Tony KT2Q Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
What can I say to please you? But just like RTTY - PSK has no God given right to that part of the band either. But like I said below (in red this time). Seems you missed it before. At 01:57 PM 10/16/2006, you wrote: Last weekend, or was it the one before, during a RTTY contest, I heard them as low as 14.055 , and smack dab inside the PSK portion around 14.060 upward. When there are contests every other weekend of one kind or the other, that doesnt leave many free weekends for those who still have jobs during the week. It has been a very long time since I have heard a RTTY signal near .070 on any band. That is other then contest weekends. John __._,_.___ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Ham radio antenna Ham radio store Digital voice Digital voice recorder mp3 Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
Well John, I am not asking YOU to please me, just the FCC which might be as tuff. HI. None of them are a God given right. It just seems to me, when there are common internationalareas on a band, on which have become used by a particular mode, the FCC would be nuts to suddenly tell us we cannot use it for those modes, and every crazier to tell us that we should move those operations to some place where the DX isnt going to be, or cannot be accdording to their own rules of engagement. They seem to have yet to realize we hams are INTERNATIONAL, not local. And no - I did not miss it, but I also stated or inferred that at least every other weekend it appears we have a big contest of some type, that causes inteference to one mode or the other. In fact, we have several types of contests EVERY weekend, in which the participants suddenly forget or ignore factsthat othermodes exist, and their common frequency spectrum for use. I just wish the sponsors of these contests would adhere to the common frequencies, and disallow ANY logs which show the participants did not do so. It would be quite easy for them to give frequency parameters, and stick to their guns. In particular the ARRL, QST, ITU, and JARL contests should be so ruled, and that would go a long way in decreasing inteference, and complaints of those who are not contesters. Contesters are a miniority on the bands, yet certainly put more stations in a log on one weekend, than most others do in a month or more. We have to have room for everyone, and not completely ignore the non-contester during the weekends, when they too are off work and use the bands more often. Danny Douglas N7DCex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USASV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB allDX 2-6 years each.moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: John Becker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future What can I say to please you?But just like RTTY - PSK has no God given right to that part of the band either. But like I said below(in red this time). Seems you missed it before.At 01:57 PM 10/16/2006, you wrote: Last weekend, or was it the one before, during a RTTY contest, I heard themas low as 14.055 , and smack dab inside the PSK portion around 14.060upward. When there are contests every other weekend of one kind or theother, that doesnt leave many free weekends for those who still have jobsduring the week. It has been a very long time since I have heard a RTTY signal near .070 on any band. That is other then contest weekends. John No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 10/14/2006 __._,_.___ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Ham radio antenna Ham radio store Digital voice Digital voice recorder mp3 Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
[digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future
In a sense, the FCC has hoist digital users on their own petard. With PSK-31 being so popular, the need for lots of space is questionable. Likewise, the competition for space is not as great with the most narrow modes, i.e. less qrm. In order to show the FCC more space is needed, digital folks will need to suffer years of significant qrm, such as phone on 3900 - 4000 mHz has had. I suspect the use of modes with the widest bandwidth possible, whether needed or not, is the only way to make a significant argument to the FCC that more space is needed. It certainly looks like the FCC took the comments that contained so called studies of usage into account when determining allocations. Even though these studies had significant flaws, such as being done at a sunspot minimum, the FCC obviously accepted them for 80/75 meters. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last weekend, or was it the one before, during a RTTY contest, I heard them as low as 14.055 , and smack dab inside the PSK portion around 14.060 upward. When there are contests every other weekend of one kind or the other, that doesnt leave many free weekends for those who still have jobs during the week. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Wider Bandwidths and Frequency Choices Needed in Future At 10:05 PM 10/15/2006, you wrote: I know some have asked for chunks that way, but at the same time for chunks with larger signal bandwidth. What I am concerned about is some 3 kc signal getting on top of us when we are using cw or psk or some other narrower signal, and wiping us out. Already happens with RTTY , contesia, etc. It has been a very long time since I have heard a RTTY signal near .070 on any band. That is other then contest weekends. John Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 10/14/2006 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
