On Tuesday 11 May 2010 05:12:07 you wrote:
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 21:18:20
I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor
500 if they are going to get mode specific.
Andy K3UK
Andy
Does the FCC *really* have to specify
You have repeatedly used the term, Clog Up . Have you listened to
60M at all? I rarely hear ANY ham traffic on any of the 5 channels
whenever I look. Given the light usage already in place, I do not see an
issue with adding digital modes.
Ed K7AAT
James French writes:
Can it be 'justified' to 'clog up' a new band with allowing ANY digital
mode,
and I am also including digitized voice into this, just to have it be there?
Why not use what is already staged and developed and on the bands that
already
have the allocations?
The
Hi Andy
Are you allowed to use a proprietary mode on the HAM band in US? In
Norway we are not.
la5vna Steinar
On 11.05.2010 03:18, Andy obrien wrote:
FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My
objections are
PIII is a proprietary mode .
PIII as used in non-busy
The discussion regarding Pactor III has relevance to earlier discussions on
this list concerning a new mode.
Whether you like Pactor III or not it's clear the FCC permits US amateurs to
use it and they regard the level of documention available on it to be adequate.
I suspect the only concern
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 21:18:20
I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor
500 if they are going to get mode specific.
Andy K3UK
Andy
Does the FCC *really* have to specify all the permissible modes? Surely
all that's
Trevor, thanks for your answer.
Is it posible to monitor the content of a WINLINK transmission?
As fare as I know the WINLINK data is compressed. I have never been able to
monitor WINLINK with my SCS TNC.
la5vna Steinar
On 11.05.2010 10:56, Trevor . wrote:
The discussion regarding
Hi Steinar,
I've never used WINLINK and know little about it but I'd imagine they use a
standard and freely available compression algorithms. Perhaps someone else can
comment.
73 Trevor M5AKA
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no wrote:
Is it posible to monitor the
The F6FBB BBS protocol is used.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Hi Steinar,
I've never used WINLINK and know little about it but I'd imagine they
use a standard and freely available compression algorithms. Perhaps
someone else can comment.
73 Trevor M5AKA
--- On Tue, 11/5/10,
FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My
objections are
PIII is a proprietary mode .
PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause
of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the
same for the primary services
Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz?
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My
objections are
PIII is a proprietary mode .
PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading
cause of QRM
I take that as a no to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been
publicly documented.
My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the
amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my
understanding it doesn't comply with the
Dave, Of course Pactor-III has been publicly documented! wink
See: http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor/pactor
However, it would take a judge in a court of law to decide if it has
been adequately documented publicly. As far as it is known, nobody has
been able to design a competing device to the SCS
...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of KH6TY
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz?
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
FYI, I plan to file a comment
14 matches
Mail list logo
