Rick,
RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion.
As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted.
Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and
RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my
oldest hybrid
Steve,
We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you
have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest
groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets
as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the
with it formally and they probably will.
73,
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Steve,
We will just have to agree
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Steve,
We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you
have seen
Hi Howard,
You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the sheer number
of opposed to favoring it has to be at least 80% opposed, if not even
90%. That is overwhelming. It is true that almost all of the hams who
claim they oppose the petition have not really read and understood the
Hmmm. The silent majority methinks maybe.
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:31:19 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Howard,
You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the sheer
On Thursday 27 December 2007 02:40:01 am Steve Hajducek wrote:
I would also like to see the
availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency
Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode
Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency.
Hi Again, Steve,
I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you
don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes
from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for
them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may
To hams who are not in the USA: Your comments are important. I just
left my comment, and did not see any qualifier that required that you
be in the USA. They may place more importance on your opinions since
we are currently being a 'bad neighbor' to you.
I browsed through the 73 comments that
I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmation #20071226739154. If we want
it to pass, we need to make a little more noise where it counts...
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Specify RM-11392 in the first box.
Won't take but a minute, and WILL make a difference!
-Joe, N8FQ
Hi Rick,
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of
RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old
story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by
an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and
practices, this is
It's all about how much of the band you are using.
But you know how they like to pick on poor Pactor.
Read page 11 line 4,5 and 6 of the PDF file
* * * * *
page 11 of RM11392.PDF
8. Two bandwidths are appropriate for what is now the RTTY/Data
subband, 1.5 KHz and 2.4 kHz. The selection of these
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the
entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort
at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back
ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by
an attempt to limit the advancement of new
technologies and practices, this is just the
Hi Bruce,
From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if
the the hurts!
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the
entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort
at protectionism ( its an old story that
NO STEVE
You and the digi boys need to get it
You have entire bands on UHF to use and they sit EMPTY
..
Your disrespect for all of those who are happy with
analog shows how little you care about the hobby. ONLY
YOUR SELF ..
IF IT Ain't DIGITAL it ain't radio
When you can show
Hi Steve,
I agree that it is a type of protectionism. I did not view it that way
as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly
they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over
the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can
Hi Rick,
At 08:26 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
Hi Steve,
I agree that it is a type of protectionism.
Which in my opinion is a worst case issue for the Amateur Radio
Service (ARS) than the technical challenges being presented.
I did not view it that way
as much until we really started seeing
17 matches
Mail list logo
