as necessary
within the maximum bandwidth allowed in that segment.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:55 UTC
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark gap operators
when they didn't want CW.
Bonnie KQ6XA
: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark gap operators
when they didn't want CW.
Bonnie KQ6XA
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
Phil Barnett wrote:
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote:
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference
by some specific mode.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
You will need to start with the widest modes...
how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB.
What about vice-versa?
I think you should cite a creditable reference unless you can prove that
you were operating spark in the early 1900s.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
HUH!
They didn't want CW!
What mode were the spark gap operators
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote:
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark gap operators
when they didn't want CW.
Yeah, but with some major differences.
Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HUH!
They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running
then ?
Spark.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Yes, CW replaced spark gap in much
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:09:28 am Roger J. Buffington wrote:
OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink?
Good question. Bonnie?
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band
modes will work in a dire emergency.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink?
Good question. Bonnie?
The primary objective of the petition is to attack
Winlink2000 on HF.
The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000.
There is tremendous
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated
claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various
digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true
emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics.
Hum . I dont see any move to kill digital.
Digital stiil can do what they want above 219 mhz and
thats where it BELONGS ...
When 219 and up is full worry about HF .
--- W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more
than 500 hertz bandwidth
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
Technology?
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band
modes will work in a dire emergency.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio
: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
Technology?
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated
claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various
digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true
emergency
W2XJ wrote:
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the
unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I
participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be
a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just
playing
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
Technology?
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day
At 06:49 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital
frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters.
Bob, AA8X
Yeah right. Let's do away with contesting.
Ham radio would be like watching paint dry.
I don't understand just what you mean by
Hey Bonnie
You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate
me. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to digital modes.
I hear a lot of increased-bandwidth transmissions in the RTTY subbands
(7070 area, 14080 area). I understand that many of these are unattended.
I have issues
Mark WD4ELG wrote:
Hey Bonnie
You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you
could educate me. ...
Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make
an educated comment to the FCC:
Hi Mark,
I will attempt to answer your questions, one by one, below:
How will this
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote:
How will this RM will KILL digital radio?
It will prevent present digital data technologies that
now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing
of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast
digital
22 matches
Mail list logo
