Sorry Howard
But this brain dead thinking (or lack of it) about pactor
that some seen to have just burns me the wrong way.
I guess if I had a sound card in the shack computer I could
blast back every time I get QRM'ed by some other mode also.
Speaking of, where have you been hiding your pactor
AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of k4cjx
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Amazing that one thinks
On 8/29/2010 2:12 PM, k4cjx wrote:
BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who
wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the
proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future.
Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac
Let's not try to distort
AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:29 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The ARRL
Me just thinking out loud..
Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3
on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart?
I think not.
I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem.
(by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place)
and enjoy the many QSO's
Thank you, John, Sir.
Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN EM79NV
- Original Message -
From: John Becker w0...@big-river.net
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:11 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Me just thinking out loud
or any documents attached hereto is
prohibited.
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ted Bear
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Holy Moly.. When you
Julian,
This regulation was made years ago and just covers all spread
spectrum. In the FCC's opinion, ROS is spread spectrum, both by
description by the author and lab analysis. So, they had no choice but
to uphold the current ruling.
If someone wants to redefine spread spectrum on HF as
Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the
individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for
everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual?
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Julian,
For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow
then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that
the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal.
Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of
the US ham
SO ! that whats in my swimming pool.. I'll have to add more chlorine..
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:58:44 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better
...@gmail.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:17:08 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad
government doesn't know won't hurt them. At least according to some people. I
WOMEN ?!
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Ted Bear w7...@juno.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 2:21:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back
I sure am glad I grew up! MAN! Get a life!
From: Ted Bear w7...@juno.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:21:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject
back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote:
It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own
goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum
is mot legal on HF in the USA
The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion
because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC.
Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless
there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of),
we CAN be
On 07/19/10 11:48 am, g4ilo wrote:
Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS
might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So
ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence.
So is RTTY. But it isn't SS.
Your point is well taken, but
, July 19, 2010 12:32:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion
because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC.
Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless
weren't always like this)
Garrett / AA0OI
From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag
From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote:
But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I
Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight
for our freedom is absurd.
Jeff -- KE7ACY
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back
up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or
death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all
: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back
up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or
death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,,
NO KGB.. You are all
no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care.
Garrett / AA0OI
From: bg...@comcast.net bg...@comcast.net
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
pse speak
**From:** Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to
the fight
forbidden to fly)
I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too..
Just use common sense..
Garrett / AA0OI
From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back
needs to
move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you !
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man
, 2010 6:03:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever
just back up and look at what is being said?? Your
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum
above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal
on HF
oooh kaay
;-)
ke4mz
- Original Message -
From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:32:31 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care.
Garrett
Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
What is absurd
: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum
above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum
signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in
range
[mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:10 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided
one and a victim of unintended consequences
Message -
*From:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum
above 222 Mhz (where
@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
What
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been
truthful about it the first place?
That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons)
was just about it for me.
John, W0JAB
On 07/15/10 01:54 pm, John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been
truthful about it the first place?
That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons)
was just about it for me.
I received a few ROS transmissions within a week or two of
37 matches
Mail list logo
