Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-30 Thread Charles Brabham
- Original Message - From: Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-29 Thread kh6ty
Demetre, It might help to visualize the interference problem caused by unattended PMBO stations like this analogy: A Winlink client, triggering a WinlinkPMBO to transmit, is like remotely triggering a bomb blast without any way to guarantee that the area around the bomb is clear. Winlink

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-29 Thread Sholto Fisher
I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec) and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-29 Thread Leigh L Klotz, Jr.
Were you able to get an ID from the P3 station? Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:53 am, Sholto KE7HPV wrote: us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-29 Thread Steinar Aanesland
Hello Sholto Sad to say , but I have had the same experience many times. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Sholto Fisher skrev: I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC

RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-27 Thread Peter G. Viscarola
Anyone notice that the vast majority of the negative comments about the petition are (nearly) identical. Sort of reminds me of the Send the following letter to your Congressman! like the NUMBERS count and not the content. I sure wish that petitioners -- both pro and con -- would think for

RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-27 Thread bruce mallon
But, it won't happen; the FCC Will take spectrum back, long before we ever evolve to the point of becoming better operators and having constructive discussion for the common good. Ham radio an't broke if the digicrats would wake up and smell the interferance coffie and work to be just another

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-27 Thread John Becker, WØJAB
Yes I did. No matter what happens if you read starting at line 4 of page 11 of the PDF file you can see that this is no more then more damn noise from the anti-wide people. And I'll say it again here that under FCC rules there is no such thing as a unattended station what there is (for the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement

2007-12-27 Thread Phil Barnett
On Thursday 27 December 2007 01:34:56 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If folks would utilize the time they spend complaining learning to be better operators, Interpretation: Learn to get out of the way of automated stations when they come on frequency without checking to see if the frequency is