- 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
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
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
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.
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
Why don't we just simply give the bands back to the FCC and then let
the government run emergency comm. That would solve the whole mess. (LOL)
More Government, More Regulations, More Law Suits
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too, agree with the
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
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
Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most
all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is
posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will
kill the petition.
Greg
KC7GNM
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Peter G. Viscarola
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
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hatzakis Jr MD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this
proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more
use of
this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok so you are telling me there is always a live operator sitting at a
PMBO 24/7? Unattended for the clueless means the station operator is
not at the controls.
Yes I did.
No matter what happens if you read
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
[I submitted the following comments.]
I oppose this proposal:
1) It places undo restrictions on experimental digital systems.
2) Technology is moving too rapidly to regulate by modulation
designators, regulation should be by bandwidth/emission mask, with
varying bandwidth for each band and
14 matches
Mail list logo
