Bill, Well, I was not planning to go for an STA. I don't think it is needed IMHO, publication and an ARRL legal review will be sufficient.
John K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:09:50 -0000 Hi John, No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI) > > Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get > an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use > when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different > views on the same subject! > > I don't know what the ARRL pays him, but he earned his > wage that day! He also gets impatient with some of the > nit picking questions Hams ask, so I am "forced" to like him (HI). > > Vy 73, > John > K8OCL > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:49 -0000 > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <k8ocl@> wrote: > John, > > I thought you said, "Kill all the lawyers", guess that does not > include the ARRL legal staff.. > > Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same > as "permissions" :) > > 73 es be well, > > Bill N9DSJ
