RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
Bruce, Gee, I am starting to sound like Bonnie now! But I think I have heard that before too! (HI) What are you doing here anyway? Aren't you an AMer? BTW, if it is any comfort to you, OFDM is sometimes defined as a form of digital AM, so you should feel right at home (HI). John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:53:09 -0700 (PDT) no the ARRL will pay with loss of 90% of its members ... they will see just how many unhappy hams are out there come renewal time . ENJOY YOUR BAND all 12 of you . im done .. Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
I do not opperate AM so would not know what a DIGITAL AN signal sounded like .. You have the wrong person since the last AM radio was a CLEGG 6 in the 1970's --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Gee, I am starting to sound like Bonnie now! But I think I have heard that before too! (HI) What are you doing here anyway? Aren't you an AMer? BTW, if it is any comfort to you, OFDM is sometimes defined as a form of digital AM, so you should feel right at home (HI). John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:53:09 -0700 (PDT) no the ARRL will pay with loss of 90% of its members ... they will see just how many unhappy hams are out there come renewal time . ENJOY YOUR BAND all 12 of you . im done .. Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 19:50 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
Dave, Oh, that's great Dave!. Thanks a lot, partner. (HI) Not that it's not an excellent proposal, mind you, but the HSMM modes cover BRUCE's personally owned AM Worldwide 6M Calling spot @ 50.4 MHz! I am the destroyer of worlds! (The Hunt for Red October?) So now Bruce will be on constant flame! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:33:12 - This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
no the ARRL will pay with loss of 90% of its members ... they will see just how many unhappy hams are out there come renewal time . ENJOY YOUR BAND all 12 of you . im done .. Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
It was my understanding that the ARRL compromised on 3.5 kHz for SSB voice when they submitted the request to the FCC. I think that ESSB accomodation was part of that reasoning? Can anyone else recall that initially they were proposing 3.0 and then moved it to 3.5? Or is it now that they want to limit the text data area to a similar BW which currently has no limits? I support that and have lobbied hard for it with Division Director and other decision makers, but I now some of you would like to see very wide modes on the HF bands and if this came to pass, it would not be possible to get that changed for a very long time. 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
The initial proposal was 3.5 kHz bandwidth for any mode within certain HF band segments. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 00:56 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth It was my understanding that the ARRL compromised on 3.5 kHz for SSB voice when they submitted the request to the FCC. I think that ESSB accomodation was part of that reasoning? Can anyone else recall that initially they were proposing 3.0 and then moved it to 3.5? Or is it now that they want to limit the text data area to a similar BW which currently has no limits? I support that and have lobbied hard for it with Division Director and other decision makers, but I now some of you would like to see very wide modes on the HF bands and if this came to pass, it would not be possible to get that changed for a very long time. 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH
