--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This announcement should really stir up some new rantings from the
> Anti-Everything Forces...
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/02/5/?nc=1
>
> Have fun!!!
> __
This announcement should really stir up some new
rantings from the Anti-Everything Forces...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/02/5/?nc=1
Have fun!!!
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite:
www.ky
Thanks, John. I think I now know more than I did earlier.
Bill-W4BSG
John Becker wrote:
>My comments should be on line by now or soon.
>I told them just what I posted here.
>
>Since 95% of my digital operation is RTTY the
>rest Amtor and Pactor it should be easy to see
>what I did like and dislik
Rather than trying to bait him, if what he said is so important to you,
why don't you go find his comment on the FCC site (that's not difficult)
and READ IT ???
I voted to allow this discussion to continue, because despite all the
personal attacks, there's been some good information from both s
My comments should be on line by now or soon.
I told them just what I posted here.
Since 95% of my digital operation is RTTY the
rest Amtor and Pactor it should be easy to see
what I did like and dislike. I did at one time do a
little HELL and MT-63 but no longer do that after
giving away my inte
John-regarding your last sentence- It matters-People DO read what you send.
Else- why do you bother?
Regarding the question- You were asked what you DID support, and you had
said that you had mailed a comment; did you support parts of both sides
in that?
Bill-W4BSG
John Becker wrote:
>Ok Bill s
Ok Bill since you did not like that, try this.
Some parts I do and some parts I don't support.
But does it really matter what I think.
At 11:18 AM 3/1/06, you wrote:
>John- This is NOT an answer to Daves' question. Did you support it or not?
>Bill-W4BSG
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Title: RE: [digitalradio] The US Ham radio service
I
don't know about the "land mass area", but the rest of what Howard says is
correct.
As I pointed out earlier, agencies and organizations cannot afford
to have trained individuals on their payroll who only work during an
emergency...th
I think, considering the width of the band, and the little useage it gets,
that the whole band plan is stupid. Why not set the botom half of the band
for CW and digital and the top half for wide modes such as SSB SSTV RTTY
etc. Then split the bottom part with CW in the lower half and other digit
Although the bandplan indicates digital in the 1800 to 1810 sliver, it
also permits CW as well. So it is OK to operate CW in that window
according to the bandplan. Personally, one would think that they would
have followed the convention of CW on the bottom of the band,
particularly the higher s
Isn't CW a narrow digital mode?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The absence of "and we checked the bandplan" from the process you
describe
> below is both glaring and ominous. Conformance to voluntary
bandplans is the
> foundation of the ARRL
11 matches
Mail list logo
