[digitalradio] Re: ARRL Proposal: CW and Digital on 5MHz at 100W

2006-10-26 Thread jgorman01
Still, I believe sooner or later there will be a conflict on a shared frequency. If there isn't going to be a problem, then why bother making it shared? When this occurs, if standard operating procedures were laid out in the rulles, it would minimize the chance of conflict. Jim WA0LYK --- In di

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Proposal: CW and Digital on 5MHz at 100W

2006-10-26 Thread DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny Douglas Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:49 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Proposal: CW and Digital on 5MHz at 100W As an operator who ran govern

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Proposal: CW and Digital on 5MHz at 100W

2006-10-26 Thread Danny Douglas
SA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:14 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Proposal: CW and Digital on 5MHz at 100W > I do

[digitalradio] Re: ARRL Proposal: CW and Digital on 5MHz at 100W

2006-10-26 Thread jgorman01
I do have some concerns that would have been addressed by Bonnie's strictures. One, can everyone watching a waterfall display recognize a weak Federal SSB or digital signal trying to claim the frequency? Two, there are no restrictions on automatic stations. It looks to me like auto stations less