-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:19:02 -0600
How is this a response from the FCC? It looks like an opinion from a
lawyer, and the FCC was copied. Where is the FCC response?
73,
Mark N5RFX
So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
someone complains we don't care?
That is contrary to the nature of bureaucracy and
bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats are focused on avoidance of conflict and
expansion of power.
Only so long
Maybe they should have tried this approach instead of petitioning the FCC.
73,
Mark N5RFX
At 09:24 AM 12/15/2006, you wrote:
Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's
sake?!
Not I, dear sir.
current HF digital mess.
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:44:01 -0600
Maybe they should have tried
: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500
So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
someone complains we don't care?
That is contrary to the nature of bureaucracy and
bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats
John Champa wrote:
You would normally be correct.
However, again, the FCC does not give a %$# about Ham Radio!
That includes the ARRL and all the celebrities you can find.
Licensed HAM celebrities? Isn't that counter-intuitive?
Asserting that they don't care about their own hobby
makes no
Follows
From: Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:19:02 -0600
How is this a response from the FCC? It looks like an opinion from a
lawyer, and the FCC
Message Follows
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500
So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you
Follows
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500
So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever
:51 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
This is the part that those of us in other countries don't understand, not
one little bit
John
VE5MU
I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other
countries
and
say that hams can use
John B. Stephensen wrote:
and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
stringent regulations.
Not all of them.
73,
Paul / K9PS
(Life Member of both ARRL and QCWA who doesn't.)
jgorman01 wrote:
Rick,
From the ARRL's website:
Rather, we ask only that the Commission restore the privileges
unintentionally withdrawn from those who operate and who utilize
automatically controlled NARROWBAND digital stations between 3620 and
3635 kHz, the League said. The ARRL
I agree that the regulations of which emission types can appear where
and at what baud rates has outlived its usefulness and needs to go.
As to all the intricacies and arcana, and why the FCC has gotten so much
of it so very wrong, I think that many forum members may be missing the
larger
:47 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
jgorman01 wrote:
Rick,
From the ARRL's website:
Rather, we ask only that the Commission restore the privileges
unintentionally withdrawn from those who operate and who
jgorman01 wrote:
This occurs without any operator intervention, it is done
automatically by the pactor modem's internal software. A real great
operational system for the amateur bands isn't it?
Jim WA0LYK
No it is not. Good explanation of the problem.
de Roger W6VZV
Hello, Bonnie:
I'm glad to see in your latest post that you have toned down your rhetoric. I
assume from
your earlier sallies that you have some standing within this group, but it
shouldn't lead to
harumphing about comments that may not be exactly precise in discussing what is
abstruse
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Hello, Bonnie:
I'm glad to see in your latest post that you have toned down your
rhetoric. I assume from
your earlier sallies that you have some standing within this group
What is the best means by which we may quickly encourage
the FCC to *NOT* stay their rule?
Sure would hate for them to do so based on representations
of a few that it would be OK with the majority.
Is there a preferred E-mail address at the FCC for such
matters?
By Friday, there will be no non
There are other digital automatic users besides the email Winlink 2K
systems you cite. The National Traffic System (certainly a part of ham
radio, and has been around for over 50 years) uses the automatic section
of 80 meters for passing traffic thru the NTS Digital system. The FCC
new rule
David Struebel wrote:
There are other digital automatic users besides the email Winlink 2K
systems you cite. The National Traffic System (certainly a part of
ham radio, and has been around for over 50 years) uses the automatic
section of 80 meters for passing traffic thru the NTS Digital
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must we wait for the FCC to request comments on the ARRL
request or should we post our opposition immediately?
Sure do not understand why a neo-commercial digital
app (all automatic and most semi-automatic unattended
- Original Message -
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... Sure do not understand why
It's not necessarily the automatic operation that cause the problem,
although they certainly can. The biggest problem is that pactor 3
modems are basically designed for commercial use and assume that once
they have a 3 kHz channel the whole channel belongs to them for the
entire session. The
Must we wait for the FCC to request comments on the ARRL
request or should we post our opposition immediately?
Sure do not understand why a neo-commercial digital
app (all automatic and most semi-automatic unattended
digital modes) cannot find a more appropriate home on
non-Ham spectrum.
Surely
24 matches
Mail list logo
