WALT ... THINK THINK ... 100 khz wide signals
are going to KILL any band you put them on and do you
think anyone will look for OTHERS before fireing up a
digital radio .. GEESE go on 75 and lissen to SSB
they can't even handle THAT mode ..
--- Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
440 MHz has had a authorized bandwidth of 100 kHz for nearly 20
years. The repeaters and other operations there seem to work just
fine. Just because the authorized bandwidth is 100 KHz doesn't mean
that the whole band will be filled with 100 Khz signals.
73,
Mark N5RFX
WALT ... THINK
440 ALSO has NO SKIP and 8 TIMES the space
NOW how are you going to work it out when 6 is OPEN
world wide ?
ANYONE with a half a brain knows 6 is not the place
for this ..
also how are you not going to interfere with repeaters
on 2 meters they cover 3 out of 4 mhz of that
band ?
Bruce,
I will work it out when 6 is OPEN world wide and not interfere
with repeaters on 2 meters because I will continue to follow the
clause that says no amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal . How does
The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .
When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
between 50.7 and 51.5 above that are
-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
symbols/second)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .
When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .
I respect your opinion.
When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
between
their mind to it.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of list email filter
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:33 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
symbols/second
I think this is true in the part 90 world, but not in part 97. There
really is no FCC mandate with respect to the ARS for spectral efficiency.
73,
Mark N5RFX
In a time period shorter than most of us realize, most of the VHF and
UHF bands will be all digital. The FCC is moving all other users
This number is really quite large. I would not concur that there are
500K active hams though. Not even half of the licensed hams are really
very active. And the great majority of hams are Technician class and not
as concerned about anything that might affect HF, so they would not even
We have had PSK and RTTY and APRS users for DECADES
and because they take up similar space they do not
cause a problem AND they have place themselves AWAY
from most other users . however you know unlike
the 5 watt comments What we see on 6 is the HIGH power
boys crawl out of the woodwork at
Bruce,
We have had PSK and RTTY and APRS users for DECADES
and because they take up similar space they do not
cause a problem AND they have place themselves AWAY
from most other users .
This is what bandplanning, gentlemen's agreements, and cooperation
give us. Your example shows how a 32
PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
symbols/second)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:46:50 -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The original ARRL
This, and ALL the other discussions slamming the ARRL FCC NEED to go to THIS
GROUP!!! The group below was specially started for JUST SUCH discussions!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE
This is NOT what this group is all about! PLEASE take it ELSE WHERE!
Rod
KC7CJO
I have a different twist on this. Lets go ahead and allow data modes
up to 3 kHz bandwidth. But if this is truly supposed to be regulation
by bandwidth, then move these broader modes up into the phone
portions. Narrower modes like RTTY, PSK31, CW, and others need space
where they won't be
I am new to HF Digital. What I like about Ham is experimentation. I
may be confused but it appears to me that this opens up possibilities.
I fail to see the logic on how this can be a bad thing. I think that
not expanding the technology would be the true death of Ham.
If I am confused about the
-
From: Bruce Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:44 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
symbols/second)
I am new to HF Digital. What I like about Ham is experimentation. I
may be confused but it appears
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 07:08 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
I have a different twist on this. Lets go ahead and allow data modes
up to 3 kHz bandwidth. But if this is truly supposed to be regulation
The FCC has been saying until recently that the narrow modes belong in
the text data area, but then they recently made a big change in
reinterpreting what narrow band means in order to include Pactor 3 type
modes which are similar to the passband of a standard SSB signal.
The change to include
-
From: n6vl
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 22:58 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
John,
I would be perfectly content to leave things in the status quo. If
the ARRL really wants wider digital
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in
the same band segments with image and voice transission. Their members
seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from
Bonnie,
I do think the time is right; but, I think it has been for several years.
I truly believe that to just say we need more bandwidth without showing why we
have not case or change to change the League's position.
Show then in as simple terms as possible why more bandwidth is needed or why
Re: Truthfully from what I hear from various ARRL Board members is
that they get few messages from their division amateur radio operators
on most of the ideas that the League proposes, there are 1471 comments
on the ARRL's RM-11306 proposal, the vast majority in opposition. I
have personally
Do you really feel that there is a consensus on this group to support
division by bandwith? Based upon many comments, there also appears to be
a significant number who are uncomfortable with that approach and who
favor keeping mode types separated.
And I would be surprised if the majority was
But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 active
amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on HF?
If there were 10 times the number of responses, then the Board might listen.
73,
Walt/K5YFW
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Re: Truthfully from what I hear from
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000
active amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on
HF?
Yes. Here's the ARRL's characterization back when there
Walt,
Are there really ~500k 'active' operators, and more than 200k on HF? Or
is that just licenses that haven't expired? I personally know 2
licensed 'hams' in my area that don't even know what their call signs
are, let alone have any intention of ever owning or operating a radio,
and they
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This will be the end of ham radio .
Hi Bruce,
I heard that in 1967.
Bonnie KQ6XA
28 matches
Mail list logo
