Purchasing an SCS modem provides the ability to monitor Pactor III.
If an automatic station software employs a higher-level protocol
atop Pactor III, that protocol must by rule be publicly documented.
If the automatic station software provides a monitoring function,
then that software could be
If we are talking about Pactor III mode, (not sure about P2), it may be
very difficult to monitor. Not impossible, but would likely require some
special software to decompress the B2F, etc. More than one P3 promoter
has pointed this out to ARC I believe as a way to keep others from being
able
I said "a fraction", not "a few".
I'm assuming that only a fraction of automatic station operators
would flaunt the CW identification rule or fail to enforce the no
commercial content rule; thus it would not be necessary to equip
every OO with the ability to monitor every automatic protocol. To
Why not do the same for all rather then just a few?
At 08:52 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>The primary concern - that automatic stations will QRM ongoing QSOs -
> could be monitored by anyone capable of copying CW, assuming
>compliance with the CW identification requirement.
>
>To deal with the hopeful
The primary concern - that automatic stations will QRM ongoing QSOs -
could be monitored by anyone capable of copying CW, assuming
compliance with the CW identification requirement.
To deal with the hopefully small number of automatic stations who
choose to ignore the CW identification and/or c
I am talking abour baseball not radio
hi
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
De LØRD
Yes !
Up to the day that there is a PSK-31
Many thanks,
I was thinking about 600-700$. So I was thinking in FT-840 because
now has low price. I have seen also IC-703 (I like also QRP) and FT-
100. What do you think about them for digital radio?. Do you have
any experience with them or with other radios with similar price?. I
have been
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Lord! Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again. Id almost
rather
> watch Cricket. Jiminey that is.
Hey Dickey Bird has not raised that single finger, matter of fact,
seems to have waving his arm four time
De LØRD
Yes !
Up to the day that there is a PSK-31 mail system and it bits
them in the butt
Of course the real problem is that there is those that just
HATE to wide modes and will say and do any thing to see it fail.
At 07:37 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>Lord! Do we have to put up with talk a
Lord! Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again. Id almost rather
watch Cricket. Jiminey that is.
- Original Message -
From: "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Credible self-policing is the key; the ARRL's Official Observer
> corps would be the obvious starting point. One or two examples --
> highly publicized instances of violators losing their licenses --
> would est
Credible self-policing is the key; the ARRL's Official Observer
corps would be the obvious starting point. One or two examples --
highly publicized instances of violators losing their licenses --
would establish the appropriate degree of respect for the program.
With regard to "No automatic sta
Sorry, Thomas, I couldn't see the bulge in your cheek from this QTH.
Clearly, one way to move amateur radio forward is to package new
technology in an appealing manner. Kudos to Peter G3PLX and Skip
KH6TY for igniting the explosion of interest in digital modes. There
is a big difference between
As I said in a previous post, "nowadays the
FCC finds Amateur Radio to be an annoyance that just won't go away. In
recent years the FCC seems to have said no to any proposal put forth by the ARRL
that would increase the FCC's oversight thereof."
The FCC has no desire, manpower, equipment
My taxes already are there to provide federal law enforcement, as well as
other essential services. If there is not enough money, quit "loaning"
billions to "poor" countries, and then forgiving them for not paying it
back. If there is a FCC rule, enforce it.
It is no different than my pushing
Who will enforce this using what source of funding?
The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
nor the necessary technical infrastructure.
Were this to be implemented it would require a significant
budgetary increase from Congress or a transfer of resources
within the FCC.
One probabi
Dave et all,
The first sentence in my last
email, "We silly Americans think that just
because we prop up the rest of the world with $$$ and also protect it from the
"real" bad guys,that the world should do everything "our way." and
the use of the word bickering
was tongue in cheek.
I
17 matches
Mail list logo
