Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
--- Skip Teller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce,
When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about
wide band HSMM on 6-meters?
You are worried about 100 kHz when the band maybe opens in a few
years out of a 4,000 kHz wide band. Get real! Attach brain to keyboard.
I am getting very tired of reading about something you know
You better work on your math, Bruce!
A 100 kHz channel in 4 MHz is only 2.5%
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
Date:
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:54:36 -0700
John Champa wrote:
Bruce,
When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about wide
band HSMM on 6-meters?
You are worried about 100 kHz when
is't usless to all others ...
IM DONE
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You better work on your math, Bruce!
A 100 kHz channel in 4 MHz is only 2.5%
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio
Very cute, Bonnie!
Obviously there are AT LEAST two sets of regulations
1. What is written in the books (CFR, etc.)
2. What is actually ENFORCED.
Reference: The Sociology of Regulations by Bonnie Crystal, KQ6XA,
as published in the Summer Issue, CQ-VHF Magazine.
Thanks,
John - K8OCL
Bruce,
You are just one big lovable DINOSAUR.
Vy 73,
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
Date: Sun, 3 Jun
find it better for everyone, including yourself.
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Bruce,
When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about
wide band HSMM on 6-meters?
You are worried about 100 kHz when the band maybe opens in a few
years out of a 4,000 kHz wide band. Get
@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you have had the opportunity to lead such an effort, it
is you who should knock it off.
That's wrong, John. A leader must not only accept, but actively
solicit critique from everywhere, not just from others who have taken
leadership roles. And he
cause serious interference to other areas and even
regions if the bands open with Es and F layer propagation.
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Rick,
Unless you have had the opportunity to lead such an effort, it
is you who should knock it off. Obviously you have never stepped
Suggestion?
Don't hold your breath while you are waiting for this to happen (HI).
Vy 73,
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC's Riley Cross Clarify
Date:
http://www.amvets.org/
Original Message Follows
From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:37:15 -0400
A little different from the usual
Does this help?
http://www.signals.taunus.de/TABLES/ALE.HTML
Original Message Follows
From: Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Signals at 14076
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:23:36 -
There is a musical
Does this help?
http://www.signals.taunus.de/TABLES/ALE.HTML
Original Message Follows
From: Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Signals at 14076
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:23:36 -
There is a musical
Does this help?
http://www.signals.taunus.de/TABLES/ALE.HTML
Original Message Follows
From: Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Signals at 14076
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:23:36 -
There is a musical
flopped here except for cost I don't
have a clue why they work OK but no one is
interested in them ORLANDO FL AES has the nearest
system so much for buying one Ill stick with the
new sound card digimoder.
Bruce
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce,
That is excellent
Bruce,
We call it LISTEN FIRST before transmitting...
You really need to get on the air more, OM! (HI)
And stop wasting your time on this reflector...
John
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
... the old box is on the FT-100
which allows me to run it on 6 psk-31 when its on or
14.070.
Give a listen one day you might hear me ... on
just about any mode..
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce,
We call it LISTEN FIRST before transmitting...
You really need to get
: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL
wake up ..)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
I'm trying to keep the bands populated It gets
lonely on 432 SSB ..LOL
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce,
That's impressive! Good for you...
John
Original
Good operating practice is to always ID in the mode!
Even in ATV...hold up a QSL card in front of the camera.
Original Message Follows
From: Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No
Yes, we all LOVE the ARRL in reality...it's the only show in town
to defend Amateur Radio here in the US. Therefore, it's sort of
similar to getting along with the in-laws (HI).
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Mel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
John,
Didn't you read all those many rants on the HSMM pages last year?
They were all saying the same thing Bonnie is writing here,
i.e., the the ARRL bandwidth proposal takes away privileges
because under exisiting regs there is NO BANDWIDTH limit.
It's the secret hidden in the proposal that
Yes, that is the way the FCC seems to work to
They really don't seem to care much what digital stuff we send out...
AS LONG AS NOBODY COMPLAINS!
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: wa8vbx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa k8ocl@ wrote:
Wow! N6CRR stated that very, very well... Congrats!
Wowser right back.
Guess I'm just one of those simple folks that call a spade a spade,
and point out the attempt to back door change the nature of amateur
radio
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep...
There is a role for Ham Radio in EMCOM, but I don't know what it is
so I just stay out of it. Some of other guys are wearing badges, etc.
My desire in HSMM was more along the lines of digital video (ADV), but
nobody
to ask THEM.
6) OR THEY ARE USELESS .
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com
wrote:
Brfuce,
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
the Air Ways anyway!
Rod
John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
The International Regs changed last January (2006) to allow
Amateurs to use encryption. However, not for international
traffic. It's only permitted for internal domestic traffic
My digital Ham station on 2.4 GHz is ALWAYS encrypted and the FCC said
that's
OK because we share that frequency with a portion of the Part 15 allocation.
Original Message Follows
From: Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
Wow! One of the local head hunters...oppps, I mean
Professional Recruiters!...sorry... recently wanted me to
accept a job as a VP for off-shore technical resources.
Wonder if this is what he was writing about? (HI, HI)
Gotta buy that World if flat book! Tnx Garrett Dave!
73,
John - K8OCL
Kurt,
It is already here! We have been encrypting Amateur Radio Part 97 digital
traffic 24/7 on 2.4 GHz for years! It is expanding in use in the Amateur
Radio VHF UHF bands, but is not likely to be found on any HF bands as
international encrypted traffic is not permitted by the ITUbut
it take for the FCC to shut all
digital encription down
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce,
Encryption is a requirement in Ham Radio whenever a
band is
shared with another service AND there is automatic
data connection
capability enabled, e.g. the use of 802.11b
not the
members have to ask THEM.
6) OR THEY ARE USELESS .
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brfuce,
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Bruce,
Yes, frequency coordination above 53 MHz would be a problem
when the band open, but I think we would have a few years
to work that out as the technology evolved from self-designed
kit modems, to publicly available kits, to a manufactured product
such as is sold for 4 MHz ATV at present.
a nascent group that is
studying and applying what might be the tip of the iceberg.
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Kurt,
It is already here! We have been encrypting Amateur Radio Part 97
digital
traffic 24/7 on 2.4 GHz for years! It is expanding in use in the Amateur
Radio VHF UHF bands
: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ..
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
OPINION is still allowed in this country
When it's not there will be no need for HAM radio.
IF the ARRL feels it's members are slandering it then
let us know ..
--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce,
Knock
buy that argument
(HI).
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: n2qz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:25:47 -0400
John Champa wrote:
So
Mathew,
I don't think the League is trying to control anything.
My guess is that the FCC simply isn't buying the concept!
Perhaps it looks too much like an enforcement nightmare.
73,
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Matthew Genelin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL
Bruce,
Knock off the generalized attacks, OK.
If that is the best you can do, then please shut up.
Thanks,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC
Bruce,
It is uncertain that a typical OFDM 5W signal spread over 100 kHz
would have enough power density to break the squelch
on an FM receiver.
In other words, FM rigs may not even hear the 100 kHz signal.
If they bother to open their squelch, they may note a slight
increase in background noise
Walt,
I think Rick has some good points here. The FCC has their own
agenda, and contrary to times past does NOT follow ARRL recommendations.
Again, I don't think the FCC is really all that much in favor of reg by BW.
We can send Bruce to DC. He'll talk some smarts into 'em. (HI)
73,
John
Guys,
Here is my guess...the ARRL would NOW love to do reg by BW,
but the FCC isn't buying it. They don't want to get into that
level of detail in any enforcement actions.
The agency may go along with it for VHF and UHF because the
impact is more local, but on HF their ability to enforce (or
Bruce,
Gee, I am starting to sound like Bonnie now!
But I think I have heard that before too! (HI)
What are you doing here anyway? Aren't you an AMer?
BTW, if it is any comfort to you, OFDM is sometimes defined
as a form of digital AM, so you should feel right at home (HI).
John
Erik,
I think you hit the nail on the head...
The FCC doesn't buy the approah of reg by BW!
At least not for HF. Just my guess.
John
Original Message Follows
From: list email filter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:
@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid
employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid.
To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people
(including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else
of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee
Dissenting Recommendation
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 -
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action
think the
RTTY/CW guys are livid right now ?
how many ARRL members will be left after this mess you
are proposing get going ? hopefully none .
They GAVE you 222 and up but untill you OWN all the
bands your kind will not be happy
It's the truth and you know it .
--- John Champa
know anyway (HI).
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:13:31
Dave,
Oh, that's great Dave!. Thanks a lot, partner. (HI)
Not that it's not an excellent proposal, mind you, but the
HSMM modes cover BRUCE's personally owned AM Worldwide
6M Calling spot @ 50.4 MHz!
I am the destroyer of worlds! (The Hunt for Red October?)
So now Bruce will be on constant
Bruce,
Do you ALWAYS over-react, of is that just for this reflector? ;o)
John
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
, not lowering the bar and making excuses.
If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's
acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to
the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL
OK. I'd be glad to helpif Bruce doesn't mind! (HI)
I haven't done a search yet. Does anyone have a copy of the protocol?
73,
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
Found this, but there not much activity yet...
http://www.eham.net/forums/Digital/3369
Original Message Follows
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI)
Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get
an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use
when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different
views on the same
Roger! I will await your posting on HFLINK.
Original Message Follows
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:28:10 -
Hey, knock it off Steve. Who are you to judge how I feel?
I have been licensed for almost 50 years and I have seen
regs come and go. I do care.
I am NOT saying I don't care! What I am saying is don't
replace your brain with the rule book. I worked closely
the League's legal staff for 4 years
happen
with that?
73,
KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Rick,
Paul as the CTO was our reporting person. However, he did not come
into the picture until the last year.
A lot of frustration had built up by then.
It was also his recommendation to the Board that the HSMM Working
Group
Dave,
You have made some good points about US hams having too many regs.
We seem to have this incestuous love affair with regs, or at least seem
to think we lack the ability to perform as good operators without them.
It has an impact on our performance and perspective, too! Please note
that
that a bit too risky and outside
of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the
directions that your group wanted to go.
The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be
difficult to steer the ship in a new direction.
KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Rick
Rick,
Those are good points. We must be careful about making
cross-cultural comparisons when discussing International regs.
We learned that big time in various gun control debates!
If we were to compare our radio regs to anyone, it should
probably be to Japan, and right off we can see problems
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:49 -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not
include the ARRL legal staff..
Prohibitions
Bruce, that is an extremely offensive posting.
I happen to LOVE 6M and have operated the
band for almost 50 years. Sorry, you feel the
way you do.
You are of course, in error once again.
The excellent response from John, KD6OZH,
clarified that our OFDM testing will not be
on the AM calling
Thank you, Bill! I couldn't have written it any better!
6M is a huge band, that even when it is red hot, as we
hope it is again in a few years, is very coveted by many
businesses, in addition to BPL.
The ARRL HSMM Working Group was trying to save 6M,
in addition to finding a spot to operate SS.
,
Rick, KV9U
bruce mallon wrote:
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
meters with 200 khz wide signals?
Nice very nice .
--- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rod,
I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined
majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
73,
Rick, KV9U
bruce mallon wrote:
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
meters with 200 khz wide signals?
Nice very nice .
--- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Wilco!
You're response has so much class and rationale.
Original Message Follows
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Date: Sun, 18 Mar
be changing...I think are
changing. I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the
OFs.
John Champa wrote:
PS - Rick is correct about one item. Those
policy recommendations were part of the reason
the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.
They didn't like hearing
Rick,
Paul as the CTO was our reporting person. However,
he did not come into the picture until the last year.
A lot of frustration had built up by then.
It was also his recommendation to the Board that the
HSMM Working Group be founded. That's why we
called him the Father of HSMM.
Paul was
Rick,
I was Ok until that last parargraph and then you fell off the creeen.
Have you ever done it?
It takes several months to get an STA, and it can easily
take 4-5 YEARS to get a reg change. Even
getting an FCC interpratation can take months!
My suggestion? Just get the protocol posted to a
Rod,
I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC
for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble?
Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established!
Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed?
I agree with LA4VNA. We have
Steve,
You just don't get it yet, partner. As long as nobody
complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't
really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police
anything.
IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out
your new mode experiment in the middle of their
net frequency, etc.
Poor Bonnie!
We are hitting you from both directions:
--some want better weak signal performance at the cost of speed (~HF)
--some want more speed at the cost of signal performance (~10M VHF)
Original Message Follows
From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
If you want to have a revolution, first you must kill all the lawyers.
William Shakespeare
Does that include barracks lawyers? Just kidding guys. Keep it light! HI
HI
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Bonnie,
If one more so called radio experimenter asks if something is legal,
tonight, I am going to go out and get drunk...which I really would
rather not do. I am getting too old for such foolishness. HI
73,
John,
K8OCL
PS - I found a store that will ship an ICOM IC-F7000 to my address in
such as
attached.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John Champa
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Poor Bonnie!
We are hitting
Rick,
Now that is some interesting research! More please.
Thanks,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007
Unless you are in MARS...
John, K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:29:44 -0400
Just a reminder to the USA
Haven't the HF-LINK folks been using this mode for over 5 years?
John. K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Date: Fri, 16 Mar
Bonnie,
Have you ever used HF-CPSHF?
John
Original Message Follows
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:27:04 -
John K8OCL
Bob,
I re-posted this on the HSMM list too ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Thanks and good luck!
John - K8OCL
Danny,
Yes, I have always thought that was a strange statement, too!
My experience would cause me to write something more like:
...eliminates an unnecessary regulatory burden that keeps many
otherwise technically well qualified individuals from enjoying the
benefits of Amateur Radio.
After
I don't think psychological testing would be required to
empty the 75M band. I am convinced that all it would
take is a tightly controlled reading test! They seem to
enjoy being considered red neck southern dumb. (HI)
I have never really wanted to operate CW before, but
for some strange reason
Chuck,
Guess I am no longer fully qualified as a Ham (HI).
What is a 10-36?
Tnx,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23
Date:
Well stated, John!
John - K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Movement toward open digital software?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:13:52 -0600
I First of all ,
Congratulations on your new patent approval, Bonnie.
I know what a long process that is!
Original Message Follows
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Coaxial Antenna System - Patent
UPS delivered my new IC-2200 2M FM xcvr today! ~$160
The tiny little UT-118 unit for D-Star is match box size!~$200
Doesn't seem right! Then I remembered the usual radio rule of thumb:
The smaller the package, the more it costs!
Think I will pretend the $20 rebate is on the tiny package.
Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's
sake?!
Not I, dear sir. Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that
crash was (HI).
Here is the League's strategy: Ask them for
Mark,
I think you might be correct!
TELL...I write again**TELL** the FCC what you want down to the last
detail.
If they don't respond in a reasonable period (90 days?), well, then ya got
it! (HI)
It's called management by exception, I think.
Although the League, to their credit, did
You would normally be correct.
However, again, the FCC does not give a %$# about Ham Radio!
That includes the ARRL and all the celebrities you can find.
Original Message Follows
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Yes, we asked for 200 kHz on 6M.
They proposed only 100 kHz. (HI)
Like Walt wrote, it's all relative.
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL
meters, even MFSK16 and
DominoEX have their limits, and that is under fairly good conditions in
the winter period of the northern hemisphere with low QRN. Low power,
modest antennas, still make digital modes a challenge at times with
normal keyboard speeds.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote
Remember the old story about the lone lawyer living in a small town?
He was nearly starving to death for lack of business.
Then another lawyer moved to the little town, and then they both prospered
(HI).
JJC
Original Message Follows
From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that post only took a few minutes! Go figure.
Original Message Follows
From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14075 , various modes.
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:10:22 -0500
Me too
Rod Mitchell, KL1Y, has written an article for QEX to appear in a Spring
2007 issue. In it he describes how he made a data link from his wireless
laptop using 802.11 modulation to HF.
I forwarded some of the topics we have been discussing on this reflector,
and here is his response:
Hi John,
Correct me, if I am wrong, but one does not have to change the monitor to
get better resolution, right? Can't you simply change the video card in the
PC? That would be a lot less expensive!
John, K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: cesco12342000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed,
Nobody said it is available now, only that a solution is possible.
Bob even
pointed out that any solution may be too expensive anyway.
If we can pause for a minute and stop thinking in strictly
All,
Somebody, not just Ed (HI), wrote to me off-list about this posting.
I reject my former positon as being simplistic and in error. Carry on ARRL!
73,
John - K8OCL
From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], digitalradio
have any problem critizing Ed Hare and by fiat, the
ARRL on their position on BPL interference mitigation.
Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everybody...please stop griping about
Antenna are important here, guys!
Are you using NVIS antennas, e.g., a dipole NMT 1/4 wave high, etc.
John - K8OCL
From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] local HF net successes
Date: Tue, 24 Oct
Ed,
Nobody said it is available now, only that a solution is possible. Bob even
pointed out that any solution may be too expensive anyway.
If we can pause for a minute and stop thinking in strictly analog terms,
then it is clear a solution is possible. For example, I work in a virtual
sea
Bruce,
Who did you say SMIRK was again? Just kidding!
Yes, we are using an established 6M calling frequency for a TEST. Don't you
do that sometimes too? Besides, it's the only portion of the band that is
classified as ALL MODE. Nobody uses Ancient Modulation (AM) anymore
anyway, right?
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
