Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

as necessary within the maximum bandwidth allowed in that segment. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:55 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

At 06:49 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital >frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters. >Bob, AA8X Yeah right. Let's do away with contesting. Ham radio would be like watching paint dry. I don't understand just what you mean by "dig

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

and segment segregation? > > > > My $0.02 > > > > Michael > > > > > > _ > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of W2XJ > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM > To: digitalradi

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

> > > _ > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of W2XJ > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio > Technology? >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

W2XJ wrote: > > Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the > unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I > participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be > a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just > playing p

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

> It will prevent present digital data technologies > for time-division sharing of frequencies. Time-division the winlink way means winlink will grab the frequency when it feels like it and the rest of modes may share what's left. I do NOT want that. Automatic stations should be operated i

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

-0500 > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio > Technology? > > Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated > claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various > digital modes but I know that they

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: > --- In digitalradio@ <mailto:digita

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Hum . I dont see any move to kill digital. Digital stiil can do what they want above 219 mhz and thats where it BELONGS ... When 219 and up is full worry about HF . --- W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more than 500 hertz bandwidth sh

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics. expeditionra

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? > > Good question. Bonnie? > The primary objective of the petition is to attack Winlink2000 on HF. The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000. There is tremendou

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

The Cw segments should not be subverted for questionable digital modes that are really last century's news. Phil Barnett wrote: > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote: > > >>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band >>modes, there must be an investigati

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band >>modes, there mus

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:09:28 am Roger J. Buffington wrote: > OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? Good question. Bonnie?

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band > modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa?

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

nal treaty when more efficient and narrower bandwidth transmitters were developed. _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:19 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Will Y

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote: > I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band > modes, there must be an investigation. That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference by some specific mode.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. Phil Barnett wrote: > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote: > >>>an attempt to prevent the >>>destruction of ham radio as we know it. >> >>The same thing was said

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

expeditionradio wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > , "Barry Garratt" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > HUH! > > > > They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running > > then ? > > Spark. > > Bonnie KQ6XA Yes, CW replac

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

I think you should cite a creditable reference unless you can prove that you were operating spark in the early 1900s. expeditionradio wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Garratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>HUH! >> >>They didn't want CW! >>What mode were the spark gap op

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote: > > an attempt to prevent the > > destruction of ham radio as we know it. > > The same thing was said by spark gap operators > when they didn't want CW. Yeah, but with some major differences. Spark was tearing up the whole band. Tha

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Garratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > HUH! > > They didn't want CW! > What mode were the spark gap operators running then ? Spark. Bonnie KQ6XA

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? > an attempt to prevent the > destruction of ham radio as we know it. The same thing was said by spark gap operators when they didn't want CW. Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Phil Barnett wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote: > >> How will this RM will KILL digital radio? > > > > It will prevent present digital data technologies that now use > > normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing of > > frequencies. It will kill n

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

> an attempt to prevent the > destruction of ham radio as we know it. The same thing was said by spark gap operators when they didn't want CW. Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more than 500 hertz bandwidth should be allowed. Any kind of automatic transmission should be prohibited below 28 MHz. The petition is an attempt to prevent the destruction of ham radio as we know it. expeditionradio wrote: >>Mark WD4ELG wrote: >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote: > >  How will this RM will KILL digital radio?   > > It will prevent present digital data technologies that > now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing > of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast > digit

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

> Mark WD4ELG wrote: > Hey Bonnie > You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you > could educate me. ... > Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make > an educated comment to the FCC: Hi Mark, I will attempt to answer your questions, one by one, below: > How will

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Hey Bonnie You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate me. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to digital modes. I hear a lot of increased-bandwidth transmissions in the RTTY subbands (7070 area, 14080 area). I understand that many of these are unattended. I have issues wi