You really had me going with the length of time it takes to get an STA.
Glad to hear it is of a more reasonable time. I do wish they would allow
longer STA testing periods, but I quite agree that since they will
likely allow any reasonable experiment, you are fairly safe in getting
the everythi
rst
> John KD6OZH must get it to work! (HI).
>
> 73,
> John - K8OCL
> Former HSMM Chairman
>
>
> Original Message Follows
> From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:
To:
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:25:56 -0500
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good
reference. I have not maintained that page since 2005. Much has
happened since then and I need to take it down since it is ver
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 a
t: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as:
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html
It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not
requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the re
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as:
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html
It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not
requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results
published since the 2001 inception?
What
8OCL
> Former HSMM Chairman
>
>
> Original Message Follows
> From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600
>
> Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and
eply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500
Walt,
It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing
technology group as if it had done its job. We have
Walt,
It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing
technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this
technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request
continued, if not even, expanded activity.
Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on th
DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600
Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and
with
a new Presid
d <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
>
> OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Pleas
John
I SUPPORT any change that allows NEW forms of radio
however anyone knows those changes need to take place
on bands and with new modes that will not displace
existent users.
"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
OTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:31:05 -0400
John,
I beg to differ, I do get and from time to time I will offer comments
to assist someone else who may not be
.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J
At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
>Bruce
Rick,
You are not in possession of all the facts.
The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and
other modes on frequencies above HF.
The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish
the
task.
The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter
by anybody else. Read the
book "200 Meters and above" if a history lesson is needed.
Hope that helps.
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digita
te SS.
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:18:24 -0700
> Th
John,
I beg to differ, I do get and from time to time I will offer comments
to assist someone else who may not be sure of how to proceed with new
technology in the age of rapid software modem developments.
However with your approach, sooner or later if you have not already,
you will likely re
OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J
At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
>different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally
> This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
> meters with 200 khz wide signals?
Not destroy it - save it...
Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders. Today its the last
bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while
the real world technologies of digital wide
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 freque
Bruce,
You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
It seems to me that the mos
s down the
> road.
>
> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
> wonderful avocation!
>
> 73,
> John
> K8OCL
>
>
> Original Message Follows
> From: Rodney Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digital
frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK.
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: AAR2EY/AAA9DHT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2
egs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road.
Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation!
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Rodney Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: R
Ok , I was only curious . Every time someone discover a new mode or
rediscover an old one like this MIL-STD-188-110 modem, this U.S. FCC
rules initialize the same discussion .
Don't forget the rest of the world. It is not very interesting to have
to read through a lot of text with the same old
I strongly recommend that any new mode specifications be placed on the
ARRL site with all the other mode specifications. Then anyone can refer
to them easily. You do not have to be an ARRL member to access this
information. It is a bit hard to find under support/regulatory
information/FCC rules
Sir,
There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and because
crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them. Not to mention that
there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of NEW ideas and
some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some s
Hi Steiner,
It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have
to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but
unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC
will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail
protocol is lega
My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's
not legal under your "FCC Part 97" ?
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut.
>
> The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data mod
Hi Tony,
I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut.
The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under
FCC Part 97 for data.
Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link
Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is know
e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode"
guidelines
> KT2Q wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up
>> everytime a
>> new mode is introduced. Lif
KT2Q wrote:
> All:
>
> The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a
> new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try
> and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be
> useful to have a list of guidelines to help
> determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not.
>
> It should be to
All:
The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a
new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try
and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be
useful to have a list of guidelines to help
determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not.
It should be to the point and concise; somethi
35 matches
Mail list logo
