Where did you hear that?
It's certainly not true.
1.7 MHz is the split in some areas,
but others use 0.5, 1.0, or 1.6 MHz.
Joe M.
The 1.7 mhz is the new aloted band
plan split for 6 meter band in the US.
Those and the local bandplan in your area. There is no national 6M
bandplan in the repeater sub-bands.
In fact, there is no national bandplan in ANY of the repeater sub-bands.
The last one that was national was 440, but that saw its demise with
part of CA changing to 20 kHz channel spacing
Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they
apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue.
True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get
involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the
bandplan and the
Most antenna specs in the band are for 800 kHz max. That's why our area
has 500 kHz splits - for duplexed repeaters. We also have 1.0 MHz
splits. As any 1.7 MHz bandplan would destroy the 500 kHz split band, I
don't foresee that happening here anytime soon. There is also the fact
that everyone
Sounds like they are using a DPL - any of which will have the turn off
code of 134.0 Hz transmitted at the end of the transmission.
Joe M.
n9lv wrote:
I have the analog MSF5000 repeater that has the Cat300DX repeater
controller installed. Not sure if this has been this way all along,
but
What's to know? The top button can be channels or PL depending on the
programming. The scan button is obvious. The menu button takes care of
the rest.
Joe M.
n9wys wrote:
Anyone have (perchance) a copy of LBI38377 – Operator’s Manual for the
M-PA portable? I was just *_given_* one (a UHF
Tram antennas are. well, let's just say you got what you paid for. I
don't think I've ever seen a similar antenna that was lower in cost.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently in Montana and working on a ham repeater using a Tram antenna.
I seem to have a lot of desense. Have
In the USA, anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason.
They don't have to even have a valid case to file a suit. Granted, it
won't 'go far', and they will most likely lose (unless you get a judge
who likes to make law rather than interpret it), but they can still file
against you.
So,
That would be an interesting case.
Does any group of people have the right to demand use of YOUR license
and YOUR equipment? Remember - these are not public transmitters - they
are private transmitters owned by you and the license is granted to you.
As such, the FCC is on record as confirming
Their offender status doesn't matter. You can ban anyone from your
repeater for any reason at any time. Do what was suggested - write them
a registered letter and CC the FCC. Then, if they still use your
repeater the FCC may be able to take action against them.
I can't think of any rule that
That statement implies that they have a civil right to use your station.
The FCC is quite clear that you are responsible for your own station,
and you have the right to say who uses or does not use your repeater.
They have no right to force you to allow them to use your repeater.
Joe M.
Jim
GLB made them and called them a channelizer.
Joe M.
Wayne wrote:
There were some frequency synthesizers made for the GE Prog lines, and a
few others, back in the 70's to 80's, though I think they were mainly for
ham radio use.
I had, for a while, a prog line base on 2 meters with a
There are no 1st amendment rights on a private
list. It's what you want to allow - period.
Joe M.
Scott Zimmerman wrote:
Tom and all,
Since the list postings on this topic have moved on, let's let well enough
alone. If you feel that I am infringing on your 1st amendment rights; by all
Which for the record is exactly typical for a 1-hour show. 40 minutes of
content and 20 minutes of commercials. The same is true for 30 minute
shows - 20 minutes of show plus 10 minutes of commercials.
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
Saves a hell of a lot of time too... a 1 hour show took about
Spec is either 500 Hz or 750 Hz (0.5 kHz or 0.75 kHz) depending on who
you 'talk to'.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
PL is usually aroung 800 Hz. 1 K little high, but should not cause a problem
unless the problem radio's PL circuits are being over driven.
I would get the problem radios on a
I guess I should clarify that. Talk to means depending on whose
manufacturer's specs you are looking at. Some are 500, and some are 750
for NBFM.
Joe M.
MCH wrote:
Spec is either 500 Hz or 750 Hz (0.5 kHz or 0.75 kHz) depending on who
you 'talk to'.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
PL
Sounds like a government spec... when 15 is really 12.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
I would think one could get 15 amps due to the breaker able to handle it or
are 15 amp breakers designed to trip at just above 12 amps???
73, ron, n9ee/r
Or the MTR2000.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
The MSR2000 does not have a syntheser...it is crystal controlled. Maybe you
are thinking of the MSF5000, hi.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: nj902 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/07/16 Wed AM 11:07:26 EDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
I've been trying to get a replacement cable for a Hygain HG-52SS. They
recommended TT as the only possible (emphasis on that word) source.
So, who would you recommend for them?
Joe M.
Larry Wagoner wrote:
At 05:11 PM 6/24/2008, you wrote:
Doesn't Texas Towers and other such vendors sell
I'm pretty sure my RX has the ability to ignore the test message. I know
I ignore virtually all advisories, most watches, and even some warnings.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
Joe,
I don't think you can block the weekly test unless it is sent as what
one might call a test to all SAME code
Don't tubes age just sitting on a shelf? What year were they made?
Joe M.
Thomas Oliver wrote:
I still have a bunch of brand new tubes for Mastr Pro Stuff.
tom n8ies
[Original Message]
From: JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: 5/23/2008 9:15:53 PM
If it had the FM exciter, that's a pretty good deal.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5/23/2008 16:39, you wrote:
Dayton 2008 Chuckle (Tac-Tec - humor)
Just another Dayton 2008 bit of seller humor. One flea market
space had a stack of 6 large RCA Tac Tec Mobiles for sale at a
modest
Naaa... that was Naked Gun 2 1/2. (followed by Naked Gun 3 1/3)
Hot Shots used Part Deux.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:04 PM 5/21/2008, you wrote:
If you watch any of the I love the 70's, 80's or 90's TV Programs
on MTV or VH1... they been using the Part Deux hook for some years
You won't once they find out you did the 'end around' on them!
They will freeze/suspend your account.
Joe M.
Brian wrote:
As I had used a debit card for this I just called them and explained the
situation. They put the remainder of the money in my checking account
the next day and that
When it comes to a coordination, what term CAN you use with the FCC
since they have no term for the holder of a coordination? You can't call
that person a licensee since the coordination is not a license.
Trustee is an appropriate term in any sense of the word since that
person is entrusted
.
73, ron, n9ee/r
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM, MCH wrote:
When it comes to a coordination, what term CAN you use with the FCC
since
are welcome.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM, MCH wrote:
When it comes to a coordination, what term CAN you use with the FCC
since they have no term for the holder of a coordination? You can't
call that person a licensee since the coordination is not a license
or not. When
hams communicate with the FCC or try to interpret the regs
with undefined or incorrect vocabulary, misunderstandings arise.
(Remote base comes to mind.)
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
*From:* MCH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Repeater-Builder
Don't confuse auxiliary operaton with a Remotely controlled station.
The latter was quite legal in 2M even before the rules change.
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote:
Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for
auxiliary stations. Anybody dared
Hmmpf... to sit hear and be insulted... calling me an attorney...
sheesh. ;-P (no disrespect to the law professionals on the list). I'm
not one of them (other than knowing my responsibilities and rights), and
I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But, I am in a
different
There is no specifics for AUX in the WPA bandplan (on purpose). People
using SkyCommand and the like are encouraged to use the 145.510 -
145.670 MHz segment on a SNP basis.
Joe M.
Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote:
Ron,
Have you seen any sort of bandplan for auxiliary operation on 2 meters
But the users at the control points transmit. In WPA, such links are
coordinated for a particular radius in which the station is
coordinated. It helps assure that the receiver does not receive
interference from other such links.
Joe M.
Kris Kirby wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote:
So what's the answer:
1. Try to make room elsewhere for D*
or
2. Encourage Icom to make dual mode repeaters so those with analog
systems can simply swap them out and support both modes.
I would try for the latter in the spirit of cooperation and upgrade ease
on the part of the users.
Once
A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something.
A trustee is a person *entrusted* with something.
(That's the legal definition of a trustee)
That something could be a repeater or a coordination or a license, or
any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'm trustee of
all
How could they stop it when they are still issuing vanity club calls
(which a local club just got one of within the last month or so)?
BTW, all licenses have trustees. All repeaters have trustees. All
coordinations have trustees. When the time comes there is no trustee for
any one of these,
According to the math, 15 kHz won't work for analog repeaters.
The math is also responsible for the umpteen 6M bandplans in use
across the USA.
It's not pure math. If only it were It's more art and opinion than
pure math.
Joe M.
Bill Powell wrote:
Do the math: If you can't divide the
Every repeater has a trustee just like every license has a trustee. It
may not be the same person, but often times it is. My local coordination
entity requires that *IF* the trustee of the coordination is a club, the
trustee is the trustee for the FCC license.
Now, can we get off the semantics
Depends on the coordinator's policies.
Joe M.
w2drh wrote:
I think I must be confused. I was under the misapprehension that if
one modified the physical location (moved the repeater), had their
license expire, moved out of the area (where direct control of the
repeater was not possible), or
A simple flip flop chip should work nicely.
Joe M.
Rich Summers wrote:
I need to build a simple circuit to enable a voice scrambler in a radio.
What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a button so that the
activation lead goes to ground and when this happens I need an led
indication
For that matter, why not just a toggle switch?
Joe M.
Rich Summers wrote:
I need to build a simple circuit to enable a voice scrambler in a radio.
What I need is a momentary contact by pressing a button so that the
activation lead goes to ground and when this happens I need an led
indication
contact to
switch off the board. This contact will be using an
enable wire from the board and another wire that is a
ground. I think a flip flop MAY be the way to go. I
was also wondering if there is a push button switch
that has 2 spst contacts?
Thanks.
--- MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I think the difference is 2.1 dB.
Joe M.
I think what ever standard, dbi or dbd, one can interupt the
differences. The main problem is the number in front...is it real.
Most Ham antennas it is not and only db should be stated and can be
interuped as dbwn...db with respect to a wet noodle
You know a lot of this problem could go away of they would only make
dual mode repeaters like P25 systems are. Then, you could replace an
existing repeater and simply ADD the D-STAR mode to the area. That way,
you could have just as many D-STAR repeaters as analog repeaters with
the same
I haven't had as many problems with lightning and the fiberglass
antennas as I have with wind causing fractures in the connections
between the elements. In the case of the coasts, you have to deal with
that AND salt, so I doubt there is any good solution.
The above said, I do believe the 224
So what color(s) did you use to camouflage them?
Joe M.
Scott Overstreet wrote:
Hello All
A couple of years ago I needed to camoflodge several new fiberglass
antennas. I investigated spray can paints at the local home store and
came up with Rustolum's specialty Paint For
You don't care if the cup of water heats up - you are looking to see if
the painted cup heats up. The water is only there to prevent burning out
the microwave.
Joe M.
Burt Lang wrote:
Fine except for one problem. Water is an excellant absorber of the
microwaves used in the microwave ovens
procedure. I can see the
purpose of the water now although I still don't believe that an empty
oven will burn out easily. If that was true, most of the ovens in the
country would now be dead because most everyone is guilty of turning on
one with little or nothing in it.
Burt
MCH wrote
That was a problem in the mid-80s on 147.135 out there.
Anytime you get a huge audience like that, and get a group of people who
may have had a few too many, you can expect problems. Or, maybe it's
someone who doesn't like the Hamvention.
Part of the problem too is say you track it down to a
Oh - there are lots of ways to him him (or her - let's be PC here). But,
enforcement is another issue entirely. By the time all the hoops are
jumped through, the event is over and the person is likely hundreds or
thousands of miles away if they are not a local. Face it - they may not
even be
Look into a device made by Quickmount (I think that's who made the dual
control head interface).
Although in the case of an ambulance, having dual radios would be
advantageous - the rear could be on the MED channel (or equal) while the
front remains on dispatch to keep tabs on what else is
Same difference if they cut the light power lines. Guess anyone with a
lit tower would be guilty of it, then.
Joe M.
Barry C' wrote:
Premeditated manslaugther .. MM nah thank but no thanks
To:
I thought towers and repeaters went together like chocolate and peanut
butter...
No, no difference - especially if it's marked like I said.
I've never seen the power lines for the tower lighting marked, so if
they cut through that or they cut through the tower lighting lines that
are fed via
. The station off the air
only upsets the tower/radio stn owners.
73, ron, n9ee/r
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/04/23 Wed AM 01:10:54 CDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] More on Copper theft
Same difference if they cut the light
Wow. Guess that power company will be
brought up on charger for manslaughter. ;-
Joe M.
Paul Finch wrote:
Guess you guys did not see the email floating around about the thief
that was stealing wire from a power substation and grabbed the wrong
wire with his insulated side cutters. Short
Well, how about feeding 220 (and I'm not talking the MHz variety)
through a piece of Heliax to feed something on the tower like a light?
(or even as an unterminated open circuit)
That way, when the cut through it with the rest, SURPRISE! The guy who
was stealing the cable will be the body
My way is prevention. Once they hit that Heliax, they don't be hitting
any more tower sites - preventing the next guy and likely saving some of
your lines.
Your way is just passing the problem on to the next site. (not meant
as criticism per se)
By weeding out all the scum, the problem is
But, they don't know the value of that, and likely don't have any
outlets to get money from it. But, they DO know the value of copper, and
there are plenty of scrap yards..
BUT, you would think that the first few cuts would have deterred them
since the majority of the metal is NOT copper - as
Gain is 4.5 dB. It's reduced from the 6 dB of the 150 MHz version since
they can't fit as many elements in it due to the frequency.
Not sure about the bandwidth offhand.
Joe M.
Joe wrote:
Does anyone have the spec sheet for the Super Stationmaster™ Omni
Fiberglass Antenna PD-220 for 2
I thought it was 4.5, but I'll accept your figure of 4.8 dB.
Interestingly enough, that Wiscointl link someone provided says 5.25 for
the entire 136-174 MHz segment (except the DT model).
Joe M.
Eric Lemmon wrote:
Joe,
RFS/Celwave continues to manufacture the Super StationMaster antennas
List NAME???
Joe M.
Paul Finch wrote:
Hello,
If interested there is now a Dayton Hamvention group on Yahoo. Sounds like
the Dayton people put it up to help, not many people on it yet. Just
thought I would mention it.
Paul
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Still waiting for the list name
Joe M.
MCH wrote:
List NAME???
Joe M.
Paul Finch wrote:
Hello,
If interested there is now a Dayton Hamvention group on Yahoo. Sounds like
the Dayton people put it up to help, not many people on it yet. Just
thought I would mention it.
Paul
I thought all the elements were fed in phase...
Joe M.
Eric Lemmon wrote:
And yes, one element fed out-of-phase will screw up the pattern.
But, they can get unstable at low temperatures.
Joe M.
Rob wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a number of GE Phoenix 2 channel VHF transceivers that make
good link radios, IRLP/Echolink, dedicated repeater monitors, weather
receivers, etc. Before they go up on eBay, I'd wanted to offer them here.
I would go with the .80/40 since both duplexers will be rejecting both
TXs nearly to the maximum. I would keep the UHF close for the same reasons.
Joe M.
johnmichaelwelton wrote:
We are investigating the possibility of adding 2M/440 DSTAR. At the
university, we currently have the following
Running 1 mile of feedline to the existing antennas?!? :-O ;-
Joe M.
DCFluX wrote:
I'd go with 50 to 100 kHz spacing from the analog channel and use
circulators for the transmitters and a spliter to allow operation
through the existing antenna and duplexer system, Like IBOC.
On 4/1/08,
Yes, there are devices to drop the voltage. Astron makes some.
There are also ones that will give you positive 13V from a negative 13V
system. (old Mack trucks, for example)
Joe M.
Rick Charlotte wrote:
I hope some one on the group can help me out here
I want to put a radio in a jeep
Actually, it is perfectly legal to have them there. The part that is
illegal is *transmitting* there. Many units have RX coverage on those
frequencies from the factory.
Joe M.
Paul Finch wrote:
Rob,
The Alinco equipment is NOT FCC type accepted for commercial service of
any kind.
I'll save you even more by buying your Angles for $3 each!
;-
Joe M.
Ken Arck wrote:
At 06:13 PM 2/28/2008, you wrote:
(click on the link and look at it - it's obviously intended for
a scanner. The $2 suggests that there probably isn't
much there...)
Awww damn! And here I was
, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point: The only scanners that support the new SNFM channels
are
those that also support trunking. Most scanners support trunking
these
days. You can get a scanner that supports SNFM and trunking for a
couple
hundred dollars. P25 scanners cost much
Actually, the 'RC' indicates a Micor Unified Chassis
and the 'B' indicates 120V AC Power source.
And the '1' listed as N/A means 25 kHz channel spacing for that band.
Joe M.
Eric Lemmon wrote:
Mike,
The C64RCB-3105AT (I'm pretty sure the Y is actually a T) station is
described as:
C =
Why can the same ID not be used for both
as long as it is part of the same system?
Joe M.
Kevin Custer wrote:
MCH wrote:
Are you talking about the ID aspect or the control (enable/disable TX)
aspect?
Joe M.
Both.
) than it is to buy a DTMF controller that has no ID functionality.
Kevin
MCH wrote:
Why can the same ID not be used for both
as long as it is part of the same system?
Joe M.
Kevin Custer wrote:
MCH wrote:
Are you talking about the ID aspect or the control (enable/disable TX
Ralph.
It's named, now. ;-
Seriously, it reminds me of an old aftermarket board. Does it use round
tone reeds?
Joe M.
Ronny wrote:
Picture in group files
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/photos/view/e85b?b=4
If you know what it is and/or have the pinout/docs for it I
612 Barnett Rd
Boswell, PA 15531
- Original Message -
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 10 Meter Repeater
Shouldn't the controller be at the 10M RX site so the link is ID'ed
Shouldn't the controller be at the 10M RX site so the link is ID'ed too?
It's the 10X TX site that can be 'dumb'. That's the way mine is.
Joe M.
Scott Zimmerman wrote:
Tom,
The method I have built for customers is using split sites. (transmitter at
one site and receiver at another) These
Sure. Why not?
Joe M.
Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco wrote:
Can you link the sites through the internet and they be most anywhere?
[Image]
Are you talking about the ID aspect or the control (enable/disable TX)
aspect?
Joe M.
Kevin Custer wrote:
MCH wrote:
Shouldn't the controller be at the 10M RX site so the link is ID'ed
too?
It's the 10X TX site that can be 'dumb'. That's the way mine is.
To be perfectly legal
John in Tucson
- Original Message -
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RC110 Group
That was my first thought, too.
But, when someone talks about the dead RC110 group, and you post
with the RC110 group in terms of activity?
Or was your 'Duh!' meant for yourself because you misread the post?
Joe M.
WD7F - John in Tucson wrote:
Duh !
- Original Message -
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:13 PM
It should not matter what direction(s) they are pointed in. As you said,
they can be changed from omni (all 4 directions) to all in one direction
without changing anything else. It's all the same antenna.
You can point two in one direction and the other two 90 degrees off
those and leave a null
The 210 group is different than the 110 group.
Joe M.
WD7F - John in Tucson wrote:
Really? I get mail from [RC210] rc210 at yahoogroups.com every day.
Wonder what that's about.
- Original Message -
From: DCFluX
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 25,
Is that published somewhere?
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an HT1550 portable in the 450-512 split. There is a hack to let
it operate on 440 frequencies, and it works. Unfortunately, it
involves using field programming so that is the only model that will
work. Hope that helps.
go several MHz out of band without issue. Try doing
that with a CDM. I know of nobody who has gotten one to do 449.9875 and
470.0125 in one radio.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:23:58 -0500, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Motorola has become very ham
.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buying A$TRO radios is not an acceptable answer. As for the
Spectras,
I've had no problem with a UHF Spectra going to 440 and 470. The
only
thing I hate about them is the primitive CSQ channel priority. Even
Name two that were designed within the last 5 years.
I don't care how many older radios would or how long Motorola has made
radios so they still have a large percentage of radios that will. I want
a modern radio that will cover 440-476 MHz.
I know I can get an 80s radio that will, and I know
to be done by a firmware/software hack in the radio .. not
the CPS. If anyone is up to that, I would love to know.
James
MCH wrote:
That's my point. I don't want to use a radio made 15 years ago - I want
to use a current model (A CDM for example). These radios will not go out
of band
I can't give you a case, but the reason is because it would be a beacon
which is not allowed on the repeater bands. (although many repeaters do
that)
Joe M.
George Henry wrote:
Can anyone point me to the specific enforcement case or warning letter where
the FCC first said that regular,
system on it. You will never hear any other channels.
The Maxtrac would go several MHz out of band without issue. Try doing
that with a CDM. I know of nobody who has gotten one to do 449.9875 and
470.0125 in one radio.
Joe M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:23:58 -0500, MCH [EMAIL
Most of the newer Motorola radios are like that. If the band is X to Y,
forget about taking it to Y.005. The radio will do it, but the SW will
not.
I wish I could get a 27 MHz spread out of an HT750 to do 444-473 MHz. So
far, nobody has been able to do it.
I just programmed a radio yesterday
But, how is that related to the transition to digital? The same could
have happened with simple channel reassignment.
Joe M.
Hap Griffin wrote:
Actually, there will be a huge amount of spectrum freed up. Currently, the
television allocation is from channel 2 through channel 69. After
over a half million $$$ in electrical costs per year. We
expect it to be cut to about one third of that after next
year.
Hap Griffin
WZ4O
- Original Message -
From: MCH
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent
N8DJP
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone else here seen the bull put out by NTIA on
https://www.dtv2009.gov/FAQ.aspx
=
1. What is the digital television transition?
At midnight
Yes, PGH is all UHF. As I mentioned, look at Harrisburg's DTV
allocations. They have one on Channel 2.
(I pity their 6M activities as much as I rejoice PGH's channel 2 going
away)
Joe M.
Kevin Custer wrote:
MCH wrote:
will free up airwaves for use by emergency responders.???
The TV
I have yet to see any station share their DTV channel with another
station. (which would save spectrum)
So, there may be more content, but station WXYZ will still use the full
6 MHz. If my local area is any indication, they will simply add channels
such as full time traffic and WX. (like you need
Many of my local channels are using tags that have the ANALOG channel
name. For example, while KDKA TV-2 DTV is on channel 25, the tag is 2-1
which is what you enter to see that channel. Either they are going to
move back to channel 2 or things are going to get even more confusing if
you have a
--
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Many of my local channels are using tags that have the ANALOG
channel
name. For example, while KDKA TV-2 DTV is on channel 25, the tag is
2-1
which is what you enter to see that channel. Either they are going
to
move back to channel 2 or things are going to get
I checked NARCC and SCRRBA. Who has the 600 kHz splits?
Joe M.
skipp025 wrote:
Gareth describes a very creative application with frequency
agile receivers scanning various commercial repeater inputs.
In the ham world we've applied scanning repeater receivers to
our six-meter repeaters,
Has anyone else here seen the bull put out by NTIA on
https://www.dtv2009.gov/FAQ.aspx
=
1. What is the digital television transition?
At midnight on February 17, 2009, all full-power television stations in
the United States will stop
VSLEP is proprietary, isn't it? If so, it's not an open standard.
Joe M.
Dan Blasberg wrote:
Since when isn't VSLEP allowed on the ham bands?? It is IMBE just a
different scheme using the same vocoder.
Dan
KA8YPY
On Dec 28, 2007, at 6:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only
That's nice, but the ARRL does not make the rules, and I can find
nothing in Part 97 about AUX frequencies being limited to a single user.
There is a saying about opinions and how everyone has one. The ARRL is
no different.
Joe M.
Paul Plack wrote:
I'm afraid you've missed the ARRL's point.
301 - 400 of 1021 matches
Mail list logo
