The message calling it a "terrible" petition was posted by none other than Bonnie, KQ6XA, the HFLINK/ALE queen. Just one more of her self-serving paranoid rants. RM-11392 is only bad if you're one of
You guys will get a kick out of this... I posted a message to the IllinoisDigitalHam group at Yahoo groups calling the "soundings" by ALE (Automated Link Establishment) stations illegal one-way trans
His first response was just a quote of 97.111(b), which I am quite familiar with (permitted one-way transmissions). I wrote back that I was really looking for an authoritative opinion on whether ALE
Here is the reply from Chuck Skolaut at the ARRL.... looks like we'll have to get an official FCC ruling on it. George, KA3HSW --Forwarded Message-- _______________________________________________ RT
Have to disagree with you on the soundings, Andy... re-read Bonnie's explanation of what soundings are and how they work: her very first point says "... ALE sounding is simply a station ID. No other
You may soon see a big change in the way ALE is done on the ham bands, or its disappearance altoghether... Riley's initial response to my inquiry is that he feels I am correct on all counts. He has f
[snip] I'd love to know what she's saying about me over on the Yahoo HFLINK group, but you have to be a member to read messages, and there's NO way she'd ever approve me for a membership now! 73, Geo
So far, according to the moderator of the IllinoisDigitalHam group, who is also a member of the HFLINK forum, there has been nothing said on the HFLINK group about the fact that their favorite mode i
Bill, here's what I would do: e-mail the PropNet guru whose messages you forwarded to me (thank you) and send him the following message (feel free to copy and paste): "Dear Sir: Part 97.3(a)(9) defin
Not sure what you mean "The dumb ARRL approved it."... I didn't see anything in that article that referenced PropNet, and the ARRL can't overrule the FCC rules. The article is basically just a "yeah,
Just sent to Steve Ford, WB8IMY: I was very disappointed to read your glowing endorsement of PropNet in the March QST "Eclectic Technology" column. If you have been monitoring PropNet for any period
Follow-up: Steve Ford is out of the office until Monday, 2/25, so I won't hear anything until then. I have also started a thread at QRZ.com in the Open Forums "Talk and Opinions" area ( http://forums
I made mention of your experience over on the QRZ forum, but it would be great if you would post it yourself. George --Original Message-- _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing
Disappointing response from Steve Ford.... --Forwarded Message-- _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtt
Anybody got any screenshots of interference to an ongoing QSO from a PropNet beacon? I took someone at their word when they told me that there were examples on QRZ.com, and repeated their claim, with
I didn't say it was you, Bill... it wasn't even someone from this group! George --Original Message-- _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists
Except for the whole prohibition against automatically controlled beaconing below 28.200 thing....... (97.203(d)) ;-) _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting
However, there are only TWO U.S. stations that were granted a waiver of 97.203(d) by the FCC to participate in the NCDXF/IARU beacon network. No one else is authorized to operate an automatically con