I read this as a good thing. Anyone else? Don AA5AU RTTY/Digital mode ops will find this proposal interesting. Follow the hyperlink for details. Dave Hachadorian, K6LL Big Bear Lake, CA -- SB QST @ A
_________________________________________________________ I like it too. One small problem is we would no longer be able to use conventional RTTY in the JA RTTY segment on 80 (3520-3525). Not a big d
_________________________________________________________ I like it too. One small problem is we would no longer be able to use conventional RTTY in the JA RTTY segment on 80 (3520-3525). I think we
Hi Bill I agree with you. It is important for each other to know a partner's situation. I appreciate your attention. btw It was very nice to QSO with you and many NA's on 40m in the SARTG 3rd period.
Hi Bill I agree with you. It is important for each other to know a partner's situation. I appreciate your attention. btw It was very nice to QSO with you and many NA's on 40m in the SARTG 3rd period.
Is it still an image if it's a JPG file sent by packet??? I thought the *whole point* of this exercise (going to bandwidth-based sub-bands instead of mode-based) was to get rid of these distinctions?
Hi Bill-san Thank you for many QSOs and LoTW QSL! Yes, that's right. First of all, 80m of JA is very narrow (3.500-3.575). Since a character set is small, conventional RTTY is not active in JA. Espec