Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s+Vision\s+of\s+the\s+future\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s+Vision\s+of\s+the\s+future\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:48:35 -0500; Its currently the year 2020. In mid year 2014 the FCC approved RM-11708 which de-regulated the CW/RTTY bands allowing unspecified digital wide bandwidth codes in the current CW/RTTY band segments. Fo; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00075.html (8,605 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:53:05 -0400; I'm pretty sick of this doom and gloom crap about necessary updates to our massively outdated regulations. 73, Paul, N8HM _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contes; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00076.html (9,310 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:06:45 -0500; Paul, Everyone's opinion should be represented and respected. But you may get a more sympathetic response if you were to counter with some facts of your own - or at least some creativity (which Terry; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00077.html (11,139 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: Jay WS7I <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:10:26 -0700; Okay, I would suggest hitting the delete key, however, why are these updates necessary? Why are these regulations outdated? Gross generalization that is not proven in any facts. There is nothing hold; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00078.html (8,174 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:45:05 -0400; Jay, to answer your queries ... Why is this necessary? Today's rules do not regulate bandwidth, you can use much more than 100 kHz legally (the whole CW/data segment) as long as the symbol rate is le; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00079.html (11,846 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: Jay WS7I <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:05:30 -0700; On 3/14/2014 11:45 AM, Kai penned his view: Today's rules do not regulate bandwidth, you can use much more than 100 kHz legally (the whole CW/data segment) as long as the symbol rate is less than 300; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00080.html (13,909 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:37:44 -0400; I'm sick and tired of those who claim it is necessary to kill the patient in order to save it. If ARRL truly wanted to prevent digital modes greater than 2800 Hz in the Cw/RTTY bands and still allow; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00081.html (10,775 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]