Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+ARRL\s+Bandwidth\s+petition\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+ARRL\s+Bandwidth\s+petition\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Jim Monahan" <K1PX@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:17:27 -0400; The ARRL is soliciting comments on consideration of regulating subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode. It appears that this is to include the HF bands, as indicated below, but there is no mention; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00086.html (11,038 bytes)
2. RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:41:06 +0000; The ARRL is soliciting comments on consideration of regulating subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode. It appears that this is to include the HF bands, as indicated below, but there is no mention; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00090.html (8,298 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: Earl W Cunningham <k6se@juno.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:04:26 -0700; "The ARRL is soliciting comments on consideration of regulating subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode. "It appears that this is to include the HF bands, as indicated below, but there is no mentio; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00091.html (6,993 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Ford Peterson" <ford@cmgate.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:03:30 -0500; Oh boy... Here come the flames... It seems to me this has been debated here before. The conclusion this Op came to back then was that dividing it up would create another 40M. What a mess! Canadians a; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00092.html (7,513 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:19:20 -0400; It seems to me this has been debated here before. The conclusion this Op came to back then was that dividing it up would create another 40M. What a mess! Canadians and Europeans working the world bel; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00093.html (9,786 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Ford Peterson" <ford@cmgate.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:23:30 -0500; ...SNIP... Your reasons and rationale are compelling. Perhaps my view is tainted by my own values, values not shared by others. That value being that I personally hate the encroachment of government; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00094.html (9,878 bytes)
7. RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Tod - ID" <tod@k0to.us>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:02:21 -0500; See Tom's comment below: My comment is that I do NOT want to change the 40 meter allocations so that Europeans can move up to 7.150 etc. Working simplex on 40 meters is a sure way to eliminate compet; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00095.html (9,105 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:28:23 -0400; Your reasons and rationale are compelling. >> They aren't my reasons. It's all just the way it works! The FCC was established because our Government (at one time) understood Congess, Senate, and the; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00096.html (11,854 bytes)
9. Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Jim Monahan" <K1PX@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:46:13 -0400; There are presently no subbands on 160m, so that's why it's not mentioned. My planned comments (as usual) to the ARRL are to suggest that 160m be segmented into subbands. That'll fall to deaf ears (a; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00099.html (11,041 bytes)
10. RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:46:49 +0000; "The regulation of emission modes in Amateur Radio Service allocations is a limiting factor with respect to Amateur Radio experimentation," a synopsis of the petition concludes. "It leads to attempts; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00101.html (10,087 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Jim Monahan" <K1PX@msn.com>; Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:03:06 -0400; "K4KYV wrote: I can see the rationale of reserving some space for narrow-band modes like CW and PSK-31, to protect against interference from wideband sources such as analog voice. But if there is to; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00106.html (12,292 bytes)
12. RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:15:32 -0400; Unfortunately, the Ad Hoc Digital Committee was heavily stacked with supporters of "semi-automatic" message forwarding systems. their proposal, adopted without discussion by the ARRL allows these sy; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00107.html (10,365 bytes)
13. Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition (score: 1): Author: "Howard Teller" <hteller@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:08:05 -0400; Jim, I can't work 160m because I don't have room for a 160m antenna in my attic, so it does not affect my operations on 160m, but as I read it, the ARRL proposed petition eliminates *all* restriction; /archives//html/Topband/2004-08/msg00108.html (10,860 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]