Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Protecting\s+our\s+frequencies\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Protecting\s+our\s+frequencies\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:00:12 -0000; When they're working , amateur satellites project the largest utilization footprint on the planet of any other aspect of amateur radio. You might consider that populating C band (5 GHz) and X band (; /archives//html/RFI/2004-04/msg00128.html (7,184 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:56:31 -0700; _________________________________________________________ I would gladly trade all of our UHF/SHF bands for a broadcast-free 40 meters. The future of ham radio is HF. Amateur satellites are a huge wa; /archives//html/RFI/2004-04/msg00131.html (8,384 bytes)
3. RE: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:16:26 -0000; Well, Bill, I think you're being a bit short sighted, with respect to future use of microwave bands. But you're right on the money with respect to commercial development vs. amateur work, in the last; /archives//html/RFI/2004-04/msg00132.html (11,424 bytes)
4. Re: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:14:34 -0700; That's one area where we part company, Jim. The ability to "work DX 24/7" is not confined to ham radio; existing commercial satellite technology already does that via radio and the internet does it v; /archives//html/RFI/2004-04/msg00134.html (8,513 bytes)
5. Re: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: "N6KJ" <kelly@thejohnsons.ws>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:52:55 -0700 (PDT); Here's Corridor Systems' Comments on the BPL NPRM. http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cginative_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516182326 _______________________________________________ RFI mailing; /archives//html/RFI/2004-04/msg00136.html (7,326 bytes)
6. RE: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <eedwards@oppd.com>; Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:04:41 -0500; Funny, Everything you said about the Satellite bands also applies to the HF/VHF bands as well. Are you also appalled that a few tinkering HF hams would stand in the way of the usefulness of HF-BPL fo; /archives//html/RFI/2004-04/msg00139.html (8,098 bytes)
7. Re: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 07:14:51 -0700; One huge difference is our HF bands have little or no commercial value, just the opposite of the UHF/SHF bands. Unlike many sky-is-falling hams, I see BPL as a non-issue for two reasons: 1. FCC rules; /archives//html/RFI/2004-05/msg00000.html (7,276 bytes)
8. Re: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Dave NØRQ <n0rq-1@dfwair.net>; Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 09:57:42 -0500; The more we holler about BPL (and we should!), the more will be done to make it less disastrous before it goes live. I hope. The ARRL is right to fight it, and though we might not win the battle, we; /archives//html/RFI/2004-05/msg00002.html (8,419 bytes)
9. RE: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Ed -K0iL <eedwards@tconl.com>; Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 12:03:20 -0500; One huge difference is our HF bands have little or no commercial value, just the opposite of the UHF/SHF bands. Bill, No offense meant, but what the heck are you smoking? As long as hams are using th; /archives//html/RFI/2004-05/msg00008.html (10,338 bytes)
10. Re: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 08:15:09 -0700; _________________________________________________________ Non-smoker here. Ed, do you understand the difference between a frequency assigned for TRANSMITTING and one assigned to be used over wires? M; /archives//html/RFI/2004-05/msg00010.html (7,928 bytes)
11. RE: [RFI] Protecting our frequencies (score: 1): Author: Ed -K0iL <eedwards@tconl.com>; Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:46 -0500; Of course I do Bill, but with BPL we are not talking about putting these HF signals over twisted pair, cat 5, or shielded cable or some other appropriate medium. We are talking about placing them ont; /archives//html/RFI/2004-05/msg00021.html (9,473 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]