Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+issues\s+Official\s+Reply\:\s+Re\s+2\.8KHz\s+HF\s+digital\s+BW\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM <wb2rhm@wb2rhm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:07:56 -0400
All, FYI-- We must have struck a nerve............ Here is the Official ARRL position, released ahead of the Sept Issue, because of our emails of concern.............. http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-c
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00119.html (7,208 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:20:32 -0700
As comforting to a CW op feels when I unleash 2.8 kHz wide digital signals down at 14.025 MHz, where I am authorized by the FCC to do. Wide signals and narrow signals just don't mix (I still remembe
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00120.html (9,199 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:33:18 -0500
The second link has actual content (the upcoming editorial) while the first is content free save for the second link. Typical, of course, of the "new" (not so new anymore) ARRL website. No mention at
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00121.html (8,044 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:07:29 -0400
Hi Chen The Henning Harmuth story was really interesting. I've run into his works during my tenure with Ultra Wideband and IEEE802 standards work. And folks worry here about 2.8 kHz BW signals! Thank
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00122.html (11,325 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Louis Ciotti <lciotti1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:50:41 -0400
I am not exactly impressed by this latest "in your best interest" from the ARRL, but for CW (that I am slowly learning) at least we technically have the entire band to use. At this point the ARRL sh
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00129.html (7,541 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:39:49 -0400
My opinion is that we should have the flexibility to do whatever we can do within a 2.8 kHz bandwidth (including multiple carrier modes, spread spectrum, etc.). I think voluntary band plans is good e
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00137.html (8,858 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato <iw1ayd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:06:01 +0200
No Paul. Let me strongly disagree with you, even if what you wrote is something that could be written under "good common sense". Unfortunately not common nor good are under metrics shared, so widely,
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00138.html (11,576 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:06:26 -0400
Hi Salvo, With all respect, and I don't want to criticize you but, when you say "ARRL body it's the same that denied the existence of RTTY by itself for the DXCC" you are of course referring to an ex
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00139.html (16,372 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:31:42 -0500
If I ready it right, I think that Joes original point was that this could turn into a step which would allow an easier path for commercial or unregulated use of the bands. While bandwidth vs. mode as
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00140.html (13,163 bytes)

10. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:08:39 -0400
Make that *further* commercial encroachment. The maritime interests are already using the bands illegally but pushing the bandwidth to 2.8 KHz and increasing data rat to 56K or better will make the b
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00142.html (13,568 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu