Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s+FAQ\s+posted\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:02:38 -0600
The ARRL FAQ is up http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq I haven't had time to go through it yet. Ron K0IDT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lis
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00312.html (6,379 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Mark <n2qt@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:53:09 -0500
Basically, a "trust us". And if it goes all wrong, well something can be done eventually... Mark. N2QT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lis
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00323.html (7,304 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Don AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:47:15 -0800 (PST)
I don't understand this one: * Shouldnt 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?- While some commenters have argue
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00327.html (8,573 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:11:30 -0500
If its applicable, yet beyond the scope of their petition, than they should withdraw their petition and resubmit. Their petition wants to replace one outmoded restriction (symbol rate) yet keep the a
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00329.html (9,981 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:50:28 -0500
In fact that "complete reordering" is a lie. Other than allowing RTTY and data in areas where voice and image are currently authorized the *only( change might be to move the automatic digital segment
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00331.html (9,425 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:08:01 -0500
Don, This may help. Here are a couple of FAQ's they did not ask, here they are with my answers. "What is the current limitation on bandwidth of digital emission (except two-tone RTTY) at MF and HF?"
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00332.html (11,322 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Jay WS7I <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:24:44 -0800
That is a bunch of malarkey, they just don't want the phone operators in opposition. * Shouldnt 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the band segments where phone and image communi
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00333.html (8,914 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Jay WS7I <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:28:34 -0800
Their petition was for rule changes "to permit greater flexibility in Digital Data" this is entirely open ended. Moving wide data to where wide modes are used is of course a good idea. On 2/26/2014 1
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00334.html (8,867 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:30:02 -0500
Michael makes an excellent point. Content, modulation mode and bandwidth are intertwined when it comes to analog signals. With digital, all transmissions are syntactically identical, differering only
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00335.html (11,628 bytes)

10. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:30:27 -0500
It's known as divide and conquer. 73, ... Joe, W4TV * Shouldnt 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?- While som
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00336.html (9,301 bytes)

11. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Jim W7RY <w7ry@centurytel.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:35:10 -0800
I think you need to double check a few things here... Or can I fire up the old wide band generator on 160 meters and cover the entire band at once? 73 Jim W7RY "What is the current limitation on band
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00337.html (11,892 bytes)

12. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:33:51 -0500
Jim, Yes you can, as long as it strobes at a rate ("symbol rate") less than 300 baud, AND, it can't be just wide band noise. Iit must be a real digital signal. An OFDM (similar to WiFi) signal that w
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00349.html (13,772 bytes)

13. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:53:25 -0600
Yup, trust us. This is what one question/answer should look like Q. Did ARRL evaluate the potential for interference to RTTY, CW and narrow bandwidth data modes that could result from an increase in
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00352.html (9,222 bytes)

14. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:53:34 -0500
Ron, Answer: Wide bandwidths are not prohibited under today's rules. Bandwidths of up to 200 kHz depending on the MF-HF ham band (300 kHz at 10m band) are *permitted* today in the digital sections of
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00354.html (10,497 bytes)

15. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:25:48 -0500
Were we to see some lid or lids fire up with 300 KHz wide signals on 10 meters - or 200 KHz wide signals on 160 meters - ARRL and the FCC would quickly scramble to impose a bandwidth limit. 2.8 KHz i
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00355.html (13,109 bytes)

16. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:10:34 -0500
Currently, and applying broadly to the FCC term "RTTY", 97.307(f) - "The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exce
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00356.html (15,124 bytes)

17. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:34:21 -0500
97.307(f) is not the only limitation on data modes ... 97.3(c)(2) specifically limits image modes when transmitted as data to 500 Hz. This is where the Commission specifically told ARRL that is was n
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00357.html (15,976 bytes)

18. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:51:26 -0500
I'm not going to pursue this pointless debate. It's up to the FCC now. 73 Kai, KE4PT 97.307(f) is not the only limitation on data modes ... 97.3(c)(2) specifically limits image modes when transmitted
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00359.html (16,602 bytes)

19. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:32:16 -0500
Then stop being a shill for the commercial interests that want to destroy traditional amateur radio. 73, ... Joe, W4TV 97.307(f) is not the only limitation on data modes ... 97.3(c)(2) specifically l
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00360.html (17,174 bytes)

20. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted (score: 1)
Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:06:14 -0500
This straw man has quite some legs. You are 100% correct that wide bandwidth modes are legal as long as the symbol rate is limited. And that might be a problem if there actually were enough idiots ob
/archives//html/RTTY/2014-02/msg00364.html (17,782 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu