Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+20\s+m\s+users\'\s+net\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+20\s+m\s+users\'\s+net\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: k5uj@hotmail.com (Rob Atkinson, K5UJ); Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:37:03 +0000; It's my understanding that nets aren't allowed on 17. By "not allowed" I mean one of those considerate operator's band plan type agreements like no contests on warc. However, my source for this was a; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00046.html (7,863 bytes)
2. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: wn3vaw@fyi.net (Ron Notarius WN3VAW); Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:20:13 -0500; I've never heard before of a ban by anyone of nets on 17 meters (or 12 or 30 for that matter). The only "ban" is that due to the various limitations of the three WARC bands (small size, power limits; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00048.html (9,072 bytes)
3. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com (Gary Hoffman); Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:44:53 -0500; I'm quite sure that they are not banned in any legal sense of the word. On the other hand, I think there is an "understanding" among hams that nets don't operate there. Its open for question either w; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00049.html (10,881 bytes)
4. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: wn3vaw@fyi.net (Ron Notarius WN3VAW); Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:25:20 -0500; I've never heard of any "understanding" or "gentleman's agreement" banning nets from the WARC bands, and I have heard some small nets from time to time. Whatever... In any case, take another crack at; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00051.html (11,982 bytes)
5. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: bstephens1@mindspring.com (robert k stephens); Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:09:33 -0500; RE: 17 meter nets I checked on the ARRL on-line net directory. I found only one 17 meter net ( OMISS wide area net). However, this net *is registered with the ARRL as a net. This would suggest that w; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00054.html (11,488 bytes)
6. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: k5uj@hotmail.com (Rob Atkinson, K5UJ); Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 23:37:27 +0000; As I have told a few people privately, I really don't know if there's an official policy on 17 m. nets from any organization (ARRL & FCC). The guys I talked to told me they tried meeting on 17 and go; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00057.html (8,910 bytes)
7. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com (Gary Hoffman); Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:45:53 -0500; You are right Ron... as I mentioned in my post, the beam will load up with my tuner. It just has lousy performance is all :) I read about the "understanding" someplace on-line, where there was a disc; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00060.html (13,915 bytes)
8. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: rohre@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart Rohre); Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:29:15 -0600; Instead of calling it a net, call it a round table of Ten Tecs. 73, Stuart K5KVH; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00072.html (7,456 bytes)
9. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: KM6VX@aol.com (KM6VX@aol.com); Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:44:29 EST; OK. Time for my comments on a Ten Tec net. I'm the one that started the 20m Ten Tec net over 4 years ago. I thought it was a great idea and I feel it was quite successful to the very end, thanks to W; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00074.html (11,007 bytes)
10. [TenTec] 20 m users' net (score: 1): Author: mark@microenh.com (Mark Erbaugh); Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:13:30 -0500; That would be my thinking. You and I are discussing TenTec radios, and so what if 20 others join us - that should be actually preferred as that eliminates 10 separate QSO's. I checked with the ARRL a; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-11/msg00090.html (8,884 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]