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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Bandplan\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: bandplan (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:01:44 -0500; I just filed electronic comments for RM-10352 at the FCC web site. This may be our only chance at this fellows! In another 5-7 years when sunspots are way down and the MUF drops way down, the band wi; /archives//html/Topband/2002-01/msg00173.html (8,187 bytes)
2. Topband: bandplan (score: 1): Author: richard@karlquist.com (Richard Karlquist); Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:20:13 -0800; This all sounds good, but it seems to me it just creates a VE phone band. Why should we expect VE's to honor a voluntary band plan on 160 when US stations won't? On all the other bands, VE's use the; /archives//html/Topband/2002-01/msg00175.html (7,568 bytes)
3. Topband: bandplan (score: 1): Author: k9uwa@arrl.net (John K9UWA); Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:41:25 -0800; PLEASE Guys and Gals.....go to the above web site as Tom has suggested and Support this RM .... Please also go to ARRL.NET....click on your Division Director and drop him a little note asking that H; /archives//html/Topband/2002-01/msg00177.html (7,527 bytes)
4. Topband: bandplan (score: 1): Author: rtnash@netcom.ca (Robert Nash); Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:33:54 +0000; Gentlemen Just a little view from North of the Border from the Canadian Band Planning group. We have been watching with interest the changes in the ARRL and the possibility of FCC sub bands on 160. I; /archives//html/Topband/2002-01/msg00192.html (7,666 bytes)
5. Topband: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: sebdesn@ecentral.com (Schieving); Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:21:06 -0600; Topbanders, It's my understanding that the FCC came down on the phone guys for intentional interference. The question posed to them was, "what was the reason they were there doing that", not "why wer; /archives//html/Topband/2001-10/msg00149.html (6,589 bytes)
6. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 18:11:45 EST; While I completely agree with Bill's and others comments that all band users must be a part of the process; I do not feel that the contesters should enjoy any special privileges in the weighting of t; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00022.html (7,636 bytes)
7. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: johnmb@mindspring.com (John); Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:31:27 -0500; This is right on... and although this reflector is sponsored by contesting.com, there are some of us here are actually neither.... Indeed, most of the denziens of this, and all the other bands are NE; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00023.html (7,896 bytes)
8. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: bernie.mcclenny@mail.wdn.com (Bernie McClenny, W3UR); Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 00:29:21 -0800; I agree w/ Carl. Contesters should not have any special privileges in the weighting of the responses and just the opposite should be considered. I must say that I am a DX'er first and contester secon; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00025.html (9,093 bytes)
9. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: btippett@CTC.Net (Bill Tippett); Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 23:00:09 -0500 (EST); Guys, where did you get the mistaken idea that I am trying to weight contesters more than another group? The more informed input the better, no matter what the source. I posted to the Contest reflect; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00026.html (8,647 bytes)
10. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: pcollins@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Patrick Collins); Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:54:36 -0500 (EST); Carl, I think you hit the nail on the head. All this band change stuff is for the dxer's and contester's. It does not and will not represent a majority of the amateur population. Let's change the con; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00028.html (8,588 bytes)
11. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: btippett@CTC.Net (Bill Tippett); Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:02:43 -0500 (EST); Pat, I feel we need the opinions of knowledgeable and active operators who actually are USING the frequency segments in question. Otherwise we'll get folks giving inputs like making the national QRP; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00029.html (8,462 bytes)
12. TopBand: BANDPLAN (score: 1): Author: WT3Q@aol.com (WT3Q@aol.com); Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:00:20 -0500 (EST); THE BANDPLAN IS NOT BROKEN DONT FIX IT LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE THE CHALLANGE IN THE BAND DONT TAKE IT AWAY 73 DE SAM WT3Q/V26B -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html Subm; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00030.html (7,430 bytes)
13. TopBand: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 17:27:15 EST; Tnx for reply Pat, been flat out busy for a few days so sri for slow response. Anything to restrict the contesters to a mode dependent part of the band is a plus IMO. It works on other bands and I ha; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00031.html (8,060 bytes)
14. TopBand: BANDPLAN (score: 1): Author: w8jitom@worldnet.att.net (Tom Rauch (W8JI)); Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:19:39 -0500; Hi Sam, We should put the challenge in the rest of the bands, by eliminating all segments. There is absolutely no reason why any of the other bands should have segments, while 160 does not. Let's put; /archives//html/Topband/1997-04/msg00032.html (8,297 bytes)
15. Topband: Bandplan (score: 1): Author: jkearman@att.net (Jim Kearman); Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:53:30 +0000; A while ago, someone posted a recommended bandplan for 160 m. I lost it, and would appreciate an emailed copy. Thanks. 73, Jim, KR1S http://kr1s.kearman.com/ _________________________________________; /archives//html/Topband/2006-06/msg00043.html (6,769 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]