So, right, adding 100 kHz will really motivate all the people who don't already
use the other 3.9 MHz.
I read land legal descriptions and deeds every day for my job, and I got bogged
down trying to decipher what his meaning and intent really was with this thing.
Hopefully the FCC will get enough negative responses that they won't seriously
consider his proposal. Seems like a lot of language changes to the rules, just
to basically leave things the way they already are.
- Matthew KK4FEM
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 13, 2016, at 20:29, Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org> wrote:
>
> In a followup filing, he explains that opening up the bottom of 2m and 6m to
> digital...er, "symbol communications" would somehow stimulate the use of
> those bands.
>
> Oh, and the narrative of the proposal, if I follow it correctly, would
> restrict CW in the phone subbands to hand-keyed code only, which would throw
> a bit of a wrench into the occasional discussion we have about ways to get
> phone spots into RBN.
>
> --
> Michael Adams | mda@n1en.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Matthew Stevens
> Sent: Friday, 13 May, 2016 16:48
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A US Petition to remove CW only subbands
>
> Am I missing something? Where are these "CW only subbands?" (other than the
> bottom of 6m and 2m?)
>
>
> - Matthew
> KK4FEM
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|