RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL Proposal to redefine subbands by bandwidth

To: "John Fleming" <john@wa9als.com>, <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Proposal to redefine subbands by bandwidth
From: "Frank Hunt" <zl2br@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:46:42 +1200
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
I whole-heartedly agree - MT63 is an excellent 1kHz bandwidth almost 
error-fee, person-to-person chat public domain software digital mode.

Whereas Pactor III is a 2.5kHz bandwidth error-free, expensive 
commercial mode mostly used by auto stations who qrm everyone else.

73, Frank ZL2BR

> MT-63 isn't obnoxious.  It is a fun mode and normally found above 14.000.
> Those auto-pactor MSO's  are the real interference, not MT63.
> 
> WB4M
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Fleming" <john@wa9als.com>
> To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Proposal to redefine subbands by bandwidth
> 
> 
> > > I think this is a false alarm.  As it is now, the PIII stations could
> > legally
> > > operate down in the PSK and RTTY segments, and PII MBO's already do.
> > > This would add restrictions to that.  It also moves that most obnoxious
> of
> > > digital modes, MT63, out of the narrow band area.
> >
> > I tend to agree, as long as the ones in the RTTY area don't multiply much.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>