You are right Joe,
band plans look like hands pictured into ours ancestors caves.
But since I also was in the 2005 a JTxx and other, then exotics,
digital modes aficionado those slices used by the mode you are telling
seems made only from the perspective of then users usages. I mean that
around those modes, almost all but for sure JTxx, the then born
practitioners interests required plainly a set of QRG.
Thus, the interests, the choices madeon those and then to today
perpetuated, QRG's, the chat/s born in Internet on purposes ... all
was made and perpetuated by peoples willingly to find themselves into
theirs well know by few water holes.
This started to happening almost around 2005 and it was well
established just after a bit of time. That's just my perspective I may
be wrong on dates. When I jumped in more substantially it was already
working and viewable trough, i.e., the Ping Jockey Internet chatting
side.
It seems to me that those JTxx modes went far than others modes may be
due to their inners specifications ant the reverse side of each of
those. By example global bandwidth, timing and QRGs aiming, prop. and
so on. At that time with a short number of users that where almost QRP
or QRPP it was a must to settle some chat - calling first etc etc
Then others volunteered and started to develop executables "more easy
to use" for those modes, at first channelizing (that's the worst
things that could ever be done channels sounds like other non HAM
bands usages) theirs programs in a effort to make it easy for
Customers/Users to get rocked into.I left all that, but not WSPR, at
the end of 2009. WSPR is by far fire and forget, but anyway connected
to Internet to make sense. But much more useful to understand aerials
and propagation time over time. Not that silly DIGITAL DXCC only.
Now serious users and much more Customer/Users are a growing number
that by pure presence want to deserve more and more. Having such
zealots conflicts as History teach to us all. I see peoples, daily on
EU forums, that doesn't understand all that but simple have a more
simple way to setup theirs unknown software to stay there over and
over. And then become Owner and Land Lord, by a rock bottom self
agreement.
Well, all this to say: it seems that the then needed effort to have a
place where to friendly run JTxx modes signed in as a band planning
tasks that arise suddenly from the whole world and not by any lawyer.
It seems also that the growing number of users of those modes posed
more angular stones to separate their users from other modes, all,
users and Lan Lords.
But this is not a way as the literature tells to make a well planned
and rightly protected sub bands for weak signals. I don't mean
lobbying, even if this way is the most used by humans but have
practically not any technical mean. I mean having a slice, non even a
channel, well surrounded by guards bands - lower and higher ones.
Those guards bands must be made around the whole bunch of bandwidths
used onto the general band, where the sub bands - slice - live.
At the end, the today band plan of the JT modes is more a result of
real usage and users efforts (sometime read QRM) than an effective,
documented and well done job to make it. JTxx modes need much more
large guard bands than few Hz as they have now ... if they have some,
look at 10 Mhz by example.
It's silly that we have to fight against each other when things have
never made to be properly working since forever.
It's silly that we have to fight against each other when we all will
be wiped out by the next approval of RM-11708. Look at the segment
10143-10150 Mhz here in EU or somewhere in between 7040-7060 - even at
RTTY Contest time - also from here. Almost booked by those
"WINSTINK/CRAPTOR garbage generators" as you extremely well called
they. (I will use more time those definition in capitals, are a very
well made picture.)
The actual process to make such as gentlemen agreement wasn't started
with a well made requirements and arrived today on this. No secrets,
no blames, just it doesn't fitted well before and now it's fitting
worst.The whole process was still unilateral and made purely on a no
efforts schema just on then purposes. Now the amount of user grew up
and there are statistically more voices that cry on those errors. But
unfortunately they tell a wrong tale, just the end maybe, onto the
wrong place, against the wrong subjects.
That's all.
And so I am a LID because I am not a JTxx users/Users/Lan Lord. That's
silly. I am LID because I am of another shade, not even a different
color. Well, in this case I am pretty that being LID is not an insult
but a compliment.
Hope that my poor English get into. I am really worried about several
directions we are taking. I am a LID, you know. Could we meet around a
table or not?
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:10:02 -0500
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY bandplan & JT65
Message-ID: <54ADCADA.4050909@subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Did anyone realize the ARRL's HF plans are 30 years old and predate
any of the new modes - like PSK31/63/125, JT64/JT9, MFSK8/16, Olivia,
etc.? Note the references to HF Packet and nothing about the
WINSTINK/CRAPTOR garbage generators.
There is far more up to date information elsewhere.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:43 AM, <rtty-request@contesting.com> wrote:
> Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
> rtty@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rtty-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rtty-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD) (Peter Laws)
> 2. Re: Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD) (Mark n2qt)
> 3. RTTY bandplan & JT65 (Rich Josephson via RTTY)
> 4. Re: Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD) (Jeff AC0C)
> 5. Re: RTTY bandplan & JT65 (Joe Subich, W4TV)
> 6. Re: Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
> (Joe Subich, W4TV)
> 7. Re: Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD) (Steve)
> 8. Re: Contest QRMing of other digimodes (Larry)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:20:41 -0600
> From: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>
> To: RTTY contest group <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
> Message-ID:
> <CANVAiQ_hT8PV6FiKN=EZdxTnYJ+bAsJ1W2U6YnwPYOm9pc+5eA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> RM-11708. There may well also be discussion over the BoD comments related
>> to new
>> Technician class digital mode privileges.
>
>
> As an aside from your aside, this last bit strikes me as silly and
> says to me that the ARRL needs to appoint Yet Another Ad Hoc Committee
> to study license classes. If you are going to give Technicians more
> and more privileges, then why to we have the Technician class?
>
> Because if we're going to have an entry-level license that gives a
> "taste" of everything (like the Novice class, c.1991 after Novices got
> phone on 10) and we expect that to give hams "incentive" to upgrade,
> then why do we keep giving the entry-level more privileges?
>
> Make the General test 50 questions and be done with it. Give half of
> each band segment to the Techs and let them get to Amateur Extra to
> get the other half. Or else deprecate Technician, re-instate a new
> Novice class with (roughly) the old Novice privileges (maybe a little
> more stuff above 50 MHz but not 144 or 432).
>
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:42:30 -0500
> From: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com>
> To: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>, RTTY contest group
> <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
> Message-ID: <BCB2EC13-7DAE-46BF-BC24-2476728B6C99@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Too late that train has already left. This is from the last Executive
> Committee minutes.
>
>
> 9.1.3. At Minute 37 of the July 2014 Board Meeting the Executive Committee
> was directed to study the addition of specific data privileges in narrow
> segments of the 80, 40, and 15 meter bands for Technician licensees. After
> extended discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal, on motion of Mr.
> Lisenco the Executive Committee voted to recommend that the Board consider
> soliciting input from the membership on adding data privileges for Technician
> and Novice licensees in their existing 15 meter subband.
>
>
> Mark. N2QT
>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> RM-11708. There may well also be discussion over the BoD comments related
>>> to new
>>> Technician class digital mode privileges.
>>
>>
>> As an aside from your aside, this last bit strikes me as silly and
>> says to me that the ARRL needs to appoint Yet Another Ad Hoc Committee
>> to study license classes. If you are going to give Technicians more
>> and more privileges, then why to we have the Technician class?
>>
>> Because if we're going to have an entry-level license that gives a
>> "taste" of everything (like the Novice class, c.1991 after Novices got
>> phone on 10) and we expect that to give hams "incentive" to upgrade,
>> then why do we keep giving the entry-level more privileges?
>>
>> Make the General test 50 questions and be done with it. Give half of
>> each band segment to the Techs and let them get to Amateur Extra to
>> get the other half. Or else deprecate Technician, re-instate a new
>> Novice class with (roughly) the old Novice privileges (maybe a little
>> more stuff above 50 MHz but not 144 or 432).
>>
>> --
>> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 23:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Rich Josephson via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
> To: "rtty@contesting.com" <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: [RTTY] RTTY bandplan & JT65
> Message-ID:
>
> <1407897474.3653967.1420674249406.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I could really use a change of topic.? BUT, before that, I have one
> comment.?Just do a google search for "RTTY Bandplan Contest".? One of the top
> results will be ARRL Bandplan page http://www.arrl.org/band-planWould you say
> an operator using this as a reference would be "good to go"???Did you look it
> up - did you see the JT65 frequencies - no - how can that be?? What's a
> reasonable effort to avoid interfering with someone.?? ??I keep a list for
> each contest I operate with frequencies to avoid (beacons and other modes)
> and JA frequencies.? I also have a band scope so I can see what's on a
> frequency (or adjacent) before calling CQ.? Of course not all modes will show
> up but at least I make an effort.? Since I don't have a super station or am a
> super operator, I usually call CQ up the band a ways - and fortunately (it
> seems) not on any JT65 frequencies.? ?Maybe this topic could be put to rest
> and before the next contest someone could (in a pleasant tone) remind people
> of freque
nc
> ies to avoid during RTTY RU.?Richw0elt
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:08:30 -0600
> From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
> To: "Mark n2qt" <n2qt.va@gmail.com>, "Peter Laws" <plaws0@gmail.com>,
> "RTTY contest group" <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
> Message-ID: <CFE0B4B145FF415BB568B4265D559892@w520>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Asking membership for inputs on actions that affect the entirety of the US
> ham population - now that IS a good idea.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark n2qt
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 5:42 PM
> To: Peter Laws ; RTTY contest group
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
>
> Too late that train has already left. This is from the last Executive
> Committee minutes.
>
>
> 9.1.3. At Minute 37 of the July 2014 Board Meeting the Executive Committee
> was directed to study the addition of specific data privileges in narrow
> segments of the 80, 40, and 15 meter bands for Technician licensees. After
> extended discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal, on motion of Mr.
> Lisenco the Executive Committee voted to recommend that the Board consider
> soliciting input from the membership on adding data privileges for
> Technician and Novice licensees in their existing 15 meter subband.
>
>
> Mark. N2QT
>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> RM-11708. There may well also be discussion over the BoD comments
>>> related to new
>>> Technician class digital mode privileges.
>>
>>
>> As an aside from your aside, this last bit strikes me as silly and
>> says to me that the ARRL needs to appoint Yet Another Ad Hoc Committee
>> to study license classes. If you are going to give Technicians more
>> and more privileges, then why to we have the Technician class?
>>
>> Because if we're going to have an entry-level license that gives a
>> "taste" of everything (like the Novice class, c.1991 after Novices got
>> phone on 10) and we expect that to give hams "incentive" to upgrade,
>> then why do we keep giving the entry-level more privileges?
>>
>> Make the General test 50 questions and be done with it. Give half of
>> each band segment to the Techs and let them get to Amateur Extra to
>> get the other half. Or else deprecate Technician, re-instate a new
>> Novice class with (roughly) the old Novice privileges (maybe a little
>> more stuff above 50 MHz but not 144 or 432).
>>
>> --
>> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:10:02 -0500
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY bandplan & JT65
> Message-ID: <54ADCADA.4050909@subich.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
> Did anyone realize the ARRL's HF plans are 30 years old and predate
> any of the new modes - like PSK31/63/125, JT64/JT9, MFSK8/16, Olivia,
> etc.? Note the references to HF Packet and nothing about the
> WINSTINK/CRAPTOR garbage generators.
>
> There is far more up to date information elsewhere.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-07 6:44 PM, Rich Josephson via RTTY wrote:
>> I could really use a change of topic. BUT, before that, I have one comment.
>> Just do a google search for "RTTY Bandplan Contest". One of the top results
>> will be ARRL Bandplan page http://www.arrl.org/band-planWould you say an
>> operator using this as a reference would be "good to go"? Did you look it
>> up - did you see the JT65 frequencies - no - how can that be? What's a
>> reasonable effort to avoid interfering with someone. I keep a list for
>> each contest I operate with frequencies to avoid (beacons and other modes)
>> and JA frequencies. I also have a band scope so I can see what's on a
>> frequency (or adjacent) before calling CQ. Of course not all modes will
>> show up but at least I make an effort. Since I don't have a super station
>> or am a super operator, I usually call CQ up the band a ways - and
>> fortunately (it seems) not on any JT65 frequencies. Maybe this topic could
>> be put to rest and before the next contest someone could (in a pleasant
>> tone) remind people of frequ
e
> ncies t
> o avoid during RTTY RU. Richw0elt
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:35:52 -0500
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
> Message-ID: <54ADD0E8.5010706@subich.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
> All of which is rather silly ... Technicians already have privileges
> in the entire CW portion (xx.025 and above) of those bands. Why not
> simply allow them to use PSK31 and RTTY? It isn't exactly rocket
> science and Technicians do not need to be pushed into a new ghetto.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-07 6:42 PM, Mark n2qt wrote:
>> Too late that train has already left. This is from the last Executive
>> Committee minutes.
>>
>>
>> 9.1.3. At Minute 37 of the July 2014 Board Meeting the Executive Committee
>> was directed to study the addition of specific data privileges in narrow
>> segments of the 80, 40, and 15 meter bands for Technician licensees. After
>> extended discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal, on motion of Mr.
>> Lisenco the Executive Committee voted to recommend that the Board consider
>> soliciting input from the membership on adding data privileges for
>> Technician and Novice licensees in their existing 15 meter subband.
>>
>>
>> Mark. N2QT
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RM-11708. There may well also be discussion over the BoD comments related
>>>> to new
>>>> Technician class digital mode privileges.
>>>
>>>
>>> As an aside from your aside, this last bit strikes me as silly and
>>> says to me that the ARRL needs to appoint Yet Another Ad Hoc Committee
>>> to study license classes. If you are going to give Technicians more
>>> and more privileges, then why to we have the Technician class?
>>>
>>> Because if we're going to have an entry-level license that gives a
>>> "taste" of everything (like the Novice class, c.1991 after Novices got
>>> phone on 10) and we expect that to give hams "incentive" to upgrade,
>>> then why do we keep giving the entry-level more privileges?
>>>
>>> Make the General test 50 questions and be done with it. Give half of
>>> each band segment to the Techs and let them get to Amateur Extra to
>>> get the other half. Or else deprecate Technician, re-instate a new
>>> Novice class with (roughly) the old Novice privileges (maybe a little
>>> more stuff above 50 MHz but not 144 or 432).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 20:39:26 -0500
> From: Steve <WB3LGC@verizon.net>
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)
> Message-ID: <54ADDFCE.1010806@verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> I would like to see my two sons become more active Technicians in the HF
> bands.
> Maybe more digital privileges might help. I don't know.
> Because I work with Radio merit badge with the scouts, I wonder what
> will it take to grab the interest of the kids (boys/girls) to get into
> ham radio.
> The kids are the future as us OF's become SK's and without the new
> blood, numbers will drop drastically in 20 years...
> There are some great "kids" active, but we need more. Will digital
> modes help? Newer modes like JTxx and DSP might get them interested in
> the software, too.
>
> I do find when I demo RTTY to the kids, they are "wow, that's neat"...
> The girl CREW (over 14 yo) wanted to "do" the CW course on CD... I
> don't remember how far they got, but they had fun!
> More hams NEED to share RADIO with the kids and JOTA (3rd weekend in
> October) is a great opportunity.
>
> a thought, 73 steve WB3LGC
>
> On 07-Jan-15 7:35 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> All of which is rather silly ... Technicians already have privileges
>> in the entire CW portion (xx.025 and above) of those bands. Why not
>> simply allow them to use PSK31 and RTTY? It isn't exactly rocket
>> science and Technicians do not need to be pushed into a new ghetto.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:42:50 -0500
> From: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
> To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes
> Message-ID: <E9E0396FFCA6496B962E4F44AB9354BD@XV2W>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Just for grins I looked and the highest logged CW contest QSO I have is
> 28.189 (many above .100). I have about 2000 QSOs on 10M CW above 28.070
> (over several years). A similar number on 20 and 15. I have seen above .070
> packed almost as badly as the bottom end of the band. Many times you can
> find rarer stations operating above .070. Big guns occasionally run up that
> end. On 20M RTTY only about 300 QSOs above .100 and highest logged freq for
> 10M RTTY is 28.139.
>
> For international contests you might want to remember that not all countries
> have the band/mode restrictions the US has.
>
> 73, Larry W6NWS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Laws
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 5:23 PM
> To: RTTY contest group
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Dave Barr <recordupe@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, there has been operation close to the upper limits, but never without
>> very wide gaps below those top qrgs. Very easy to avoid psk and jt's
>> without compromising room to operate.
>>
>> It would be very interesting to see a list of what frequencies the top
>> scorers run on, as well as a frequency distribution chart incorporating
>> data
>> from all contest logs that do report actual qso qrgs.
>
>
> I only have a 10 m dipole up right now (and a WARC trap dipole that I
> probably could have loaded ..) so I was only on that band. Cabrillo
> rounds your frequency so there is, in reality, more variation than
> shows here, but regardless ... when I wasn't running on 28111.75 (yes,
> that's why I chose it) I never heard anyone much higher than 28117.
> Well, no one I could work. Yep, there's still another 183 kHz, but
> ain't no body there. So you can make the argument, in fact I will,
> that the other modes have plenty of room to spread out but don't.
>
>
>
> done
> 28080 MHz: 2
> 28081 MHz: 3
> 28082 MHz: 2
> 28083 MHz: 2
> 28084 MHz: 2
> 28085 MHz: 2
> 28086 MHz: 2
> 28087 MHz: 2
> 28088 MHz: 3
> 28089 MHz: 42
> 28090 MHz: 1
> 28091 MHz: 2
> 28092 MHz: 6
> 28093 MHz: 1
> 28094 MHz: 2
> 28095 MHz: 3
> 28096 MHz: 1
> 28097 MHz: 3
> 28098 MHz: 1
> 28099 MHz: 2
> 28100 MHz: 1
> 28103 MHz: 3
> 28104 MHz: 2
> 28105 MHz: 1
> 28107 MHz: 1
> 28108 MHz: 1
> 28110 MHz: 2
> 28111 MHz: 6
> 28112 MHz: 158
> 28113 MHz: 1
> 28114 MHz: 1
> 28117 MHz: 1
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RTTY Digest, Vol 145, Issue 23
> *************************************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|