TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] [Fwd: FCC ELIMINATES CW EXAM]

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] [Fwd: FCC ELIMINATES CW EXAM]
From: "Bob Cunnings" <bob.cunnings@gmail.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:49:19 -0700
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
It's all right here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-143A1.pdf

Bob NW8L

On 12/16/06, AD5VJ  Bob <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> That brings up a good point. Some entity somewhere had to "push" through the 
> no code. I don't think this was just an idea someone at
> the FCC office had in a dream one night and spent the governments money to 
> fulfill it.
>
> So that being said, I for one would sincerely like to know, what was the 
> argument that won and what was the strength of the
> argument?
>
>  73 fer nw es gud DX,
> QSL VIA: BUR, LotW, e-QSL
> Bob AD5VJ(AAR6VM)
> Old calls: WY5L/KH3-KE5CTY-N5IET
> http://www.ad5vj.com/
>
> Member: CTDXCC, NTCC, STXDXCC
> FISTS: # 12637, SKCC# 2369
> 10X# 37210, FP#-1141
> SMIRK#-5177, RARS #-149
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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