Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+160m\s+band\s+plan\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+160m\s+band\s+plan\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 160m band plan (score: 1): Author: k1ttt@arrl.net (David Robbins); Date: Sat Oct 26 11:55:10 2002; <quote> Hollingsworth says that operation that does not comply with a generally accepted band plan such as ARRL's is not illegal. He points out, however, that band plans--to the extent that they're; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-10/msg00191.html (7,161 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] 160m band plan (score: 1): Author: jon.zaimes@dol.net (Jon Zaimes AA1K); Date: Tue Oct 29 11:11:17 2002; Dave, Regardless of the FCC position, it is still the band plan and lots of us still abide by it. Hopefully everyone will. I passed up dozens of QSOs from DX that were operating simplex below 1843 th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-10/msg00224.html (7,560 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] 160m band plan (score: 1): Author: ku8e1@yahoo.com (Jeffrey Clarke); Date: Tue Oct 29 10:59:52 2002; Speaking of band plans.... What about 40 meters too ?? I think I worked some guys transmitting on SSB as low as 7005. I even heard some well known EU stations call guys in the CARR who were listening; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-10/msg00226.html (8,943 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] 160m band plan (score: 1): Author: hamcat@directvinternet.com (K4SB); Date: Tue Oct 29 22:04:07 2002; -- I think the operator will have the final say, but I firmly believe the problem is the ARRL band plan. When some ????????? puts the digital modes at 1.8 up, and SSB above 1.843, I see this as nothi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-10/msg00230.html (6,956 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]