- 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)
This search system is powered by
Namazu