- 1. [RFI] Apology (score: 1)
- Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> (Pete Smith)
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 03:28:54 -0400
- The message I just posted may be in error. I took the writer at his word, but afterward, when I followed the link he says is to a phone that operates in a US ham band, it turns out to specify a frequ
- /archives//html/RFI/2001-05/msg00025.html (7,190 bytes)
- 2. [RFI] Apology (score: 1)
- Author: EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <eedwards@oppd.com (EDWARDS, EDDIE J)
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:28:01 -0500
- No need Pete. I checked some of the other links out, and they don't spec the freq at all. Only a couple models gave any specs so some of them may be on Amateur freqs as the msg said. Guess we'll haft
- /archives//html/RFI/2001-05/msg00026.html (8,109 bytes)
- 3. [RFI] Apology (score: 1)
- Author: bill thomas" <k1xt@hotmail.com (bill thomas)
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:38:03 -0500
- To: <rfi@contesting.com> I checked the Cordlessmart site yesterday and it clearly had 146 listed for the base. Honest to God. I wish now I would have printed it out. Now this morning it shows 375. N
- /archives//html/RFI/2001-05/msg00028.html (9,013 bytes)
- 4. [RFI] Apology (score: 1)
- Author: Jon Ogden <jono@enteract.com> (Jon Ogden)
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:54:31 -0500
- Every model I looked at specified frequency if you scroll to the very bottom of the page. None from what I could see where in ham bands. 73, Jon NA9D -- Jon Ogden NA9D (ex: KE9NA) Member: ARRL, AMSAT
- /archives//html/RFI/2001-05/msg00029.html (7,543 bytes)
- 5. [RFI] Apology (score: 1)
- Author: dgsvetan@collins.rockwell.com (dgsvetan@collins.rockwell.com)
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:26:35 -0500
- Bill and Pete, My feeling is that it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference as to which bands these units are on, because the fact remains that use of these things in the US is just plain ille
- /archives//html/RFI/2001-05/msg00030.html (10,405 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu