Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+willful\s+interference\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+ARRL\s+willful\s+interference\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:17 -0600; The person/station/operator using the frequency has every right to continue to use that frequency except in the case of an emergency. The ARRL and W1AW willfully interfered with you. Plain and simple; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00115.html (12,841 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:32:19 -0400; You are one of about two people in the world complaining about the ARRL's bulletin service. They had an exception written into the rules so they could provide these bulletins. The FCC is obviously aw; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00117.html (14,069 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:23:21 -0700; This is really no different from the NCDXF beacons, which by gentlemen's agreement operate at known fixed frequencies. (And there are probably also at least two people in the world who complain about; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00120.html (9,157 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:12:58 -0400; Paul, You are dead wrong. The rule written by the FCC was not to allow ARRL to provide bulletins - *any amateur* may broadcast bulletins of interest to amateurs. The rule allows ARRL to use *paid ope; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00122.html (14,649 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:30:46 -0600; Why do we keep having to cover or make excuses for rule violations? For the record I am complaining about the willful interference by the ARRL W1AW control operators. The bulletins and code practice; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00127.html (10,173 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:39:34 -0500; No, you are griping (endlessly) on an email list. If you are serious, and I doubt you are, you can file a complaint with the FCC at http://www.fcc.gov/complaints There is no charge to file a complain; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00131.html (8,745 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0600; Actually I have spent the time discussing this with the FCC and provided his opinion to the list and will be discussing this further with them. I am sure all the ARRL fan bots will be scurrying to te; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00133.html (9,582 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:46:09 -0400; Bill Cross is not "the FCC." _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00135.html (9,851 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] ARRL willful interference (score: 1): Author: john <w8wej@citynet.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:48:40 +0000; sir you have made your point(many times) please take it else where There are , and have many been been many things that that the arrl has done and and are doing that I did not, and do not like--howev; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00146.html (11,927 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]