Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Digital\s+Operators\s+Band\s+Plan\s+Committee\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Digital\s+Operators\s+Band\s+Plan\s+Committee\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee (score: 1): Author: Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:23:26 -0500; I have been under the assumption that we would propose remaining in the current allocated RTTY sub bands. One suggestion that has came is to move lower in frequency below .070. That does not help on; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00162.html (7,131 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:09:49 -0500; We shouldn't have to move if the ARRL would adopt the Region 2 bandplan. Don't get fixated on mode, application is more important and if the lower band ends follow the Region 2 plan the problem is so; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-03/msg00177.html (8,512 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]