Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s*$/: 65 ]

Total 65 documents matching your query.

41. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:51:44 -0500; RM-11708 has advanced to NPRM status, WTB 16-239, you may access it from the FCC ECFS site. 60 day comment period, 90 day reply to comments. Please read and understand what the FCC is requesting for; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00096.html (6,419 bytes)
42. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:20:12 -0500; Finally reared its ugly head, eh? -- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contest; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00097.html (7,287 bytes)
43. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:35:24 -0500; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/0728122180423 -- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://l; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00098.html (6,856 bytes)
44. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Jim AC0E <ham@odsgc.net>; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:43 -0500; Ron, Appears we may be screwed and the winlink folks could prevail. I can't believe the commercial folks have not made a peep about this issue as it flies directly out of their pocketbook. It also wi; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00099.html (8,564 bytes)
45. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:20:16 +0000; Did I miss something? What I read was: Tentatively, yes to drop symbol rate limitation. No to a blanket bandwidth limitation and leave in place "named emissions" or whatever the term is, that specify; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00100.html (10,021 bytes)
46. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:33:47 +0000; Note this paragraph: "12. While we tentatively conclude that a specific bandwidth limitation for RTTY and data emissions in the MF/HF bands is not necessary, we nonetheless request comment on whether; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00101.html (9,084 bytes)
47. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:49:24 -0400; з97.309 RTTY and data emission codes. (a) Where authorized by зз97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of the part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified digital cod; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00102.html (13,765 bytes)
48. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "G3YYD" <g3yyd@btinternet.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:05:45 -0500; Bandwidth limits have been used for many years in the IARU Region 1 plan. They are voluntary and are complied with by the vast majority of operators (I would say >99%). So the "RTTY" segments are 500; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00103.html (15,636 bytes)
49. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:00:21 -0500; Thanks David and it's something everyone should consider in comments. Take a look at the Region 2 band plan, with minor tweaking to fit some of the license class rules it's quite workable for US hams; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-07/msg00105.html (9,305 bytes)
50. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: William Lisk <wglisk@outlook.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:21:19 +0000; There hasn't been much discussion lately about the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on RM-11708/WT Docket No. 16-239 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-96A1.pdf This will gr; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00178.html (9,582 bytes)
51. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Lee - N2LEE via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:02:40 -0400; Bill, I am probably the odd man out here because I believe the FCC should adopt this change. But the issue is NOT bandwidth it is getting rid of the archaic Symbol Rate limit. Right now all data mode; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00192.html (8,316 bytes)
52. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 01:24:56 -0500; Oh my, this won't end well and no I'm not going to touch it. One of the other dinosaurs might want to chime in....... Ron K0IDT But the issue is NOT bandwidth it is getting rid of the archaic Symbol; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00193.html (8,463 bytes)
53. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:54:25 -0400; The issue isn't the symbol rate. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's the bandwidth, stupid!" A 2.8 KHz digital signal requires a 3 KHz receive bandwidth. The noise power in that 3 KHz is 10 dB greater; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00197.html (11,551 bytes)
54. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>; Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:59:17 +0000; I'm going to preface this by saying: I'm generally _for_ removing the speed limit, but I want to see a narrower bandwidth limit imposed upon part of the band than either the ARRL or FCC are calling f; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00198.html (9,041 bytes)
55. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:43:39 -0400; And everyone assumes that the system that shall not be named is capable of some of the things they see implied in comments or the development team behind it would ever consider adding them. They also; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00199.html (10,457 bytes)
56. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Thom <ki8w@ki8w.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:01:03 +0000; I am not all that concerned about this measure. Bandwidth be damned my biggest issue is with the increasing noise floor this country is experiencing. The latest QST has a article about how an area in; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-10/msg00200.html (8,127 bytes)
57. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 10:56:06 -0600; 1200 bauds on the 10-m band. If all your friends jumped off the bridge, would you jump too? Dumb argument. If you are going to argue in favor of something, argue on its merits, not that "everyone els; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-11/msg00171.html (7,650 bytes)
58. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Ron WT7AA <fia@clouddancer.com>; Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 12:16:24 -0800 (PST); The FCC commissioners are probably sitting on everything until the Trump administration lets them know which way the wind blows. _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTT; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-11/msg00172.html (7,406 bytes)
59. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:27:31 -0600; Well, that's probably true. No sense in rewriting rules that will never take effect. -- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ RTTY ma; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-11/msg00173.html (6,988 bytes)
60. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:47:56 +0000; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: I hear complaints about "unattended automatic stations" from time to time. In my 20+ years of RTTY operations they have never bothered me even once. To m; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-11/msg00174.html (7,197 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]