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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s+FCC\s+comments\s+will\s+close\s+soon\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon (score: 1): Author: Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:03:56 -0500; Please everyone. It's very important that CW, RTTY and even SSB users submit a comment AGAINST RM-11708 today. We a told that the FCC will probably close comments on Monday. You do not have to be tec; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-04/msg00282.html (8,860 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:54:47 -0400; Consider RM-11708 from a different point of view - forget the technical mumbo-jumbo and look at if from a practical point of view ... Data rate (speed) is not the sine qua non of communications any m; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-04/msg00289.html (11,356 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:17:26 -0700; I agree that bandwidth segmentation is the crux of RM-11708--retaining sub-bands where <500 Hz signals are protected from the QRM of wide-bandwidth signals. Unfortunately, we can't escape some techno; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-04/msg00292.html (13,699 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:35:55 -0700; I have an even simpler analogy. If mixing wide and narrow modes is "OK", then why are we no longer allowed to transmit RTTY above 3.6MHz? QED. - jeff wk6i -- Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com Twisted O; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-04/msg00294.html (16,161 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]