Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Will\s+You\s+Let\s+FCC\s+Kill\s+PACTOR3\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: "WS7I" <ws7i@ewarg.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:58:41 -0800
Posted on an Emergency Services Forumn. Interesting proposal, you can follow the links if you have interest in the matter. Of course this is the stuff in the lower part of 80 that we hear in the RTTY
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00187.html (23,033 bytes)

2. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: Dennis Gabler <dgabler@prairieinet.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:51:00 -0600
There is an issue that needs to be addressed here but the nuke bomb approach of this proposal will go nowhere IMHO. 73, Dennis W5DG -- Dennis - W5DG Adel, IA. http://www.vortexchaser.com ____________
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00188.html (7,812 bytes)

3. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:23:38 -0800
For details, go to http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2007/bandwidth_band_plan.htm where you can find links to the pdfs of the original RM. The following are my impressions. RM-11392 proposes t
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00189.html (8,523 bytes)

4. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Laws" <plaws@plaws.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:25:45 -0600
And this would be bad ... why? Automatic == bad, IMHO, whether it's Pactor or RTTY or Morse and as you said, 1500 kHz is plenty of bandwidth. Far from (what word was used?) "stifling" amateur innovat
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00190.html (8,269 bytes)

5. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: "Neal Campbell" <nealk3nc@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:29:33 +0000
As they say in France D'accord. I am in favor of the resolution. Neal _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinf
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00191.html (9,050 bytes)

6. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Ellison" <rellison@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:34:26 -0500
Well if you are all in favor of the proposal please go to the comments link and express that you are in favor of this proposal as it stand right now the pactor and Ale people have 3-1 margin of peopl
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00192.html (9,965 bytes)

7. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:47:48 -0500
PACTOR III has at least three other things against it beside its excessive bandwidth. 1) it is regularly abused for automatically controlled networks by quasi-commercial interests. 2) it is a propri
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00194.html (10,079 bytes)

8. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: Art W2NRA <w2nra@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:26:04 -0500
Bravo Joe, May I plagiarize your comments when I comment in support of Petition for RM-11392? 73 Art W2NRA "Keep to the Code! w2nra.com PACTOR III has at least three other things against it beside it
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00197.html (10,826 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3? (score: 1)
Author: "George Henry" <ka3hsw@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:33:18 -0600
The message calling it a "terrible" petition was posted by none other than Bonnie, KQ6XA, the HFLINK/ALE queen. Just one more of her self-serving paranoid rants. RM-11392 is only bad if you're one of
/archives//html/RTTY/2007-12/msg00198.html (9,203 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu