RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:30:27 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>

It's known as divide and conquer.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/26/2014 2:24 PM, Jay WS7I wrote:
That is a bunch of malarkey, they just don't want the phone operators in
opposition.

On 2/26/2014 9:47 AM, Don AA5AU wrote:
I don't understand this one:

    * Shouldn’t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted
to the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope
of the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the
regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to
say the least.

I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.

And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
controversial enough?

Don AA5AU





_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>