|
ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
|
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html So regulate R.R.A.P. by bandwidth. Yelling is 10db wider than everything else. Outlaw yelling. "Sorry Hans, Steve IS Yelling!" Hi, hi! |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Smacks of overegulation. Bloody white of 'em to "let us see it" before they take it to the FCC this time. w3rv |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Smacks of overegulation. Bloody white of 'em to "let us see it" before they take it to the FCC this time. w3rv Remember the letting Novice, non cw, ops on HF Phone??????? There was such a loud cry they at least payed attention this time. Dan/W4NTI |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Some good ideas, some not-so-good ideas. Good ideas: - It's about bandwidth, not content. Right now, if you can fit a digital voice signal into a 200 Hz bandwidth, you can only use it on the 'phone-image subbands. But you can use a much wider PACTOR signal on the CW/data subbands - as long as the PACTOR signal isn't carrying digital voice. - Is Hellschreiber data or image? - Faster data modes have a place to play Bad ideas: - Robot pactors and such can go way down in the band - No CW-only subbands Just IMHO. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Personally, I'd propose a regulation similar to what currently exists on 160M --- "Here are your bands. Stay inside of the edges. Have a nice day." 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Personally, I'd propose a regulation similar to what currently exists on 160M --- "Here are your bands. Stay inside of the edges. Have a nice day." The result would be chaos. All you have to do is tune around 160 a bit to come to the conclusion that the ops who get on 160 are with very rare exceptions a whole different breed of cat from the hordes of HF-only spectrum dwellers from a number of perspectives. The "misbehavior ratios" being one of those. If there was a simplistic "unisolution" like you're proposing it would have been implemented decades ago. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message thlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Smacks of overegulation. Bloody white of 'em to "let us see it" before they take it to the FCC this time. w3rv Remember the letting Novice, non cw, ops on HF Phone??????? There was such a loud cry they at least payed attention this time. Maybe more like they just tossed us a bone Dan. I keeps compulsively shipping my dues to Newington and I keeps wanting to WRING THEIR SCRAWNY POLITICALLY-CORRECT NECKS! Dan/W4NTI w3rv |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Looks to me like another lame-assed attempt by the Apple Rubbing Reamers League to eliminate AM from the 75 and 40 Meter bands. Pathetic...... |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message thlink.net... "Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Smacks of overegulation. Bloody white of 'em to "let us see it" before they take it to the FCC this time. w3rv Remember the letting Novice, non cw, ops on HF Phone??????? There was such a loud cry they at least payed attention this time. Maybe more like they just tossed us a bone Dan. I keeps compulsively shipping my dues to Newington and I keeps wanting to WRING THEIR SCRAWNY POLITICALLY-CORRECT NECKS! Dan/W4NTI w3rv It's election time for the Board of Directors. I have brought this up for the last month at club meetings, on the air, announced it on VHF and HF nets. Any interest? Nope. I give up. Dan/W4NTI |
"Theatre of the Mind" wrote in message groups.com... "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Looks to me like another lame-assed attempt by the Apple Rubbing Reamers League to eliminate AM from the 75 and 40 Meter bands. Pathetic...... Go read the proposal on the ARRL site. You will see that AM is NOT being regulated out of this proposal. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message thlink.net... "Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Smacks of overegulation. Bloody white of 'em to "let us see it" before they take it to the FCC this time. w3rv Remember the letting Novice, non cw, ops on HF Phone??????? There was such a loud cry they at least payed attention this time. Maybe more like they just tossed us a bone Dan. I keeps compulsively shipping my dues to Newington and I keeps wanting to WRING THEIR SCRAWNY POLITICALLY-CORRECT NECKS! Dan/W4NTI w3rv It's election time for the Board of Directors. I have brought this up for the last month at club meetings, on the air, announced it on VHF and HF nets. Any interest? Nope. I give up. Being a Director is one more hobby within the hobby. It's all politics and hams who are big into being politicians get into it and the rest of us ignore it. Dan/W4NTI w3rv |
It's election time for the Board of Directors. I have brought this up for the last month at club meetings, on the air, announced it on VHF and HF nets. Any interest? Nope. I give up. Being a Director is one more hobby within the hobby. It's all politics and hams who are big into being politicians get into it and the rest of us ignore it. Dan/W4NTI w3rv Of course, but my point is no one is interested in nominating anyone either. Dan/W4NTI |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message
... btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m contest scores. 73 de Jim, N2EY ....or just get OTA. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William) Date: 8/19/2004 7:34 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? Narrow band modes, Brainless Twerp, in as much as Conditionals, Generals, Advanced and Extras could STILL exercise the full breadth of thier privileges there. The NOVICES may ahve been limited to using only CW, however NONE of those "subbands" was restricted to CW only. Never. btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m contest scores. 73 de Jim, N2EY What was your score? What was YOURS? (More logbooks locked away, no doubt........) Steve, K4YZ |
"William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 8/19/2004 8:06 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." We gotta go easy on him, Dee...Brain does not assimilate facts very well, and getting him to acknowledge them even when they are glaring and well known is pretty "iffy"... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:08:04 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Sure there has, ever heard of the "Novice subbands"? Stacey/AA7YA |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:48:43 -0400, "Theatre of the Mind"
wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html Looks to me like another lame-assed attempt by the Apple Rubbing Reamers League to eliminate AM from the 75 and 40 Meter bands. Pathetic...... Nowhere in that article does it say the ARRL wants to eliminate AM from the 75 and 40 meter bands. Try reading with your eyes open, instead of stewing in your seat with your eyes wide shut for a change. Stacey/AA7YA |
"s. hanrahan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:08:04 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Sure there has, ever heard of the "Novice subbands"? Stacey/AA7YA General class and higher are allowed to use FSK in the novice segments so there are no "CW-only" subbands on HF. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation From: (William) Date: 8/19/2004 7:34 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? Narrow band modes, Brainless Twerp, in as much as Conditionals, Generals, Advanced and Extras could STILL exercise the full breadth of thier privileges there. Is this the part where The World's Greatest DXer comes in and mentions that you consistently spell "thier" incorrectly? You guys are so predictable. The NOVICES may ahve been limited to using only CW, however NONE of those "subbands" was restricted to CW only. Never. "Ahven't" they? They were to Novices. btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m contest scores. 73 de Jim, N2EY What was your score? What was YOURS? (More logbooks locked away, no doubt........) What was yours? |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true No. It isn't. You and Kelly are wrong. There was a whole class of amateur that was allowed nothing but CW on HF, and other hams had to abide by mode and power limits of those subbands. - but there should be! Ask the FCC to make you a Novice and you can have all the CW you can stomach in what Hans calls the "novice ghetto." Maybe some benevolent Extra will come along and give you a pity QSO. Hi, hi! |
"William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true No. It isn't. You and Kelly are wrong. There was a whole class of amateur that was allowed nothing but CW on HF, and other hams had to abide by mode and power limits of those subbands. Sorry but you are wrong. Although Novices were restricted to CW only in limited subbands, Generals and higher could operate FSK in those same portions of the spectrum. Check your FCC rule book. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "William" == billybeeper writes: [...] William Ask the FCC to make you a Novice and you can have all the CW William you can stomach in what Hans calls the "novice ghetto." William Maybe some benevolent Extra will come along and give you a William pity QSO. Hi, hi! Huh. The "Novice ghetto" is where I go to listen to slow code for practicing purposes. It's also where I've had my single successful CW QSO -- with a long-time ham who was willing to be patient with me. Sounds like a nicer place than lots of other chunks of the ham bands, and a hell of a lot nicer than here, if you ask me. Jack. (yet another nickel Extra.) - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBJT59GPFSfAB/ezgRAnLPAKDDHE8vczsLei1UyvhP5u7T9LKwawCgh5QB GAqgIy6XxoGDwKyNNXuC4rc= =VJlg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: s. hanrahan Date: 8/19/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:08:04 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Sure there has, ever heard of the "Novice subbands"? They STILL were NOT "CW-only" subbands. Conditionals, Generals, Advanced and Extras were allowed to exercise the full breadth of thier privileges there. They were NOT "CW-only". 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William) Date: 8/19/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation From: (William) Date: 8/19/2004 7:34 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? Narrow band modes, Brainless Twerp, in as much as Conditionals, Generals, Advanced and Extras could STILL exercise the full breadth of thier privileges there. Is this the part where The World's Greatest DXer comes in and mentions that you consistently spell "thier" incorrectly? And does THAT negate the fact that you were WRONG about YOUR assertion that there are "CW only" subbands on HF...?!?! You guys are so predictable. As are you, Brain. Try to hide your own inadequacies behind a typo I made...?!?! The NOVICES may have been limited to using only CW, however NONE of those "subbands" was restricted to CW only. Never. "Ahven't" they? Nope. They were to Novices. That's not what was said. btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m contest scores. 73 de Jim, N2EY What was your score? What was YOURS? (More logbooks locked away, no doubt........) What was yours? On my desk. Didn't participate in the 160 test, though...Have in the past, but not this time. Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William) Date: 8/19/2004 1:09 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. Why? You'll only try to redirect the reply behind a typo or some irrelevent point. The facts are there are NO "CW-Only" subbands on HF. Steve, K4YZ |
(William) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (Jim Hampton) Date: 8/19/2004 11:33 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (William) wrote in message .com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. Of course it wasn't about license classes...At least NOT until AFTER Brain realized that he was backed into yet another corner after stepping in the verbal cow patty he'd laid. Then he had to find SOME way of trying to keep everyone from looking at his shoes. Too late. Steve, K4YZ |
The proposed division by bandwidth hasn't even gone through, and I'm already
hearing from digital buffs who have plans to be able to utilize much more bandwidth than they currently do. - More bandwidth by a factor of three or four. It sure is good to know that this has all been carefully thought over so that nobody would be edged out or marginalized by the new proposal - Not! Charles, N5PVL (digital enthusiast) |
(Jim Hampton) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? |
"William" wrote in message om... (Jim Hampton) wrote in message . com... (William) wrote in message . com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? Look at your FCC rule book. They had to abide by the power restrictions on 15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband. In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit. In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of the rule books for this time period. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
(William) wrote in message . com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true No. It isn't. You and Kelly are wrong. There was a whole class of amateur that was allowed nothing but CW on HF, and other hams had to abide by mode and power limits of those subbands. HeeHeeHee! You don't even know the difference between a mode and a set of operating priveleges. Nitwit. Figgers. - but there should be! Ask the FCC to make you a Novice and you can have all the CW you can stomach in what Hans calls the "novice ghetto." Maybe some benevolent Extra will come along and give you a pity QSO. Hi, hi! |
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 8/20/2004 7:54 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? Look at your FCC rule book. They had to abide by the power restrictions on 15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband. In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit. In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of the rule books for this time period. Dee, your operating on the presumption that Brain can read, let alone comprehend what he reads. Big stretch there! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message om... (Jim Hampton) wrote in message . com... (William) wrote in message . com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "William" wrote in message om... PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. That's true - but there should be! Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M. Wonder what kind of subbands those were? General class and higher licensees can also use the FSK data modes here. Thus they are not "CW only." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Now tell me about the Novices. I don't believe the question was about license class; it was about the HF amateur spectrum. In that case, there is no exclusive CW anywhere on HF. On VHF, of course, there is. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim - AA2QA Jim, for a whole class of licensees, there absolutely were CW Only subbands. And if my memory serves, higher class licensees had to abide by the mode and power restrictions. Where's Miccolis with his ham history cliff notes? Look at your FCC rule book. I don't have one from 15 years ago. I thought they had to abide by the Novice restrictions. They had to abide by the power restrictions on 15m, 40m, and 80m in the novice subbands but not in the 10m novice subband. In the 10m novice subband, Generals and higher could use full legal limit. In all of those novice subbands, they were NOT restricted to the mode requirements of the novices. READ YOUR RULEBOOK!!! These rules have been in effect for longer than I have been licensed (1992) and I have copies of the rule books for this time period. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thanks Dee. Looks like I was wrong, and I stand corrected. Apologies to Jim and Kelly. bb |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation From: s. hanrahan Date: 8/19/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:08:04 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Sure there has, ever heard of the "Novice subbands"? They were/are for Novices, with the exception of 10M. |
In article , s. hanrahan
writes: On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:08:04 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: "N2EY" wrote - No CW-only subbands There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF. Sure there has, ever heard of the "Novice subbands"? Yep. They're not CW-only. While Novices and Tech Pluses can only use CW on their parts of 80/40/15, higher class licensees can use digital modes there. Point is there's no place on amateur HF where a ham can go and only have to deal with CW QRM. I think it would be a good idea if there were. Take 80 meters for example. Make 3500-3575 CW-only, 3575-3725 digital and CW (with digital having precedence) and 3725-4000 analog voice and image. "Digital" refers to any mode other than analog voice or image - meaning digital voice, too. Why not? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com