Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() an_old_friend wrote: given the whining from Steve and Jim about I do come to a conclusion that if adpted it will result in a set rules that is largely ignored and/or incorrectly applied till the FCC decides to drop the whole and leave the matter in our hands (whcih is whee it wshould have been in the first place More Markie Mularkie. thus it seems thta regulation by bandwidth my be a good intermedaite step toward ending FCC mandates and exclsuive presere for Morse code It wasn't about a "preserve" for "Morse code", Markie. It's about establishing operating parameters based upon bandwidth. meaning it sounds like a decent idea if we can't go the end result in one step Trying to decode that now. Anyone got a Cray I can borrow? Steve, K4YZ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Policy | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | General | |||
Could sniffers provide way for low bandwidth broadcasting over the Internet? | Broadcasting | |||
Bandwidth in German and France for inverse GPS | Policy | |||
CCIR Coefficients METHOD 6 REC533 // AUCKLAND --> SEATTLE | Shortwave |