Re: Achieving regulation by b...
- To: N8BLK@aol.com
- Subject: Re: Achieving regulation by b...
- From: Klarsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 16:03:48 -0700 (MST)
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
³ ³ Happy New Year *
³ ³ /v\
___######___ From: Karl K5DI /V\
PEACE / o o \ and Family /VVV\
( v ) ³³³³³ in *VVVVV*
õ \ --- / ³³³³³ Las Cruces, NM /VVVVV\
\ /÷÷÷÷&÷÷÷\ \³/ *VVVVVVV*
\___/ o \ ___V Best of 73 /VVVVVVVVV\
| o | ³ *VVVVVVVVVVV*
AND | o | ³ email@example.com /VVVVVVVVVVVVV\
GOODWILL \ o / ³ *VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV*
\ / ³ º
On Sat, 17 Dec 1994 N8BLK@aol.com wrote:
> The FCC in addition to having bandwidth restrictions on amateur frequencies
> also has mode restrictions on HF. I don't think you can use "digital" modes
> on voice with the possible exception SSTV.
SSTV is a case in point. It is most certainly a data mode. I
don't think the FCC has ever passed a ruling down on SSTV but just let it
run. I think it too should be talked about with FCC when we talk "proven
> Since you're in the U.S., U.S. rules apply, RTTY & DATA on 20 meters are
> limited to 14.00 14.15, precluding your plan apparently. Of course, 14.54
> isn't in the amateur band at all, but I assume you meant 14.154, which is.
Yes sorry but that was ANOTHER ERROR! 14.154 lower sideband was
the correct thing to write.
> Please note though that the rules in 97.305(b) state that brief
> transmissions for test purposes may be made for experimental purposes with
> the exception of pulse transmissions. Good luck!
Thank god we are using brief transmissions of FM...
> (art clemons)