[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
an attempt to prevent the destruction of ham radio as we know it. The same thing was said by spark gap operators when they didn't want CW. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
HUH! They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running then ? _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:03 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? an attempt to prevent the destruction of ham radio as we know it. The same thing was said by spark gap operators when they didn't want CW. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. Phil Barnett wrote: On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote: an attempt to prevent the destruction of ham radio as we know it. The same thing was said by spark gap operators when they didn't want CW. Yeah, but with some major differences. Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move was to stop the mode that was interfering. Hmm...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote: I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference by some specific mode.
[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa? Should there be an investigation when a narrower mode interferes with a wider mode? The petition is not about interference. It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz. Manual or auto. End of story. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
I think you should cite a creditable reference unless you can prove that you were operating spark in the early 1900s. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HUH! They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running then ? Spark. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote: an attempt to prevent the destruction of ham radio as we know it. The same thing was said by spark gap operators when they didn't want CW. Yeah, but with some major differences. Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move was to stop the mode that was interfering. Hmm...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HUH! They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running then ? Spark. Bonnie KQ6XA Yes, CW replaced spark gap in much the same way that PSK31 and later sound card modes replaced Pactor as primary digital communications modes. The innovation of the sound card modes made digital modes economical for most hams, and the digital modes have become far more ubiquitous than in the days when everyone needed a TNC to do digital modes. It freed hams from monopolists with proprietary modes aimed at forcing people to buy their hardware. Pactor is now pretty much dead as a QSO mode because there is no need to buy an expensive proprietary TNC to do advanced digital work. Which is why very few hams own TNCs these days. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:09:28 am Roger J. Buffington wrote: OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? Good question. Bonnie?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa? Should there be an investigation when a narrower mode interferes with a wider mode? The petition is not about interference. It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz. Manual or auto. End of story. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? Good question. Bonnie? The primary objective of the petition is to attack Winlink2000 on HF. The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000. There is tremendous collateral damage ...you the ham! It is a blast that obliterates all digital HF innovation. It will kill every ham's ability to explore digital data time-sharing techniques on HF into the future. It will kill the only 24/7 HF emergency data ham radio service that can be accessed without an external computer. The petition is a fight by 20th Century frequency-division to try to eliminate new 21st Century time-division techniques. Let us hope that the FCC can see through the petitioner's ruse. Do your part, tell them to stop it. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Dear All, Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has some form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 modems. As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make ourselves let alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban these types of digital transmission system from the ham bands. At least all the other types of digital systems are open source and can be openly experimented with and improved/dropped without any commercial gain or loss to the users or creators. As a radio ham from outside the USA I dont believe I can object through the FCC website so good luck with your objections. Cheers Stuart ZS6OUN
[digitalradio] Re: MixW Update
Downloaded several times. The file is corrupted !!!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? Good question. Bonnie? The primary objective of the petition is to attack Winlink2000 on HF. The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000. There is tremendous collateral damage ...you the ham! It is a blast that obliterates all digital HF innovation. It will kill every ham's ability to explore digital data time-sharing techniques on HF into the future. It will kill the only 24/7 HF emergency data ham radio service that can be accessed without an external computer. The petition is a fight by 20th Century frequency-division to try to eliminate new 21st Century time-division techniques. Let us hope that the FCC can see through the petitioner's ruse. Do your part, tell them to stop it. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
- Original Message - From: Stuart Baynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has some form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 modems. As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make ourselves let alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban these types of digital transmission system from the ham bands. At least all the other types of digital systems are open source and can be openly experimented with and improved/dropped without any commercial gain or loss to the users or creators. I agree - this is an abuse of Ham Radio except maybe where used to provide essential services to the yachting community in the oceans. I would only allow Pactor when we are allowed to write our own compatible software. I have raised this with my IARU rep - not my support for ditching Pactor I am afraid. Simon HB9DRV
[digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator. Then FCC came for RTTY, and I did not speak out because I was not an RTTY op. Then FCC came for the PSK, and I did not speak out because I was not a PSKer. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me. [Adapted from First They Came for the Jews by Martin Niemöller] They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Read the FCC Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology here: http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Hum . I dont see any move to kill digital. Digital stiil can do what they want above 219 mhz and thats where it BELONGS ... When 219 and up is full worry about HF . --- W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more than 500 hertz bandwidth should be allowed. Any kind of automatic transmission should be prohibited below 28 MHz. The petition is an attempt to prevent the destruction of ham radio as we know it. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35 years. I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire emergency? CW? How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10 years? And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to make a contact or log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be? I can tell you, useless. Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams. How many hams do we think will be left in 50 years? Less or more than today? A friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch. He had no other communication modes available. Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the HF spectrum. How about further band segment segregation? My $0.02 Michael _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa? Should there be an investigation when a narrower mode interferes with a wider mode? The petition is not about interference. It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz. Manual or auto. End of story. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more use of this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the licensing requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the bottom ends of the band will really be in 50 years with CW operators? I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for ham radio. I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on the HF bands. I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for the following reason: 1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding in this spectrum. 2.) The automatic PACTOR II III modes are an invaluable service to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators. This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical operators. 3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than completely ban them. 4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase the number of available operating modes to encourage further hams use of HF spectrum. Michael _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:57 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement Read the Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements click here: http://hflink. http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 click here: http://fjallfoss. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
Bonnie .. You forgot one . They they wanted to put digital wide band below 219 Mhz ... --- expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator. Then FCC came for RTTY, and I did not speak out because I was not an RTTY op. Then FCC came for the PSK, and I did not speak out because I was not a PSKer. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me. [Adapted from First They Came for the Jews by Martin Niemöller] They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Read the FCC Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology here: http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. . Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Well, the petition is out there now. Don't waste time making your arguments here... they mean nothing. Post your responses and feeling to the FCC's site. 73 - Bill KA8VIT To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:04:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics. _ i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
Bonnie, There's no need to worry, Dame Julie Andrews is available via the William Morris Agency. http://www.wma.com/julie_andrews/summary/ Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator.
[digitalradio] RM-11392
To hams who are not in the USA: Your comments are important. I just left my comment, and did not see any qualifier that required that you be in the USA. They may place more importance on your opinions since we are currently being a 'bad neighbor' to you. I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time. Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the petition. Some of the opposition was clearly mistaken. A couple said the Rule-making would hurt the MARS services. Of course the FCC has nothing to do with MARS, other than issuing the ham license that allows a ham to qualify as a MARS member. In fact, this could enhance MARS operation if some of the hams with this equipment became active MARS members. By the way, the wide modes work much better on MARS since there are 'channels' and assigned frequencies there. A few of the comments were embarrassing. How much weight can your opinion carry if you are not able to spell the word amateur? My opinion: Thank you Mark, for bringing this interference problem to focus. Maybe it will be resolved now Howard K5HB
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
expeditionradio wrote: First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator. The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on the part of the Winlink community that they refuse to listen to determine if a frequency is clear before they transmit. This dangerous practice must stop. We have all tried gentlemen's agreements and ordinary spirit of ham radio approach but the Pactor community is intransigent, and appears to have its own agenda which is contrary to the interests of amateur radio as a whole. Any petition that will eliminate this kind of operations will be a good thing. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
W2XJ wrote: Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics. The Pactor community has its own agenda which mainly involves squeezing the rest of the digital hams into a tiny sliver of the bands, operating on sufferance of powerful, non-listening Pactor/Winlink stations. These stations reserve the right to seize a frequency from others by sheer mechanical force and robot perseverance. This agenda will make someone a lot of money selling proprietary Pactor hardware, and allow a few people to control a LOT of spectrum. As best I can determine the petition in question would put an end to this. What good can come of 1.5Khz wide, high-powered stations transmitting without listening? None at all, is the obvious answer. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmation #20071226739154. If we want it to pass, we need to make a little more noise where it counts... http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Specify RM-11392 in the first box. Won't take but a minute, and WILL make a difference! -Joe, N8FQ On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:22:02 - Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time. Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the petition.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
I too, agree with the petition! There NEEDS to be some reining back of some, if not A LOT of the HF, as well as VHF UHF band operators! I'm NOT a fan of Internet Radio (IRLP or Echolink). Internet is NOT Radio! A LOT of these IRLP and Echo link nodes are oblivious to the fact that there ARE other people using that particular frequency and jump in over the top of them. This can be life threatening in an emergency! I'm FOR some regulation or regrouping! Rod KC7CJO Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology. In a real national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes. I agree with this petition, the author has given much thought to it. I also don't think that digital modes will be of much use in an emergency - I have often thought that this is just an excuse to promote the technology. Simon HB9DRV - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[digitalradio] RE: RM11392
After reading all of the comments posted regarding this topic, it appears that it is a mini version of regulation by bandwidth. It appears to me that it effectively would ban digital modes wider than 1.5kHz from the lower 100kHz of HF bands. I agree that automatic operation is a problem, and this can only start from a PMBO or PMBO like system, however, a PMBO system does not transmit until it had been queried by a client. This takes a PMBO out of the realm of unattended operation, even though it is automatic operation. I don't favor any petition whose effect would be to stifle innovation, and frankly, the digital modes are where amateur innovation is occurring. Not to say I don't support CW or Voice, but never to the exclusion of newer modes because of their signal characteristics. I have submitted a comment in opposition to this petition. Thanks for the time, Phil ..
[digitalradio] Primary communcation systems
I am not a sailor nor do I have any experience at sea. So as a layman, it is unfathomable to me that anyone would risk their life venturing out of port and rely on amateur radio for their communication needs. Amateur radio for recreational use, certainly... a backup communication system, certainly... but IMO, it would be foolhardy to not have a primary safety system that reports location and status. The whole idea strikes me as penny wise, pound foolish. The USCG requires safety equipment. Isn't a primary communication system on that list? 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN - Original Message - From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:02 PM Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? Ask a marine mobile station who may be far out at sea and when the band conditions stink, this is the kind of emergency where PACTOR 3 may be on the short-list of available modes of communication. This is not a theoretical scenario either. Happens all the time. A daily PMBO contact sends GPS info and allows others to track their whereabouts. Michael -- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Bulk] Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions? Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection? What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who travel in places where not even a mobile phone can operate? Are these not Radio Hams? Not to mention emergency situations where these Extremely Wide HF Networking Digital Modes like PACTOR 3 might assist. (2.2 KHZ wide, less than a voice channel, hmm some width, don't you think?) . Helping in Emergencies is number ONE PRIORITY in every Amateur Service all around the World!!! From what I have read it is also number ONE in USA. QSL card collection (although I do not dislike it) is not number ONE. It is number TWO in Amateur Radio. Are you trying to tell us that number ONE priority is worthless??? Everyone has the right to exercise their hobby in the Ham Radio Bands OM. And don't tell me that PACTOR 3 operators do not listen before they transmit. They always listen because they want their transmitters to stay cool, especially if this HF radio they are using is their only means of communication. Makes sense doesn't it? At least I hope it does to you!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
[I submitted the following comments.] I oppose this proposal: 1) It places undo restrictions on experimental digital systems. 2) Technology is moving too rapidly to regulate by modulation designators, regulation should be by bandwidth/emission mask, with varying bandwidth for each band and segments for automatic vs. manual transmissions. 3) Deal with automated transmission by limiting permitted segments for automatic stations (as is done now). Set expectation for non-automatic stations in those segments, that automated stations may not recognize their presence. More clearly define intentional vs. incidental interference for both automated and non-automated stations, especially in light of the vagaries of propagation on HF. Remind operators that incidental interference is to be expected, intentional interference is not. 4) Remove the artificial limits between data, image, and voice for digital transmissions. (e.g. voice can now be sent in 1100 hz via FDMDV -- there should be allowances for up to 8 kHz. in the traditionally 'voice' portions of the bands below 29 mHz., more bandwidth above 29 mHz.) Digital transmissions are all 'data' regardless of the content, whether voice, image, or text/data. 5) 160 meter band does not have the same regulatory segregation as other bands and the amateurs have worked out a workable bandplan. 6) Clarify encoding vs. encryptions. Especially as relates to authentication and control vs. obscuring the meaning of the message(s) in the transmission. Sincerely, John D. Hays, K7VE
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Hi all, seems like there are tons of ham keeping Art, KB2KB, very busy these days! :) Merry Christmas, Happy 2008, Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I do a lot of KB2KB QSO on all 3 pactor modes. I have never been QRM'ed by another pactor station to the point that I could not go on with the QSO. But I have been QRM'ed by other modes. reason, I think is the other guy thinks it's a robot and not a KB2KB QSO. And for what it's worth, a pactor station *WILL* listen to the frequency but only for other pactor station. Key word being only.. John, W0JAB Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
Demetre SV1UY wrote: What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection? What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who travel in places where not even a mobile phone can operate? Are these not Radio Hams? Well I do travel in remote portions of our South West. I carry an IC 7000 and a VX-7. But I also have a satellite phone and an emergency locater in addition to my normal cell phone. It is important to separate business from a hobby. In such a situation there are not that many scenarios where ham radio would be a better emergency solution than those systems designed for the task. The reason I say this is that VHF and UHF are only occasionally viable. If there is a situation where one has a personal emergency, accident or injury, it is not really practical to set up an HF rig. There is also the question will there be the appropriate band conditions for the necessary communications. On a ship there HF gear would already be installed and would be great as a last resort, but I for one would start out with a system where I knew there was 24 hour monitoring. For those who do not have an Internet connection, I have two comments - 1 - They would be better served with a UHF link that offers decent band width. 2- I would question the legality of such a data link in the first place. Not to mention emergency situations where these Extremely Wide HF Networking Digital Modes like PACTOR 3 might assist. (2.2 KHZ wide, less than a voice channel, hmm some width, don't you think?) . 'Might assist' is the operative word. I don't know about you, but I have lived through a few emergencies both here in New York and elsewhere. On 9-11 we lost virtually all communications in the city. The digital radios failed our fire fighters and cost lives. Repeater systems Amateur, Public safety, cell phone and ENG were all lost when the towers fell. Regular telephone and cell phone systems were jammed. The city's emergency management office was destroyed. Things that worked then were the basic things. Same goes for the black outs we have had. We learned not to depend on any installed infrastructure. Our club is in the process of building a repeater that should remain functional under all but the very worst of situations. Helping in Emergencies is number ONE PRIORITY in every Amateur Service all around the World!!! From what I have read it is also number ONE in USA. Very true, but the modes should be reliable and usable under primitive conditions QSL card collection (although I do not dislike it) is not number ONE. It is number TWO in Amateur Radio. Actually experimentation is my number two and it includes a number of digital modes. Are you trying to tell us that number ONE priority is worthless??? No, I am telling you that the number one priority should be given more serious consideration. Anyone can use almost any situation as a straw man and claim that it supports emergency communications. Everyone has the right to exercise their hobby in the Ham Radio Bands OM. And don't tell me that PACTOR 3 operators do not listen before they transmit. They always listen because they want their transmitters to stay cool, especially if this HF radio they are using is their only means of communication. Makes sense doesn't it? At least I hope it does to you!!! That is not what other PACTOR operators have stated as recently as today in this thread. PACTOR stations listen for other PACTOR stations but not stations operating in other modes.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Rick, You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion. The outcome of what takes place within the Amateur Radio Service as to what is and what is not accepted as technology and practices needs to be driven by the development of technologies and the choices made by the Amateur Radio community where the rules governing the Amateur Radio Service allow for the needed experimentation and development of new technology and practices rather than tightening of the rules to limit such. I have no love for proprietary PACTOR x or any proprietary protocols or for automation systems based stations that just sit parked on one frequency rather than frequency multiplexing. I believe the future of the Amateur Radio Service will be based on open standards, the best of which currently are U.S. Federal, Military and NATO standards which the ARS can adopt as they exist of use as the basis of derived protocols adapted to the exacting needs of the ARS. However we need to be moving in the opposite direction of RM-11392, we need 3Khz bandwidth and relaxation of a number of existing rules here in the U.S. to keep pace with the world Amateur Radio community. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 03:21 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: Hi Mark, It is interesting that the opposition to your petition is overwhelming. I would have expected it the other way, based upon the discussions we all have on groups such as digitalradio. As they say, those who show up for the meeting get to decide the outcome, even if they are in the extreme minority. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: At 10:53 AM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is a major issue with the digital amateur community. Hi Rick, I did submit a news article to QRZ.com, but it appears that there is a queue, so I used the Ham Radio Announcements forum. Some other threads have popped up too. I checked around 1800z and a little more than 80% of the comments were in opposition to the petition. 73, Mark N5RFX Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Thank you, Rick and others, for helping to clarify my impression of this petition. Yes, I agree that Winlink 2000 should not be the only form of emergency backup communication, but that said, it is very useful and fun to use when no other communication form is available and, when combined with other forms of backup communication, can augment an emergency situation. I.e., routine posts of GPS coordinates can assist in determining last known location. Especially when they are highly noise and low-signal tolerant and are among other forms of backup communications available. But I can say that I did not appreciate that the proposal sought only to make limitations on only the highest bandwidth forms of PACTOR 3 and some forms of automatic, unattended use. This is my fault for not fishing this out of the proposal and it appears from the posts I have read that many others seem to have this misinterpretation. I am not taking away from how well thought out and useful the petition is. And I'll need to go back and re-read it, but it should not take several translations of a proposal via e-mail for the vast majority of hams to get the gist. The abstract or foreword of this petition needs to be worded in such a way so non-technical individuals can come away with an accurate representation and be able to vote on it with good knowledge of what it means. Overall, I agree that we should tighten the noose a little so that these operations can be done responsibly, and to encourage more innovation, ie., software that can detect when a freq is in use. But if I am reading between the lines correctly, there is so much anger about these operations that the intention may be to try to chase them off the HF bands by making the restrictions overly untenable. For this, I am very opposed as being not in the spirit of ham radio. Michael _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:13 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement Michael, I was initially licensed in 1963. There were many fewer hams here in the U.S. back then I can assure you. Many fewer. I would not take the position that we are going to have fewer hams worldwide either. So your claim may be misplaced. You are correct that CW has declined as a casual mode since almost no new hams will ever learn it. But some do and we can expect substantial use during contests (like most other modes other than ragchewing, DX, etc.) for decades to come because there are some new hams who want to do this and it only takes a few to pack the bands at those times. In some desperate emergencies, or special cases (backpackers, low powered rigs) may only have CW available. You can almost always make a CW contact on some band anytime from any location. This can not be said for digital modes which require far more specialized equipment and power requirements. Making an HF Winlink 2000 connection is also not always that easy. As a user of the now discontinued Aplink and Winlink systems, you had to work very hard, even from a fixed location with reasonably good antennas to acquire these systems. They might be out of propagation or busy with someone else. It is not Pactor modes that are necessarily invaluable for nautical hams, it is having access to a system that permits e-mail. There is extremely low cost SailMail, which operates on Marine frequencies and would be a much better lower QRM fit in an emergency. Realistically, Winlink 2000 is primarily a system for casual use. Only a fool (and I don't deny there are some) would build their security or emergency communications around Winlink 2000. But it is something you might consider as a back up in some limited cases. The problem is you can not design for everything so most of us want something that will actually work when we desperately need it. This nearly happened to us this summer during our area disaster and Winlink 2000 would have had minimal value. Based upon some of your comments, you seem to suggest that Mark, N5RFX's outstanding and well thought out petition is somehow prohibiting Winlink 2000. This is untrue and you may need to come to a truer understanding of what the petition really means. It only would prevent the widest Pactor 3 modes from operating. Pactor and Pactor 2 are not affected at all for human to human operation and can still be used for automatic operation within the limited areas that we should always have had. Remember that it was Aplink/Winlink who were able to get the FCC to change the rules to allow automatic operation many years ago. These are the same few (very few) hams who were able to get the nose of the camel under the tent. Some of us, myself included, supported this at the time as we thought that these operators would develop technology to prevent intentional interference. Ironically, they
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
It's all about how much of the band you are using. But you know how they like to pick on poor Pactor. Read page 11 line 4,5 and 6 of the PDF file * * * * * page 11 of RM11392.PDF 8. Two bandwidths are appropriate for what is now the RTTY/Data subband, 1.5 KHz and 2.4 kHz. The selection of these two bandwidths should accommodate current modes and not prohibit any emissions currently found in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Pactor III would continue to be authorized, as long as speed levels 1 and 2 are used. 1.5 kHz is appropriate because of the bandwidth guidance for the RTTY/Data subbands in 97.307(f)(3). As stated above when employing the formulae of Part 2.202 for amplitude or frequency modulation, with a signal with quantized or digital information, and telegraphy without error-correction, the necessary bandwidth derived is 1.5 kHz. 1.5 kHz will accommodate emissions in the RTTY/Data subbands where appropriate and is consistent with the intention of97.307(f)(3). 2.4 kHz is also appropriate because of the bandwidth guidance for the RTTY/Data subbands in 97.307(t)(4). 1.5 kHz bandwidth is appropriate for the 80 through 12 meter bands and 2.4 kHz is appropriate for the 10-meter band. This action will restore the separation of emissions by bandwidth, which has been lost due to changes in technology. The definitions of data in 97.3(c)(2) can return to the definition of data prior to FCC 06-149 since bandwidths for the current RTTY/Data band will be enumerated. Continuing to enumerate emissions by lTV emissions designator in the Phone/Image subbands will continue to prevent other data emissions from John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email and other document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions? Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. Rud Merriam wrote: You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email and other document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Hi Rud: CW or Voice?? I think you might want to checkout EasyPal,, digital sstv pics..sends exact picture of doc in just a few seconds (60) just like a fax but cleaner.. can go from your scanner to on the air, can be printed. MARS and many of the other services are using it... try it, you'll like it !! (if you haven't) http://www.kc1cs.com/digi.htm Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:02:28 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email and other document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwor k.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions? Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwor k.net Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/drsked/ drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/database Yahoo! Groups Links Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ You said that, but the clients always listen OM. After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, if it makes you happy!!! 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
+++additional AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode. You said that, but the clients always listen OM. +++In your earlier post, Demetre, you said Sometimes through the night when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on 30 or 40 meters. How about that? +++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in Canada or the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about that? After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, if it makes you happy!!! +++The client is indeed behaving arrogantly and irresponsibly, but it is not the client that is generating the QRM. Its the PMBO. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
Demetre, I think you did not read carefully what Dave wrote and you quoted. He said, Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether or not the frequency is *LOCALLY* clear. This means that if a PMBO is next door to me ( i.e. locally) and I am in a QSO that the client cannot hear, the PMBO will transmit anyway on top of me because the PMBO cannot detect signals in any mode except Pactor, even it busy channel detection is not turned off. Even though I may be strong at the PMBO location, but weak, or even not detectable at all at the client location, the PMBO will transmit anyway in response to a client station that cannot hear me. This is the problem with unattended stations. When stations on both ends are attended, each can hear a station local to itself, so the chances of inadvertant QRM to a local station are probably cut in half. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:56 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ You said that, but the clients always listen OM. After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, if it makes you happy!!! 73 de SV1UY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 8:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that transmit without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc. John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to remember that painfully slow HF link may be the *only* link that we have that is working. John, W0JAB At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link.
RE: [digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater
I AGREE!!! Dave Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, A very well thought out comment that I agree with 100%. TNX 73, Dave N0EOP -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater I strongly oppose the operation of unattended stations that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is locally clear. The problem isn't simply that these stations are unattended, its that they are both unattended and deaf to the presence of other signals. The fact that such stations are activated by a remote operator is of no help, since that remote operator cannot reliably ensure that the frequency is clear at the unattended station's location. The protocol/mode employed by such deaf robots is irrelevant; they are as unacceptable in CW as as they are in Pactor III. Banning a particular mode because some irresponsible operators happen to employ that mode in their deaf robots would be like banning cars because some people drive drunk. The proper solution is to keep the drunks off the road, not prevent everyone else from driving. For the same reason, we ought not ban unattended operation; only incompetent/rude automatic operation should be prohibited (e.g. unattended stations without busy frequency detectors). Modes like Pactor III that can dynamically expand their bandwidth do impose a responsibility on their users to ensure that the full range of frequencies they might use remains clear throughout the QSO. So if you're using Pactor III in keyboard-to-keyboard mode, make sure that all 3 Khz is clear before you call CQ, and if your modem starts at a lower bandwidth and then expands, listen to make sure that the expansion won't QRM a neighbor. If you consider this requirement to be inconvenient, then configure your modem to remain in a narrower sub-mode. Banning modes because their current implementation is expensive would be a very bad idea. Peter G3PLX originally developed PSK31 to run on dedicated out-board hardware because at the time, PCs and soundcards did not yet provide the needed horsepower and development environment. I'm sure that the hardware he used cost more than most hams would have been willing to spend at the time. Should Peter have been prevented from putting this equipment on the air? Preventing this sort of development on the assumption that anything worth doing can be done now with a PC and soundcard would be extremely short- sighted. If a company chooses to implement an advanced protocol with an expensive hardware device, then the market should decide whether or not their approach is sensible; they should not be subject to some arbitrary and hard-to-change price ceiling established by government regulation. In order for amateur radio operators to police themselves, however, all protocols must be openly defined and unencrypted. Compression is fine, so long as anyone can decompress and decode to plain text. If Pactor III does not currently comply with these requirements, then its use should be curtailed until compliance is achieved. I also believe that its wrong-headed to ban email or any other form of message transfer. While I'm not the least bit interested in sending email mesages or images over HF, my personal preferences should not be imposed on other operators -- and neither should yours! As long as the content remains consistent with local restrictions on commercial and indecent content, there's no reason to legislate content. It's a testament to the arrogance of those who operate, use, and defend deaf robots that they have managed to stir up so broad an upwelling of negative emotion in the amateur community. But making policy decisions while you're angry is never a good idea. By focusing on the real issue -- unattended stations without busy frequency detectors -- we can preserve our shared spectrum without imposing unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions. I plan to read the proposed RM in detail and file a comment consistent with the above position. In the mean time, I have a release to get out the door... 73, Dave, AA6YQ - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Sometimes through the night when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on 30 or 40 meters. How about that? If it uses more than 500 hertz bandwidth it is not something I want on 30 meters period.
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
At 05:17 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that transmit without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc. Give me another mode Steve. Yes I know it started about automated stations. but under this RM pactor 3 would killed and maybe other modes as well.. John, W0JAB DRCC #2
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion HERE WE GO AGAIN obsolete technology and practices If it an't digital it an't radio .. BUNK JUST BUNK . How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ? How come you want it on HF? When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its protecting obsolete technology and practices UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use GO USE IT Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Bruce, From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if the the hurts! /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion HERE WE GO AGAIN obsolete technology and practices If it an't digital it an't radio .. BUNK JUST BUNK . How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ? How come you want it on HF? When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its protecting obsolete technology and practices UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use GO USE IT
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
Demetre SV1UY wrote: First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a viable role in their communications. This is where PACTOR 3 comes and solves their problem. Also when everything has gone down in an emergency, PACTOR 3 can give you reliable communications using a PACTOR mailbox that resides in a neighbouring country. Sometimes through the night when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a decent 80 meters antenna It looks like your Internet connection to this list is working fine. Are you using PACTOR?
[digitalradio] Changes in ham populations/operating
The data on ham numbers/classes is accurate, but one has to be careful with the interpretation. (Glass half full/half empty, etc.). When I was first licensed in 1963, only a few potential candidates would go through all the necessary CW and theory testing, even if available by mail with a local ham administering the tests. But many of those who did this tended to have a very serious interest in ham radio, particularly the technical part, because it was so difficult. Things changed over the years due to the increasing ease of obtaining a license here in the U.S. The exam information was much easier to pass with the publishing of the actual questions and the actual answers, even to the point of including the distractors! The tests no longer required the candidate to draw circuits from memory. Now I think even the diagrams have been removed. But we have many times more hams today than just a few decades ago. Many of those hams are Technician class. In fact, when the no code licenses became available, you started seeing entire families being licensed. My wife and daughter both had Tech licenses after morse code was dropped. Many of these hams had minimal interest in HF and we could not get many of them interested in learning morse code to upgrade to General. I have watched this closely since running VE test sessions since the early 1980's. The information you referenced is from 1999 and even further changes have occurred. Now with the total elimination of the CW requirement, more hams are upgrading to the General class and some even to Extra class, who would not have done this with even a minimal 5 wpm CW requirement, much less the more difficult requirements of the past. The percentage increase this year in General class licensees is quite large. If you are an ARRL member, note Jan 2007 QST, p. 92. and compare the number of new Generals for 2007. There are nearly as many Generals (mostly upgrades) as new Technician class licensees coming in to ham radio. In 2006 it was barely 20% of new Techs. The numbers of new Techs is still holding its own too. Many older operators will continue for decades before they become SK's, so we should see some HF growth. Another factor is the low cost of equipment, which is a fraction of what it was in the past and has tremendous capability such as digital readout, minimal drift, multimode, multiband, etc. So I am fairly optimistic that we will do fairly well with new HF hams here in the U.S. In other parts of the world we may see increased numbers as the standard of living improves in developing countries. 73, Rick, KV9U Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote: The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this? In response to this question, there is data to suggest HF usage will continue to decline. This is taken from: http://www.hamradio-online.com/1999/aug/growth.html. I cannot authenticate the source of this data, but it is a trend I have read about from many other sources, but do not have those other references handy. The U.S. Amateur Radio Service just made a switch from being HF-centric (for nearly 100 years) to being VHF/UHF-centric. This change will accelerate as many HF-capable Amateur Radio operators reach the end of their life span. HF operation will continue to be important to Amateur Radio - but is no longer the defining characteristic of ham radio nor the lure for attracting new members.
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
There is the DSTAR network that is Internet linked as well as IRLP and Echolink. All the above more portable than an NVIS set up. Don't get me wrong NVIS is a good use of frequencies and well proven but if data is being passed, the other solutions are more efficient. As always different situations require different solutions. Rud Merriam wrote: If I need something to go from Houston to Austin I need to use HF NVIS. The higher bands are not usable. Although, having said that, I do believe the higher bands could be used for longer distance communications than is done presently. The requires getting towers, beams, and perhaps SSB in place. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. Rud Merriam wrote: You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email and other document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
Re: [digitalradio] Changes in ham populations/operating
What did you just say? You really need to run for some office.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
NO STEVE You and the digi boys need to get it You have entire bands on UHF to use and they sit EMPTY .. Your disrespect for all of those who are happy with analog shows how little you care about the hobby. ONLY YOUR SELF .. IF IT Ain't DIGITAL it ain't radio When you can show that you have enough people who care about digital to show usage of UHF come back and talk to the 99% of us who don't care about you or your modes we really don't CARE as long as you don't deprive all of us of OUR rights to use the bands .. --- Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bruce, From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if the the hurts! /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my opinion HERE WE GO AGAIN obsolete technology and practices If it an't digital it an't radio .. BUNK JUST BUNK . How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ? How come you want it on HF? When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its protecting obsolete technology and practices UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use GO USE IT Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? With the current band conditions, almost all I hear is CW. There are good digital modes such as PSK31 but we do not need bandwidth hogging autonomous robots jumping on any QSO that happens to get in it's way. Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote: I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35 years. I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire emergency? CW? How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10 years? And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to make a contact or log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be? I can tell you, useless. Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams. How many hams do we think will be left in 50 years? Less or more than today? A friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch. He had no other communication modes available. Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the HF spectrum. How about further band segment segregation? My $0.02 Michael _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa? Should there be an investigation when a narrower mode interferes with a wider mode? The petition is not about interference. It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz. Manual or auto. End of story. Bonnie KQ6XA -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 8:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Steve, I agree that it is a type of protectionism. I did not view it that way as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can do is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without stepping on someone else. Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes. Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same, (OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g., voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind of segregation is needed. There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete. I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits. For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is not being held back at all by the rules. As you know, I have submitted questions to the FCC on this very subject and am waiting on a return response. Your fellow promoter of ALE, Bonnie, KQ6XA, was livid that I even dared ask these questions and yet the amateur community has a right to know how the rules should be properly interpreted. And a major one is whether we can operate certain kinds of modes on the high speed portions of the HF bands, otherwise known as the voice/image portions. Maybe they will stretch the rules to allow use of mixed image and text, maybe they won't, but I want to know what we can and can not do. I am convinced that the FCC will support the use of ALE modes, including the very modes you mention below providing that that content is image/fax. I personally have sent many faxes over the years that don't even have one picture in them and were all text. Even if they say we can not send a pdf, or a doc or an xls, we can still send jpg and jp2 files as the WinDRM folks actively do ever day for real world testing. And we can coordinate this with SSB voice too. Something we can not do in the text data portions of the bands. Although I did ask the FCC about the single tone MILSTD/FEDSTD/STANAG modem use in the text data portions of the bands, they would have to make changes to the rules to allow such use. My preference is to keep the narrow modes in the text digital area, and rename this the narrow areas and then allow us to use the wide modes in the voice/image areas. But here is the rub. We can do that any time we want now ... right? All you have to do is make it an image and you have no limits on the baud rate, even 2400 baud ... right? And I have asked this question many times on these groups. No one even wants to try it? Why is that? Is it possible that you have tried it or others have tried it with poor results? The professional contacts I have in the business of emergency/military communication tell me that these modes don't work all that well, even on dedicated channels. Something we don't have in the amateur shared frequency bands. When I asked the ARRL, Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, he felt that the reason we don't use the single tone modems may be due to the need for increased computing power to make it work. Either way, why is no one working on this now? It does not add up. Why do we need wider modes? The reality is that HF is a terribly difficult place to get high speeds with weak signals. The wider modes tend to work less well than the narrow modes in most cases. Even Pactor 3 drops to way under 1,000 Hz and only 2 tones when conditions get really difficult. The wide 8FSK125 ALE mode at around 2000 Hz wide compares very poorly with the narrow 8FSK50 mode at only 400 Hz when it comes to sensitivity. It is very difficult to find 2000 Hz of clear frequency to even
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
At 06:49 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters. Bob, AA8X Yeah right. Let's do away with contesting. Ham radio would be like watching paint dry. I don't understand just what you mean by digital frequency John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
David wrote: Hi All..as this petition only has to do with Hams in the USA i would suggest that argument from both sides be taken to a group especially for the subject and not be put on the other many Hams outside the USA.this petition has already engendered some very bad slanging between the 2 opposing sides that other Hams not involved should not have to put up with 73 Davdi VK4BDJ Very much Hear Hear, David, I agree that there is an enormous anount of A.R outside of the States but to read all the Guff lately on Digital Radio one would not think so. Kevin VK5OA
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in Canada or the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about that? I have done this only a few times just for a test, to see what can be done in an emergency. I know it is a bad idea to do it regularly, so I do it for test purposes and only when I want to convince someone (including myself) how good PACTOR 3 can be in an emergency. So you acknowledge that its a bad idea to remotely activate a PMBO. You clearly accept the fact that PMBOs QRM other hams, but yet you still use WinLink. That can only mean that you consider your use of WinLink to be so important that its okay to QRM other hams. This is the pinnacle of arrogance, and about as far from the spirit of amateur radio as one can get. When the communications infrastructure of a whole country has gone down, this is the only way to pass digital traffic accurately and effectively. There is no other accurate way OM. If you only had a PACTOR 3 MODEM and an open mind you would understand what am I talking about. I have a Pactor 3 modem (PTC-IIe), a very open mind, and fully understand that you will do or say anything to rationalize your continued use of a system that QRMs your fellow amateurs. And if you ever get a little interference from another station, if there is no other way for the traffic to be passed, please be patient. Unless an emergency is in progress, there is always another way for the traffic to be passed that doesn't involve QRMing others. The transfer will soon finish because it is a fast mode, it will not last all day just like many ragchew QSOs do. After all what is going to happen to you? Is the PACTOR QRM going to spoil your toys? QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot of Christmas lists; Ack *this*. By the way, your posts are greatly appreciated. They make it very easy to expose the truth behind WinLink. Can we go have this conversation on the QRZ reflector too? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] STOP THE BITCHING AND MOANING!!!!
I know there are problems with the automatic winlink systems i've run into them myself but when I do I just move to another frequency and move on. There are plenty channels to use out there!!. The thing I fear the most from all this is one day the FCC is going to say to heck with ham radio all they do is cause us grief lets sell all those frequencies to the highest bidder and make some money and shut them up!!. Or they will decide that the bands we love for personal communications need to stop and only get used during emergencies . All this complaining about digital stuff but nothing is said about all the radio jerks on voice who hog channels or make delibrate qrm to chase people off the air (keying up or blowing in the mike or switching on high power anything to disturb an ongoing qso) no complaints filed with the FCC on these things but anything that could eventually hurt our hobby and our advancement in our art of communications is attacked . It's time to work together folks most of the problems with automatic stations are caused by the operators of those stations not the mode they are using if someone is not where they supposed to be then report them don't kill the mode or make it harder on everybody else who enjoys the many modes of ham radio . With the conditions and the propergation these days no one can really know if they are interferring with another station if they can't hear them on there in it occurs a whole lot in radio not just on digital all modes can be quite locally and cause interference distances away and only the person receiving the qrm will know about it. An how about the hams with the big amps running 1000 watts and coming through on five channels in the qso is with someone 10 miles away!!! There are many problems in our hobby but 90% of them are the operators who feel they own the bands for themselves only so how come a letter has not been sent to the FCC on these problems . Im off my soap box now and if I 've stepped on toes im sorry but its just getting way to out of hand these days with the grumbling!! Jeff kd4qit
RE: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
Thank you Rick. William A. Collister N7MOG _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:56 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Almost everything said by Bonnie, KQ6XA, is misrepresenting the facts. She is correct that we may only have a few days to respond and save the future of digital radio. That would best be done by reasonable and thoughtful hams by supporting this petition. Mark Miller, N5RFX's petition does not eliminate any of the modes that Bonnie claims it does. For example: MT-63 - most of the modes (especially the ones that work a bit better into the noise) are fine. It is only the widest 2000 Hz mode that would not be permitted in the text digital area Olivia, most of the modes that any of us use would continue to be allowed except for the widest which is rarely if ever used by hams who want to play fair with very limited spectrum. How many of you run 2000 Hz Olivia? Fast PSK? The fastest that I have seen is PSK250 for a single tone. This is roughly about 500 Hz bandwidth. The petition has no effect whatsoever on this and even much faster PSK modes if they were developed. Wide bandwidth ALE, which is 2000 Hz or more, would continue to be allowed as a signaling mode in the voice/fax/image portions of the bands. This is a much better match because the wide ALE does not work all that well with weaker signals (same with voice modes). But ALE 400 or any other ALE modes under the maximum bandwidth proposal would have no effect from this petition. Pactor, and Pactor 2 would have no effect on their operation at all. Even P3 would be allowed up to the maximum bandwidth and that includes most of the more robust speeds of P3. What would not be allowed is the use of robots spread across the digital sub bands as we now have. MFSK in most forms is a narrow mode. It is only the wide ALE mode that would slightly exceed the recommended maximum bandwidth under Mark's petition. Now, the final point is that most of these modes can be used in the voice/fax/image portions of the bands for the needed high speeds when you have large image files. This means that the experimentation of these modes is NOT being prevented and anyone who claims that it does is not being truthful. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia, MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others. We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it. Only you can save the future of digital radio, by your comments to FCC. It only takes a few minutes on the web. Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments: http://fjallfoss. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Fill in the appropriate parts of the form, then write your comments in the lower part Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in) Here are suggested examples of comments, below. Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio. Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments. 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF. 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur Radio Service. 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data to the 20th century. 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on data emission is too narrow for established international standard transmissions and equipment bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service. 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, technology advancement, and emergency data communications in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen. 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently through rapid data time division methods. 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted. 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency communications
RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
Sounds a bit like a survivalist touting the end of the world more emotion than substantiation. QRM is QRM. BPL, Pactor, bad volkswagon ignition systems, et.al. William A. Collister N7MOG _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:24 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR A little over the top? expeditionradio wrote: First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator. Then FCC came for RTTY, and I did not speak out because I was not an RTTY op. Then FCC came for the PSK, and I did not speak out because I was not a PSKer. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me. [Adapted from First They Came for the Jews by Martin Niemöller] They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA === Read the FCC Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology here: http://hflink. http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against proceeding RM-11392 here: http://fjallfoss. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. .
[digitalradio] Re: DM780 : SSTV teaser
Andy, I love DM780 and think Simon can go ahead and release the analog SSTV now from what I saw on his site! I've given up on MixW, which I have had a registered copy of for about 5 years. MixW just released a new beta the past day or so but it appears to be minor changes. DM780 however beats MixW by leaps and bounds...and its only in beta! 73--Scott KN3A --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check http://forums.ham-radio.ch/showthread.php?t=9592 for some screen shots of the upcoming SSTV inclusion in DM780. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Packet Radio Frequencies
Ahhh, the old days300 baud HF packet. I remember when it was all the rage in the early 1990s. Now, VHF packet (1200 baud) was much more interesting and I even had a packet BBS. That was in eastern PA. Now I live in Pittsburgh and can find no VHF packet activity whatsoever. To the O.P. - look for some packet in your area around 145.01, 145.03, 145.05, 145.07, 145.09 - that might have changed over the years too but thats where it used to be! 73-Scott KN3A --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, here is some traffic I just copied on 14095 [FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$] FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084 F 55 [FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$] FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084 F 55 FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$] FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084 F 55 It looks like BBS forwarding using the FBB software. Andy K3UK On Dec 25, 2007 2:32 PM, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Packet can be easily found on 30M, the APRS stations on 10151 use packet. . Try also 14095 for packet BBS traffic . on HF it is 300 baud packet (below 10M) Andy K3UK On Dec 25, 2007 1:31 PM, kaboona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all and Merry Christmas. I just recently discovered packet radio. The fact that it exists in VHF makes it interesting to me. Now, I understand that it also exists in HF. I use two of the Kenwood radios that have a TNC built in for this purpose and a signalink interface for the HF rig at home. The difficulty I am having now is the finding of frequencies commonly used for packet. Where can I find such a list if one exists? Can anyone point me in the right direction? thanks in advance Jim -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ) -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Help a packet newbie
Hi Craig, http://www.elcom.gr/sv2agw/ will get you to a new AGW Packet Engine version.. The non pro version is not being upgraded from what I hear, and the pro suppose to be more stable. Winpac is a good Windows program for an upstart and experts alike. Free too, the only ask for a donation to a cancer charity. http://www.apritch.myby.co.uk/mainpage.htm and http://f5vag.eu/software.html, found a download for 6.8 on these. You may find good links here http://www.rmham.org/files/packet/index.html Dick Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] may be able to give you some info on local node and bbs resources. I know there are Winlink Telac Gateways ( soon to be RMS Gateways). Good luck and if I can be of ay help you got my email :-) 73, Lee --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Craig M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HELP!!! I got my 857D all hooked up and found a local freq that I can copy traffic. I can even connect to another node. Not that I know what to do after I connect. Maybe its me or maybe its just how it is but the only thing I can find to connect is a old version Hamscope and what seems to be a very flaky version of AGW to act as the TNC. This seems to be the newest of anything that I can find ...Most are pure DOS... Is there a better way? Thanks Craig KC0TPL
Re: [digitalradio] STOP THE BITCHING AND MOANING!!!!
The problem with PACTOR III is that it is downward compatible with narrower modes PACTOR AND PACTOR II. The 500 kHz mode is compatible with narrow modes in the CW sections. The wide mode is only compatible with SSB. If you look at the SCS website, they promote PACTOR III as a commercial mode mostly for maritime operation. The rules in the US seem to prohibit PACTOR III if it is downward compatible. I still believe that if you can afford a sea going yacht you can afford the appropriate non amateur communications systems that are much more reliable. jeffnjr484 wrote: I know there are problems with the automatic winlink systems i've run into them myself but when I do I just move to another frequency and move on. There are plenty channels to use out there!!. The thing I fear the most from all this is one day the FCC is going to say to heck with ham radio all they do is cause us grief lets sell all those frequencies to the highest bidder and make some money and shut them up!!. Or they will decide that the bands we love for personal communications need to stop and only get used during emergencies . All this complaining about digital stuff but nothing is said about all the radio jerks on voice who hog channels or make delibrate qrm to chase people off the air (keying up or blowing in the mike or switching on high power anything to disturb an ongoing qso) no complaints filed with the FCC on these things but anything that could eventually hurt our hobby and our advancement in our art of communications is attacked . It's time to work together folks most of the problems with automatic stations are caused by the operators of those stations not the mode they are using if someone is not where they supposed to be then report them don't kill the mode or make it harder on everybody else who enjoys the many modes of ham radio . With the conditions and the propergation these days no one can really know if they are interferring with another station if they can't hear them on there in it occurs a whole lot in radio not just on digital all modes can be quite locally and cause interference distances away and only the person receiving the qrm will know about it. An how about the hams with the big amps running 1000 watts and coming through on five channels in the qso is with someone 10 miles away!!! There are many problems in our hobby but 90% of them are the operators who feel they own the bands for themselves only so how come a letter has not been sent to the FCC on these problems . Im off my soap box now and if I 've stepped on toes im sorry but its just getting way to out of hand these days with the grumbling!! Jeff kd4qit
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Rick, At 08:26 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: Hi Steve, I agree that it is a type of protectionism. Which in my opinion is a worst case issue for the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) than the technical challenges being presented. I did not view it that way as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can do is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without stepping on someone else. As I have stated before what is needed within the ARS is segregation of narrow vs. wide digital modes. The approach taken should be to split in half the digital sub bands so that the bottom half is used for emissions below 500hz and the 2nd half for emissions greater than 500hz, regardless of automated operations or not. I agree that we have too little frequency allocation on most bands, period, not just when it comes to digital sub bands, personally I would like to see a 500Khz wide band for each segment below 10 meters, but that's a dream, we come close to that on 15m, a bit less so on 20m ( and about the same for 40m in North America ) and we hit the mark on 80/75m but elsewhere we are no where near being close. With or without 500Khz bands I see no reason why each band allocated to the ARS could not be split 50/50 between Digital and Voice, I actually see no reason why that should not be the case with the allocations already in place personally. I would also like to see the availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency. Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes. Well the problem with a large segment of AM/SSB stations is that they are over driven and splatter, those driving QRO level amplifiers make the situation even worst during their on-the-air pursuits. Its not like AFSK digital mode stations are immune from this either, I see a number of PSK-x stations and others over driven as well. Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same, (OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g., voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind of segregation is needed. Again, I am all for segregation of narrow vs. wide digital modes on a normal basis. There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete. Don't take your Amateur Radio Digital Voice experience to heart and tell Government and Military users that, they will laugh at you. We Radio Amateurs are slapping together various equipments for digital voice operations that are either firmware/hardware digital voice modems or Software/PC OS based modems with common Amateur Radio SSB transceivers, change that paradigm to the use of full up 3Khz radios and Vocoder modems designed for the task and the results are quite different. I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits. You have to be kidding? For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is not being held back at all by the rules. Rick I have NO agenda as you state, I am NOT promoting anything, do you really think that? All my software development which I am involved that has to do with digital waveforms and data link protocols are in support of the MARS program. I am directly associated with G4GUO as my efforts with MARS-ALE is based on his efforts with PC-ALE and he asked that I update aspects of PC-ALE that have to do with Radio Control and interfacing, but I do not do any development of that tool with respect to the digital data operations.
