Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and decrease regulatory burdens in the future. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. All HF bands. All day. All night. see map: http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data Station HF Sub Bands... see chart: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone texting, and short text e-messaging. The primary purpose of HFN is to provide Emergency / Disaster Relief Communications. When the system is not being used for the primary purpose, it provides normal daily routine text messaging services, propagation services, and many other types of features for hams. HFN ALE stations use a common frequency per band, sharing the same channel on a time-domain multiplexed basis, with a combination of automatic busy detection and/or collision detection systems. The transmissions are normally sent in quick bursts. The system is free and open for all ham radio operators... for more information about using HFN, click here: http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network does not require the internet to function, but it uses the internet when it is available. It is the only ham radio system of its kind that is truly interoperable on HF for selective calling, voice, and text, with other non-amateur services and agencies. For more information about this, see Interoperable HF Communications: http://www.hflink.com/interoperation/ Who among the
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and decrease regulatory burdens in the future. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. All HF bands. All day. All night. see map: http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data Station HF Sub Bands... see chart: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone texting, and short text e-messaging. The primary purpose of HFN is to provide Emergency / Disaster Relief Communications. When the system is not being used for the primary purpose, it provides normal daily routine text messaging services, propagation services, and many other types of features for hams. HFN ALE stations use a common frequency per band, sharing the same channel on a time-domain multiplexed basis, with a combination of automatic busy detection and/or collision detection systems. The transmissions are normally sent in quick bursts. The system is free and open for all ham radio operators... for more information about using HFN, click here: http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per octave. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and decrease regulatory burdens in the future. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. All HF bands. All day. All night. see map: http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data Station HF Sub Bands... see chart: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I updated my comments to the FCC to change the second to last paragraph: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usally the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image commnication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwarding as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwith between 29 and 225 MHz. This allows for existing terrestrial FM voice and medium-speed data stations and the prior and existing 50-200 kHz wide FDM transmitters in orbit for the amateur satellite service. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802.xx data transmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve problems more effectivly than those currently in RM-11392 and decrease regulatory burdens in the future. This makes the VHF/UHF narrow-band segments good for SSB and AM but not FM which is more in-line with what the WSWSS would want. Users of the weak-signal segments of VHF and UHF bands mainly want protection from FM repeaters. I also realized that AMSAT linear transponders are wide-band devices. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hmm OK, I hope this anti SCS thing is not going to end to being an anti-European thing Roger. I get that feeling somehow, since SCS is not an American company. My dear fellow, I once owned an SCS PTC-II. Very few American hams ever bought one--they never sold well here. Does that sound like the act of an anti-European? Please, let us keep the argument at a professional level and not resort to ad hominem attacks of this low nature. Also anyone can class your claims againstt Winlink and PACTOR as pure propaganda. A purely meaningless statement, my friend. I have simply pointed out, as have others, that Winlink and Pactor stations do not listen before transmitting, unlike essentially the entire rest of the amateur community. Since the Winlink/Pactor people acknowledge the truth of this point, I would hardly call it propaganda. Now, your characterization of this as The Great Global Amateur Communications System or something like that might be rightfully characterized as propaganda by some. But not by me, Demetre, not by me. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] FDMDV on 14.236
Calling on 14.236 in FDMDV now 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My dear fellow, I once owned an SCS PTC-II. Very few American hams ever bought one--they never sold well here. Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my friend. Check the Winlink maps and you will see how popular Winlink is in USA, and this also gives you a great advantage for your homeland security, but you want to through it away. Are you frightened that every PACTOR modem owner would be using it every minute of the day for their Internet connection? Well this system is only used by people who are far away from home and of course during emergency tests and real emergencies. That is why you do not hear them 24/7/365 using the system. When anyone has Internet access they will not use Winlink-2000, infact they are being discouraged from doing that. A purely meaningless statement, my friend. I have simply pointed out, as have others, that Winlink and Pactor stations do not listen before transmitting, unlike essentially the entire rest of the amateur community. Since the Winlink/Pactor people acknowledge the truth of this point, Well we have said that many times, Winlink-2000 clients ALWAYS listen before transmission, and PMBOs never talk to other PMBOs like other automatic systems do, just because Winlink-2000 PACTOR PMBOS are semi-automatic. If the hidden transmitter syndrome exists in some cases, the file transfer that they will do is very fast because they use PACTOR 3 and very soon the frequency will be clear again. Not a big problem. Other system sit there for hours making MAIL FORWARDING but you never complain about them. Other send LONG BEACONS without listening first but you have never complained. Others think that they own the frequency and they never care if there is another QSO, but you have never complained either. So really it is that you are after PACTOR 3, nothing else. I would hardly call it propaganda. Now, your characterization of this as The Great Global Amateur Communications System or something like that might be rightfully characterized as propaganda by some. But not by me, Demetre, not by me. Well show me another Worldwide Amateur Communication system that exists today OM. If the word Great makes you angry, I can stop using it, although it is a Great system really. de Roger W6VZV 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my friend. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word many. In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost. That was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2 Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2. For reasons I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license Pactor from SCS. Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2. (The HAL attempts to implement P-Mode were a failure, it appeared to me.) This further diminished Pactor's popularity to the point where KtoK use of Pactor is as extinct as the Dodo bird in North America at least. I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is these days I can rarely hear or work Europe. When you tell me that Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this reason. If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in Europe and Pactor originated there. Or am I wrong, Demetre? It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators) to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats. Since probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by interfacing one's radio to the computer. Once I switched over from Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes. There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say. This illustrates the need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art. Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the horribly inefficient Winlink system. Heck, you can get internet access via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days. They are adding Wi Fi capability to boat harbors here in California. This trend will likely spell the end to Winlink. And Pactor. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] stop the distortion already, Demetre
I didn't suggest anti-Pactor missiles, Demetre, I humorously suggested that anti-PMBO missiles were on the Christmas lists of many hams this season. You claimed that this constituted an admission on my part that I have QRM'd PMBOs -- which is complete nonsense, but unfortunately typical of your role in this thread. The fact that you must resort to this chicanery makes clear the weakness in your position. The bottom line is that Winlink could easily incorporate a modern, effective, inexpensive busy frequency detector in its PMBOs. It has chosen to not do so and instead to continue to QRM others. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:27 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure what HF Packet BBS's you're talking about but all my packet tnc's had a carrier detect feature and would not transmit if one was detected. Was it perfect, heck no! But it was available AND it was turned on. Jim WA0LYK Well Jim, The DCD mechanism of an HF TNC does not transmit when there is another PACKET signal on the frequency. When there is a voice or other signal it does not understand it and continues transmitting on top of them. Some times it might stop because it confuses the voice or other noise with DATA, but this is not how it was designed to work. Really the DCD only works with the same waveform as the TNC transmits. So in the PACKET RADIO case it should only stop at the presence of another PACKET RADIO signal, but not at the presence of a voice or CW signal. What you are referring to can only work either with the squelch turned on if your HF Radio supports it, and if anyone does it on HF they will get no chance of transmitting at all due to the constant noise. That was common on VHF before the DCD software state machine of the TNCs became more sophisticated, so people had to rely on the squelch and many LIDS started whistling on the frequency, so the PACKET station never got a chance to transmit. Now the carrier detect that you are referring to is an option in the old TNCs and nobody ever user since all the LIDS could stop their DATA transmissionwhenevr they pleased, just like some people proposed in this list using Anti-PACTOR missiles. Hi Hi Hi!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
At 09:13 PM 29/12/2007, Rodger wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my friend. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word many. In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost. That was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2 Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2. For reasons I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license Pactor from SCS. Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2. (The HAL attempts to implement P-Mode were a failure, it appeared to me.) This further diminished Pactor's popularity to the point where KtoK use of Pactor is as extinct as the Dodo bird in North America at least. I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is these days I can rarely hear or work Europe. When you tell me that Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this reason. If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in Europe and Pactor originated there. Or am I wrong, Demetre? It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators) to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats. Since probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by interfacing one's radio to the computer. Once I switched over from Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes. There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say. This illustrates the need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art. Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the horribly inefficient Winlink system. Heck, you can get internet access via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days. They are adding Wi Fi capability to boat harbors here in California. This trend will likely spell the end to Winlink. And Pactor. de Roger W6VZV I am trying to set up my HF Packet PBBS system to operate mobile/portable on a motorcycle. I figure that IF I operate in the right band allocation, I should be sharing with like mode stations, which means there should be no major problems. Yes, its an automated system that has been around for years...so, what is the problem now? Have the bands been swamped with Packet stations operating outside the suggested freq ranges? I meanI guess I should not worry too much, as the FCC can't make rules for me...:-) 73 Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Petition to Re-Establish Narrowbnad RTTY/Data Subband Comment Period Open
At 11:28 AM 12/28/2007, you wrote: Hi Mark, How would this kill various digital modes with a bandwidth of 1500 hertz or less? I operate Oliva mostly at 500 hertz wide and sometimes and 1000 hertz wide. 73, tom n4zpt If a mode's bandwidth is 1500 Hz or less, then there would be no change in authorization. It is as simple as that. 73, Mark N5RFX
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I cannot believe the holder of a valid ham radio license would ever come out and say this FROM . --- John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwidth between 29 and 225 MHz. WHAT PROTECTION FOR WHO ?? EXPLAIN THIS ? WHO WOULD BE PROTECTED ? Some digi moron who would sit on 29.600?, 50.125? or 144.200 ? Here we go again 90% of those bands for 1% of all hams . Do you think anymore than the analog morons that sit on calling frequencies and destroy them for all others that adding digital would help weak signal work? Do you think 200 kHz wide signals on bands under 2 MHz or 4 MHz wide is a good use of BAND SPACE? Lets not go there with you will not even hear the RISE IN BACK GROUND NOISE power has to go SOMEWHERE . and if legal they could not be stopped. How come no one has address my posting about the many MHz of UNUSED space above 219 that you already have? We as non digital users have right too and no where do I see any protections for existing users only placing non compatible mods on already well used bands while UNUSED bands sit empty. Bruce Like D-Star ( DEATH-STAR ) demanding repeater pairs here in Florida with ZERO usage of the 3 here in tampabay how crowed is 223 and 440 MHz are you out of room? Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
I'm sorry to inform you that I USED the carrier detect feature when I ran my packet station and had very little problem with the jamming you are describing. On the other hand, nothing I was sending was time sensitive therefore setting up the connect schedules to keep trying throughout a 24 hour period wasn't a problem. Therein lies the problem. We are now seeing so called services being offered that pretty much offer a guarantee that access for an individual will be available whenever and wherever they desire. This is a perversion of the no one owns a frequency. You can use simple logical constructs to prove the corollaries of this. No one owns a frequency, therefore no one is guaranteed a time to use the frequency. No one owns a frequency, therefore no one is guaranteed a frequency to use. Do a google on tragedy of the commons. This is an exact description of the scenario where amateur spectrum is a commons area. Are you an exploiter using more than your share? Will the commons support wider and wider bandwidths without displacing other users, i.e. destroying the commons altogether? Those who claim that we can't limit technological innovation implicitly argue that wider and wider bandwidths should be allowed. Any intelligent person will recognize that limits must be placed somewhere or the commons will be either destroyed totally (probably by war) or only used by the minority who are big users. Rather than argue that there should be no limits at all, give us arguments about where the limits should be placed for the good of the majority. You will end up arguing that we will need to limit this type of technological innovation at some point or you will selfishly make the argument that your use is more necessary than others. Simply spouting a platitude of we can't limit innovation, therefore we shouldn't limit bandwidth does nothing in the end. The fcc WILL have to ultimately make a decision about this for the good of all the users of the commons. This platitude will be ignored because it offers nothing toward making a decision. Now is the time folks need to be presenting concrete evidence to the fcc as to where limits should be placed. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jgorman01 jgorman24@ wrote: I'm not sure what HF Packet BBS's you're talking about but all my packet tnc's had a carrier detect feature and would not transmit if one was detected. Was it perfect, heck no! But it was available AND it was turned on. Jim WA0LYK Well Jim, The DCD mechanism of an HF TNC does not transmit when there is another PACKET signal on the frequency. When there is a voice or other signal it does not understand it and continues transmitting on top of them. Some times it might stop because it confuses the voice or other noise with DATA, but this is not how it was designed to work. Really the DCD only works with the same waveform as the TNC transmits. So in the PACKET RADIO case it should only stop at the presence of another PACKET RADIO signal, but not at the presence of a voice or CW signal. What you are referring to can only work either with the squelch turned on if your HF Radio supports it, and if anyone does it on HF they will get no chance of transmitting at all due to the constant noise. That was common on VHF before the DCD software state machine of the TNCs became more sophisticated, so people had to rely on the squelch and many LIDS started whistling on the frequency, so the PACKET station never got a chance to transmit. Now the carrier detect that you are referring to is an option in the old TNCs and nobody ever user since all the LIDS could stop their DATA transmissionwhenevr they pleased, just like some people proposed in this list using Anti-PACTOR missiles. Hi Hi Hi!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
One problem with your scenario is that the petition uses necessary bandwidth for data emissions, you are describing occupied bandwidth for phone/image emissions. From a practical standpoint there is a BIG difference in determining the two. Data emissions are nice because their parameters are very well defined or you won't be able to communicate. Things like number of tones, separation of tones, phase shift values, frequency shift values, etc. All of these combine to allow EVERYONE to obtain the same value through the necessary bandwidth calculations. Developers can set their parameters so that the necessary bandwidth is 1500 Hz and no problem. Measuring occupied bandwidth for phone/image emissions is a totally different matter. This WILL limit experimentation because only a few amateurs can afford adequate spectrum analyzers and understand how to use them. You will also end up with bandwidth cops filing complaints that Joe Blow is 100 Hz too wide and should receive an enforcement letter to take him off the air. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point well taken, provided that is how the rule is actually written. John B. Stephensen wrote: I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per octave. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised. If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2, and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802 data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within the designated bands for the amateur radio service. The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and decrease
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word many. In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost. That was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2 Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2. For reasons I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license Pactor from SCS. Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2. Hi Roger, Of course they licensed PACTOR 1 and Kantronics, MFJ, AEA and others made a mess of PACTOR 1 because they were not able to implement it properly. They could ask SCS for the license of PACTOR 2 but they were not even able to copy PACTOR 1 properly, never mind PACTOR 2. I still have a KAM plus, but it's this modem even on HF PACKET performed horribly compared to the SCS Modems. The only guy that managed to write a decent program that worked fine in PACTOR 1 and many other modes including AMTOR, was G4MBK. His software BMKmulti could do RTTY, AMTOR and PACTOR 1 but it needed a homemade modem or terminal unit to work. It run in DOS mode and I still have mine loaded in my Olivetti Quaderno (an A5 sized DOS Laptop). An other 2 soundcard Pactor 1 implementations, one in DOS and the other in Linux I hear that they never worked properly. least. I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is these days I can rarely hear or work Europe. When you tell me that Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this reason. If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in Europe and Pactor originated there. Or am I wrong, Demetre? It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators) to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats. Since probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by interfacing one's radio to the computer. Once I switched over from Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes. OK now people do not seem to want to part with their cash easily and they are right if they are not going to use their radios more than for QSOs, but really if they want to have any speed at all in their HF file transfers then I'm afraid that PSK31 leaves a lot to be desired, especially when the conditions on HF are what they are, i.e. full of QSB, QRM etc. PSK31 is good for keyboard to keyboard QSOs but that is about all I'm afraid. Peter Martinez is a brilliant guy, but so are the guys at SCS because nothing even comes close to PACTOR 2 never mind 3. There are modes that perform fast in a clear HF channel but when it comes to noise and QSB and QRM then they all fail horribly. There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say. This illustrates the need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art. No Roger, this means that Winlink-2000 is popular in USA and of course it is in the rest of the world. Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the horribly inefficient Winlink system. Heck, you can get internet access via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days. They are adding Wi Fi capability to boat harbors here in California. This trend will likely spell the end to Winlink. And Pactor. You may think so because it seems that you were expecting from PACTOR to replace your Internet connection, but it is not about Internet, it is about communication between radio Hams as a priority and second about Internet e-mail as well as emergency use. Forget about emergency for now, if you think it is propaganda, and think about the fact that all Radio Hams that have a PACTOR station can also exchange MAIL MESSAGES, just like they used to do with PACKET RADIO, no matter where they are in the World or no matter which PMBO they are accessing. The message addressed to them will there waiting to be delivered by them. This is how it all started. But along the way, just like PACKET, we found out that we could also exchange e-mails, and that the PMBOs should better connect to each other via Internet and not via HF Radio. This left the HF Radio Spectrum free only for the client connections and only for those Hams that have no
[digitalradio] HF BBS systems
Hi Jack, There will always be varying viewpoints on various technical issues. The difference today is that we have vehicles to actually allow the average person to discuss them worldwide such as through the democratizing process on groups like digitlradio. There are those who do not really seem to grasp the paradigm shift in the world because it can be messy (as democracy in action always is!) There are others who strongly oppose democratization because they are losing the power to control others. Individuals have nearly equal standing at times, even against larger organizations. It also means that extreme views, mentally unbalanced, etc., also get equal time and we do not have the moderating of a larger power as we once had. Now the individual must do the sifting and winnowing and there are many who are not able or willing to do that. What we have on groups like this one, is a Letters to the Editors Column without an editor who had the power to filter out things that they did not want to come through. Of course whether this was good or bad depended upon your viewpoints. If we can not discuss these views, then these groups would have little or reduced value because you never knew who or what was being blocked. The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for well over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, however they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher bands became unusable. Packet does not work well on HF. It requires a relatively high S/N ratio for any kind of throughput. The Aplink system was set up with the Amtor protocol, to allow HF connections to BBS MBO's (Mail Box Operations), since Amtor was nearly (not completely) error free and could work much deeper into the noise. It only has a single character case, so was similar to messaging sent via CW or voice nets. These BBS's eventually were tied in to local VHF packet BBS systems so that hams could send traffic worldwide although it could take days to get through. Everything was done via amateur radio RF links for HF although there were wormholes (practically speaking, the early internet), that made big jumps to connect VHF packet. When Pactor and Clover II became available, the BBS system moved to these modes and renamed the system Winlink to include a MS Windows GUI interface along with the two new modes providing the transport. In the late 1990's the Winlink controllers realized that the system traffic load was very limited and that the internet could be used to off load most of the traffic. A Netlink system was added to Winlink, but I did not get involved in that so only read a little about it in the RTTY Digital Journal which at that time was THE vehicle of information for digital operation until its failure. The Winlink controllers met and came up with a new topology for Winlink and developed an internet centric system that now uses the internet to route traffic on a worldwide system with varying distances for the RF side to gain access to the internet. This can be a mile or 1000 miles or more, can be on VHF or HF, but removes the forwarding traffic off the amateur frequencies. If they had not done this, the necessary BBS forwarding would not be possible to support on HF. And instead of messages going through the internet in a few seconds, it would still take days to reach the recipient. Unattended HF Beacons are generally not legal to operate here in the U.S., but perhaps your rules allow you to do this? Using a non standard mode will limit you to few other potential users. Pactor is not very hard on switching of rigs. Amtor was a bit much at times, but with many rigs intended to be QSK these days, or close to it, I would not be the slightest bit concerned about using Pactor due to switching issues. Your experience with PSKmail is similar to mine. Many, many, hours spent trying to get it to work with no practical results. Even when I have a Linux system that I can dual boot into for experimenting. 73, Rick, KV9U vk4jrc wrote: Hi Rick, I just hope this FCC thing does not make people turn sour on the hobby, hobbies are meant to be fun! I guess the reason for my Packet interest is the stand alone mailbox aspect of it, no Internet connection needed. The PBBS is a repository of messages sent by anyone and retreived by the addressees or anyone who wants to read a general bulletin etc. Whilst HF 300 baud is slow etc, I am not sending pictures etc, only text. The beacon also acts as a method of determining propagation too. I have a KAM XL fo my TNC which has good features. My SCS PTC TNCs also have Packet, but the mail box setup is not as good, however they do have robust packet mode, which is more reliable than ordinary HF packet. Don't mention pactornot interested :-( Its a T/R relay destroying mode which by operation, is hungry on my portable power budget :-) PSKMail? Many hours spent
[digitalradio] Licensing of Pactor modes
Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS actually fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure that the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem and other manufacturers. For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW, AMTOR. Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc. They tried many software updates, but nothing improved. Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise and so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit, W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31, MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been fine as signals were clearly copyable by ear. From all information, including from Bill Henry at HAL, SCS would not license Pactor modes. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Of course they licensed PACTOR 1 and Kantronics, MFJ, AEA and others made a mess of PACTOR 1 because they were not able to implement it properly. They could ask SCS for the license of PACTOR 2 but they were not even able to copy PACTOR 1 properly, never mind PACTOR 2. I still have a KAM plus, but it's this modem even on HF PACKET performed horribly compared to the SCS Modems. The only guy that managed to write a decent program that worked fine in PACTOR 1 and many other modes including AMTOR, was G4MBK. His software BMKmulti could do RTTY, AMTOR and PACTOR 1 but it needed a homemade modem or terminal unit to work. It run in DOS mode and I still have mine loaded in my Olivetti Quaderno (an A5 sized DOS Laptop). An other 2 soundcard Pactor 1 implementations, one in DOS and the other in Linux I hear that they never worked properly.
Re: [digitalradio] Licensing of Pactor modes
GM Rick,
From my KAM Plus manual, under Pactor Operation:
The KAM Plus uses memory ARQ in this mode to improve reception.
Perhaps earlier implementations by Kantronics did not... this one did. If I
watch and listen closely, I can observe packets being completed even when no
single packet transmission was received without noise.
Of course this is Pactor 1 only.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 10:04:45 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Licensing of Pactor modes
Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS
actually
fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure that
the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to
have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems
than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem
and other manufacturers.
For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with
BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW, AMTOR.
Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my
digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a
complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor
mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc.
They tried many software updates, but nothing improved.
Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise and
so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit,
W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link
conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31,
MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been fine as
signals were clearly copyable by ear.
From all information, including from Bill Henry at HAL, SCS would not
license Pactor modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Of course they licensed PACTOR 1 and Kantronics, MFJ, AEA and others
made a mess of PACTOR 1 because they were not able to implement it
properly.
They could ask SCS for the license of PACTOR 2 but they were not even
able to copy PACTOR 1 properly, never mind PACTOR 2. I still have a
KAM plus, but it's this modem even on HF PACKET performed horribly
compared to the SCS Modems.
The only guy that managed to write a decent program that worked fine
in PACTOR 1 and many other modes including AMTOR, was G4MBK. His
software BMKmulti could do RTTY, AMTOR and PACTOR 1 but it needed a
homemade modem or terminal unit to work. It run in DOS mode and I
still have mine loaded in my Olivetti Quaderno (an A5 sized DOS
Laptop). An other 2 soundcard Pactor 1 implementations, one in DOS and
the other in Linux I hear that they never worked properly.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS actually fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure that the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem and other manufacturers. Hi Rick, Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other spectrum users! hi hi hi!!! As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW, AMTOR. Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc. They tried many software updates, but nothing improved. Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in PACTOR 1 Rick. Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise and so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit, W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31, MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been fine as signals were clearly copyable by ear. Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these systems, unless if this has changed by now. Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will have more because it is a soundcard mode and anyone can get on it very easily. That will not keep the anti semi-automatic guys happy, but such is life I'm afraid. This is one more reason for everybody to complain against RM-11392 petition to your FCC. Unless if you want to go back to the Medieval Times for Digital communications in the Ham bands. 73, Rick, KV9U 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Rick, Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units. As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying degrees of success. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Rick, Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units. As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying degrees of success. de Roger W6VZV Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though and because of the bad implementation of the above companies they decided not to do the same with PACTOR-2 and 3. Also I don't believe that in a lawful country such as USA any revers engineering would take place my serious companies unless if Kantronics, AEA, MFJ are pirate companies, which I do not believe. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] 2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up
The team of PZ5YV is happy to anounce that we will be active during the contest : 2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up So hope to log all of you form there, Happy New Year Alex www.pz5yv.4m5dx.info http://www.pz5yv.4m5dx.info/ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - www.yv5ssb.info www.4m5dx.info www.4m9yy.yv5tx.info www.yx5iota.4m5dx.info www.yw0dx.4m5dx.info www.yw1dx.4m5dx.info www.yw6yl.4m5dx.info www.pz5yv.4m5dx.info Mails: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phones: +584123025091 +584166094976 +584149713214 msn: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: Alexis.Deniz.Machin
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
-Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:08 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying degrees of success. de Roger W6VZV * Well, I guess that explains why all 3 of the PK-232s that I have with 7.2 firmware have a Pactor Licesne Number on the ROM. I guess they actually went as far as proividing a individual license number for ther reverse engineering project. Sure fooled me, but I still prefer the Pactor III in my SCS Controller Ain't nothing like the real thing. I enjoyed using it last night to monitor some stateside Keyboard to Keyboard operation. And, of course, of the SCS Controllers currently in place or projected for our small ruaral Georgia county in the 911 center, 2 hospitals, Federal Law Enforcemnt Training center (2 units), local PMBO, Enviromental health, Red Cross, and at least 3 individual end users - Gee, that is 11 Pactor III licensed controllers currently in operation, purchased or budgeted for in a relatively small South Georgia county. There may be a half dozen more on the plan for the coming year...I sure am glad that the SCS Scourge isn't growing... David KD4NUE
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. No worry, Demetre. You did not upset me. I was merely pointing out that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome. I assume that you will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention. You have not once shown that any of my points were in error. You mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently) for a refutation of someone's logical argument. On the other hand, you are clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several persons on this forum have pointed that out at length. On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that ever happened. I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it. HAL did the same thing. So did Kantronics. This reverse-engineering led to some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could support Pactor II. If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an SCS modem. OK, signing off for the weekend. This thread has become repetitive and tiresome. Moderator, no need to point that out to me. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Multilpier stations in the New Years Day Contests
OK, , I am pleased by the overwhelming response and the volume of requests for DRCC numbers that will be part of the JT65A Crawl and the Olivia contest , both held at varying times on UTC 1/1/08. Unfortunately, I was not able to issue DRCC numbers below 100 to all that requested one , sorry. Below is the list of stations that do have numbers below 100, they will count as multiplier stations for both contests. Some of the numbers below were issued to known digital operators whether they requested one or not. If you are on the list and have NO intention of being in the contests or using the DRCC number, email me and I can give your low number to some of the pending requests. Hopefully the requests for low numbers will be a sign of intended activity in these experimental contests. The current highest DRCC number is 1612 , so theoretically there could be 1612 stations out there to get points off. Non DRCC stations also can participate but these stations count for less points. You can find the rules for both the JT65A and the Olivia contests at http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm . I will likely make a small change to the SCORING of the JT65A contest before the contest starts , so please check the rules again on 30/12/07 Not all stations listed below will participate in BOTH contests. Remember, the JT65A Crawl is just two hours overall, two one hour segments. Callsign DRCC # K3UK0 9V1QQ 1 W0JAB 2 PA0R3 KD4SGN 4 AA6YQ 5 CO2JA 6 F6CTE 7 G0DJA 8 HB9DRV 9 W1CDX 10 W1XT11 KH6TY 12 N2AMG 13 OH7JJT 14 SP9VRC 15 EA2AFR 16 KE7HPV 17 W1HKJ 18 VE3FWF 19 VE5MU 20 VE9DX 21 W4JSI 22 K5CID 23 YK1AO 24 N9DSJ 25 K0HZI 26 WA5ZNU 27 KV9U29 WA3LTB 30 HB9TLK 31 KB3MOW 32 KC9ECI 33 N9VN34 VK4DTI 35 WB4M36 KD5AQ 37 KA4MIW 38 W0JRS 39 K4UGW 40 K7VSC 41 K5TTY 42 G8IHT 43 N6LRV 44 WB2BLC 45 VA3HJ 46 WB3BIC 47 VK3AMA 48 K7EK49 KI4MI 50 AI4OF 51 WB5MEX 52 dk8ee 53 W5GZT 54 NC5O55 WA5VRL 56 W1CTN 57 W8JPM 58 KA5DON 59 K9TB60 AE9K61 KA0VXK 62 KC1UX 63 AI6O64 WB9IIV 65 AF6AS 66 WB8LCB 67 K7EG68 G8UYD 69 W5CCV 70 KO4PU 71 N9AVY 72 M0EPC 73 N3TXH 74 TA3BQ 75 KC2RXS 76 W5UWB 77 N1DQ78 KJ1J79 DL8LE 80 K0MVJ 81 KB2VMG 82 WD6EEV 83 K9PS84 W8AN85 7L4IOU 86 W8IEB 87 HA3DMF 88 K2OVS 89 K1PGV 90 W3WMS 91 N2YYZ 92 NR5A93 LU9DO 94 KC9DOA. 95 W6DTW 96 LA5VNA 97 KA3CTQ 98 W3NJ99 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] 2008
A very happy new year to all of digitalradio lovers. Good luck and good DX in 2008 73 Özhan TA3BQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Demetre, It might help to visualize the interference problem caused by unattended PMBO stations like this analogy: A Winlink client, triggering a WinlinkPMBO to transmit, is like remotely triggering a bomb blast without any way to guarantee that the area around the bomb is clear. Winlink 2000 is a very useful resource, but unless confined to a small section of each band, where there are only other Winlink 2000 stations, it has no place on shared amateur bands, because it cannot play by the rules of sharing, unless the PMBO is manned 24/7 with someone at the PMBO location always listening to the band for existing activity before allowing the PMBO to transmit. The lack of this operator presence is responsible for all the QRM complaints directed at Pactor stations. Shortly after the first of the year, we will announce, on this reflector, the first Windows beta version of our NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System software suite primarily for Emcomm use, reliably spanning disaster zones up to 100 miles - not for sailors far at sea - Winlink is better for that, and which achieves roughly the same average throughput as posted daily on the Winlink site (95% Pactor-III), but in a bandwidth of only around 300 Hz. No email robots are used, as the system design *requires* that there be an operator at both ends to check for activity before using the frequency. The soundcard is the modem, and no other TNC is required. I am hoping that the members of this list will like to serve as beta testers, try the system with each other, and send feedback to us so that we may improve the system as much as possible. Please reserve comments until after you have used the system. We wish you and everyone else a happy and prosperous New Year! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec) and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes. How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running PSK31 and all got QRM'ed. I know your feelings on Pactor-3 Demetre and I am sure you are a courteous operator but until either the Winlink crowd adopt a proper listen first attitude or Pactor-3 is gone this argument is not going to go away. 73 Happy New Year to all, Sholto KE7HPV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre, It is possible that SCS did license Pactor at a later time. It seems to me that other companies tried to implement the memory ARQ function with limited success. This feature is not necessary for Pactor to operate, but it does help greatly with weak signals. However, if a company licenses a product, they normally get some kind of source code or something of value that makes their product equal to their competition they are buying it from. And there is no question whatsoever that the AEA, HAL, and KAM products Pactor implementation simply did not work as well as SCS's. The only company here in the U.S. that I am sure had a license from SCS was Gwyn Reedy, W1BEL's, Paccomm Company. I think I recall that he purchased the boards, but at least the firmware from SCS. He used different packaging and a minor feature or two to try and differentiate his product, but discovered that he could not really compete and eventually discontinued production and sales. Sadly, Gwyn was killed in a vehicular accident only a year ago:( He was a major promoter of packet radio and equipment. The reason that companies could duplicate Pactor without a license is that initially it was more of an open standard intended for ham radio use. The principals of SCS are hams. It was not until Pactor 2 and then Pactor 3 that it became a highly protected product. Even so, I have a letter in my files, which I can not seem to find at the moment, but I think I still have someplace, from Bill Henry at HAL discussing this issue as I was concerned about it before buying the HAL P-38 modem. This was before the invention of P2. Pactor modes do not have any miracle abilities for weak signals. What they do have is the ability to combine a number of enhancements in one protocol to make it work at a highly optimized level under varying conditions. Nothing like that exists with sound cards because thus far there has been no interest by those who have the ability to write this kind of software to do so. Some of us have asked and they have said their focus is on keyboard chat modes to the exclusion of high speed messaging. For weak. error free signals, I have been very impressed with the new FAE 400 mode and this is the first sound card mode that can work better than Pactor in weak signals and with similar bandwidth ( 500 Hz) but not quite as fast under better conditions since it can not change speeds. The wide FAE mode (faster baud rate and faster throughput) can not compete well with weaker signals and the width is a problem when you also consider the throughput. Pactor 2 is still the best narrow mode protocol at this time. Pactor 3 is much the same except intended for commercial channels where you have the space to widen out tremendously after the initial 500 Hz negotiation to determine if the other station is a P1, P2, or P3 station and then what kind of conditions are present. I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would have to run natively on Windows. Even then there is no guarantee of success, but I know that I would be very interested if someone did open it up for cross platform use. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other spectrum users! hi hi hi!!! As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in PACTOR 1 Rick. Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these systems, unless if this has changed by now. Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will have more because it is a soundcard mode and anyone can get
[digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
Hi Rick, Well, I had a go at Pactor and could not make it work, between the SCS PTC-IIex and the SCS PTC-Pro I have here. The radios were the problem, they would kerchunk away here and go nowhere, so I gave up on it. I guess the radios were not suited to the switching times required for Pactor. Those same 2 radios are great on Packet though and I think the SCS TNCs probably offer better performance on Packet than my Kantronics TNCs (I have about 6 of them, various models!) I even have an old original Paccom Pactor modem here :-) Whilst Winlink and Pactor 3 may offer good data throughput, I have to ask that is this bandwidth needed for simple text messaging? Next, people will be wanting to stream Video over HF :-) As far as emergency comms go.involving a third party bearer in the links is scary (the Internet). Call me a Dinosaur but, I don't wish to use the Internet in any part of transferring data in my Ham HF data comms operating. In my case of portable operation, I don't want to be lugging a laptop, so a small radio, Buddipole antenna, Packet TNC and either of my 2 Psion palmtops in Terminal mode can operate the TNC just fine, and they run on AA batteries! I am going to give PSK31 a shot with the new NUE-PSK modem I have ordered, but it is only a keyboard to keyboard unit. As I said, I have a specific requirement for ham HF operation from my motorcycle, mainly because of where I ride, my luggage space and power budget. As far as the FCC petitioneveryone has their case to put, based on how they will be affected by any potential FCC changes, I won't argue with that but it seems that there are some long held grudges between groups of operators using various modes. There is only so much spectrum available and everyone is clamouring for a space or MORE space, in their area of interest. I guess U.S. Hams are lucky in that they are able to make submissions to the FCC, rather than the FCC just mandating what they want, and the U.S. Ham community simply having to suck it up and accept it. As I said before, I just hope this FCC stuff does not sour people against each other in the hobby. Like, Ham radio is meant to be fun! 73s Jack VK4JRC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jack, There will always be varying viewpoints on various technical issues. The difference today is that we have vehicles to actually allow the average person to discuss them worldwide such as through the democratizing process on groups like digitlradio. There are those who do not really seem to grasp the paradigm shift in the world because it can be messy (as democracy in action always is!) There are others who strongly oppose democratization because they are losing the power to control others. Individuals have nearly equal standing at times, even against larger organizations. It also means that extreme views, mentally unbalanced, etc., also get equal time and we do not have the moderating of a larger power as we once had. Now the individual must do the sifting and winnowing and there are many who are not able or willing to do that. What we have on groups like this one, is a Letters to the Editors Column without an editor who had the power to filter out things that they did not want to come through. Of course whether this was good or bad depended upon your viewpoints. If we can not discuss these views, then these groups would have little or reduced value because you never knew who or what was being blocked. The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for well over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, however they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher bands became unusable. Packet does not work well on HF. It requires a relatively high S/N ratio for any kind of throughput. The Aplink system was set up with the Amtor protocol, to allow HF connections to BBS MBO's (Mail Box Operations), since Amtor was nearly (not completely) error free and could work much deeper into the noise. It only has a single character case, so was similar to messaging sent via CW or voice nets. These BBS's eventually were tied in to local VHF packet BBS systems so that hams could send traffic worldwide although it could take days to get through. Everything was done via amateur radio RF links for HF although there were wormholes (practically speaking, the early internet), that made big jumps to connect VHF packet. When Pactor and Clover II became available, the BBS system moved to these modes and renamed the system Winlink to include a MS Windows GUI interface along with the two new modes providing the transport. In the late 1990's the Winlink controllers realized that the system traffic load was very limited and that the internet could be used to off load most of the traffic. A Netlink system was added to Winlink, but I
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
In part 97 the FCC specifies bandwidths of 20 and 100 kHz on VHF and UHF bands and this is defined as 26dB below the mean power level. That hasn't prevented hams from designing and building their own gear for 6 m through 70 cm. I'm assming the FCC will want similar standards as they are more concerned with adjacent channel interferce than the width of the desired signal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 13:49 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) One problem with your scenario is that the petition uses necessary bandwidth for data emissions, you are describing occupied bandwidth for phone/image emissions. From a practical standpoint there is a BIG difference in determining the two. Data emissions are nice because their parameters are very well defined or you won't be able to communicate. Things like number of tones, separation of tones, phase shift values, frequency shift values, etc. All of these combine to allow EVERYONE to obtain the same value through the necessary bandwidth calculations. Developers can set their parameters so that the necessary bandwidth is 1500 Hz and no problem. Measuring occupied bandwidth for phone/image emissions is a totally different matter. This WILL limit experimentation because only a few amateurs can afford adequate spectrum analyzers and understand how to use them. You will also end up with bandwidth cops filing complaints that Joe Blow is 100 Hz too wide and should receive an enforcement letter to take him off the air. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point well taken, provided that is how the rule is actually written. John B. Stephensen wrote: I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per octave. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz. John B. Stephensen wrote: An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were: RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29 MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW, RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8 kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital modulation. A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications infrastructure is compromised.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Were you able to get an ID from the P3 station? Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:53 am, Sholto KE7HPV wrote: us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Hello Sholto Sad to say , but I have had the same experience many times. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Sholto Fisher skrev: I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec) and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes. How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running PSK31 and all got QRM'ed. I know your feelings on Pactor-3 Demetre and I am sure you are a courteous operator but until either the Winlink crowd adopt a proper listen first attitude or Pactor-3 is gone this argument is not going to go away. 73 Happy New Year to all, Sholto KE7HPV
[digitalradio] EU 30 Meter Digital Weekend Event 19/20 Jan 2008
Thank you for letting me post here to this group...just an FYI for those that might be interested in this digital mode event..thanks. de kb9umt Don EU 30 Meter Digital Weekend Event When: January 19th 2400 utc to January 20th 2400 utc 2 days of digital fun, ragchew and DX on 30 Meters, all day or when you can. (NOTE: When 30m is in decent shape please note for NA band has been open to EU from 1900 to 2300utc for ZL/VK open to EU has been open from 1200 to 1700 utc.appx times of course depending on band conditions) Where: 30 meter Band 10.135 to 10.145 MHZ Modes: Mainly PSK31 10.140 +/- 1000 BUT all digital modes welcomed including RTTY/MFSK/HELL/WSJT/etc. Objective: For Amateurs Worldwide to make contact with EU Stations to promote and increase digital mode activity on 30 Meters. This is not a contest but a casual event in promoting 30 Meter Digital activity in conjunction with the 30 Meter DigitalGroup: http://www.30meterdigital.org http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/30meterPSKGroup Contact: Graham m5aav [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don kb9umt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***Please note logs do not have to be sent because this event is to promote 30m digital activity. We would appreciate though if you have time to just give a count of stations worked and email to the above addresses so that a report of the weekend activity can be produced.
[digitalradio] ALE 400
Happy New Year to all! Just before Christmas, Sholto and I were busy with ALE400 on 10136.0 , with good results most days between the west coast and Central Canada, as well as into the US mid-west. Haven't been listening on 20M much since the band has been very poor here, I think because of more aurora activity at this latitude. As a suggestion, let's use just a few frequencies for ALE400 , increasing the chances of finding someone there. As an example 3584,7038, 10136, 14094, 18104,21094 would work, and also be consistent with the new Region 2 Band plan Which comes into effect January 1, 2008. For myself, I have been sitting on 10136 mostly, with a few trips to 14094. I have come to appreciate 30M much more than before, And been using the 30m digital spot page ( http:// http://www.projectsand www.projectsandparts.com/30m/ which Sholto has been running. I leave my rig on, so please try a connect or a sounding on 10136. I have sent this individually to some since I'm not sure that this message would make it through all the QRM on Digitalradio J Seventythirds John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
I do have a valid extra class license. There are lots of hams who use CW and SSB on the VHF bands and want protection from FM repeaters and other wide-band signals. The bottom 300 kHz of each VHF band should be protected. I was a member of WSWSS and the San Bernardino Microwave Society and partcipated in most 10 meter, VHF, UHF and microwave contests between 1993 and 2001. There should also be spectrum for wide-band modes. I used amateur satellites which had 50 kHz wide HF downlinks and 200 kHz wide VHF and UHF downlinks. There should also a be a place for wideband terrestrial modes. For some reason there is a 20 kHz bandwidth limit on the HF bands for data but not voice or image transmission. Bandwidth limits should be the same regardless of content as anyone with a computer can mix voice, data and images indiscriminantly. There is certainly space on the 6 meter band for wideband data that exists in the band plans. If you look at the spectrum allocated to repeaters on a spectum analyzer, there is even more space if we had more intelligent methods of spectrum allocation and sharing. The spectrum between 50 and 450 MHz is useful because path losses are low and omnidirectional antennas allow mobile operation and the operation of nets over wide areas. The 20 kHz bandwdth limit on VHF data transmission is antiquated and if you can radiate a 9 MHz wide ATV signal on the 70cm band the same bandwidth should also be available for data. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: bruce mallon To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 13:19 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I cannot believe the holder of a valid ham radio license would ever come out and say this FROM . --- John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwidth between 29 and 225 MHz. WHAT PROTECTION FOR WHO ?? EXPLAIN THIS ? WHO WOULD BE PROTECTED ? Some digi moron who would sit on 29.600?, 50.125? or 144.200 ? Here we go again 90% of those bands for 1% of all hams . Do you think anymore than the analog morons that sit on calling frequencies and destroy them for all others that adding digital would help weak signal work? Do you think 200 kHz wide signals on bands under 2 MHz or 4 MHz wide is a good use of BAND SPACE? Lets not go there with you will not even hear the RISE IN BACK GROUND NOISE power has to go SOMEWHERE . and if legal they could not be stopped. How come no one has address my posting about the many MHz of UNUSED space above 219 that you already have? We as non digital users have right too and no where do I see any protections for existing users only placing non compatible mods on already well used bands while UNUSED bands sit empty. Bruce Like D-Star ( DEATH-STAR ) demanding repeater pairs here in Florida with ZERO usage of the 3 here in tampabay how crowed is 223 and 440 MHz are you out of room? __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)(correction)
Here is a corrected version -- VHF came out HF in one spot: I do have a valid extra class license. There are lots of hams who use CW and SSB on the VHF bands and want protection from FM repeaters and other wide-band signals. The bottom 300 kHz of each VHF band should be protected. I was a member of WSWSS and the San Bernardino Microwave Society and partcipated in most 10 meter, VHF, UHF and microwave contests between 1993 and 2001. There should also be spectrum for wide-band modes. I used amateur satellites which had 50 kHz wide HF downlinks and 200 kHz wide VHF and UHF downlinks. There should also a be a place for wideband terrestrial modes. For some reason there is a 20 kHz bandwidth limit on the VHF bands for data but not voice or image transmission. Bandwidth limits should be the same regardless of content as anyone with a computer can mix voice, data and images indiscriminantly. There is certainly space on the 6 meter band for wideband data that exists in the band plans. If you look at the spectrum allocated to repeaters on a spectum analyzer, there is even more space if we had more intelligent methods of spectrum allocation and sharing. The spectrum between 50 and 450 MHz is useful because path losses are low and omnidirectional antennas allow mobile operation and the operation of nets over wide areas. The 20 kHz bandwdth limit on VHF data transmission is antiquated and if you can radiate a 9 MHz wide ATV signal on the 70cm band the same bandwidth should also be available for data. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: bruce mallon To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 13:19 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?) I cannot believe the holder of a valid ham radio license would ever come out and say this FROM . --- John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, narrow-band segments on the VHF and UHF bands should allow a maximum bandwidth of 8 kHz. This provides protection for weak-signal enthusiasts. Wide-band segments should allow 200 kHz maximum bandwidth between 29 and 225 MHz. WHAT PROTECTION FOR WHO ?? EXPLAIN THIS ? WHO WOULD BE PROTECTED ? Some digi moron who would sit on 29.600?, 50.125? or 144.200 ? Here we go again 90% of those bands for 1% of all hams . Do you think anymore than the analog morons that sit on calling frequencies and destroy them for all others that adding digital would help weak signal work? Do you think 200 kHz wide signals on bands under 2 MHz or 4 MHz wide is a good use of BAND SPACE? Lets not go there with you will not even hear the RISE IN BACK GROUND NOISE power has to go SOMEWHERE . and if legal they could not be stopped. How come no one has address my posting about the many MHz of UNUSED space above 219 that you already have? We as non digital users have right too and no where do I see any protections for existing users only placing non compatible mods on already well used bands while UNUSED bands sit empty. Bruce Like D-Star ( DEATH-STAR ) demanding repeater pairs here in Florida with ZERO usage of the 3 here in tampabay how crowed is 223 and 440 MHz are you out of room? __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[digitalradio] Here are the revised rules for the Jan 1 2008 JT65A Crawl. d
Here are the rules, revised, for the Jan 1 2008 JT65A Crawl. Remember this is a TWO band only contest (you use either 40M, 20M, or both 20 and 40M. No other bands. Due to several requests, an extra hour of operating time has been added. The three hours you can operate are now -0100 , 0600-0700, and 1200 - 1300 UTC. Somebody with an actual brain pointed out that my original scoring method could result in a score of zero if they worked NO multipliers in the contest. So I have revised... the continental multiplier has been eliminated. Now, even if a person has just one contact they will have at least one multiplier. January 1 -2008 JT65A New Years Crawl Terrestrial JT65A using existing software is quite a challenge for contest scenarios, please read the suggested exchange format carefully. Use of standard WSJT transmission/reception time intervals is recommended. Announcing the Digital Radio Century Club New Years Crawl Date :January 1 2008 Time : Z to 0100Z and/or 0600-0700 and/or 1200Z to 1300Z (total operating time - up to 3 hours. You can operate all three time periods or just a portion of them if you want ) Mode. JT65A ONLY Suggested CQ.. See below Bands : 20M or 40M ONLY. (suggested frequency 14074-077, 7035-40, or 7076 USB ) Class: Single operator low power only (under 100 watts) Exchange: Report (S/N,OOO,RO are valid) plus ... DRCC members : DRCC Number (e.g. DRCC 001) Non-DRCC members : 73,88 or RRR Example exchanges. There can be three differing QSOs: 1. Contact between two stations that are DRCC members 2. Contact between one DRCC member and another station that is not a member 3. Contact between two stations, both not members. Typical exchanges for the above three situations are listed below. Assuming clear reception, each station transmits three times during the QSO. 1. --- Member / Member --- calling stationCQ K3UK FN02 (calling station sends CQ,, their callsign once, and their grid square ) replying station K3UK 7L4IOU PM95 (station replies with both callsigns and their grid square) calling station 7L4IOU K3UK -10 (calling stations sends boths calls and SNR report from WSJT software) replying station K3UK 7L4IOU R-05 (both calls and SNR report) calling station DRCC 001 (Calling station sends their DRCC number) replying station DRCC 086 (Replying station sends their DRCC number) 2. --- Member / Non Member - CQ K3UK FN02 K3UK JR1BAS PM95 JR1BAS K3UK -10 K3UK JR1BAS R-05 DRCC 001 K3UK JR1BAS 73 3. --- Non Member / Non Member - calling station CQ ZZ1XXX AB01 replying station ZZ1XXX JR1BAS PM95 calling stationJR1BAS ZZ1XXX AB01 OOO replying station RO calling station RRR replying station 73 Note : WSJT software has limitations on the size of the transmited text. If you have an unsually long callsign you may need to be creative in how you abbreviate the suggested exchange. Scoring : 5 points each DRCC member contact 1 point each non- DRCC member contact Stations can be worked once per band Multipliers: There are TWO different multipliers. 1. Number of stations worked with DRCC numbers under 100 and 2. Number or unique grid squares (e.g. FN02 is one, FN03 is two, PM95 makes three! ) Scoring : 5 points each DRCC member contact 1 point each non- DRCC member contact Stations can be worked once per band Example K3UK works 6 DRCC stations , 30 points. K3UK works 6 non-DRCC stations, 6 points sub-total = 36 Points (30+6 ) Of 6 DRCC stations worked on the two bands, 4 gave DRCC numbers below 100. 36*4 =144 points Of 12 QSOs on the two bands, 7 different grid squares were worked. 144 * 7 = 1008 TOTAL CONTEST SCORE. (multipliers count PER band, e.g. K3UK DRCC number 000 , worked on 40 and 20M is two multipliers. Grid square FNO2, worked on 40M and 20M, is two multipliers Submit a log SUMMARY in ASCII format to [EMAIL PROTECTED] by Feb 1 2008. Results will be posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/ Those who wish to obtain a DRCC number prior to December 31 may do so by sending a request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suggested Software: WSJT . Score the contest manually or via home brewed spreadsheets. -- -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. No worry, Demetre. You did not upset me. I was merely pointing out that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome. I assume that you will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention. You have not once shown that any of my points were in error. You mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently) for a refutation of someone's logical argument. On the other hand, you are clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several persons on this forum have pointed that out at length. On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that ever happened. I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it. HAL did the same thing. So did Kantronics. This reverse-engineering led to some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could support Pactor II. If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an SCS modem. OK, signing off for the weekend. This thread has become repetitive and tiresome. Moderator, no need to point that out to me. de Roger W6VZV Well Roger, Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they did that these companies are not worth a penny. As for proving me wrong in all cases, I think the exact opposite. You see, it is not my fault if you cannot see the truth. All you can accept are your own ideas and no further. I'm afraid this is not show any courtesy at all. Enjoy your weekend OM. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
You bring up a good point and this is a good time to bring it up. The definition of the Amateur Service in the US (and I think the ITU's is the same) indicates the service is for radiocommunications between duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim (paraphrased by me). Why such a need for speed for radiocommunications between amateurs? Is the difference between sending Joe Blow, XX0XXX an email from me at 200 wps versus 1000 cps a REALLY big deal? What real advantage does it buy the regular amateur? It seems like the need for speed has become a goal unto itself with little advantage to the broad majority who have to live with the wide bandwidths that higher speeds require. I'm curious as to why the need for speed is driving some folks when it comes to amateur to amateur communication. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. It appears obvious from Rick's comment that a lot of amateur radio software developers seem to get more kicks out of working on lower speed, low snr protocols. I also keep seeing the need for speed touted as technical innovation when in reality it is using off the shelf commercially produced modems. Where's the innovation that a bandwidth limit is going to stop? Is it just that it will keep us from using faster commercially produced modems? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, vk4jrc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Rick, Well, I had a go at Pactor and could not make it work, between the SCS PTC-IIex and the SCS PTC-Pro I have here. The radios were the problem, they would kerchunk away here and go nowhere, so I gave up on it. I guess the radios were not suited to the switching times required for Pactor. Those same 2 radios are great on Packet though and I think the SCS TNCs probably offer better performance on Packet than my Kantronics TNCs (I have about 6 of them, various models!) I even have an old original Paccom Pactor modem here :-) Whilst Winlink and Pactor 3 may offer good data throughput, I have to ask that is this bandwidth needed for simple text messaging? Next, people will be wanting to stream Video over HF :-) As far as emergency comms go.involving a third party bearer in the links is scary (the Internet). Call me a Dinosaur but, I don't wish to use the Internet in any part of transferring data in my Ham HF data comms operating. In my case of portable operation, I don't want to be lugging a laptop, so a small radio, Buddipole antenna, Packet TNC and either of my 2 Psion palmtops in Terminal mode can operate the TNC just fine, and they run on AA batteries! I am going to give PSK31 a shot with the new NUE-PSK modem I have ordered, but it is only a keyboard to keyboard unit. As I said, I have a specific requirement for ham HF operation from my motorcycle, mainly because of where I ride, my luggage space and power budget. As far as the FCC petitioneveryone has their case to put, based on how they will be affected by any potential FCC changes, I won't argue with that but it seems that there are some long held grudges between groups of operators using various modes. There is only so much spectrum available and everyone is clamouring for a space or MORE space, in their area of interest. I guess U.S. Hams are lucky in that they are able to make submissions to the FCC, rather than the FCC just mandating what they want, and the U.S. Ham community simply having to suck it up and accept it. As I said before, I just hope this FCC stuff does not sour people against each other in the hobby. Like, Ham radio is meant to be fun! 73s Jack VK4JRC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick mrfarm@ wrote: Hi Jack, There will always be varying viewpoints on various technical issues. The difference today is that we have vehicles to actually allow the average person to discuss them worldwide such as through the democratizing process on groups like digitlradio. There are those who do not really seem to grasp the paradigm shift in the world because it can be messy (as democracy in action always is!) There are others who strongly oppose democratization because they are losing the power to control others. Individuals have nearly equal standing at times, even against larger organizations. It also means that extreme views, mentally unbalanced, etc., also get equal time and we do not have the moderating of a larger power as we once had. Now the individual must do the sifting and winnowing and there are many who are not able or willing to do that. What we have on groups like this one, is a Letters to the Editors Column without an editor who had the power to filter out things that they did not want to come through. Of course whether this was good or bad depended upon your viewpoints. If we can not discuss these views, then these groups would have little or reduced value
[digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: ...This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world _we should always be a bit more tolerant_, don't you think? 73 de Demetre SV1UY mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] New era beginning... HNY 2008 from DigiQRP community. -- Jaak Hohensee ES1HJ/QRP
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would have to run natively on Windows. Even then there is no guarantee of success, but I know that I would be very interested if someone did open it up for cross platform use. 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, For PSKmail information you can check http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a good idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that are involved with it. Per PA0R has done a marvelous job with it and he uses FLDIGI as a modem, but you probably know all this. Per's code is open and anyone can implement it in any operating system, although he has a zip file and you can run PSKmail even in Windows with a Linux emulator, so you do not need to have a dual boot system. You just boot in your Windows OS and then run his Linux emulator as a Windows program where you can run PSKmail. Up to now they use PSK-250 and there are already a few experimental American servers online. This is a freeware soundcard program and I think it has the potential of reaching PACTOR-2 in a few years according to the pace they are going. Don't forget that really it is a one man's job and he gets nothing out of it, so it is marvelous what he has done, and more marvelous that he allows anyone to touch his code. Per PA0R is probably more interested in seen PSKmail progressing than his own personal glory. He is a true Radio Ham. This is unlike other code writers who although they allow everyone to use their program, they keep their code to themselves. Of course it is everyone's right to protect their code and I do not blame anyone here, I am just stating a fact. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400
Hi John and group, I have written these frequencies down on a card here in the shack so I can easily refer to them. They are quite different from the ALE400 frequencies that Bonnie invented, but to me are just as valid as long as we can agree on one spot frequency per band. One nice thing is that you only need to know the dial frequency because this mode defaults to an audio center of 1625 Hz. Now, I usually want to use FAE rather than ALE, but I am assuming you are calling in ALE400? I am still not quite understanding when you use ALE and when you use FAE and why. Perhaps if you called up a group call you would need the ALE? Normally, I would call CQ or a specific station which is available with FAE400, but since FAE becomes a connected mode, is that the reason to use ALE400? The disadvantage to using ALE at all, is that it is less sensitive than FAE, but perhaps making a connection on ALE will usually mean that the FAE mode will be even better? I tried calling on the 10136 frequency with VE5MU and also QRZ but no luck so far. For general calls, what should we use? QRZ? Or something else like DRYG (Digital Radio Yahoo Group)? Just kidding. Well ... sort of anyway. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: Happy New Year to all! Just before Christmas, Sholto and I were busy with ALE400 on 10136.0 , with good results most days between the west coast and Central Canada, as well as into the US mid-west. Haven’t been listening on 20M much since the band has been very poor here, I think because of more aurora activity at this latitude. As a suggestion, let’s use just a few frequencies for ALE400 , increasing the chances of finding someone there. As an example 3584,7038, 10136, 14094, 18104,21094 would work, and also be consistent with the new Region 2 Band plan Which comes into effect January 1, 2008. For myself, I have been sitting on 10136 mostly, with a few trips to 14094. I have come to appreciate 30M much more than before, And been using the 30m digital spot page ( http:// www.projectsand http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m/ which Sholto has been running. I leave my rig on, so please try a connect or a sounding on 10136. I have sent this individually to some since I’m not sure that this message would make it through all the QRM on Digitalradio J Seventythirds John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1201 - Release Date: 12/28/2007 11:51 AM 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre, You really need to end this conjecture about Pactor unless you have some new information that Pactor is proprietary like Pactor 2 and Pactor 3. If you check on the internet, you will find that Pactor is an open protocol, while P2 and P3 use proprietary technology controlled by one German company, SCS Corp. Source: Wikipedia, which may not always be definitive, can be relatively non-biased. Here is hoping for a wonderful new year for all. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well Roger, Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they did that these companies are not worth a penny. As for proving me wrong in all cases, I think the exact opposite. You see, it is not my fault if you cannot see the truth. All you can accept are your own ideas and no further. I'm afraid this is not show any courtesy at all. Enjoy your weekend OM. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] PSKmail
I have discussed my misadventures with PSKmail enough. I wish that I could get it to work with at least one of my computers, one of which runs Kubuntu, but thus far no luck. Same with several others that I have talked to. My attempts to use an emulator and also to use a Virtual Machine approach. I probably have to increase memory in my dual boot Linux Kubuntu 7.10/Windows XP machine to do this. Rein had a nice youtube interview for those who would like to get some background information on PSKmail. But until it can operate under native Windows OS, I just don't see any interest as yet her in the U.S. I don't see current PSK modes competing directly with Pactor modes, even though both are PSK, because all of the sound card PSK modes are single tone. Pactor 2 uses two PSK tones always at 100 baud, but with different modulation. I am not sure why no one has come up with a two tone PSK sound card modem, but if they did, then they could start matching Pactor 2, especially if they had several different speeds or modulation. But like you say, it is completely open source, so over the long term, maybe things will advance to the point that it will be so compelling that you just have to have it:) 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: For PSKmail information you can check http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a good idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that are involved with it. Per PA0R has done a marvelous job with it and he uses FLDIGI as a modem, but you probably know all this. Per's code is open and anyone can implement it in any operating system, although he has a zip file and you can run PSKmail even in Windows with a Linux emulator, so you do not need to have a dual boot system. You just boot in your Windows OS and then run his Linux emulator as a Windows program where you can run PSKmail. Up to now they use PSK-250 and there are already a few experimental American servers online. This is a freeware soundcard program and I think it has the potential of reaching PACTOR-2 in a few years according to the pace they are going. Don't forget that really it is a one man's job and he gets nothing out of it, so it is marvelous what he has done, and more marvelous that he allows anyone to touch his code. Per PA0R is probably more interested in seen PSKmail progressing than his own personal glory. He is a true Radio Ham. This is unlike other code writers who although they allow everyone to use their program, they keep their code to themselves. Of course it is everyone's right to protect their code and I do not blame anyone here, I am just stating a fact. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] 220 sits empty....
The spectrum between 50 and 450 MHz is useful because path losses are low FOR SSB AND CW .. THAT'S RIGHT FOR SSB, CW how many 200 kHz wide stations can you fit on 220 or 440 ? how much more path loss ? The 300 khz is a joke every time that has been tried it has failed so nwhat you say for your OWN use you need 90% of these bands ? Terrestrial wide band for what ? why do you need that ? for what reason ? for links from the Internet to play video games. There is no reason for any wide band below 219 fill up 1.25 meters then try again Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
There have been recent comments attesting to the demise of PACTOR I. Is this true for all intent and purposes? For curiosity, who's using PACTOR I for keyboard QSO's with an outboard TNC such as the venerable PK-232 and others? If there is such activity is is hit 'n miss or quasi-scheduled? Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
[digitalradio] LAST CALL FOR TARA MELEE...
Howdy Folks: Well, there still is just a little time left (until 31-December-2007) to submit your TARA Melee Score for this year's contest. All of us from TARA ask EVERYONE that has yet to submit a score to PLEASE do so now! If you look at the results that we've posted so far you'll see we're in for one of the best year's that we've ever had. So, don't think that you have to have some colossal score in order to submit one, that just is not true. We want to hear from every participant that entered the contest to please consider sending in your score. There still are a lot of you DX stations that we haven't heard from and I'm hoping you'll take a few minutes right now to help us out. Your score DOES make a difference with us!! Simply go to _http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_score.html_ (http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_score.html) Also, go to our web site and review the new SOAPBOX section we've posted. Go to: _http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_07soap.html_ (http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_melee_07soap.html) 73 - Bill NY2U And do not forget the TARA sponsored contests... http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_seasons.html **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304)
[digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
Hello Howard, I use Pactor I every now and then for keyboard to keyboard. It is hit and miss for me; more a novelty than an oft-used mode. 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w6ids [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There have been recent comments attesting to the demise of PACTOR I. Is this true for all intent and purposes? For curiosity, who's using PACTOR I for keyboard QSO's with an outboard TNC such as the venerable PK-232 and others? If there is such activity is is hit 'n miss or quasi-scheduled? Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
[digitalradio] Ham Radio BrowserToolbar and PocketDigi Mobile Log forWindows Mobile/PocketPC PDAs by N0HR
N0HR Software Resources N0HR's ham radio website, http://www.n0hr.com has many free resources for ham radio: The Ham Radio Toolbar for Internet Explorer Firefox: http://www.n0hr.com/Ham_Radio_Toolbar.htm HamLinks is a free ham radio toolbar that extends your (Internet Explorer or Firefox) web browser to give ham radio operators quick access to great ham radio content. It's completely free, easy to install (and uninstall) and can be configured by the user. No registrations, spyware, spam or other hooks. No spyware, security holes, email scams or hijacked searches. See the privacy policy. Features of the HamLinks ham radio toolbar Here are a few of the features of the HamLinks ham radio toolbar. Powerful search box. Simply enter some text in the box or select it in your browser, then use the search menu to quickly search any of the following: QRZ.com (great for callsign searches from the toolbar) DXwatch (spot searches from the toolbar) QSL Manager (lookup dx callsigns from the toolbar) FindU.com (APRS location information with a call search from the hamlinks toolbar) Ham Radio Links (search the links directory) Product reviews (select a ham radio product and instantly find reviews for it!) Ham Radio Classifieds at eHam and QTH.com (select a product and see if there are any for sale). Of course, you can also find ham radio products at eBay as well further down the menu. Links to popular ham radio websites. Access to the DXpedition Map. Ham Radio Blog Feeds Customizable email notifier and weather icon UTC Time WWV gadget to show propagation bulletins Podcast player with ham radio related podcasts Propagation Data from WWV - similar to Propfire PocketDigi for Windows Mobile and PocketPC PDAs: http://www.n0hr.com/PocketDigi/PocketDigi_intro.htm What is PocketDigi? PocketDigi is an open source utility developed by OK1IAK to provide ham radio operators with PocketPC PDAs with the ability to use (encode and decode) digital modes such as RTTY (teletype), PSK (phase shift keying), and CW (Morse Code). Want to take your PocketPC PDA to go backpack mobile and work PSK31 QRP? Then, PocketDigi is the app for you! Since the advent of mobile computing, radio amateurs have been exploring creative ways to utilize laptop computers and PDAs for portable ham radio operations and mini-DXpeditions. PocketDigi was created by Vojtech OK1IAK who built the utility using Microsoft's Embedded Visual C. He used (and improved) portions of a Linux GNU open source application called gMFSK to do encoding and decoding. MobileLog PocketPC PDA Logbook Application: http://www.n0hr.com/MobileLog/MobileLog_2_Tour.htm Your PocketPC / Windows Mobile PDA keeps you organized on the go. But have you considered using it to manage your ham radio activities? With MobileLog, you can log your ham radio contacts while on-the-go.. MobileLog 2 offers significant improvements over earlier versions of MobileLog including: Major performance improvements (speed and size) Integration with PocketDigi, the PocketPC digitial mode application WAS reports Save reports as CSV, Tab delimited or HTML files Landscape mode User-defined fields Easy to update prefixes and DXCC entities Advanced reports which allow you to create a filtered listing of worked or confirmed QSOs Logbook view Compatibility with Windows Mobile 5 and PocketPC 2003 without the need for the Microsoft VBRuntime Built-in on-line help system An improved / simplified installation process Automatically uses GMT and much more Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
