[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Hello Bonnie, Thanks for the reply. It just seemed pretty convoluted; and, at best, nebulous. To be honest I have never heard anyone complain about soundings, but I may miss a lot. Compared to some best-not-be-mentioned systems, ALE operations have not shown up on my qrm map. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin bmc@ wrote: Hard to discern what is actually happening; seems like a tempest in a teapot. 73, Bill N9DSJ Hi Bill, This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: [multipsk] ARQ FAE - ALE400 - NBEMS dumb question
Hello Bill, It is theoritically possible. But ARQ FAE means two things: * a modulation: it is mainly issued from ALE (DBM), * an ARQ protocol: it is matched to this ALE DBM modulation and is issued from a mix between Pax/Pax2 protocol and ALE DBM. I took the idea of ARQ memory (which is indispensable to limit the number of retries) from Pactor 1. However it is a soft memory (on each symbol) not a simple (hard) character memory. The problem is not the modulation but the ARQ protocol which is the heart of the system. FLARQ/NBEMS could use other modulation but not other ARQ protocol... Is it a matter of using Multidem or Gui_serv_Multipsk to link to FLARQ? Sorry for the ignorant questions, but that is what I do best. Yes it is possible to use a TCP/IP link between any program (Multidem or Gui_serv_Multipsk) and Multipsk (this one being a simple modem). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [multipsk] ARQ FAE - ALE400 - NBEMS dumb question All, ARQ FAE in ALE400 has proven, in my limited experience, to be extremely robust compared to other ARQ modes and occupies reasonable bandwidth. How difficult would this mode be to port to FLARQ/NBEMS? It seems to me to be tailor-made for this application (but what do I know?). Is it a matter of using Multidem or Gui_serv_Multipsk to link to FLARQ? Sorry for the ignorant questions, but that is what I do best. 73, Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm 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/
[digitalradio] 20M JT65A DX heard so far today.
Received by K3UK, 14076. Date/Time Band Call GridSig dB 2008-01-13 13:31:00 20M DL2RMM -9 2008-01-13 13:30:00 20M ON6NL -14 2008-01-13 13:23:00 20M GW8ASA IO81-17 2008-01-13 13:22:00 20M ON6NL JO21-7 2008-01-13 13:21:00 20M GW8ASA IO81-16 2008-01-13 13:16:00 20M PA3FYG -14 2008-01-13 13:09:00 20M PA0BWL JO21-20 2008-01-13 13:06:00 20M DL1ANA -18 2008-01-13 12:55:00 20M G4MQL IO81-19 2008-01-13 03:50:00 20M LU7KAT FG72-25 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites .. ) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions; 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic control of a digital station. as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has forwarded to the FCC for comment. So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID. What about Packet on 30M, APRS. I am fairly certain these station do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates based on their UI-View settings. Andy K3UK On Jan 13, 2008 8:22 AM, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
This is getting ridiculous! It takes me nearly 10 seconds to say This is AA5J Is the frequency in use?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
expeditionradio wrote: This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away. Bonnie KQ6XA Actually, what is childish is the never-ending assertion by Winlink advocates that they can and should be allowed to operate in a fashion involving transmitting without listening. Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it. (QRO can come in handy when it comes to Pactor.) But the Pactor station's actions were as illegal as heck. This sort of thing needs to be put down by the FCC and I trust that it will be. As boaters and RVers get Wi Fi access to the internet more and more, Pactor will die out. As it should. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] APRS remote access / automation software
Dear APRS / Amateur Radio group, Acentient Software is very pleased to announce the arrival of Adaptive Home Logic v2.0, which can be remotely accessed via APRS. Adaptive Home Logic is an advanced, highly flexible, easy to use home automation / remote access application that can seamlessly coordinate and control home lighting, HVAC, security and home theatre systems from your Windows XP computer. Version 2 includes full two- way support for X10 and the latest UPB power line modules, two-way prioritised speech system, TCP/IP client / server communication ability, Remote Internet Telnet Access, RSS Weather News Feeds, Virtual Weather Station Graphical Display within a new user interface with display mapping. Other features include scheduling / conditional events, APRS remote access via amateur radio, Digital I/O, multiple serial port communication, E-mail Alerts, Sun rise/set times, It can even be accessed via a mobile phone + more! For more details, please visit http://www.acentient-software.com
[digitalradio] WSJT Advanced features
Hi All Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can decode several signals at once, I have looked but could not find. This feature would be very useful If I could find it !!. Andy G8RZA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Exactly... they *just* don't get it frown Bill KA8VIT To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:22:37 -0500 Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links _ Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
[digitalradio] Re: APRS remote access / automation software
A. APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System) uses a Terminal Node Controller (a type of radio modem) to transmit data over a packet radio network. Its primary function permits radio amateurs to automatically report their position, which is then displayed on a computerised map. It can however, also be used to send and receive short text messages. This can be utilised by Adaptive Home Logic to receive instruction and to send alerts status reports, allowing the system to be remotely monitored controlled by a mobile radio (with a built-in TNC) independently of anyone else's communication infrastructure, and because messages are relayed by each station across a packet network, it's possible to stay in reliable radio contact with the system from a great distance using fairly low powered or even portable equipment. This is particularly useful when the other more conventional forms of communication are simple not available, possible or prohibitively expensive, such as a home automation system on a yacht, RV or at a remote rural location. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, acentient_software [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear APRS / Amateur Radio group, Acentient Software is very pleased to announce the arrival of Adaptive Home Logic v2.0, which can be remotely accessed via APRS. Adaptive Home Logic is an advanced, highly flexible, easy to use home automation / remote access application that can seamlessly coordinate and control home lighting, HVAC, security and home theatre systems from your Windows XP computer. Version 2 includes full two- way support for X10 and the latest UPB power line modules, two-way prioritised speech system, TCP/IP client / server communication ability, Remote Internet Telnet Access, RSS Weather News Feeds, Virtual Weather Station Graphical Display within a new user interface with display mapping. Other features include scheduling / conditional events, APRS remote access via amateur radio, Digital I/O, multiple serial port communication, E-mail Alerts, Sun rise/set times, It can even be accessed via a mobile phone + more! For more details, please visit http://www.acentient-software.com
Re: [digitalradio] : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Andy wrote: Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites .. ) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions; 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic control of a digital station. What's sad is that the heavy majority of soundings at my station are absolutely attended and monitored. And if I hear the frequency in use, I interrupt it. ALE listens on a channel about the same as an SSB op would, and I can pre-empt the transmission with a click. I can do this remotely, but the majority of the time, I'm at my desk, as my station is setup in my office, which is also where I spend my hobby time in the evenings. I also monitor/control via tightvnc from my upstairs computers as well as from my phone. Their point 3 is completely invalid. 1 2 are subject to interpretation. Everyone has an opinion. Only one really counts, and we have not heard from them. About the only time I need to pre-empt a sound is on 7102 aft/evening and it's 100% winlink/P3 traffic. Very occasionally on 2030m, again winlink, and again pretty much only in the evenings. I've never run across psk. Occasionally hear the musical tones of other modes, but have virtually never had to pre-empt a sound for them. I have had the musical tones fire up right in the middle of an ALE QSO. Kbd to kbd. P3 more likely to fire up, but our other non-Pactor modes can also have hidden terminal effect. It's physics. There was even a post here in the last week or so about testing nbems and having musical tones fire up on top of them. But I did not see a witch hunt there. Seems it's OK for some protocols. RTTY I've run into during contests, and the issue is they park on a frequency can endless call CQ for hours, with transmissions far longer than ALE soundings. Every 20-30 seconds. I like rtty, and use it. RTTY has it's right to exist as well. But I sure get annoyed at times at what seems to me to be intentional interference. I suspect it's not, but frequency selection, power levels, and the one way nature of the qso's make me wonder. From testing, with narrow filters RTTY can setup on a freq and never hear an AFSK signal. Should they have to listen on SSB? P3 ops do listen on SSB, as that's the mode their radio is in (assuming they listen, which I believe most do). But do RTTY ops listen in SSB before transmitting? I'm pretty sure they do not. When a contest op has setup shop on a heavily contended frequency, you can listen all you want, and hope for a break. It will never happen. So in that case, I do believe some hams just give up. Some go home, so go ahead and make their call. I just turn off the radio for a while, it's not worth getting frustrated over. But some seem to take enjoyment in getting frustrated. I've listed in earlier email about five examples where hidden terminal effect, or worse, transmissions w/o listening take place daily on HF. These are being tolerated. All are rude. Some are clearly more malicious than the hapless digital operator, as they are intentional. Some are just sloppy ops, bad habits, but occur far more frequently than we encounter in the digital world. Split DX operation would have to cease if the rules were enforced as the recent nay-sayers would want. Unless you could prove you had dual receive and monitored your TX frequency prior to xmit. My 950SDX does that, so I could continue to operate DX split. So back to ALE soundings. The neat thing about ale is that the stations capture LQA data from any ALE transmission, including a CQ. If soundings come to an end, you'll just see more calls, as stations blindly call each other with no LQA data rather than the focused, know they are there LQA based calls. Completely monitored, staffed, transmissions. But CQ's and directed calls are longer, and on more bands, more frequently. So this is definitely a case of be careful of what you ask for. Myself, I think the more we poke prod the FCC with this can't be legal, it's not my mode interpretation issues the more likely we are to see bandwidth based sub-bands implemented. So in some aspects, we'll all get something, even if it's not what we want. I'd expect something like: 10% CW only, 15% CW and narrow data (500 hz), 25% 3kc data, 45% 3kc voice, with 5% wide voice tolerated (AM included). From a number of simultaneous QSO's which can be sustained, it's an equitable distribution, but I know everyone will complain. That's the problem with forcing your parents to cut the cake, you will get what you get. And it's likely to be not exactly what you want. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
I must have missed something but what are IED's? The only acronym that I have heard are improvised explosive device and clearly that would be an odd reference in this case. Even though there are those who strongly oppose clarity on what really is appropriate and inappropriate behavior with these modes, here in the U.S. at least, it is necessary to get some interpretation by the FCC. PropNet is using a beaconing approach but supposedly tell their members that they must be full control operators. If you read the rules, it is not clear whether this is legal or not. If you look at the rules vis a vis automatic operation, then they clearly are illegal, but it could be possible for the FCC to interpret the rule (big stretch, I know) that with a control operator present, this might be OK My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites .. ) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions; 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic control of a digital station. as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has forwarded to the FCC for comment. So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID. What about Packet on 30M, APRS. I am fairly certain these station do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates based on their UI-View settings. Andy K3UK On Jan 13, 2008 8:22 AM, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Skip wrote: except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). All the ALE data activity is in the automatic subbands unless the stations manually QSY off frequency under operator control. So what's the concern? Have fun, Alan km4ba Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm 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] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Hi Andy, That's just nonsense. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 09:03 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote: Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites .. ) 1 illegal 1-way transmissions; 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic control of a digital station. as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has forwarded to the FCC for comment. So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID. What about Packet on 30M, APRS. I am fairly certain these station do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates based on their UI-View settings. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
All the ALE data activity is in the automatic subbands unless the stations manually QSY off frequency under operator control. So what's the concern? As long as it always stays in the automatic subbands, there should be no concern. In fact, ALE is a valuable resource, IMHO. Skip KH6TY Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm 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/
[digitalradio] Re: APRS remote access / automation software
Yep, just what we need, more amateur to non-amateur messaging taking place on the ham bands. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A. APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System) uses a Terminal Node Controller (a type of radio modem) to transmit data over a packet radio network. Its primary function permits radio amateurs to automatically report their position, which is then displayed on a computerised map. It can however, also be used to send and receive short text messages. This can be utilised by Adaptive Home Logic to receive instruction and to send alerts status reports, allowing the system to be remotely monitored controlled by a mobile radio (with a built-in TNC) independently of anyone else's communication infrastructure, and because messages are relayed by each station across a packet network, it's possible to stay in reliable radio contact with the system from a great distance using fairly low powered or even portable equipment. This is particularly useful when the other more conventional forms of communication are simple not available, possible or prohibitively expensive, such as a home automation system on a yacht, RV or at a remote rural location. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, acentient_software enquiry@ wrote: Dear APRS / Amateur Radio group, Acentient Software is very pleased to announce the arrival of Adaptive Home Logic v2.0, which can be remotely accessed via APRS. Adaptive Home Logic is an advanced, highly flexible, easy to use home automation / remote access application that can seamlessly coordinate and control home lighting, HVAC, security and home theatre systems from your Windows XP computer. Version 2 includes full two- way support for X10 and the latest UPB power line modules, two-way prioritised speech system, TCP/IP client / server communication ability, Remote Internet Telnet Access, RSS Weather News Feeds, Virtual Weather Station Graphical Display within a new user interface with display mapping. Other features include scheduling / conditional events, APRS remote access via amateur radio, Digital I/O, multiple serial port communication, E-mail Alerts, Sun rise/set times, It can even be accessed via a mobile phone + more! For more details, please visit http://www.acentient-software.com
[digitalradio] Re: ALE courtesy built-in
Skip KH6TY wrote: Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity within range of the unattended station). Hi Skip, The ALE-141 standard includes listen-before-transmit for ALL transmissions and the ALE modem controllers have channel occupancy detectors that can detect other signals than ALE. ALE listens before transmitting and listens after transmitting. This standard is the main one used by hams, and we have adapted it with some improvements to further enhance it for non-interference... Ham-friendly ALE operation details that any scheduled station IDs happen only in the automatic subbands. Currently, 90% of selective calls, and nearly 100% of all text messaging happens in the automatic sub-bands. All HF frequencies are shared these days... whether they are amateur radio bands, commercial, or government channels. No one has exclusive channels any more, with few exceptions. Over half of the non-amateur 2-way communications transmissions on HF now are ALE signals, or begin with an ALE exchange of some type... ALE is quite simply, the main method being used now for initiating and maintaining communications on HF. There are many reasons for so many services adopting ALE, the primary one is that ALE works well... and it enables many stations or entities to share HF frequencies easily. Oddly the original premise that ALE was only for unskilled operators turned out differently than they expected. In the hands of skilled operators, ALE is being used like a force multiplier to enable skilled radio operators to handle more traffic and to monitor and communicate with more nets simultaneously. Hams are late to the ALE party, but we are bringing a few interesting innovations of our own with us :) 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J
[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Bill N9DSJ wrote: Hello Bonnie, Thanks for the reply. It just seemed pretty convoluted; and, at best, nebulous. To be honest I have never heard anyone complain about soundings, but I may miss a lot. Compared to some best-not-be-mentioned systems, ALE operations have not shown up on my qrm map. Hi Bill, There haven't been any problems with ALE interference involving organized ALE nets in the past 7 years. That is a pretty good record for any net or mode in ham radio :) The recent war as Andy puts it, is not really a war, but simply a tiny one-sided personal vendetta by a few misguided or disgruntled individuals who are trying to attack me personally. They have their reasons. One of them is mad at me for leading the opposition against the Digital Stone Age Petition... the other is lashing out because his posting privileges were suspended on HFLINK for being a bad boy :) The rumors of RTTY contesters being in a war against ALE are totally untrue... and there is no interest or concern about this by HFLINK members or others. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: WSJT Advanced features
This brings to mind the converse: it would be interesting if possible to have multiple TX going in the same passband on JT65. Because of the synchronized time frame start time, you could hold several simultaneous odd- or even-minute qsos, somethich which is not possible to do on other digital modes which lack the coordination of tx/rx switchover times. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
I certainly agree. Now, given the FCC's position, why do we amateurs need all the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our ranks sending queries to the FCC concerning practices by other control operators? We are all responsible for our own operations. Right? Chuck AA5J At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, Your call sign, your responsibility. Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively, interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing activity, or lying about being at the control point. Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a 53 or so report? Just because you can hear them, does not mean that they can hear you. They KW when you are transmitting 25W. vbg Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good situation. When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule interpreters? How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree with that other than a person with an extreme agenda? As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others? It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are involved in that! Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition for a change. As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients that no one really knows. It is not possible to just know the interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt. Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner? 73, Rick, KV9U Chuck Mayfield wrote: At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J
[digitalradio] Beacons
Andy K3UK wrote: So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? Hi Andy, Beacons essentially are transmitters without receivers. Here's a good test to tell if a station is not beacon: Call the station, if it responds, it isn't a beacon. If you can QSO with the station, it isn't a beacon. If you can exchange data with it, it isn't a beacon. As I understand it, APRS stations and Propnet stations are using transceivers and communicating with each other in a net. Some of the data communications are automatic, or they make scheduled transmissions, but that doesn't make them beacons, it just makes them automatically controlled data stations. Both APRS and Propnet nets are operating in the HF automatic sub-bands. It is somewhat ridiculous to say that every repetitive signal, such as a station ID, is considered a beacon... that would include all contesters and participants in pileups... among other things, the second time you call CQ without an answer :) It is common for ham digital mode software to have an Auto CQ function. It continues to call CQ on a repetitive basis until it gets a response. Many PSK31 operators use this feature... Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Beacons
Thanks Bonnie. Can you remind us what what the automatic sub-bands are, which frequencies ? On Jan 13, 2008 2:28 PM, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy K3UK wrote: So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? Hi Andy, Beacons essentially are transmitters without receivers. Here's a good test to tell if a station is not beacon: Call the station, if it responds, it isn't a beacon. If you can QSO with the station, it isn't a beacon. If you can exchange data with it, it isn't a beacon. As I understand it, APRS stations and Propnet stations are using transceivers and communicating with each other in a net. Some of the data communications are automatic, or they make scheduled transmissions, but that doesn't make them beacons, it just makes them automatically controlled data stations. Both APRS and Propnet nets are operating in the HF automatic sub-bands. It is somewhat ridiculous to say that every repetitive signal, such as a station ID, is considered a beacon... that would include all contesters and participants in pileups... among other things, the second time you call CQ without an answer :) It is common for ham digital mode software to have an Auto CQ function. It continues to call CQ on a repetitive basis until it gets a response. Many PSK31 operators use this feature... Bonnie KQ6XA -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
OK, this reply has made up my mind. I, too, subscribed to this list thinking I would be reading about digital radio. I have tried to weed through the chaffe to get to the posts with some real substance. It seems that there are a few posters on this list who just argue any point that comes up, and the rest just agree with one side or the other. I have been licensed since 1983. I have been playing digital radio in one form or another for close to 20 years. That's what I am interested in. Don't bother replying to me on this list, because I won't see it. You guys enjoy yourselves. Roy N9RG tailfeathers wrote: Yeah...that would be the one where you buy a book and sit in the corner and not insult other peoples intelligence with your arrogance...Especially as an newbie...:) Gary n8gsj n4ijs wrote: Hello! I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if this comes across off base. But, I came here looking for information on digital modes for Amateur Radio - not various, multi-post messages about various peoples opinion (and arguments) on unrelated topics. I am sure that these discussions are important to a select group of folks, but are there no other places for these types of discussions to take place? I belong to several Ham related Yahoo! forums and this one certainly produces (by far) the most emails; however, few are related to the topic at hand. So, I have to weed through these other messages to get to the real ones. If this just the way of this forum, that's fine - I will just unsubscribe. I hope that isn't the case, but, if it is, can anyone recommend a forum for exploring digital modes within Ham Radio? Thanks and 73, Robert - N4IJS --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Katrina and Rita shelters were opened where there were people in need. Whether supplies could readily reach them was a problem to be solved, not a requirement for shelter location. You are not understanding the widespread nature of these disasters. It was easier to solve the supply problem than the rescue problem. A supply truck or helicopter with supplies can make it in once a day. The multiple vehicles, trucks or helicopters, to evacuate people were not available. Your hypothetical versus others real world experience is misleading you. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net http://TheHamNetwork.net Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive to the shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this appears to be an appeal to emotion. I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would open a shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply vehicles nor that had SOME kind of communications. I am pretty sure that the government authorities would not authorize this either. To do otherwise is simply asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the future thereby adding to the problem. Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the facts. Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of communication, but never the less, it is communications. Jim WA0LYK Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links -- Roy G. Jackson N9RG Naples, Florida USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it listened. You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old adage in ham radio, If you can hear'em, you can work'em. However, this is only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW! It is against all reasonable odds that if a PropNet station consistently transmits on top of every station on the frequency, that it cannot hear at least one of them. Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a 53 or so report? Just because you can hear them, does not mean that they can hear you. They KW when you are transmitting 25W. vbg BTW, if they come back with a 53 report, they could detect me, couldn't they! 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands
Andy K3UK wrote: Thanks Bonnie. Can you remind us what what the automatic sub-bands are, which frequencies ? Hi Andy, The automatic sub-bands are slightly different in various countries and IARU regional bandplans of the world. A map of worldwide bandplans including automatic sub-bands is on the web at: http://hflink.com/bandplans In USA's FCC rules §97.221 there are segments of the data sub bands that are commonly known as the Automatic Sub-Bands, and this chart is on the web at: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg USA Auto Sub-Band HF segments for RTTY or DATA 28.120-28.189 MHz 24.925-24.930 MHz 21.090-21.100 MHz 18.105-18.110 MHz 14.0950-14.0995 MHz 14.1005-14.112 MHz 10.140-10.150 MHz 7.100-7.105 MHz 3.585-3.600 MHz Also, in USA, a station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 meters or shorter wavelength bands. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
A couple of answers. One, is that as a service we are self-policing. I think if you read the original document establishing this, it didn't mean that each individual polices himself but rather that the service as a whole polices itself routing out operations that don't follow the rules. Part of this IS getting objective clarifications from the ultimate arbiter, the FCC. Two, there is a very good example of what happens when a radio service relies upon individuals to police themselves. Citizen Band. As part of your license you agree to abide by the rules as written for the amateur service. I simply don't understand the attitude that asking if something is within the rules is a bad thing. It should be considered a good thing so that everyone knows EXACTLY what the rules mean. How can that be a bad thing? Are you worried that something you are doing may be outside the rules a bit? The rules and regulations have a defined process to have them modified. Why do people chafe at the time it takes to do this? It allows for planned and orderly changes that have all sides taken into account. Sure, some may win and some may lose but that is life. You mention activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes. I would say anyone who looks for loopholes or advocates doing something that is pushing the envelope is an activist lawyer and lawyer-wannabe. RM-11392 is simply asking for the fcc to codify in kHz what has always been there. Why didn't the folks that introduced pactor 3 into the hf bands look at bandwidth the fcc intended when they wrote the current limits into the rules. I would say a loophole was taken advantage of. This is exactly what lawyers would do. We have reached the point where the only rules a lot of new hams know are those that are in the test and they are quickly forgotten. We also have a lot of folks that believe anything internet related connected to an auto station is ok. A couple of examples. Echolink/IRLP, are these stations automatic or under remote control. If automatic, does using phone violate a rule? If remote control, are licenses checked to make sure someone isn't operating outside their license limits or if foreign operators without a reciprocal permit are using the stations? You can't have it both ways. Beacons. Propnet and ALE soundings are used for propagation checking. They are not used to establish real time two way communications between two amateurs. How does the rule define a beacon? It pretty much looks to me like these are beacons. Now if you want to do some creative defining, who is acting like a lawyer? Third party to third party emails using two unattended amateur auto stations for an rf link. With the proper design, this could in essence turn into real time instant messaging service. Is this ok? If not, why not? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I certainly agree. Now, given the FCC's position, why do we amateurs need all the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our ranks sending queries to the FCC concerning practices by other control operators? We are all responsible for our own operations. Right? Chuck AA5J At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, Your call sign, your responsibility. Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands
Andy, Bonnie's information is out of date. The IARU Region 2 bandplans, effective January 1, 2008, recommend additional restricitions on automatic operations where the bandwidth is under 500 Hz, and no automatic operations on 30m. ARRL signed onto the IARU bandplans as the Region 2 representative to the IARU. Under FCC rules, automatic operations with less than 500 Hz bandwidth may be conducted anywhere the mode is authorized. http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands Andy K3UK wrote: Thanks Bonnie. Can you remind us what what the automatic sub-bands are, which frequencies ? Hi Andy, The automatic sub-bands are slightly different in various countries and IARU regional bandplans of the world. A map of worldwide bandplans including automatic sub-bands is on the web at: http://hflink.com/bandplans In USA's FCC rules §97.221 there are segments of the data sub bands that are commonly known as the Automatic Sub-Bands, and this chart is on the web at: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg USA Auto Sub-Band HF segments for RTTY or DATA 28.120-28.189 MHz 24.925-24.930 MHz 21.090-21.100 MHz 18.105-18.110 MHz 14.0950-14.0995 MHz 14.1005-14.112 MHz 10.140-10.150 MHz 7.100-7.105 MHz 3.585-3.600 MHz Also, in USA, a station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 meters or shorter wavelength bands. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
[digitalradio] Re: Beacons
Part 97.3(a)(9) Beacon. An amateur station transmitting communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other related experimental activities. Tell me where the mention of receiver or transceiver is in this rule? It simply doesn't matter what the DESIGN of the equipment is according to this rule. The rule covers the PURPOSE of the transmission, not the equipment that does the transmitting. Station id's without being involved in a two-way communications or in setting one up are considered one-way transmissions. CQ's are allowed because they are defined as: Part 97.111(b)(2) Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations; Talk about an activist lawyer and lawyer-wannabe. You know what judges tell lawyers that spout creative interpretation of law that don't follow plain language, precedent, and legislative history? Not in my court! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy K3UK wrote: So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? Hi Andy, Beacons essentially are transmitters without receivers. Here's a good test to tell if a station is not beacon: Call the station, if it responds, it isn't a beacon. If you can QSO with the station, it isn't a beacon. If you can exchange data with it, it isn't a beacon. As I understand it, APRS stations and Propnet stations are using transceivers and communicating with each other in a net. Some of the data communications are automatic, or they make scheduled transmissions, but that doesn't make them beacons, it just makes them automatically controlled data stations. Both APRS and Propnet nets are operating in the HF automatic sub-bands. It is somewhat ridiculous to say that every repetitive signal, such as a station ID, is considered a beacon... that would include all contesters and participants in pileups... among other things, the second time you call CQ without an answer :) It is common for ham digital mode software to have an Auto CQ function. It continues to call CQ on a repetitive basis until it gets a response. Many PSK31 operators use this feature... Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? Yamamoto said I fear we have waken a sleeping giant after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said Let a sleeping dog lie. Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that Don't stir the pot is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good situation. When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule interpreters? How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree with that other than a person with an extreme agenda? As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others? It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are involved in that! Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition for a change. As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients that no one really knows. It is not possible to just know the interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt. Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner? 73, Rick, KV9U Chuck Mayfield wrote: At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 01:54 PM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it listened. You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old adage in ham radio, If you can hear'em, you can work'em. However, this is only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW! Oh, Skip. Thank you for your very welcome feedback. I forgot you always have a perfectly uniform reflecting medium between you and everyone else. That is why you get perfect reciprocity all the time. Well it doesn't always work that way for me. Can we get back to technical discussions now and leave the rules enforcement for others?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote: Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it. Roger - how do you know it's WinLink stations and not me and K0ABC in a keyboard to keyboard QSO? I know you have had a anit-wide rant for a long long time. But it's really be showing more and more in the last 2 weeks.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 08:05 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote: This is getting ridiculous! It takes me nearly 10 seconds to say This is AA5J Is the frequency in use? In what mode?
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Chuck, Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have to wait until we find out. Chuck Mayfield wrote: Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? Yamamoto said I fear we have waken a sleeping giant after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said Let a sleeping dog lie. Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that Don't stir the pot is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J
[digitalradio] Re: WSJT Advanced features
Hello Leigh, Yes this happens, but more commonly using MS -- check out random hours(s) sometime. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This brings to mind the converse: it would be interesting if possible to have multiple TX going in the same passband on JT65. Because of the synchronized time frame start time, you could hold several simultaneous odd- or even-minute qsos, somethich which is not possible to do on other digital modes which lack the coordination of tx/rx switchover times. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Jim, At 03:28 PM 1/13/2008, jgorman01 wrote: A couple of answers. One, is that as a service we are self-policing. I think if you read the original document establishing this, it didn't mean that each individual polices himself but rather that the service as a whole polices itself routing out operations that don't follow the rules. Part of this IS getting objective clarifications from the ultimate arbiter, the FCC. Can you say selective rationalization? Each time the FCC makes a general rule into a specific rule we lose something. Nothing is ever gained to change a rule from general with some leeway to specific hard and fast one with no leeway. Is that what we want? All hams in lock-step and/or everyone afraid to experiment for fear that our own group will cause them to be shut down because they do things differently? Who routes out the contesters that spread out over the whole band and interfere with someone each time they key their mike in response to a QRZ?. No one, because contests are radiosport. Who routes out the DX chasers who without fail, create a pile-up and interfere with others each time they broadcast their call hoping that the DX station will tell them 59? (Surely, they can tell that the frequency is already in use, and surely they know that they are interfering with others who are attempting to contact the DX station) No one. Because DXing is radiosport. Who routes out those fools that QSO in the sub bands to which automatic stations are restricted, knowing that sooner or later they will be able to report that their QSO was interfered with? Is that also radiosport? I don't understand how asking questions like Can they do that?, or They can't do that, can they? helps us self police the amateur radio service. Homeland Security apparently wants ARS to be able to provide third-party traffic for them under certain scenarios. Can we do that? Hell, yes we can. All we have to do to be perfectly legal is to provide control operators at each radio who monitor each message to ensure that it's content is not un-suitable before forwarding it. This list with all its traffic goes on monitored status sometimes. Why should PMBO operator that is accepting 3rd party traffic from the Internet not do the same type of monitoring? According to the rules, that has to be done. It is certainly not illegal to receive messages via land-line to be forwarded. It is certainly not illegal to forward third party messages via radio between amateur stations, provided the amateurs involved have no pecuniary interest. It is certainly not illegal to deliver messages via land-line to third parties. So, why is this group beating on PACTOR? It provides a public service. It should be the operators that are caught using their radios illegally that are beat up. Policing is not asking the busy engineers at FCC questions but catching perpetrators in the act of illegally operating their radio station. Why do people here complain to FCC about Ale and Winlink stations interfering with them, though and not the DX chasers, who every time they key their rig and open their mouth interfere with someone's communication. Why not the contesters who spread through the whole band in quest of points, for one can not have a QSO without interference when a contest is on. Why are those practices not being questioned? NB: I use neither ALE nor WINLINK nor PACKET although if I had more money/cash/moolah, perhaps I would. Two, there is a very good example of what happens when a radio service relies upon individuals to police themselves. Citizen Band. As part of your license you agree to abide by the rules as written for the amateur service. I simply don't understand the attitude that asking if something is within the rules is a bad thing. It should be considered a good thing so that everyone knows EXACTLY what the rules mean. How can that be a bad thing? Are you worried that something you are doing may be outside the rules a bit? If I need to know what I can and can not do, I look to part 97. I certainly don't look to this list or reflector or whatever you call it. If this reflector has 3000 members and they are all ham operators then the folks here represent less than 0.5% of the hams in the USA. No, I am not worried at all. And I am not worried that others are doing things that may be outside the rules a bit. I have never operated in the so-called automatic bands because I know better than to do the equivalent to standing in front of an oncoming train. I try to maximize my enjoyment of the hobby, and I thought that it might be fun to try out this new digital radio, so I joined this group to try to find out more about digital radio. And CB licensees had the same requirement to agree to abide by the rules of part 15. However, there it quickly became unenforceable, because it only cost a few hundred dollars to become a CBer, upwards of 10 million licenses
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote: Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it. Roger - how do you know it's WinLink stations and not me and K0ABC in a keyboard to keyboard QSO? I know you have had a anit-wide rant for a long long time. But it's really be showing more and more in the last 2 weeks. Your problem, John, is that you are unable to stick to an argument of the issues. Instead, everything becomes personal with you as evidenced by the above ad hominem remarks. Disappointing. As to how I knew it was a Winlink station and not you, very simple. 1) I doubt that you do Pactor keyboard QSOs more than once in a blue moon (no one does); 2) under the circumstances of the interference, I simply refuse to believe that ANY live operator, including you, would have operated in such a flagrantly inconsiderate manner. I sure hope that this helped your thinking, John. de Roger W6VZV
RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Sorry about the bandwidth. Stop the madness! how? Programmers love changing programs. As always flames to me, respectful and clean posts to the reflector. 73 ES CUL == Mr. John R. Klim II N3KHK ARRL LM-0008416263, AMSAT LM-2187, QRPARCI #10392, FISTS # 5015, MQFD #115, 10-X Life Member # 68135, Springbok Chapter # 1874, Chesapeake Bay Chapter # 549 -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Becker, WØJAB Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:55 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war At 06:31 PM 1/13/2008, Chuck Mayfield wrote in part: So, why is this group beating on PACTOR? It provides a public service. First you must got to ask - was this a problem before the sound cards modes? ANSWER: no. I'm all for new ARQ modes that work as well as Amtor or Pactor. But let one programmer change the tone of number of tones and give it a new name and you have a new mode. This madness has got to stop. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Comments in line Your problem, John, is that you are unable to stick to an argument of the issues. Instead, everything becomes personal with you as evidenced by the above ad hominem remarks. Disappointing. Wrong again Roger. I do pactor as well as RTTY and Amtor. I can copy each of them modes unlike many that just complain. As to how I knew it was a Winlink station and not you, very simple. 1) I doubt that you do Pactor keyboard QSOs more than once in a blue moon (no one does); Again wrong. 2) under the circumstances of the interference, I simply refuse to believe that ANY live operator, including you, would have operated in such a flagrantly inconsiderate manner. Maybe the poor guy just did not hear you. As you may know it's very hard to ask in every mode known if the frequency is busy. But I feel that you just have this hate for the wide modes. The anti-automatic and anti-everything-that-is-not-PSK31 hams have a very hard time understanding what the rest are doing. Number one reason - because they CAN'T copy it with their sound card.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Aw, pshaw. I am sorry that I hurt your delicate sensitivities, Bill. Get over it. All this political and administrative bs has absolutely nothing to do with digitalradio. It is one clique fighting with another clique. One group is asking for clarification about the other group's operation. How is that OK? If you think that I am not allowed to express my opinion, then you prove my point. However, I will not stand by without comment and get wet from your pissing contest. And I will not stand by while less than 0.5 percent of the US amateur radio operators mucks around and potentially screws it up for the other 99.5 percent. It was small groups of activists that got us in the incentive licensing fix, and it was small groups of activists that got us in the separation by bandwidth fix. It will be this small group of activists that makes the next change happen. I just hope the trend doesn't continue to worse and worse and worse. Chuck AA5J At 05:54 PM 1/13/2008, Bill McLaughlin wrote: Ok, I admit it, I mandated Rick to ask questions. Bull But seriously, why the concern about asking for clarification? And yes, it does seem personal. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: Chuck, Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have to wait until we find out. Rick, You have stooped to a very low personally insulting level here. I am not doing anything. I have no guilt whatsoever, except that I let you spread your own brand of nonsense on too thickly before I protested. You know very well that your questions are slanted against ALE and WINLINK. Bonny didn't kick me off of any lists. Are you doing this because she kicked you off hers? You don't even know me. You don't know what I do. You don't know what I don't do. How dare you drop that tripe on me? Apparently you can dish it out but you cannot take it when someone directly challenges your actions.
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Maybe it is nonsense. It is certainly not worth any more effort on my part. I hope you and Bonnie and the Winlink folks can one day see eye-to-eye. I think all three groups are cliques and all are trying to have it their way. Adios. At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: Chuck, Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have to wait until we find out. Chuck Mayfield wrote: Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? Yamamoto said I fear we have waken a sleeping giant after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said Let a sleeping dog lie. Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that Don't stir the pot is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........
Jack Chomley wrote: I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor etc are starting to destroy this group. We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC. I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) Like the rest of you, I bet! 73s Jack I fully agree! This group seems to be full of Professional debaters, and that is not what digital radio is about. Mr. Moderator please return this forum to its intended format. Kevin VK5OA
Re: [digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........
Hi Jack.you will note that the digitalradio group is populated by mainly US hams who love nothing but arguing among themselves about the merits of various digital modes.and the regulations controlling them they forget that they are only a percentage of the Amateur Radio Operators from around the world and we who are the others are having to put up with there arguing on two occasions i have withdrawn from this group due to the fact that two thirds of the e-mails coming into my mailbox i dont want to read as they are nothing but rubbish that doesnt interest this ham who lives in another part of the world i have suggested that maybe another group be started so that those who want to argue there points of view do so away from the rest of the world who are interested in DIGITAL MODES and DIGITALRADIO without all the arguments.This idea has not been taken up... im considering removing myself from this group again if the arguing continues much longer 73 David VK4BDJ Jack Chomley wrote: I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor etc are starting to destroy this group. We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC. I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) Like the rest of you, I bet! 73s Jack VK4JRC (I am off to play Pactor Packet!)
RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
At 07:29 PM 1/13/2008, you wrote: John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. No I don't Dave. But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. Talk about needing a seeing eye dog. You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. But I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the picture. But like I side before there seems to be this non-PSK and anti-wide thing going.
RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
I think its very counterproductive to discourage the use of any legal mode as long as its being properly used. Its a form of imposing one's personal preferences on others, which has no place in this hobby. Yes, there may be a problem with Pactor II and Pactor III not meeting the documentation standards for protocols used by US amateurs. I have not personally looked into this. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:39 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war Dave AA6YQ wrote: No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor because some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use unattended Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors. John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as madness? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is the problem. You seem to be saying turn the clock back 10 or 15 years and keep it there. I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess. And you are right. No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it is Pactor operated in a courteous fashion. There is an interesting question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented modes such that identification in these modes is legal? SCS claims that these are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights. I don't know the answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking. Put simply, if it takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to decode the ID, is the ID legal? Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North America. I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is as dead as Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well. When you visit the SCS website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed at non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial users. As far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor. Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes within the reach of most ham operators worldwide. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Welcome to the Group
Chuck, I think it has all been said on the old topic so on to bigger and better things. I think you are located within VHF range from my station (12 miles SW of Denton). I am looking for stations to test the NBEMS package on VHF. What are your digital interests? This would need a sound card interface and it would be best if we used SSB but maybe FM would work too. My VHF antenna is at 65 feet so I think I can make it over your way OK. Howard K5HB PS: Rick did an excellent review of an inexpensive sound card interface in message 25767 of this group recently. I am using an old Rigblaster M8 that I got on Ebay.
Re: [digitalradio] Welcome to the Group
Howard, Howdy, neighbor. I have * an ft857D that I have yet to use except 80m cw. * computer-ft857 interface that I bought over the internet from BuxComm. * a 25'-55' teletower. * an 11 element 2 m antenna somewhere in the back yard * the windoze version of NBEMS, and * a toshiba laptop that should work Problem is that none of it is hooked up yet. If I can get it up soon, I would like to do some NBEMS experiments with you. I agree that SSB would be best. I'll see if I can get set up in the next couple of days. Chuck AA5J At 08:55 PM 1/13/2008, Howard Brown wrote: Chuck, I think it has all been said on the old topic so on to bigger and better things. I think you are located within VHF range from my station (12 miles SW of Denton). I am looking for stations to test the NBEMS package on VHF. What are your digital interests? This would need a sound card interface and it would be best if we used SSB but maybe FM would work too. My VHF antenna is at 65 feet so I think I can make it over your way OK. Howard K5HB PS: Rick did an excellent review of an inexpensive sound card interface in message 25767 of this group recently. I am using an old Rigblaster M8 that I got on Ebay. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
[digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
In Canada, we are encouraged by RAC (Radio Amateurs of Canada) and the Canadian government to follow the newly released IARU Region 2 Band plan. The station you singled out, VE2AFQ, is not operating illegally when operating just below 14070 as a Pactor PMBO. A polite reminder sent to the station might work? There are a number of US PMBO Stations which list access frequencies very close to 14070.0 . K6IXA, KB6YNO, N0IA , to name a few. These are certainly not in the unattended band portion. Have a look at the Winlink station list for more information. So this brings up the questions; is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? John VE5MU
[digitalradio] More testing of NBEMS and ALE/FAE 400
I was able to do additional testing today of the NBEMS (Narrow Bandwidth Emergency Messaging System) as well as the ALE/FAE 400 modes with a station not far from me. This is the kind of test I was hoping for with daytime 80 meter NVIS operation with modest dipoles. The station was not my regular digital friend but another ham who I have been recommending he considering these new technologies. Using John, VE5MU's suggested frequencies, I set the rig up on 3584 and the other station called on the ALE/FAE 400 mode where we had a very nice ARQ chat. This mode is hard to beat for casual use and avoids all the usual back and forth BTU stuff:) The one thing that you have to remember to do though is to ID at the appropriate time interval. It is easy to forget to do this. So I just drop a DE KV9U from time to time. We then switched over to NBEMS running 50 watts on his end and 25 on mine and using the fastest PSK250 mode. Now this high baud rate may not work all that well on HF if there are any propagation issues, but with a fairly solid signal and low noise, it performed surprisingly well, even for chatting. Of course neither of us can type in the 400 wpm range:) We tried dropping the power levels down to the 5 to 10 watt level and still got throughput, but 25 to 50 watts did seem optimum. Unlike ALE/FAE 400, NBEMS does not have an ARQ chat mode. Starting out on non ARQ chatting, I then sent my usual test message, the Gettysburgh Address, which is around 1400 ASCII characters and it went through quite well with minimal retries. The message was successfully stored in his ARQreceiving folder. We went back to chatting in the FAE 400 mode as we both really like the quasi duplex operation. As I have mentioned before, it is very much like the way the Clover II mode works. So after signing with the local station, I left the rig on the same frequency and surprise, along comes Bill, N9DSJ later on this afternoon. So that was a most pleasant contact. I might mention that because of the new configuration in the my shack, I can have both Multipsk and NBEMS on screen and both monitoring at the same time. Multipsk is running CI-V control to the ICOM rig via my homebrew interface and the NBEMS program is ready to key the rig via the Unified Microsystems interface I recently purchased and built for this purpose. This makes it very easy to quickly switch between programs although you can not transmit at the same time. Do any of you want to try and make a connection with stations near you, or within range? Higher bands could be used of course for longer range. Do the VE5MU frequencies of 3584, 7038, 10136, 14094, 18104, 21094, seem to be good choices? 73, Rick, KV9U
