[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find happy birthday grandma to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP I'll accept Dave and Skip's comments as valid points. BTW, the busy detect does work quite well in Winmor. Simon, I did not have a particular digital mode in mind, I was just exploring the receptivity to the overall concept of unattended operations, if wide was eliminated from the discussion. ANdy K3UK On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- *From:* Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@...] *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Cc:* Dave AA6YQ *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it could continuously reconfigure. And as I said, perfect is the enemy of good (with apologies to Voltaire). A busy detector that is only 80% effective would reduce QRM rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradi digitalradi o...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ k3ukandy@ wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO* end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor. Plus they are at this time in their own little (and I do mean little) part of the band. I do a lot of pactor operating and have a system waiting for traffic that I in turn get on it's way via the WWW. I scan about 12 freq's looking just for that very same type of traffic. Take a look at this map. http://www.winlink.org/userPositions did you notice that EACH and EVERY one has a ham call? Just because *some* don't use the mode does not mean it's a junk mode. And it would *really* be nice if some that did speak up a least operated the mode before bad talking it. So please let's not get this started once again. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri pactor 1,2 3 24/7/365 in the center of fly over country
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
- Original Message - From: kc4cop To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:08 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Your comments about Grandma's birthday indicates that you understand very little concerning traffic handling which has been a part of amateur radio from the very begining and is where the Relay in American Radio Relay League comes from.. The pupose of the yes maybe boring everyday messages is to keep a cadre of trained message handlers for those times when ham radio is called upon to provide communications during disasters and other emergenices when other modes of communication are down or otherwise unavailable, including the World Wide Web. The National Traffic System exists and has operated for many decades in this fashion. A natural extension of this is NTS Digital which indeed does operate automatic message handling systems primarily using Pactor and operates concurrently with the traditional manual NTS at all levels. However NTS Digital for the most part still uses what has become to be called Winlink Classic where almost all of the forwarding is done via RF. Yes we do scan, but Winlink Classic also has a busy frequency detector built into its scanner function. While not perfect it does result in inhibiting many connections when the frequency is busy. Personally I have seen it work upon detecting CW, RTTY, Pactor 1, PSK31 and some other digital modes and even just plain carrier. NTS Digital operates almost exclusively in the very small existing automatical control subbands. Indeed during RTTY contests when many of the activity moves into these autocontrol subbands our traffic handling ability is severely affected due to the busy detectors in the software. How big is this operation?... For March 2010 the NTS Digital system in Eastern Area which comprises most of the East Coast and the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 callsign areas and Eastern Canada handled over 6000 messages via the digital systems. Similar traffic levels are also posted by the other two areas, Central and Pacific covering the rest of the US and Canada Dave WB2FTX Easten Area Digital Coordinator- NTS Digital ARRL --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find happy birthday grandma to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (12) Recent Activity: a.. New Members 4 Visit Your Group http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit) MARKETPLACE Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more. -- Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you. -- Hobbies Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00
[digitalradio] ALE-400 Chat Mode Skeds pse
All, I'll be QRV ALE-400 CHAT MODE this evening. 14074.0 / 3586.0 +/- QRM. Please send email direct for skeds. Thanks, Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5) of the FCC rules, which states: (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies. Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is no. I don't know whether hams licensed in other countries are subject to equivalent (or even more stringent) regulations against communications which could be furnished through other radio services, but I suspect that the answer is yes, and that the basis for 97.113(a)(5) is to be found in the International Radio Regulations, which all administrations are required by treaty to implement. A documented confirmation or contradiction of my guess would be welcome. 73 DE KW6H, ex-AE6VW, Chris
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. ^^^ Or put them on 11 meters and make some use of that sanitorium. 73 Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
John, I don't know if your comments are directed to me or are in response to my comments on NTS Digital, but NTSD has nothing to do with hams at sea. If you want more information about NTS Digital operations and practices please check this web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/n_t_s_d.htm NTSD is a very very small portion of the automatic systems compared to Winlink 2000 and ALE,,,Again we are still using Winlink Classic, the version developed before Winlink 2000 and Classic does have a busy detector... NTS messages are and have been part of amateur radio for decades and continue in the tradition established early in the 20th century. Dave WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Coordinator NTSD - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode? -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2801 - Release Date: 04/09/10 14:32:00
[digitalradio] Re: Opposition to the KQ6XA Recommendation
In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking for places to operate, Alan, that's plain stupid. Looking at my ARRL band/mode chart, I see in EVERY HF band the phrase RTTY and Data. Wow...DATAthere's my place to operate. John KB2HSH --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: kb2hsh wrote: This is little more than a frequency grab by Bonnie that would benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current bandplan - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency spreading. If anything, it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. So if magically passed (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for HFLink operations. The only exception to this would be that we would now have a US bandplan that aligns with a more reasonable international one, which is not the case now. But it would not increase ALE operations at all, nor change current centers of activity unless forced to by the new plan. So tell me again how this benefits ALE ops? How would it be a frequency grab?? In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking for places to operate, including new modes yet to be defined. That may not be important to you. But it is to some! What if psk was never able to stake out a center of activity? Other modes As to timing of the submission? You guys are empowering Bonnie way too much. We just found out about it not too long ago when it was posted in another group. Bonnie was traveling for a bit, and submitted when she settled in. No more no less. It's too easy to villainize people who do not practice your hobby the way you like, and it weakens the entire hobby! I'd ask, why did we all just find out about this Why was this input session not pro-actively positioned to the key user groups so they would have time to comment? Seems to me like the fingers need to point to the people soliciting input. Reminds me of the Hitchhiker Guide to the Universe where the input sessions for destruction of earth was posted on Alpha centauri. But you had time to provide input No one replied!!!. I can tell from most of the responses so far that most did not even read the proposal, or some of the others floating around. It protects CW, and that is a key component of Bonnie's position for years. Nowhere that I see does it restrict CW ops to 15khz If this mindset prevailed, we'd still not have SSB, at best using AM CW. Or spark! The same end of the world arguments took place when SSB was introduced! sorry, guys but if conspiracy theories are the best we can come up with, we all lose! Have fun, Alan km4ba
[digitalradio] Re: evil Bonnie..
Point taken, neighbor! 73, John --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, kb2hsh kb2...@... wrote: I 110% agree with you there. Bonnie (yes, I'm not bashful about calling her out) controls ALE as if it were HERS. In my opinion, it's little more than a business for her...not only can you join HF-ALE, but you can also BUY MERCHANDISE. John, Bonnie's group may sell merchandise but she has other successful businesses, so I doubt this is her motive. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service , because those communications on a regular basis could be easily furnished through those alternative services too. I know, its stupid, but it also carries the same logic as the below example . K7AAT Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5) of the FCC rules, which states: (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies. Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is no.
[digitalradio] Re: evil Bonnie..
Nice. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: At 09:57 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote: John i have been there too Remember wide band digital on 6 and 2 meters ? I was removed by her from one list for asking questions that 2nd guessed her. The list was the yahoo VX1700 list. That is a Vertex radio. I have retired after 40 years working as a 2 way radio tech at (you will love this) a Vertex dealer. But that's OK I was not there to learn I was there to help others. You can look at it this way - Bonny is in here own little world. She not going to come out and nobody is getting. She is aA Legend in her Own Mind ! John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri.
RE: [digitalradio] RSID Query
Quite a few seasoned hams still use older forms of software that do not support RSID. Why they chose not to upgrade is beyond me but they have their reasons. I suppose that if all you ever do is RTTY and PSK31, what would be the point in transmitting an RSID? Or upgrading your software? Rick - KH2DF From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:19 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] RSID Query All, I was just wondering if there's any confusion or misunderstanding among the group about RS-ID? We all know that it's not always easy to identify a mode by sight and sound yet I still see many calling CQ without any mode identification. The end result, no contacts. I'm sure most of the seasoned digital ops know what RS ID is and what it does, so what's the reasoning behind not using it? Tony -K2MO FLDIGI - Check RX ID / TX ID in upper right corner of program window. Click CONFIGURE / IDS to set preferences. MULTIPSK - Click RS ID / RX RS ID in main window. Click CONFIGURATION / MANAGMENT OF ID's. Check CONTINUOUS DETECTION. Ham Radio Deluxe / DM780 Version 5 Open DM780. Click OPTIONS / MODES + IDs / REED SOLOMON TAB. Check: ENABLE RSID DETECTION / SHOW IN QSO WINDOW AS HYPERLINK SHOW POPUP WINDOW / SHOW RSID BUTTON ON QSO TRANSMIT TOOLBAR
Re: [digitalradio] RSID Query
On 4/9/2010 7:53 PM, Rick Westerfield wrote: Quite a few seasoned hams still use older forms of software that do not support RSID. Why they chose not to upgrade is beyond me but they have their reasons. I suppose that if all you ever do is RTTY and PSK31, what would be the point in transmitting an RSID? Or upgrading your software? Rick -- KH2DF That's true Rick... I just don't understand why so many call CQ with the more 'exotic' modes without some form of mode ID. Did you ever go through all the modes / sub modes to try and figure out which one was being sent - only to have the other party go QRT after you find it : ) Tony -K2MO *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Tony *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 6:19 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] RSID Query All, I was just wondering if there's any confusion or misunderstanding among the group about RS-ID? We all know that it's not always easy to identify a mode by sight and sound yet I still see many calling CQ without any mode identification. The end result, no contacts. I'm sure most of the seasoned digital ops know what RS ID is and what it does, so what's the reasoning behind not using it? Tony -K2MO FLDIGI - Check RX ID / TX ID in upper right corner of program window. Click CONFIGURE / IDS to set preferences. MULTIPSK - Click RS ID / RX RS ID in main window. Click CONFIGURATION / MANAGMENT OF ID's. Check CONTINUOUS DETECTION. Ham Radio Deluxe / DM780 Version 5 Open DM780. Click OPTIONS / MODES + IDs / REED SOLOMON TAB. Check: ENABLE RSID DETECTION / SHOW IN QSO WINDOW AS HYPERLINK SHOW POPUP WINDOW / SHOW RSID BUTTON ON QSO TRANSMIT TOOLBAR __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5014 (20100409) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [digitalradio] RSID Query
Did you ever go through all the modes / sub modes to try and figure out which one was being sent - only to have the other party go QRT after you find it : ) Tony -K2MO Everyday, it seems! Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] ALE busy detect
In her OWN WORDS, she states that ALE is a listen-first mode Actually, this is true...to a degree. PC-ALE does have the ability to detect the presence of a signal and delay the start of a sounding . It does not work very well however, in my experience less than 10% of the time.. WINMOR, on the other hand , detects the presence of a signal and delays a transmission almost 100% of the time. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Fwd: Balloonsat Flights Launched from Huntsville with APRS on Saturday Morning with Streaming Video of Launch
-Original Message- From: wb8...@aol.com To: Sent: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Streaming video from this Saturday morning UAH balloonsat flights Upwards of 5 balloons possible from Huntsville, ALlook for APRS callsigns starting with KG4WSV, WB8ELK and UAH on 144.39 (as well as 144.34 and 144.36) Streaming video of the launches are possible at the following website: http://www.batc.tv Click on Members Streams Then click on WB8ELK and hit View Stream
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Ed G writes: Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service , because those communications on a regular basis could be easily furnished through those alternative services too. I know, its stupid, but it also carries the same logic as the below example . K7AAT Ragchews or roundtable nets with other hams could not be reasonably accomplished via another radio service, nor could the authorized purpose of improving international understanding via person-to-person contacts on the radio. (Any ham who is using 80m to work other hams within the reliable range of CB class D probably ought to consider QSY to 144 MHz or above, but that is wandering pretty far off the topic of this thread.) Daily vessel position reports, on the other hand, ARE done via the Maritime Mobile Radio Service, so obviously they CAN BE. For exchanges of email messages between yachts at sea and non-hams ashore via MM frequencies, see http://www.sailmail.com for a non-profit connection. I believe that for-profit public coast stations offer such services as well. 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW), Chris
[digitalradio] Personal attacks....
Folks, please remember that a rule here is that, while being free to strongly disagree, we should do so without personal attacks. I often disagree with many hams, and enjoy disagreeing with Bonnie at times. However, she deserves respect for her opinions and personal attacks should be avoided. There can be a gray area about what constitutes disagreement versus personal attacks, but I think most of us can use common sense. I have seen many people disagree with Bonnie very strongly but without insult, that is OK. It is also OK to agree with her if you want. Andy K3UK
