[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no phone band. BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal. Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of the US ham population and therefore wrecking the phone bands for over 50% of hams worldwide? Perhaps you have never had a QSO destroyed by a Pactor-III or Pactor-II mailbox... Regulations in this country protect as well as hinder sometimes. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 7:23 AM, KH6TY wrote: Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of k4cjx Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far out of proportion to their fraction of ham community. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no phone band. True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency detectors are what make regulation by bandwith unacceptable. BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. The ARRL withdrew its regulation by bandwidth proposal because it had no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), regulation by bandwidth will become possible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 8/29/2010 2:12 PM, k4cjx wrote: BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac Let's not try to distort history. The ARRL was essentially taken over by Winlink, in this instance. when the proposal was written http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html so it was really Winlink's proposal, not the ARRL's proposal, and was roundly rejected by both phone band hams and digital operators, and rightfully so. As so many have complained, the bandwidth of ROS is hugely inappropriate for the digital portions of the bands, for what it can accomplish in comparison to much more narrow modes, and even lacks the basic busy detector which would allow it to share the frequencies with other stations, just as Winlink stations lack, and often do battle among themselves, for a frequency instead of sharing it on a first-come-first serve basis. As far as the phone bands being opened to digital operations is concerned, there is still lacking a practical means to cross-communicate between phone and digital in order to effect frequency sharing. This is a major reason that there must continue to be legal separation between digital operators and phone in order to protect the phone bands from being dominated by digital operations, and until phone operators and digital operators can cross-communicate and cooperatively share frequencies, it is probably going to stay that way. Our limited ham bands must be shared by all interests and do not exist just for the convenience and pleasure of a minority that does not subscribe to, or practice, frequency sharing. We are fortunate to have REGULATIONS in this country, instead of merely bandplans (which are only recommendations), to prevent the dominance of the bands from a few who refuse to adopt frequency sharing practices or technologies. If you do not live under FCC jurisdiction, you also need to be thankful for the same reguations that have protected you also, as radio waves often obey no international boundaries. 73, Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The ARRL response was that the final proposal retained the existing automatic subands. My recollection is that a flurry of desperate activity preceded the ARRL's retracting its proposal; if part of that flurry included a modification that would have retained the automatic sub-bands, I don't recall seeing it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ - Original Message - When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far out of proportion to their fraction of ham community. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no phone band. True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency detectors are what make regulation by bandwith unacceptable. BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. The ARRL withdrew its regulation by bandwidth proposal because it had no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), regulation by bandwidth will become possible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice update #2 - programmers wanted - codec2 and the G3PLX modem
Hi Trevor, Op 29-08-10 11:08, Trevor . schreef: I do not understand why -say- the IARU does not does this. I'm not say they should endorce any standard of any technology. Unfortunately it would require a volunteer willing to put in a lot of hard work to do. Volunteers are always in short supply. Well, I don't know. In the internet-world, RFCs are usually written by the people who design the protocol or the technology explained in the RFC. The IETF doesn't do that neither. All the IARU should do is: - encourage people who create new protocols and technologies to document it in a written document. - Do quality control (e.g. concerning the exact wording of the RFCs) - Publish them. (which just means put them on their website). Now I must say. Thinking about it. Perhaps one of the differences in (say) an internet-protocol and ham digital modes is that the first group is usually created by teams of people, while I have the impression that a lot of the digital modes are created by just one or a very limited number of people. In a team, there usually already is written documentation anyway (as part of the process of coming up with the specification and the discussions inside the team), it's probably much easier to translate the final version into a RFC-document and there usually already is somebody of the team assigned to documentation anyway. If you do create something by yourself, most people have something on paper, but most of it in my head. The task of asking now write this all into a nice technical spec is then much more work. Perhaps what Dave (Rowe, creator of codec2) should do is to make a technical presentation on some ham conference (preferable filmed and available on youtube afterwards) so that somebody else can start write a technical specs based on that. And, to be honest. Having to give a technical presentation is not necessairy a bad thing. I noticed myself that, having to make some slides and having to think on how to explain something, quite often leads to some insides into problems you are having. :-) One existing source of info is http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics But this doesn't provide always provide detailed description of a mode, for instance you couldn't recreate Pactor-III from the information supplied there. Also I suspect it's not kept up to date with mode enhancements. Thanks for the link. Very interesting. IIRC, pactor 2 and pactor 3 use patented technology so I doubt it will be freely documented somewhere. :-( 73 Trevor M5AKA Cheerio! Kristoff ON5ARF (ex ON1ARF)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Me just thinking out loud.. Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? I think not. I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, and I think that really needs to be said again and again that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. I have been QRMed many times because the other person was thinking oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself before you QRM that pactor is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: A shot of my WSPR screen...
Interesting, I get the same thing. It has been months since I tried WSPR. I checked my old guide http://www.frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/Whisper_Guide.html Followed my own instructions and get NO decode. Will play around some more On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Robert L. Tucker rltuc...@aol.com wrote: ...showing spots but no decodes. BTW, I went through the steps to upload this image to the Photos section of the website, but it doesn't show up... just a little blue box with a ? inside. Robert K5TD
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New
Dan, The TH-F6A DOES NOT have a modem in it. It can be used with an external TNC (like a Kantronics KPC-3+, Open-Tracker, TNC-X, etc.). Quite a few of the TH-F6A's suffer from a low deviation problem. If people complain about your low audio, you WON'T be able to use the radio for packet comms, until the deviation problem is fixed. Radios that do have TNC's in them: TH-D7; Yaesu VX-8GR, FT-350;Kenwood TM-D700, TM-D710; Alinco DR-635 (several other Alinco mobiles have an optional TNC module). There are probably a few others I missed. Most will require a separate GPS also. How complicated it is depends on exactly what you want to do. If you want to send out APRS packets so that others can track your movements - all you need is a TinyTrak type device and an HT. If you want to be able to track others APRS signals on a map, then you need a full blown TNC, radio, and a computer running APRS software. The in-between area (you don't need a map display) - you can use the self contained units like the Yaesu DX-8GR (includes the GPS) or the Kenwood D7 HT ( will need a GPS) or the mobiles with TNC's built-in that will also require a GPS. Your best bet is to hook up with a local mentor that can help guide you through the ins and out of getting up and running on APRS. 73, Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY Bend, Oregon - Original Message - From: Dan Walker Thank you, seems so complicated! very limited funds. Will try to get it setup with your help. Again Thanks, Dan --- On Sun, 8/29/10, Jerry W k0hzi...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jerry W k0hzi...@gmail.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 7:58 AM Dan, Although the TH-F6A has a Packet modem, that is not all you need to operate APRS with that HT. You will also need a computer, laptop if operating portable or mobile connected to the TH-F6A, see page 45 of the operating manual for cables ect. Then you would need a TNC that would connect with the GPS unit or manually enter in lat - long locations though software (see UI-View: http://www.ui-view.org/) that the TNC can send to the TH-F6A. You may want to look for a used Kenwood TH-D7A/G that has APRS as one of the built in features. There is supposed to be a new Kenwood HT, Kenwood TH-D72? with built-in APRS and GPS, however no release date as to when the new HT will be available. You might watch the TH-D7 Yahoo group for more information: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Kenwood_TH-D7/ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dan Walker wd5...@... wrote: Plan on orerating mobile have Kenwood TH-F6A and my Tom Tom is not the highend unit I thought it was. TH-F6A says it has 1200bps modem for VHF. How do I put it all togather? Not even sure what I can do with APRS. Been off the air for a while. Dan I would like to try APRS, but have no idea where to start. I now have a GPS unit from TomTom. What else do I need and where do I start? Thank you, Dan Walker WD5CND
[digitalradio] Re: CMSK63
Hi folks, There seems to be a fair bit of misinformation around regarding the new CMSK mode for LF/MF. I recommend you go back to my web site, read all about it, download the latest version, then READ THE HELP FILE CAREFULLY. www.qsl/net/zl1bpu/CMSK/cmsk.htm The mode is not intended for HF, and I won't answer questions regarding its use there (use MFSK16 or DominoEX please!), but I am willing to respond to questions about its use on 2200, 600 or 160m. Pay particular attention to getting the sampling rate correct, especially on CMSK8, which is intended for beacon rather than QSO applications. You can expect it to take a while to get the tuning correct, and for text to appear, since the CMSK8 mode has long latency. This is a price you pay for narrow bandwidth and high sensitivity. Once documentation is complete, we'll offer the mode for inclusion in multi-mode software such as FLDIGI and HRD, but for now the features may seem a bit limited, and that's on purpose. 73, Murray ZL1BPU Co-designer, CMSK
[digitalradio] Re: CMSK63
I suggest you read the help file. All your points are answered there. Download the latest version. 73, Murray ZL1BPU --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, my_call_is_ac4m kf4...@... wrote: I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets?
[digitalradio] Re: A shot of my WSPR screen...
I got a report 0316 -17 -1.1 10.140158 0 VE7THZ DN09 30 10386 was the receive dial frequency that the software was tuned to On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting, I get the same thing. It has been months since I tried WSPR. I checked my old guide http://www.frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/Whisper_Guide.html Followed my own instructions and get NO decode. Will play around some more On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Robert L. Tucker rltuc...@aol.com wrote: ...showing spots but no decodes. BTW, I went through the steps to upload this image to the Photos section of the website, but it doesn't show up... just a little blue box with a ? inside. Robert K5TD
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Thank you, John, Sir. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: John Becker w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:11 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Me just thinking out loud.. Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? I think not. I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, and I think that really needs to be said again and again that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. I have been QRMed many times because the other person was thinking oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself before you QRM that pactor is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] New
There's a good introduction to APRS at http://www.wa8lmf.net/bruninga/aprs.html At the bottom of that page is a link to join the TAPR APRSSIG email list. It is very active and I'd recommend you join. My other suggestion applies if you would like to have some fun at home right off the bat. Download a copy of UI-View32 from http://www.ui-view.org/ You can start out running this program to watch other position beacons as they are reported through RF digipeaters with IGate capability. That is, you can play with APRS reporting from data on the internet even before you hook up your PC to your radio. You can focus on any location you want, world-wide. My first introduction to APRS, years ago, was when a friend took a vacation and beaconed the whole trip. I could watch in near real time as he navigated across the US. In addition to UI-View32, you can use the findu.com site to lookup APRS info directly on the internet. To focus on your home town of Joplin, MO, using findu.com, I looked for APRS activity near your lat/long as reported on qrz.com for your callsign: http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/near.cgi?lat=37.034415lon=-94.509317last=240distance=200n=100rate=1 It shows the activity in your area, and the fact that there's an IGate in Joplin. Next you can connect to your radio and begin to have UI-View32 issue position reports from your home QTH. You can configure UI-View32 with your fixed lat/long info and don't need a GPS for that. Some people who have a home weather station that can connect to their PC will use that to have their home QTH APRS beacons contain the latest temp, wind, etc. If it's still fun, I'd consider the other recommendations you've gotten. As Jeff KE7ACY pointed out If you want to send out APRS packets so that others can track your movements - all you need is a TinyTrak type device and an HT. That can be fun. One time I was at Dayton for the Hamvention. I typically bring along my HT and a mag mount for the rental car. Hooked up the gps to the HT as I drove around the area. I'd given my wife the findu.com link to track me, and she called me on the cell from back in California and asked why I was on the freeway going 8 miles per hour. I thought that was pretty funny, while I sat there in the traffic jam. As suggested by others, you can go whole hog while mobile and bring along a lap or netbook and hook your gps to that, and to the radio. People do that, but I would first try some of the simpler ideas listed above to get started. Good luck. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Dan To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:18 PM Subject: [digitalradio] New I would like to try APRS, but have no idea where to start. I now have a GPS unit from TomTom. What else do I need and where do I start? Thank you, Dan Walker WD5CND
