Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
On Tuesday 11 May 2010 05:12:07 you wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 21:18:20 I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK Andy Does the FCC *really* have to specify all the permissible modes? Surely all that's important is to permit CW, SSB and narrow-band data (say, max 500 Hz) of *any* flavor that is permitted in Part97. Restricting data to just two or three modes is very short-sighted. If these modes become outdated, or ground-breaking new modes appear on the scene, you will have to keep going back to FCC to get the license conditions changed. To start off, I am not against any particular mode and only have just enough HF experience to enjoy the bands and current modes and understand the limits of most. From what I am seeing so far in this thread of emails is that the ARRL(?) is proposing to have ANOTHER avenue for so-called EMCOMM communications. Is this for long-haul or local as in State, Regional, or Country application? Currently there are three different operating systems as I will call them that can and should be used on the HF bands that already authorize them: 1) Winlink 2) PSKMail 3) unattended Packet stations be it Pactor# or 300baud AX25 or APRS Can it be 'justified' to 'clog up' a new band with allowing ANY digital mode, and I am also including digitized voice into this, just to have it be there? Why not use what is already staged and developed and on the bands that already have the allocations? I personally don't see any reason to 'clog up' any more frequency allocations just to have something sitting there. Use what is already in place and leave some spectrum alone for a change. We need to manage what we have better than we have. Consider doing like was done with the WARC bands and contesting. Adding modes to a new band to me is a WASTE of precious spectrum. GIve it ten years at least before even proposing a change to a new band. Before anyone says I am anti-EMCOMM. I do particapate in my local and State EMCOMMs when I can and enjoy helping out. I just don't see Amatuer Radio as the ultimate Swiss Army knife either. There are other under utilized avenues for getting a message from point A to Point B during any event. You just need to know how to utilize ALL of them properly. James W8ISS
RE: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
You have repeatedly used the term, Clog Up . Have you listened to 60M at all? I rarely hear ANY ham traffic on any of the 5 channels whenever I look. Given the light usage already in place, I do not see an issue with adding digital modes. Ed K7AAT = Can it be 'justified' to 'clog up' a new band with allowing ANY digital mode, and I am also including digitized voice into this, just to have it be there? Why not use what is already staged and developed and on the bands that already have the allocations? I personally don't see any reason to 'clog up' any more frequency allocations just to have something sitting there
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
James French writes: Can it be 'justified' to 'clog up' a new band with allowing ANY digital mode, and I am also including digitized voice into this, just to have it be there? Why not use what is already staged and developed and on the bands that already have the allocations? The reason for allowing digital modes on 60 is the same as the reason for allocating channels on 60 to hams in the first place: sometimes two stations are too close to work on 40 due to F-layer skip, and too distant to work on 80 due to D-layer absorption, while 60 will permit effective communication. This is equally true for any mode. W.r.t. EMCOMM, if a served agency needs hams for backup record communication using digital modes (whether email or radiograms), we don't want to be unable to serve that agency when propagation fails on both 80 and 40 meters while the phone lines are down, if 60m would work. Nor should we be reduced to reading radiograms over voice radio on 60m if a data mode would be both faster and more reliable. While much EMCOMM traffic is tactical rather than formal, some of it is not: EMCOMM hams should be prepared for both, and the regulations should not prevent us from doing both as effectively as possible. -- 73 de kw6h, ex-ae6vw, Chris
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Hi Andy Are you allowed to use a proprietary mode on the HAM band in US? In Norway we are not. la5vna Steinar On 11.05.2010 03:18, Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause o
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
The discussion regarding Pactor III has relevance to earlier discussions on this list concerning a new mode. Whether you like Pactor III or not it's clear the FCC permits US amateurs to use it and they regard the level of documention available on it to be adequate. I suspect the only concern of the FCC like other regulators regarding new modes is not the documentation but whether they can either buy a unit or freely download a software executable that enables them to monitor the content of the transmissions. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no wrote: Hi Andy Are you allowed to use a proprietary mode on the HAM band in US? In Norway we are not. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 21:18:20 I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK Andy Does the FCC *really* have to specify all the permissible modes? Surely all that's important is to permit CW, SSB and narrow-band data (say, max 500 Hz) of *any* flavor that is permitted in Part97. Restricting data to just two or three modes is very short-sighted. If these modes become outdated, or ground-breaking new modes appear on the scene, you will have to keep going back to FCC to get the license conditions changed. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Trevor, thanks for your answer. Is it posible to monitor the content of a WINLINK transmission? As fare as I know the WINLINK data is compressed. I have never been able to monitor WINLINK with my SCS TNC. la5vna Steinar On 11.05.2010 10:56, Trevor . wrote: The discussion regarding Pactor III has relevance to earlier discussions on this list concerning a new mode. Whether you like Pactor III or not it's clear the FCC permits US amateurs to use it and they regard the level of documention available on it to be adequate. I suspect the only concern of the FCC like other regulators regarding new modes is not the documentation but whether they can either buy a unit or freely download a software executable that enables them to monitor the content of the transmissions. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no wrote: Hi Andy Are you allowed to use a proprietary mode on the HAM band in US? In Norway we are not. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Hi Steinar, I've never used WINLINK and know little about it but I'd imagine they use a standard and freely available compression algorithms. Perhaps someone else can comment. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no wrote: Is it posible to monitor the content of a WINLINK transmission? As fare as I know the WINLINK data is compressed. I have never been able to monitor WINLINK with my SCS TNC. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
The F6FBB BBS protocol is used. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Hi Steinar, I've never used WINLINK and know little about it but I'd imagine they use a standard and freely available compression algorithms. Perhaps someone else can comment. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no mailto:saanes%40broadpark.no wrote: Is it posible to monitor the content of a WINLINK transmission? As fare as I know the WINLINK data is compressed. I have never been able to monitor WINLINK with my SCS TNC. la5vna Steinar
[digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
I take that as a no to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been publicly documented. My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air. Thoughts? Dave On May 10, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky -- Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
Dave, Of course Pactor-III has been publicly documented! wink See: http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor/pactor However, it would take a judge in a court of law to decide if it has been adequately documented publicly. As far as it is known, nobody has been able to design a competing device to the SCS modem, always citing inadequate disclosure as a reason. Another real serious problem with Pactor-III is that it changes bandwidth according to conditions, getting wider in order to increase speed when conditions permit. The result is that Pactor-III owns a channel, even if at first it looks like part of the channel is available for other modes. The emitted bandwidth for the 60m digital channel really needs to be limited to 500 Hz. In fact, why not split the space into four or five 500 Hz-wide channels, which would give others a chance to operate there? Even mentioning PSK31 and RTTY is undoubtedly just a red herring when the REAL reason behind ARRL's petition is probably to support Winlink expansion under the guise of being necessary for Emcomm. Better file your comments on the NPRM ASAP, and encourage everyone you meet on the bands to do the same thing. The FCC does listen to the comments, and considers every one. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Wright wrote: I take that as a no to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been publicly documented. My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air. Thoughts? Dave
RE: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
This would be a good plan to insure that the Amateur Radio Service is treated as hobby-only communications. However, to be able to send traffic that is formatted in usable format for the players in an emergency, it takes a bit more than FEC, or throttled back ARQ. There are none of these problems or restrictions on NTIA spectrum, and it is another reason that the ARRL probably feels in peril as far as defending long-haul spectrum for the Amateur Radio Service. I run a 24/7 RMS WINMOR server. I run it on NTIA spectrum. I have had a P# controller in the past, and will probably invest in another one in the future. I wouldn't even consider running a RMS station within the Amateur spectrum; it is not worth the effort or wear and tear on the equipment involved to devote an emcomm asset where it has the least chance of doing anything useful. If things were different, I would put up a second station 24/7 within the Amateur Radio Service spectrum. It simply isn't worth listening to the whining. Also, the potential for being effective in an emergency is too heavily weighted toward Federal spectrum for the same reasons that the Winlink/P3 whining never ceases when it concerns Amateur spectrum. You reap what you sow As far as the bandwidth argument, remember, it is hard to consume like a humming bird and output like an elephant. The ARRL is certainly considering the trend that started in the early 90s when the FCC was defunded, and spectrum auction refarming was created. It is now part of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and will play a large part in the continuation of amateur radio service having use of the spectrum it currently enjoys.. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail. mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
