[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Excactly!. But this also is an inherent possiblility/advantage running PACTOR 1, in FSK mode both ARQ and PACTOR FEC mode. And the Fec mode, defaulted with 2 repeats, can at the cost of speed be increased to 5 to increase robustnes. An extra advantage is fully 8bit information both in ARQ and Fec modes. The special IC 706 350hz narrow filter proved to be ideal for the porpose, even running 300baud GTOR FSK. I was surprised, testing both 500hz and 350hz. But of course you needed to be right on target. WHY HASNT THIS BEEN USED MORE ALL THESE YEARS before you could move filters around in LSB and USB modes? Just a question. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would be like if there were no US regulations on unattended operations. Those automatic messaging systems would be covering the phone bands as well as everywhere else. They don't currently, only because they are not allowed to, but they would expand to cover the phone bands if there were regulation only by bandwidth so they could escape QRM by others like themselves. The bandwidth of Pactor-III is roughly the same as a phone signal, and unattended stations cannot QSY even if requested to do so. Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few. This is another US regulation that is helping to limit the number of stations using a very wide bandwidth (i.e. to 222 MHz and above) when a more narrow bandwidth mode like Olivia or PSK31 can do the same, or almost the same, job in one fifth the space or less. If there were unlimited room on HF, regulation by bandwidth would work, as it already basically does at VHF frequencies and up, even under US regulations. Your question is a valid one, but the subject was hotly debated several years ago, resulting in no change to the status quo, because, although imperfect, it seems to work for the huge majority of amateurs all trying to use a very limited amount of spectrum on HF. Regulation by bandwidth would work if everyone were fair, but everyone is not fair, so there must be regulation by mode to protect the small or weak from the big and powerful, and to protect phone operators from QRM from wideband digital operations. Phone is wide and digital is usually more narrow, so regulation by bandwidth keeps phone out of the data segments, but would not keep wide data out of the phone segments. Once you make exceptions to regulation by bandwidth to exclude certain modes in a space, you no longer have regulation by bandwidth, but a combination of regulation by bandwidth and regulation by mode, which is what we have now in the US. 73 - Skip KH6TY Paul wrote: We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band from the bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there is really only room for half the number of digital stations. Also, if you can really go up to x.150 why has ROS jumped on top of Olivia when there is another 40kHz to play with? When you look at the bandplans digimodes only have about 40kHz per band which makes us very much the poor relation. I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Julian, Digital is what the FCC calls CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far as the US is concerned, he could go higher still and avoid Olivia, but I am not sure what else he will run into. Legally, there is another 40 kHz. Good point about radios having a long lifetime. When I introduced DigiPan and developed the PSK20 QRP transceiver in 2000, I naively designed the IF bandwidth for 4000 Hz, without realizing that almost every transceiver in the field only has a 2500 Hz If bandwidth. Some can be fitted with filters to get 3300 Hz bandwidth, but none could reach 4000 Hz! When we came out with PSK63, that extra width is very convenient, but still, the average transceiver is not going to see PSK63 signals at the top of the PSK31 activity, because the IF filter cuts them off. Live and learn, I guess... 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band from the bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there is really only room for half the number of digital stations. Also, if you can really go up to x.150 why has ROS jumped on top of Olivia when there is another 40kHz to play with? When you look at the bandplans digimodes only have about 40kHz per band which makes us very much the poor relation. I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. Has the ARRL or any other group conducted an scientific unbiased study of the digital modes on the US ham bands in use? I am not talking about a person who has preference for a particular mode and has an agenda. I have noticed that PSK31 is so common that there are times that is all I see on the air, but I have not conducted a scientific study. It would be nice to see a real current study on how we are using our bands. Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real (true) information available. Astrophysicist Gregory Benford 1980 --- On Tue, 3/9/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 6:20 AM Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY' . This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
But grin Two points: IARU / ARRL band plan to manage the frequencies, allocating areas for unattended, digital, analog, etc signals. The underlying regulation of good amateur practice as the stick for enforcing the band plan. If you operate unattended in the analog band plan section the OO would get onto you, and so would the FCC eventually. Same for operating analog in the digital section. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: KH6TY [mailto:kh...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:20 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would be like if there were no US regulations on unattended operations. Those automatic messaging systems would be covering the phone bands as well as everywhere else. They don't currently, only because they are not allowed to, but they would expand to cover the phone bands if there were regulation only by bandwidth so they could escape QRM by others like themselves. The bandwidth of Pactor-III is roughly the same as a phone signal, and unattended stations cannot QSY even if requested to do so. Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few. This is another US regulation that is helping to limit the number of stations using a very wide bandwidth (i.e. to 222 MHz and above) when a more narrow bandwidth mode like Olivia or PSK31 can do the same, or almost the same, job in one fifth the space or less. If there were unlimited room on HF, regulation by bandwidth would work, as it already basically does at VHF frequencies and up, even under US regulations. Your question is a valid one, but the subject was hotly debated several years ago, resulting in no change to the status quo, because, although imperfect, it seems to work for the huge majority of amateurs all trying to use a very limited amount of spectrum on HF. Regulation by bandwidth would work if everyone were fair, but everyone is not fair, so there must be regulation by mode to protect the small or weak from the big and powerful, and to protect phone operators from QRM from wideband digital operations. Phone is wide and digital is usually more narrow, so regulation by bandwidth keeps phone out of the data segments, but would not keep wide data out of the phone segments. Once you make exceptions to regulation by bandwidth to exclude certain modes in a space, you no longer have regulation by bandwidth, but a combination of regulation by bandwidth and regulation by mode, which is what we have now in the US. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, Digital is what the FCC calls CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far as the US is concerned, he could go higher still and avoid Olivia, but I am not sure what else he will run into. Legally, there is another 40 kHz. I understand. Over here we don't call CW digital, and some Morse diehards would probably get very upset if we did. :) Good point about radios having a long lifetime. When I introduced DigiPan and developed the PSK20 QRP transceiver in 2000, I naively designed the IF bandwidth for 4000 Hz, without realizing that almost every transceiver in the field only has a 2500 Hz If bandwidth. Some can be fitted with filters to get 3300 Hz bandwidth, but none could reach 4000 Hz! When we came out with PSK63, that extra width is very convenient, but still, the average transceiver is not going to see PSK63 signals at the top of the PSK31 activity, because the IF filter cuts them off. Live and learn, I guess... I would call it a happy accident, for when the PSK activity gets busy enough to need to spread out more. Transceivers with 2.5kHz filters have VFOs so they can still catch that activity just by moving the dial above 14.070. I often operate up there, to get away from the crowd a bit. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
EPC runs a PSK63 contest, and the mode works quite well. Panoramic reception and broadband decoding are a potent combination. It's the only contest I've ever entered, and I took first place in NA, hi. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Julian, Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. Many of the big guns on RTTY have a huge investment in amplifiers and towers in order to win contests (RTTY is almost used exclusively for contesting these days), and I suspect they want to continue to take the competitive advantage of the sizable investment. Going to PSK63 will also level the playing field a lot and let the 100w station perform almost as well as the kilowatt station, and that would be to the competitive advantage to the 100w stations (or 50 watt stations, or even QRP stations). I wrote a demo PSK63 program module complete with panoramic display, for WriteLog, and Don, AA5AU (one of the top RTTY contesters and originator of SO2R), tried it and said he was just blown away by the potential for contesting. However, Wayne, the author of WriteLog ,which many top RTTY contesters use, said he would wait until PSK63 was adopted by contesters before he would incorporate it into WriteLog, and, as you know, PSK63 became popular in Europe, but not over here, so it never made it into WriteLog. An unfortunate chicken and egg situation! It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most transceivers have FSK built in these days. That is my best guess anyway. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I assumed that people kept using FSK because paths to Europe can have 20-30 Hz of Doppler spread. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 19:08 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most transceivers have FSK built in these days. That is my best guess anyway. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
El 09/03/2010 02:08 p.m., KH6TY escribió: Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. You can also run a saturated amplifiers chain with AFSK, if the envelope does not vary. FSK, OQPSK, whatever has a flat envelope. And not only class C, but also class D, E, F... 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I've heard this argument many times, Dave, but whilst it was probably true 10 or more years ago, surely all decent modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode that allows the use of narrow filters? Heck, even the humble FT-817 has one. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 2:08:20 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Julian, Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. You do not seem to understand how the so called AFSK works for RTTY. Using any clean transmitter and pure sine wave tones the signal comming out of it will be the same if true FSK or AFSK is used. The amp can be the same class in either case.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Hi Skip, Perhaps you may want to re-phase that? USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content rather than mode/bandwidth. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Yes, lots of modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode, but they're generally too wide for optimal RTTY reception. In contrast, consider the Twin Peak filter available on recent Icom transceivers, for example; it's only available with the transceiver's mode set to RTTY. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 I've heard this argument many times, Dave, but whilst it was probably true 10 or more years ago, surely all decent modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode that allows the use of narrow filters? Heck, even the humble FT-817 has one. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I guess I can chime in here with my 2 bits. Why not use cw as the common communication mode. My computer, using MultiPSK, can read CW quite well. And I understand that morse code recognition actually uses very little of the computer's resources. It is relatively easy to add a function to a computer program... much easier than adding the same function to a 'conventional' transceiver. Ted Stone, WA2WQN --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777 Trevor
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
No, not by content, except for unallowed transmission of music, pornography, business communications, etc., there is no regulation by content. You can say or send whatever you wish. Content is the data delivered. The actual wording in the regulations is emission type instead of mode, but most understand that the emission type, phone is a mode of operation. Please refer to §97.305 Authorized emission types. 73 - Skip KH6TY expeditionradio wrote: KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Hi Skip, Perhaps you may want to re-phase that? USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content rather than mode/bandwidth. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I'm with Skip here. First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact on the problem. Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to this discussion, RSID is not supported by single-mode software and would be no use even if it did because as well as RSID you have got to have a common mode of communication. So for this to work everyone would have to use software that had RSID enabled permanently and supported at least two modes one of which would be the common communication one. Also, the RSID has to work down to the same depth in the noise as the modes you are trying to protect. Otherwise you will have a system for asking if the frequency is in use which would be no more effective than just listening. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Warren Moxley k5...@... wrote: Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
What is your solution? --- On Mon, 3/8/10, g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com wrote: From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:35 AM I'm with Skip here. First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact on the problem. Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to this discussion, RSID is not supported by single-mode software and would be no use even if it did because as well as RSID you have got to have a common mode of communication. So for this to work everyone would have to use software that had RSID enabled permanently and supported at least two modes one of which would be the common communication one. Also, the RSID has to work down to the same depth in the noise as the modes you are trying to protect. Otherwise you will have a system for asking if the frequency is in use which would be no more effective than just listening. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Warren Moxley k5...@... wrote: Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I'm not sure the solution is a technical one at all. For instance the ROS users (even many US ones) are still causing major interference to the Net105 packet network. Even if RS ID was appropriate for packet (which it isn't) I don't think it would stop the QRM. It's a complete lack of understanding of what is already present on the bands (witness the NCDXF incident), possibly no comprehension that they are running a 2.2KHz wide mode and then maybe an attitude of my technology is superior (or cooler?) than yours even though our network has been operating continuously since 1986. Can you imagine the uproar if we decided to uproot and choose 14070 for our packet network?! These very same hams would probably be telling us that 14070 is an established PSK31 frequency and to take our mode elsewhere! Do many of our new generals/extras just expect to ride roughshod over everyone else? Or is it a growing attitude amongst more seasoned hams? I don't know the answer but the attitude I perceive seems much ruder and devil-may-care than it used to be. When I was a new HF op I spent 90% of my time just listening and making absolutely sure I wasn't going to cause any interference to anyone. Now I'm an older ham I STILL operate where I listen 90% of the time. If I couldn't have a QSO in a 2.2KHZ wide digital mode because the bands were full of sigs SO WHAT? I would CHOOSE a narrower bandwidth mode myself or work some CW or go fishing. I would never deliberately cause QRM. 73 Sholto
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I think you have hit the nail on the head. If you look at where there is not a problem, it is where modes have established their own place on the band that people largely adhere to. PSK31, WSPR, JT65A all have their own places on the bands and people know what to expect there. Olivia too, until ROS came along and started transmitting over the frequencies they use. No need for RSID if you know what to expect on a frequency. RTTY on the other hand is distinctive enough and loud enough that users can find each other by ear, and if you can't hear them you probably aren't interfering with them. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sho...@... wrote: I'm not sure the solution is a technical one at all.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
