[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
Thank you and very well said. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
MY POINT IS .. You ( DIGITAL USERS ) call CW ( ANALOG ) stone age .. You call those who enjoy SSB, AM, FM or just talking on the radio the reason ham radio is dieing . YOU ARE OUR SALVATION ! You by your digital modes will save the bands from the invading army of other users ... then by encrypting messages make it easy for commercial users to use the bands ... 99% of all hams use ANALOG . and are happy with it. If you feel you have a new and better way SHOW THEM However what we see is NEGATIVE comments about us boarding on we do not have the skills to hold even a novice license. The talk is 50% of all bands should be digital well go listen to the freeband they believe they should have 10 meters and use they argument that the HAMS are not using 10 anyway. I have been licensed 40+ years and working in radio most of it. Right now at a jail with 2,000 ICOM ANALOG radios we found digital ones had NO ADVANTAGE. DIGITAL does have a place in our hobby but so does AM and look at what they are trying to do to it right now WHILE you want wider bandwidth for digital modes . I'm right now looking is there any reason for me to go digital at all be it Death Star or P-25 which we use here at the Sheriff office. Can I justify like my 223.500 MHz station a $1,000 radio to talk to less than 25 people in the Tampa area. But will sit it out while the radio beta-max people fight it out. You get change not by degrading but like SSB did in the 50s by showing it is a better way even the hard core AM users YES AM IS ALIVE ! had to admit that it was better BUT still while AM has declined from 90% of all HF users the modes lived side by side quite well. Work on it . Bruce Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
Flame on this idea if you wish, however robust live-chat sound-card modes, ARQ messaging modes, and Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) modes will all gain increased popularity, acceptance, and adoption because of their more efficient and reliable communication capabilities as compared to manual and non-keyboard modes .. Elaine ... -- Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons WA6UBE / AAR9JA In this age of the Internet and cell-phones, *all* the modes you cite are sooo 'stone-age' aren't they! Perhaps it is time to redefine a communication between hams as a person-to-person contact in real time, and not using the ham bands as a stone-age replacement for the Internet. Our FCC regulations already disallow any regular use of the ham bands that can be accomplished by other radio means (cell-phones are radios, BTW). This includes weather reports, catalogs, and bulletins used by sailors, and even email, which, in this age of satphones and satellite data phones, is also so stone-age over HF radio. 97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. If the FCC does not start enforcing this regulation, ARQ messaging services as you suggest are going to take over the ham bands as a common-carrier replacement, and amateur radio will cease to be amateur radio. During contests, we all know that there is not enough room on the ham bands just for person-to-person radiosport contacts as it is. Once amateur radio ceases to be a hobby activity, and occasionally an emergency backup communications capability, commercial interests will have a strong argument for taking away our bands and the FCC will sell them to the highest bidder for billions of dollars. Sorry, but I do not share your vision of the continuing evolution of HF radio communications, because it is not communications, but using the ham bands as a poor replacement for the Internet. All the discussion about how Winlink users trample others on the frequency is directly related to using the ham bands as a free email service, instead of for person-to-person, real-time, *hobby* communications. There is no second person in real-time, that can communicate the need to QSY when advised there is an ongoing QSO on the frequency, local to his station, but not detectable by the remote station, in an email delivery system. It is this capability that makes it possible for radio amateurs to *share* a limited amount of spectrum that one-way systems do not possess. Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
kh6ty wrote: 97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. Excellent point. The above regulation, interpreted reasonably, would outlaw 99.9% of Winlink activity within FCC jurisdiction. All the discussion about how Winlink users trample others on the frequency is directly related to using the ham bands as a free email service, instead of for person-to-person, real-time, *hobby* communications. There is no second person in real-time, that can communicate the need to QSY when advised there is an ongoing QSO on the frequency, local to his station, but not detectable by the remote station, in an email delivery system. It is this capability that makes it possible for radio amateurs to *share* a limited amount of spectrum that one-way systems do not possess. Skip KH6TY Very well said. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
First, let me say that these recommendations are based solely upon hopes and dreams. There are no facts or data with by which one can adequately assess the recommendations. If you want to convince someone that further segmentation of the rtty/data segments into smaller and smaller pieces is a good thing, then you need some actual spectrum usage studies to back up your recommendations. What you are addressing is interference mitigation. Trying to minimize interference through segmentation will ultimately result in complete channelization. Further, your hypothesis deals with eliminating interference between live chat modes and ARQ modes. How is restricting morse code to a smaller and smaller segment going to provide interference mitigation between these two chat modes and ARQ modes? More space is not the answer, because you also indicate that these modes will grow thereby resulting in more and more mixing, and consequently more and more interference between the two types of data communications. So nothing will be solved. More and more space is not the answer because there simply isn't space to continue to expand. Reducing interference is best dealt with by proper interference mitigation techniques, not segmentation. These techniques must be developed and implemented by all modes. The most basic should be a busy detection feature for all unattended and attended automatic stations. Let me share some thoughts from Peter, G3PLX. I take no credit for them. They are all his ideas but pertinent. The use of ARQ in a congested band is counter-productive, since in the face of co-channel interference (which results from congestion), it INCREASES the amount of time-bandwidth it uses, thus making the congestion worse. To be able to survive congestion in an unregulated band, there must be a mechanism that causes individual transmitting stations to REDUCE their output (in time-bandwidth terms) when faced with undesirable congestion. The AX25 protocol, much maligned for HF use, did achieve this. Traditional one-to-one amateur operation has this desirable feedback mechanism - an operator faced with QRM due to congestion will shorten his transmissions or close down, thus reducing the congestion. Amateur radio in an unregulated environment where the level of activity is congestion-limited, will ONLY be stable and self-limiting if there are enough people on the air who are just there for fun, and who will QRT if/when it stops being fun. If we ever got to the situation where a significant fraction of the activity is by people who need to be on the air for a purpose, then there will be an increasing tendency for congested bands to exhibit 'grid-lock' behavior. Every time I hear a boater saying they must have winlink to receive weather reports and to communicate with family I think to myself, this is not being described as a recreational use but a vital communications that needs a specific time and place to operate. The fact that AX25 'backed off' in the face of errors (which could be due to congestion) meant that multiple AX25 links could share a channel in a stable way. Pactor has no such characteristic. Co-channel QRM between two Pactor links results in neither link passing any traffic until one link aborts. The logistic consequence of this is that Winlink sysops will always choose to operate on a channel on which they can be sure no other Pactor link will take place. They will always prefer to be subjected to random QRM from another service than to be subjected to QRM from another Pactor link. The result is making sure that there are no overlapping winlink stations, maximizing the amount of amateur spectrum used. This unfortunate characteristic has meant that the interference from Pactor to other services is maximized rather than minimized, and it also means that the Winlink organizers complain bitterly that there is insufficient space within the designated automatic sub-bands. The total volume of traffic handled by these unattended stations could easily be passed within the automatic sub-band limits, given a mechanism by which the stations involved could co-ordinate their activity. However, it cannot be done with Pactor or Winlink in their present forms, and if these stations are free to roam the bands, there will be no incentive to improve their channel utilization. In theory at least, the same arguments for segregating unattended ARQ stations applies to ALL amateur activity which has a purpose other than recreation. Only truly recreational activity is self-limiting without regulation. Any other activity in which amateur radio performs a service to/from a third party, will be vulnerable to grid-lock in the face of band congestion in an unregulated channel structure. To be truly a service to the community, these activities should have their own channels outside of the amateur bands. This would be worth exploring. Ask yourself how close we are to turning the amateur bands into a service oriented
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
But you're ignoring the aggregate effects. It's like showing your wife a hair off an elephant that is rampaging through your house and saying, no big deal, look it's just a little hair. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:26 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote: Seems to me that the ones dragging there knuckles on the ground are those who fail to accept the fact that there are other things but using the ham bands for E-MAIL Bruce If I may - here is one of the so called email that you referred to. this message was from a ham at sea from last week. It looked just like a message from the ARRL system. look at all of hams at sea there at this URL http://winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx This message text just said: Should arrive Sydney within 48 hours on the 8th. Addressed St. Paul, MN phone number e mail address. Just like a ARRL message it has an email address attached just in case that last station is not close and will not have to make a toll call. Can you tell me why you think that all the messages passed on the winlink system is email? Why do I feel that you have *never* copied any of this traffic and are just going by what you read or have been told? That's too bad because neither have the people you have been listing too. John, W0JAB
