Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
- Original Message - From: Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec) and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes. How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running PSK31 and all got QRM'ed. snip This sounds like a job for WinLink-Watch! http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm Stop by and see how to catch Pactor Lids red-handed and display their bad behavior for all to see. - They get away with a lot of it because most hams have no idea just how severe the problem is. A screen-shot of four or five QSO's being wiped out by a WinLid will go a long way toward getting this problem resolved so that it will no longer be an issue. Nobody has to stand by and put up with this kind of behavior, and once it is documented and put on display, it is then impossible to deny. We have over 5 GB of image storeage at ARWatch... - There's plenty of room, so don't be shy... Send us your screenshots of Pactor interference. ( For other interference/bad operating issues, stop by at ARWatch. http://www.arwatch.com/ ) 73 DE Charles, N5PVL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Demetre, It might help to visualize the interference problem caused by unattended PMBO stations like this analogy: A Winlink client, triggering a WinlinkPMBO to transmit, is like remotely triggering a bomb blast without any way to guarantee that the area around the bomb is clear. Winlink 2000 is a very useful resource, but unless confined to a small section of each band, where there are only other Winlink 2000 stations, it has no place on shared amateur bands, because it cannot play by the rules of sharing, unless the PMBO is manned 24/7 with someone at the PMBO location always listening to the band for existing activity before allowing the PMBO to transmit. The lack of this operator presence is responsible for all the QRM complaints directed at Pactor stations. Shortly after the first of the year, we will announce, on this reflector, the first Windows beta version of our NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System software suite primarily for Emcomm use, reliably spanning disaster zones up to 100 miles - not for sailors far at sea - Winlink is better for that, and which achieves roughly the same average throughput as posted daily on the Winlink site (95% Pactor-III), but in a bandwidth of only around 300 Hz. No email robots are used, as the system design *requires* that there be an operator at both ends to check for activity before using the frequency. The soundcard is the modem, and no other TNC is required. I am hoping that the members of this list will like to serve as beta testers, try the system with each other, and send feedback to us so that we may improve the system as much as possible. Please reserve comments until after you have used the system. We wish you and everyone else a happy and prosperous New Year! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec) and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes. How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running PSK31 and all got QRM'ed. I know your feelings on Pactor-3 Demetre and I am sure you are a courteous operator but until either the Winlink crowd adopt a proper listen first attitude or Pactor-3 is gone this argument is not going to go away. 73 Happy New Year to all, Sholto KE7HPV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Were you able to get an ID from the P3 station? Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:53 am, Sholto KE7HPV wrote: us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Hello Sholto Sad to say , but I have had the same experience many times. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Sholto Fisher skrev: I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why feelings against Pactor 3 run so high. The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec) and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes everyone out for at least 5 minutes. How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running PSK31 and all got QRM'ed. I know your feelings on Pactor-3 Demetre and I am sure you are a courteous operator but until either the Winlink crowd adopt a proper listen first attitude or Pactor-3 is gone this argument is not going to go away. 73 Happy New Year to all, Sholto KE7HPV
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Why don't we just simply give the bands back to the FCC and then let the government run emergency comm. That would solve the whole mess. (LOL) More Government, More Regulations, More Law Suits --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I too, agree with the petition! There NEEDS to be some reining back of some, if not A LOT of the HF, as well as VHF UHF band operators! I'm NOT a fan of Internet Radio (IRLP or Echolink). Internet is NOT Radio! A LOT of these IRLP and Echo link nodes are oblivious to the fact that there ARE other people using that particular frequency and jump in over the top of them. This can be life threatening in an emergency! I'm FOR some regulation or regrouping! Rod KC7CJO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Anyone notice that the vast majority of the negative comments about the petition are (nearly) identical. Sort of reminds me of the Send the following letter to your Congressman! like the NUMBERS count and not the content. I sure wish that petitioners -- both pro and con -- would think for themselves and file thoughtful, personal, comments to help the FCC... instead of merely submitting what amounts to a form letter that expresses somebody ELSE's views. de Peter K1PGV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
But, it won't happen; the FCC Will take spectrum back, long before we ever evolve to the point of becoming better operators and having constructive discussion for the common good. Ham radio an't broke if the digicrats would wake up and smell the interferance coffie and work to be just another mode we would look at them in a whole new way ... Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will kill the petition. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Peter G. Viscarola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone notice that the vast majority of the negative comments about the petition are (nearly) identical. Sort of reminds me of the Send the following letter to your Congressman! like the NUMBERS count and not the content. I sure wish that petitioners -- both pro and con -- would think for themselves and file thoughtful, personal, comments to help the FCC... instead of merely submitting what amounts to a form letter that expresses somebody ELSE's views. de Peter K1PGV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Yes I did. No matter what happens if you read starting at line 4 of page 11 of the PDF file you can see that this is no more then more damn noise from the anti-wide people. And I'll say it again here that under FCC rules there is no such thing as a unattended station what there is (for the clueless) automatically controlled data station. Got it? At 08:54 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will kill the petition. Greg KC7GNM
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hatzakis Jr MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more use of this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the licensing requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the bottom ends of the band will really be in 50 years with CW operators? I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for ham radio. I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on the HF bands. I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for the following reason: 1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding in this spectrum. Well Pactor III is already crowding out the other modes and they want more space. They tried that already. Remember RM-11306? 2.) The automatic PACTOR II III modes are an invaluable service to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators. This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical operators. So you are saying that sailors are more important than other hams? There is a service called Sailmail that they can pay for that does the same exact thing? Why do you have to put this garbage on the ham bands? It is because they are cheap and want their free email. I guess Yahoo and Google have really made us cheapskates lately. 3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than completely ban them. Ok we give Pactor III it's own spectrum then we have to give packet, psk31, psk125, RTTY, CW, SSB, SSTVetc all their own spectrum. Now would this not kill innovation faster than limiting bandwidth of pactor III? Besides this RM does not ban pactor III as you seem to think it does. It only limits the Speed Level to SL1 and SL2. 4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase the number of available operating modes to encourage further hams use of HF spectrum. See #3 above about giving each mode it's own slice of the amateur radio spectrum. Greg KC7GNM
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok so you are telling me there is always a live operator sitting at a PMBO 24/7? Unattended for the clueless means the station operator is not at the controls. Yes I did. No matter what happens if you read starting at line 4 of page 11 of the PDF file you can see that this is no more then more damn noise from the anti-wide people. And I'll say it again here that under FCC rules there is no such thing as a unattended station what there is (for the clueless) automatically controlled data station. Got it? At 08:54 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will kill the petition. Greg KC7GNM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
On Thursday 27 December 2007 01:34:56 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If folks would utilize the time they spend complaining learning to be better operators, Interpretation: Learn to get out of the way of automated stations when they come on frequency without checking to see if the frequency is in use. learning to work through interference, Interpretation: Learn to recognize when an automated station just knocked you out of an ongoing qso. learning to master the features of the equipment they operate, Interpretation: Grab that tuning knob and get off my frequency, you clod. learning to operate alternative modes, Interpretation: On some other frequency. and most of all, learning to communicate... Oh, I understand what you've got to say. However, I'm convinced that you don't recognize rude behavior even when it is happening right under your nose. It isn't the mode that I'm complaining about. It isn't the frequency I'm complaining about. It isn't the bandwidth that I'm complaining about. It's the rude behavior that exists in the form of unattended stations smashing into ongoing qso's without looking to see where they are going. Y'all stop doing that, I'll stop complaining. If I went into your home and started smashing into things without looking where I was going, you'd soon want me to stop in just the same way.
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
[I submitted the following comments.] I oppose this proposal: 1) It places undo restrictions on experimental digital systems. 2) Technology is moving too rapidly to regulate by modulation designators, regulation should be by bandwidth/emission mask, with varying bandwidth for each band and segments for automatic vs. manual transmissions. 3) Deal with automated transmission by limiting permitted segments for automatic stations (as is done now). Set expectation for non-automatic stations in those segments, that automated stations may not recognize their presence. More clearly define intentional vs. incidental interference for both automated and non-automated stations, especially in light of the vagaries of propagation on HF. Remind operators that incidental interference is to be expected, intentional interference is not. 4) Remove the artificial limits between data, image, and voice for digital transmissions. (e.g. voice can now be sent in 1100 hz via FDMDV -- there should be allowances for up to 8 kHz. in the traditionally 'voice' portions of the bands below 29 mHz., more bandwidth above 29 mHz.) Digital transmissions are all 'data' regardless of the content, whether voice, image, or text/data. 5) 160 meter band does not have the same regulatory segregation as other bands and the amateurs have worked out a workable bandplan. 6) Clarify encoding vs. encryptions. Especially as relates to authentication and control vs. obscuring the meaning of the message(s) in the transmission. Sincerely, John D. Hays, K7VE
