[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
Hi Demetre, We are looking forward to your explanation as to how an unattended PMBO, very near to a local station (and which local station, that the far away client cannot even detect), and running a mode other than Pactor, will refuse to transmit over the local station's QSO if queried by the far away client. It is easy to understand how this can happen on 20m where many use directional beam antennas. The local station does not even have to very local to the PMBO, but beaming in its direction for his QSO with a station in the direction of the PMBO, so that the client is off the side of the beam pattern. An operator at the PMBO could easily detect the beaming station, perhaps even over S9, but the client, being off the side of the beam, detects nothing and thinks the frequency is clear. This is critical to the problem of understanding how unattended stations can mix with attended stations on shared bands, and your explanation would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted by you? What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a DCD mechanism. Demetre, Of course it is not justified! The point is that on shared bands, like our amateur bands, no machine can take the place of human intelligence to negotiate a fair sharing or use of a frequency, just like no software can figure out the meaning of sloppy CW sending by including the context of the QSO, as a human can. I am not in favor of busy signal detectors as a solution, both for the reason you cite, and because the clients can just disable them. The solution lies in separation of unattended operations from attended operations, with the space allocated to unattended operations in proportion to their representation in the ham community, if unattended operations are to be permitted at all. That proportion is currently about 1% of the US amateur population or about 0.3% of the worldwide amateur population, but already the FCC allocates 3.5% of the HF band spectrum to unattended activity, which is obviously more than fair. I am in favor of hams being able to use unattended operations as long as they are kept apart from other ham operations and in a space proportional to their representation. It is pointless to argue which use of a ham band is more important, as that depends upon each individual's interests. However, unattended operation is contrary to the recreational use of shared bands, because one half of a communication with an unattended station cannot share. If it is to be allowed, then it must be in a place where it cannot interfere with persons that are capable of negotiating for a frequency on a fair basis. Unattended stations cannot negotiate. To you, Winlink 2000 is a valuable resource, as it is to others. With proper management, such as eliminating wasteful scanning, for example, and using only narrow modes for small size messaging, there is more than enough space in the 3.5% of ham spectrum for unattended operations for those who need them. Peter Martinez is correct in that the system design of Winlink 2000 is not consistent with shared bands, but that should be an incentive to develop a system that can, instead of constantly try to dominate more and more space to avoid interference by spreading out. Replace unattended stations with live operators and the sharing problem is resolved, and messaging can take place anywhere the mode itself is permitted. If that is not done, the unattended stations need to stay in a space in proportion to their representation in the ham community in order to help relieve congestion to those who are capable of sharing spectrum. Have a Happy New Year! 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Demetre, We are looking forward to your explanation as to how an unattended PMBO, very near to a local station (and which local station, that the far away client cannot even detect), and running a mode other than Pactor, will refuse to transmit over the local station's QSO if queried by the far away client. It is easy to understand how this can happen on 20m where many use directional beam antennas. The local station does not even have to very local to the PMBO, but beaming in its direction for his QSO with a station in the direction of the PMBO, so that the client is off the side of the beam pattern. An operator at the PMBO could easily detect the beaming station, perhaps even over S9, but the client, being off the side of the beam, detects nothing and thinks the frequency is clear. This is critical to the problem of understanding how unattended stations can mix with attended stations on shared bands, and your explanation would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Skip KH6TY Hi Skip, I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted by you? What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a DCD mechanism. And just like Andy, our moderator, said previously: - Aside from Pactor, I suspect that many ALE operations are not always under full manual control. Neither are some Propnet stations that use 300 baud packet or PSK31. Many DXpeditions act like they can transmit any place they want, and then there are also the folks at W1AW who send old news automatically at predetermined times via RTTY and CW. -- And I must add, what about the numerous nets on HF that deliberately cause QRM when anyone dares to use their frequency before they start their NET? What about AX25 BBS FORWARDING that still takes place on HF? (These are really the automatic ROBOTS, not the semi-automatic PACTOR PMBOs), what about HF APRS Digis? What are you going to do about all them? Fix the HF bands first and then blame PACTOR PMBOs and automatic operations. Forget about PACTOR 3 being the problem because it isn't. 73 de Demetre SV1UY --QUOTED MESSAGE From Dave- Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot of Christmas lists; Ack *this*. You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism and the PMBOs would be rendered useless. This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just admitted yourself. Anyway please comment to your daddy (the FCC) as you like, although you do understand you are wrong, and if you have a PACTOR MODEM and have not understood it's use yet then I am sorry for you because nothing comes even close to PACTOR 3 for emergency comms OM. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY --END OF QUOTED MESSAGE-
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies with such a low speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can afford a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur frequencies. Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Skip, I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted by you? What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a DCD mechanism. And just like Andy, our moderator, said previously: - Aside from Pactor, I suspect that many ALE operations are not always under full manual control. Neither are some Propnet stations that use 300 baud packet or PSK31. Many DXpeditions act like they can transmit any place they want, and then there are also the folks at W1AW who send old news automatically at predetermined times via RTTY and CW. -- And I must add, what about the numerous nets on HF that deliberately cause QRM when anyone dares to use their frequency before they start their NET? What about AX25 BBS FORWARDING that still takes place on HF? (These are really the automatic ROBOTS, not the semi-automatic PACTOR PMBOs), what about HF APRS Digis? What are you going to do about all them? Fix the HF bands first and then blame PACTOR PMBOs and automatic operations. Forget about PACTOR 3 being the problem because it isn't. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty kh6ty@ wrote: I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! snip What about this Skip? Is this justified? Of course it is not justified! Demetre completely misrepresented the content of my post, Skip. Check the original and see for yourself: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25230 73, Dave, AA6YQ He he, It takes one to know one Dave. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! snip What about this Skip? Is this justified? Of course it is not justified! Demetre completely misrepresented the content of my post, Skip. Check the original and see for yourself: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25230 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies with such a low speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can afford a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur frequencies. So are all the radios we use, ICOM, YAESU, KENWOOD, ALINCO to name a few. Are they commercial too? Noone is going to make something for nothing OM. These are all commercial radios and we like to call them Amateur because we like to use them. Same with the SCS modems. As for the rich tanned German guy, is it illegal to be rich and tanned now? Should we ban from the hobby the tanned rich Germans now? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies with such a low speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can afford a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur frequencies. So are all the radios we use, ICOM, YAESU, KENWOOD, ALINCO to name a few. Are they commercial too? Noone is going to make something for nothing OM. These are all commercial radios and we like to call them Amateur because we like to use them. Same with the SCS modems. As for the rich tanned German guy, is it illegal to be rich and tanned now? Should we ban from the hobby the tanned rich Germans now? 73 de Demetre SV1UY You miss all my points. I suspect you prefer it that way. Point 1 the website states that PACTOR III is designed for SSB HF channels. They also link to a number of commercial maritime service providers. This is the intended use. At least in the US and probably elsewhere, this on it's face makes the system illegal for amateur use since text and data can not be transmitted in the SSB band segment and SSB width signals are not permitted in the text data segments. It is a very simply a system designed for primarily marine channels and serviced by commercial gateways. My comment about the German guy speaks to selfish abuse of the amateur bands. If he has the money to be cruising the Mediterranean in his yacht, he can afford to pay a commercial PACTOR gateway and/or use immarsat. Immarsat is a superior solution to begin with. It would be interesting to see just how much PACTOR traffic violates various amateur rules pertaining to content and third party relay. In this country it could be argued that it also violates rules that pertain to automated stations. I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the violators.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
At 05:46 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the violators. 1. what are you going to do when you find a KB2KB QSO going on? 2. how are you going to know for *sure* that anyone is being QRM'ed ? 3. under FCC rules there is no such thing as a unattended station. however there are automatically controlled data stations. Talk nice to me and I just may let you use one of the two SCS modems that I have. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
The best solution is then regulation by bandwdth so that text and data can be sent in the current phone/image segment. The rtty/data segments could become the 500 Hz bandwidth segments, the phone/image segments the 3 kHz bandwidth segments, and there could be 6 kHz and 50 Hz bandwidth segments at the top and bottom for AM and CW. 73, John KD6ZOH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 23:46 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies with such a low speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can afford a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur frequencies. So are all the radios we use, ICOM, YAESU, KENWOOD, ALINCO to name a few. Are they commercial too? Noone is going to make something for nothing OM. These are all commercial radios and we like to call them Amateur because we like to use them. Same with the SCS modems. As for the rich tanned German guy, is it illegal to be rich and tanned now? Should we ban from the hobby the tanned rich Germans now? 73 de Demetre SV1UY You miss all my points. I suspect you prefer it that way. Point 1 the website states that PACTOR III is designed for SSB HF channels. They also link to a number of commercial maritime service providers. This is the intended use. At least in the US and probably elsewhere, this on it's face makes the system illegal for amateur use since text and data can not be transmitted in the SSB band segment and SSB width signals are not permitted in the text data segments. It is a very simply a system designed for primarily marine channels and serviced by commercial gateways. My comment about the German guy speaks to selfish abuse of the amateur bands. If he has the money to be cruising the Mediterranean in his yacht, he can afford to pay a commercial PACTOR gateway and/or use immarsat. Immarsat is a superior solution to begin with. It would be interesting to see just how much PACTOR traffic violates various amateur rules pertaining to content and third party relay. In this country it could be argued that it also violates rules that pertain to automated stations. I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the violators.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 05:46 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the violators. 1. what are you going to do when you find a KB2KB QSO going on? Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for robots. de Roger, W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
At 07:28 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for robots. Yeah Roger you keep saying that yet I seem to find them all the time. Have you given it a try?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 07:28 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for robots. Yeah Roger you keep saying that yet I seem to find them all the time. Have you given it a try? Yes, for years. This year I finally realized that Pactor is dead dead dead as a QSO mode and I sold my SCS PTC-II. To a boater, by the way, not a ham. For over a year I never heard one K-to-K Pactor QSO; really none for several years. They aren't out there no matter what you keep saying. You keep telling us about all the digital QSOs you have on Pactor, but I never work you on any of the modes, and I have been active on all of them. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
Here we go again. All it takes to bring out the flaming and shouting matches is a controversial subject like this. I have nothing against thoughtful, constructive discussion and differences of opinion, but do we have to resort to this kind of stuff? Let's all act like grown-ups, eh? It's not just this forum, either. It gets old pretty quick when you see the same posts and arguments on a bunch of other forums. KCÃPTO Les
