[digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Andy, I petitioned the FCC for just that (inside the automatic subbands), but it was rejected for the status quo. So-called semiautomatic operations is permitted anywhere RTTY/data is permitted as long as the bandwidth does not exceed 500 Hz. For fully automatic operations, the automatic subbands already exist, and the FCC view is that there is sufficient space there for all automatic actvities whether 500 Hz or 2700 Hz. The HFlink idea of expanding the amount of space for automatic operations of any sort is simply not workable, because the demand for space for person-to-person, non-automatic operations, is too great and will become greater as the sunspot numbers grow. I see no reason that Winlink and HFlink could not work together and negotiate for a space in the automatic subbands just for 500 Hz-wide automatic signals that would not interrupt person-to-person communications. Although the rules still require listening first, this is impossible to do with automatic stations, so what is needed is a protocol like AX-25 where space can be shared by more than one station and do that in the automatic subbands so users there did not feel so cramped for space. This Winlink business of scanning more than one frequency is one of the worst wastes of spectrum you can imagine. What happens is that a Winlink client will call and call on an empty frequency (which someone else could use) for a Winlink host station that is already busy on a secondary frequency and will NEVER answer until it is finished on that secondary frequency and starts scanning again. Meanwhile, the client station occupies a frequency fruitlessly, preventing someone else from using it. I am sure you have seen such calls many times -they call, and call, and never connect, and then connect on a different frequency. Just eliminating scanning would probably free up as much as 20% more space in the automatic subbands, but continues because of the imagined convenience that scanning will make it possible to get a link sooner. Nothing can be farther from the truth. If there were no scanning, simply listening to a frequency would tell if it were already in use. If is not in use, changes are the host station is available if in range. Instead, the frequency appears to be empty, but there is no host station available for traffic passing! Clean up the automatic station network's act BEFORE even talking about additional space being needed! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net mailto:n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
I've seen (but not yet read) references to this in the SDR world. Out of interest what would you have in mind? Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical.
Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. 73, Jaak es1hj/qrp 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net mailto:n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Rick KN6KB developed an effective busy frequency detector that he included with his implementation of the SCAMP protocol several years ago. A high-level description of SCAMP is available via http://www.eham.net/articles/9785 RIck was initially reluctant to develop a busy-frequency detector because he couldn't make it perfect. My contribution was to help him understand that in this domain, perfect is the enemy of good; the resulting effectiveness of his busy frequency detector surprised Rick, as well as the SCAMP beta testers. My understanding is that WINMOR, which Rick characterizes as a descendent of SCAMP, incorporates a descendent of SCAMP's busy frequency detector. I have not seen a technical paper describing Rick's busy frequency detector, much less code that you could borrow, but based on my experience I suspect that Rick would be happy to discuss it with you. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Simon HB9DRV Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection I've seen (but not yet read) references to this in the SDR world. Out of interest what would you have in mind? Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical.
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Myth? Now there's a challenge - I must read all this SDR documentation to see just what is defined as a busy frequency. At the moment I'm wading through 4,500 pages of DSP API's, there's something in there. Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaak Hohensee Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth.
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Thanks, I'll leave Rick alone at the moment as I know he's busy. Even if we were able to write a DLL which indicates that a frequency is in use others may just decide that their traffic is more important and ignore it. Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Rick KN6KB developed an effective busy frequency detector that he included with his implementation of the SCAMP protocol several years ago. A high-level description of SCAMP is available via http://www.eham.net/articles/9785 http://www.eham.net/articles/9785
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@eesti.ee] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Dave AA6YQ Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it could continuously reconfigure. And as I said, perfect is the enemy of good (with apologies to Voltaire). A busy detector that is only 80% effective would reduce QRM rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
I'll accept Dave and Skip's comments as valid points. BTW, the busy detect does work quite well in Winmor. Simon, I did not have a particular digital mode in mind, I was just exploring the receptivity to the overall concept of unattended operations, if wide was eliminated from the discussion. ANdy K3UK On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- *From:* Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@eesti.ee] *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Cc:* Dave AA6YQ *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it could continuously reconfigure. And as I said, perfect is the enemy of good (with apologies to Voltaire). A busy detector that is only 80% effective would reduce QRM rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradi digitalradi o...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@comcast.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... k3uka...@... wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
