Hi kv9u
Well, sir, so some degree you have only yourselves to blame for the
increase voice space and decrease cw space For years, hams have been
complaining that cw is a dying art and that most hams are using phone.. So
your fcc gave your phone guys more frequency space and took it away
Well, I gave up trying to implement Contestia/RTTYM in Fldigi. Dave
W1HKJ says he plans to rewrite the Olivia modem from scratch at some
point, during which it should be easier to implement them than to try
and hack Pawel Jalocha's mind-bogglingly complex reference code.
Anyway, Dave recently
Well said, Jim.
73
Bill KA8VIT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ka8vit.com
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC RO
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:29:05 -
A couple
It is my understanding that all users CAN NOT share the frequency at
the same time. Most high-speed connections are dedicated, I know
pactor is. I am not sure about ALE, but from a cursory view, I
believe it is also. Packet is the only protocol I know that is
designed to share a frequency, but
Bruce,
It is NOT the ARRL that made this decision. It was the FCC! I don't
understand why a number of people, including yourself, have been saying
such things.
The government decision was not based upon ARRL's proposal, but took
into consideration the many other comments and came up with a
It was PSK - don't know who as I don't use that mode.
And I must agree with what you said about the FCC,
Of course I said that same thing when they did away
with the 13 and 20 WPM code test. Yep know about
Europeans - work a lot of RTTY DX around 7035 to 40
over the years.
At 10:08 PM
Larry,
I am not sure if you can blame anyone. Many commenters wanted to see
the voice bands greatly expanded, some wanted the entire band(s) to be
phone or any mode or bandwidth. The FCC compromised on what they
politically thought was the right decision although many of us don't
necessarily
I would be very surprised if the ARRL leadership was not appalled at the
changes to 80 meters since it wreaks havoc with the Section CW nets
which are a significant portion of the ARRL Field Organization. Consider
that the Section nets, voice and CW here in my Section and sometimes
even
Jim,
Your analogy of the party line phone is quite correct. Packet suffers
from not only time sharing, but also has a really bad modulation scheme
for HF and should never have been used for this purpose.
While some of this technology can be used on VHF and above frequencies,
it just does not
Hello Joe,
Well, I gave up trying to implement Contestia/RTTYM in Fldigi. Dave
I don't know much the Pawell code, as it is complex and written in the C++
language which is difficult to read.
About Throbx, here are the symbols for THROB and THROBX, but you can ask
directly to Lionel Sear for
I received a response from the FCC this morning about the J2D
issue. The response was simply its on the list. This means that
they know there is an issue.
73,
Mark N5RFX
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector :
Rick,
Yes, I agree. The ARRL is very supportive of all digital modes. They are
obviously struggling to make digital sense out of the FCC release. See the
recent ARRL bulletin about the good, the bad, and the ugly (HI).
73,
John - K8OCL
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Very good test Tony.
My impression with limited commercial DV is that when there are several hops,
that DV degrades and doesn't perform as well as SSB...and by that I mean that
DV is there or not there...not actual signal strength.
The polar paths are definately going to be harder than a lower
Ah ha...well Bonnie I see that I am not the only one who is looking at the
overall picture of band usage.
Here is an example of what I saw in the military...
SSB voice took 10 minutes to pass a 100 word message between really seasoned
radio operators on an HF channel typical of most Q4-5
Wonderful...how about a test of the mode on PathSim?
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew
O'Brien
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:27 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: carcomm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Rick,
Did you figure this as a text/data file being sent or a keyboard-to-keyboard
mode.
I think that there has to be some operator thought concerning wheather or not
they are going to be operating in a chat QSO or data trasnfer mode. But the
condition certainly has to be considered if there
Walt/K5YFW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[CONTACT]...
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
I don't see much use for a very high throughput, very robust data mode that
requires 6-10 KHz of bandwidth as being used by me except when I am working
disaster relief and for perhaps traiining nets. If I have that capability,
good amateur radio practices would cause me to use only the mode
Should I be prevented from using CW on the phone band to QSO with
a friend who is running SSB? How many have operated a voice
net where an operator checks in on CW because they can't talk?
Walt/K5YFW
That happens all the time on the international HFpack/HFLINK
multi-mode nets. The weak
We have to be pragmatic if we want to get this done. The fact is
that bringing digital text emissions to the phone/image subbands on
HF is not a popular proposal. We have to think of ways to make this
palatable to the majority of Amateur Radio Operators. If there were
some verbiage that we
Walt,
Your examples are with like bandwidths. These channels were
assigned for the purpose that you have mentioned, so any reduction in
bandwidth would not provide any increase in efficiency. In other
words you would still occupy the entire channel. With Amateur Radio
this is not the case. We
The FCC RO makes some big changes on HF. It limits the bandwidth of data
transmission to 500 Hz below 30 MHz.. It also states that data and image
transmission were never authorized in the same HF frequency segments so
data
in the phone/image segments seems to be prohibited. Considerable
I was mostly commenting on the overall proposal not
just the badly thought part on 80 meters This proposal
included including the ASININE 6 and 2 meter ones and
THEY ARE ARRL. The ARRL needs to get with it's
membership AND THE USERS OF THESE BANDS BE IT 80 or 2
meters.
It is true that many others
Walt,
I am mostly figuring it as a data file for the higher speed modes, since
most of us can not type all that fast. I have found that for me, about
40 wpm is all I need for Keyboard to Keyboard and that includes some in
the type ahead buffer responding to the other station as I receive their
All:
Copied Gerhard (OE3GBB) down to 10 watts on mode-E today with the WinDRM
variant. The audio is robot-like, but the improvment in SNR is amazing.
Thanks for all Cesco...
Tony KT2Q
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The
Yea, but that 100 word message could have been sent in about 3 minutes
using 30 wpm CW. I've done both, and the SSB'ers have a hard time
understanding that CW is that much faster than voice. Almost what you
quote for the 300 baud text data, and in a much smaller bandwidth.
Also, using your
jgorman01 wrote:
Yea, but that 100 word message could have been sent in about 3 minutes
using 30 wpm CW. I've done both, and the SSB'ers have a hard time
understanding that CW is that much faster than voice. Almost what you
quote for the 300 baud text data, and in a much smaller bandwidth.
getting on my soap box
But 90% of my communicators are tech's and myself or other general class ham
operates as the control operator. Most only got there tech license so they
could volunteer as communicators and would never have gotten their license if
would have had to learn CW.
Here's an
The FCC RO makes some big changes on HF. It limits the bandwidth of data
transmission to 500 Hz below 30 MHz.. It also states that data and image
transmission were never authorized in the same HF frequency segments so data
in the phone/image segments seems to be prohibited. Considerable spectrum
But how many software programs today allow this? winlink, ale, etc.?
If queuing was being used properly today, why so many frequencies
on each ham band for these current wide bandwidth applications?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL
Why can't you move to one frequency per band that is designated for
wide bandwidth data transfers, put your request in queue, and wait for
it to be sent?
Your example is exactly what I was trying to illustrate about wide
bandwidth modes aren't always best even if they will send data faster.
You
Starting in narrow mode, moving to wide mode, then back to narrow mode
will only work properly if you and everyone else doing it is
considerate and checks the adjacent frequencies adequately for
occupancy. Otherwise, you'll be just like winlink, start out in
narrow mode and go to wide mode
Bruce,
I suggested the use of 200 kHz on 6M, but well above the DX
portion of the band. So why ask the users groups about a frequency
they obviously don't use? Besides those frequencies are designated
for such use in the current ARRL Bandplan.
The frequencies we are using for our 6M OFDM HSMM
I am very flexable. I just dont think that everyday use of multi kc
signals, especially those sitting there giving out a call now and then, just
to keep the channel open, is any way for an amateur station to operate.
There will, if these things are to be used - and approved, have to be
certain
If they are not in QSO - and only setting chatting to themselves, it appears
to me that the channel can be used by anyone else that wants it.
Danny Douglas N7DC
If they do not meet the standard of a beacon station
are they not broadcasting in that mode?
Last I checked broadcasting by Hams on
All:
QRV WinDRM 7295.0 USB @ 0015z. Will be in and out of the shack till 0500z.
Skeds welcome.
Tony KT2Q
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol:
Perhaps the lesson might be that unless we come to the meeting and speak
up, our voices will not be heard. Actually, special interest groups such
as SMIRK, SWOT, etc., should position themselves as advocates for their
members point of view. I assume that they did this? If not, it would be
All:
QRV 7276.0 USB WinDRM @ 01:30Z. In shack till 0500z.
Tony KT2Q
- Original Message -
From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: QRV 7295.0 USB WinDRM
All:
QRV WinDRM 7295.0 USB @ 0015z.
Danny,
Everything you have said is done as much as they can. Our husband of our
locall EC happens to handle statewide National Guard and Reserve
Communications and he tries to be ready for all contingencies with
multiple back ups. But for most local emergencies, the government does
not call
I CQ'd a few times, guess you are too close for 40M at this time of the day.
- Original Message -
From: Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] QRV 7295.0 USB WinDRM
All:
QRV WinDRM
Hi Andy,
Had to QSY, but did work Mel (K0PFX/4)in
Florida. Still in the shack if you'd like to give it a try on 40 meters.
Tony KT2Q
- Original Message -
From:
Andrew
O'Brien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:53
PM
IM would be a better analogy than a party line.
John - K8OCL
From: KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC RO
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:42:55 -0500
Jim,
Your analogy
All:
Had fun playing with the WinDRM variant this evening on 40 meters.
The audio quality isn't the same as MELP mode, but Mel (K0PFX/4) sounded
pretty good. His PC mic works well and seems to improve the audio.
Many thanks to Cesco, HB9TLK for his efforts.
Tony KT2Q
Need a Digital
Mark Miller wrote:
The wider bandwidth of PIII may make the transmission more robust.
Not only so, mainly it is the effect of constellations that have been
chosen.
Pactor II uses DBPSK, DQPSK, 8DPSK, or 16DPSK over two tones.
Pactor III uses DBPSK or DQPSK over up to 18 carriers separated
44 matches
Mail list logo
