The FCC has released
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519820340
Public Notice report 2828-Correction establishing a new comment
period for
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574
RM-11392.
RM11392
SEASON's GREETINGS
to all the nice people in this group
Omar YK1AO
I filed my comments today on Mark's petition, which is very well written and
logical, and encourage everyone else who values space to work without
interference from email robots also to do so.
Merry Christmas to all!
Skip KH6TY
Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page
New release of FDMDV - Amateur Radio Digital Voice
A new version (10a-Dec-07) of the Digital Voice mode FDMDV is now available
from the N1SU.com website.
This mode is remarkable in that it occupies a bandwidth of only 1.1 kHz as
against the 2.4 kHz needed for an SSB signal.
The new version
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Well,
Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw
qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual
wants to do! Your millage might vary!
This is a very well thought out solution to a on-going vexing problem on
the HF RTTY/data bands. I have submitted my comments to the FCC in
concurrence with Mark's petition and I strongly suggest that those who
agree or those who disagree with the petition, submit your comments.
If the
Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings to all
73 de Andy K3UK
On Dec 25, 2007 6:55 AM, Omar Shabsigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SEASON's GREETINGS
to all the nice people in this group
Omar YK1AO
--
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)
attachment: coexist-static.jpg
Packet can be easily found on 30M, the APRS stations on 10151 use
packet. . Try also 14095 for packet BBS traffic . on HF it is 300
baud packet (below 10M)
Andy K3UK
On Dec 25, 2007 1:31 PM, kaboona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all and Merry Christmas.
I just recently discovered
FYI, here is some traffic I just copied on 14095
[FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$]
FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084
F 55
[FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$]
FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084
F 55
FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$]
FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084
F 55
It looks like BBS forwarding using the FBB software.
Andy K3UK
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you
just won't admit it.
The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode
protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs)
transmit without first listening to ensure that the
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get
it, you
just won't admit it.
The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode
protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get
it, you
just won't admit it.
The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode
protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it,
you just won't admit it.
The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital
mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended
stations (PMBOs) transmit without first
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
of networking on HF.
Wrong. My problem is with unattended stations that transmit
without first listening to see that the
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
OK Roger,
Whether you like it or not all the
above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away
because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them!
Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a
few years from
- Original Message -
From: Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
OK Dave,
You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
My objective is not win an argument with Demetre or any other proponent of
operating practices that QRM other operators, but rather to illuminate the
flaws and obfuscations in their arguments to the readers of this reflector.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From:
Dave I agree with you but how about a new twist to this.
Not too long ago I was having a real nice keyboard to
keyboard QSO with K2MO - Tony on dial freq 7,077.4
Pactor when a member of this list starting calling CQ
on another mode. I did get a call and email him asking if
he did hear the
You were having a Pactor QSO and someone called CQ nearby in another
mode. You were able to identify the CQing operator. From your after-
the-fact email conversation with this person, its clear that he heard
your signal. If he assumed that your Pactor signal was coming from
a robot and that it
A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate
all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia,
MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others.
We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it.
Only you can save the future of digital radio, by
your comments to
Hey Bonnie
You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate
me. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to digital modes.
I hear a lot of increased-bandwidth transmissions in the RTTY subbands
(7070 area, 14080 area). I understand that many of these are unattended.
I have issues
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 11:47:13 pm expeditionradio wrote:
Read the petition:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume
nt=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume
nt=6519008575 RM-11392 part
Read the Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements
click here:
http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
File your comments against proceeding RM-11392
click here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
Please do your part.
I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these
digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do
believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real
advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology.
In a real
- Original Message -
From: W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these
digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do
believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real
advantage. Email at
Actually this is a Petition For Rule Making and it is for an AMENDMENT of
PART 97.
Nowhere does it state it is a Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital
Advancements
It's a good petition that a lot of thought has been put into and should be
supported by all amateurs.
Barry VE3CDX/W7
_
Hi All..as this petition only has to do with Hams in the USA i would
suggest that argument from both sides be taken to a group especially for
the subject and not be put on the other many Hams outside the
USA.this petition has already engendered some very bad slanging
between the 2
Mark WD4ELG wrote:
Hey Bonnie
You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you
could educate me. ...
Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make
an educated comment to the FCC:
Hi Mark,
I will attempt to answer your questions, one by one, below:
How will this
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote:
How will this RM will KILL digital radio?
It will prevent present digital data technologies that
now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing
of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast
digital
29 matches
Mail list logo
