an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark gap operators
when they didn't want CW.
Bonnie KQ6XA
HUH!
They didn't want CW!
What mode were the spark gap operators running then ?
_
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of expeditionradio
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Will
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
Phil Barnett wrote:
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote:
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference
by some specific mode.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
You will need to start with the widest modes...
how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB.
What about vice-versa?
I think you should cite a creditable reference unless you can prove that
you were operating spark in the early 1900s.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
HUH!
They didn't want CW!
What mode were the spark gap operators
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote:
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark gap operators
when they didn't want CW.
Yeah, but with some major differences.
Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HUH!
They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running
then ?
Spark.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Yes, CW replaced spark gap in much
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:09:28 am Roger J. Buffington wrote:
OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink?
Good question. Bonnie?
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band
modes will work in a dire emergency.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink?
Good question. Bonnie?
The primary objective of the petition is to attack
Winlink2000 on HF.
The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000.
There is tremendous
Dear All,
Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has some
form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 modems.
As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make ourselves let
alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban
Downloaded several times. The file is corrupted !!!
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated
claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various
digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true
emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics.
- Original Message -
From: Stuart Baynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has
some
form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3
modems.
As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make
First FCC Came for the PACTOR3,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a PACTOR operator.
Then FCC came for RTTY,
and I did not speak out
because I was not an RTTY op.
Then FCC came for the PSK,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a PSKer.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one
Hum . I dont see any move to kill digital.
Digital stiil can do what they want above 219 mhz and
thats where it BELONGS ...
When 219 and up is full worry about HF .
--- W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more
than 500 hertz bandwidth
I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35
years. I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire
emergency?
CW? How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10
years? And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to
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
Bonnie ..
You forgot one .
They they wanted to put digital wide band below 219
Mhz ...
--- expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First FCC Came for the PACTOR3,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a PACTOR operator.
Then FCC came for RTTY,
and I did not speak out
Well, the petition is out there now.
Don't waste time making your arguments here... they mean nothing.
Post your responses and feeling to the FCC's site.
73 - Bill KA8VIT
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:04:08 -0500
Subject: Re:
Bonnie,
There's no need to worry, Dame Julie Andrews is available via the William
Morris Agency.
http://www.wma.com/julie_andrews/summary/
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
- Original Message -
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First FCC Came for the PACTOR3,
and I did not speak out
To hams who are not in the USA: Your comments are important. I just
left my comment, and did not see any qualifier that required that you
be in the USA. They may place more importance on your opinions since
we are currently being a 'bad neighbor' to you.
I browsed through the 73 comments that
expeditionradio wrote:
First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was
not a PACTOR operator.
The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and
indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on
the part of the Winlink
W2XJ wrote:
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the
unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I
participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be
a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just
playing
I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmation #20071226739154. If we want
it to pass, we need to make a little more noise where it counts...
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Specify RM-11392 in the first box.
Won't take but a minute, and WILL make a difference!
-Joe, N8FQ
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
After reading all of the comments posted regarding this topic, it
appears that it is a mini version of regulation by bandwidth. It
appears to me that it effectively would ban digital modes wider than
1.5kHz from the lower 100kHz of HF bands.
I agree that automatic operation is a problem, and this
I am not a sailor nor do I have any experience at sea. So as a layman, it is
unfathomable to me that anyone would risk their life venturing out of port and
rely on amateur radio for their communication needs.
Amateur radio for recreational use, certainly... a backup communication system,
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send
email
via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the
computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too
organized to
[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
Hi all,
seems like there are tons of ham keeping Art, KB2KB, very busy these days!
:)
Merry Christmas, Happy 2008,
Buddy WB4M
- Original Message -
From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: Re:
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg
Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection?
What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones
that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who travel
Hi Rick,
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of
RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old
story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by
an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and
practices, this is
Thank you, Rick and others, for helping to clarify my impression of this
petition.
Yes, I agree that Winlink 2000 should not be the only form of emergency
backup communication, but that said, it is very useful and fun to use when
no other communication form is available and, when combined
It's all about how much of the band you are using.
But you know how they like to pick on poor Pactor.
Read page 11 line 4,5 and 6 of the PDF file
* * * * *
page 11 of RM11392.PDF
8. Two bandwidths are appropriate for what is now the RTTY/Data
subband, 1.5 KHz and 2.4 kHz. The selection of these
You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital
communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my
ability to work in that mode.
As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a
role for digital communications including email
I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes
at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where
infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be
much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost
anywhere would seem to
Hi Rud:
CW or Voice?? I think you might want to checkout EasyPal,, digital sstv
pics..sends exact picture of doc in just a few seconds (60) just like a fax but
cleaner.. can go from your scanner to on the air, can be printed. MARS and many
of the other services are using it... try it, you'll
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether
or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect
Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode.
73,
+++additional AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether
or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to
detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect
Demetre, I think you did not read carefully what Dave wrote and you quoted.
He said, Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether
or not the frequency is *LOCALLY* clear. This means that if a PMBO is next
door to me ( i.e. locally) and I am in a QSO that the client cannot
True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a
rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are
many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that
this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that
transmit
I AGREE!!!
Dave Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave,
A very well thought out comment that I agree with 100%.
TNX 73,
Dave N0EOP
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
Sent:
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Sometimes through the night
when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on
30 or 40 meters. How about that?
If it uses more than 500 hertz bandwidth it is not something I want on
At 05:17 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a
rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are
many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that
this thread started with discussion of
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the
entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort
at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back
ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by
an attempt to limit the advancement of new
technologies and practices, this is just the
Hi Bruce,
From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if
the the hurts!
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the
entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort
at protectionism ( its an old story that
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not
amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more
expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury
of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a
The data on ham numbers/classes is accurate, but one has to be careful
with the interpretation. (Glass half full/half empty, etc.).
When I was first licensed in 1963, only a few potential candidates would
go through all the necessary CW and theory testing, even if available by
mail with a
There is the DSTAR network that is Internet linked as well as IRLP and
Echolink. All the above more portable than an NVIS set up. Don't get me
wrong NVIS is a good use of frequencies and well proven but if data is
being passed, the other solutions are more efficient. As always
different
What did you just say?
You really need to run for some office.
NO STEVE
You and the digi boys need to get it
You have entire bands on UHF to use and they sit EMPTY
..
Your disrespect for all of those who are happy with
analog shows how little you care about the hobby. ONLY
YOUR SELF ..
IF IT Ain't DIGITAL it ain't radio
When you can show
You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital
frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters.
Bob, AA8X
- Original Message -
From: W2XJ
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will
Hi Steve,
I agree that it is a type of protectionism. I did not view it that way
as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly
they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over
the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can
At 06:49 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital
frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters.
Bob, AA8X
Yeah right. Let's do away with contesting.
Ham radio would be like watching paint dry.
I don't understand just what you mean by
David wrote:
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
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the
USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you
have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in
I know there are problems with the automatic winlink systems i've run
into them myself but when I do I just move to another frequency and
move on. There are plenty channels to use out there!!. The thing I
fear the most from all this is one day the FCC is going to say to heck
with ham radio all
Thank you Rick.
William A. Collister
N7MOG
_
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:56 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
Sounds a bit like a survivalist touting the end of the world
more emotion
than substantiation. QRM is QRM. BPL, Pactor, bad volkswagon ignition
systems, et.al.
William A. Collister
N7MOG
_
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent:
Andy, I love DM780 and think Simon can go ahead and release the analog
SSTV now from what I saw on his site! I've given up on MixW, which I
have had a registered copy of for about 5 years. MixW just released a
new beta the past day or so but it appears to be minor changes. DM780
however beats MixW
Ahhh, the old days300 baud HF packet. I remember when it was all
the rage in the early 1990s. Now, VHF packet (1200 baud) was much more
interesting and I even had a packet BBS. That was in eastern PA. Now I
live in Pittsburgh and can find no VHF packet activity whatsoever. To
the O.P. - look
Hi Craig,
http://www.elcom.gr/sv2agw/ will get you to a new AGW Packet Engine
version.. The non pro version is not being upgraded from what I hear,
and the pro suppose to be more stable.
Winpac is a good Windows program for an upstart and experts
alike. Free too, the only ask for a donation
The problem with PACTOR III is that it is downward compatible with
narrower modes PACTOR AND PACTOR II. The 500 kHz mode is compatible
with narrow modes in the CW sections. The wide mode is only compatible
with SSB. If you look at the SCS website, they promote PACTOR III as a
commercial mode
Hi Rick,
At 08:26 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
Hi Steve,
I agree that it is a type of protectionism.
Which in my opinion is a worst case issue for the Amateur Radio
Service (ARS) than the technical challenges being presented.
I did not view it that way
as much until we really started seeing
66 matches
Mail list logo
