On Thursday 27 December 2007 02:40:01 am Steve Hajducek wrote:
I would also like to see the
availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency
Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode
Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency.
Forwarded with the permission of G3PLX
Subject: Your excellent petition
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:37:30 -
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Mark:
I hope I have the right email address
This is just a note to offer my congratulations and express my
admiration for the
I just move to another frequency and move on. There
are plenty channels to use out there!!.
The problem will be you will run out of places to go.
I AGREE ! we do need to solve these problems however
as long as 1% of all hams feel they Are entitled to
50% of the bands or more its not going to
Hello to all,
I would be interested to study JT65 and, perhaps, add this mode to Multipsk
(let's say before the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009).
The JT65 specifications are too much general and don't permit to build a code
from them.
I saw that the sources (Fortran and C or C++?) of JT65
Scott
There is some here and APRS too but not a lot
--- Scott L. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
No only am I interested, I am ahead of you - I hope to have this working with a
C++ engine under Windows by about the end of March 2008. Originally I was
targeting end of 2007 but decided to add SSTV support before finishing WSJT.
The WSJT code is Fortran, Python and C (I think) which is very
--- 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
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
Hello Simon,
Glad you are interested (and very widely in advance).
I knew Python only as a snake, nice to learn something...
For instance, I have written some own specifications in French (see hereafter
but I'm not very sure of them).
About the source code, I have:
* a file which name is
Mark Miller wrote:
Forwarded with the permission of G3PLX
Thank you for sharing this Mark. If you and Peter Martinez are both for
the petition, that along with my independent review is good enough for me.
Sorry to see some of the ad hominem bozo remarks on this forum. Hey,
I thought I was
Le Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:01:22 +0100, bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
Scott
There is some here and APRS too but not a lot
Hello all, ex sysop of PR node F6KVE, I maintain that APRS mode ar'nt
packet-
radio, just UI frames and made for breaking PR and divide PR sysops, its
-Thanks for sharing this Mark
Andy
-- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forwarded with the permission of G3PLX
Subject: Your excellent petition
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:37:30 -
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Mark:
I
Hey, I thought I was the only guy who labels his socks by day. :-)
This petition, if adopted, will be a huge step towards advancement of
the digital modes on the amateur bands, and a clean-up of non-amateur
modes and practices that threaten our bands.
Roger,
I had my wife take a look at that
Why don't we just simply give the bands back to the FCC and then let
the government run emergency comm. That would solve the whole mess. (LOL)
More Government, More Regulations, More Law Suits
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too, agree with the
It did not work out well and has not been used since.
Oh don't get me wrong the auto-detect worked, worked
to well if you ask me.
John
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
Andy -
What did you say? Hi! Hi!
I LOVE Digital.
Have a GREAT day, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Lou WA5LOU
Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I am coming to this issue rather late but did give the proposal a
quick read. For those who do not have time to
Unfortunately Peter, G3PLX, is missing some important point in his
comments whereas I can follow and agree to most of his statements:
1. There is a bandplan which allows a max. of 2700 Hz. I assume that
there was a lengthly discussion about those limits before they were
established.
2. Even
--- 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
Michael,
Eloquently said!
Brian
AB5KT
Near Austin Texas
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hatzakis Jr MD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree; a little unnecessary drama. I think we can stay rational
and have
an educational discussion. I've learned from this debate and this
is the
Anyone notice that the vast majority of the negative comments about the
petition are (nearly) identical. Sort of reminds me of the Send the
following letter to your Congressman! like the NUMBERS count and not
the content.
I sure wish that petitioners -- both pro and con -- would think for
Hi,
That's it. Your first step is to follow Joe's instructions and compile this,
then understand how to use it.
I have written a lot of user interface but not yet attacked the decoding.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Lindecker
* a file which name is
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
- Original Message -
From: David Struebel
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
Technology?
Hi Everyone,
I've been following this debate for the past several days and finally have to
+++ more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [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
IMNSHO malicious interference, interference that prevents or
interrupts a QSO on a frequency from any source is ILLEGAL by the
existing rules. The fact that this rule is not being enforced should
generate information to the FCC on these interferences and requests
to the same agency to clean
I'm glad to hear that you are using a busy frequency detector, Dave.
The detectors in PK232 and SCS modems are certainly better than
nothing, but are quite limited. Neither detects PSK31 transmissions,
for example. As part of the SCAMP project, Rick KN6KB (a member of
the Winlink team)
Hi Again, Steve,
I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you
don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes
from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for
them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may
--- 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
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+++ more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY sv1uy@
wrote:
QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of
amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMNSHO malicious interference, interference that prevents or
interrupts a QSO on a frequency from any source is ILLEGAL by the
existing rules. The fact that this rule is not being enforced should
You caught me, Demetre. I did rent an F-16 last weekend and got all the way
to Winlink Planetary Headquarters before realizing that the HARMs Hertz gave
me were tuned to 7.105 GHz instead of 7.105 MHz as requested. So I buzzed
the tower and flew home to beat the commuter congestion at Hanscom.
But, it won't happen; the FCC Will take spectrum
back, long before we ever evolve to the point of
becoming better operators and having constructive
discussion for the common good.
Ham radio an't broke if the digicrats would wake up
and smell the interferance coffie and work to be just
another
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!
Oh,
I nearly forgot to ask you Dave, what's the matter with you and
PACTOR-3? Has uncle Steve been bad to you recently? I can help you know!!!
73 de Demetre de SV1UY
P.S. Please smile, this is only a hobby OM. MERRY CHRISTMAS and a
HAPPY NEW YEAR to all.
At 04:23 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Again in MO, any station operating unattended and generating RF interfering
signals should NEVER be allowed on Amateur frequencies.
It's not ! under FCC rules
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You caught me, Demetre. I did rent an F-16 last weekend and got all
the way
to Winlink Planetary Headquarters before realizing that the HARMs
Hertz gave
me were tuned to 7.105 GHz instead of 7.105 MHz as requested. So I
--- 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
At 04:37 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be able
to know who or what QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended
stations identify in CW at least once within each 5-minute period of
activity would eliminate this problem.
Dave I'm not to
Band segments for narrow modes at the low end up to segments suitable for AM at
the high end of each band seems a reasonable way to minimize intererence.
However, the restriction on content needs to be eliminated so that stations in
a QSO can send text, image or voice in analog or digital form
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
I thought that I had eliminated most, if not all of my RFI problems with
my ICOM 756 Pro 2 when connected to my homebrew computer interfaces. But
I still am having some problems. This is particularly true for the audio
cable which picks up quite a bit of RF even though it has isolation
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
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
Dave,
Thanks for your comments... We do make substantial use of 30 meters on a
regular basis... However, within Eastern area we also rely heavily on 80 and 40
hence my comments By the way NTS has been around for over 50 years. Are
your suggesting that we discontinue operations, especially
If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my
focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter
what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that
banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it
in PMBOs would be like
I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 04:37 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be
able
to know who or what QRM'd you.
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
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your comments... We do make substantial use of 30 meters on
a regular basis... However, within Eastern area we also rely heavily on
80 and 40 hence my comments By the way NTS has
Listen to mineIt IDs in CW at the end of an unsucessful connect attempt
and at the end of a completed connect... The rules allow for ID via Pactor
exchanges in the interim showing the callsigns of both stations.
Dave WB2FTX
- Original Message -
From: Dave Bernstein
To:
Dave,
Do you sit there at your computer waiting for any reply in this thread to
immediately respond to?
Dave WB2FTX
- Original Message -
From: Dave Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:30 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Fw:
Dave Bernstein wrote:
I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
That is because they never do. The SCS TNCs can be set to ID in CW, but
in practice no one ever does.
de Roger W6VZV
No, I spend most of my amateur radio time DXing or working on DXLab. At this
instant, I am finishing the release note for DXKeeper 6.0, a release on
which I've been working for more than a year.
Having been in the computer hardware and software business for 35 years, I
can multi-task.
73,
Dave, you said earlier that you were running Winlink Classic, not Winlink 2000.
That would make your station a BBS instead of a PMBO, wouldn't it?
Dave (the other one) was commenting about PMBOs. Maybe the WL2K code is
different?
73, Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: David
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?
At 07:26 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
Like I said Dave my winlink station does it all the time.
Either in P1 or CW.
Now if I'm in a KB2KB QSO it will not I will force the SCS
modem to do it. But under computer control it will.
It's in use right
Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most
all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is
posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will
kill the petition.
Greg
KC7GNM
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Peter G. Viscarola
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
Yes I did.
No matter what happens if you read starting at line 4
of page 11 of the PDF file you can see that this is no more
then more damn noise from the anti-wide people.
And I'll say it again here that under FCC rules there is no such
thing as a unattended station what there is (for the
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hatzakis Jr MD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok so you are telling me there is always a live operator sitting at a
PMBO 24/7? Unattended for the clueless means the station operator is
not at the controls.
Yes I did.
No matter what happens if you read
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
On Thursday 27 December 2007 01:34:56 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If folks would utilize the time they spend complaining learning to be
better operators,
Interpretation: Learn to get out of the way of automated stations when they
come on frequency without checking to see if the frequency is
On Thursday 27 December 2007 04:35:11 pm David Struebel wrote:
especially during contests... Traffic thru put declines severely during
these contests.
And this is as it should be. During heavy use, bandwidth is a limited
resource. And if you have decent busy detectors and you detect that the
Patrick,
Also look at the WSJT group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsjtgroup/ - Joe also
has an inactive developer group.
It would appear that much less than 1% of digital mode users actively develop
software, I know many excellent software guys who are also Hams but they just
don't have the
66 matches
Mail list logo
