Dave:
You of all people should know better...
...it is now possible to write software to detect channel busy situations...for
example, the new SCAMP mode (which is now officially in beta testing as of
2.04.05) already has such software which will detect the presence of
intelligence on a channel and prevent transmission...it works effectively for
most modes (CW,PSK, RTTY,MFSK, PACTORI) except for high entropy modes such
PACTORII and III.... so most, if not all, of the current source of complaints
can be eliminated in software..
.... I am sure that clever software writers such as yourself will find fixes to
any remaining interference problems...
......enshrining more restrictions in regulations (to handle a problem that has
now been or can be solved with clever software) will only continue the current
overregulation regime...and will do nothing to help US Hams regain the lead in
inovation that we have ceded to the rest of the world by our outmoded
regulatory regimes.
By the way I am not proposing expansion of semi-automatic operation and my
"Primary Motivation" is not the expansion of semi-automatic operation... My
primary motivation is to remove the shackles of regulation from innovation...so
that US Ham can innovate and experiment with new modes and technologies like
hams in the rest of the world can already do....
.. I am proposing the elimination of restrictive regulations...I actually
believe that the ARRL Bandplan does not go far enough to eliminate these
outdated restrictions...
__________________________________________________________
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
"Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist"
"A Member of the SCAMP Alpha Test Team"
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:31 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia
As previously discussed here in detail, a mode-based bandplan would
indeed be better -- as long as it also restricts semi-automatic
operation to a modest set of sub-bands. Without this restriction, we'd
be going from the frying pan to the fire. Unfortunately, the ARRL's
proposed mode-based bandplan would allow semi-automatic operation
everywhere on our bands; the resultant QRM would make operating a
frustrating, unpleasant experience for all.
Had the ARRL amended its proposal to include appropriate restrictions
on semi-automatic operation, the reaction among amateurs would have
been far more positive. So far, I've yet to encounter anyone
supporting the ARRL proposal whose primary motivation wasn't the
expansion of semi-automatic operation, as evidenced by their refusal
to endorse the restriction of semi-automatic operation to sub-bands.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is any doubt in anyones mind that there is a need for a new
bandplan which removes the shackles of outdated regulations from US
Ham... this Olivia case as the Mixw images case before it cries out
for more modern rules..
>
> While the rest of the world can freely experiment with new digital
modes, US Hams are continually restricted with silly outdate rules and
over regulation. So much for being a "Free Country"... we have to
stand on the sidelines while the rest of the world inovates....
>
> We need a bandplan that is regulated by bandwidth.. not mode or
content... and the FCC needs to get out of the business of
micromanaging what we do in the bands...
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ronchap
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Olivia
>
>
> So my next question is.
>
> Is this enough for it to be valid?
>
> http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/jalocha/mfsk_spec.html
>
> I guess maybe the only thing missing would be a Sound sample and a
Waterfall image.
>
> 73
> Ron KA2HZO
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 7:49 PM
> Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Olivia
>
>
> The FCC requires all digital modes to be publicly documented
before they can be considered "valid:"
>
> 97.309(a)(4)
>
> An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission
using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique
whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as
CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
>
> Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the
technique or protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call
signs of stations in communication and read the content of the
transmissions.
>
>
>
> After some discussion with Riley Hollingsworth, the League
created a page on the ARRLWeb for exactly this purpose. You'll find it
at:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/
>
>
>
> We don't have a description of Olivia posted at the
moment, but if we receive one that satisfies the requirements, I'll
make sure it is posted right away.
>
> Of course, a description doesn't have to be posted on the
ARRLWeb to be valid. We created the page to make it easy for the
amateur community and the FCC to quickly find and access descriptions
(a kind of "central library").
>
> 73 . . . Steve, WB8IMY
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat 2/5/2005 4:46 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Olivia
>
>
>
>
> How can Olivia be not valid? Are you sure they have not
overreacted? What
> rule violation did they claim?
>
> My understanding is that new modes are permitted as long
as they follow the
> rules and have the mode "published." The specification of
Olivia are rather
> the same as MFSK16 are they not? How can MFSK16 or for
that matter other
> digital modes be OK if Olivia is not OK?
>
> Finally, this brings up an interesting point. If it is
really true that
> Olivia is not valid, and the only reason that I can think
of why this would
> be true is that the specifications are not published
adequately, how can
> Pactor II and Pactor III be permitted to operate when the
specifications are
> not only not published, but there is no way to even
monitor the
> transmissions without a proprietary device to provide self
policing?
>
> The MixW picture issue was a interpretation of the rules
whereby something
> that is turned into digital data is an "image," based upon
its initial form
> being an image. You are right, this must not stand.
>
> What rule violation did the FCC claim?
>
> Have you considered advising your ARRL Division Director
of this situation?
>
> Finally, Steve Ford, WB8IMY, has posted to this group and
will surely take
> notice of it. Perhaps he can help clarify things. Since
you could say he
> wrote the book on amateur radio digital:)
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ronchap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 2:35 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Olivia
>
>
>
> Don't worry about Olivia anymore here in US at least.
> The mode is not valid at this time. I'm afraid It's going
the way of MIXW
> Narrow band pictures,.
> I received a Cease and Desist Letter from the regional
office to stop
> transmitting both Olivia and WinDRM.
> My call has been forwarded to the FCC for using Invalid
modes.
>
> So much for DRM and Olivia.
> Maybe this time next year changes to the rules will be made.
>
>
> Baclk to MFSK16. Olivia was fun while she lasted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT
telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT
telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
