Since the modem is readily available for anyone, including the FCC to use, I don't see any of this as a problem. I might agree that technically speaking, it could be a violation of the rules as you point out, but I suspect that if asked, the FCC would either say no problem, or more likely would just not respond, (which seems to be one of their solutions for dealing with sticky issues in the past year).
It appears from your comments that you believe that I do not support sound card modems. Clearly, I most emphatically do, but not necessarily this specific product. If someone else came along and developed a MIL-STD-188-110A, or even an MIL-STD-188-141B, Appendix C modem, I would find it very interesting provided there was no charge. As you know, I have spent a great deal of time researching MIL-STD/FED-STD/STANAG systems and have published some (hopefully) helpful outline on the hfdec yahoogroup site that looks at the three generations and maybe make some sense of what is a fairly complicated series of improvements over the past 25 + years. Direct comparisons of multi tone and single tone modems have been fairly close for a given bandwidth. I have seen at least one study that did suggest (based on projections, not total empirical data) that the multi tone may work better overall. This was for a difficult and necessarily low angle (non-NVIS) path to the south pole. Power used was in many cases, well above amateur levels. Even then, only certain hours of the day were available for any traffic to be passed depending upon ionospheric conditions. I am very open to any of these technologies and no particular bias. In fact, I have been one of the few hams who have actually tested some of these technologies. Frankly, most hams show very little interest:( I do have a healthy skepticism toward high speed single tone modems becoming popular for amateur use. Unlike military use, we do not have the ability to install the kinds of antennas that they do nor can we keep increasing power levels like they do to overcome difficult conditions. Even NVIS has its limitation. Most of us have to slow down the throughput with our more modest equipment, antennas, and power levels. But we can get the data through if we use ARQ modes, even if more slowly. I have not seen much hardware adoption of modems since the inception of PSK31. The main exception may be Pactor and Pactor2 and Pactor 3 use, especially for HF Winlink 2000. But even there we are seeing a renewed movement toward sound card technology after a hiatus of three years. [ Important clarification: I am not inherently opposed to paying for software, and I have spent hundreds of dollars in the past.. My experience has shown that when digital mode software (often true of any software) becomes freely available, adoption of similar software that has monetary cost is quite reduced and you may not have enough hams to meaningfully participate. And anything new, hardware or software, must have some compelling reasons for adoption. RFSM tests that I tried were competitive with existing software under some conditions, but not really that compelling either. ] Speaking for myself (others may view this differently) I would prefer open source, but ideally free as in beer, if not free as in speech. We have that now with at least one multi-mode digital cross platform software suite with fldigi and flarq. It is definitely a changing landscape from just a year or two ago. 73, Rick, KV9U shajducek wrote: > > There is modem ( MIL-STD-188-110 ) and its mode ( PSK serial tone ) > that comes into play and the data link protocol layer ( e.g. FED-STD- > 1052 DLP or S5066 DLP or other ) to consider, regarding the RFSMxxxx > it is the details of this layer that is unknown. > > > > That is at the modem ( MIL-STD-188-110 ) layer where you can select > the symbol rate and PSK carrier to reduce the IF BW reguirment, a > number of today's hardware MIL-STD-188-110 modems can also do so, I > did so with MARS-ALE in PC Sound Device based software modems and > others such as the RFSM boys have followed that lead as the standard > symbol rate of 2400bps and PSK carrier of 1800hz requires a full 3Khz > IF BW which is a problem when not using Military grade HF > transceivers for the most part. > > > Your view is short sighted in this regard in my opinion Rick. The use > of PCSDM based MIL-STD-188-110 modems and a given DLP is just the > ticket for properly configured Amateur stations looking to make use > of high speed HF communications as a dediated PC to such > communications is far less expensive and more versatile compared to > any hardware based modem/DLP. Such communications as I view the world > are NVIS based ECOM rather than Skywave, where any Amateur can setup > a good NVIS antenna and operate at 100w ( which due to multi-path you > don't want to exceed on NVIS paths ) power levels. However, here in > the U.S. it is rather moot as FCC rules prohibit us from taking full > advantage of MIL-STD-188-110 modems. > > I no longer get this forum in my e-mail, I have not since last > winter, I as looking at list of forums I subscribe to today an opened > this one to see what the current topics were and looked back at the > last two weeks worth of posts, it seems to have calmed down here a > lot, perhaps I will turn it back on for daily e-mails. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m > > Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1758 - Release Date: 10/31/2008 > 8:22 AM > >
