[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hello Bonnie,

Thanks for the reply.
It just seemed pretty convoluted; and, at best, nebulous.
To be honest I have never heard anyone complain about soundings, but I
may miss a lot. Compared to some best-not-be-mentioned systems, ALE
operations have not shown up on my qrm map.

73,

Bill N9DSJ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin"  wrote:
> >
> > Hard to discern what is actually happening; seems like a tempest in a
> > teapot.
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Bill N9DSJ 
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I
> opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all
> to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away.
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] Re: [multipsk] ARQ FAE - ALE400 - NBEMS dumb question

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Bill,

It is theoritically possible.

But ARQ FAE means two things:
* a modulation: it is mainly issued from ALE (DBM),
* an ARQ protocol: it is matched to this ALE DBM modulation and is issued from 
a mix between Pax/Pax2 protocol and ALE DBM. I took the idea of ARQ memory 
(which is indispensable to limit the number of retries) from Pactor 1. However 
it is a soft memory (on each symbol) not a simple (hard) character memory.

The problem is not the modulation but the ARQ protocol which is the heart of 
the system. 
FLARQ/NBEMS could use other modulation but not other ARQ protocol...

>Is it a matter of using Multidem or Gui_serv_Multipsk to link
>to FLARQ? Sorry for the ignorant questions, but that is what I do best.
Yes it is possible to use a TCP/IP link between any program (Multidem or 
Gui_serv_Multipsk) and Multipsk (this one being a simple modem).

73
Patrick







  - Original Message - 
  From: Bill McLaughlin 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:44 AM
  Subject: [multipsk] ARQ FAE - ALE400 - NBEMS dumb question


  All,

  ARQ FAE in ALE400 has proven, in my limited experience, to be
  extremely robust compared to other ARQ modes and occupies reasonable
  bandwidth. How difficult would this mode be to port to FLARQ/NBEMS?
  It seems to me to be tailor-made for this application (but what do I
  know?). Is it a matter of using Multidem or Gui_serv_Multipsk to link
  to FLARQ? Sorry for the ignorant questions, but that is what I do best.

  73,

  Bill N9DSJ



   

[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[kh6ty]

Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE 
soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the 
*shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the 
automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since 
unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity 
within range of the unattended station).

It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on 
either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*.

Skip KH6TY




Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked


DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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/
 

[digitalradio] 20M JT65A DX heard so far today.

[Andrew O'Brien]

Received by K3UK, 14076.

Date/Time   Band Call   GridSig dB
2008-01-13 13:31:00 20M DL2RMM  -9
2008-01-13 13:30:00 20M ON6NL   -14
2008-01-13 13:23:00 20M GW8ASA  IO81-17
2008-01-13 13:22:00 20M ON6NL   JO21-7
2008-01-13 13:21:00 20M GW8ASA  IO81-16
2008-01-13 13:16:00 20M PA3FYG  -14
2008-01-13 13:09:00 20M PA0BWL  JO21-20
2008-01-13 13:06:00 20M DL1ANA  -18
2008-01-13 12:55:00 20M G4MQL   IO81-19
2008-01-13 03:50:00 20M LU7KAT  FG72-25


-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

[digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Andrew O'Brien]

Yes,  I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
the IED's.   With reference to ALE soundings,  he cites ..

") 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
> 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic
> control of a digital station."


as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has
forwarded to the FCC for comment.


So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons?
Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID.
   What about Packet on 30M, APRS.  I am fairly certain these station
do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates
based on their UI-View settings.


Andy K3UK


On Jan 13, 2008 8:22 AM, kh6ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE
> soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the
> *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the
> automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since
> unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity
> within range of the unattended station).
>
> It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on
> either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*.
>
> Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
>
> DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

This is getting ridiculous!  It takes me nearly 10 seconds to say
"This is AA5J   Is the frequency in use?"

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:

>
>  This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I
>  opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all
>  to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away.
>
>  Bonnie KQ6XA

Actually, what is childish is the never-ending assertion by Winlink 
advocates that they can and should be allowed to operate in a fashion 
involving transmitting without listening.  Twice in the last seven days 
I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top 
of my QSO.  Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from 
about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it.  (QRO 
can come in handy when it comes to Pactor.)  But the Pactor station's 
actions were as illegal as heck.  This sort of thing needs to be put 
down by the FCC and I trust that it will be.

As boaters and RVers get Wi Fi access to the internet more and more, 
Pactor will die out.  As it should.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] APRS remote access / automation software

[acentient_software]

Dear APRS / Amateur Radio group,

Acentient Software is very pleased to announce the arrival of 
Adaptive Home Logic v2.0, which can be remotely accessed via APRS.

"Adaptive Home Logic is an advanced, highly flexible, easy to use 
home automation / remote access application that can seamlessly 
coordinate and control home lighting, HVAC, security and home theatre 
systems from your Windows XP computer. Version 2 includes full two-
way support for X10 and the latest UPB power line modules, two-way 
prioritised speech system, TCP/IP client / server communication 
ability,  Remote Internet Telnet Access, RSS Weather & News Feeds, 
Virtual Weather Station Graphical Display within a new user interface 
with display mapping. Other features include scheduling / conditional 
events, APRS remote access via amateur radio, Digital I/O, multiple 
serial port communication, E-mail Alerts, Sun rise/set times, It can 
even be accessed via a mobile phone + more!"

For more details, please visit http://www.acentient-software.com

[digitalradio] WSJT Advanced features

[agm54uk]

Hi All

Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can 
decode several
signals at once, I have looked but could not find.
This feature would be very useful If I could find it !!.

Andy
G8RZA

Re: [digitalradio] WSJT Advanced features

[Andrew O'Brien]

Andy,

One can decode several signals, not literally "at once" but close.
Here is what you do...

Let WSJT decode it's first signal as it normally does,  close to the
top-of-the-minute.  After the line of text has popped up on WSJT , and
BEFORE the next top-of-the-minute, locate the other signal you were
also seeing and click on it.  Within a few seconds you will see the
decoded text from that station too.  You will note that it was from
the same minute as the first station you decoded.  You can do it
several times if there are 3-4 stations.

Andy K3UK


On Jan 13, 2008 7:02 AM, agm54uk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi All
>
>  Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can
>  decode several
>  signals at once, I have looked but could not find.
>  This feature would be very useful If I could find it !!.
>
>  Andy
>  G8RZA
>
>  



-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Box SisteenHundred]

Exactly...  they *just* don't get it  

Bill  KA8VIT


> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:22:37 -0500
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
> 
> Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE 
> soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the 
> *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the 
> automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since 
> unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity 
> within range of the unattended station).
> 
> It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on 
> either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*.
> 
> Skip KH6TY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
> 
> 
> DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

_
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008

[digitalradio] Re: WSJT Advanced features

[Andrew O'Brien]

-Example


151300  2  -10  0.2  245  3 *  KI5FJ GW8ASA RRR  1   0 
   
151300 14  -10  0.0 -713  4 *  K4GST I2XDI R-17  1   0 


Two different signals, same minute . Almost 1000 Hz apart.

Andy K3UK



-- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Andy,
> 
> One can decode several signals, not literally "at once" but close.
> Here is what you do...
> 
> Let WSJT decode it's first signal as it normally does,  close to the
> top-of-the-minute.  After the line of text has popped up on WSJT , and
> BEFORE the next top-of-the-minute, locate the other signal you were
> also seeing and click on it.  Within a few seconds you will see the
> decoded text from that station too.  You will note that it was from
> the same minute as the first station you decoded.  You can do it
> several times if there are 3-4 stations.
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 

[digitalradio] Re: APRS remote access / automation software

[Andrew O'Brien]

" 

A. APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System) uses a Terminal Node
Controller (a type of radio modem) to transmit data over a packet
radio network. Its primary function permits radio amateurs to
automatically report their position, which is then displayed on a
computerised map. It can however, also be used to send and receive
short text messages. This can be utilised by Adaptive Home Logic to
receive instruction and to send alerts & status reports, allowing the
system to be remotely monitored & controlled by a mobile radio (with a
built-in TNC) independently of anyone else's communication
infrastructure, and because messages are relayed by each station
across a packet network, it's possible to stay in reliable radio
contact with the system from a great distance using fairly low powered
or even portable equipment. This is particularly useful when the other
more conventional forms of communication are simple not available,
possible or prohibitively expensive, such as a home automation system
on a yacht, RV or at a remote rural location."



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "acentient_software"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear APRS / Amateur Radio group,
> 
> Acentient Software is very pleased to announce the arrival of 
> Adaptive Home Logic v2.0, which can be remotely accessed via APRS.
> 
> "Adaptive Home Logic is an advanced, highly flexible, easy to use 
> home automation / remote access application that can seamlessly 
> coordinate and control home lighting, HVAC, security and home theatre 
> systems from your Windows XP computer. Version 2 includes full two-
> way support for X10 and the latest UPB power line modules, two-way 
> prioritised speech system, TCP/IP client / server communication 
> ability,  Remote Internet Telnet Access, RSS Weather & News Feeds, 
> Virtual Weather Station Graphical Display within a new user interface 
> with display mapping. Other features include scheduling / conditional 
> events, APRS remote access via amateur radio, Digital I/O, multiple 
> serial port communication, E-mail Alerts, Sun rise/set times, It can 
> even be accessed via a mobile phone + more!"
> 
> For more details, please visit http://www.acentient-software.com
>

Re: [digitalradio] : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Alan Barrow]

Andy wrote:
> Yes,  I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
> the IED's.   With reference to ALE soundings,  he cites ..
>
> ") 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
>   
>> 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic
>> control of a digital station."
>> 
What's sad is that the heavy majority of soundings at my station are 
absolutely attended and monitored.

And if I hear the frequency in use, I interrupt it. ALE listens on a 
channel about the same as an SSB op would, and I can pre-empt the 
transmission with a click. I can do this remotely, but the majority of 
the time, I'm at my desk, as my station is setup in my office, which is 
also where I spend my hobby time in the evenings. I also monitor/control 
via tightvnc from my upstairs computers as well as from my phone.

Their point 3 is completely invalid. 1 & 2 are subject to 
interpretation. Everyone has an opinion. Only one really counts, and we 
have not heard from them.

About the only time I need to pre-empt a sound is on 7102 aft/evening 
and it's 100% winlink/P3 traffic. Very occasionally on 20&30m, again 
winlink, and again pretty much only in the evenings.

I've never run across psk. Occasionally hear the musical tones of other 
modes, but have virtually never had to pre-empt a sound for them.

I have had the musical tones fire up right in the middle of an ALE QSO. 
Kbd to kbd. P3 more likely to fire up, but our other non-Pactor modes 
can also have hidden terminal effect. It's physics. There was even a 
post here in the last week or so about testing nbems and having musical 
tones fire up on top of them. But I did not see a witch hunt there. 
Seems it's OK for some protocols.

RTTY I've run into during contests, and the issue is they park on a 
frequency can endless call CQ for hours, with transmissions far longer 
than ALE soundings. Every 20-30 seconds. I like rtty, and use it. RTTY 
has it's right to exist as well.

But I sure get annoyed at times at what seems to me to be intentional 
interference. I suspect it's not, but frequency selection, power levels, 
and the one way nature of the qso's make me wonder. From testing, with 
narrow filters RTTY can setup on a freq and never hear an AFSK signal. 
Should they have to listen on SSB? P3 ops do listen on SSB, as that's 
the mode their radio is in (assuming they listen, which I believe most 
do). But do RTTY ops listen in SSB before transmitting? I'm pretty sure 
they do not.

When a contest op has setup shop on a heavily contended frequency, you 
can listen all you want, and hope for a break. It will never happen. So 
in that case, I do believe some hams just give up. Some go home, so go 
ahead and make their call. I just turn off the radio for a while, it's 
not worth getting frustrated over. But some seem to take enjoyment in 
getting frustrated.

I've listed in earlier email about five examples where hidden terminal 
effect, or worse, transmissions w/o listening take place daily on HF. 
These are being tolerated. All are rude. Some are clearly more malicious 
than the hapless digital operator, as they are intentional. Some are 
just sloppy ops, bad habits, but occur far more frequently than we 
encounter in the digital world. Split DX operation would have to cease 
if the rules were enforced as the recent nay-sayers would want. Unless 
you could prove you had dual receive and monitored your TX frequency 
prior to xmit. My 950SDX does that, so I could continue to operate DX 
split.

So back to ALE soundings. The neat thing about ale is that the stations 
capture LQA data from any ALE transmission, including a CQ. If soundings 
come to an end, you'll just see more calls, as stations blindly call 
each other with no LQA data rather than the focused, "know they are 
there" LQA based calls. Completely monitored, staffed, transmissions. 
But CQ's and directed calls are longer, and on more bands, more 
frequently. So this is definitely a case of "be careful of what you ask 
for".

Myself, I think the more we poke & prod the FCC with "this can't be 
legal, it's not my mode" interpretation issues the more likely we are to 
see bandwidth based sub-bands implemented. So in some aspects, we'll all 
get something, even if it's not what we want.

I'd expect something like: 10% CW only, 15% CW and narrow data (500 hz), 
25% 3kc data, 45% 3kc voice, with 5% wide voice tolerated (AM included). 
>From a number of simultaneous QSO's which can be sustained, it's an 
equitable distribution, but I know everyone will complain. That's the 
problem with forcing your parents to cut the cake, you will get what you 
get. And it's likely to be not exactly what you want.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Rick]

I must have missed something but what are IED's? The only acronym that I 
have heard are "improvised explosive device" and clearly that would be 
an odd reference in this case.

Even though there are those who strongly oppose clarity on what really 
is appropriate and inappropriate behavior with these modes, here in the 
U.S. at least, it is necessary to get some interpretation by the FCC.

PropNet is using a beaconing approach but supposedly tell their members 
that they must be full control operators. If you read the rules, it is 
not clear whether this is legal or not. If you look at the rules vis a 
vis automatic operation, then they clearly are illegal, but it could be 
possible for the FCC to interpret the rule (big stretch, I know) that 
with a control operator present, this might be OK

My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds 
of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to 
their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not 
do this and now some of us have had to take action and  do it in their 
place.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Yes,  I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
> the IED's.   With reference to ALE soundings,  he cites ..
>
> ") 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
>   
>> 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic
>> control of a digital station."
>> 
>
>
> as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has
> forwarded to the FCC for comment.
>
>
> So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons?
> Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID.
>What about Packet on 30M, APRS.  I am fairly certain these station
> do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates
> based on their UI-View settings.
>
>
> Andy K3UK
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2008 8:22 AM, kh6ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE
>> soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the
>> *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the
>> automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since
>> unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity
>> within range of the unattended station).
>>
>> It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on
>> either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*.
>>
>> Skip KH6TY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>>
>>
>> DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Alan Barrow]

Skip wrote:
> > except in designated beacon areas or the
> > automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since
> > unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other 
> activity
> > within range of the unattended station).
All the ALE data activity is in the automatic subbands unless the 
stations manually QSY off frequency under operator control.

So what's the concern?

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba


Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked


DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Andy,

That's just nonsense.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 09:03 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
>Yes,  I received a private email from the individual that is preparing
>the IED's.   With reference to ALE soundings,  he cites ..
>
>") 1 illegal 1-way transmissions;
> > 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic
> > control of a digital station."
>
>
>as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has
>forwarded to the FCC for comment.
>
>
>So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons?
>Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID.
>What about Packet on 30M, APRS.  I am fairly certain these station
>do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates
>based on their UI-View settings.
>
>
>Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[kh6ty]

If I can copy a PropNet signal, the principle of reciprocity implies that 
the operator of that station can "almost always" copy me, if I am running 
the same power, or more, and equivalent antenna as the PropNet station. So, 
if the PropNet operator is going to claim he is at the control point of the 
PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively, 
interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that 
the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing 
activity, or lying about being at the "control point".

The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, "Your call sign, your 
responsibility."

Skip KH6TY


> PropNet is using a beaconing approach but supposedly tell their members
> that they must be full control operators. If you read the rules, it is
> not clear whether this is legal or not. If you look at the rules vis a
> vis automatic operation, then they clearly are illegal, but it could be
> possible for the FCC to interpret the rule (big stretch, I know) that
> with a control operator present, this might be OK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[kh6ty]

> All the ALE data activity is in the automatic subbands unless the
> stations manually QSY off frequency under operator control.
>
> So what's the concern?

As long as it always stays in the automatic subbands, there should be no 
concern. In fact, ALE is a valuable resource, IMHO.

Skip KH6TY



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked


DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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/
 

[digitalradio] Re: APRS remote access / automation software

[jgorman01]

Yep, just what we need, more amateur to non-amateur messaging taking
place on the ham bands.  

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> " 
> 
> A. APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System) uses a Terminal Node
> Controller (a type of radio modem) to transmit data over a packet
> radio network. Its primary function permits radio amateurs to
> automatically report their position, which is then displayed on a
> computerised map. It can however, also be used to send and receive
> short text messages. This can be utilised by Adaptive Home Logic to
> receive instruction and to send alerts & status reports, allowing the
> system to be remotely monitored & controlled by a mobile radio (with a
> built-in TNC) independently of anyone else's communication
> infrastructure, and because messages are relayed by each station
> across a packet network, it's possible to stay in reliable radio
> contact with the system from a great distance using fairly low powered
> or even portable equipment. This is particularly useful when the other
> more conventional forms of communication are simple not available,
> possible or prohibitively expensive, such as a home automation system
> on a yacht, RV or at a remote rural location."
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "acentient_software"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Dear APRS / Amateur Radio group,
> > 
> > Acentient Software is very pleased to announce the arrival of 
> > Adaptive Home Logic v2.0, which can be remotely accessed via APRS.
> > 
> > "Adaptive Home Logic is an advanced, highly flexible, easy to use 
> > home automation / remote access application that can seamlessly 
> > coordinate and control home lighting, HVAC, security and home theatre 
> > systems from your Windows XP computer. Version 2 includes full two-
> > way support for X10 and the latest UPB power line modules, two-way 
> > prioritised speech system, TCP/IP client / server communication 
> > ability,  Remote Internet Telnet Access, RSS Weather & News Feeds, 
> > Virtual Weather Station Graphical Display within a new user interface 
> > with display mapping. Other features include scheduling / conditional 
> > events, APRS remote access via amateur radio, Digital I/O, multiple 
> > serial port communication, E-mail Alerts, Sun rise/set times, It can 
> > even be accessed via a mobile phone + more!"
> > 
> > For more details, please visit http://www.acentient-software.com
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: WSJT Advanced features

[agm54uk]

Tnx Andy for info.

Very useful to know.

Andy
G8RZA

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Example
> 
> 
> 151300  2  -10  0.2  245  3 *  KI5FJ GW8ASA RRR  1   0 
>
> 151300 14  -10  0.0 -713  4 *  K4GST I2XDI R-17  1   0 
> 
> 
> Two different signals, same minute . Almost 1000 Hz apart.
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
> 
> 
> -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Andy,
> > 
> > One can decode several signals, not literally "at once" but close.
> > Here is what you do...
> > 
> > Let WSJT decode it's first signal as it normally does,  close to 
the
> > top-of-the-minute.  After the line of text has popped up on 
WSJT , and
> > BEFORE the next top-of-the-minute, locate the other signal you 
were
> > also seeing and click on it.  Within a few seconds you will see 
the
> > decoded text from that station too.  You will note that it was 
from
> > the same minute as the first station you decoded.  You can do it
> > several times if there are 3-4 stations.
> > 
> > Andy K3UK
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ALE courtesy built-in

[expeditionradio]

> Skip KH6TY wrote:
>
> Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, 
> either ALE soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, 
> are permissible on the *shared* HF amateur bands, except 
> in designated beacon areas or the automatic subbands 
> ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since unattended 
> stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity 
> within range of the unattended station). 

Hi Skip,

The ALE-141 standard includes "listen-before-transmit" for 
ALL transmissions and the ALE modem controllers have channel 
occupancy detectors that can detect other signals than ALE. 
ALE listens before transmitting and listens after transmitting. 

This standard is the main one used by hams, and we have 
adapted it with some improvements to further enhance it 
for non-interference...

Ham-friendly ALE operation details that any scheduled 
station IDs happen only in the automatic subbands.
Currently, 90% of selective calls, and nearly 100% of all 
text messaging happens in the automatic sub-bands. 

All HF frequencies are shared these days... whether they 
are amateur radio bands, commercial, or government channels.
No one has "exclusive" channels any more, with few exceptions. 

Over half of the non-amateur 2-way communications 
transmissions on HF now are ALE signals, or begin with 
an ALE exchange of some type... ALE is quite simply, the 
main method being used now for initiating and 
maintaining communications on HF. 

There are many reasons for so many services adopting ALE, 
the primary one is that ALE works well... and it enables 
many stations or entities to share HF frequencies easily. 
Oddly the original premise that ALE was only for unskilled 
operators turned out differently than they expected. 
In the hands of skilled operators, ALE is being used like 
a force multiplier to enable skilled radio operators to 
handle more traffic and to monitor and communicate with 
more nets simultaneously.

Hams are late to the ALE party, but we are bringing a few 
interesting innovations of our own with us :)  

73 Bonnie KQ6XA



 

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
>My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
>of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
>their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
>do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
>place.


So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action?
It certainly was not me.  I don't even use any of those modes,
but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when
nothing is necessarily wrong.  If you want to feel powerful,
why don't you run for office or something?

Don't take this personally, please.

73,
Chuck  AA5J 

[digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[expeditionradio]

> Bill N9DSJ wrote:
> Hello Bonnie,
> Thanks for the reply.
> It just seemed pretty convoluted; and, at best, nebulous.
> To be honest I have never heard anyone complain about 
> soundings, but I may miss a lot. Compared to some 
> best-not-be-mentioned systems, ALE operations have not 
> shown up on my qrm map.

Hi Bill,

There haven't been any problems with ALE interference 
involving organized ALE nets in the past 7 years. That 
is a pretty good record for any net or mode in ham radio :)

The recent "war" as Andy puts it, is not really a war, 
but simply a tiny one-sided personal vendetta by a few 
misguided or disgruntled individuals who are trying to 
attack me personally. They have their reasons. One of 
them is mad at me for leading the opposition against the 
Digital Stone Age Petition... the other is lashing out 
because his posting privileges were suspended on HFLINK 
for being a bad boy :)   

The rumors of "RTTY contesters" being in a war against 
ALE are totally untrue... and there is no interest or 
concern about this by HFLINK members or others.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: WSJT Advanced features

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

This brings to mind the converse: it would be interesting if possible to 
have multiple TX going in the same passband on JT65.   Because of the 
synchronized time frame start time, you could hold several simultaneous 
odd- or even-minute qsos, somethich which is not possible to do on other 
digital modes which lack the coordination of tx/rx switchover times.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

I certainly agree.  Now, given the FCC's position, why do we amateurs need all
the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our ranks sending 
queries to the FCC concerning
practices by other control operators?  We are all responsible for our 
own operations.   Right?

Chuck AA5J

At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote:
>The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, "Your call sign, your
>responsibility."
>
>Skip KH6TY

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote:
>PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively,
>interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that
>the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing
>activity, or lying about being at the "control point".


Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you 
could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a 
53 or so report?  Just because you can hear them, does not mean that 
they can hear you.  They KW when you are transmitting 25W. 

Chuck  AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Rick]

All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not 
welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take 
action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd 
arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good 
situation.

When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there 
is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL 
and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what 
else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule 
interpreters?

How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree 
with that other than a person with an extreme agenda?

As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the 
answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. 
If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others?

It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are 
involved in that!

Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they 
happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need 
to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an 
interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition 
for a change.

As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health 
for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients 
that "no one really knows." It is not possible to just "know" the 
interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must 
contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt.

Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner?

73,

Rick, KV9U


Chuck Mayfield wrote:
> At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
>   
>> My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
>> of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
>> their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
>> do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
>> place.
>> 
>
>
> So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action?
> It certainly was not me.  I don't even use any of those modes,
> but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when
> nothing is necessarily wrong.  If you want to feel powerful,
> why don't you run for office or something?
>
> Don't take this personally, please.
>
> 73,
> Chuck  AA5J 
>
>   

[digitalradio] Beacons

[expeditionradio]

> Andy K3UK wrote:
> So, what about Propnet ? 
> Would this not also apply to their beacons?

Hi Andy,

Beacons essentially are transmitters without receivers.

Here's a good test to tell if a station is not beacon:
Call the station, if it responds, it isn't a beacon. 
If you can QSO with the station, it isn't a beacon. 
If you can exchange data with it, it isn't a beacon.

As I understand it, APRS stations and Propnet stations 
are using transceivers and communicating with each 
other in a net. Some of the data communications are 
automatic, or they make scheduled transmissions, but 
that doesn't make them beacons, it just makes them 
automatically controlled data stations. Both APRS and 
Propnet nets are operating in the HF automatic sub-bands.

It is somewhat ridiculous to say that every repetitive 
signal, such as a station ID, is considered a beacon... 
that would include all contesters and participants 
in pileups... among other things, the second time you 
call CQ without an answer :)

It is common for ham digital mode software to have an 
"Auto CQ" function. It continues to call CQ on a repetitive
basis until it gets a response. Many PSK31 operators 
use this feature... 
 
Bonnie KQ6XA

[digitalradio] 2007 Winter NA Contest is .....Jan 17th deadline is near...

[Andrew O'Brien]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Randy Tipton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jan 13, 2008 2:31 PM
Subject: [wsjtgroup] Jan 17th deadline is near...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]








Gentlemen; just a friendly reminder that the deadline for submitting a log
 in the 2007 Winter NA Contest is the 17th so if you plan to make an entry
 sent the log information to Mike WB2FKO. The links to the rules plus the
 NAHSMS Contest Page are given below:

 http://www.sportscliche.com/wb2fko/w07/winter_2007.html

 or

 http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm

 Thanks...
 Tip (WA5UFH)

 
 Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
 Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Members
 To unsubscribe, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Activity Periods http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/
 NAHSMS Contest Page http://www.ykc.com/wa5ufh/Rally/NAHSMS.htm

Re: [digitalradio] Beacons

[Andrew O'Brien]

Thanks Bonnie.  Can you remind us what what the automatic sub-bands
are, which frequencies ?

On Jan 13, 2008 2:28 PM, expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Andy K3UK wrote:
>  > So, what about Propnet ?
>  > Would this not also apply to their beacons?
>
>  Hi Andy,
>
>  Beacons essentially are transmitters without receivers.
>
>  Here's a good test to tell if a station is not beacon:
>  Call the station, if it responds, it isn't a beacon.
>  If you can QSO with the station, it isn't a beacon.
>  If you can exchange data with it, it isn't a beacon.
>
>  As I understand it, APRS stations and Propnet stations
>  are using transceivers and communicating with each
>  other in a net. Some of the data communications are
>  automatic, or they make scheduled transmissions, but
>  that doesn't make them beacons, it just makes them
>  automatically controlled data stations. Both APRS and
>  Propnet nets are operating in the HF automatic sub-bands.
>
>  It is somewhat ridiculous to say that every repetitive
>  signal, such as a station ID, is considered a beacon...
>  that would include all contesters and participants
>  in pileups... among other things, the second time you
>  call CQ without an answer :)
>
>  It is common for ham digital mode software to have an
>  "Auto CQ" function. It continues to call CQ on a repetitive
>  basis until it gets a response. Many PSK31 operators
>  use this feature...
>
>  Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>  



-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Roy G. Jackson]

OK, this reply has made up my mind. I, too, subscribed to this list 
thinking I would be reading about digital radio. I have tried to weed 
through the chaffe to get to the posts with some real substance. It 
seems that there are a few posters on this list who just argue any point 
that comes up, and the rest just agree with one side or the other. I 
have been licensed since 1983. I have been playing digital radio in one 
form or another for close to 20 years. That's what I am interested in. 
Don't bother replying to me on this list, because I won't see it. You 
guys enjoy yourselves.

Roy N9RG


tailfeathers wrote:
>
> Yeah...that would be the one where you buy a book and sit in the corner
> and not insult other peoples intelligence with your
> arrogance...Especially as an newbie...:>)
>
> Gary
> n8gsj
>
> n4ijs wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if this comes across off
> > base. But, I came here looking for information on digital modes for
> > Amateur Radio - not various, multi-post messages about various peoples
> > opinion (and arguments) on unrelated topics.
> >
> > I am sure that these discussions are important to a select group of
> > folks, but are there no other places for these types of discussions to
> > take place?
> >
> > I belong to several Ham related Yahoo! forums and this one certainly
> > produces (by far) the most emails; however, few are related to the
> > topic at hand. So, I have to weed through these other messages to get
> > to the "real" ones.
> >
> > If this just the way of this forum, that's fine - I will just
> > unsubscribe. I hope that isn't the case, but, if it is, can anyone
> > recommend a forum for exploring digital modes within Ham Radio?
> >
> > Thanks and 73,
> > Robert - N4IJS
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> >> In Katrina and Rita shelters were opened where there were people in
> >>
> > need.
> >
> >> Whether supplies could readily reach them was a problem to be
> >>
> > solved, not a
> >
> >> requirement for shelter location. You are not understanding the
> >>
> > widespread
> >
> >> nature of these disasters. It was easier to solve the supply problem
> >>
> > than
> >
> >> the rescue problem.
> >>
> >> A supply truck or helicopter with supplies can make it in once a
> >>
> > day. The
> >
> >> multiple vehicles, trucks or helicopters, to evacuate people were not
> >> available.
> >>
> >> Your "hypothetical" versus others "real world" experience is
> >>
> > misleading you.
> >
> >>
> >> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> >> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> >> http://TheHamNetwork.net 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
> >>
> > isolated
> >
> >> that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet you also
> >> indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive
> >>
> > to the
> >
> >> shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this
> >>
> > appears to be
> >
> >> an appeal to emotion.
> >>
> >> I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
> >>
> > open a
> >
> >> shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
> >>
> > vehicles nor
> >
> >> that had SOME kind of communications. I am pretty sure that the
> >>
> > government
> >
> >> authorities would not authorize this either. To do otherwise is simply
> >> asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the
> >> future thereby adding to the problem.
> >> Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating
> >>
> > the facts.
> >
> >> Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
> >>
> > communication, but
> >
> >> never the less, it is communications.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim
> >> WA0LYK
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 
> >
> >
> > DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm 
> 
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  

-- 
Roy G. Jackson  N9RG
Naples, Florida USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[kh6ty]

You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to 
radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power 
than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? 
Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you 
can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it 
listened.

You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old 
adage in ham radio, "If you can hear'em, you can work'em". However, this is 
only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are 
copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW!

It is against all reasonable odds that if a PropNet station consistently 
transmits on top of every station on the frequency, that it cannot hear at 
least one of them.

> Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you
> could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a
> 53 or so report?  Just because you can hear them, does not mean that
> they can hear you.  They KW when you are transmitting 25W. 
>

BTW, if they come back with a 53 report, they could detect me, couldn't 
they!

73, Skip KH6TY

[digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands

[expeditionradio]

> Andy K3UK wrote:
> Thanks Bonnie.  Can you remind us what what the automatic 
> sub-bands are, which frequencies ?

Hi Andy,

The "automatic sub-bands" are slightly different in 
various countries and IARU regional bandplans of the world. 
A map of worldwide bandplans including automatic sub-bands 
is on the web at:
http://hflink.com/bandplans

In USA's FCC rules §97.221 there are segments of the 
data sub bands that are commonly known as the 
"Automatic Sub-Bands", and this chart is on the web at:
http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg

USA Auto Sub-Band HF segments for RTTY or DATA
28.120-28.189 MHz
24.925-24.930 MHz
21.090-21.100 MHz
18.105-18.110 MHz
14.0950-14.0995 MHz
14.1005-14.112 MHz
10.140-10.150 MHz
7.100-7.105 MHz
3.585-3.600 MHz 

Also, in USA, a station may be automatically controlled 
while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 meters 
or shorter wavelength bands.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA
 

[digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[jgorman01]

A couple of answers.  One, is that as a service we are self-policing.
 I think if you read the original document establishing this, it
didn't mean that each individual polices himself but rather that the
service as a whole polices itself routing out operations that don't
follow the rules.  Part of this IS getting objective clarifications
from the ultimate arbiter, the FCC.

Two, there is a very good example of what happens when a radio service
relies upon individuals to police themselves.  Citizen Band.  As part
of your license you agree to abide by the rules as written for the
amateur service.  I simply don't understand the attitude that asking
if something is within the rules is a bad thing.  It should be
considered a good thing so that everyone knows EXACTLY what the rules
mean.  How can that be a bad thing?  Are you worried that something
you are doing may be outside the rules a bit?  

The rules and regulations have a defined process to have them
modified.  Why do people chafe at the time it takes to do this?  It
allows for planned and orderly changes that have all sides taken into
account.  Sure, some may "win" and some may "lose" but that is life.

You mention "activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes".  I would say
anyone who looks for "loopholes" or advocates doing something that is
pushing the envelope is an activist lawyer and lawyer-wannabe. 
RM-11392 is simply asking for the fcc to codify in kHz what has always
been there.  Why didn't the folks that introduced pactor 3 into the hf
bands look at bandwidth the fcc intended when they wrote the current
limits into the rules. I would say a "loophole" was taken advantage
of.  This is exactly what lawyers would do.

We have reached the point where the only rules a lot of new hams know
are those that are in the test and they are quickly forgotten.  We
also have a lot of folks that believe anything internet related
connected to an auto station is ok.

A couple of examples.  

Echolink/IRLP, are these stations automatic or under remote control. 
If automatic, does using phone violate a rule?  If remote control, are
licenses checked to make sure someone isn't operating outside their
license limits or if foreign operators without a reciprocal permit are
using the stations?  You can't have it both ways.

Beacons.  Propnet and ALE soundings are used for propagation checking.
  They are not used to establish real time two way communications
between two amateurs. How does the rule define a beacon?  It pretty
much looks to me like these are beacons.  Now if you want to do some
"creative" defining, who is acting like a lawyer?

Third party to third party emails using two unattended amateur auto
stations for an rf link.  With the proper design, this could in
essence turn into real time "instant messaging" service.  Is this ok?
 If not, why not?

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I certainly agree.  Now, given the FCC's position, why do we 
> amateurs need all the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our 
> ranks sending queries to the FCC concerning practices by other 
> control operators?  We are all responsible for our own operations.  
> Right?
> 
> Chuck AA5J
> 
> >At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote:
> >The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, "Your call sign, 
> >your responsibility."
> >
> >Skip KH6TY
>

Re: [digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands

[kh6ty]

Andy,

Bonnie's information is out of date. The IARU Region 2 bandplans, effective 
January 1, 2008, recommend additional restricitions on automatic operations 
where the bandwidth is under 500 Hz, and no automatic operations on 30m. 
ARRL signed onto the IARU bandplans as the Region 2 representative to the 
IARU. Under FCC rules, automatic operations with less than 500 Hz bandwidth 
may be conducted anywhere the mode is authorized.

http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

73, Skip KH6TY


- Original Message - 
From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] HF Automatic Sub Bands


> Andy K3UK wrote:
> Thanks Bonnie.  Can you remind us what what the automatic
> sub-bands are, which frequencies ?

Hi Andy,

The "automatic sub-bands" are slightly different in
various countries and IARU regional bandplans of the world.
A map of worldwide bandplans including automatic sub-bands
is on the web at:
http://hflink.com/bandplans

In USA's FCC rules §97.221 there are segments of the
data sub bands that are commonly known as the
"Automatic Sub-Bands", and this chart is on the web at:
http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg

USA Auto Sub-Band HF segments for RTTY or DATA
28.120-28.189 MHz
24.925-24.930 MHz
21.090-21.100 MHz
18.105-18.110 MHz
14.0950-14.0995 MHz
14.1005-14.112 MHz
10.140-10.150 MHz
7.100-7.105 MHz
3.585-3.600 MHz

Also, in USA, a station may be automatically controlled
while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 meters
or shorter wavelength bands.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA








No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 
12:23 PM

[digitalradio] Re: Beacons

[jgorman01]

Part 97.3(a)(9) Beacon. An amateur station transmitting communications
for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other 
related experimental activities.

Tell me where the mention of "receiver" or "transceiver" is in this
rule?  It simply doesn't matter what the DESIGN of the equipment is
according to this rule.  The rule covers the PURPOSE of the
transmission, not the equipment that does the transmitting.  

Station id's without being involved in a two-way communications or in
setting one up are considered one-way transmissions.  CQ's are allowed
because they are defined as:

Part 97.111(b)(2) Brief transmissions necessary to establishing 
two-way communications with other stations;

Talk about an activist lawyer and lawyer-wannabe.  You know what
judges tell lawyers that spout creative interpretation of law that
don't follow plain language, precedent, and legislative history?  "Not
in my court!"

Jim
WA0LYK



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andy K3UK wrote:
> > So, what about Propnet ? 
> > Would this not also apply to their beacons?
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> Beacons essentially are transmitters without receivers.
> 
> Here's a good test to tell if a station is not beacon:
> Call the station, if it responds, it isn't a beacon. 
> If you can QSO with the station, it isn't a beacon. 
> If you can exchange data with it, it isn't a beacon.
> 
> As I understand it, APRS stations and Propnet stations 
> are using transceivers and communicating with each 
> other in a net. Some of the data communications are 
> automatic, or they make scheduled transmissions, but 
> that doesn't make them beacons, it just makes them 
> automatically controlled data stations. Both APRS and 
> Propnet nets are operating in the HF automatic sub-bands.
> 
> It is somewhat ridiculous to say that every repetitive 
> signal, such as a station ID, is considered a beacon... 
> that would include all contesters and participants 
> in pileups... among other things, the second time you 
> call CQ without an answer :)
> 
> It is common for ham digital mode software to have an 
> "Auto CQ" function. It continues to call CQ on a repetitive
> basis until it gets a response. Many PSK31 operators 
> use this feature... 
>  
> Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands

[expeditionradio]

> Skip KH6TY wrote  
> The IARU Region 2 bandplans, effective 
> January 1, 2008, recommend additional restricitions 
> on automatic operations  
>http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf
 
Hi Skip,

The IARU Region 2 Bandplan you reference is exactly 
the same as the one I referenced, and you can click 
on the map and see it at:
http://hflink.com/bandplans

As of 01 January 2008, there exists a significant 
malfunction between the new IARU Region 2 bandplan 
and the USA FCC regulations regarding automatically 
controlled data stations.

Operators in USA must follow FCC regulations. 
They cannot follow the IARU Region 2 Bandplan 
where it contradicts FCC regulations. 

Doesn't it seem odd, that the IARU Region 2 bandplan 
committee would adopt a bandplan they know absolutely 
cannot be followed by more than 95% of the operators 
in IARU Region 2? 

This is the first time that such a thing has happened 
as far as I know. Perhaps it was due to inadvertent 
error. We haven't seen any corrections published (yet).

Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation.  I guess someone 
has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss.
I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something 
that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand 
the rules.  The people who are at FCC now, well most of them,  were 
not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and 
probably don't understand the English language any better than you 
and I.  So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have 
some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip?

Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking 
Pearl Harbor.  Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie".  Many other 
sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the 
pot" is also appropriate advice.  No one has received any citations 
for the actions you question in your list to the FCC.  Who are you after??

73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:

>All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not
>welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take
>action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd
>arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good
>situation.
>
>When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there
>is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL
>and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what
>else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule
>interpreters?
>
>How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree
>with that other than a person with an extreme agenda?
>
>As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the
>answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes.
>If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others?
>
>It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are
>involved in that!
>
>Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they
>happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need
>to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an
>interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition
>for a change.
>
>As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health
>for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients
>that "no one really knows." It is not possible to just "know" the
>interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must
>contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt.
>
>Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner?
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>Chuck Mayfield wrote:
> > At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
> >
> >> My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
> >> of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
> >> their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
> >> do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
> >> place.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action?
> > It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes,
> > but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when
> > nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful,
> > why don't you run for office or something?
> >
> > Don't take this personally, please.
> >
> > 73,
> > Chuck AA5J
> >
> >
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 
>1/12/2008 2:04 PM

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

At 01:54 PM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote:

>You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to
>radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power
>than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation?
>Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you
>can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it
>listened.
>
>You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old
>adage in ham radio, "If you can hear'em, you can work'em". However, this is
>only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are
>copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW!

Oh, Skip.  Thank you for your very welcome feedback.  I forgot you 
always have a perfectly uniform reflecting medium between you and 
everyone else.  That is why you get perfect reciprocity all the 
time.   Well it doesn't always work that way for me.

Can we get back to technical discussions now and leave the rules 
enforcement for others?  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
> Twice in the last seven days 
>I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top 
>of my QSO.  Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from 
>about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it. 


Roger - how do you know it's WinLink stations and not me and K0ABC
in a keyboard to keyboard QSO?


I know you have had a anit-wide rant for a long long time. But it's
really be showing more and more in the last 2 weeks.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 08:05 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
>This is getting ridiculous!  It takes me nearly 10 seconds to say
>"This is AA5J   Is the frequency in use?"

In what mode?

Re: [digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands

[kh6ty]

> Skip KH6TY wrote
> The IARU Region 2 bandplans, effective
> January 1, 2008, recommend additional restricitions
> on automatic operations
>http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf


As of 01 January 2008, there exists a significant
malfunction between the new IARU Region 2 bandplan
and the USA FCC regulations regarding automatically
controlled data stations.

Operators in USA must follow FCC regulations.
They cannot follow the IARU Region 2 Bandplan
where it contradicts FCC regulations.


FCC regulations specify what is allowed.

Accepted bandplans specify where FCC regulations should be applied in the 
best interest of all users.

US amateurs are requested to follow the IARU Region 2 bandplan, but cannot 
do so to the extent that they violate any FCC regulations.

Why is it OK for Winlink PMBO, VE2AFQ, to operate Pactor 3 just under 14.070 
MHz, when the Region 2 bandplan effectively says all wideband automatic 
operations, like Pactor 3, are to take place in the FCC automatic subbands? 
Is VE2AFQ just thumbing his nose at the Region 2 bandplan because it does 
not suit him? Violating FCC regulations is a criminal offense, but 
disregarding an agreed-upon bandplan is not. Doesn't that speak for the need 
for FCC regulations instead of arnachy?

In what *specific* instances does following the January 8, 2008, IARU Region 
2 Bandplan result in *illegal* activity under FCC regulations? If there any 
instances, then the FCC regulations must be followed by US licensed 
amateurs, even though under the bandplan they may be allowed. For example, 
Canadian amateurs have more freedom under the IARU Region 2 bandplan than US 
amateurs do, because FCC regulations in some places are more strict than 
Canadian regulations.

I guess I missed finding them.

In your reply to Andy, you omitted the fact that automatic operations under 
500 Hz wide are *permitted* under FCC regs anywhere the mode is permitted, 
even though the Region 2 bandplan is more restrictive.

Andy, it is recommended that US stations follow the Region 2 bandplan, 
"wherever FCC regulations permit".

73, Skip KH6TY

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Rick]

Chuck,

Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur 
bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing 
and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be 
interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have 
to wait until we find out.






Chuck Mayfield wrote:
> Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation.  I guess someone 
> has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss.
> I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something 
> that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand 
> the rules.  The people who are at FCC now, well most of them,  were 
> not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and 
> probably don't understand the English language any better than you 
> and I.  So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have 
> some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip?
>
> Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking 
> Pearl Harbor.  Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie".  Many other 
> sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the 
> pot" is also appropriate advice.  No one has received any citations 
> for the actions you question in your list to the FCC.  Who are you after??
>
> 73, Chuck AA5J
>   

RE: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Dave AA6YQ]

Rick didn't need to obtain a mandate from anyone, Chuck. The FCC accepts
proposals from all citizens.

You are entitled to believe that "nothing is necessarily wrong", but that's
hardly a compelling argument for Rick to back down.

Encouraging the FCC to clear up the ambiguity and inconsistency in its
regulations is a very good idea, and I'm glad that Rick has taken this
action.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ





-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Chuck Mayfield
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:18 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble
at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink


At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
>My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
>of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
>their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
>do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
>place.

So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action?
It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes,
but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when
nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful,
why don't you run for office or something?

Don't take this personally, please.

73,
Chuck AA5J

[digitalradio] Re: WSJT Advanced features

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hello Leigh,

Yes this happens, but more commonly using MS -- check out "random
hours(s) sometime.

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> This brings to mind the converse: it would be interesting if
possible to 
> have multiple TX going in the same passband on JT65.   Because of the 
> synchronized time frame start time, you could hold several simultaneous 
> odd- or even-minute qsos, somethich which is not possible to do on
other 
> digital modes which lack the coordination of tx/rx switchover times.
> 73,
> Leigh/WA5ZNU
>

[digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Bill McLaughlin]

Ok, I admit it, I mandated Rick to ask questions.

But seriously, why the concern about asking for clarification? And
yes, it does seem personal. 

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
> >My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
> >of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
> >their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
> >do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
> >place.
> 
> 
> So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action?
> It certainly was not me.  I don't even use any of those modes,
> but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when
> nothing is necessarily wrong.  If you want to feel powerful,
> why don't you run for office or something?
> 
> Don't take this personally, please.
> 
> 73,
> Chuck  AA5J
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Chuck Mayfield]

Jim,
At 03:28 PM 1/13/2008, jgorman01 wrote:

>A couple of answers. One, is that as a service we are self-policing.
>I think if you read the original document establishing this, it
>didn't mean that each individual polices himself but rather that the
>service as a whole polices itself routing out operations that don't
>follow the rules. Part of this IS getting objective clarifications
>from the ultimate arbiter, the FCC.



Can you say "selective rationalization"?

Each time the FCC makes a general rule into a specific rule we lose 
something.  Nothing is ever gained to change a rule from general with 
some leeway to  specific hard and fast one with no leeway.   Is that 
what we want?  All hams in lock-step and/or everyone afraid to 
experiment for fear that our own group will cause them to be shut 
down because they do things differently?

Who routes out the contesters that spread out over the whole band and 
interfere with someone each time they key their mike in response to a 
"QRZ?".  No one, because contests are radiosport.

Who routes out the DX chasers who without fail, create a "pile-up" 
and interfere with others each time they broadcast their call hoping 
that the DX station will tell them "59"?  (Surely, they can tell that 
the frequency is already in use, and surely they know that they are 
interfering with others who are attempting to contact the DX 
station)  No one. Because DXing is radiosport.

Who routes out those fools that QSO in the sub bands to which 
"automatic stations" are restricted, knowing that sooner or later 
they will be able to report that their QSO was interfered with?  Is 
that also radiosport?

I don't understand how asking questions like "Can they do that?", or 
"They can't do that, can they?" helps us self police the amateur radio service.

Homeland Security apparently wants ARS to be able to provide 
third-party traffic for them under certain scenarios.  "Can we do 
that?"  Hell, yes we can.  All we have to do to be perfectly legal is 
to provide control operators at each radio who monitor each message 
to ensure that it's content  is not un-suitable before forwarding 
it.  This list with all its traffic goes on monitored status sometimes.

Why should PMBO operator that is accepting 3rd party traffic from the 
Internet not do the same type of monitoring? According to the rules, 
that has to be done. It is certainly not illegal to receive messages 
via land-line to be forwarded.  It is certainly not illegal to 
forward third party messages via radio between amateur stations, 
provided the amateurs involved have no pecuniary interest.  It is 
certainly not illegal to deliver messages via land-line to third 
parties. So, why is this group beating on PACTOR?   It provides a 
public service.

It should be the operators that are caught using their radios 
illegally that are beat up.  Policing is not asking the busy 
engineers at FCC questions but catching perpetrators in the act of 
illegally operating their radio station.  Why do people here complain 
to FCC about Ale and Winlink stations interfering with them, though 
and not the DX chasers, who every time they key their rig and open 
their mouth interfere with someone's communication.  Why not the 
contesters who spread through the whole band in quest of points, for 
one can not have a QSO without interference when a contest is 
on.   Why are those practices not being questioned?
NB:  I use neither ALE nor WINLINK nor PACKET although if I had more 
money/cash/moolah, perhaps I would.


>Two, there is a very good example of what happens when a radio service
>relies upon individuals to police themselves. Citizen Band. As part
>of your license you agree to abide by the rules as written for the
>amateur service. I simply don't understand the attitude that asking
>if something is within the rules is a bad thing. It should be
>considered a good thing so that everyone knows EXACTLY what the rules
>mean. How can that be a bad thing? Are you worried that something
>you are doing may be outside the rules a bit?

If I need to know what I can and can not do, I look to part 97.  I 
certainly don't look to this list or reflector or whatever you call 
it.  If this reflector has 3000 members and they are all ham 
operators then the folks here represent less than 0.5% of the hams in 
the USA.

No, I am not worried at all.  And I am not worried that others are 
doing things that may be outside the rules a bit.  I have never 
operated in the so-called automatic bands because I know better than 
to do the equivalent to standing in front of an oncoming train.  I 
try to maximize my enjoyment of the hobby, and I thought that it 
might be fun to try out this new digital radio, so I joined this 
group to try to find out more about digital radio.

And CB licensees had the same requirement to agree to abide by the 
rules of part 15.  However, there it quickly became unenforceable, 
because it only cost a few hundred dollars to become a CBer,  upwar

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
> > Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor
> > Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times
> > I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we
> > were able to work through it.
>
>  Roger - how do you know it's WinLink stations and not me and K0ABC in
>  a keyboard to keyboard QSO?
>
>  I know you have had a anit-wide rant for a long long time. But it's
>  really be showing more and more in the last 2 weeks.

Your problem, John, is that you are unable to stick to an argument of 
the issues.  Instead, everything becomes personal with you as evidenced 
by the above ad hominem remarks.  Disappointing.

As to how I knew it was a Winlink station and not you, very simple.  1) 
I doubt that you do Pactor keyboard QSOs more than once in a blue moon 
(no one does); 2) under the circumstances of the interference, I simply 
refuse to believe that ANY live operator, including you, would have 
operated in such a flagrantly inconsiderate manner.  I sure hope that 
this helped your thinking, John.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 06:31 PM 1/13/2008, Chuck Mayfield wrote in part:
>So, why is this group beating on PACTOR?   It provides a 
>public service.

First you must got to ask - was this a problem before the 
sound cards modes?

ANSWER: no.

I'm all for new  ARQ modes that work as well as Amtor or Pactor.
But let one programmer change the tone of number of tones and 
give it a new name and you have a new mode.

This madness has got to stop.

RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[John Klim, N3KHK]

Sorry about the bandwidth.

"Stop the madness!" how? 

Programmers love changing programs.

As always flames to me, respectful and clean posts to the reflector.
 
73 ES CUL
== 
Mr. John R. Klim II
N3KHK
ARRL LM-0008416263, AMSAT  LM-2187,  QRPARCI  #10392,  FISTS  # 5015,  MQFD
#115,  
10-X Life Member  # 68135,  Springbok Chapter  # 1874,  Chesapeake Bay
Chapter  # 549
 
 

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of "John Becker, WØJAB"
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:55 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

At 06:31 PM 1/13/2008, Chuck Mayfield wrote in part:
>So, why is this group beating on PACTOR?   It provides a 
>public service.

First you must got to ask - was this a problem before the 
sound cards modes?

ANSWER: no.

I'm all for new  ARQ modes that work as well as Amtor or Pactor.
But let one programmer change the tone of number of tones and 
give it a new name and you have a new mode.

This madness has got to stop.












Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked


DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Comments in line

>Your problem, John, is that you are unable to stick to an argument of 
>the issues.  Instead, everything becomes personal with you as evidenced 
>by the above ad hominem remarks.  Disappointing.

Wrong again Roger.
I do pactor as well as RTTY and Amtor.
I can copy each of them modes unlike many that just complain.


>As to how I knew it was a Winlink station and not you, very simple.  1) 
>I doubt that you do Pactor keyboard QSOs more than once in a blue moon 
>(no one does);

Again wrong.

> 2) under the circumstances of the interference, I simply 
>refuse to believe that ANY live operator, including you, would have 
>operated in such a flagrantly inconsiderate manner. 

Maybe the poor guy just did not hear you.
As you may know it's very hard to ask in every mode known if
the frequency is busy.

But I feel that you just have this hate for the wide modes.

The "anti-automatic"  and   "anti-everything-that-is-not-PSK31"
hams have a very hard time understanding what the rest are doing.

Number one reason - because they CAN'T copy it with their sound card.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Chuck Mayfield]

Aw, pshaw.  I am sorry that I hurt your delicate sensitivities, 
Bill.  Get over it.  All this political and administrative bs has 
absolutely nothing to do with digitalradio.  It is one clique 
fighting with another clique.  One group is asking for clarification 
about the other group's operation.  How is that OK?

If you think that I am not allowed to express my opinion, then you 
prove my point.  However, I will not stand by without comment and get 
wet from your pissing contest.   And I will not stand by while less 
than 0.5 percent of the US amateur radio operators mucks around and 
potentially screws it up for the other 99.5 percent.  It was small 
groups of activists that got us in the incentive licensing fix, and 
it was small groups of activists that got us in the separation by 
bandwidth fix.  It will be this small group of activists that makes 
the next change happen.  I just hope the trend doesn't continue to 
worse and worse and worse.

Chuck AA5J


At 05:54 PM 1/13/2008, Bill McLaughlin wrote:

>Ok, I admit it, I mandated Rick to ask questions.


Bull



But seriously, why the concern about asking for clarification? And
>yes, it does seem personal.
>
>73,
>
>Bill N9DSJ
>
>--- In 
>digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
>Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> > At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:
> > >My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds
> > >of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
> > >their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
> > >do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
> > >place.
> >
> >
> > So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action?
> > It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes,
> > but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when
> > nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful,
> > why don't you run for office or something?
> >
> > Don't take this personally, please.
> >
> > 73,
> > Chuck AA5J
> >
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 
>1/12/2008 2:04 PM

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:

>Chuck,
>
>Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur
>bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing
>and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be
>interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have
>to wait until we find out.

Rick,

You have stooped to a very low personally insulting level here.
I am not doing anything.  I have no guilt whatsoever, except that I let
you spread your own brand of nonsense on too thickly before I protested.
You know very well that your questions are slanted against ALE and WINLINK.
Bonny didn't kick me off of any lists.  Are you doing this because 
she kicked you off hers?
You don't even know me.
You don't know what I do.
You don't know what I don't do.
How dare you drop that tripe on me?
Apparently you can dish it out but you cannot take it when
someone directly challenges your actions.

Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Chuck Mayfield]

Maybe it is nonsense.  It is certainly not worth any more effort on my part.
I hope you and Bonnie and the Winlink folks can one day see eye-to-eye.
I think all three groups are cliques and all are trying to have it their way.


Adios.

At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote:

>Chuck,
>
>Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur
>bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing
>and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be
>interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have
>to wait until we find out.
>
>Chuck Mayfield wrote:
> > Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone
> > has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss.
> > I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something
> > that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand
> > the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were
> > not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and
> > probably don't understand the English language any better than you
> > and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have
> > some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip?
> >
> > Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking
> > Pearl Harbor. Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie". Many other
> > sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the
> > pot" is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations
> > for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after??
> >
> > 73, Chuck AA5J
> >
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 
>1/12/2008 2:04 PM

[digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........

[Jack Chomley]

I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor 
etc are starting to destroy this group.
We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly 
about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to 
your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC.
I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) 
Like the rest of you, I bet!

73s

Jack VK4JRC  (I am off to play Pactor & Packet!)

RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Dave AA6YQ]

No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are unattended
stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing other stations.
Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no  fault of Pactor III.
As I've said here before, we don't ban cars because some people drive drunk;
neither should we ban Pactor because some arrogant and inconsiderate hams
operate and use unattended Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors.

John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the
development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really think that the
explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the problem". You seem to be
saying "turn the clock back 10 or 15 years and keep it there".

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of "John Becker, WOJAB"
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:55 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war


At 06:31 PM 1/13/2008, Chuck Mayfield wrote in part:
>So, why is this group beating on PACTOR? It provides a
>public service.

First you must got to ask - was this a problem before the
sound cards modes?

ANSWER: no.

I'm all for new ARQ modes that work as well as Amtor or Pactor.
But let one programmer change the tone of number of tones and
give it a new name and you have a new mode.

This madness has got to stop.

Re: [digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........

[Kevin O'Rorke]

Jack Chomley wrote:
> I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor 
> etc are starting to destroy this group.
> We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly 
> about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to 
> your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC.
> I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) 
> Like the rest of you, I bet!
>
> 73s
Jack I fully agree! This group seems to be full of Professional 
debaters, and that is not what digital radio is about.
Mr. Moderator please return this forum to its intended format.

Kevin
VK5OA

Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>  No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are
>  unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing
>  other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no
>  fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars
>  because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor because
>  some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use unattended
>  Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors.
>
>  John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving
>  the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really
>  think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the
>  problem". You seem to be saying "turn the clock back 10 or 15 years
>  and keep it there".

I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess.  
And you are right.  No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it is 
Pactor operated in a courteous fashion.  There is an interesting 
question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented modes 
such that identification in these modes is legal?  SCS claims that these 
are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights.  I don't know the 
answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking.  Put simply, if it 
takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to decode the ID, is the 
ID legal?

Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North America.  
I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is as dead as 
Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well.  When you visit the SCS 
website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed at 
non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial users. As 
far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor.

Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have 
made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes 
within the reach of most ham operators worldwide.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........

[David]

Hi Jack.you will note that the digitalradio group is populated by 
mainly US hams who love nothing but arguing among themselves about the 
merits of various digital modes.and the regulations controlling them
they forget that they are only a percentage of the Amateur Radio 
Operators from around the world and we who are the "others" are having 
to put up with there arguing
on two occasions i have withdrawn from this group due to the fact that 
two thirds of the e-mails coming into my mailbox i dont want to read as 
they are nothing but rubbish that doesnt interest this ham who lives in 
another part of the world
i have suggested that maybe another group be started  so that those who 
want to argue there points of view do so away from the rest of the world 
who are interested in DIGITAL MODES and DIGITALRADIO without all the 
arguments.This idea has not been taken up...
im considering removing myself from this group again if the arguing 
continues much longer


73 David VK4BDJ



Jack Chomley wrote:


I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor
etc are starting to destroy this group.
We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly
about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to
your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC.
I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-)
Like the rest of you, I bet!

73s

Jack VK4JRC (I am off to play Pactor & Packet!)

 

RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 07:29 PM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
> 
>John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the 
>development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really think that the 
>explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the problem". 

No I don't Dave.
But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from 
just what they have read and not seeing what it really is.

Talk about needing a seeing eye dog.

You as a programmer  has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad 
I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around
I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. But
I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the picture.

But like I side before there seems to be this "non-PSK " and 
"anti-wide" thing going.

RE: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Dave AA6YQ]

I think its very counterproductive to discourage the use of any legal mode
as long as its being properly used. Its a form of imposing one's personal
preferences on others, which has no place in this hobby.

Yes, there may be a problem with Pactor II and Pactor III not meeting the
documentation standards for protocols used by US amateurs. I have not
personally looked into this.

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:39 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war


Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
> No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are
> unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing
> other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no
> fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars
> because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor because
> some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use unattended
> Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors.
>
> John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving
> the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really
> think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the
> problem". You seem to be saying "turn the clock back 10 or 15 years
> and keep it there".

I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess.
And you are right. No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it is
Pactor operated in a courteous fashion. There is an interesting
question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented modes
such that identification in these modes is legal? SCS claims that these
are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights. I don't know the
answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking. Put simply, if it
takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to decode the ID, is the
ID legal?

Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North America.
I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is as dead as
Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well. When you visit the SCS
website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed at
non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial users. As
far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor.

Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have
made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes
within the reach of most ham operators worldwide.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] Welcome to the Group

[Howard Brown]

Chuck,

I think it has all been said on the old topic so on to bigger and better 
things.  I think you are located within VHF range from my station (12 miles SW 
of Denton).  I am looking for stations to test the NBEMS package on VHF.  What 
are your digital interests?  This would need a sound card interface and it 
would be best if we used SSB but maybe FM would work too.

My VHF antenna is at 65 feet so I think I can make it over your way OK.

Howard K5HB

PS: Rick did an excellent review of an inexpensive sound card interface in 
message 25767 of this group recently.  I am using an old Rigblaster M8 that I 
got on Ebay.

Re: [digitalradio] Welcome to the Group

[Chuck Mayfield]

Howard,
Howdy, neighbor.
I have
* an ft857D that I have yet to use except 80m cw.
* computer-ft857  interface that I bought over the internet from BuxComm.
* a 25'-55' teletower.
* an 11 element 2 m antenna somewhere in the back yard
* the windoze version of NBEMS, and
* a toshiba laptop that should work
Problem is that none of it is hooked up yet.  If I can get it up 
soon, I would like to do some NBEMS experiments with you.
I agree that SSB would be best.
I'll see if I can get set up in the next couple of days.

Chuck AA5J



At 08:55 PM 1/13/2008, Howard Brown wrote:

>Chuck,
>
>I think it has all been said on the old topic so on to bigger and 
>better things.  I think you are located within VHF range from my 
>station (12 miles SW of Denton).  I am looking for stations to test 
>the NBEMS package on VHF.  What are your digital interests?  This 
>would need a sound card interface and it would be best if we used 
>SSB but maybe FM would work too.
>
>My VHF antenna is at 65 feet so I think I can make it over your way OK.
>
>Howard K5HB
>
>PS: Rick did an excellent review of an inexpensive sound card 
>interface in message 25767 of this group recently.  I am using an 
>old Rigblaster M8 that I got on Ebay.
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 
>1/12/2008 2:04 PM

[digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands

[John Bradley]

In Canada, we are "encouraged" by RAC (Radio Amateurs of Canada) and the
Canadian government to follow the newly released

IARU Region 2 Band plan. 

 

The station you singled out, VE2AFQ, is not operating "illegally" when
operating just below 14070 as a Pactor PMBO.  A polite reminder sent to the
station might work?

 

There are a number of US PMBO Stations which list access frequencies very
close to 14070.0 . K6IXA, KB6YNO, N0IA , to name a few. 

These are certainly not in the unattended band portion.  Have a look at the
Winlink station list for more information.

 

So this brings up the questions;

 

"is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan,
when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt

To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations?"

 

And

 

" Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as
written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would
enforce this plan? "

 

John

VE5MU

 

[digitalradio] More testing of NBEMS and ALE/FAE 400

[Rick]

I was able to do additional testing today of the NBEMS (Narrow Bandwidth 
Emergency Messaging System) as well as the ALE/FAE 400 modes with a 
station not far from me. This is the kind of test I was hoping for with 
daytime 80 meter NVIS operation with modest dipoles. The station was not 
my "regular" digital friend but another ham who I have been recommending 
he considering these new technologies.

Using John, VE5MU's suggested frequencies, I set the rig up on 3584 and 
the other station called on the ALE/FAE 400 mode where we had a very 
nice ARQ chat. This mode is hard to beat for casual use and avoids all 
the usual back and forth BTU stuff:) The one thing that you have to 
remember to do though is to ID at the appropriate time interval. It is 
easy to forget to do this. So I just drop a DE KV9U from time to time.

We then switched over to NBEMS running 50 watts on his end and 25 on 
mine and using the fastest PSK250 mode. Now this high baud rate may not 
work all that well on HF if there are any propagation issues, but with a 
fairly solid signal and low noise, it performed surprisingly well, even 
for chatting. Of course neither of us can type in the 400 wpm range:) We 
tried dropping the power levels down to the 5 to 10 watt level and still 
got throughput, but 25 to 50 watts did seem optimum.

Unlike ALE/FAE 400, NBEMS does not have an ARQ chat mode. Starting out 
on non ARQ chatting, I then sent my usual test message, the Gettysburgh 
Address, which is around 1400 ASCII characters and it went through quite 
well with minimal retries. The message was successfully stored in his 
ARQreceiving folder.

We went back to chatting in the FAE 400 mode as we both really like the 
quasi duplex operation. As I have mentioned before, it is very much like 
the way the Clover II mode works.

So after signing with the "local" station, I left the rig on the same 
frequency and surprise, along comes Bill, N9DSJ later on this afternoon. 
So that was a most pleasant contact.

I might mention that because of the new configuration in the my shack, I 
can have both Multipsk and NBEMS on screen and both monitoring at the 
same time. Multipsk is running CI-V control to the ICOM rig via my 
homebrew interface and the NBEMS program is ready to key the rig via the 
Unified Microsystems interface I recently purchased and built for this 
purpose. This makes it very easy to quickly switch between programs 
although you can not transmit at the same time.

Do any of you want to try and make a connection with stations near you, 
or within range? Higher bands could be used of course for longer range. 
Do the VE5MU frequencies of 3584, 7038, 10136, 14094, 18104, 21094, seem 
to be good choices?

73,

Rick, KV9U