Re: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Dave:
 
In my dreams the answer is 
yes.   
 
Rick who is writing the SCAMP code says that Pactor 
3 is very good...and would be hard to beat...
 
 I,  personally, would love it if SCAMP 
could replace PACTOR
 
... but unfortunately, the real world creeps into 
my dreams.. 
 
we just have not yet been able to achieve the 
Speeds of Pactor 3 with SCAMP...  
 
.. if and when we ever do, and there is not 
then a Pactor 4 mode out there, then it is possible..
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 

 
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:12 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the 
  Winlink team
  Please explain why SCAMP would not totally displace 
  Pactor as a transport protocol for Winlink.   
  73,   Dave, AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  wrote:> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> > 
  wrote:> > > > >>>AA6YQ comments below:> 
  > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > 
  > > >snip<> > > > >>> I would 
  be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower to > > implement 
  multi-mode busy detection with a pure software upgrade, > > but 
  lets assume for a moment that this is technically feasible. SCS > 
  > would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, testing, 
  > > and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users decide 
  to > > invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a 
  free software > > solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the 
  answer to this > question, why would SCS undertake the 
  development?> > From k4cjx:  Primarily because with Winlink 
  2000 alone, they have > over 5,000 such modems in the hands of users. 
  Secondly, SCAMP is not > there to take the place of Pactor 3. 
  Rather, it will eventually be > another option, but not for several 
  sectors of its population. > Lastly, I believe that if it is at all 
  possible, SCS, who have always > responded positively to such 
  requests for improvement, have the know-> how to get this 
  accomplished through firmware upgrades. In other > words, why should 
  they stop now? They never have. > > Best thing to do is ask 
  them.> > > > Steve, k4cjx> > > 
  > > > > > All we can do is look for or develop 
  additional data transfer > > > protocols, and that is what we are 
  doing. With control over what > > > we do (SCAMP), I can 
  assure you that we are deploying the most > > > robust signal 
  detection available to us. If you know of any> > > specific 
  algorythms that are effective for such signal detection,> > > 
  please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it the> 
  > > best way we can, presently.> > > > >>>I 
  am thrilled with the incorporation of busy detectors in SCAMP, > 
  > and pleased that Winlink saw fit to make this investment; it is the 
  > > only viable solution to the hidden transmitter problem that 
  allows > > semi-automatic operation to peacefully co-exist with 
  person-to-> > person operation. My relevant expertise is in system 
  design and > user > > interface design, not detection 
  algorithms -- otherwise I would be > > contributing more 
  directly.> > > >    73,> > 
  > >    Dave, 
  AA6YQThe K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER 
  AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Dave Bernstein]

I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a 
contester. 

Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does 
that make it ok for Winlink on Pactor to QRM in-progress QSOs? 
Absolutely not.

Please explain how band planning by bandwidth will mitigate QRM 
caused by Winlink on Pactor due to the hidden transmitter effect.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Interesting logic. How about attempting a QSO during a contest 
> weekend?  I do believe that with band planning by bandwidth, and 
with 
> some agreements in place, both scenarios can be resolved.
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > No matter how you move things around, Steve, Winlink on Pactor 
is 
> > going to QRM the QSOs with which it shares spectrum -- unless 
you 
> > arrange for Winlink to have its own exclusive sub-bands, or 
unless 
> > SCS provides multi-mode busy detectors.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Dave, 
> > > 
> > > As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, 
for 
> > > whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and 
> > > courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come 
up 
> > > with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I 
would 
> > hope 
> > > they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and 
move 
> > the 
> > > narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they 
can 
> > > share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors 
met 
> > two 
> > > > days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation 
by 
> > > > bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would 
dramatically 
> > > increase 
> > > > the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic 
operation, 
> > and 
> > > > with it, unfortunately, QRM. 
> > > > 
> > > > I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL 
> makes 
> > a 
> > > > decision, or delays its decision for some significant 
interval.
> > > > 
> > > >73,
> > > > 
> > > >Dave, AA6YQ
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read 
enough 
> > > about 
> > > > > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be 
> here 
> > > for a 
> > > > > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place 
in 
> > ham 
> > > > radio 
> > > > > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red 
> > Cross 
> > > > etc, 
> > > > > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in 
my 
> > > opinion 
> > > > > only, most likely the same way packet has.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So since this is about digital modes other then just 
winlink, 
> > can 
> > > we 
> > > > > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or 
new 
> > > mode 
> > > > > coming out.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 73
> > > > > Kurt
> > > > > WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave,

Interesting logic. How about attempting a QSO during a contest 
weekend?  I do believe that with band planning by bandwidth, and with 
some agreements in place, both scenarios can be resolved.


Steve, k4cjx


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> No matter how you move things around, Steve, Winlink on Pactor is 
> going to QRM the QSOs with which it shares spectrum -- unless you 
> arrange for Winlink to have its own exclusive sub-bands, or unless 
> SCS provides multi-mode busy detectors.
> 
>73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Dave, 
> > 
> > As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for 
> > whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and 
> > courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come up 
> > with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I would 
> hope 
> > they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and move 
> the 
> > narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they can 
> > share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however.
> > 
> > 
> > Steve, k4cjx
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors met 
> two 
> > > days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation by 
> > > bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would dramatically 
> > increase 
> > > the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic operation, 
> and 
> > > with it, unfortunately, QRM. 
> > > 
> > > I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL 
makes 
> a 
> > > decision, or delays its decision for some significant interval.
> > > 
> > >73,
> > > 
> > >Dave, AA6YQ
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough 
> > about 
> > > > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be 
here 
> > for a 
> > > > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in 
> ham 
> > > radio 
> > > > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red 
> Cross 
> > > etc, 
> > > > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my 
> > opinion 
> > > > only, most likely the same way packet has.
> > > > 
> > > > So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, 
> can 
> > we 
> > > > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new 
> > mode 
> > > > coming out.
> > > > 
> > > > 73
> > > > Kurt
> > > > WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Dr. Howard S. White]

I already posted the methodology for calculation of 
spectrum consumption on this reflector 
under the title "Winlink Numbers"
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:01 
PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW 
  Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)
  So we can "look at the facts" as you suggest, Howard, 
  please explain how you arrived at 18 kHz as Winlink's current "channel 
  capacity" (by which I assume you really mean "spectrum 
  consumption").   
  73,   Dave, AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  wrote:> Francois.. > > Both you and Mike... totally miss 
  the point...> > If I use SSB to say to you or a third 
  party."How are you".. that is OK with you..> > But 
  if I say it digitally, especially using Winlink,  it is NOT?> 
  > Why should the transport mechanism matter?> > Second.. 
  Winlink only consumes 18KHz channel capacity to send over 150,000 messages 
  a month.. which is only a very tiny portion of all the HF bands to send a 
  huge volume of traffic.> > So before you let yourselves succumb 
  to the hysteria of the Winlink Challenged...that digital modes are 
  hijacking international frequencies.. please look at the facts..> 
  > > 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> "No Good 
  Deed Goes Unpunished"> Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado 
  Masochist"> "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America"> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > > > > > 
  >   - Original Message - >   From: 
  Francois Rochon >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:34 AM>   
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial 
  traffic)> > > >   Mike hits the point . 
  > >   Ham radio is not an American radio service 
  limited to the borders of >   the lower 
  48s>   Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't 
  count) but >   nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham 
  communications should be "of >   technical nature or not 
  warrant the use of commercial means"... in past >   times 
  autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of cellular 
  >   phone... etc.. > >   Sending 
  traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone lines 
  >   should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, > 
  >   And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in 
  emergencies and >   disasters situations no one should 
  "hijack" world wide international >   requencies on the 
  pretention that a system mode or whatever is >   prepairing 7 
  days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local or >   
  regional emergency... > >   And finaly who cares if 1% 
  of stations carry 75% of illegetimate >   trafic...> 
  >   François VE2KV> >   --- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:>   > >   > 
  >   > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical 
  issues interesting. >   > The point is that 99% of 
  QSO's going on are person to person be it >   via 
  >   > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which 
  should be used >   > only for emergincy traffic in a 
  designated sub-band.The fact is the >   > Win Link 
  people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their >   
  > personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial 
  >   > carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL 
  personal Win Link >   > traffic. If I were AOL I would 
  ask the FCC to shut Win Link down >   since 
  >   > the traffic it handles can go via a commercial 
  carrier.>   > 73's>   > Mike 
  KL7AR> > > > > >   The 
  K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/> 
  > > > > 
  -->   
  Yahoo! Groups Links> > a.. To visit your 
  group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/>   
  > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an 
  email to:> 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
  > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
  the Yahoo! Terms of Service.The K3UK 
  DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Bob DeHaney]

Perverse rewards!!!

-Original Message-
From: Dave Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 07:21
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link



That's a naive perspective. What reward do virus writers gain though 
their efforts? 

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> My point is that the motive for doing anything has to be justified 
> some reward.
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically 
extract 
> > addresses from the log, the capture of which would be 
continuous, 
> > automatic, and unattended. The captured email addresses would 
not 
> be 
> > random -- they would be guaranteed live.
> > 
> > So your response to my constructively identifying a possible 
> > weakness in Winlink is "If you succeed in gathering a saleable 
> > amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the 
addresses". 
> > You and other memebers of your team often whine about negative 
> > attitudes towards Winlink, but you'll throw a gratuitous jab at 
the 
> > drop of a hat; reap what you sow.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dave, 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to 
> grab 
> > a 
> > > few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do 
such 
> > > things, have much better methods.  Try it and see how it 
works. 
> If 
> > > you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, 
> let 
> > me 
> > > know how you bid the addresses.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access 
to 
> an 
> > > SCS 
> > > > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, 
> and 
> > > > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
> > > enterprise-
> > > > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by 
ISPs. 
> > > > 
> > > > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
> > > airwaves, 
> > > > content filters might also be a good idea.
> > > > 
> > > >73,
> > > > 
> > > >   Dave, AA6YQ   
> > > > 
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd 
Party 
> > > > traffic 
> > > > > Content Rules:
> > > > > 
> > > > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as 
> part 
> > of 
> > > > a 
> > > > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
> > > forwarding 
> > > > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
> > > violate 
> > > > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the 
violative 
> > > > > communications. They are, however, responsible for 
> > discontinuing 
> > > > such 
> > > > > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper 
> > message, 
> > > > that 
> > > > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there 
> have 
> > > > been 
> > > > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper 
> > content, 
> > > > or 
> > > > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper 
> license. 
> > If 
> > > > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan 
> copy 
> > of 
> > > > the 
> > > > > license is required.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and 
Mike's 
> > > > comment 
> > > > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in 
> > labeling 
> > > > his 
> > > > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood 
that 
> > Mike 
> > > > and 
> > > > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's 
message 
> > will 
> > > > not 
> > > > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it 
> > induce 
> > > > the 
> > > > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you 
> could 
> > > > find a 
> > > > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM 
> > discussions 
> > > > here 
> > > > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> > > > protocol 
> > > > > in 
> > > > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols 
lack 
> > the 
> > > > busy 
> > > > > > detectors that would enable statio

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Bob DeHaney]

Net traffic is allowed 3rd Party NOT!!  If they are doing it, it is illegal.
The Band Watcher will get you if you don't watch out.  

Believe it or not they are formally filing reports because of illegal
fisherman and missionaries illegally using the ham bands (READ Pirates).

73,

Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T

-Original Message-
From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 02:32
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial
traffic)



PHone patches take place all the time and in significant numbers in 
Europe. If I am mistaken, then so be it, but I believe you will find 
the Europeon Maritime Mobile Service Net performing these on a daily 
basis.  http://www.eu-mmsn.org/pages/home.html  

Steve, k4cjx


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob DeHaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Phone Patches are a mostly US capability and a poor example.  They 
are
> illegal for Radio Amateurs in most of the world, including Germany.
>  
> 73, Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T
>  
>   _  
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 17:03
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi
> commercial traffic)
>  
> François,
>  
> Both you and Mike are not hitting the point.  I would seriously 
doubt that
> every time you talk on the radio you limit your discussion to "just"
> technical matters.  I'm sure you've mentioned the weather, talked 
about your
> family, mentioned a great movie you saw or book you read and spoken 
of other
> ham friends.  Once again this has missed the mark.  How about phone 
patches
> for military personnel that are stationed abroad?  We won't let 
them talk to
> family and friends anymore?
>  
> Eric, KB6YNO
>  
> -- Original message -- 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Mike hits the point . 
> > 
> > Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the borders 
of 
> > the lower 48s 
> > Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but 
> > nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should 
be "of 
> > technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... 
in past 
> > times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of 
cellular 
> > phone... etc.. 
> > 
> > Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone 
lines 
> > should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, 
> > 
> > And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies 
and 
> > disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide 
international 
> > requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is 
> > prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local 
or 
> > regional emergency... 
> > 
> > And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate 
> > trafic... 
> > 
> > François VE2KV 
> 
> 
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
>   
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
>   
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service
>  .





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 







The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

That's a naive perspective. What reward do virus writers gain though 
their efforts? 

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> My point is that the motive for doing anything has to be justified 
> some reward.
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically 
extract 
> > addresses from the log, the capture of which would be 
continuous, 
> > automatic, and unattended. The captured email addresses would 
not 
> be 
> > random -- they would be guaranteed live.
> > 
> > So your response to my constructively identifying a possible 
> > weakness in Winlink is "If you succeed in gathering a saleable 
> > amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the 
addresses". 
> > You and other memebers of your team often whine about negative 
> > attitudes towards Winlink, but you'll throw a gratuitous jab at 
the 
> > drop of a hat; reap what you sow.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dave, 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to 
> grab 
> > a 
> > > few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do 
such 
> > > things, have much better methods.  Try it and see how it 
works. 
> If 
> > > you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, 
> let 
> > me 
> > > know how you bid the addresses.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access 
to 
> an 
> > > SCS 
> > > > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, 
> and 
> > > > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
> > > enterprise-
> > > > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by 
ISPs. 
> > > > 
> > > > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
> > > airwaves, 
> > > > content filters might also be a good idea.
> > > > 
> > > >73,
> > > > 
> > > >   Dave, AA6YQ   
> > > > 
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd 
Party 
> > > > traffic 
> > > > > Content Rules:
> > > > > 
> > > > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as 
> part 
> > of 
> > > > a 
> > > > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
> > > forwarding 
> > > > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
> > > violate 
> > > > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the 
violative 
> > > > > communications. They are, however, responsible for 
> > discontinuing 
> > > > such 
> > > > > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper 
> > message, 
> > > > that 
> > > > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there 
> have 
> > > > been 
> > > > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper 
> > content, 
> > > > or 
> > > > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper 
> license. 
> > If 
> > > > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan 
> copy 
> > of 
> > > > the 
> > > > > license is required.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and 
Mike's 
> > > > comment 
> > > > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in 
> > labeling 
> > > > his 
> > > > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood 
that 
> > Mike 
> > > > and 
> > > > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's 
message 
> > will 
> > > > not 
> > > > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it 
> > induce 
> > > > the 
> > > > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you 
> could 
> > > > find a 
> > > > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM 
> > discussions 
> > > > here 
> > > > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> > > > protocol 
> > > > > in 
> > > > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols 
lack 
> > the 
> > > > busy 
> > > > > > detectors that would enable station automation software 
> like 
> > > > > Winlink 
> > > > > > to refrain from responding to a request when the 
frequency 
> > is 
> > > > > > already in use. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The QRM in question

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Dave Bernstein]

No matter how you move things around, Steve, Winlink on Pactor is 
going to QRM the QSOs with which it shares spectrum -- unless you 
arrange for Winlink to have its own exclusive sub-bands, or unless 
SCS provides multi-mode busy detectors.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dave, 
> 
> As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for 
> whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and 
> courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come up 
> with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I would 
hope 
> they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and move 
the 
> narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they can 
> share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however.
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors met 
two 
> > days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation by 
> > bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would dramatically 
> increase 
> > the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic operation, 
and 
> > with it, unfortunately, QRM. 
> > 
> > I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL makes 
a 
> > decision, or delays its decision for some significant interval.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough 
> about 
> > > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here 
> for a 
> > > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in 
ham 
> > radio 
> > > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red 
Cross 
> > etc, 
> > > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my 
> opinion 
> > > only, most likely the same way packet has.
> > > 
> > > So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, 
can 
> we 
> > > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new 
> mode 
> > > coming out.
> > > 
> > > 73
> > > Kurt
> > > WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Dave Bernstein]

Please explain why SCAMP would not totally displace Pactor as a 
transport protocol for Winlink.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > >>>AA6YQ comments below:
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > >snip<
> 
> 
> > >>> I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower to 
> > implement multi-mode busy detection with a pure software 
upgrade, 
> > but lets assume for a moment that this is technically feasible. 
SCS 
> > would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, 
testing, 
> > and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users decide 
to 
> > invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a free 
software 
> > solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the answer to this 
> question, why would SCS undertake the development?
> 
> From k4cjx:  Primarily because with Winlink 2000 alone, they have 
> over 5,000 such modems in the hands of users. Secondly, SCAMP is 
not 
> there to take the place of Pactor 3. Rather, it will eventually be 
> another option, but not for several sectors of its population. 
> Lastly, I believe that if it is at all possible, SCS, who have 
always 
> responded positively to such requests for improvement, have the 
know-
> how to get this accomplished through firmware upgrades. In other 
> words, why should they stop now? They never have. 
> 
> Best thing to do is ask them.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > All we can do is look for or develop additional data transfer 
> > > protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control over 
what 
> > > we do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the most 
> > > robust signal detection available to us. If you know of any
> > > specific algorythms that are effective for such signal 
detection,
> > > please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it 
the
> > > best way we can, presently.
> > 
> > >>>I am thrilled with the incorporation of busy detectors in 
SCAMP, 
> > and pleased that Winlink saw fit to make this investment; it is 
the 
> > only viable solution to the hidden transmitter problem that 
allows 
> > semi-automatic operation to peacefully co-exist with person-to-
> > person operation. My relevant expertise is in system design and 
> user 
> > interface design, not detection algorithms -- otherwise I would 
be 
> > contributing more directly.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave,

Yes we have. The most severe. A real pain in the butt, but to date, 
it is working. 


Steve, k4cjx

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I meant to say "Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or 
> SWL with access to an SCS modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, 
> harvest email addresses, and sell them to spammers, I assume that 
> you have deployed an enterprise-scale anti-virus and anti-spam 
> solutions comparable to those employed by ISPs."
> 
>73,
> 
>  Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an 
> SCS 
> > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and 
> > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
> enterprise-
> > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. 
> > 
> > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
> airwaves, 
> > content filters might also be a good idea.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ   
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party 
> > traffic 
> > > Content Rules:
> > > 
> > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part 
> of 
> > a 
> > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
> forwarding 
> > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
> violate 
> > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
> > > communications. They are, however, responsible for 
discontinuing 
> > such 
> > > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, 
> > that 
> > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have 
> > been 
> > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper 
> content, 
> > or 
> > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. 
> If 
> > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy 
> of 
> > the 
> > > license is required.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's 
> > comment 
> > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in 
labeling 
> > his 
> > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that 
Mike 
> > and 
> > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message 
> will 
> > not 
> > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce 
> > the 
> > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could 
> > find a 
> > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > > 
> > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions 
> > here 
> > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> > protocol 
> > > in 
> > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the 
> > busy 
> > > > detectors that would enable station automation software like 
> > > Winlink 
> > > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is 
> > > > already in use. 
> > > > 
> > > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been 
> > QRM'd 
> > > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other 
> users 
> > > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop 
> > pretending 
> > > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK 
> > operators 
> > > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your 
> > credibility 
> > > > is called into question.
> > > > 
> > > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink 
> > detects 
> > > > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent 
> > with 
> > > > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur 
frequencies? 
> > > > 
> > > > 73,
> > > > 
> > > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > > > Mike,
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
> > > > > 
> > > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since 
> we 
> > > can 
> > > > call 
> > > > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send 
messages. 
> > AOL 
> > > > and "Ma 
> > > > > Bell" would love that.  I guess we should get the U.S. 
> Postal 
> > > > service 
> > > > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business 
> > too.  
> > > We 
> > > > might as 
> > > > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter.  
> > > > Repressive 
> > > > > regimes invoke this type of communications.  Try China or 
> > North 
> > > > Korea.  I'm 
> > > > > sure they would share your opinion.
> > 

[digitalradio] Re: Is packet dead - aka learn from the past

[Joel Kolstad]

Hi Ed,

> [Woodrick, Ed] But to perform a lot of operation, VoIP, video, 
trunking
> requires a lot higher speeds. For emergency communications, we need 
a
> heck of a lot more. We need to send 4MB pictures over the network. 
We
> need to send databases. We need to send normal size email. One big
> difference is that we tend to use your 32kbps channel as shared as
> opposed to single pipe per person. Put 10 people on the channel and 
you
> get 3kbps!

Yes, if they're all operating at once.  In a real emergency, that 
certainly is a possibility.  However, where I worked back in 1995 we 
started out with a shared 56kbps dial-up connection (which in 
actuality was 48-53kbps) shared by ~20 people and while, yes, it was 
slow, it was still workable.  (You could certainly tell when someone 
was downloading a large file!)

I guess it all boils down to... how much bandwidth do you REALLY 
need?  And can you AFFORD it?  As bandwidth requirements go up, the 
costs go up disproportionately.  I simply don't think it's viable for 
an 'all volunteer' system (such as ARES) to be able to provide any 
GUARANTEED bandwidth without significant outside funding (i.e., from 
government agencies).  If the government cannot or will not provide 
that funding, amateurs should make their best efforts to provide what 
they can on their own, but in many a disaster that simply isn't going 
to be some multi-megabit per second fat pipe back to the rest of the 
world.

In brief, I think that 128kbps is a data rate that's quite usable -- 
even for some dozen or so simultaneous users -- and yet is still 
reasonably inexpensive to provide.  

> [Woodrick, Ed] Parallel ports have all but disappeared. Serial 
ports are
> right behind. USB ports (not adapters) are peripheral connectivity 
ports
> of choice for most people now. 

I wrote a message some weeks back here about how a very large 
percentage of "USB devices" are actually serial devices internally 
and just use, e.g., an FTDI-232 chip to convert. :-)  In my mind, OK, 
this is a little cleaner than a direct serial link (since you get 
Plug-N-Play and there's no adapter to lose), but it's still 95% the 
same as a serial link.

> But Ethernet is the NETWORK PORT OF
> CHOICE! 

In many ways, I agree.  However, it does cost more than a similar USB 
device (but not much, perhaps $5-$10), and the small amount of 
configuration that's needed to get an Ethernet device working is 
enough to scare off a lot of folks.

> [Woodrick, Ed] Hmmm, why would this not be a good idea? Because 
every
> computer user in the world has access to it? 

Well, take your pick: Some quasi-open system invented by a small 
company for a market that's inherently pretty cheap and therefore has 
its security implemented by folks who probably spend the other 51 
weeks of the year working on something entirely different vs. a 
completely open system (WiFi/WiMax) that is used by companies that 
literally have money to burn but require VERY tight security and 
hence have spent literally millions of dollars to not only analyze 
the shortcoming of some of the original security implementation (WEP) 
but thereafter went and came up with newer implementations that are 
generally agreed to be secure (WPA).

Personally, I'll put my money the same place that the folks at 
Microsoft, Oracle, CitiBank, etc. do -- even if it does mean my 
wireless link is using protocols that are easily accessed and snooped 
(...they're just get encrypted data...).

(I'm also assuming that D*Star HAS encryption in the first place.  
Presumably if they use a well-known cipher such as PGP or 3DES the 
FCC might let them get away with it...  but it still seems a little 
iffy...)

I'd grant you that it's pretty poor just how flawed WEP security was 
to begin with... but we'll save that discussion for a "Let's bash the 
IEEE" thread rather than this one.

> [Woodrick, Ed] No, they aren't used to soundcards. Actually a 
relatively
> small number use soundcards, primarily because it is a relatively 
small
> number that know how to turn a computer on. 

Haha... ok, I'll take your word on that. :-)

> And it is not the sound
> cards that allow higher speeds. It's the radios that prohibit it. 
You
> just can't do high speed on a voice radio. 

Point taken, certainly true in almost all cases.  I do imagine you 
could squeeze 64kbps out of a decent handful of radios (albeit not 
128kbps...).

> [Woodrick, Ed] 128kbps isn't plenty. And when it is a shared 
channel, it
> becomes barely usable. 

I have nothing against multiple channels and using channel bonding to 
make it all appear as one larger pipe (back to that Ethernet 
interface of yours :-) ).  It's just that matter of cost again -- 
radio cost is some super-linear function of power multiplied by 
bandwidth.

> Now think of the tsunami zone where you have thousands of bodies
> that you want to send the pictures to a central database so that 
people
> can look in one spot instead of hundreds. 128kbps just 

[digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio

[digitalradio]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio 
group.

  File: /psknoise.mp4 
  Uploaded by : n7hj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Description : Noise on 20 meters centered on 14.071.5 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/psknoise.mp4 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

n7hj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 








The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Strange Noise on 20 meters

[Rick Scott]

When Beam pointed NW. It sounds like a white noise jam
or  off frequency packet.  Comes on for 10 seconds
then off for 3 seconds then on 10.  Constant and
causes a s9+ noise on my computer.  Ill cut a wave and
post it in the  files section. Look for the post for
the uploaded file.
  

any Ideas

Scotty N7HJ 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] got to be a reason ?

[John Becker]

Sorry to the list this was to go to Andy direct




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] got to be a reason ?

[John Becker]

I can understand moderating new member but,
I don't think I fall into that group since I have been
a member of your list for years.

So, what is the reason you feel I need to be moderated ?
Could it because I call em as I see em?

I have always been straight with you now it's your turn
to do the same with me Andy

John 




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Rick Williams]

Steve,

None of those people are on the five member Task Force other than Jim,
KB9MMC of course, who is the chair. The others are many of the top
ARES/RACES State Leadership, SEC, STM, etc.

Rick, KV9U



-Original Message-
From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:38 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team




Rick,

I think that healthy discussions of how to enhance any protocol or
system is a must if we are to continue to grow. The opposition to any
one model is not productive if no alternatives are suggested. There
is room for digital automatic operations, digital semi-automatic
operations and real-time digital conversational modes. The question
is where should they reside. Obviously, there is a need for improved
efficiency with any existing  or potential protocol.

This is a good forum for such discussions as long as there is not any
personal assassinations. I have seen them on other reflectors and
seen them here, and they do not assist in the process for further
development of anything positive for Amateur radio.

"Winlink Wants your Frequencies" is a perfect example of a negative
campaign spread wherever it can find a nitch in an attempt to create
a mass movement against something that always has obvious value. If
it did not, it would require no negative campaign to attempt to
destroy it. No one plays with a system that does not work.

So, improvement rather than imprisonment is a much more positive
method of progressing. This is true with Automatic operations such as
HF Packet, which I think will survive, as well as other
methodologies, such as narrow band conversational modes and semi-
automatic operations.

I did not realize that you were working with Jim, KB9MMC.  My
understanding this group consisted of KC9JS, John; Bill Niemuth,
KB9ENO; Dennis Rybicke; Gary A. Payne, N9VE; Jim Darrow, PMBO KB9MMC;
John Leekley; Mack Brophy and Sam Rowe. Be that as it may, the system
seems to be growing gradually.

Thanks for your comments,



Steve, k4cjx



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave,

My point is that the motive for doing anything has to be justified 
some reward.


Steve, k4cjx


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically extract 
> addresses from the log, the capture of which would be continuous, 
> automatic, and unattended. The captured email addresses would not 
be 
> random -- they would be guaranteed live.
> 
> So your response to my constructively identifying a possible 
> weakness in Winlink is "If you succeed in gathering a saleable 
> amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the addresses". 
> You and other memebers of your team often whine about negative 
> attitudes towards Winlink, but you'll throw a gratuitous jab at the 
> drop of a hat; reap what you sow.
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dave, 
> > 
> > 
> > My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to 
grab 
> a 
> > few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do such 
> > things, have much better methods.  Try it and see how it works. 
If 
> > you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, 
let 
> me 
> > know how you bid the addresses.
> > 
> > 
> > Steve, k4cjx
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to 
an 
> > SCS 
> > > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, 
and 
> > > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
> > enterprise-
> > > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. 
> > > 
> > > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
> > airwaves, 
> > > content filters might also be a good idea.
> > > 
> > >73,
> > > 
> > >   Dave, AA6YQ   
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party 
> > > traffic 
> > > > Content Rules:
> > > > 
> > > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as 
part 
> of 
> > > a 
> > > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
> > forwarding 
> > > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
> > violate 
> > > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
> > > > communications. They are, however, responsible for 
> discontinuing 
> > > such 
> > > > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper 
> message, 
> > > that 
> > > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there 
have 
> > > been 
> > > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper 
> content, 
> > > or 
> > > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper 
license. 
> If 
> > > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan 
copy 
> of 
> > > the 
> > > > license is required.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's 
> > > comment 
> > > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in 
> labeling 
> > > his 
> > > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that 
> Mike 
> > > and 
> > > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message 
> will 
> > > not 
> > > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it 
> induce 
> > > the 
> > > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you 
could 
> > > find a 
> > > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM 
> discussions 
> > > here 
> > > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> > > protocol 
> > > > in 
> > > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack 
> the 
> > > busy 
> > > > > detectors that would enable station automation software 
like 
> > > > Winlink 
> > > > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency 
> is 
> > > > > already in use. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally 
> been 
> > > QRM'd 
> > > > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other 
> > users 
> > > > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop 
> > > pretending 
> > > > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK 
> > > operators 
> > > > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your 
> > > credibility 
> > > > > is called into question.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink 
> > > detects 
> > > > > and quara

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

PHone patches take place all the time and in significant numbers in 
Europe. If I am mistaken, then so be it, but I believe you will find 
the Europeon Maritime Mobile Service Net performing these on a daily 
basis.  http://www.eu-mmsn.org/pages/home.html  

Steve, k4cjx


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob DeHaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Phone Patches are a mostly US capability and a poor example.  They 
are
> illegal for Radio Amateurs in most of the world, including Germany.
>  
> 73, Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T
>  
>   _  
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 17:03
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi
> commercial traffic)
>  
> François,
>  
> Both you and Mike are not hitting the point.  I would seriously 
doubt that
> every time you talk on the radio you limit your discussion to "just"
> technical matters.  I'm sure you've mentioned the weather, talked 
about your
> family, mentioned a great movie you saw or book you read and spoken 
of other
> ham friends.  Once again this has missed the mark.  How about phone 
patches
> for military personnel that are stationed abroad?  We won't let 
them talk to
> family and friends anymore?
>  
> Eric, KB6YNO
>  
> -- Original message -- 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Mike hits the point . 
> > 
> > Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the borders 
of 
> > the lower 48s 
> > Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but 
> > nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should 
be "of 
> > technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... 
in past 
> > times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of 
cellular 
> > phone... etc.. 
> > 
> > Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone 
lines 
> > should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, 
> > 
> > And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies 
and 
> > disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide 
international 
> > requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is 
> > prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local 
or 
> > regional emergency... 
> > 
> > And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate 
> > trafic... 
> > 
> > François VE2KV 
> 
> 
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
>   
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
>   
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service
>  .





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> I have a million questions and the source code is required but I 
can do 
> the busy detection
> algorithms in short order.   I have been too swamped to do anything 
> about modem work but
> if I can help make this better I will consider doing it.  I am 
buried in 
> software defined radio
> work and AMSAT work but I do not believe this channel occupied 
algorithm 
> is horrid.
> If we did our own ALE, we could move around and find unoccupied 
channels 
> and transmit
> there.  Why have we not?

>From k4cjx:  We scan now, offering clear channels, or at least, 
perceived clear channels, but ALE would cause utter chaos as would 
free signalling. In addition, Winlink 2000 is NOT fully automatic. We 
have enough problems with those who complain about "Pactor" now. I  
know this is illogical, but we are attempting to be good citizens 
regardless of many suggestions from those who oppose anything we do.

For more detailed information about what is done with Barry 
Sanderson's RDFT, you should contact KN6KB. I don't think he 
participates in these discussions. You can find him on the 
Scampprotocol Yahoo reflector.


Steve, k4cjx



> 
> Is RDFT run as an external executable?  Is it incorporated in the 
source 
> corpus for SCAMP?
> How does this work?  What changes have been made to RDFT if any?  
How 
> are the
> error correction functions handled as binary or soft?
> 
> MANY questions need to be answered before any useful contribution 
can be 
> made unless
> you can provide a shared audio stream source and have the algorithm 
run 
> on a seperate
> thread and given veto power over the transmitter.  This is 
suboptimal.
> 
> Bob
> N4HY





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically extract 
addresses from the log, the capture of which would be continuous, 
automatic, and unattended. The captured email addresses would not be 
random -- they would be guaranteed live.

So your response to my constructively identifying a possible 
weakness in Winlink is "If you succeed in gathering a saleable 
amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the addresses". 
You and other memebers of your team often whine about negative 
attitudes towards Winlink, but you'll throw a gratuitous jab at the 
drop of a hat; reap what you sow.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, 
> 
> 
> My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to grab 
a 
> few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do such 
> things, have much better methods.  Try it and see how it works. If 
> you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, let 
me 
> know how you bid the addresses.
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an 
> SCS 
> > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and 
> > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
> enterprise-
> > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. 
> > 
> > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
> airwaves, 
> > content filters might also be a good idea.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ   
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party 
> > traffic 
> > > Content Rules:
> > > 
> > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part 
of 
> > a 
> > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
> forwarding 
> > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
> violate 
> > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
> > > communications. They are, however, responsible for 
discontinuing 
> > such 
> > > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper 
message, 
> > that 
> > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have 
> > been 
> > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper 
content, 
> > or 
> > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. 
If 
> > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy 
of 
> > the 
> > > license is required.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steve, k4cjx
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's 
> > comment 
> > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in 
labeling 
> > his 
> > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that 
Mike 
> > and 
> > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message 
will 
> > not 
> > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it 
induce 
> > the 
> > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could 
> > find a 
> > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > > 
> > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM 
discussions 
> > here 
> > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> > protocol 
> > > in 
> > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack 
the 
> > busy 
> > > > detectors that would enable station automation software like 
> > > Winlink 
> > > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency 
is 
> > > > already in use. 
> > > > 
> > > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally 
been 
> > QRM'd 
> > > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other 
> users 
> > > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop 
> > pretending 
> > > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK 
> > operators 
> > > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your 
> > credibility 
> > > > is called into question.
> > > > 
> > > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink 
> > detects 
> > > > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent 
> > with 
> > > > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur 
frequencies? 
> > > > 
> > > > 73,
> > > > 
> > > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > > > Mike,
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on 
here!
> > > > > 
> > > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, 
since 
> we 
> > > can 
> > > 

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave, 

As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for 
whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and 
courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come up 
with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I would hope 
they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and move the 
narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they can 
share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however.


Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors met two 
> days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation by 
> bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would dramatically 
increase 
> the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic operation, and 
> with it, unfortunately, QRM. 
> 
> I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL makes a 
> decision, or delays its decision for some significant interval.
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough 
about 
> > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here 
for a 
> > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in ham 
> radio 
> > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red Cross 
> etc, 
> > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my 
opinion 
> > only, most likely the same way packet has.
> > 
> > So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, can 
we 
> > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new 
mode 
> > coming out.
> > 
> > 73
> > Kurt
> > WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Good comments. For Winlink 2000, there is no protocol maarriage, and 
there never has been. If something better comes along, we will adopt 
it. We always have. We are in the process of completely re-doing the 
network topology and before long, we will be adding additional 
protocols. 

However, nothing lasts forever, and that includes all present 
protocols. As much as I hate to see it, CW is slowly disappearing and 
it is hard to find a good fast qso on 40 meters these days. At least, 
much harder than it used to be.

My favorite saying, "rocks are hard, water is wet, and things change."


Thanks for your comments,


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough about 
> winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here for a 
> long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in ham 
radio 
> YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red Cross etc, 
> probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my opinion 
> only, most likely the same way packet has.
> 
> So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, can we 
> just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new mode 
> coming out.
> 
> 73
> Kurt
> WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave, 


My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to grab a 
few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do such 
things, have much better methods.  Try it and see how it works. If 
you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, let me 
know how you bid the addresses.


Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an 
SCS 
> modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and 
> sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
enterprise-
> scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. 
> 
> With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
airwaves, 
> content filters might also be a good idea.
> 
>73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ   
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party 
> traffic 
> > Content Rules:
> > 
> > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of 
> a 
> > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
forwarding 
> > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
violate 
> > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
> > communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing 
> such 
> > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > 
> > 
> > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, 
> that 
> > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have 
> been 
> > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content, 
> or 
> > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If 
> > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of 
> the 
> > license is required.
> > 
> > 
> > Steve, k4cjx
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's 
> comment 
> > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling 
> his 
> > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike 
> and 
> > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will 
> not 
> > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce 
> the 
> > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could 
> find a 
> > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > 
> > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions 
> here 
> > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> protocol 
> > in 
> > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the 
> busy 
> > > detectors that would enable station automation software like 
> > Winlink 
> > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is 
> > > already in use. 
> > > 
> > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been 
> QRM'd 
> > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other 
users 
> > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop 
> pretending 
> > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK 
> operators 
> > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your 
> credibility 
> > > is called into question.
> > > 
> > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink 
> detects 
> > > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent 
> with 
> > > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? 
> > > 
> > > 73,
> > > 
> > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > > > Mike,
> > > > 
> > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
> > > > 
> > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since 
we 
> > can 
> > > call 
> > > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. 
> AOL 
> > > and "Ma 
> > > > Bell" would love that.  I guess we should get the U.S. Postal 
> > > service 
> > > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business 
> too.  
> > We 
> > > might as 
> > > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter.  
> > > Repressive 
> > > > regimes invoke this type of communications.  Try China or 
> North 
> > > Korea.  I'm 
> > > > sure they would share your opinion.
> > > > 
> > > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode.  PACTOR and SCAMP 
> are 
> > > modes and 
> > > > part of a system.
> > > > 
> > > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, 
> > > SSTV/FAX image, 
> > > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal.  That 
> is 
> > > what ham 
> > > > radio is all about.
> > > > 
> > > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band 
> > PACTOR 
> > > 3 signals 
> > > > on HF and supposed QRM between stations.

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> >>>AA6YQ comments below:
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >snip<


> >>> I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower to 
> implement multi-mode busy detection with a pure software upgrade, 
> but lets assume for a moment that this is technically feasible. SCS 
> would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, testing, 
> and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users decide to 
> invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a free software 
> solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the answer to this 
question, why would SCS undertake the development?

>From k4cjx:  Primarily because with Winlink 2000 alone, they have 
over 5,000 such modems in the hands of users. Secondly, SCAMP is not 
there to take the place of Pactor 3. Rather, it will eventually be 
another option, but not for several sectors of its population. 
Lastly, I believe that if it is at all possible, SCS, who have always 
responded positively to such requests for improvement, have the know-
how to get this accomplished through firmware upgrades. In other 
words, why should they stop now? They never have. 

Best thing to do is ask them.



Steve, k4cjx

> 
> 
> > All we can do is look for or develop additional data transfer 
> > protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control over what 
> > we do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the most 
> > robust signal detection available to us. If you know of any
> > specific algorythms that are effective for such signal detection,
> > please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it the
> > best way we can, presently.
> 
> >>>I am thrilled with the incorporation of busy detectors in SCAMP, 
> and pleased that Winlink saw fit to make this investment; it is the 
> only viable solution to the hidden transmitter problem that allows 
> semi-automatic operation to peacefully co-exist with person-to-
> person operation. My relevant expertise is in system design and 
user 
> interface design, not detection algorithms -- otherwise I would be 
> contributing more directly.
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, AA6YQ





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Digital third party traffic

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave,

What portion of the band were you operating PSK on 30 meters? What 
CENTER frequency?  When was this. In other words, time and date?  

I believe that with the proper band plan, allowing a segment for 
automatic operations and allowing properly use semi-automated 
operations to exist elsewhere, but not on top of PSK or ANY other 
narrow band modes will come in due time. I am certainly a proponent 
of bandwidth separation, but not much more. I also am in agreement 
with what the FCC has been stating that, like CW is today, 
unregulated as far as its place in the HF spectrum.  


Steve, k4cjx





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> I did not disagree with the substance of Eric KB6YNO's comments, 
but 
> rather their tone; I'd give him a 593.
> 
> I've been QRM'd by PMBOs while operating PSK on the 30m band, and 
> while operating RTTY on the 30m and 40m bands. In all cases, the 
> PMBOs were using Pactor-2, which is not confined to the fully-
> automatic sub-bands.
> 
> I agree that Rick KN6KB is doing excellent work on the busy 
detector 
> front. To encourage more of this, I recommended
> 
> - allowing semi-automatic operation with station automation 
software 
> that utilizes busy detectors to operate anywhere in the ham bands, 
> limited only by retrictions on signal bandwidth
> 
> - confining semi-autmatic operation with station automation 
software 
> that lacks or ignores busy detectors to a set of sub-bands whose 
> span is periodically reduced.
> 
> With regard to message content, the Winlink scenario is a 
> challenging one because the author of a Winlink-delivered message 
> may not be a ham, and may not be aware that the message will be 
> delivered via a mechanism that imposes restrictions on content. 
> There is also the problem that email addresses are sent in clear-
> text, and thus can easily be harvested.
> 
>   73,
> 
>  Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > Eric is well known for his tactful approach to discussion;) 
> However, Mike's
> > opposition to third party traffic is a bit late in the game. Even 
> phone
> > patching was done well before I was first licensed and that was 
> over 40
> > years ago. Same thing with the amateur radio emergency nets, not 
> the least
> > of which is the entire ARRL NTS (National Traffic System) here in 
> the U.S.
> > 
> > If we think back to the impetus for the formation of the ARRL, it 
> was done
> > specifically to relay such traffic. So this kind of message 
> handling goes
> > back to the very foundation of ham radio. The reason that it is 
> not done in
> > some other countries, particularly the EU, was due to ownership 
of 
> the
> > telecommunications system by the governments themselves and they 
> did not
> > want any competition to take away revenues. In the U.S. the
> > telecommunications are owned by private companies and the 
> government is much
> > less concerned about any revenue loss.
> > 
> > One of the things about Pactor QRM'ing that I still am not clear 
> on ... who
> > is really doing it? Has this ever happened to anyone in the PSK31 
> watering
> > holes?
> > 
> > If so, then you know they are not Winlink 2000 stations. From my
> > understanding, the Winlink frequencies are fairly limited and 
they 
> further
> > limit many of the smaller bandwidth transmissions (< 500 Hz) to 
> the fully
> > automatic subbands, if my understanding is correct from recent 
> comments.
> > 
> > Is there a table that shows all the spot frequencies? Each of the 
> published
> > PMBO's does list their frequencies of course but you would have 
to 
> go
> > through each one to come up with a composite.
> > 
> > While I do support changes to the U.S. subbands, I did write to 
> the ARRL
> > with my recommendation that they do not allow stations without a 
> human
> > operator and without automatic detection of a busy channel to 
> operate
> > outside the "automatic" area of the data subbands. (Perhaps those 
> subbands
> > could be made slightly larger?).  This seems like the best 
> solution at this
> > time.
> > 
> > The busy channel technology developed by Rick, KN6KB is 
impressive 
> and I
> > fully support the use of this technology in any automatic or semi-
> automatic
> > stations. Maybe even for programs with human operators such as we 
> have now
> > with the SCAMP mode in the Paclink SCD program:)
> > 
> > As far as the U.S. FCC regulations on data content of messages 
> entering
> > automated systems, with Winlink being only one example, this was 
> decided
> > some years ago due to the situation that occurred on packet 
radio. 
> It was
> > decided that the responsibility of the content rests primarily 
> upon the
> > person placing the data into the system at the initial point of 
> entry. The
> > system operator can only be held liable if they willingly allow 
> illegal
> > messages to cont

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Rick,

I think that healthy discussions of how to enhance any protocol or 
system is a must if we are to continue to grow. The opposition to any 
one model is not productive if no alternatives are suggested. There 
is room for digital automatic operations, digital semi-automatic 
operations and real-time digital conversational modes. The question 
is where should they reside. Obviously, there is a need for improved 
efficiency with any existing  or potential protocol. 

This is a good forum for such discussions as long as there is not any 
personal assassinations. I have seen them on other reflectors and 
seen them here, and they do not assist in the process for further 
development of anything positive for Amateur radio. 

"Winlink Wants your Frequencies" is a perfect example of a negative 
campaign spread wherever it can find a nitch in an attempt to create 
a mass movement against something that always has obvious value. If 
it did not, it would require no negative campaign to attempt to 
destroy it. No one plays with a system that does not work.

So, improvement rather than imprisonment is a much more positive 
method of progressing. This is true with Automatic operations such as 
HF Packet, which I think will survive, as well as other 
methodologies, such as narrow band conversational modes and semi-
automatic operations. 

I did not realize that you were working with Jim, KB9MMC.  My 
understanding this group consisted of KC9JS, John; Bill Niemuth, 
KB9ENO; Dennis Rybicke; Gary A. Payne, N9VE; Jim Darrow, PMBO KB9MMC; 
John Leekley; Mack Brophy and Sam Rowe. Be that as it may, the system 
seems to be growing gradually.

Thanks for your comments,



Steve, k4cjx
  

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> In the past, I have suggested a separate discussion group. I was 
going to
> start one, but am hesitant to do this due to some practical time 
limitations
> with participation in a number of groups, one of which is fairly 
large that
> I co-moderate. But it is probably a good idea to separate this out. 
You
> would have a lot less people being turned away from WL2K. And you 
would also
> have the more moderate people giving a more balanced perspective.
> 
> Actually, what we really need is an amateur radio network 
discussion group
> that looks at all possibilities for the future. But from what I can 
tell,
> there may not be that much interest. Maybe I'm wrong?
> 
> However, on your list, the messages and the tone of the messages do 
indicate
> tacit approval of their "groupthink" which is no different than any 
other
> group that has one specific agenda. Groups like this one 
(digitalradio) are
> more of an open discussion on many related topics and is much less
> threatening since you will hear both sides. Actually, sometimes 
there are
> many sides to an issue:)
> 
> Our Task Force has the Milwaukee ePMBO and you should see it as  
 as
> you would have had to set it up by remote control as you do with 
any server
> on the WL2K system.
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:58 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick,
> 
> Yes, the WL2KEmComm group is focused on implementation issues, and 
is
> not set up for "should we" discussions regarding deployments. As
> modorator of the group, I have no particular objection to such
> discussions, but I don't write all the messages, and I am not afraid
> to reflect my own personal point-of-veiw.
> 
> What is the call letters of the EmComm PMBO you describe?
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

All,

Actually, it is not the PSK mode. It is a wonderful way to converse 
in real-time. Rather, it is the few who continually stir the pot just 
to be "right." Hopefully, soon, we will have a band plan proposal 
that will eliminate this conflict by separating these conflicting 
issues, not by regulation, but by design.


Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well said John.. but the "anti any Mode" crap started with the 
demise of the spark gap 
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist"
> "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America"
> Website: www.ky6la.com 
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: John Becker 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:58 AM
>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Win Link
> 
> 
>   the packet systems too Mike?
>   They also handle a lot of what some here
>   are calling "email". Or should all "traffic" nets
>   that pass anything that could be sent via AOL
>   be shut down.
> 
>   Seem to me everything was rosy till PSK got here.
> 
>   This "anti- any mode except for" crap has got to stop soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   At 01:05 PM 4/8/05, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>   >I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues 
interesting.
>   >The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be 
it via
>   >SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be 
used
>   >only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is 
the
>   >Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their
>   >personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a 
commercial
>   >carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win 
Link
>   >traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down 
since
>   >the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
>   >73's
>   >Mike KL7AR
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT 
telnet://208.15.25.196/
>   >
>   >Yahoo! Groups Links
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
--
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
>   
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

Sorry, John. My comments are preceded by a >>> marker.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ







The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[John Becker]

Dave,
Sorry, but a but confused to what you are quoting to
and what you are replying to...
where does your quoting end and your replying begin ?




At 04:42 PM 4/11/05, you wrote:


> >>>AA6YQ comments below
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >snip<
>
> > I'm sticking to my guns about what I said about Mike's comments.
>While you may have not interpreted what he said quite like I did,
>the tone struck a cord with me.  Mike said that "personal e-mail
>traffic" should be sent via commercial carrier.  E-mail is just one
>means of sending "personal messages."  So, to me this meant that he
>was suggesting personal messages should stop altogether.  That means
>the NTS system would have to shut down.  The Maritime Mobile Net
>should cease operations and all communications of a "personal
>nature" would also have to stop.  This is how I interpreted his post
>and I'm not deviating from what I posted as a reply.
>
> >>>I completely agree with the substance of your response to Mike,
>but found its tone highly objectionable. We can discuss, argue, and
>disagree without being inflammatory or intimidating. Can't we?
>
> > With all this talk about busy detectors for PACTOR, where are the
>suggestions about detectors with the other modes?  There are so many
>modes to choose from.
>
> >>>We've been talking about the need for busy detectors that can
>identify a frequency already occupied by a QSO in SSB, CW, PSK,
>RTTY, Pactor, MFSK, or SSTV -- in short any of the modes with which
>a semi-automatic station is likely to share spectrum. The busy
>detectors that Rick KN6KB has included in SCAMP don't yet handle all
>of these modes, but do more than I expected in a first iteration.
>
> > Message content is reviewed by every single WL2K SysOp.  I check
>my system daily to ensure that only appropriate content is sent
>to/from my station.  The degree of checking will undoubtedly be
>different with every SysOp.  With that said, we all check our
>message queue regularly.  I have scolded a number of stations for
>communicating improperly.  While I certainly don't understand French
>or German, Babbelfish at Altavista certainly gives me the gist of
>what's being said.
>
> >>>Individual message review by humans will not scale. Howard has
>been saying that Winlink is already handling ~5000 messages per day.
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>
>
>
>The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>







The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Bob DeHaney]

Phone Patches are a mostly US capability
and a poor example.  They are illegal for
Radio Amateurs in most of the world, including Germany.

 

73, Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 17:03
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)



 



François,





 





Both you and Mike are not hitting the point.  I would seriously
doubt that every time you talk on the radio you limit your discussion to
"just" technical matters.  I'm sure you've mentioned the
weather, talked about your family, mentioned a great movie you saw or book you
read and spoken of other ham friends.  Once again this has missed the
mark.  How about phone patches for military personnel that are stationed
abroad?  We won't let them talk to family and friends anymore?





 





Eric, KB6YNO





 





-- Original message -- 

> 
> 
> Mike hits the point . 
> 
> Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the borders of 
> the lower 48s 
> Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but 
> nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should be
"of 
> technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... in
past 
> times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of cellular 
> phone... etc.. 
> 
> Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone lines 
> should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, 
> 
> And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies and 
> disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide
international 
> requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is 
> prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local or 
> regional emergency... 
> 
> And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate 
> trafic... 
> 
> François VE2KV 





The
K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Robert McGwier]

I have a million questions and the source code is required but I can do 
the busy detection
algorithms in short order.   I have been too swamped to do anything 
about modem work but
if I can help make this better I will consider doing it.  I am buried in 
software defined radio
work and AMSAT work but I do not believe this channel occupied algorithm 
is horrid.
If we did our own ALE, we could move around and find unoccupied channels 
and transmit
there.  Why have we not?

Is RDFT run as an external executable?  Is it incorporated in the source 
corpus for SCAMP?
How does this work?  What changes have been made to RDFT if any?  How 
are the
error correction functions handled as binary or soft?

MANY questions need to be answered before any useful contribution can be 
made unless
you can provide a shared audio stream source and have the algorithm run 
on a seperate
thread and given veto power over the transmitter.  This is suboptimal.

Bob
N4HY






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Dave Bernstein]

The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors met two 
days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation by 
bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would dramatically increase 
the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic operation, and 
with it, unfortunately, QRM. 

I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL makes a 
decision, or delays its decision for some significant interval.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough about 
> winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here for a 
> long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in ham 
radio 
> YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red Cross 
etc, 
> probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my opinion 
> only, most likely the same way packet has.
> 
> So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, can we 
> just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new mode 
> coming out.
> 
> 73
> Kurt
> WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

Sorry, I meant to say "Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or 
SWL with access to an SCS modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, 
harvest email addresses, and sell them to spammers, I assume that 
you have deployed an enterprise-scale anti-virus and anti-spam 
solutions comparable to those employed by ISPs."

   73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an 
SCS 
> modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and 
> sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an 
enterprise-
> scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. 
> 
> With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the 
airwaves, 
> content filters might also be a good idea.
> 
>73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ   
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party 
> traffic 
> > Content Rules:
> > 
> > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part 
of 
> a 
> > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of 
forwarding 
> > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that 
violate 
> > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
> > communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing 
> such 
> > communications once they become aware of their presence."
> > 
> > 
> > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, 
> that 
> > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have 
> been 
> > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper 
content, 
> or 
> > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. 
If 
> > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy 
of 
> the 
> > license is required.
> > 
> > 
> > Steve, k4cjx
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's 
> comment 
> > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling 
> his 
> > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike 
> and 
> > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message 
will 
> not 
> > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce 
> the 
> > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could 
> find a 
> > > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > > 
> > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions 
> here 
> > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
> protocol 
> > in 
> > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the 
> busy 
> > > detectors that would enable station automation software like 
> > Winlink 
> > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is 
> > > already in use. 
> > > 
> > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been 
> QRM'd 
> > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other 
users 
> > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop 
> pretending 
> > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK 
> operators 
> > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your 
> credibility 
> > > is called into question.
> > > 
> > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink 
> detects 
> > > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent 
> with 
> > > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? 
> > > 
> > > 73,
> > > 
> > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > > > Mike,
> > > > 
> > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
> > > > 
> > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since 
we 
> > can 
> > > call 
> > > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. 
> AOL 
> > > and "Ma 
> > > > Bell" would love that.  I guess we should get the U.S. 
Postal 
> > > service 
> > > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business 
> too.  
> > We 
> > > might as 
> > > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter.  
> > > Repressive 
> > > > regimes invoke this type of communications.  Try China or 
> North 
> > > Korea.  I'm 
> > > > sure they would share your opinion.
> > > > 
> > > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode.  PACTOR and 
SCAMP 
> are 
> > > modes and 
> > > > part of a system.
> > > > 
> > > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, 
> > > SSTV/FAX image, 
> > > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal.  
That 
> is 
> > > what ham 
> > > > radio is all about.
> > > > 
> > > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band 
> > PACTOR 
> > > 3 signals 
> > > > on HF and supposed QRM between s

[digitalradio] Winlink

[Kurt]

I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough about 
winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here for a 
long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in ham radio 
YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red Cross etc, 
probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my opinion 
only, most likely the same way packet has.

So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, can we 
just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new mode 
coming out.

73
Kurt
WA8VBX





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Dave Bernstein]

So we can "look at the facts" as you suggest, Howard, please explain 
how you arrived at 18 kHz as Winlink's current "channel capacity" 
(by which I assume you really mean "spectrum consumption").

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francois.. 
> 
> Both you and Mike... totally miss the point...
> 
> If I use SSB to say to you or a third party."How are 
you".. that is OK with you..
> 
> But if I say it digitally, especially using Winlink,  it is NOT?
> 
> Why should the transport mechanism matter?
> 
> Second.. Winlink only consumes 18KHz channel capacity to send over 
150,000 messages a month.. which is only a very tiny portion of all 
the HF bands to send a huge volume of traffic.
> 
> So before you let yourselves succumb to the hysteria of the 
Winlink Challenged...that digital modes are hijacking international 
frequencies.. please look at the facts..
> 
> 
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist"
> "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America"
> Website: www.ky6la.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Francois Rochon 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:34 AM
>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi 
commercial traffic)
> 
> 
> 
>   Mike hits the point . 
> 
>   Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the 
borders of 
>   the lower 48s
>   Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) 
but 
>   nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should 
be "of 
>   technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... 
in past 
>   times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of 
cellular 
>   phone... etc.. 
> 
>   Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or 
phone lines 
>   should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, 
> 
>   And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies 
and 
>   disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide 
international 
>   requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is 
>   prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local 
or 
>   regional emergency... 
> 
>   And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate 
>   trafic...
> 
>   François VE2KV
> 
>   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>   > 
>   > 
>   > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues 
interesting. 
>   > The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person 
be it 
>   via 
>   > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be 
used 
>   > only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact 
is the 
>   > Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their 
>   > personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a 
commercial 
>   > carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win 
Link 
>   > traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link 
down 
>   since 
>   > the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
>   > 73's
>   > Mike KL7AR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT 
telnet://208.15.25.196/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
---
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
>   
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms 
of Service.





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I wasn't being specific to "just" P3.  I used it as a particular 
example.  We all know we're talking about PACTOR.  I said "supposed" 
because I believe that "most" of the negative comments here 
regarding PACTOR QRM are thrown on WL2K.  There are SO many other 
stations out there that use PACTOR and the older Winlink Classic 
software, which is not related to us anymore.  It hasn't been since 
2000.  I "believe" that we're being ganged up on because we have a 
face, a name and a well published web site.  I'd go so far as to use 
the word, "Scapegoat."  I KNOW that last comment is going get some e-
mail firing back!

>>>Maybe I'm just lucky, but in each case that I've been QRM'd, the 
source was a Winlink PMBO. But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is 
that we not change the rules in a way that would greatly expand the 
QRM caused by semi-automatic operation without busy detectors -- 
whether its from Winlink Classic, Winlink 2000, or Winlink 2010.

>>>In my view Winlink has made itself a target by

- refusing to acknowledge the QRM its current Pactor-based 
operations cause

- attempting to shift the blame for hidden transmitter QRM to PSK 
stations using panoramic reception

- being arrogant and defensive in its responses to constructive 
critique, questions, and suggestions

>>>On the other hand, Winlink has included busy detectors in the 
SCAMP development effort -- an entirely appropriate technical 
solution. In summary, Winlink is saying the wrong things, while 
doing the right thing.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>snip<

> I'm sticking to my guns about what I said about Mike's comments.  
While you may have not interpreted what he said quite like I did, 
the tone struck a cord with me.  Mike said that "personal e-mail 
traffic" should be sent via commercial carrier.  E-mail is just one 
means of sending "personal messages."  So, to me this meant that he 
was suggesting personal messages should stop altogether.  That means 
the NTS system would have to shut down.  The Maritime Mobile Net 
should cease operations and all communications of a "personal 
nature" would also have to stop.  This is how I interpreted his post 
and I'm not deviating from what I posted as a reply.

>>>I completely agree with the substance of your response to Mike, 
but found its tone highly objectionable. We can discuss, argue, and 
disagree without being inflammatory or intimidating. Can't we?

> With all this talk about busy detectors for PACTOR, where are the 
suggestions about detectors with the other modes?  There are so many 
modes to choose from.

>>>We've been talking about the need for busy detectors that can 
identify a frequency already occupied by a QSO in SSB, CW, PSK, 
RTTY, Pactor, MFSK, or SSTV -- in short any of the modes with which 
a semi-automatic station is likely to share spectrum. The busy 
detectors that Rick KN6KB has included in SCAMP don't yet handle all 
of these modes, but do more than I expected in a first iteration.

> Message content is reviewed by every single WL2K SysOp.  I check 
my system daily to ensure that only appropriate content is sent 
to/from my station.  The degree of checking will undoubtedly be 
different with every SysOp.  With that said, we all check our 
message queue regularly.  I have scolded a number of stations for 
communicating improperly.  While I certainly don't understand French 
or German, Babbelfish at Altavista certainly gives me the gist of 
what's being said.

>>>Individual message review by humans will not scale. Howard has 
been saying that Winlink is already handling ~5000 messages per day.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Dave Bernstein]

Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an SCS 
modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and 
sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an enterprise-
scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. 

With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the airwaves, 
content filters might also be a good idea.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ   

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party 
traffic 
> Content Rules:
> 
> §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of 
a 
> message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding 
> stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate 
> the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
> communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing 
such 
> communications once they become aware of their presence."
> 
> 
> For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, 
that 
> is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have 
been 
> over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content, 
or 
> improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If 
> there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of 
the 
> license is required.
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's 
comment 
> > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling 
his 
> > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike 
and 
> > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will 
not 
> > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce 
the 
> > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could 
find a 
> > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> > 
> > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions 
here 
> > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor 
protocol 
> in 
> > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the 
busy 
> > detectors that would enable station automation software like 
> Winlink 
> > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is 
> > already in use. 
> > 
> > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been 
QRM'd 
> > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users 
> > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop 
pretending 
> > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK 
operators 
> > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your 
credibility 
> > is called into question.
> > 
> > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink 
detects 
> > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent 
with 
> > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? 
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > > Mike,
> > > 
> > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
> > > 
> > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we 
> can 
> > call 
> > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. 
AOL 
> > and "Ma 
> > > Bell" would love that.  I guess we should get the U.S. Postal 
> > service 
> > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business 
too.  
> We 
> > might as 
> > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter.  
> > Repressive 
> > > regimes invoke this type of communications.  Try China or 
North 
> > Korea.  I'm 
> > > sure they would share your opinion.
> > > 
> > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode.  PACTOR and SCAMP 
are 
> > modes and 
> > > part of a system.
> > > 
> > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, 
> > SSTV/FAX image, 
> > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal.  That 
is 
> > what ham 
> > > radio is all about.
> > > 
> > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band 
> PACTOR 
> > 3 signals 
> > > on HF and supposed QRM between stations.  I have a biased 
opinion 
> > as I am a 
> > > Winlink 2000 SysOp.  Despite that, we are not contesting the 
> > validity of 
> > > this particular style of the personal communication, in this 
case 
> > an e-mail 
> > > (though there are those that have a different opinion).
> > > 
> > > I think your opinion is about the most uninformed I've heard 
on 
> > here yet. 
> > > You really need to review Part 97 and look up the definition 
> > of "Pecuniary 
> > > Interest" and what it means.  What you're suggesting goes 
beyond 
> > Winlink and 
> > > strikes at the core and heart of amateur radio.
> > > 
> > > Eric, KB6YNO
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "kl7ar" <[EMAIL 

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Dave Bernstein]

Steve, you are responding to a message written by Cliff N7HIY, not 
me.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dave, again, we have no option other than to request improvements 
> from SCS, or do our own development elsewhere with additional 
> protocols. That is exactly what we are doing. 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff Hazen" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > Is the name of their SCS robot pactor detector Maximillian or 
> Arnold? Both were quit effective but did have design flaws.
> > Cliff N7HIY
> > 
> > 
> > Dave scribed>>
> > "Several times now, you have mentioned the busy detector in the 
SCS 
> > modem, and each time, I've reminded you that it only detects 
Pactor 
> > signals and is thus of no use as a general solution to the 
hidden 
> > transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up?
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> > Virus Database (VPS): 0514-2, 04/08/2005
> > Tested on: 4/9/2005 11:29:05 PM
> > avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software.
> > http://www.avast.com





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below:

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>snip<

> You are mostly correct, and there has been efforts to attempt to 
> request improvement for the SCS signal detection. 

>>>If I have said something that is incorrect, please identify it so 
I can either agree and learn, or disagree and explain why. As things 
currently stand, you have left faint doubt over everything I've said.

> Assuming band planning will follow the FCC's recommendations, my 
> personal thinking is that it will need to be deployed for many non-
> real time applications, including Winlink 2000 where digital 
> voice, image and data may be sent to an unattended station in 
> order take advantage of propagation, etc. 

>>> I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower to 
implement multi-mode busy detection with a pure software upgrade, 
but lets assume for a moment that this is technically feasible. SCS 
would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, testing, 
and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users decide to 
invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a free software 
solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the answer to this question, 
why would SCS undertake the development?


> All we can do is look for or develop additional data transfer 
> protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control over what 
> we do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the most 
> robust signal detection available to us. If you know of any
> specific algorythms that are effective for such signal detection,
> please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it the
> best way we can, presently.

>>>I am thrilled with the incorporation of busy detectors in SCAMP, 
and pleased that Winlink saw fit to make this investment; it is the 
only viable solution to the hidden transmitter problem that allows 
semi-automatic operation to peacefully co-exist with person-to-
person operation. My relevant expertise is in system design and user 
interface design, not detection algorithms -- otherwise I would be 
contributing more directly.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Digital third party traffic

[Dave Bernstein]

I did not disagree with the substance of Eric KB6YNO's comments, but 
rather their tone; I'd give him a 593.

I've been QRM'd by PMBOs while operating PSK on the 30m band, and 
while operating RTTY on the 30m and 40m bands. In all cases, the 
PMBOs were using Pactor-2, which is not confined to the fully-
automatic sub-bands.

I agree that Rick KN6KB is doing excellent work on the busy detector 
front. To encourage more of this, I recommended

- allowing semi-automatic operation with station automation software 
that utilizes busy detectors to operate anywhere in the ham bands, 
limited only by retrictions on signal bandwidth

- confining semi-autmatic operation with station automation software 
that lacks or ignores busy detectors to a set of sub-bands whose 
span is periodically reduced.

With regard to message content, the Winlink scenario is a 
challenging one because the author of a Winlink-delivered message 
may not be a ham, and may not be aware that the message will be 
delivered via a mechanism that imposes restrictions on content. 
There is also the problem that email addresses are sent in clear-
text, and thus can easily be harvested.

  73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Eric is well known for his tactful approach to discussion;) 
However, Mike's
> opposition to third party traffic is a bit late in the game. Even 
phone
> patching was done well before I was first licensed and that was 
over 40
> years ago. Same thing with the amateur radio emergency nets, not 
the least
> of which is the entire ARRL NTS (National Traffic System) here in 
the U.S.
> 
> If we think back to the impetus for the formation of the ARRL, it 
was done
> specifically to relay such traffic. So this kind of message 
handling goes
> back to the very foundation of ham radio. The reason that it is 
not done in
> some other countries, particularly the EU, was due to ownership of 
the
> telecommunications system by the governments themselves and they 
did not
> want any competition to take away revenues. In the U.S. the
> telecommunications are owned by private companies and the 
government is much
> less concerned about any revenue loss.
> 
> One of the things about Pactor QRM'ing that I still am not clear 
on ... who
> is really doing it? Has this ever happened to anyone in the PSK31 
watering
> holes?
> 
> If so, then you know they are not Winlink 2000 stations. From my
> understanding, the Winlink frequencies are fairly limited and they 
further
> limit many of the smaller bandwidth transmissions (< 500 Hz) to 
the fully
> automatic subbands, if my understanding is correct from recent 
comments.
> 
> Is there a table that shows all the spot frequencies? Each of the 
published
> PMBO's does list their frequencies of course but you would have to 
go
> through each one to come up with a composite.
> 
> While I do support changes to the U.S. subbands, I did write to 
the ARRL
> with my recommendation that they do not allow stations without a 
human
> operator and without automatic detection of a busy channel to 
operate
> outside the "automatic" area of the data subbands. (Perhaps those 
subbands
> could be made slightly larger?).  This seems like the best 
solution at this
> time.
> 
> The busy channel technology developed by Rick, KN6KB is impressive 
and I
> fully support the use of this technology in any automatic or semi-
automatic
> stations. Maybe even for programs with human operators such as we 
have now
> with the SCAMP mode in the Paclink SCD program:)
> 
> As far as the U.S. FCC regulations on data content of messages 
entering
> automated systems, with Winlink being only one example, this was 
decided
> some years ago due to the situation that occurred on packet radio. 
It was
> decided that the responsibility of the content rests primarily 
upon the
> person placing the data into the system at the initial point of 
entry. The
> system operator can only be held liable if they willingly allow 
illegal
> messages to continue once they are detected. As we all know, 
messaging on
> amateur radio is not private and can be (and should be) monitored 
by others.
> I admit that these new digital modes make this very difficult.
> 
> Over the years, the FCC has liberalized what kind of third party 
traffic can
> be sent. The famous example has been, "can you order a pizza from a
> commercial establishment via an amateur radio repeater autopatch?"
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:17 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's comment
> may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling his
> comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike and
> others will participate in this discussion. Mike's messa

[digitalradio] Voice - Digital combined operations for traffic handling

[jevacuum]

Let us think ahead.  It looks to me the US rules will be changed so 
that digital data operations will be allowed in segments of the HF 
bands now used for phone operations. Most digital operators I am 
sure will avoid using the phone frequencies for digital to digital 
contacts except for the very wide band modes.   

The rule change creates the option to pass traffic digitally on 
voice nets. My first impression is that this would be easy to do, 
cause traffic to be passed quickly and make relays easier. Also, the 
now existing phone nets could provide a conduit for Ham Radio 
traffic to the internet where the flow of such traffic is monitored 
by all who listen to the nets thus insuring that abuses would be 
short lived.  

Stations in remote areas or in emergency situations would have the 
ears of the whole net available to pass their digital traffic, not 
just a remote nobody.  

Some sort of a protocol would be required and a preferred digital 
mode selected. We all have our favorites do we not?

Even, a CW net could pass traffic using digital given the correct 
procedures were developed.

For those of us who wish that more Hams would take up the soundcard 
modes, exposure on the phone nets would stimulate interest in 
digital.  I am not in anyway suggesting that passing traffic in the 
time honored methods ever be abandoned.

Let's just think ahead. 

Yours truly,
Eric - K9NP





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Rud K5RUD]

I just created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rfnetworks.

--

Rud K5RUD
ARES AEC
South Montgomery County, TX



Quoting Rick Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>
> Steve,
>
> In the past, I have suggested a separate discussion group. I was going to
> start one, but am hesitant to do this due to some practical time limitations
> with participation in a number of groups, one of which is fairly large that
> I co-moderate. But it is probably a good idea to separate this out. You
> would have a lot less people being turned away from WL2K. And you would also
> have the more moderate people giving a more balanced perspective.
>
> Actually, what we really need is an amateur radio network discussion group
> that looks at all possibilities for the future. But from what I can tell,
> there may not be that much interest. Maybe I'm wrong?
>
> However, on your list, the messages and the tone of the messages do indicate
> tacit approval of their "groupthink" which is no different than any other
> group that has one specific agenda. Groups like this one (digitalradio) are
> more of an open discussion on many related topics and is much less
> threatening since you will hear both sides. Actually, sometimes there are
> many sides to an issue:)
>
> Our Task Force has the Milwaukee ePMBO and you should see it as KB9MMC as
> you would have had to set it up by remote control as you do with any server
> on the WL2K system.
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:58 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
>
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Yes, the WL2KEmComm group is focused on implementation issues, and is
> not set up for "should we" discussions regarding deployments. As
> modorator of the group, I have no particular objection to such
> discussions, but I don't write all the messages, and I am not afraid
> to reflect my own personal point-of-veiw.
>
> What is the call letters of the EmComm PMBO you describe?
>
>
> Steve, k4cjx
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005
>
>
>
> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Jose Amador]

--- Francois Rochon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ham radio is not an American radio service limited
> to the borders of the lower 48s 

Certainly not

> Canadian regulation 
> (I know third world countries don't count) but... 

What do you know? Seems you really don´t know what you
are saying. Don´t put the rest of the world, unknown
to you, in the same sack.

Jose, CO2JA






__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Rick Williams]

Steve,

In the past, I have suggested a separate discussion group. I was going to
start one, but am hesitant to do this due to some practical time limitations
with participation in a number of groups, one of which is fairly large that
I co-moderate. But it is probably a good idea to separate this out. You
would have a lot less people being turned away from WL2K. And you would also
have the more moderate people giving a more balanced perspective.

Actually, what we really need is an amateur radio network discussion group
that looks at all possibilities for the future. But from what I can tell,
there may not be that much interest. Maybe I'm wrong?

However, on your list, the messages and the tone of the messages do indicate
tacit approval of their "groupthink" which is no different than any other
group that has one specific agenda. Groups like this one (digitalradio) are
more of an open discussion on many related topics and is much less
threatening since you will hear both sides. Actually, sometimes there are
many sides to an issue:)

Our Task Force has the Milwaukee ePMBO and you should see it as KB9MMC as
you would have had to set it up by remote control as you do with any server
on the WL2K system.

Rick, KV9U



-Original Message-
From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:58 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team




Rick,

Yes, the WL2KEmComm group is focused on implementation issues, and is
not set up for "should we" discussions regarding deployments. As
modorator of the group, I have no particular objection to such
discussions, but I don't write all the messages, and I am not afraid
to reflect my own personal point-of-veiw.

What is the call letters of the EmComm PMBO you describe?


Steve, k4cjx



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005



The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Win Link

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Well said John.. but the "anti any Mode" crap 
started with the demise of the spark gap 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  John Becker 
  
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:58 
AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Win 
Link
  the packet systems too Mike?They also handle a lot of 
  what some hereare calling "email". Or should all "traffic" netsthat 
  pass anything that could be sent via AOLbe shut down.Seem to me 
  everything was rosy till PSK got here.This "anti- any mode except for" 
  crap has got to stop soon.At 01:05 
  PM 4/8/05, you wrote:>I find the ongoing discussion about 
  the technical issues interesting.>The point is that 99% of QSO's going 
  on are person to person be it via>SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link 
  is a mode which should be used>only for emergincy traffic in a 
  designated sub-band.The fact is the>Win Link people want to use the 
  Amatuer spectrum to send their>personal E mail traffic,just as traffic 
  which can go via a commercial>carrier is illegal on the ham band so 
  should ALL personal Win Link>traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC 
  to shut Win Link down since>the traffic it handles can go via a 
  commercial carrier.>73's>Mike 
  KL7AR>The 
  K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT 
  telnet://208.15.25.196/>>Yahoo! Groups 
  LinksThe K3UK 
  DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Francois.. 
 
Both you and Mike... totally miss the 
point...
 
If I use SSB to say to you or a third 
party."How are you".. that is OK with you..
 
But if I say it digitally, especially using 
Winlink,  it is NOT?
 
Why should the transport mechanism 
matter?
 
Second.. Winlink only consumes 18KHz channel 
capacity to send over 150,000 messages a month.. which is only a very tiny 
portion of all the HF bands to send a huge volume of traffic.
 
So before you let yourselves succumb to the 
hysteria of the Winlink Challenged...that digital modes are hijacking 
international frequencies.. please look at the facts..
 
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 

 
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Francois 
  Rochon 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:34 
AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW 
  Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)
  Mike hits the point . Ham radio is not an 
  American radio service limited to the borders of the lower 48sCanadian 
  regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but nevertheless 
  Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should be "of technical nature 
  or not warrant the use of commercial means"... in past times autopatch on 
  the vhf was tollerated before de advent of cellular phone... etc.. 
  Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone 
  lines should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, And even if 
  ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies and disasters 
  situations no one should "hijack" world wide international requencies on 
  the pretention that a system mode or whatever is prepairing 7 days a week 
  24 hours a day for some eventual local or regional emergency... 
  And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate 
  trafic...François VE2KV--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 
  > > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues 
  interesting. > The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to 
  person be it via > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode 
  which should be used > only for emergincy traffic in a designated 
  sub-band.The fact is the > Win Link people want to use the Amatuer 
  spectrum to send their > personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which 
  can go via a commercial > carrier is illegal on the ham band so should 
  ALL personal Win Link > traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to 
  shut Win Link down since > the traffic it handles can go via a 
  commercial carrier.> 73's> Mike 
  KL7ARThe K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER 
  AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[kb6yno]

Corrected copy.  Not enough coffee yet this morning and I hit the send button too soon!
 
-- Original message -- Good morning, Dave,
I'm sticking to my guns about what I said about Mike's comments.  While you may have not interpreted what he said quite like I did, the tone struck a cord with me.  Mike said that "personal e-mail traffic" should be sent via commercial carrier.  E-mail is just one means of sending "personal messages."  So, to me this meant that he was suggesting personal messages should stop altogether.  That means the NTS system would have to shut down.  The Maritime Mobile Net should cease operations and all communications of a "personal nature" would also have to stop.  This is how I interpreted his post and I'm not deviating from what I posted as a reply.
 
With all this talk about busy detectors for PACTOR, where are the suggestions about detectors with the other modes?  There are so many modes to choose from.
 
Message content is reviewed by every single WL2K SysOp.  I check my system daily to ensure that only appropriate content is sent to/from my station.  The degree of checking will undoubtedly be different with every SysOp.  With that said, we all check our message queue regularly.  I have scolded a number of stations for communicating improperly.  While I certainly don't understand French or German, Babbelfish at Altavista certainly gives me the gist of what's being said.
 
I wasn't being specific to "just" P3.  I used it as a particular example.  We all know we're talking about PACTOR.  I said "supposed" because I believe that "most" of the negative comments here regarding PACTOR QRM are thrown on WL2K.  There are SO many other stations out there that use PACTOR and the older Winlink Classic software, which is not related to us anymore.  It hasn't been since 2000.  I "believe" that we're being ganged up on because we have a face, a name and a well published web site.  I'd go so far as to use the word, "Scapegoat."  I KNOW that last comment is going get some e-mail firing back!
 
Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I have my opinion and you yours.  Let the disucussion continue.
 
73 de Eric, KB6YNO

-- Original message -- > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's comment > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling his > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike and > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will not > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce the > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could find a > less intimidating way of providing a correction. > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions here > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor protocol in > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the busy > detectors that would enable station automation software like Winlink > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is > already in use. > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been QRM'd > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop pretending > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK operators > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your credibility > is called into question. > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink detects > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent with > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Mike, > > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here! > > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we can > call > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. AOL > and "Ma > > Bell" would love that. I guess we should get the U.S. Postal > service > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business too. We > might as > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter. > Repressive > > regimes invoke this type of communications. Try China or North > Korea. I'm > > sure they would share your opinion. > > > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode. PACTOR and SCAMP are > modes and > > part of a system. > > > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, > SSTV/FAX image, > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal. That is > what ham > > radio is all about. > > > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band PACTOR > 3 signals > > on HF and supposed QRM between stations. I have a biased opinion > as I am a > > Winlink 2000 SysOp. Despite that, we are not contesting the > validity of > > this particular style of the personal communication, in this case > an e-mail > > (though there are those 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[kb6yno]

Good morning, Dave,
 
I'm sticking to my guns about what I said about Mike's comments.  While you may have not interpreted what he said quite like I did, the tone struck a cord with me.  Mike said that "personal e-mail traffic" should be sent via commercial carrier.  E-mail is just one means of sending "personal messages."  So, to me this meant that he was suggesting personal messages should stop altogether.  That means the NTS system would have to shut down.  The Maritime Mobile Net should cease operations and all communications of a "personal nature" would also have to stop.  This is how I interpreted his post and I'm not deviating from what I posted as a reply.
 

With all this talk about busy detectors for PACTOR, where are the suggestions about detectors with the other modes?  There are so many modes to choose from.
 
Message content is reviewed by every single WL2K SysOp.  I check my system daily to ensure that only appropriate content is sent to/from my station.  The degree of checking will undoubtedly be different with every SysOp.  With that said, we all check our message queue regularly.  I have scolded a number of stations for communicating improperly.  While I certainly don't understand French or German, Babbelfish at Altavista certainly gives me the gist of what's being said.
 
I wasn't being specific to "just" P3.  I used it
 
Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I have my opinion and you yours.
 
73 de Eric, KB6YNO
-- Original message -- > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's comment > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling his > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike and > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will not > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce the > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could find a > less intimidating way of providing a correction. > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions here > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor protocol in > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the busy > detectors that would enable station automation software like Winlink > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is > already in use. > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been QRM'd > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop pretending > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK operators > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your credibility > is called into question. > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink detects > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent with > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Mike, > > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here! > > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we can > call > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. AOL > and "Ma > > Bell" would love that. I guess we should get the U.S. Postal > service > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business too. We > might as > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter. > Repressive > > regimes invoke this type of communications. Try China or North > Korea. I'm > > sure they would share your opinion. > > > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode. PACTOR and SCAMP are > modes and > > part of a system. > > > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, > SSTV/FAX image, > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal. That is > what ham > > radio is all about. > > > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band PACTOR > 3 signals > > on HF and supposed QRM between stations. I have a biased opinion > as I am a > > Winlink 2000 SysOp. Despite that, we are not contesting the > validity of > > this particular style of the personal communication, in this case > an e-mail > > (though there are those that have a different opinion). > > > > I think your opinion is about the most uninformed I've heard on > here yet. > > You really need to review Part 97 and look up the definition > of "Pecuniary > > Interest" and what it means. What you're suggesting goes beyond > Winlink and > > strikes at the core and heart of amateur radio. > > > > Eric, KB6YNO > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:05 AM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Win Link > > > > > > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues > interesting. > > The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it > via > > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode whic

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[kb6yno]

François,
 
Both you and Mike are not hitting the point.  I would seriously doubt that every time you talk on the radio you limit your discussion to "just" technical matters.  I'm sure you've mentioned the weather, talked about your family, mentioned a great movie you saw or book you read and spoken of other ham friends.  Once again this has missed the mark.  How about phone patches for military personnel that are stationed abroad?  We won't let them talk to family and friends anymore?
 
Eric, KB6YNO
 
-- Original message -- > > > Mike hits the point . > > Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the borders of > the lower 48s > Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but > nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should be "of > technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... in past > times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of cellular > phone... etc.. > > Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone lines > should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, > > And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies and > disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide international > requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is > prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local or > regional emergency... > > And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate > trafic... > > François VE2KV 


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[digitalradio] Re: FCC Doesn't Understand

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

AMEN!  


Steve, k4cjx




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul is right !
> Remember what happen to the 220Mhz band?
> When all the money showed up on the other side.
> 
> At 08:21 AM 4/9/05, you wrote:
> 
> >Actually, in some respects, it is the FCC who understands,
> >and the amateur community that doesn't.
> >
> >It costs money to regulate the airwaves, and there are a
> >lot of interests out there willing to provide whatever
> >funds are needed in order to get "their piece" of spectrum.
> >
> >We amateurs have chunks allotted here-and-there, and the
> >FCC"s position is that they don't want to, nor should they,
> >heavily regulate it.  We're supposed to be able to figure it
> >out pretty much for ourselves.
> >
> >In that context, who's not understanding?
> >
> >Just something to think about...
> >
> >73,
> >
> >Paul / K9PS





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Doesn't Understand

[Rick Scott]

> Remember what happen to the 220Mhz band?
> When all the money showed up on the other side.

Which is why Ive advocated going back to a Fee system
on the Amateur Licences.

I know a lot of people want everything for free, but
sometimes things Cost and this should be one of them.

I wouldnt mind paying for the privilage of having my
Ham Licence.


Scotty N7HJ




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

With proper band planning by bandwidth, this issue will be mute. 
There is room on our bands for all digital modes, past, present and 
future. Wilink 2000 is a small player in the grand scheme of what is 
to come.  Segregation by mode of operation or style of operation is 
long past. I do think that fully automatic "no human side" auto-
forwarding should have its own space, but that is just my own point 
of view.



Steve, k4cjx


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the packet systems too Mike?
> They also handle a lot of what some here
> are calling "email". Or should all "traffic" nets
> that pass anything that could be sent via AOL
> be shut down.
> 
> Seem to me everything was rosy till PSK got here.
> 
> This "anti- any mode except for" crap has got to stop soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 01:05 PM 4/8/05, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues 
interesting.
> >The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it 
via
> >SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used
> >only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the
> >Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their
> >personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a 
commercial
> >carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link
> >traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down 
since
> >the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
> >73's
> >Mike KL7AR
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave, again, we have no option other than to request improvements 
from SCS, or do our own development elsewhere with additional 
protocols. That is exactly what we are doing. 

Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff Hazen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Is the name of their SCS robot pactor detector Maximillian or 
Arnold? Both were quit effective but did have design flaws.
> Cliff N7HIY
> 
> 
> Dave scribed>>
> "Several times now, you have mentioned the busy detector in the SCS 
> modem, and each time, I've reminded you that it only detects Pactor 
> signals and is thus of no use as a general solution to the hidden 
> transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up?
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0514-2, 04/08/2005
> Tested on: 4/9/2005 11:29:05 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party traffic 
Content Rules:

§97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of a 
message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding 
stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate 
the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative 
communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing such 
communications once they become aware of their presence."


For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, that 
is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have been 
over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content, or 
improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If 
there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of the 
license is required.


Steve, k4cjx





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's comment 
> may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling his 
> comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike and 
> others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will not 
> induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce the 
> IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could find a 
> less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> 
> For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions here 
> have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor protocol 
in 
> semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the busy 
> detectors that would enable station automation software like 
Winlink 
> to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is 
> already in use. 
> 
> The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been QRM'd 
> by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users 
> here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop pretending 
> that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK operators 
> using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your credibility 
> is called into question.
> 
> Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink detects 
> and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent with 
> FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mike,
> > 
> > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
> > 
> > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we 
can 
> call 
> > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. AOL 
> and "Ma 
> > Bell" would love that.  I guess we should get the U.S. Postal 
> service 
> > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business too.  
We 
> might as 
> > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter.  
> Repressive 
> > regimes invoke this type of communications.  Try China or North 
> Korea.  I'm 
> > sure they would share your opinion.
> > 
> > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode.  PACTOR and SCAMP are 
> modes and 
> > part of a system.
> > 
> > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, 
> SSTV/FAX image, 
> > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal.  That is 
> what ham 
> > radio is all about.
> > 
> > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band 
PACTOR 
> 3 signals 
> > on HF and supposed QRM between stations.  I have a biased opinion 
> as I am a 
> > Winlink 2000 SysOp.  Despite that, we are not contesting the 
> validity of 
> > this particular style of the personal communication, in this case 
> an e-mail 
> > (though there are those that have a different opinion).
> > 
> > I think your opinion is about the most uninformed I've heard on 
> here yet. 
> > You really need to review Part 97 and look up the definition 
> of "Pecuniary 
> > Interest" and what it means.  What you're suggesting goes beyond 
> Winlink and 
> > strikes at the core and heart of amateur radio.
> > 
> > Eric, KB6YNO
> > 
> > 
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:05 AM
> > Subject: [digitalradio] Win Link
> > 
> > 
> > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues 
> interesting.
> > The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be 
it 
> via
> > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used
> > only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is 
the
> > Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their
> > personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a 
> commercial
> > carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link
> > traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down 
> since
> > the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
> > 73's

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Rick,

Yes, the WL2KEmComm group is focused on implementation issues, and is 
not set up for "should we" discussions regarding deployments. As 
modorator of the group, I have no particular objection to such 
discussions, but I don't write all the messages, and I am not afraid 
to reflect my own personal point-of-veiw.

What is the call letters of the EmComm PMBO you describe? 


Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> While there are many people on the Winlink group, like most groups, 
only a
> few people actually participate. So it is not more than a few 
dozens of
> people talking over a span of time (not hundreds).
> 
> If anyone takes a look at the more detailed messages on the 
WL2Kemcomm
> yahoogroup, they will see that these comments below are directed at 
those
> who have any disagreements with WL2K. Of the sample responses, 
about half
> were directed at other hams. They are not taken out of context in 
terms of
> seeing the *attitude* of the group.
> 
> When I first joined the group, initially to get more details and a 
clear
> understanding, I was appalled by Steve's condescension to digital 
keyboard
> modes with his message #458:
> 
> "Those people on the discussion groups such as EHam, etc, are lead 
by the
> PSK
> "cutesy" mode crowd,..."
> 
> At that moment I knew clearly there was a serious attitude problem. 
And even
> took him to task at that point.
> 
> From what I have seen, in every single case that anyone has 
questioned
> anything, they have take considerable heat. Most people won't put 
up with
> that for long. And the majority takes notice of that. Anyone 
reading the
> archives can make up their own minds as to whether the WL2K folks 
are
> supportive of questions about the system.
> 
> Steve is correct that intially I was mostly concerned how WL2K 
would work in
> our local area. And we have a very different terrain issue here 
than other
> areas. Some of their ideas would not work here at all but they 
insisted that
> they have "the way."
> 
> The more I looked into the WL2K system, the more I began to realize 
there
> are some design limitations that I did not see at first. I am not 
saying it
> is a bad system, but it is not quite as good as it looked at first 
blush. It
> still has lots of good features but you might want to look at these
> carefully before spending a lot of limited resources.
> 
> I was then asked to serve as a member of the Wisconsin ARES/RACES 
Task Force
> looking into Winlink 2000. We are charged at this time with coming 
up with a
> recommendation by the fall. Asking questions that other task force 
members
> have, and I have, seemed like a reasonable way to gather the 
information and
> make an informed recommendation. I spent many hours looking over the
> promotional information and such but you always have a few 
questions.
> 
> They have made it clear that no one can possibly understand how 
WL2K works
> unless that individual spends considerable time and expense to 
actually
> operate the various modes and parts of the system. This is 
something they
> have stressed over and over.
> 
> "Regarding the Winlink system, the only opinions of value are from 
the
> people who actually use it."
> 
> and Message 3817 "It is a fool that criticizes the taste of a meal 
while
> still reading the menu."
> 
> Any thinking person knows that this is utter nonsense. People with 
an
> inquiring mind can figure out how the system works, what the 
weaknesses are,
> and where it can or can not fit into their specific emergency 
communications
> needs. And it is also very helpful to talk to others using the 
system in
> different capacities, and I and others on our task force have.
> 
> In fact, we have used several Telpacs with Paclink AGW, we have a 
new ePMBO
> in Milwaukee that is being tested, I have worked with SCAMP 
testing, our
> state EOC has an SCS modem etc. etc. But we are repeatedly told 
that we do
> not know anything about the system because we have not used it. Is 
this
> reasonable? I don't think it is.
> 
> When I talked to Steve on the phone, he wanted me to bypass the 
task force
> and get to our SEC to convince him to do it ... now! I tried to 
explain that
> we were doing our best to make a fair and impartial judgement of 
the WL2K
> system as we were charged to do. He seemed not to comprehend this 
chain of
> command and why we would even do this.
> 
> Further contact on the WL2Kemcomm group became so contentious that 
I stopped
> asking questions openly to the group (such as the problems with 
reliability)
> and contacted Steve directly via e-mail. And what did he do? He 
then sent a
> return CC: to many of the top leadership in our state! Completely 
bypassed
> the task force. I rather doubt that this was done out of some kind 
of
> accident. I don't show any CC: in my message to him. So now I feel 
very
> hesitant to trust him to act properly.
> 
> If we use the same logic as the WL

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave,

Thanks for the note. Just getting back here. You are mostly correct, 
and there has been efforts to attempt to request improvement for the 
SCS signal detection. Assuming band planning will follow the FCC's 
recommendations, my personal thinking is that it will need to be 
deployed for many non-real time applications, including Winlink 2000 
where digital voice, image and data may be sent to an unattended 
station in order take advantage of propagation, etc. 

All we can do is look for or develop additional data transfer 
protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control over what we 
do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the most robust 
signal detection available to us. If you know of any specific 
algorythms that are effective for such signal detection, please come 
forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it the best way we can, 
presently.


Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> There is no conflict between those statements, and no bias:
> 
> A Winlink PMBO running Pactor is going to occasionally QRM ongoing 
> QSOs whether or not the PBMO operator is a "good guy". The PMBO is 
> running unattended, and lacks the busy detector needed to avoid QRM 
> generation. Transitioning the PMBO to SCAMP with busy detectors 
> should prevent the QRM, unless the PMBO operator is a "bad guy" who 
> disables the busy detector. But we're going to assume that most 
PMBO 
> operators are "good guys" who will do the right thing and keep the 
> busy detectors enabled at all times other than declared emergencies.
> 
> With attended stations, we again assume that the operator is 
a "good 
> guy" who will use his or her ears to avoid QRMing ongoing QSOs; the 
> ARRL's operating guides are clear that this is essential to good 
> operating procedure. Yes, there are a few "bad guy" operators who 
> flaunt this policy, but they are best handled on an individual 
> basis. One assumes that you would handle a "bad guy" PMBO operator 
> in the same way.
> 
> Several times now, you have mentioned the busy detector in the SCS 
> modem, and each time, I've reminded you that it only detects Pactor 
> signals and is thus of no use as a general solution to the hidden 
> transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up?
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Dave,
> > 
> > You did make two statements that I find in conflict:
> > 
> > >Requiring busy detectors for attended operation makes no sense, 
> > >Steve. As Rick KV9U pointed out, any SSB, RTTY, CW, or PSK 
> operator 
> > > who knowingly calls over existing QSOs would simply disable the 
> > >busy detector.
> > 
> > 
> > >I did not suggest that you "convince the world to use Winlink 
> 2000"; 
> > > I suggested that you convince the world that Winlink will be a 
> good 
> > > citizen on the amateur bands, and provided explicit advice on 
> how 
> > to do so.
> > 
> > Seems a bit biased, but that is okay. People are people. Airmail, 
> the 
> > client program for WL2K does have an ability to deploy pretty 
> > effective signal detection with the SCS modem. But,the author of 
> > Airmail only provides a warning should a busy frequency be 
> detected.
> > 
> > I guess that someone should convence him to also dis-allow 
> > transmission?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve, k4cjx
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > I am dissapointed to see you revert to "the root cause of the 
> QRM 
> > is 
> > > PSK operators opening their receivers to 3 kHz". This is 
> factually 
> > > incorrect, as we have discussed here many times. The root cause 
> is 
> > > semi-automatic stations without busy detectors, such as  
Winlink 
> > > PMBOs running Pactor. When you so transparently attempt to 
shift 
> > the 
> > > blame, you create a very negative impression. Given the effort 
> to 
> > > add busy detectors to SCAMP, I do not understand why, from a 
> public 
> > > relations perspective, you continue to snatch defeat from the 
> jaws 
> > > of victory.
> > > 
> > > Running WinLink PMBOs on SCAMP with active busy detectors 
> should, 
> > in 
> > > my view, allow activity on any frequency available to signals 
of 
> > > SCAMP's bandwidth. The same should be true for any other next-
> > > generation semi-automatic or automatic protocol. Protocols like 
> > > Pactor or Packet being used in semi-automatic or automatic 
> > operation 
> > > should be constrained to sub-bands to limit the QRM they impose 
> on 
> > > others. This is the "win-win" you should be seeking: WinLink 
> gains 
> > > access to the spectrum it needs, and the rest of the amateur 
> > > community is free of QRM from Winlink PMBOs, from automatic 
> packet 
> > > stations, and from all other "hidden transmitter" scenarios.

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Mike,

Let me remind you that Voice traffic may also be provide via telephone, 
even in the most remote areas on the planet.


Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting. 
> The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it 
via 
> SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used 
> only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the 
> Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their 
> personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial 
> carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link 
> traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down 
since 
> the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
> 73's
> Mike KL7AR





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Digital third party traffic

[Rick Williams]

Hi Dave,

Eric is well known for his tactful approach to discussion;) However, Mike's
opposition to third party traffic is a bit late in the game. Even phone
patching was done well before I was first licensed and that was over 40
years ago. Same thing with the amateur radio emergency nets, not the least
of which is the entire ARRL NTS (National Traffic System) here in the U.S.

If we think back to the impetus for the formation of the ARRL, it was done
specifically to relay such traffic. So this kind of message handling goes
back to the very foundation of ham radio. The reason that it is not done in
some other countries, particularly the EU, was due to ownership of the
telecommunications system by the governments themselves and they did not
want any competition to take away revenues. In the U.S. the
telecommunications are owned by private companies and the government is much
less concerned about any revenue loss.

One of the things about Pactor QRM'ing that I still am not clear on ... who
is really doing it? Has this ever happened to anyone in the PSK31 watering
holes?

If so, then you know they are not Winlink 2000 stations. From my
understanding, the Winlink frequencies are fairly limited and they further
limit many of the smaller bandwidth transmissions (< 500 Hz) to the fully
automatic subbands, if my understanding is correct from recent comments.

Is there a table that shows all the spot frequencies? Each of the published
PMBO's does list their frequencies of course but you would have to go
through each one to come up with a composite.

While I do support changes to the U.S. subbands, I did write to the ARRL
with my recommendation that they do not allow stations without a human
operator and without automatic detection of a busy channel to operate
outside the "automatic" area of the data subbands. (Perhaps those subbands
could be made slightly larger?).  This seems like the best solution at this
time.

The busy channel technology developed by Rick, KN6KB is impressive and I
fully support the use of this technology in any automatic or semi-automatic
stations. Maybe even for programs with human operators such as we have now
with the SCAMP mode in the Paclink SCD program:)

As far as the U.S. FCC regulations on data content of messages entering
automated systems, with Winlink being only one example, this was decided
some years ago due to the situation that occurred on packet radio. It was
decided that the responsibility of the content rests primarily upon the
person placing the data into the system at the initial point of entry. The
system operator can only be held liable if they willingly allow illegal
messages to continue once they are detected. As we all know, messaging on
amateur radio is not private and can be (and should be) monitored by others.
I admit that these new digital modes make this very difficult.

Over the years, the FCC has liberalized what kind of third party traffic can
be sent. The famous example has been, "can you order a pizza from a
commercial establishment via an amateur radio repeater autopatch?"

73,

Rick, KV9U




-Original Message-
From: Dave Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:17 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link




You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's comment
may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling his
comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike and
others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will not
induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce the
IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could find a
less intimidating way of providing a correction.

For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions here
have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor protocol in
semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the busy
detectors that would enable station automation software like Winlink
to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is
already in use.

The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been QRM'd
by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users
here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop pretending
that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK operators
using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your credibility
is called into question.

Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink detects
and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent with
FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
>
> We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we can
call
> everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. AOL
and "Ma
> Bell" would love that.

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Is packet dead (was Winlink take over) - aka learn from the past

[Woodrick, Ed]

Comments embedded


From: Joel Kolstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, April 07, 2005 1:31 PMPosted To: 
FT-817Conversation: [digitalradio] Re: Is packet dead (was Winlink 
take over) - aka learn from the pastSubject: [digitalradio] Re: Is 
packet dead (was Winlink take over) - aka learn from the 
past
Hi Ed,That was a very informative post; thanks!  I was 
very much 'into' the modem-based BBSes back in, e.g., the mid-80s, but never 
made it onto packet at that time.Let me add a few 
comments:> How many of you are on high-speed DSL/Cable 
modem connections? Why not> on dial-up? Dial-up is just too slow for 
the communications that most of> us do today.I 
disagree.  I do have DSL or cable modem access at work and at home, but 
dial-up speeds are still quite 'reasonable' for casual usage (checking 
e-mail, perusing a few 'lightweight' web sites such as QRZ or eHam or the 
Yahoo! groups or Amazon.com, etc.).  Yes, it does change my surfing 
habits -- I'm not going to download some 40MB comedic video file of cats 
making fools of themselves right then and there, although I might decide, 
that, e.g., a 4MB document from work is worth the 10-15 minutes 
wait.I don't know the numbers, but I'd bet your a nickel that for _home_ 
users dial-up Internet access still FAR outnumbers DSL/cable modem 
access -- if only due to the price differntials, with dial-up access 
typically going for $10-$25/mo whereas DSL/cable is more like 
$30-$55.  A lot of people simply can't afford or aren't willing to pay 
the extra $50/mo, whereas $15/mo isn't so bad.So, in my mind, the 
Internet starts to become 'usable' at, say, 32kbps.  64kbps is quite 
desirable, and 128kbps is getting to be pretty leisurely (at 128kbps, many 
times the overall delay in 'casual web page viewing' has more to do with 
latency and server response times than the raw data transfer rate... of 
course, this doesn't apply to large streaming downloads...).[Woodrick, 
Ed] But to perform a lot of operation, VoIP, video, trunking requires a lot 
higher speeds. For emergency communications, we need a heck of a lot more. We 
need to send 4MB pictures over the network. We need to send databases. We need 
to send normal size email. One big difference is that we tend to use your 
32kbps channel as shared as opposed to single pipe per person. Put 10 people on 
the channel and you get 3kbps!
 > But there are 
a few. the Japan> Amateur Radio League (JARL) has worked with Icom to 
create D-Star.> D-Star supports user communications speeds up to 128kbps. 
The nicest> thing about it is that the interface is Ethernet! That makes 
it> relatively simple for most folks to connect.Yes, I think 
Ethernet or USB are the 'defacto' interface standards today.  Serial 
ports are also still pretty viable, IMO, given all the low cost USB 
<--> RS-232 converters available.  Using the old Centronics 
printer port was always a horrible hack, though... and using parallel ports 
in EPP or ECP mode tends to make porting to, e.g., Linux or Macs noticeably 
more difficult.[Woodrick, Ed] Parallel ports have all but disappeared. Serial ports 
are right behind. USB ports (not adapters) are peripheral connectivity ports of 
choice for most people now. But Ethernet is the NETWORK PORT OF 
CHOICE! > No special software or> cables, 
just a good ole Ethernet cable. But there are currently two> drawbacks, 
first, the repeaters are available yet, and second is the> price. 
I don't see why they don't just use WiFi or WiMax as their 'backbone' 
connection -- why this insistance on 10GHz hardware?  I mean, there's 
nothing wrong with it technologically, but by having to develop their 
own 10GHz transceivers they're significantly rasising the price of the 
system.[Woodrick, Ed] Hmmm, why would this not be a good idea? Because 
every computer user in the world has access to it? Now I'm not against it, 
and it would be good if amateurs built it, but it won't be an amateur network. 
But, what can happen is that the band utilization will increase, decreasing 
feasibility. > As with many new products, the 
price is rather high, higher than> most HF radios. People are so 
used to doing digital radio modes with soundcards that the rather limited 
bandwidth of them (<20kHz) will prevent their usage with higher speed 
(64kbps+) modes and we're back to separate TNC boxes.  Still, even in 
small runs I think you cab sell a decent TNC for <$500.Hmm... 
perhaps looking at those 96ksps 24bit sound cards wouldn't be such a bad 
idead...![Woodrick, Ed] No, they aren't used to soundcards. Actually a 
relatively small number use soundcards, primarily because it is a 
relatively small number that know how to turn a computer on. And it is not the 
sound cards that allow higher speeds. It's the radios that prohibit it. You just 
can't do high speed on a voice radio. > And 
you know, at 128kbps, it really isn't fast enough to support the> 
communications that we desire today. I think 128kbps is plenty.  My 
cel

Re: [digitalradio] What is it?

[n4zkf]

There are 11 of us in 14.098 actually. We all forward with each other and is bbs connects only is why you didn't get a response.
 
73 Dave
n4zkf
Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, Mark.  While sitting here, it suddenly started decoding, as a BBS inMo.  Very strong signals after the frist few minutes, and could hear severalstations on the freq.  The main signal is wider than the marks on thewaterfall, so thought it must be another mode.  Sent my call in a few times,but never got a response.Danny-- No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Doesn't Understand

[John Becker]

Paul is right !
Remember what happen to the 220Mhz band?
When all the money showed up on the other side.

At 08:21 AM 4/9/05, you wrote:

>Actually, in some respects, it is the FCC who understands,
>and the amateur community that doesn't.
>
>It costs money to regulate the airwaves, and there are a
>lot of interests out there willing to provide whatever
>funds are needed in order to get "their piece" of spectrum.
>
>We amateurs have chunks allotted here-and-there, and the
>FCC"s position is that they don't want to, nor should they,
>heavily regulate it.  We're supposed to be able to figure it
>out pretty much for ourselves.
>
>In that context, who's not understanding?
>
>Just something to think about...
>
>73,
>
>Paul / K9PS




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Win Link

[John Becker]

the packet systems too Mike?
They also handle a lot of what some here
are calling "email". Or should all "traffic" nets
that pass anything that could be sent via AOL
be shut down.

Seem to me everything was rosy till PSK got here.

This "anti- any mode except for" crap has got to stop soon.










At 01:05 PM 4/8/05, you wrote:



>I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting.
>The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it via
>SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used
>only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the
>Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their
>personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial
>carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link
>traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down since
>the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
>73's
>Mike KL7AR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Cliff Hazen]

Is the name of their SCS robot 
pactor detector Maximillian or Arnold? Both were quit effective but did have 
design flaws.
Cliff N7HIY
 
 
Dave 
scribed>>
"Several times now, you have 
mentioned the busy detector in the SCS modem, and each time, I've reminded 
you that it only detects Pactor signals and is thus of no use as a general 
solution to the hidden transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it 
up?   73,   Dave, 
AA6YQ



avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0514-2, 04/08/2005Tested on: 4/9/2005 11:29:05 PMavast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software.






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)

[Francois Rochon]

Mike hits the point . 

Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the borders of 
the lower 48s
Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but 
nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should be "of 
technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... in past 
times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of cellular 
phone... etc.. 

Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone lines 
should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, 

And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies and 
disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide international 
requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is 
prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local or 
regional emergency... 

And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate 
trafic...

François VE2KV

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting. 
> The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it 
via 
> SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used 
> only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the 
> Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their 
> personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial 
> carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link 
> traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down 
since 
> the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
> 73's
> Mike KL7AR





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/