[digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital- Sick of Flapping Lips Too....
Howard, I'll just repeat what I said in my prior message to show how well you read what people post and leave it at that. "Nobody minds you being a cheerleader, Howard, and I agree with you that Winlink should be a tool in our arsenal, but when you start throwing out such totally unbelievable stuff, all you do is hurt the credibility of the people in charge of the EOC function in your county or state." tim ab0wr --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tim: > > Thank you for yet again for voicing your usual extremist anti Winlink, anti > Bandwidth Regulation, anti ARRL and anti virtually everything else opinions. > > Unfortunately we do not live in the idealized dream world that you wish it > to be... > > With EMCOMM, we have to deal with the real world situations as they arise. > > FACT: After the last earthquake, It took several hours for the automatic > self aligning systems to be plugging into power, reboot, realign, reconnect > or whatever they needed to do get back on the air .. While it was better > than the several days of previous incarnations, it was still not good enough > and Amateur Radio had a role to play (including some Digital Communications) > until things got back on line. In fact, the California Office of Emergency > Services maintains, I believe, 10 HF Amateur Stations that are used when > your idealistic automatic self aligning systems fail when you most need > them > > FACT: In the 2003 Fires, smoke was so intense that virtually all UHF and > Satellite Systems were either blocked or refracted by the smoke to the point > where they were not reliable. Amateur Radio had a major role to play until > the smoke dissipated several days later and government communications were > usable again. It got pretty intense when Ham Radio operators had to go out > and rescue Fire Fighters whose 800 MHz Radios were blocked by smoke.. > > Winlink, along with Packet, SSB, CW, PSK, FM and RTTY are just some of the > tools that were available to us Hams to provide communications when all else > failed. > > Which in these cases they did and we were needed. > > Discard any one of our tools or the ARRL, just because you hate it, makes no > sense... > > Basically Most of the Rest of the World has already got it right and they > are waiting for the US to stop yakking about it and just catch up to > them > > I have to agree with our friend "Sick of Flapping Lips" > > that frankly I am also getting very tired of your anti everything rhetoric. > > I apologize to them that I feel obligated to correct your continual > distortions of facts and reality > > and your attempts to rewrite history to fit your anti-everything views of > life. > > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > Website: www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] Digitalradio Number QSO Exchange?
Andy,There are already organizations that provide such numbers. For example, the 070 club assigns numbers, has all sorts of awards, and contests for PSK. The Digital QSO Club assigns numbers for digital operators, etc. They do not have awards as such but more of an honor roll which is also open to non-members. In several months of operating, their total "membership" appears to be 32, so maybe digital operators are not that interested in acquiring yet another set of numbers. Perhaps it would be better if we supported an existing organization.Just a thought. If you go ahead, good luck with it. I will hold off for now. That is, I will not become number 0003, since I have not joined the other organizations yet either.73, Jim VA3JNO - Original Message -From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.comSent: Saturday, February 25, 20066:42 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Digitalradio Number QSO Exchange? Spinning off an idea I had in the previous thread (about a digital30M net). I wonder if members here would be interested in thedevelopment of a Digitalradio Reflector assigned numbersystem? I could assign interested members of this reflector, anumber that they could exchange with other members during digitalQSOs. I'm thinking something like :" DRR number". Maybesomething less so self-promoting (of this reflector) , perhaps a DMEnumber (Digital Modes Enthusiasts) From these number exchanges wecould develop some awards , via certificates, that would encouragehams to try digital modes, especially the more experimental ones. Asan example, 100 RTTY QSOs with DRR numbers might be a good accomplishmentbut so would just 10 THROB or PAX QSOs . This number could also be part of a contest exchange if we developed any future contests. Stupid , or an idea with potential? I would welcome commentsand also anyone interested in designing potenial awards certificates.-- Andy K3UK No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG FreeEdition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date:2/24/2006 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.orgOther areas of interest:The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supplyYAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an emailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms ofService.-- Andy No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG FreeEdition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/270 - Release Date:2/27/2006 Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 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: New poll for digitalradio
It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open discussion here of the impact of remotely-invoked unattended operation on digital mode stations are also those speaking strongly in favor of the expanded use of remotely-invoked unattended operation. Its a bit late for the mushroom strategy, guys. The overwhelming majority of comments filed with the FCC opposed the ARRL proposal, and many of those were authored by the participants of this reflector. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > move them to the policy group discussions. as well as the long , on-going debates about the ARRL. Let's keep the focus on > digital radio in a global sense, letting the US hams debate the ARRL issues elsewhere. > > John > VE5MU > - Original Message - > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:10 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] New poll for digitalradio > > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > digitalradio group: > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as Pactor) , their usefulness, > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > o I don't care either way > o I don't know. > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys?id=2151961 > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups > web site listed above. > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply > > > --- --- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > 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. > > > --- --- > > > > > --- --- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/06 > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] The US Ham radio service
Hello everyone, The belief that in the United States of America amateur radio is regarded like the USN, the USCG,the USAF etc.is pretty widespread among the amateur radio fraternity. It would be interesting to know how PSK and other digital modes blend into this service. I believe it would be safe to assume that in the many countries of Europe, radio amateurs regard talking to their friends or sending PSK messages on their transmitters to other amateurs as a hobby, a pleasant pastime. We don't attach the seriousness and intensity to the hobby as do our American friends, perhaps we are too relaxed with this attitude. This is reflected in the civility which is shown to all the users of 80 and 40 metres from the many countries of Europe,, and this makes amateur radio a pleasure. Mel G0GQK Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: The US Ham radio service
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Mel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >We don't attach the seriousness and intensity to > the hobby as do our American friends, perhaps we are too relaxed with > this attitude. This is reflected in the civility which is shown to > all the users of 80 and 40 metres from the many countries of Europe,, > and this makes amateur radio a pleasure. > > Mel G0GQK > Mel, I have always considered the presentation , in the USA, of amateur radio as a public service to be a smoke screen. Yes, many hams help when there are emergency communication needs, but I will estimate that 90% of U.S. hams never participate in that kind of activity. Amateur Radio in the U.S. is like amateur radio in most countries, a hobby that involves talking/typing/CWing to others. As to your latter comment...I think the fact that your region has many countries with differing languagues, helps to keep alive the ham's code of civility and avoidance of political commentary. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: The US Ham radio service
WELL SAID MEL. I'm standing next to you. Chris G7OGX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 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] Being polite
Folks, please remember to avoid name calling while engaging in debate. Today I have removed one member for doing that and suepended another person. First time in almost six years that I have had to do that. I like open discussion but please avoid name calling. Andy K3Uk Moderator. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] New poll for digitalradio
I was unaware there was a DigiPol group. It is my view that we should carry on such discussions there, though reference to a post re. Amateur-digital regs and policies may be made in a post here. For Example: ~ I am considering MFSK13 and SSTV as modes of choice but am concerned about investing the time and money is those modes due to possible bandplan changes here in the USA and elsewhere. I have posted my concerns on the DigiPol list and would very much appreciate your perspectives. ~~~ Would that be an acceptable post if discussions of regs and policies were moved to DigiPol? I would not want DigiPol to become a rarely used black hole -- more an excuse to purge critical discussions vs a place for lively discussion that may help to shape actual policy at the ARRL and FCC. The freedom to refer people to DigiPol from digitalradio would be key to keeping DigiPol valuable. IMHO ... 73, doc kd4e > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > digitalradio group: > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as Pactor) , their > usefulness, > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > o I don't care either way > o I don't know. > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys?id=2151961 > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups > web site listed above. > > Thanks! Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: CW Decoding Software
Having tried several programs, I now use an ancient Pakratt PK-232 which I picked up on eBay for virtually nothing. The software has got to be at least twenty years old and running on a CPU with less power than most modern pocket calculators, but it still digs out signals that the others miss and does a good job of very badly sent morse! My ears do better up to a moderate speed, but the Pakratt is always useful to have when the other station goes into "machine-gun" mode! Martin (G8FXC) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adriano, > > Unforunately none of the other free or fee based CW decoding softwares work any better than Hamscope and MixW. The only software on the market that can accuratley decode weak CW signals with QRN and QSB present is the > http://www.polar-electric.com/Morse/MRP40-EN and it costs around $63. > > --... ...--, > Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF > Lakeland, FL, USA > Grid Square EL97AW > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com > KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: CW Decoding Software
WinWarbler will provide more modern software support for your PK232, Martin -- macros, logging, and an interface to the rest of the DXLab Suite. If you're also interested in RTTY, WinWarbler will run your PK232 and the MMTTY engine in parallel, yielding panoramic tuning and diversity decoding. WinWarbler is free, and available via www.qsl.net/dxlab . 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "martinbradford2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Having tried several programs, I now use an ancient Pakratt PK-232 > which I picked up on eBay for virtually nothing. The software has got > to be at least twenty years old and running on a CPU with less power > than most modern pocket calculators, but it still digs out signals > that the others miss and does a good job of very badly sent morse! > > My ears do better up to a moderate speed, but the Pakratt is always > useful to have when the other station goes into "machine-gun" mode! > > Martin (G8FXC) > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Giella KN4LF" > wrote: > > > > Adriano, > > > > Unforunately none of the other free or fee based CW decoding > softwares work any better than Hamscope and MixW. The only software > on the market that can accuratley decode weak CW signals with QRN and > QSB present is the > > http://www.polar-electric.com/Morse/MRP40-EN and it costs around > $63. > > > > --... ...--, > > Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF > > Lakeland, FL, USA > > Grid Square EL97AW > > kn4lf@ > > > > KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com > > KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: > http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: CW Decoding Software
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "martinbradford2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Having tried several programs, I now use an ancient Pakratt PK-232 > which I picked up on eBay for virtually nothing. The software has got > to be at least twenty years old and running on a CPU with less power > than most modern pocket calculators, but it still digs out signals > that the others miss and does a good job of very badly sent morse! > > My ears do better up to a moderate speed, but the Pakratt is always > useful to have when the other station goes into "machine-gun" mode! > > Martin (G8FXC) > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Giella KN4LF" > wrote: > > > > Adriano, > > > > Unforunately none of the other free or fee based CW decoding > softwares work any better than Hamscope and MixW. The only software > on the market that can accuratley decode weak CW signals with QRN and > QSB present is the > > http://www.polar-electric.com/Morse/MRP40-EN and it costs around > $63. > > > > --... ...--, > > Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF > > Lakeland, FL, USA > > Grid Square EL97AW > > kn4lf@ > > > > KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com > > KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: > http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm > > > Have a look at this site http://fmyers.com/uploads/Downloads.html I came across it a few weeks ago and it seems to work ok. 73 de G0TED Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] New
I am new to digital modes, well not totally as I did run a Creed 7B over a 2m link in 1971/72. Now I want to use RTTY and maybe some other data modes on HF using an FT1000MP MkV Field. I would like to use the rear RTTY port on the radio and leave the mic plugged into the front. I have been looking at the RIGblaster and similar gear but cannot find anything that will do what I want. Or I should say I cannot decipher the sales stuff! Can anyone help me please. Colin - M5FRA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: New
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "bty229065" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am new to digital modes, well not totally as I did run a Creed 7B > over a 2m link in 1971/72. Now I want to use RTTY and maybe some other > data modes on HF using an FT1000MP MkV Field. I would like to use the > rear RTTY port on the radio and leave the mic plugged into the front. > I have been looking at the RIGblaster and similar gear but cannot find > anything that will do what I want. Or I should say I cannot decipher > the sales stuff! Can anyone help me please. > > Colin - M5FRA > Colin, Rigblaster, Microkeyer, and other similar interfaces shoud do what you want, or "sort of". My Microkeyer has cables connected to BOTH my Mic jack AND to my rear accessory port. The microphone is thus connected to the interface and I can use the mic for voice communications and use either the mic jack OR the rear connector for digital work. Andy K3UK Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: CW Decoding Software
I compared the ability to copy CW by simultaneously watching the print of both Multipsk and AGND's program and was surprised how much better the Multipsk algorithm works. 73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: The US Ham radio service
Public service is definitely not a smoke screen in my area. Considering that even though we have a very small number of hams in the county, we can often get half of the active hams to participate in emergency management excercises. Also, many of us have participated for decades with the Skywarn program. This past summer a tornado did miss me (< 5 miles) but did destroy another ridge top home and we were in contact in real time with the NWS and sent a spotter to the area of concern to NWS due to detected rotation. He was there within seconds of the incident. During the same storm event, a similar rotation appeared on radar and we deployed another ham to a village about 15 miles from our nearby town. He arrived within seconds to the devastation and was able to maintain real time contact with NWS staff. After having some ecom activities, we discovered that one of the counties communications needs was to provide connections between the hospital and out of town ambulances to triage areas at an incident scene. We also are in the final stages of having major linking of areas hospital by the funding of VHF/UHF antenna and feedline and power supply. (Bring your own rig). Digital does not currently play a role since we are primarily running tactical ecom. I would like to see a digital link from our EOC to the State EOC though. The plan at the state level is to avoid all amateur radio packet links and use Winlink 2000 system via VHF. This is due to having very few ecom hams around the state who have HF class licenses. There is almost no interest anymore for packet switching by any hams, and near zero interest in digital HF of any type. I am very surprised how few digital hams there are considering the tremendous strides we have had over the past few decades with improved technology. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Mel, I have always considered the presentation , in the USA, of > amateur radio as a public service to be a smoke screen. Yes, many > hams help when there are emergency communication needs, but I will > estimate that 90% of U.S. hams never participate in that kind of > activity. Amateur Radio in the U.S. is like amateur radio in most > countries, a hobby that involves talking/typing/CWing to others. As > to your latter comment...I think the fact that your region has many > countries with differing languagues, helps to keep alive the ham's > code of civility and avoidance of political commentary. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC
Hello Joe, I was hoping that you would pay me the courtesy of responding back about my concern over the plan for W1AW to QSY from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc, right on top of the weak digital signal PSK31/63, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK, RTTY calling frequency. If RM-11306 band segregation by bandwidth becomes a Part 97 regulation, the ARRL has proposed that the mayhem be controlled by voluntary band plan. How do you expect ham's to take ARRL band plans seriously when the ARRL violates them. Do as I say not as I do hypocricy? --... ...--, Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF Lakeland, FL, USA Grid Square EL97AW [EMAIL PROTECTED] KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm - Original Message - From: Thomas Giella KN4LF To: ARRL Joe Carcia NJ1Q Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC Joe, As an ARRL member in good standing I'm advising you that it is a very bad idea to QSY W1AW operations from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc beginning on April 3rd, 2006. 1807.500 kc +/- 3 kc is a main and very active frequency slice for weak signal PSK31, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK and RTTY digital operations. W1AW operation there would wipe out this main meeting frequency and more. On 160 meters the ARRL band plan calls for digital modes between 1800-1810 kc and CW between 1800-2000 kc, so it makes no sense to begin operation on 1807.500 kc. If you do the math it's 10 kc for digital modes and 200 kc for CW. I'm an avid CW operator too and I'm aware of the pressure the 160 meter CW DX community has been putting on your 1817.500 kc operations. But the solution to that issue is not to QSY down to 1807.500 kc. Please reconsider your frequency choice. --... ...--, Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF Lakeland, FL, USA Grid Square EL97AW [EMAIL PROTECTED] KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:09:52 - From: "Michael E Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: New ARRL 160M CW Frequency on top of PSK Frequency Check this out folks. We all need to email ARRL in protest. From the ARRL Web site: W1AW to QSY on 160 meters (Feb 23, 2006) -- Starting Monday, April 3, Maxim Memorial Station W1AW will be using a new 160-meter frequency for its CW transmissions. The new frequency will be 1807.5 kHz. "The last time we shifted frequency on 160 meters was back in 2003," says W1AW Station Manager Joe Carcia, NJ1Q. "Since that time, operating patterns have changed, and there is more DX showing up near our current frequency of 1817.5 kHz. We're shifting frequency to reduce the possibility of interference." -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 2/28/2006 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] Bush signs 700 MHz transition package into law
As expected, President George W. Bush yesterday signed budget-reconciliation legislation that includes a firm date for TV broadcasters to clear 700 MHz spectrum and $1.2 billion in funding earmarked for public-safety communications. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 216-214 to approve the budget package, which requires broadcasters to clear the 700 MHz airwaves on Feb. 17, 2009, after which 24 MHz of frequencies will be allocated nationwide to public safety. Other airwaves in the band will be auctioned to commercial operators in a bidding process expected to generate $10 billion in additional revenue for the government. Under previous law, broadcasters tentatively were targeted to clear the 700 MHz band by the end of this year, but they were not required to do so until 85% of all U.S. television sets could receive digital signalsa threshold that could take decades to reach, according to many analysts. Some public-safety officials previously had expressed hope that first responders might receive more than the 24 MHz of airwave earmarked, but enacting the budget measure effectively ends such discussion, said Harlin McEwen, chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police communications and technology committee. "All the spectrum that is not going to public safety is ready to be auctioned, so it is highly unlikely [that more frequencies would be dedicated to public safety]," McEwen said. In addition to allocating spectrum to public safety, the law creates a $1 billion grant program to pay for public-safety interoperable communications systems, $156 million for national alert and tsunami warning systems and $43.5 million to help fund E-911 upgrades as called for in the Enhance 911 Act passed in 2004. Most of the $10 billion in expected auction proceeds will be used to reduce budget deficits and to fund a program designed to provide people with analog TV sets low-cost converters that will let them receive digital broadcasts. No Comment Don KA9QJG Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] 160M DIGI OPS.....do as we say, not what we do
He who tries to inflict political statements on amateur radio is a DAMN FOOL. 73, Chuck, AA5J At 02:26 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote: >Its because the ARRL has gone nuts, like Bush. > >73 de WB4M >Buddy > Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] Bush signs 700 MHz transition package into law
A billion dollars? Wow! That will increase the high volume level of the discussions as to what is the "best" solution! ... doc > In addition to allocating spectrum to public safety, the law creates a > $1 billion grant program to pay for public-safety interoperable > communications systems, $156 million for national alert and tsunami > warning systems and $43.5 million to help fund E-911 upgrades as > called for in the Enhance 911 Act passed in 2004. > Most of the $10 billion in expected auction proceeds will be used to > reduce budget deficits and to fund a program designed to provide > people with analog TV sets low-cost converters that will let them > receive digital broadcasts. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: The US Ham radio service
Rick, Respectfully, you might want to clue your EOC in on the SEDAN network and how it works. Those folks have a lot of experience with tactical emcomm using packet. What impressed me the most is that they have known for a long time that forwarded messages, e.g. email, are not conducive to disaster operations. There is no guarantee a message is forwarded, delivered, or read. This is of special significance with the testimony in front of Congress in the past couple of weeks of how poorly email worked for FEMA in gaining attention to the situation in New Orleans and in coordinating responses in a timely manner. That is why I am designing our local network to use linux + jnos + packet at each node. It provides BBS operation where you can directly place messages in the bbs for someone and can check periodically to insure the message has been read. The packet allows direct keyboard-to-keyboard work between emergency personnel at the various sites when that is needed as well. In addition jnos will give you internet email access when that is absolutely needed. I'm not building that capability in but will have the capability to do so if it is needed at some point. Frankly, our State EOC has little use for amateur radio at all. The station is there primarily to provide first contact to places where other emergency personnel may not be stationed and secondarily to provide liason to other disaster response agencies like the ARC. They have relay racks of military HF radios and modems provided by the National Guard and if the emergency is big enough for the State EOC to be a player, they will have National Guard dispatched to the site with communication gear hams can only drool about. They have hardened fiber rings all over the state plus satellite links. The county EOC's are a different matter but, then, they don't have the need for long-distance communcations that HF radio will provide. A number of the county EOC's also have hardened fiber rings to strategic locations and are putting in satellite links as well. Even VHF Winlink isn't going to give them much they don't already have. The EOC's that even want amateur help seem to be looking more for help with manpower issues than anything. I know one plan being considered is having hams staff help volunteer induction centers in the case of a large scale disaster. Hams would be used to communicate between emergency agencies and the induction center as well as inside the induction complex. Communication methods are being discussed for this. Packet could be of some use but VHF FM would probably be the primary tool. I know email over amateur frequencies has a certain "cachet" right now, and I'm sure it has its' uses, but I suspect a little more circumspection in touting it's capabilities might be in order after how email worked for FEMA. I've seen people touting its use for everything from sending digital pictures to some "glass house" somewhere to using it for sending huge lists of victims to some "glass house" somewhere. Well, anyone who watched the coverage of Katrina knows that hi-res commercial grade videotape from a flyover helicopter is worth a lot more for damage assessment than a few, ground-level still shots sent over amateur radio. And I still can't get anyone to tell me why you would want to send huge lists of victims to anyone for! It's not like anyone can do anything with them! FWIW I guess. tim ab0wr On Tuesday 28 February 2006 17:01, KV9U wrote: > Public service is definitely not a smoke screen in my area. Considering > that even though we have a very small number of hams in the county, we > can often get half of the active hams to participate in emergency > management excercises. Also, many of us have participated for decades > with the Skywarn program. This past summer a tornado did miss me (< 5 > miles) but did destroy another ridge top home and we were in contact in > real time with the NWS and sent a spotter to the area of concern to NWS > due to detected rotation. He was there within seconds of the incident. > During the same storm event, a similar rotation appeared on radar and > we deployed another ham to a village about 15 miles from our nearby > town. He arrived within seconds to the devastation and was able to > maintain real time contact with NWS staff. > > After having some ecom activities, we discovered that one of the > counties communications needs was to provide connections between the > hospital and out of town ambulances to triage areas at an incident > scene. We also are in the final stages of having major linking of areas > hospital by the funding of VHF/UHF antenna and feedline and power > supply. (Bring your own rig). Digital does not currently play a role > since we are primarily running tactical ecom. I would like to see a > digital link from our EOC to the State EOC though. The plan at the state > level is to avoid all amateur radio packet links and use Winlink 2000 > sys
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC
Thomas, I be glad to respond to you. As far as I am concerned the ARRL can stop the broadcasting on all frequencies. I am against the ARRL moving to that segment of the band. I expressed my feelings on the FCC web site about RM-11306. I think since ham radio is worldwide that the IARU should be the ones to set the band plan especially on HF. The HF bands should be the same worldwide. As has been said on this and other reflectors the ARRL does what they think is best for us and that is not true. No one can come up with a plan that everyone will like but surly they can come up wit something better than they have so far. I am against ANY automatic control station on the HF bands with the exception of the 10 meter FM repeaters. I am not so much against WinLink but the way it is being used. Just go to their web site and check out all the WinLink stations in the U. S. That make no bones about being set up for the Yacht Clubs to use when they out sailing. One even says that he passes over 31,000 pieces of traffic a month. Now does anyone really believe that all of that email is necessary? WinLink could be a very useful tool for emergency communications, however in 99% of all emergencies are not nation wide but confined to the effected area. I belong to an ARES group here in my county and at one time was the EC. In less than an hour after the 9/11 our ARES group was in contact with the area in PA where the plane went down. We were not needed to help with any traffic however but we were there and knew what was going on. There is also a large nuclear power plant here in my county and we have an annual drill with the local, state, and federal EMA. My groups knows 15-30 minutes before anyone else in the drill when they are going to the next phase of the drill. Joe IveyW4JSI Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter - Original Message - From: Thomas Giella KN4LF To: a RTTY COL eList ; a Psk31 QTH eList ; a Psk31 es eList ; a psk31 eGroup ; a PSK31 070 eGroup ; a Oliviadata eGroup ; a MFSK eGroup ; a Digital Radio eGroup Cc: ARRL Joe Carcia NJ1Q ; ARRL David Sumner K1ZZ ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC Hello Joe,I was hoping that you would pay me the courtesy of responding back about my concern over the plan for W1AW to QSY from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc, right on top of the weak digital signal PSK31/63, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK, RTTY calling frequency.If RM-11306 band segregation by bandwidth becomes a Part 97 regulation, the ARRL has proposed that the mayhem be controlled by voluntary band plan. How do you expect ham's to take ARRL band plans seriously when the ARRL violates them.Do as I say not as I do hypocricy?--... ...--,Thomas F. Giella, KN4LFLakeland, FL, USAGrid Square EL97AW[EMAIL PROTECTED]KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.comKN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm- Original Message - From: Thomas Giella KN4LFTo: ARRL Joe Carcia NJ1QCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:20 PMSubject: ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KCJoe,As an ARRL member in good standing I'm advising you that it is a very bad idea to QSY W1AW operations from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc beginning on April 3rd, 2006. 1807.500 kc +/- 3 kc is a main and very active frequency slice for weak signal PSK31, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK and RTTY digital operations. W1AW operation there would wipe out this main meeting frequency and more.On 160 meters the ARRL band plan calls for digital modes between 1800-1810 kc and CW between 1800-2000 kc, so it makes no sense to begin operation on 1807.500 kc. If you do the math it's 10 kc for digital modes and 200 kc for CW.I'm an avid CW operator too and I'm aware of the pressure the 160 meter CW DX community has been putting on your 1817.500 kc operations. But the solution to that issue is not to QSY down to 1807.500 kc. Please reconsider your frequency choice.--... ...--,Thomas F. Giella, KN4LFLakeland, FL, USAGrid Square EL97AW[EMAIL PROTECTED]KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.comKN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:09:52 - From: "Michael E Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: New ARRL 160M CW Frequency on top of PSK FrequencyCheck this out folks. We all need to email ARRL in protest. From theARRL Web site:W1AW to QSY on 160 meters (Feb 23, 2006) -- Starting Monday, April 3,Maxim Memorial Station W1AW will be using a new 160-meter frequencyfor its CW transmissions. The new frequency will be 1807.5 kHz. "Thelast time we shifted frequency on 160 meters was back in 2003," saysW1AW Station Manager Joe Carcia, NJ1Q. "Since that t
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The US Ham radio service
KV9U wrote: >Public service is definitely not a smoke screen in my area. Considering >that even though we have a very small number of hams in the county, we >can often get half of the active hams to participate in emergency >management excercises. > During the January 17 1994 quake, in my area in Southern California much communications were out for days. Amateur Radio was all over the place, and was one of the only means of communications and was integral in coordinating emergency services, particularly for those whose homes were destroyed or made uninhabitable. More than a smokescreen, fellas. One thing that often gets forgotten, is that the North American continent is more subject to many kinds of natural disasters than most. We have more than our share of hurricanes, we lead the world in tornados, and we have at least our share of earthquakes and forest fires. Amateur Radio is often active in helping with all of these things. de Roger, W6VZV Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: The US Ham radio service & SEDAN
I know some folks have been working on the SEDAN network here in Florida, am not sure how successful they have been. Can you direct me to a URL that describes what you are doing there, please? I am a fan of Linux and could dedicate an older laptop and an older 2M rig to a packet/SEDAN type purpose if useful here. 73, doc kd4e > Respectfully, you might want to clue your EOC in on the SEDAN network and how > it works. Those folks have a lot of experience with tactical emcomm using > packet. > > What impressed me the most is that they have known for a long time that > forwarded messages, e.g. email, are not conducive to disaster operations. > There is no guarantee a message is forwarded, delivered, or read. > > This is of special significance with the testimony in front of Congress in > the > past couple of weeks of how poorly email worked for FEMA in gaining attention > to the situation in New Orleans and in coordinating responses in a timely > manner. > > That is why I am designing our local network to use linux + jnos + packet at > each node. It provides BBS operation where you can directly place messages in > the bbs for someone and can check periodically to insure the message has been > read. The packet allows direct keyboard-to-keyboard work between emergency > personnel at the various sites when that is needed as well. In addition jnos > will give you internet email access when that is absolutely needed. I'm not > building that capability in but will have the capability to do so if it is > needed at some point. > > Frankly, our State EOC has little use for amateur radio at all. The station > is > there primarily to provide first contact to places where other emergency > personnel may not be stationed and secondarily to provide liason to other > disaster response agencies like the ARC. They have relay racks of military HF > radios and modems provided by the National Guard and if the emergency is big > enough for the State EOC to be a player, they will have National Guard > dispatched to the site with communication gear hams can only drool about. > They have hardened fiber rings all over the state plus satellite links. > > The county EOC's are a different matter but, then, they don't have the need > for long-distance communcations that HF radio will provide. A number of the > county EOC's also have hardened fiber rings to strategic locations and are > putting in satellite links as well. Even VHF Winlink isn't going to give them > much they don't already have. The EOC's that even want amateur help seem to > be looking more for help with manpower issues than anything. I know one plan > being considered is having hams staff help volunteer induction centers in the > case of a large scale disaster. Hams would be used to communicate between > emergency agencies and the induction center as well as inside the induction > complex. Communication methods are being discussed for this. Packet could be > of some use but VHF FM would probably be the primary tool. > > I know email over amateur frequencies has a certain "cachet" right now, and > I'm sure it has its' uses, but I suspect a little more circumspection in > touting it's capabilities might be in order after how email worked for FEMA. > > I've seen people touting its use for everything from sending digital pictures > to some "glass house" somewhere to using it for sending huge lists of victims > to some "glass house" somewhere. Well, anyone who watched the coverage of > Katrina knows that hi-res commercial grade videotape from a flyover > helicopter is worth a lot more for damage assessment than a few, ground-level > still shots sent over amateur radio. And I still can't get anyone to tell me > why you would want to send huge lists of victims to anyone for! It's not like > anyone can do anything with them! > > FWIW I guess. > > tim ab0wr Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] New
bty229065 wrote: >I am new to digital modes, well not totally as I did run a Creed 7B >over a 2m link in 1971/72. Now I want to use RTTY and maybe some other >data modes on HF using an FT1000MP MkV Field. I would like to use the >rear RTTY port on the radio and leave the mic plugged into the front. >I have been looking at the RIGblaster and similar gear but cannot find >anything that will do what I want. Or I should say I cannot decipher >the sales stuff! Can anyone help me please. > >Colin - M5FRA > You want to use the rear PKT port for anything except RTTY, and you can use it for RTTY also. It is really an AFSK port, and will work fine with all digital modes. Use menu 8-6 and set it for PSKU. Frankly, you don't need any interface at all. Just audio in and out from the soundcard to the appropriate DIN pins on the AFSK port. Use rig control for PTT. de Roger W6VZV Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: New poll for digitalradio
Perhaps those who are in favor of RM-11306 took the wise advice not to "mail bomb" the FCC with comments that all say the same thing. There is only strength in numbers when that strength has a purpose. I personally see no purpose in asking over 5,000 US hams who use "local or automatic control" per Part 97.221 to email comments. It just creates "noise." This is also the case with those involved with EmComm. A few well thought out comments to the FCC are of more value than mail bombing to prove some point. Lastly, the total number of comments received are not representative of the US Amateur population for any respectable sampling, and can hardly be stated as "overwelming either way. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open > discussion here of the impact of remotely-invoked unattended > operation on digital mode stations are also those speaking strongly > in favor of the expanded use of remotely-invoked unattended > operation. > > Its a bit late for the mushroom strategy, guys. The overwhelming > majority of comments filed with the FCC opposed the ARRL proposal, > and many of those were authored by the participants of this > reflector. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley > wrote: > > > > move them to the policy group discussions. as well as > the long , on-going debates about the ARRL. Let's keep the focus on > > digital radio in a global sense, letting the US hams debate the > ARRL issues elsewhere. > > > > John > > VE5MU > > - Original Message - > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:10 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] New poll for digitalradio > > > > > > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > > digitalradio group: > > > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as > Pactor) , their usefulness, > > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > > o I don't care either way > > o I don't know. > > > > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys?id=2151961 > > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! > Groups > > web site listed above. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to > Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan > policy discussion) > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply > > > > > > -- - > --- > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- - > --- > > > > > > > > > > -- - > --- > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: > 2/24/06 > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC
I, for one, did respond direct to arrl, though no copy here to digital radio. I agree. Also I think that the so called band plan for 160 stinks anyway, and needs to be completely revised. - Original Message - From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "a RTTY COL eList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a Psk31 QTH eList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a Psk31 es eList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a psk31 eGroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a PSK31 070 eGroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a Oliviadata eGroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a MFSK eGroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a Digital Radio eGroup" Cc: "ARRL Joe Carcia NJ1Q" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ARRL David Sumner K1ZZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:28 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC > Hello Joe, > > I was hoping that you would pay me the courtesy of responding back about my > concern over the plan for W1AW to QSY from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc, right > on top of the weak digital signal PSK31/63, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK, RTTY > calling frequency. > > If RM-11306 band segregation by bandwidth becomes a Part 97 regulation, the > ARRL has proposed that the mayhem be controlled by voluntary band plan. How > do you expect ham's to take ARRL band plans seriously when the ARRL violates > them. > > Do as I say not as I do hypocricy? > > --... ...--, > Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF > Lakeland, FL, USA > Grid Square EL97AW > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com > KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm > > - Original Message - > From: Thomas Giella KN4LF > To: ARRL Joe Carcia NJ1Q > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:20 PM > Subject: ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC > > > Joe, > > As an ARRL member in good standing I'm advising you that it is a very bad > idea to QSY W1AW operations from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc beginning on > April 3rd, 2006. 1807.500 kc +/- 3 kc is a main and very active frequency > slice for weak signal PSK31, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK and RTTY digital > operations. W1AW operation there would wipe out this main meeting frequency > and more. > > On 160 meters the ARRL band plan calls for digital modes between 1800-1810 > kc and CW between 1800-2000 kc, so it makes no sense to begin operation on > 1807.500 kc. If you do the math it's 10 kc for digital modes and 200 kc for > CW. > > I'm an avid CW operator too and I'm aware of the pressure the 160 meter CW > DX community has been putting on your 1817.500 kc operations. But the > solution to that issue is not to QSY down to 1807.500 kc. Please reconsider > your frequency choice. > > --... ...--, > Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF > Lakeland, FL, USA > Grid Square EL97AW > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com > KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm > >Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:09:52 - >From: "Michael E Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: New ARRL 160M CW Frequency on top of PSK Frequency > > Check this out folks. We all need to email ARRL in protest. From the > ARRL Web site: > > W1AW to QSY on 160 meters (Feb 23, 2006) -- Starting Monday, April 3, > Maxim Memorial Station W1AW will be using a new 160-meter frequency > for its CW transmissions. The new frequency will be 1807.5 kHz. "The > last time we shifted frequency on 160 meters was back in 2003," says > W1AW Station Manager Joe Carcia, NJ1Q. "Since that time, operating > patterns have changed, and there is more DX showing up near our > current frequency of 1817.5 kHz. We're shifting frequency to reduce > the possibility of interference." > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 2/28/2006 > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 - Release Date: 2/28/2006 > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: New poll for digitalradio
When the FCC solicited comments regarding the establishment of remotely-invoked automatic operation via 97.221 back in 1995, there were a total of 19 comments filed. The 972 comments filed for RM- 11306 represents a huge increase. My statistical samples show that no less than 80% of all comments oppose RM-11306. The ARRL proposed a change, and the vast majority of those motivated to respond opposed that change on concrete grounds. From someone who worked with the ARRL to develop their proposal, your dismissal of this response as "noise" and "unrepresentative" indicates that the lesson remains unlearned: stonewalling a bad idea only strengthens the opposition. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps those who are in favor of RM-11306 took the wise advice not > to "mail bomb" the FCC with comments that all say the same thing. > There is only strength in numbers when that strength has a purpose. I > personally see no purpose in asking over 5,000 US hams who use "local > or automatic control" per Part 97.221 to email comments. It just > creates "noise." This is also the case with those involved with > EmComm. A few well thought out comments to the FCC are of more value > than mail bombing to prove some point. > > Lastly, the total number of comments received are not representative > of the US Amateur population for any respectable sampling, and can > hardly be stated as "overwelming either way. > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > wrote: > > > > It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open > > discussion here of the impact of remotely-invoked unattended > > operation on digital mode stations are also those speaking strongly > > in favor of the expanded use of remotely-invoked unattended > > operation. > > > > Its a bit late for the mushroom strategy, guys. The overwhelming > > majority of comments filed with the FCC opposed the ARRL proposal, > > and many of those were authored by the participants of this > > reflector. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley > > wrote: > > > > > > move them to the policy group discussions. as well > as > > the long , on-going debates about the ARRL. Let's keep the focus on > > > digital radio in a global sense, letting the US hams debate the > > ARRL issues elsewhere. > > > > > > John > > > VE5MU > > > - Original Message - > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:10 PM > > > Subject: [digitalradio] New poll for digitalradio > > > > > > > > > > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > > > digitalradio group: > > > > > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as > > Pactor) , their usefulness, > > > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > > > > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > > > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > > > o I don't care either way > > > o I don't know. > > > > > > > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys? id=2151961 > > > > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > > > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! > > Groups > > > web site listed above. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to > > Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan > > policy discussion) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply > > > > > > > > > --- --- > - > > --- > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > --- --- > - > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- --- > - > > --- > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: > > 2/24/06 > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New poll for digitalradio
At 09:33 PM 2/28/06, you wrote: >When the FCC solicited comments regarding the establishment of >remotely-invoked automatic operation via 97.221 back in 1995, there >were a total of 19 comments filed. The 972 comments filed for RM- >11306 represents a huge increase. My statistical samples show that >no less than 80% of all comments oppose RM-11306. Don't bet on that 927... That is only the on line count I and a number of others have used the US mail to send in ours. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: New poll for digitalradio
In my perspective, it doesnt matter how many do not physically vote in an election, or by comment. Everyone who does NOT vote, has just voted for the winning side of the election. Quite often the non-voters outnumber the voters, and could have changed any election by voiting. Just look at our two most recent presidental elections to see who could have changed the outcome: it was those who DIDNT bother to vote. Its a shame more people have not espoused their druthers, but they didnt. If they were for this RM, then they had the right to say so. Not doing so, indicates their unwillingness to support it. Of those speaking out, according to Dave, 80 percent chose to oppose this, and this speaks for all of us in a big way. Original Message - From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:33 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New poll for digitalradio > When the FCC solicited comments regarding the establishment of > remotely-invoked automatic operation via 97.221 back in 1995, there > were a total of 19 comments filed. The 972 comments filed for RM- > 11306 represents a huge increase. My statistical samples show that > no less than 80% of all comments oppose RM-11306. > > The ARRL proposed a change, and the vast majority of those motivated > to respond opposed that change on concrete grounds. From someone who > worked with the ARRL to develop their proposal, your dismissal of > this response as "noise" and "unrepresentative" indicates that the > lesson remains unlearned: stonewalling a bad idea only strengthens > the opposition. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Perhaps those who are in favor of RM-11306 took the wise advice > not > > to "mail bomb" the FCC with comments that all say the same thing. > > There is only strength in numbers when that strength has a > purpose. I > > personally see no purpose in asking over 5,000 US hams who > use "local > > or automatic control" per Part 97.221 to email comments. It just > > creates "noise." This is also the case with those involved with > > EmComm. A few well thought out comments to the FCC are of more > value > > than mail bombing to prove some point. > > > > Lastly, the total number of comments received are not > representative > > of the US Amateur population for any respectable sampling, and can > > hardly be stated as "overwelming either way. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > > wrote: > > > > > > It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open > > > discussion here of the impact of remotely-invoked unattended > > > operation on digital mode stations are also those speaking > strongly > > > in favor of the expanded use of remotely-invoked unattended > > > operation. > > > > > > Its a bit late for the mushroom strategy, guys. The overwhelming > > > majority of comments filed with the FCC opposed the ARRL > proposal, > > > and many of those were authored by the participants of this > > > reflector. > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > move them to the policy group discussions. as > well > > as > > > the long , on-going debates about the ARRL. Let's keep the focus > on > > > > digital radio in a global sense, letting the US hams debate > the > > > ARRL issues elsewhere. > > > > > > > > John > > > > VE5MU > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:10 PM > > > > Subject: [digitalradio] New poll for digitalradio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > > > > digitalradio group: > > > > > > > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as > > > Pactor) , their usefulness, > > > > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > > > > > > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > > > > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > > > > o I don't care either way > > > > o I don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys? > id=2151961 > > > > > > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > > > > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! > > > Groups > > > > web site listed above. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to > > > Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > > > > > The MixW Reflector : > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band p
[digitalradio] Re: New poll for digitalradio
972, not 927. Did you support or oppose RM-11306, John? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:33 PM 2/28/06, you wrote: > >When the FCC solicited comments regarding the establishment of > >remotely-invoked automatic operation via 97.221 back in 1995, there > >were a total of 19 comments filed. The 972 comments filed for RM- > >11306 represents a huge increase. My statistical samples show that > >no less than 80% of all comments oppose RM-11306. > > Don't bet on that 927... That is only the on line count > I and a number of others have used the US mail to send > in ours. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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/
