Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
SCS gives away the modems at cost or for free? News to me. Can I use a soundcard program to detect it and monitor it, as I should be able to do as a licensed amateur? No, it is not open to the public. Will West Mountain Radio, MFJ, or some other company start selling a more reasonably priced modem? No. Will elecraft come out with a pactor III modem kit, at an even more reasonable price? No. Can I build my own, using publicly available knowledge provided by SCS? No. My point was that if the pactor 3 modems were built such that they would not ever transmit on a busy frequency, no matter the detected mode already in use on the frequency (18 2+ Khz channels on 20 meters alone, according to bandplans.com) they would be deemed practically useless, and SCS's sales would hurt. That is why they do not bother to add this feature. I never said the people that invented winlink to provide yacht-mail or whatever they were thinking at the time were charging for any services. My main bitch comes down to malicious QRM , which I have been subject to on numerous occasions. If you want to use amateur radio to bypass the internet or commercial satellite services, which should, by the way, be within the financial reach of someone with a yacht and an SCS modem, then be my guest. I was simply stating why I thought the feature would never get added. Nothing will change, and I really don't care anymore. If other people in the past accused the inventors of Winlink of charging for a profit, I don't know anything about that. Why don't you go ask them why they said it? I didn't. I'm as sick of this nonsense as I am of Pactor automatically starting up all over 20 meters without listening first. On 6/21/06, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Craig, > > Where exactly is the money exchanging hands? I have heard this type of > comment a number of times and found the exact opposite from what you are > saying. > > The Winlink 2000 system is completely free to use and the four hams or > so who developed, own, and control this system have donated their time > and equipment for years and years all the way back to the original > Aplink system and later the Winlink, Netlink, and eventually the > primarily internet based Winlink 2000 system. > > There are other systems that may be using the software, such as > SailMail, that are somewhat commercial but even that looks to be more of > a cooperative. > > How about being forthright with the facts? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Craig Cook wrote: > > >If QRM-Tor III modems did listen for a busy channel, much less traffic > would > >get through. Thurston Howell won't be able to send free email from his > >luxury yacht, possibly hurting sales of modems. Don't count on it ever > >happening. PactorIII/WinLink is a commercial for profit enterprise that > >happens to use amateur frequencies under current rules, unfortunately. I > >wish those rule loopholes to be closed someday, but I may be dreaming. > > > > > > > > > -- 73, Craig Cook - N7OR in Sandy, OR [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
I have an SCS PTC-IIe that can operate both Pactor-2 and Pactor-3. I can find no evidence of a busy frequency detector in its documentation or schematic. For keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor operation, there is no need of busy frequency detection; the operators at each end can assure a clear frequency just as they would do with any other attended QSO. Neither Pactor nor SCS modems are the problem. Semi-automatic operation without busy frequency detection will be a source of QRM no matter what protocol is used. There is plenty of email traffic on the published WinLink PMBO frequencies; see http://users.iafrica.com/z/zs/zs5s/bulls/PMBO.TXT 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >If QRM-Tor III modems did listen > > Since it cost over 900 bucks to get a SCS Pactor III controller I think it's > a pretty good guess that most have never copied any pactor III traffic. > That makes the above statement bold or just repeating what someone > else has said. > > I do have a pactor III controller and don't see that much email type traffic. > Most of that type of traffic is going over a TCP/IP network. Now it could be > that being in the mid-west I don't as much as the east or left coast. But still > I think one needs to see for himself before making bold statement like this. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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 ALE Transceiver Vertex VX-1700 HK$6500 = US$837
The Vertex VX-1700 is currently available in Hong Kong. HK$6500 = US$837 for the complete VX-1700 transceiver with ALE. For the mathematically impaired, let's crunch the currency conversion numbers from Hong Kong dollars to US dollars: VX-1700 Transceiver is HK$4100 = US$528 ALE-1 Option is HK$2400 = US$309 Total for tranceiver VX-1700 w/ALE package HK$6500 = US$837 73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA > ... "street" price in Hong Kong... > making VX-1700 the first HF ALE radio priced like a ham radio. > HK$4100=VX-1700 with hand mic > HK$2400=ALE-1 Automatic Link Establishment option VX-1700 > More info about HF ALE: > http://hflink.com > > More info about Vertex VX-1700: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vx17 > > > > 73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
Craig, Where exactly is the money exchanging hands? I have heard this type of comment a number of times and found the exact opposite from what you are saying. The Winlink 2000 system is completely free to use and the four hams or so who developed, own, and control this system have donated their time and equipment for years and years all the way back to the original Aplink system and later the Winlink, Netlink, and eventually the primarily internet based Winlink 2000 system. There are other systems that may be using the software, such as SailMail, that are somewhat commercial but even that looks to be more of a cooperative. How about being forthright with the facts? 73, Rick, KV9U Craig Cook wrote: >If QRM-Tor III modems did listen for a busy channel, much less traffic would >get through. Thurston Howell won't be able to send free email from his >luxury yacht, possibly hurting sales of modems. Don't count on it ever >happening. PactorIII/WinLink is a commercial for profit enterprise that >happens to use amateur frequencies under current rules, unfortunately. I >wish those rule loopholes to be closed someday, but I may be dreaming. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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 ALE Transceiver Vertex VX-1700 (lower cost)
At 10:23 PM 6/21/2006, you wrote: >What does the ALE "option" cost beyond the US$837 ? I ask the vertex dealer that I once worked for about this rig and was told that they have no info on it since it's not sold in the USA Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
>If QRM-Tor III modems did listen Since it cost over 900 bucks to get a SCS Pactor III controller I think it's a pretty good guess that most have never copied any pactor III traffic. That makes the above statement bold or just repeating what someone else has said. I do have a pactor III controller and don't see that much email type traffic. Most of that type of traffic is going over a TCP/IP network. Now it could be that being in the mid-west I don't as much as the east or left coast. But still I think one needs to see for himself before making bold statement like this. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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 ALE Transceiver Vertex VX-1700 (lower cost)
What does the ALE "option" cost beyond the US$837 ? On 6/21/06, expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I priced the new Vertex VX-1700 HF-ALE transceiver yesterday at > a radio store in Hong Kong. This transceiver has a built-in ALE > option, so it does not need an external PC or controller. It > also has built-in CCIR 493 SELCALL (100baud FSK) that is > compatible with VX-1210. The total cost (converted to US Dollars) > is about US$837 ---making VX-1700 the first HF ALE radio priced > like a ham radio. It is widely expected that the VX-1700 will > eventually be released to the USA market, but I have not seen > any announcement yet. > > HK$=ITEM > HK$4100=VX-1700 with hand mic > HK$2400=ALE-1 Automatic Link Establishment option VX-1700 > \ > That is the current cash-on-the-barrelhead, in-person "street" cost > in Hong Kong Dollars (HK$) > > VX-1700 is a 12VDC HF transceiver for base, portable, mobile, > or marine use that follows in the footsteps of the old Vertex > System 600, which was widely sold in third world countries. > > More info about HF ALE: > http://hflink.com > > More info about Vertex VX-1700: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vx17 > > 73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA > > . > > > -- Andy K3UK Fredonia, New York. Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 Also available via Echolink [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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] Bandplans.com Re: Suggested Digital Op Frequencies
14,109.5 Khz - MT63 On 6/21/06, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with Risto iin that bandplans.com are based on input, and not > someone's favorite rant. > > In terms of missing entries, I'd llike to point out the following : > > 3725 -3750 Canada Provincial and Regional SSB nets, and emergency nets as > required. > > 7055mhz 40M Canada calling frequency, and national SSB nets, alternate > emergency frequency from 80M > > 14140mhz 20 M Canada calling frequency , and National SSB nets > > john > VE5MU > > > - Original Message - > From: Risto Kotalampi > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:40 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandplans.com Re: Suggested Digital Op > Frequencies > > This is not correct. > > bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has > inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site > itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a > snapshot of what you can find on the bands. I'm looking forward to all > of our submissions for entries that you think that are missing. > > 73! > > Risto, W6RK > > Dave Bernstein wrote: > > http://bandplans.com would better be characterized as the "keep new > > users' keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs out of the way of automatic > > stations" list. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > "expeditionradio" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> Jerry wa0uzi wrote: > >>> I am a "Newbie", is the Suggested Operating Frequencies file > >>> herein dated August 1, 2002 the most current list?? > >>> > >> Hi Jerry, > >> > >> The best digital list is BANDPLANS.COM > >> > >> http://bandplans.com > >> > >> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> . > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/06 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- 73, Craig Cook - N7OR in Sandy, OR [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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] Bandplans.com Re: Suggested Digital Op Frequencies
I agree with Risto iin that bandplans.com are based on input, and not someone's favorite rant. In terms of missing entries, I'd llike to point out the following : 3725 -3750 Canada Provincial and Regional SSB nets, and emergency nets as required. 7055mhz40M Canada calling frequency, and national SSB nets, alternate emergency frequency from 80M 14140mhz 20 M Canada calling frequency , and National SSB nets john VE5MU - Original Message - From: Risto Kotalampi To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandplans.com Re: Suggested Digital Op Frequencies This is not correct. bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a snapshot of what you can find on the bands. I'm looking forward to all of our submissions for entries that you think that are missing. 73! Risto, W6RK Dave Bernstein wrote: > http://bandplans.com would better be characterized as the "keep new > users' keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs out of the way of automatic > stations" list. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Jerry wa0uzi wrote: >>> I am a "Newbie", is the Suggested Operating Frequencies file >>> herein dated August 1, 2002 the most current list?? >>> >> Hi Jerry, >> >> The best digital list is BANDPLANS.COM >> >> http://bandplans.com >> >> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> > > > > > > > > > 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: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 6/20/06 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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 ALE Transceiver Vertex VX-1700 (lower cost)
I priced the new Vertex VX-1700 HF-ALE transceiver yesterday at a radio store in Hong Kong. This transceiver has a built-in ALE option, so it does not need an external PC or controller. It also has built-in CCIR 493 SELCALL (100baud FSK) that is compatible with VX-1210. The total cost (converted to US Dollars) is about US$837 ---making VX-1700 the first HF ALE radio priced like a ham radio. It is widely expected that the VX-1700 will eventually be released to the USA market, but I have not seen any announcement yet. HK$=ITEM HK$4100=VX-1700 with hand mic HK$2400=ALE-1 Automatic Link Establishment option VX-1700 \ That is the current cash-on-the-barrelhead, in-person "street" cost in Hong Kong Dollars (HK$) VX-1700 is a 12VDC HF transceiver for base, portable, mobile, or marine use that follows in the footsteps of the old Vertex System 600, which was widely sold in third world countries. More info about HF ALE: http://hflink.com More info about Vertex VX-1700: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vx17 73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA . Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
> I do know that no automatic >station control software currently uses busy frequency detection to >refrain from transmitting when the frequency is in use. Packet for one. Sorry you are right that's the hardware doing it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
If QRM-Tor III modems did listen for a busy channel, much less traffic would get through. Thurston Howell won't be able to send free email from his luxury yacht, possibly hurting sales of modems. Don't count on it ever happening. PactorIII/WinLink is a commercial for profit enterprise that happens to use amateur frequencies under current rules, unfortunately. I wish those rule loopholes to be closed someday, but I may be dreaming. On 6/21/06, Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes. This was well-demonstrated in SCAMP, a soundcard-base protocol > that was beta-tested but never operationally deployed. For protocols > like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 whose implementation evidently requires > an outboard modem, busy detection could be implemented either with > additional hardware, with modifications to the embedded software, or > both. > > Steve K4CJX has said that some SCS modems provide busy frequency > detection, but I don't know what models provide this function, or > what sorts of signals can be detected. I do know that no automatic > station control software currently uses busy frequency detection to > refrain from transmitting when the frequency is in use. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Bill > Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > > > At 07:30 AM 6/21/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote: > > > > >the automatic station control software > > >immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency > is > > >locally clear or not. > > > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > > > Couldn't this be cured by software? The automatic station should > only > > respond to an incoming request if the channel is free of other > signals. > > > > Bill, W6WRT > > > > > -- 73, Craig Cook - N7OR in Sandy, OR [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
Yes. This was well-demonstrated in SCAMP, a soundcard-base protocol that was beta-tested but never operationally deployed. For protocols like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 whose implementation evidently requires an outboard modem, busy detection could be implemented either with additional hardware, with modifications to the embedded software, or both. Steve K4CJX has said that some SCS modems provide busy frequency detection, but I don't know what models provide this function, or what sorts of signals can be detected. I do know that no automatic station control software currently uses busy frequency detection to refrain from transmitting when the frequency is in use. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > At 07:30 AM 6/21/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote: > > >the automatic station control software > >immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is > >locally clear or not. > > *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** > > Couldn't this be cured by software? The automatic station should only > respond to an incoming request if the channel is free of other signals. > > Bill, W6WRT > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 07:30 AM 6/21/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote: >the automatic station control software >immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is >locally clear or not. *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** Couldn't this be cured by software? The automatic station should only respond to an incoming request if the channel is free of other signals. Bill, W6WRT Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: not this again (was- Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
Thanks, Ed. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "ebills42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave, > > A technicality or two on your response. > > 1. FCC Part 97 is not a statue but a regulation. Statutes are > legislated and result in regulations, such as Part 97, to implement > the law or the statute. > > 2. When the Regulation is posted in the Federal Register the complete > release includes a "Preamble" to the regulation. Although the text n > the Preamble does not appear in the regulation, it has the full force > of the regulation and can be used in citing a violation. > > I have not read the Preamble to the regulation you mentioned, but it > is possible the text you mentioned in the docket appears in the > Preamble and thus may be enforced. > > Ed > WE9B > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" wrote: > > > > If I call CQ on a clear frequency and you respond from the other > > side of the country -- QRMing over a local QSO in the process -- it > > is you, not I, who is violating 97.101(d): "No amateur operator > > shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference > > to any radio communication or signal." > > > > Similiarly, if I check a Winlink PMBO's frequency, find it to be > > clear, send a request, and the PMBO responds -- QRMing a local QSO > > in the process -- it is the PMBO operator who is violating 97.101 (d). > > > > The FCC did say (in PR Docket No. 94-59) "First, the control > > operator of the station that is connected to the automatically > > controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station > > from causing interference", but this requirement does not appear in > > the statute (97.221). Perhaps it exists someplace else in part 97, > > but I've yet to find it. > > > > I can think of only two ways that the operator of the station > > connected to the automatically controlled station can prevent the > > automatically controlled station from causing interference: > > > > 1. telephone a friend who lives near the automatically controlled > > station and ask him or her to listen to the frequency in question to > > be sure its clear before sending a request to the automatically > > controlled station > > > > 2. only send requests to automatically controlled stations known to > > include a functioning busy frequency detector > > > > As for your suggestion that we penalize operators who move into > > that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations, I remind > > you of 97.101(b): "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive > > use of any station." > > > > 73, > > > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker wrote: > > > > > > And as wee all know, well most of us that in most cases it's > > > the remote station that can't hear a ongoing QSO. > > > Why not pull their license as well? > > > And maybe pull the license of the guy that moved into > > > that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations. > > > > > > But I think we pretty well beat this horse to death last > > > fall on this very list. > > > > > > > > > At 08:57 AM 6/21/2006, you wrote: > > > > >will be intolerable unless > > > > > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their > > licenses if > > > > > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while > > responding to > > > > > >remote requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > >but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? > > > >I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already > > > >occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending > > station > > > >simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC > > > >license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending > > > >operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but > > > >ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station > > that > > > >might be proved. > > > > > > > >I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the > > QRM. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: I Should Know The Answer - Confused Myself
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15196 Although it may be a no-no, you could use steganography to embed non-image data within an image. Now let's here some word on this as long as the "specification" is published, and there is not intent to obscure data from view, then I wonder if this would be against Part 97.309(4)? Remember, this would be a "message" encoded within an image, and transmitted as an image. This would open up more bandwidth for "data" transmissions. Just a thought for brain stimulation. No flames please :-) 73... Jon Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: not this again (was- Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
Dave, A technicality or two on your response. 1. FCC Part 97 is not a statue but a regulation. Statutes are legislated and result in regulations, such as Part 97, to implement the law or the statute. 2. When the Regulation is posted in the Federal Register the complete release includes a "Preamble" to the regulation. Although the text n the Preamble does not appear in the regulation, it has the full force of the regulation and can be used in citing a violation. I have not read the Preamble to the regulation you mentioned, but it is possible the text you mentioned in the docket appears in the Preamble and thus may be enforced. Ed WE9B --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I call CQ on a clear frequency and you respond from the other > side of the country -- QRMing over a local QSO in the process -- it > is you, not I, who is violating 97.101(d): "No amateur operator > shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference > to any radio communication or signal." > > Similiarly, if I check a Winlink PMBO's frequency, find it to be > clear, send a request, and the PMBO responds -- QRMing a local QSO > in the process -- it is the PMBO operator who is violating 97.101(d). > > The FCC did say (in PR Docket No. 94-59) "First, the control > operator of the station that is connected to the automatically > controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station > from causing interference", but this requirement does not appear in > the statute (97.221). Perhaps it exists someplace else in part 97, > but I've yet to find it. > > I can think of only two ways that the operator of the station > connected to the automatically controlled station can prevent the > automatically controlled station from causing interference: > > 1. telephone a friend who lives near the automatically controlled > station and ask him or her to listen to the frequency in question to > be sure its clear before sending a request to the automatically > controlled station > > 2. only send requests to automatically controlled stations known to > include a functioning busy frequency detector > > As for your suggestion that we penalize operators who move into > that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations, I remind > you of 97.101(b): "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive > use of any station." > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker wrote: > > > > And as wee all know, well most of us that in most cases it's > > the remote station that can't hear a ongoing QSO. > > Why not pull their license as well? > > And maybe pull the license of the guy that moved into > > that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations. > > > > But I think we pretty well beat this horse to death last > > fall on this very list. > > > > > > At 08:57 AM 6/21/2006, you wrote: > > > >will be intolerable unless > > > > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their > licenses if > > > > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while > responding to > > > > >remote requests. > > > > > > > > > >but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? > > >I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already > > >occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending > station > > >simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC > > >license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending > > >operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but > > >ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station > that > > >might be proved. > > > > > >I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the > QRM. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: www.bandplans.com
Then perhaps you should relocate your site from www.bandplans.com to www.ProposedBandPlans.com so that no one is confused about the unmoderated and unofficial nature of its contents. At minimum, your site should contain a prominent disclaimer to this effect. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "F.R. Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date:Jun 21, 2006 3:40 PM > > This is not correct. > > bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has > inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site > itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a > snapshot of what you can find on the bands. I'm looking forward to all > of our submissions for entries that you think that are missing. > > 73! > > Risto, W6RK > > Dave Bernstein wrote: > > http://bandplans.com would better be characterized as the "keep new > > users' keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs out of the way of automatic > > stations" list. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > I agree with Dave, Look how much of the plan is from WinLink and how much frequency they want. > > Buddy, > WB4M > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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]
Date:Jun 21, 2006 3:40 PM This is not correct. bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a snapshot of what you can find on the bands. I'm looking forward to all of our submissions for entries that you think that are missing. 73! Risto, W6RK Dave Bernstein wrote: > http://bandplans.com would better be characterized as the "keep new > users' keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs out of the way of automatic > stations" list. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ I agree with Dave, Look how much of the plan is from WinLink and how much frequency they want. Buddy, WB4M > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Aside from what's been said recently, once upon a time there > was a lot of Clover operation in the range 14064.5-14066.5 > and such. Since there is hardly any Clover anymore, why don't > we operate other digital modes down there? There is still quite a lot of Clover activity in the areas you mentioned. When operating Clover, there is plenty of QRM already to deal with from the Pactor BBS's. Moving to that area is also not advised due to the QRM you'd cause to QRP CW stations and FISTs freqs. I love it when someone declares a mode is not "used much anymore" so we should take over that frequency. But heck, operate anywhere you want, and make it all one big free-for-all. 73 Buddy, WB4M > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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] I Should Know The Answer - Confused Myself
Kevin, RTTY is data, but they often will use the term "data" to mean any other digital mode including packet. Data modes are not permitted on most HF SSB voice frequencies ... unless the data is "image." The one exception is on 160 meters where it is theoretically possible to do this although bandplans may not support doing it. Image in our voice frequencies is one of those things that happened due to historical reasons. Since it was not possible to transmit the images without using analog voice bandwidth, the image modes were placed in the voice frequencies. I seem to recall that this was initially in the Advanced Class voice frequencies. In more recent time, image was permitted on any voice frequency. By the same absurd logic, it was not considered data when sending data that included images. Some felt that the FCC would never actually cite anyone for sending images in the data mode frequencies but it really did stop further experimentation. Some may remember when Peter, TY1PS developed a neat Clover II program that would do this very thing when you connected and that was maybe 20 years ago? I think it was called Express and would display a thumbnail picture. He also sent the first digitized music from Africa to the U.S. on the ham bands. The data format, e.g., MFSK, PSK, FSK, does not necessarily reflect the type of data being sent. 73, Rick, KV9U Kevin der Kinderen wrote: >Be kind... sometimes I make the simplest things complicated. There are two >questions here... > >I was working on bands.ini for MixW using the US Amateur Bands sheet from >the ARRL. I have never noticed this before... are data (digital) modes not >permitted in the SSB sub bands? > >For instance: >7000 - 7150 = CW, RTTY and data (I thought RTTY was data) >7150 - 7300 = CW, phone and image (no data modes allowed here?) > >I had been told in the past that it is not permitted for U.S. hams to >transfer pictures using MFSK from 7000 - 7150 but it is permissable above >7150. So MFSK is data or image or ... ya, content based regulation has me >confused? > >Again, be kind. I pigeon hole my operations into the generally accepted sub >bands and kind of lost track of what the regulations actually say or mean. > >73, >Kevin - K4VD > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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] Bandplans.com Re: Suggested Digital Op Frequencies
This is not correct. bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a snapshot of what you can find on the bands. I'm looking forward to all of our submissions for entries that you think that are missing. 73! Risto, W6RK Dave Bernstein wrote: > http://bandplans.com would better be characterized as the "keep new > users' keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs out of the way of automatic > stations" list. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Jerry wa0uzi wrote: >>> I am a "Newbie", is the Suggested Operating Frequencies file >>> herein dated August 1, 2002 the most current list?? >>> >> Hi Jerry, >> >> The best digital list is BANDPLANS.COM >> >> http://bandplans.com >> >> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: not this again (was- Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
If I call CQ on a clear frequency and you respond from the other side of the country -- QRMing over a local QSO in the process -- it is you, not I, who is violating 97.101(d): "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal." Similiarly, if I check a Winlink PMBO's frequency, find it to be clear, send a request, and the PMBO responds -- QRMing a local QSO in the process -- it is the PMBO operator who is violating 97.101(d). The FCC did say (in PR Docket No. 94-59) "First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference", but this requirement does not appear in the statute (97.221). Perhaps it exists someplace else in part 97, but I've yet to find it. I can think of only two ways that the operator of the station connected to the automatically controlled station can prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference: 1. telephone a friend who lives near the automatically controlled station and ask him or her to listen to the frequency in question to be sure its clear before sending a request to the automatically controlled station 2. only send requests to automatically controlled stations known to include a functioning busy frequency detector As for your suggestion that we penalize operators who move into that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations, I remind you of 97.101(b): "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station." 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And as wee all know, well most of us that in most cases it's > the remote station that can't hear a ongoing QSO. > Why not pull their license as well? > And maybe pull the license of the guy that moved into > that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations. > > But I think we pretty well beat this horse to death last > fall on this very list. > > > At 08:57 AM 6/21/2006, you wrote: > > >will be intolerable unless > > > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if > > > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to > > > >remote requests. > > > > > > >but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? > >I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already > >occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending station > >simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC > >license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending > >operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but > >ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station that > >might be proved. > > > >I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the QRM. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
Aside from what's been said recently, once upon a time there was a lot of Clover operation in the range 14064.5-14066.5 and such. Since there is hardly any Clover anymore, why don't we operate other digital modes down there? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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] not this again (was- Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
And as wee all know, well most of us that in most cases it's the remote station that can't hear a ongoing QSO. Why not pull their license as well? And maybe pull the license of the guy that moved into that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations. But I think we pretty well beat this horse to death last fall on this very list. At 08:57 AM 6/21/2006, you wrote: > >will be intolerable unless > > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if > > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to > > >remote requests. > > > >but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? >I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already >occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending station >simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC >license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending >operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but >ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station that >might be proved. > >I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the QRM. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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] I Should Know The Answer - Confused Myself
Be kind... sometimes I make the simplest things complicated. There are two questions here... I was working on bands.ini for MixW using the US Amateur Bands sheet from the ARRL. I have never noticed this before... are data (digital) modes not permitted in the SSB sub bands? For instance: 7000 - 7150 = CW, RTTY and data (I thought RTTY was data) 7150 - 7300 = CW, phone and image (no data modes allowed here?) I had been told in the past that it is not permitted for U.S. hams to transfer pictures using MFSK from 7000 - 7150 but it is permissable above 7150. So MFSK is data or image or ... ya, content based regulation has me confused? Again, be kind. I pigeon hole my operations into the generally accepted sub bands and kind of lost track of what the regulations actually say or mean. 73, Kevin - K4VD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
In the case of semi-automatic operation, there is generally no operator present at the station generating the QRM. Even when an operator is present, the automatic station control software immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is locally clear or not. If you and I live in the same town, and if whenever I'm in QSO on 14250 you make a habit of calling CQ on that same frequency, then you would have a difficult time defending yourself against a charge of malicious interference. You might claim that the frequency sounded clear to you, but this would not be credible. An automatic station that listens for incoming requests and responds, whether or not the frequency is locally clear, would be similarly vulnerable. Its operator might claim that he or she was present at the time and heard nothing, but a pattern of interfering with local ongoing QSOs would undermine that claim. When the ARRL approved semi-automatic operation back in 1995, it said (in PR Docket No. 94-59) "We do recognize the concerns of those who oppose the proposal on the basis of potential interference, and in response to these concerns we are limiting when automatic control can be employed. First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference. Second, we are designating subbands to which transmissions between two automatically controlled stations are confined. These subbands are a small portion of the spectrum otherwise available for digital emission types. We also are confident in the ability of the amateur service community to respond, as it has in the past, to the challenge of minimizing interference with novel technical and operational approaches to the use of shared frequency bands." Thus the FCC expects us to solve this problem, not simply cope with its resulting QRM. There is in fact a practical technical solution: the inclusion of busy frequency detectors in automatic stations; these would prevent the automatic station from responding to an incoming request when doing so would QRM an ongoing QSO. Unfortunately, those who develop automatic station software have not seen fit to include busy frequency detectors. "Advancing the state of the radio art", so often heralded by those supporting the ARRL proposal, evidently does not include improving one's software to avoid QRMing one's fellow amateurs. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >will be intolerable unless > > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if > > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to > > >remote requests. > > > > but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? > I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already > occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending station > simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC > license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending > operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but > ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station that > might be proved. > > I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the QRM. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
> Andrew O'Brien wrote: >> will be intolerable unless >>> operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if >>> their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to >>> remote requests. > > but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? > I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already > occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending station > simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC > license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending > operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but > ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station that > might be proved. > > I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the QRM. Two suggestions: 1. This is why the FCC encouraged, and encourages, the reporting activities of OO's (Official Observers) affiliated with the ARRL. The FCC does respond to properly documented cases of QRM after an OO has notified the guilty parties and has observed and documented repeated QRMing. Perhaps we need OO's properly equipped to monitor all modes? 2. We do not yet have affordable and mostly automated digital mode filters. When we do removing offending digital modes will be the same as removing nearby voice stations, carriers, QRN, and other functional if not intentional QRM. Meanwhile everyone needs to be more polite, busy frequency/collision detection mandatory, and OO activity stepped-up. BTW: If there is no problem then no one will object to digital mode filters, mandatory busy frequency/collision detection, and more and better equipped OO's. 73, doc kd4e Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
>will be intolerable unless > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to > >remote requests. > but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC? I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending station simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station that might be proved. I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the QRM. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com
If the ARRL proposal is accepted, then the main change would be that the wide data modes would have to all move up above 14.100 at first. The impression that I got from reading Dave Sumner's comments was that they would like to see a bandplan where the digital voice would be segregated from analog voice. Right now, digital voice can be anyplace in the voice portion of the band. Same with SSTV whether analog or digital. The bizarre (and to me, intolerable) situation is that "data" can not be used in the phone area even though you would not be able to tell any difference when listening with your ear between digital voice and digital data. This means that those of us who want to be able to switch between voice and data on the same frequency can not do so except on the 160 meter band. We would have to tie up two separate frequencies in different parts of the band. The ability to talk to someone with a voice transmission and then experiment with digital data seems so useful, not to mention the practical use for emergency communications. The new proposal does not seem to offer any change that would alleviate this situation except that you could switch between digital voice and digital data. While it is possible that some radio amateurs would simply ignore any bandplan recommendations and only stay legal under the FCC rules, I don't personally feel very comfortable with that. Also, the new proposal will compress the wide band digital modes into much smaller areas than they are now. In many ways, I find the proposals more restricting than what we have now, even though the claim has been that it will advance the radio art. What it mostly seems to do is allow wide BW stations in automatic (includes semi automatic) operation to operate anyplace in the wide BW area. Right now they are tightly restricted to only a few KHz on most bands. Under the new proposal, wide bandwidth semi-automatic operations may find it much more difficult to operate, and if they are not careful, could cause a groundswell of even more opposition to their QRMing. We can only expect more, not less, wide BW digital operations as these technologies are invented. It is interesting that the ARRL has not proposed that any HF station, in automatic operation (that includes "semi" automatic as well) must be operated in a manner that detects a busy frequency and prohibits the robot from transmitting on such a channel even though it is been completely practical to implement under software control. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: >I agree, Rick. > >Continuing to use 20M as an example, I doubt that the ARRL's >bandplan will restrict phone operations to anything less than 14150- >14350; thus all wideband digital modes will likely be restricted to >14100-14150. The contention between 3500 hz keyboard-to-keyboard and >semi-automatic QSOs in 14100-14150 will be intolerable unless >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to >remote requests. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> 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/
