Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital Frequency List - Bandplans.com

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

Dave,
I think that busy detection can be valuable for kbd programs, especially 
if the algorithm gives a hint of mode.  I will follow up with the SCAMP 
folks and see if I can get the code from them for use in gmfsk.  Then 
hams can get some experience with how this feature might work, and get 
value out of it as well.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 9:24 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> 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.


 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:All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decoding Rights?

[Dave Bernstein]

You're right, Kevin, I should have said "many" instead of "most". 
The point still stands: at any point in time, not everyone has the 
equipment on hand to demodulate every mode.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Kevin O'Rorke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> 
> > This seems like a slippery slope, Doc.
> >
> > Should the FCC have disallowed SSB because when it was first
> > introduced, most hams didn't have SSB demodulators and thus 
couldn't
> > self-police?
> >
> > .
> >
> >  
> 
> In those days most ham receivers had a BFO and by using that, ssb 
could 
> be copied
> 
> VK5OA
>







 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:All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decoding Rights?

[Kevin O'Rorke]

Dave Bernstein wrote:

> This seems like a slippery slope, Doc.
>
> Should the FCC have disallowed SSB because when it was first
> introduced, most hams didn't have SSB demodulators and thus couldn't
> self-police?
>
> .
>
>  

In those days most ham receivers had a BFO and by using that, ssb could 
be copied

VK5OA


 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: All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decod ing Rights?

[Jon Maguire]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15290

Walt and Rick, excellent points. Nothing like an intellectual discussion 
for what ails you!!

73... Jon W1MNK



 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: All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decod ing Rights?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

You can speak or type any language you want as long as you identify in
English if you are operating where the FCC is the controling entity.  

This question is in the FCC Technician Class License question pool and is
addresses in Part 97.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: All Channels are Busy Channels? Free
Decoding Rights?


Jon,

It is legal to use a foreign language and many hams do this, however,  
Part 97 requires FCC licensed hams to ID using English.

Using any language or code would be in violation of  Part 97 if you were 
doing it "for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication."

Using Navaho, or any less well known language could theoretically be 
recorded and played back to an interpreter to determine the content.

Public key encryption or similar encryption/decryption techniques are 
not normally permitted.

There are some exceptions for telecommand, telemetry, and space 
communications.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Jon Maguire wrote:

>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15268
>
>Just out of curiosity, and not meant as a flame
>
>Wouldn't two Hams talking in Navajo or some other very obscure language 
>be illegal? It could easily be construed that this was being done to 
>obscure the meaning of the message.
>
>Also, take a mode like PSK31... very common mode. What about two Hams 
>using that mode, but sending multi digit groups that only they hold the 
>key to decrypt. Would that be considered an attempt to obscure the message?
>
>Just a couple of thoughts for discussion purposes.
>
>73... Jon W1MNK
>
>  
>




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



 




[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] Re: All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decoding Rights?

[KV9U]

Jon,

It is legal to use a foreign language and many hams do this, however,  
Part 97 requires FCC licensed hams to ID using English.

Using any language or code would be in violation of  Part 97 if you were 
doing it "for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication."

Using Navaho, or any less well known language could theoretically be 
recorded and played back to an interpreter to determine the content.

Public key encryption or similar encryption/decryption techniques are 
not normally permitted.

There are some exceptions for telecommand, telemetry, and space 
communications.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Jon Maguire wrote:

>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15268
>
>Just out of curiosity, and not meant as a flame
>
>Wouldn't two Hams talking in Navajo or some other very obscure language 
>be illegal? It could easily be construed that this was being done to 
>obscure the meaning of the message.
>
>Also, take a mode like PSK31... very common mode. What about two Hams 
>using that mode, but sending multi digit groups that only they hold the 
>key to decrypt. Would that be considered an attempt to obscure the message?
>
>Just a couple of thoughts for discussion purposes.
>
>73... Jon W1MNK
>
>  
>



 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: Should Expensive Modes Be Banned? re:Free Psychic Channel Detector modems

[Bill]

Bonnie-
With that much DIRECTED gain, he is in no danger of interfering with an 
ongoing terrestrial QSO, so what's the point?
Bill-W4BSG

At 03:27 PM 6/23/2006 +, you wrote:

> > >  50 over 50 over 50 over 50 element array
> > > for 6 meters on an AZ-EL mount...
>
>Well, I admit to exaggerating a little... it is an awesome
>antenna that really takes your breath away when you see
>it! But, alas, is actually "only" a 13 over 13 over 13 over
>13 element wide-spaced array... with only 19.7dbd gain.
>http://www.uksmg.org/k6qxy.htm
>
>  I can't listen to what he is saying because it costs too
>much money to set up a station to hear him. Much more than
>a PACTORIII modem costs. At the next ham club meeting, should
>I tell him that he owes me a free moonbounce array? I guess
>you will need a free moonbounce array also, Doc. Should he put
>you on the list too?  :)
>~->




 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:Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[Bill Turner]

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

At 09:41 PM 6/22/2006, expeditionradio wrote:

>Please show us how the mere mortal can build your psychic
>"mandatory busy channel detector" machine--- lacking your divine
>guidance, premonition, or mystical components and algorithms?

*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***

Please, Bonnie.

Devices that can detect a coherent signal buried in noise have been 
available for decades. I saw a demonstration of a Tektronix scope 
back in the 1980s that was showing nothing but broadband noise on the 
screen. At the push of a button, the noise was averaged out and lo 
and behold, there was a nice clean sine wave underneath, completely 
undectable to the human eye.

If you choose to reply, please do not try to derail the discussion 
based on the fact that this was done with an oscilloscope; my point 
is the technology of detecting coherent signals buried in noise was 
and is available, and that's what should be used for busy channel detection.

Bill, W6WRT







 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

[Bill Turner]

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

At 08:14 PM 6/22/2006, John Becker wrote:

>Let me say this again just for you...
>
>RUNNING ON ANY THING TODAY
>It just will not keep up with a hardware ( TNC )

*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***

Those of us with long memories will recall K6STI's program which did 
indeed do Pactor on a soundcard but only running under DOS. It is 
quite doable, but probably not under Windows.

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] on the status and practicality of busy frequency detectors

[Bill Turner]

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

At 03:26 AM 6/22/2006, kd4e wrote:

>Is it going to become necessary to bypass the ARRL and to
>go directly to the FCC to force the implementation of
>busy frequency detection for *all* digital users?

*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***

I don't recall anyone advocating busy frequency detection for all 
users, only for automatic or semi-automatic ones, i.e. any station 
capable of beginning a transmission without a human throwing the switch.

Bill, W6WRT



 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] Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[Bill Turner]

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

At 07:34 PM 6/22/2006, expeditionradio wrote:

>So, as I pointed out in the beginning, what you are suggesting really
>equates to the assumption that "all channels are busy channels". In
>other words, there is no reasonable possibility of "channel is clear"
>indication available all, because your circular reasoning precludes
>it. So how is it possible for any QSOs to happen, if no one can get
>past the circular reasoning of "all channels are busy channels"?


*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***

You must be talking to some other W6WRT. I never said or hinted at 
any of the above, and that goes for the rest of your post too.

I see a great future for expeditionradio as a political spin-meister. 
The elections are coming up, so you'd better send out your resume. 
I'll be glad to vouch for your abilities. :-)

73, 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: A Call for Censorship? Help!!

[Kevin der Kinderen]

Doc and others... take it to the correct group.

After seeing all of these posts, I know where the problem is. It's in the
arrogance and close-mindedness of the few participants in this debate.
Discussions over white noise, pink noise, frequency, channel... c'mon, be
ashamed. Move on.

This debate DOES NOT belong here unless the group owner changes the policy.
I wish he would at least enforce it. Andy has set up a separate group
specifically to discuss this topic. If you and the others find you can't get
enough interest in that group that should tell you something.

Censorship? What BS. When you're in church, do you want someone coming in
each week taking over the small time you have to celebrate with others and
talk about how the local government is screwing up the parking situation?
It's not censorship, it's discussing the appropriate things at the
appropriate time (or places). It's common freaking courtesy and respect.

GO AWAY (not you, the topic).

73,
Kevin - K4VD


On 6/23/06, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Problem is that some are trying to impose new FCC
> regs on the rest of us that may interfere with
> our fair and open use of the Ham spectrum.
>
> If we do not have an open and honest debate here
> and choose sensible recommendations to the FCC we
> may get something real ugly.
>
> You will also be harmed in Canada so do not be so
> quick to draw the sword of censorship.
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> http://bibleseven.com
>


[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/
 

[digitalradio] Re: on the status and practicality of busy frequency detectors

[Dave Bernstein]

I don't believe the issue is secrecy; the author of SCAMP would 
likely share his experience with anyone interested in adding a busy 
frequency detector to his or her digital mode software. The 
impediment is a misalignment between cost and benefit.

Were SCS to add busy frequency detection to their SCS modem, they'd 
endure the cost of developing and testing the necessary 
modifications to their embedded software. Existing users of SCS 
modems would then have to purchase the necessary software upgrade, 
probably in the form of new ROM chips; I don't see any capability 
for downloading software updates for my SCS PTC-IIe. This would be 
beneficial to SCS users in that they would QRM each other less 
frequently, but most are using batch message passing software (e.g. 
WinLink or SailMail) where the impact of hidden transmitter QRM is 
more retries and longer latencies, This isn't that big a deal for 
background batch operations.

The primary beneficiaries of SCS users updating their modems to 
include a busy frequency detector would be keyboard-to-keyboard 
digital mode operators, who would notice a marked reduction in QRM 
from semi-automatic operations.

Misallignments between cost and benefit occur frequently, and are 
typically resolved via regulation -- and we already have the 
regulation in place: 97.101(d), which states

"No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with 
or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

Whenever an automatic station responds to a remote request and 
transmits over an ongoing QSO, it's operator is violating 97.101(d). 
Enforcing 97.101(d) would provide the necessary incentive to both 
SCS and to the users of SCS modems to implement and deploy a busy 
frequency detector upgrade.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thus software technology available for more than a year would if 
> > deployed dramatically reduce the QRM generated by semi-automatic 
> > stations. Rather than waste time debating the edge conditions 
under 
> > which busy frequency detection might be imperfect, we should 
> > recognize that it is already well above the bar and encourage 
its 
> > deployment. 73,  Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> What is required to press this technology out of secrecy
> and into the public domain -- and why is there resistance
> to release it a year after it has been proved?
> 
> Once the technology is generally available ...
> 
> Is it going to become necessary to bypass the ARRL and to
> go directly to the FCC to force the implementation of
> busy frequency detection for *all* digital users?
> 
> It clearly meets the FCC standard of Ham self-regulation,
> would relieve them of many complaints and substantially
> focus their enforcement efforts on the rare scofflaw who
> refused to utilize busy frequency detection.
> 
> Perhaps it is time for someone qualified to draft a
> proposal to the FCC and to begin gathering signatures
> of licensed Hams and of representatives of other
> services who may have an interest, perhaps Homeland
> Security for whom controlling potential QRM during
> critical times is important.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> http://bibleseven.com
>







 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: A Call for Censorship? Help!!

[kd4e]

> where is our moderator when we need him? I thought there was a separate group 
> for all those amateur lawyers who 
> rant about pactor and argue about how many bytes one has to take to transmit 
> a pizza on moonbounce or whatever.
> 
> enough already, how would you like to take all your silly assed arguments, 
> flames, and personal insults elsewhere, and leave to rest of us in peace and 
> quiet, allowing us to enjoy our mutual; interests.
> 
> John
> VE5MU

Problem is that some are trying to impose new FCC
regs on the rest of us that may interfere with
our fair and open use of the Ham spectrum.

If we do not have an open and honest debate here
and choose sensible recommendations to the FCC we
may get something real ugly.

You will also be harmed in Canada so do not be so
quick to draw the sword of censorship.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
http://bibleseven.com


 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] Technical descriptions of amateur radio data e missions

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

I suspect (knowing how government agencies work) that the FCC figures if a
"mode" is being used in the public domain and if there is hardware needed to
"read" the mode, and they can openly purchase the hardware to "read" them
mode, then they aren't concerned with a complete published specification.  

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:34 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Technical descriptions of amateur radio data
emissions


Bob's point is well taken.

The FCC regulation on technical descriptions, § 97.309(a)(4), reads:

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a
digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose
technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as
CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating
communications.

ARRL further states:

"Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or 
protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations 
in communication and read the content of the transmissions."

Clearly, Pactor 2 and 3 and probably Clover II, do not completely 
fulfill these requirements. Since they have been used for many years 
now, it is probably too late to do much about it and I doubt that the 
ARRL Directors would take any action. However, one could mention it to 
their director and see what response they get.

In the last year the Winlink 2000 spokesperson made a big deal how 
"secure" Winlink 2000 was since it was not very practical to read the 
messages even if they had one of the SCS modems that could monitor the 
frequency because all they would see is scrambled data. They were 
challenged by another ham who wrote a program that can decode their 
format and they had to back down somewhat. This is not due to the SCS 
product as much as it is due to a compression technique that Winlink 
2000 uses.

Unlike anything else in amateur radio, I have never seen as much closed 
and proprietary techniques that we have seen from Winlink 2000 and I 
think this is a big factor for the animosity so many hams have to such 
operations that are completely opposite the whole spirit of amateur 
radio. There are those of us who try to promote interoperation of any 
messaging systems on amateur radio and while there is not much interest 
in this, we do have a forum on the winlink2000 yahoogroup that permits 
all points of view.

For those of you who do have an SCS modem, can you provide us with your 
experiences in your success in monitoring the traffic content on the 
amateur radio bands with these modes?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Robert McGwier wrote:

>Dave:
>
>The technical specification is incomplete.  You may not take their 
>documents and implement a compatible system (been there, done that, got 
>the tire tracks on my back).  They have not made these specifications 
>public to my knowledge anywhere, including the F.C.C.   As such,  I do 
>not see why it is not an illegal scrambler in the U.S.
>
>
>Bob
>N4HY
>
>
>  
>




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



 




[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:All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decoding Rights?

[Dave Bernstein]

This seems like a slippery slope, Doc.

Should the FCC have disallowed SSB because when it was first 
introduced, most hams didn't have SSB demodulators and thus couldn't 
self-police?

Demodulators for soundcard-based digital modes aren't free; they 
require a PC, a soundcard, and a receiver. Considering new equipment 
prices, the combination of a PC and a soundcard is actually more 
expensive than an SCS modem.

If I develop a fabulous new mode that runs on a dedicated array of 
56000 DSP chips, provide comprehensive public documentation for this 
mode, and send one of these arrays to a friend in California, should 
he and I be precluded from using this mode because no other hams 
have chosen to build the required DSP array (though they could if 
they wanted to)?

I think the current regulation is correct: the mode must be publicly 
documented in a form that would allow someone reasonably skilled in 
the art to create a functioning modulator and demodulator. Adding 
any kind of cost constraint to the regulation would inhibit 
innovation, and would be incredibly complex to administer.

If comprehensive documentation were publicly available for Pactor 3, 
then you would be able to build your own Pactor 3 modem using a 
spare PC and soundcard running a realtime operating system. Such a 
configuration would cost no more than what you're using to run 
soundcard PSK or RTTY.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Secondly, you certainly do have the right to decode PactorIII if 
you
> > wish, but there is no godgiven right for you to get a free 
modem. 
> > What makes you think you have the "right" to get something for 
nothing
> > (albeit many hams have been acustomed to it with many soundcard 
digis)?
> 
> It is my view that proprietary modes that disallow free
> decoding should never be allowed on spectrum designated for
> Ham use.
> 
> A proprietary mode that disallows free decoding renders the
> FCC requirement for self-policing functionally improbable for
> financial reasons -- unless the proprietors of the proprietary
> mode provides free decoding hardware to all of the OO's -- and
> even that would fall well short of the self-regulatory
> expectations of the FCC.
> 
> I would be happy to sign-on to proposed FCC action that
> would make proprietary modes that cannot be freely decoded via
> commonly available sound card technology illegal on Ham spectrum.
> This would not limit experimentation -- special restricted
> and temporary permits are available through a FCC process
> for that.
> 
> When a proprietary mode gets into "the wild", as they say
> in computer virus terms, then control is lost.  The probability
> of abuse and/or misuse is inversely proportional to the
> likelihood of transmissions being monitored.
> 
> If someone wants to add a mode to those legally available
> to Hams they should be required to make *decoding* (not
> transmission) freely available.
> 
> They may still profit from the sale of proprietary *coding*
> technology.  This is the same as Adobe giving away their
> PDF reader but charging for their coder.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> http://bibleseven.com
>







 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] Help!!

[Kevin der Kinderen]

I tried that in the past John. It doesn't work. They have a captive audience
here.

This group has 2282 members, the digipol group has 21. But they don't get
the hint.

>From the group's homepage on yahoo!

 *This is a meeting place to discuss amateur radio digital applications such
as RTTY, CW, PSK31,PSK63/125, MFSK16, Olivia-MFSK, PAX, Chip64, DominoEX,
THROB, ALE, PACTOR, AMTOR, HELL, SSTV, Digital SSTV, and more. There are
several reflectors dedicated to these separate modes but this group focuses
on ALL digital modes. Software applications such as MixW, Logger32, MMVARI,
MMTTY, MultiPSK, Hamscope, Winwarbler/DXLAB, Digipan, etc, etc, are often
discussed. Theory of digital communications is encouraged. Experimentation
with new digital modes is also encouraged.
Questions from newcomers are welcome.

A sister group, Digipol, exists at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digipol .
Digipol is a separate area for discussion of policy matters such as band
allocation, ARRL and FCC digital policies, unattended operation debates,
etc, etc. Debates about the aforementioned should be on digipol only. If in
doubt, contact the group owner (Andy K3UK).
*


On 6/23/06, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> where is our moderator when we need him? I thought there was a separate
> group for all those amateur lawyers who
> rant about pactor and argue about how many bytes one has to take to
> transmit a pizza on moonbounce or whatever.
>
> enough already, how would you like to take all your silly assed arguments,
> flames, and personal insults elsewhere, and leave to rest of us in peace and
> quiet, allowing us to enjoy our mutual; interests.
>
> John
> VE5MU
>
>


[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] Help!!

[John Bradley]

where is our moderator when we need him? I thought there was a separate group 
for all those amateur lawyers who 
rant about pactor and argue about how many bytes one has to take to transmit a 
pizza on moonbounce or whatever.

enough already, how would you like to take all your silly assed arguments, 
flames, and personal insults elsewhere, and leave to rest of us in peace and 
quiet, allowing us to enjoy our mutual; interests.

John
VE5MU


[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/
 

[digitalradio] What is a Channel? Re: Psychic Channel Busy Detectors

[expeditionradio]

> Bill-W4BSG wrote: 
> Thanks for the information plus the obfuscation. I didn't 
> realize that you were a qualified communication engineer.

Hi Bill,

You're welcome. No obfuscation was intended, I assure you. 

Now that you mention it, I didn't realize I was "qualified" 
either :) But RF/communication engineering has been a 
satisfying vocation during the past ~40 years, and I'm still at it.  

73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA


.





 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: Should Expensive Modes Be Banned? re:Free Psychic Channel Detector modems

[expeditionradio]

> >  50 over 50 over 50 over 50 element array 
> > for 6 meters on an AZ-EL mount...   

Well, I admit to exaggerating a little... it is an awesome 
antenna that really takes your breath away when you see 
it! But, alas, is actually "only" a 13 over 13 over 13 over 
13 element wide-spaced array... with only 19.7dbd gain.
http://www.uksmg.org/k6qxy.htm

 I can't listen to what he is saying because it costs too 
much money to set up a station to hear him. Much more than 
a PACTORIII modem costs. At the next ham club meeting, should 
I tell him that he owes me a free moonbounce array? I guess 
you will need a free moonbounce array also, Doc. Should he put 
you on the list too?  :) 

> That your imaginary friend uses a 1 dollar or a 10 million
> dollar antenna, or transceiver, is irrelevant.

Hmmm. But you said cost is very relevant. Which is it?
 
> The price of the Pactor III device is only relevant because
> the modulation method is functionally secret thus the FCC
> mandate that Hams self-police is rendered functionally
> impossible -- by the average Ham -- which has been the de
> facto FCC standard for many decades.
> 

Let me get this right, you don't want to shell out the 
cash for a PACTORIII modem, so you are saying that there is 
a "defacto FCC standard" that someone should buy you a modem 
because you want to self-police them ? 

That's a good one, Doc.  :)

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] What is a Channel? Re: Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[Bill]

Bonnie-
Thanks for the information plus the obfuscation. I didn't realize that you 
were a qualified communication engineer.
Bill-W4BSG

At 01:31 PM 6/23/2006 +, you wrote:

> > Bill-W4BSG wrote:
> > Bonnie-
> > In an open band, that would be more properly designated as
> > a "frequency", wouldn't it? A "channel is usually  a frequency
> > or limited range of frequencies defined by a protocol, statute,
> > or agreement.
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>You refer to the use of an authorised or assigned "channel".
>But there are various appropriate uses of the word "channel".
>
>In communications engineering, and discussion about the area
>of spectrum in which a radio signal is conveyed, it is common to
>call it a "channel". Hams use the word "frequency" to refer to
>either the center of the communications channel or the dial
>readout (zero beat of the upper sideband or lower sideband).
>It is standard for hams to use "frequency" as slang for "channel",
>due to tradition, and the fact that many hams want to
>distance themselves from the channels of the Citizens Band Service.
>
>Technically speaking, "a frequency" is an infinitely small
>increment, a single point in the "frequency domain".
>It may be possible to pass very slow information
>"in a frequency" using QRSS slow CW. But if you want to
>communicate normal fast information, such as voice,  or data,
>you will need to do that "in a channel".
>
>Use of the word channel is more appropriate when talking about
>a specific part of the spectrum that is in use for communications,
>such as the useful or occupied bandwidth of the signal, or the
>actual passband of the receiver. Thus it is more appropriate to
>refer to the "Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detector" than the
>"Psychic Busy Frequency Detector".   :)
>
>Another use of the word channel exists in DSP.
>In Digital Signal Processing of RF, the word channel is often
>used to mean the total path from the modulated signal baseband
>source to the baseband presented to the DSP demodulator/decoder.
>In this respect, the HF "channel" includes the transmitter chain,
>RF path, ionosphere, pre-post filtering, receiver chain,
>IF gain, and filtering path on both ends of the link.
>
>Webster's Dictionary
>Main Entry: channel
>Function: noun
>"1 a : the bed where a natural stream of water runs b : the deeper
>part of a river, harbor, or strait c : a strait or narrow sea between
>two close landmasses d : a means of communication or expression: as
>(1) : a path along which information (as data or music) in the form of
>an electrical signal passes (2) plural : a fixed or official course of
>communication grievances> e : a way, course, or direction of thought or action channels of exploration> f : a band of frequencies of sufficient width
>for a single radio or television communication "
>
>
>73---Bonnie VR2/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: All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decoding Rights?

[Jon Maguire]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15268

Just out of curiosity, and not meant as a flame

Wouldn't two Hams talking in Navajo or some other very obscure language 
be illegal? It could easily be construed that this was being done to 
obscure the meaning of the message.

Also, take a mode like PSK31... very common mode. What about two Hams 
using that mode, but sending multi digit groups that only they hold the 
key to decrypt. Would that be considered an attempt to obscure the message?

Just a couple of thoughts for discussion purposes.

73... Jon W1MNK



 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: [digitalradiomodes] Re: Insulting Subject - Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[Jon Maguire]

What we need is a comparison table/Excel sheet of all the performance data,
including weak signal. This should include the "modem" modes Pactor2/3,
Clover/2000 and GTOR, as well as all the soundcard modes. Is there something
out in cyberspace already? Or would it have to be put together. I have seen
the Pactor modes touted as very "robust" under weak signal conditions, but
have no way to compare this against the soundcard modes. It would make for
some very interesting reading.
 
73... Jon W1MNK
 
Jon Maguire W1MNK
Brandon, FL USA
"The four boxes of Democracy: Soap, Jury, Ballot and Cartridge"
 
---Original Message---
 
From: W2AGN
Date: 6/23/2006 8:27:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradiomodes] Re: Insulting Subject - Exalted Mystical
Busy Channel Detectors
 
kd4e wrote:
> A proprietary mode that disallows free decoding renders the
> FCC requirement for self-policing functionally improbable for
> financial reasons -- unless the proprietors of the proprietary
> mode provides free decoding hardware to all of the OO's -- and
> even that would fall well short of the self-regulatory
> expectations of the FCC.
>
> I would be happy to sign-on to proposed FCC action that
> would make proprietary modes that cannot be freely decoded via
> commonly available sound card technology illegal on Ham spectrum.
> This would not limit experimentation -- special restricted
> and temporary permits are available through a FCC process
> for that.
>
> W
I very strongly agree with all the above. Unfortunately, the ARRL has
chosen to "sponsor" Pactor II and III, and is pushing it as the greatest
thing for EMCOMM since the audion.
 
--
   _ _ _ _ _
  / \   / \   / \   / \   / \   John L. Sielke
  ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N )  http://w2agn.net
  \_/   \_/   \_/   \_/   \_/   http://www.blurty.com/users/w2agn/
"CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!"
 
 
 
 
 
 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~->
 
 
Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 

[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/
 

RE: [digitalradio] What is a Channel?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Forget about the dictionary definition of channel.

Federal Case Law has determined that a channel is:

1) the bandwidth necessary/required by a properly designed communications
mode or RF signal. 

2) the bandwidth allowed, assigned, or permitted by a U.S. Government
regulatory entity.  That would be the FCC, NTIA, DoD and other U.S.
departments, agencies and functions that we acting under the Communications
Act as amended or as authorized by congress.


I have a big problem with Part 97 limiting bandwidth for modes or bands or
sub-bands because this gives rise to moving our thinking away from frequency
usage to channel usage.

There are also terms such as good engineering design and good amateur
practice that are not defined.   

If I create a data modem that operates with a bandwidth of more than 3.5 KHz
but is of good engineering design and amateur practice...where the amateur
practice would dictate the need to rapidly move large volumes of "time
sensitive disaster relief traffic" and I can do this at 56 kbps under
adverse HF signal conditions.  Then I should be able to do it under Part 97
except there becomes a "channel" limitation.

I think we all agree that the bandwidth we have is a rare and special
resource... yes a national resource.  But I don't think we really would be
benefited by restricting bandwidths of unknown/undiscovered modes that might
not fit into a limited bandwidth or channel.

Let me speak for individuals such a Rick, KN6KB, while you may not like
Pactor or WinLink 2000, Rick is trying to develop a sound card mode that has
at least the high throughput of Pactor III on a poor CCIR channel with a
good SNR as well as better throughput than Pactor III on a poor CCIR channel
with a poor SNR and at the same time using a computer's embedded sound card
or sound cards.

Do we want to have any Part 97 regulation that would prohibit Rick's or any
other experimenter's work?

You may well ask me what do I want?  I would like to see a mode with high
thoughput (800-4000 WPM) that is robust (full throughput at a -5 dB SNR on a
poor CCIR channel) that uses COTS a sound card(s) or open source designed
external hardware.  I would like the mode to support digital voice,
automatic link establishment, automatic discrete propagation analysis
between two or more stations and the above described data
throughput...perhaps being able to run DV and data at the same time.

So let's not put any limitations into Part 97 that might prevent this nor
use terms that might convey a bandwidth limitation.

Thus it IS important to understand what someone is talking about when they
say frequency/channel.  We have channel zed frequencies where FM voice is
used and on the bands above 6M where data is used.  That is certainly Ok
from a cooperative stand point...but I would never want to see that in Part
97...for if it does, we might see the same thing come down to HF.

73 all and have a GREAT Field Day.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:32 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] What is a Channel? Re: Exalted Mystical Busy
Channel Detectors


> Bill-W4BSG wrote:
> Bonnie-
> In an open band, that would be more properly designated as 
> a "frequency", wouldn't it? A "channel is usually  a frequency 
> or limited range of frequencies defined by a protocol, statute, 
> or agreement.

Hi Bill,

You refer to the use of an authorised or assigned "channel".
But there are various appropriate uses of the word "channel".

In communications engineering, and discussion about the area 
of spectrum in which a radio signal is conveyed, it is common to 
call it a "channel". Hams use the word "frequency" to refer to 
either the center of the communications channel or the dial 
readout (zero beat of the upper sideband or lower sideband). 
It is standard for hams to use "frequency" as slang for "channel", 
due to tradition, and the fact that many hams want to 
distance themselves from the channels of the Citizens Band Service.

Technically speaking, "a frequency" is an infinitely small 
increment, a single point in the "frequency domain". 
It may be possible to pass very slow information 
"in a frequency" using QRSS slow CW. But if you want to 
communicate normal fast information, such as voice,  or data, 
you will need to do that "in a channel". 

Use of the word channel is more appropriate when talking about 
a specific part of the spectrum that is in use for communications, 
such as the useful or occupied bandwidth of the signal, or the 
actual passband of the receiver. Thus it is more appropriate to 
refer to the "Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detector" than the 
"Psychic Busy Frequency Detector".   :)

Another use of the word channel exists in DSP.
In Digital Signal Processing of RF, the word channel is often 
used to mean the total path from the modulated signal baseband 
source to the baseband presented to the DSP demodul

Re: [digitalradio] Should Expensive Modes Be Banned? re:Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[kd4e]

> A friend of mine has a 50 over 50 over 50 over 50 element array 
> for 6 meters on an AZ-EL mount on a 200ft tower. It cost him 
> more for the antenna system than I paid for my new automobile.
> 
> He uses the huge antenna array for talking moonbounce with other 
> ham operators who have similarly huge and expensive arrays. 
> 
> When he is beamed skyward, I can't hear any of their QSOs on my 
> dipole. Under your criteria, is this also a "genuine concern" 
> to ham operators that those rich guys are doing something  
> the rest of us of average income and equipment cannot afford? 
> Should expensive modes and rich toys be banned from ham radio?
> 
> 73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA


So long as your imaginary friend is using a readily
detectable mode the content of his communications
and his identity are readily detected should he cause
QRM.

The signal transmitted by your imaginary friend is so
weak upon return to earth that it is barely detectable,
thus the need for the receiving station to implement a
massive-gain antenna array, therefore the transmissions
of your imaginary friend are not capable of generating
QRM thus are not relevant to this discussion of troublesome
QRM.

That your imaginary friend uses a 1 dollar or a 10 million
dollar antenna, or transceiver, is irrelevant.

The price of the Pactor III device is only relevant because
the modulation method is functionally secret thus the FCC
mandate that Hams self-police is rendered functionally
impossible -- by the average Ham -- which has been the de
facto FCC standard for many decades.

Even the most narrow interpretation cannot escape the
clear FCC expectation that OO's provide monitoring of
the bands -- and in this case they cannot.

If the Pactor III folks would implement busy frequency
detection, and make reception (not transmission) readily
available to the average Ham, there would be no conflict.

Functionally secret/encrypted modulation schemes paired
with a refusal to implement reasonable and proved (albeit
imperfect as is Pactor III) busy frequency detection is
contrary to friendly and polite Amateur operating standards
in place for decades.

Given the obvious refusal of the Pactor III folks to voluntarily
behave in a technically responsible and operationally considerate
manner, and the refusal of the ARRL to act responsibly, those
Hams who find themselves offended are presented with no
choice other than to seek regulatory relief from the FCC.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
http://bibleseven.com





 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] on the status and practicality of busy frequency detectors

[kd4e]

> Thus software technology available for more than a year would if 
> deployed dramatically reduce the QRM generated by semi-automatic 
> stations. Rather than waste time debating the edge conditions under 
> which busy frequency detection might be imperfect, we should 
> recognize that it is already well above the bar and encourage its 
> deployment. 73,  Dave, AA6YQ

What is required to press this technology out of secrecy
and into the public domain -- and why is there resistance
to release it a year after it has been proved?

Once the technology is generally available ...

Is it going to become necessary to bypass the ARRL and to
go directly to the FCC to force the implementation of
busy frequency detection for *all* digital users?

It clearly meets the FCC standard of Ham self-regulation,
would relieve them of many complaints and substantially
focus their enforcement efforts on the rare scofflaw who
refused to utilize busy frequency detection.

Perhaps it is time for someone qualified to draft a
proposal to the FCC and to begin gathering signatures
of licensed Hams and of representatives of other
services who may have an interest, perhaps Homeland
Security for whom controlling potential QRM during
critical times is important.

WDYT?

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
http://bibleseven.com





 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:All Channels are Busy Channels? Free Decoding Rights?

[kd4e]

> Secondly, you certainly do have the right to decode PactorIII if you
> wish, but there is no godgiven right for you to get a free modem. 
> What makes you think you have the "right" to get something for nothing
> (albeit many hams have been acustomed to it with many soundcard digis)?

It is my view that proprietary modes that disallow free
decoding should never be allowed on spectrum designated for
Ham use.

A proprietary mode that disallows free decoding renders the
FCC requirement for self-policing functionally improbable for
financial reasons -- unless the proprietors of the proprietary
mode provides free decoding hardware to all of the OO's -- and
even that would fall well short of the self-regulatory
expectations of the FCC.

I would be happy to sign-on to proposed FCC action that
would make proprietary modes that cannot be freely decoded via
commonly available sound card technology illegal on Ham spectrum.
This would not limit experimentation -- special restricted
and temporary permits are available through a FCC process
for that.

When a proprietary mode gets into "the wild", as they say
in computer virus terms, then control is lost.  The probability
of abuse and/or misuse is inversely proportional to the
likelihood of transmissions being monitored.

If someone wants to add a mode to those legally available
to Hams they should be required to make *decoding* (not
transmission) freely available.

They may still profit from the sale of proprietary *coding*
technology.  This is the same as Adobe giving away their
PDF reader but charging for their coder.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
http://bibleseven.com





 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: New ALE Transceiver VX-1700 (lower cost)

[kd4e]

Lots of details here:




Interesting missionary application discussion here:


At $837. (probably need to add import taxes and fees and shipping)
it is an interesting alternative in a rugged field application.

Digital modes without the need for an external PC or controller
is also interesting -- presuming one may do more than only ALE.

More data, more data!  :-)

73, doc kd4e

> this is interesting; I have not seen the stability specs; do you know of 
> it is NTIA compliant?
> 
> 73 de Dave, W5SV
> 
> expeditionradio 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. 
>> The total cost (converted to US Dollars) is about US$837
>> The VX-1700 is the first HF ALE radio priced like a ham radio. 
>> It is widely expected that the VX-1700 will eventually be released 
>> to the USA market, but I have not seen any annoucement yet. 
>>
>> HK$=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 follows in the footsteps of the old Vertex System 600
>> which was widely sold in third world countries.  
>>
>> More info about Amateur Radio ALE: 
>> http://hflink.com
>>
>> More info about Vertex VX-1700: 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vx17
>>
>>
>>
>> 73---Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA


-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
http://bibleseven.com





 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] Technical descriptions of amateur radio data emissions

[KV9U]

Bob's point is well taken.

The FCC regulation on technical descriptions, § 97.309(a)(4), reads:

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a
digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose
technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as
CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating
communications.

ARRL further states:

"Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or 
protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations 
in communication and read the content of the transmissions."

Clearly, Pactor 2 and 3 and probably Clover II, do not completely 
fulfill these requirements. Since they have been used for many years 
now, it is probably too late to do much about it and I doubt that the 
ARRL Directors would take any action. However, one could mention it to 
their director and see what response they get.

In the last year the Winlink 2000 spokesperson made a big deal how 
"secure" Winlink 2000 was since it was not very practical to read the 
messages even if they had one of the SCS modems that could monitor the 
frequency because all they would see is scrambled data. They were 
challenged by another ham who wrote a program that can decode their 
format and they had to back down somewhat. This is not due to the SCS 
product as much as it is due to a compression technique that Winlink 
2000 uses.

Unlike anything else in amateur radio, I have never seen as much closed 
and proprietary techniques that we have seen from Winlink 2000 and I 
think this is a big factor for the animosity so many hams have to such 
operations that are completely opposite the whole spirit of amateur 
radio. There are those of us who try to promote interoperation of any 
messaging systems on amateur radio and while there is not much interest 
in this, we do have a forum on the winlink2000 yahoogroup that permits 
all points of view.

For those of you who do have an SCS modem, can you provide us with your 
experiences in your success in monitoring the traffic content on the 
amateur radio bands with these modes?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Robert McGwier wrote:

>Dave:
>
>The technical specification is incomplete.  You may not take their 
>documents and implement a compatible system (been there, done that, got 
>the tire tracks on my back).  They have not made these specifications 
>public to my knowledge anywhere, including the F.C.C.   As such,  I do 
>not see why it is not an illegal scrambler in the U.S.
>
>
>Bob
>N4HY
>
>
>  
>



 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] What is a Channel? Re: Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[expeditionradio]

> Bill-W4BSG wrote:
> Bonnie-
> In an open band, that would be more properly designated as 
> a "frequency", wouldn't it? A "channel is usually  a frequency 
> or limited range of frequencies defined by a protocol, statute, 
> or agreement.

Hi Bill,

You refer to the use of an authorised or assigned "channel".
But there are various appropriate uses of the word "channel".

In communications engineering, and discussion about the area 
of spectrum in which a radio signal is conveyed, it is common to 
call it a "channel". Hams use the word "frequency" to refer to 
either the center of the communications channel or the dial 
readout (zero beat of the upper sideband or lower sideband). 
It is standard for hams to use "frequency" as slang for "channel", 
due to tradition, and the fact that many hams want to 
distance themselves from the channels of the Citizens Band Service.

Technically speaking, "a frequency" is an infinitely small 
increment, a single point in the "frequency domain". 
It may be possible to pass very slow information 
"in a frequency" using QRSS slow CW. But if you want to 
communicate normal fast information, such as voice,  or data, 
you will need to do that "in a channel". 

Use of the word channel is more appropriate when talking about 
a specific part of the spectrum that is in use for communications, 
such as the useful or occupied bandwidth of the signal, or the 
actual passband of the receiver. Thus it is more appropriate to 
refer to the "Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detector" than the 
"Psychic Busy Frequency Detector".   :)

Another use of the word channel exists in DSP.
In Digital Signal Processing of RF, the word channel is often 
used to mean the total path from the modulated signal baseband 
source to the baseband presented to the DSP demodulator/decoder. 
In this respect, the HF "channel" includes the transmitter chain, 
RF path, ionosphere, pre-post filtering, receiver chain, 
IF gain, and filtering path on both ends of the link.

Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: channel 
Function: noun 
"1 a : the bed where a natural stream of water runs b : the deeper
part of a river, harbor, or strait c : a strait or narrow sea between
two close landmasses d : a means of communication or expression: as
(1) : a path along which information (as data or music) in the form of
an electrical signal passes (2) plural : a fixed or official course of
communication  e : a way, course, or direction of thought or action  f : a band of frequencies of sufficient width
for a single radio or television communication "


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: Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[Bill]

Bonnie-
In an open band, that would be more properly designated as a "frequency", 
wouldn't it? A "channel is usually  a frequency or limited range of 
frequencies defined by a protocol, statute, or agreement.
Bill-W4BSG

At 03:06 AM 6/23/2006 +, you wrote:

>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hey, Bonnie. Where are all these "channels" you keep mentioning?
> > Bill-W4BSG
> >
>
>Wherever your receiver or transmitter is tuned to.
>
>Bonnie VR2/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 ~--> 
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/