[digitalradio] Comment from an ARRL staffer J2B/D
I have been in touch with some staff at ARRL HQ about the >500Hz data matter. Their official position is that U.S. hams should be "conservative" about this, and avoid using >500Hz data transmissions until they have clarified the matter with the FCC. Unofficially , there are some ARRL "advisors" that feel Olivia 1000 (and others) likely fall in to the J2B mode but they fear it may come down to "dueling lawyers". My sense is that this will eventually get resolved but I am guessing it will not be until "after the holidays" , early 2007. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
Agreed Rick. I would use polls if we need to express an opinion , I would develop some standards in terns of representative sample size , etc. I doubt we would do this more than once a year or so, Andy K3UK - Original Message - From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group" > As long as you did not misrepresent the group as some formal > organization, and indicated that it was an internet discussion group, it > should be fine. We are basically an ad hoc special interest discussion > group that represents a wide spectrum of views. > > Indicating someone is the head of a group, does suggest that they are > elected or appointed in some way, and personally I would just indicate > that I moderated the discussion group. > > You might set up some polls, to get at least some input from the > membership. Even though it will not be scientifically accurate polling, > it would certainly show support for or against a particular issue. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > >>I have begun using the term The Digital Radio Group, when referring >>collectively to this email group. This group has almost 2,500 subscribed >>members , therefore I think the group represents an active constituency >>of data oriented radio operators. >> >>Hopefully this will not appear overly pretentious, but I have contacted >>the FCC about the revised data bandwidth rules and asked them for >>clarification. I did so as "head" of the Digital Radio Group. There may >>be other times when communication with national or international >>organizations would be helpful to our members. As an individual member, I >>would not express opinion on behalf of this group, but feel that it may be >>appropriate to occasionally ask organizations to clarify their positions. >> >>So, I have written to Bill Cross and Riley Hollingsworth on behalf of this >>group and shared with them some of the key points recently made by members >>of this group. I will share any response with the membership. >> >>Andy K3UK >>"Owner". >> >> >> >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006 >> >> > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
Well said , I agree, that is why I did not dare to express anyone's opinion. - Original Message - From: "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group" >A dictator is the "head" of a group and not elected or appointed. :-) > > Most dictators consider themselves "protector of the people" and their > interest. >
Re: [digitalradio] Part of the problem
First to the list, I am sorry about the fonts and alignment of that post. I am not sure what happened. Rick, You notice where the J2D should be "emissions A1C, F2C, J2C and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less, and J2D. NOT emissions A1C, F2C, J2C, J3C, and emissions A1C, F2C, J2C and J3C and J2D having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less, The ARRL was saying that when sending images digitally the emission is always J2D. In other words everything is data. The FCC could have easily said, yes this is true, but they missed one procdural thing. When the comment period started, my peitition was ALREADY graneted. So the question was not whether image emissions needed authorization, it was how were image emissions going to be authorized. Your analysis is correct. Of course I did my homework well before I submitted the petition and received advice. I had my ducks in line so to speak. It is not a great big staff that reviews these petitions. I have a feeling some summer interns worked on this one. There were just too many small mistakes. I am happy with the outcome, but I am not sure the J2D thing can stand up to scrutiny, but we will see. 73, Mark N5RFX At 06:46 PM 11/17/2006, you wrote: >Mark, > >In reviewing the comments some things stand out that I missed before: > >1. In your petition you recommended the wording for the definition for >data to be changed: > >"emissions A1C, F2C, J2C and J3C having an >occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less, and J2D." > >In the ARRL comments to your petition, they felt that just having J2D >and without the other C type FAX modes would be adequate for sending image: > >"This version would have the effect of permitting digital images to be >transmitted in a >computer communication within the existing symbol rates, which are given >in §97.307(f). > >Since J2D data was already permitted in the CW/RTTY area (as an example, >all of 80 meters, but not 75 meters) how could their suggestion make it >possible to begin sending FAX on this subband when in the past the FCC >has said that we really don't have that authority to do so? What am I >missing? > >2. They sure ignored Victor Poor's comments in their final decision. > >3. When all is said and done, the FCC says they want to advance the >radio art and all, but then make it impossible to do so with digital >data modes. There is some kind of disconnect. And I do not blame this >all on the Commissioners. My view is that they are like jurists, trying >to make a final decision based upon the input from the public, and also >their own engineers, who know the minutia of this kind of stuff. For >example, to effectively delete the automatic forwarding area on 80 >meters, without ever bringing this up, really should have been foreseen >by the engineering expert advisors. > >Unless I am being unrealistic and the professional engineering advisors >don't have the ear of the Commissioners. > >73, > >Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Part of the problem
Mark, In reviewing the comments some things stand out that I missed before: 1. In your petition you recommended the wording for the definition for data to be changed: "emissions A1C, F2C, J2C and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less, and J2D." In the ARRL comments to your petition, they felt that just having J2D and without the other C type FAX modes would be adequate for sending image: "This version would have the effect of permitting digital images to be transmitted in a computer communication within the existing symbol rates, which are given in §97.307(f). Since J2D data was already permitted in the CW/RTTY area (as an example, all of 80 meters, but not 75 meters) how could their suggestion make it possible to begin sending FAX on this subband when in the past the FCC has said that we really don't have that authority to do so? What am I missing? 2. They sure ignored Victor Poor's comments in their final decision. 3. When all is said and done, the FCC says they want to advance the radio art and all, but then make it impossible to do so with digital data modes. There is some kind of disconnect. And I do not blame this all on the Commissioners. My view is that they are like jurists, trying to make a final decision based upon the input from the public, and also their own engineers, who know the minutia of this kind of stuff. For example, to effectively delete the automatic forwarding area on 80 meters, without ever bringing this up, really should have been foreseen by the engineering expert advisors. Unless I am being unrealistic and the professional engineering advisors don't have the ear of the Commissioners. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: > Yes you are correct about regulation by emission designators. The > question really is when is the third symbol of the emissions > designator a D? 97.3(c)(2) says that data is Telemetry, telecommand > and computer communications. The third symbol of an emissions > designator identifies the content of the emission. When the content > is Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications and the signals > are a single channel containing quantized or digital information with > the use of a modulating sub-carrier and that sub carrier is modulating > main carrier by the use of single-sideband, suppressed carrier then > you must limit your occupied bandwidth to 500 Hz or less. On the > other hand if the content is Telemetry, telecommand and computer > communications and the signals are a single channel containing > quantized or digital information without the use of a modulating > sub-carrier, and the carrier is frequecy modulated then you do not > have to limit your occupied bandwidth to 500 Hz or less. > > If the third symbol of the emissions designator is a B, then you don't > have to limit your occupied bandwidth to 500 Hz or less. The question > is when is the content B, and when is the content D? Since the only > definition that includes emissions with the letter D as their third > symbol is data, we have to conclude that the third symbol is a D when > the emissions contains telemetry, telecommand and computer > communications. There are three definitions that have emissions > designators where the third symbol is a B. Those are: CW, MCW, and > RTTY. RTTY is narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy. Part 2 defines > telegraphy as: a form of telecommunication in which the transmitted > information is intended to be recorded on arrival as a graphic > document; the transmitted information may sometimes be presented in an > alternative form or may be stored for subsequent use. A graphic > document records information in a permanent form and is capable of > being filed and consulted; it may take the form of written or printed > matter or of a fixed image. The third symbol B is defined as > telegraphy for automatic reception. > > There are 3 third symbols that are considered telegraphy > A - telegraphy for aural reception > B - telegraphy for automatic receptionC - facsimile - form of > telegraphy for the transmission of fixed images > > From history we know that RTTY traditionally has been a system where > the operator types at one end, and the characters and control appear > at the other end. Facsimile traditionally works in a similar > fashion. An operator sends a picture to a machine which reproduces > the picture at the other end. > > I am not sure why any digital mode with a human operator at each end > sending text would not qualify as telegraphy for automatic reception > and thus be exempt from the 500 Hz maximum occupied bandwidth limit. > Telemetry and telecommand are well defined, data is undefined and I am > not sure what constitutes computer communication and thus I am not > sure when the third symbol has to be a D. Perhaps the third symbol is > a D when there is no human operator in control of the station, and a > computer is controlling communication.
Re: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES....
The FCC uses the phrase "quantitized or digital information" in the definitions in part 2 so anything encoded into discrete levels of amplitude, phase or frequency is digital. The definitions in part 97 were probably very clear when they were written. It looks like they took amateur radio terms from the 1960's and 1970's and then spelled out which emission designators corresponded to each of them. I think that the methods of textual information transmission are fairly well defined. In CW and MCW, the symbols in the alphabet being used for communication are sent in intenational Morse code. Phone uses speech to represent the symbols. Image is transmission of glyphs representing the symbols. RTTY is transmission of symbols using a digital code that are immediately printed. Data is the tansmission of symbols using a digital code that aren't immediately printed. Digital code is ASCII, Baudot, AMTOR or any publicly documented code that isn't morse code. Phone also allows the transmission of sounds other than speech, except music. Image also allows the transmission of pictures that are not symbols in an alphabet. The FCC's definitions are outdated, but given these definitions, sending a PDF file is probably image transmission as it can contain pictures. In the 1970's the same operation woud have been performed by a fax machine and the defiition of image includes facsimile. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 16:18 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES Perhaps now is the time to ask the question...what is the difference between analog and digital? Both are data. In the truest sense of the word, language normally vocalized is data in an analog form. If we digitize it, it becomes digital data. If we take a picture of a printed page and transmit it digitally, it is an image but the "information" carried on the page is a language. The question seems to be if the information sent as a image digitally any different than the information sent digitally without the printing/scanning process. What is different in sending a word processor file or the same file converted digitally (scanned?) to a JPEG or GIF file. Also, is a PDF file an image or digital data file. We have a problem that we REALLY don't know the definitions of "these words"/"terms" that the FCC is using. It matters little what our definition is; rather, what the FCC's definition is. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:54 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES PERHAPS IF WHAT IS TRANSMITTED IS NOT FOR DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND GRATIFICATION, THEN IT IS NOT DATA. JUST GONNA HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE AFTER ALL THE SHOUTING IS OVER. DAVID/WD4KPD Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
Agreed, that is why in general I would not expect this group's opinion to be expressed. In my communication with the FCC I did not express an opinion, but asked them to clarify some points. Andy. - Original Message - From: "kd4e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group" >> We are basically an ad hoc special interest discussion >> group that represents a wide spectrum of views. >> >> You might set up some polls, to get at least some input from the >> membership. Even though it will not be scientifically accurate polling, >> it would certainly show support for or against a particular issue. >> >> 73, Rick, KV9U > > The views represented on this list are highly diverse > and it would be nearly impossible to "represent" them > as a singular voice without drifting into errors similar > to those of the ARRL. > > Other than a statistically valid survey of the group using > an unbiased measurement tool (unlike most of what is used > in the political world of push-polls) I am uncertain how > one could begin to speak for this diverse group! :-) > > The other question one would need to ask is if this > group is reasonably representative of Hams interested > in digital modes or is the membership a self-selected > subset for some identifiable reason? > > If I am at the FCC I will also want to know two other > things: > > 1. Does this groups represent a diferent, partial, or the > same population as the ARRL? > > 2. What about non-digital mode Hams (ARRL members and non- > ARRL members) whose enjoyment of the hobby may be impacted > by digital mode-related rulings?
Re: [digitalradio] Part of the problem
Yes you are correct about regulation by emission designators. The question really is when is the third symbol of the emissions designator a D? 97.3(c)(2) says that data is Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications. The third symbol of an emissions designator identifies the content of the emission. When the content is Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications and the signals are a single channel containing quantized or digital information with the use of a modulating sub-carrier and that sub carrier is modulating main carrier by the use of single-sideband, suppressed carrier then you must limit your occupied bandwidth to 500 Hz or less. On the other hand if the content is Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications and the signals are a single channel containing quantized or digital information without the use of a modulating sub-carrier, and the carrier is frequecy modulated then you do not have to limit your occupied bandwidth to 500 Hz or less. If the third symbol of the emissions designator is a B, then you don't have to limit your occupied bandwidth to 500 Hz or less. The question is when is the content B, and when is the content D? Since the only definition that includes emissions with the letter D as their third symbol is data, we have to conclude that the third symbol is a D when the emissions contains telemetry, telecommand and computer communications. There are three definitions that have emissions designators where the third symbol is a B. Those are: CW, MCW, and RTTY. RTTY is narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy. Part 2 defines telegraphy as: a form of telecommunication in which the transmitted information is intended to be recorded on arrival as a graphic document; the transmitted information may sometimes be presented in an alternative form or may be stored for subsequent use. A graphic document records information in a permanent form and is capable of being filed and consulted; it may take the form of written or printed matter or of a fixed image. The third symbol B is defined as telegraphy for automatic reception. There are 3 third symbols that are considered telegraphy A - telegraphy for aural reception B - telegraphy for automatic receptionC - facsimile - form of telegraphy for the transmission of fixed images From history we know that RTTY traditionally has been a system where the operator types at one end, and the characters and control appear at the other end. Facsimile traditionally works in a similar fashion. An operator sends a picture to a machine which reproduces the picture at the other end. I am not sure why any digital mode with a human operator at each end sending text would not qualify as telegraphy for automatic reception and thus be exempt from the 500 Hz maximum occupied bandwidth limit. Telemetry and telecommand are well defined, data is undefined and I am not sure what constitutes computer communication and thus I am not sure when the third symbol has to be a D. Perhaps the third symbol is a D when there is no human operator in control of the station, and a computer is controlling communication. That would make the most sense to me. So to summarize, if you use an outboard controller like the SCS PTC II and a SSB transmitter, and you are a computer is handling communication without a human operator, then you must limit your maximum occupied bandwidh to 500 Hz or less. If you are sending images, you must limit your occupied bandwidth to 500Hz or less. Just a note, the original petition that I wrote asked for authorization to send images in the RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 thorugh 10-meter bands. I added the 500 Hz maximum occupied bandwidth to make the suggestion more palatable to the general Amateur radio public. I did not ask the FCC to change the definition of data, I asked them to modify 97.305. They chose instead to modify the definition of data, and add J2D to the list of emissions that must have an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less. The ARRL and W5SMM wrote comments to my petition. I think the FCC got the idea of the 500Hz limit for J2D from them, although that was not their intention. You can read those comments at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516213520 (see section III) and http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516088425 The FCC response is at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.pdf (see paragraph 15. 73, Mark N5RFX it seems to me is this regulation by emission designators. If I have a black box, and FSK at RF comes out of it, who's to say whether what is inside is a frequency-shifted oscillator or a SSB generator being fed with FSK audio tones. Or some frequency synthesis scheme that is able to shift between two different divisors. The rules seem to say that I can use 850 Hz RTTY if I directly shift the VFO, but n
[digitalradio] Test in PAX through a repeater
Hello to all We would like to experiment APRS PAX (PAX not PAX2) transmission through a PAX repeater. Fred (OH/DK4ZC) proposes to be a PAX repeater this saturday 18/11/2006 from 15h00 to 17h00 UTC. His locator is KP30JK in Finland. >From 15h00 to 16h00 UTC Fred will beam towards Europe and from 16h00 to 17h00 >UTC towards USA. Note: as Multipsk will not accept OH/DK4ZC (too long) his call will be DK4ZC. Role of Fred (the PAX repeater) As a PAX repeater, he will activate the "PAX presence" sending small PAX frames regularly (each one every 40 seconds) to show his presence. Before each frame, it will be sent a RS ID so as for other hams to auto-tune on the Fred frames. His frequency will be 14.110,50 KHz USB AF=1000 Hz. Role of the "Hams users" It will be exchanged only APRS PAX frames, without connection, this to avoid to monopolize the repeater. It is reminded that the user must click on "PAX", "Unproto" then "Options ", fill the repeaters field with "ECHO" (alias for any stations as DK4ZC), check the radiobutton "To notch if one repeater is used" and confirm with OK. For the ones using the 4.1.1 version, it is better to auto-tune using the RS ID sent by Fred. So unclick "AFC" (which becomes useless) and click on "RS ID detection" (and click on this button after each RS ID detection). For the other ones, click on "AFC". IMPORTANT: don't send any RS ID (button "RS ID" in "Off" position) because the "pivot" will be Fred as repeater not the Ham users. The user will, afterwards, click on "APRS", "Transmission", fill his position N/S and W/E + altitude. He will fill the the Comment field with his message and when ready click on the button "Only one transmission" to send his APRS position + message. This transmission will be done between two Fred presence frames (however the repeater detecting the presence of a signal will not send his "presence" frame until the end of the transmission) . One of the other goal will be to test if QRP stations could contact distant stations, through the repeater. 73 Patrick
[digitalradio] Omnibus rules published in the Federal Register
I sure hope everyone who has a complaint about the new rulings is writing both the ARRL and the FCC because it really does no good just to voice your opinion on Yahoo forums. DO SOMETHING THAT HAS IMPACT! Bill K6ACJ
Re: [digitalradio] pactor via sound card?
For software control with a computer, the only partial solution was to use a Pactor I program developed for Linux, but from comments from those who have used it, the results were mediocre at best since it can not equal the dedicated box. I am not sure if this is still true with the much more powerful computers of today. Perhaps someone here in the group has tried it with a 2 or 3 GHz computer and can report on its effectiveness, or lack thereof. It is possible that someday we might see more adoption of the PSKmail system, which also uses the Linux OS to operate. This system has few servers at act as the go between the internet and the remote user. The throughput is very slow compared to the Winlink 2000 system but it is also much more bandwidth conserving. I am assuming that you want to connect to the Winlink 2000 system which now only uses Pactor I, II and in some areas will likely continue with III. If you want to connect with good speed, you would need the proprietary, single sourced German SCS box since no one has come very close to matching the Pactor 2 throughput for 500 Hz bandwidth with using a soundcard mode. And the Winlink 2000 SCAMP effort failed to compete successfully so was never further developed and now would be illegal under the new rules:( The Winlink 2000 servers typically have a maximum connect time of 30 minutes per 24 hours, so a slow modem might not get everything through depending upon your needs. The only less expensive alternative would be a used Kantronics or AEA/Timewave box running only Pactor I. The new boxes from these companies are so expensive now, that you would be better off to go with the SCS. Because of the FCC mandated changes for U.S. amateur licensees, it looks like Pactor 3 will no longer be possible on the ham bands unless the FCC makes a change to its recent decision. I don't see how it can possibly do that and still support their contention that there must be narrow bandwidth areas for data, unless they allow wide bandwidth data modes in the phone/image area. 73, Rick, KV9U James Hickox wrote: >Hello all, >Does anyone know of a way to both copy and transmit on pactor? I need >to put together a small digital station with just the xcvr and >laptop. I don't need another box!!! Will be using it to send E-mail >back from the wilds of Peru this summer if all goes well. > >Thanks and 73, > >James HIckox, AA5AO > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] pactor via sound card?
Sound card software will not work very well with Pactor because of the timing requirements with the burst mode Dave WB2FTX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello all, > Does anyone know of a way to both copy and transmit on pactor? I need > to put together a small digital station with just the xcvr and > laptop. I don't need another box!!! Get a SCS P3 box.. If you're doing anything beyond pure recreation with it that's the way to go. It's a small box. > Will be using it to send E-mail > back from the wilds of Peru this summer if all goes well. With a little luck I'll be consuming Inca Kola at the in-laws in Lima this summer.. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] pactor via sound card?
> Hello all, > Does anyone know of a way to both copy and transmit on pactor? I need > to put together a small digital station with just the xcvr and > laptop. I don't need another box!!! Get a SCS P3 box.. If you're doing anything beyond pure recreation with it that's the way to go. It's a small box. > Will be using it to send E-mail > back from the wilds of Peru this summer if all goes well. With a little luck I'll be consuming Inca Kola at the in-laws in Lima this summer.. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
[digitalradio] Part of the problem
it seems to me is this regulation by emission designators. If I have a black box, and FSK at RF comes out of it, who's to say whether what is inside is a frequency-shifted oscillator or a SSB generator being fed with FSK audio tones. Or some frequency synthesis scheme that is able to shift between two different divisors. The rules seem to say that I can use 850 Hz RTTY if I directly shift the VFO, but not if I am feeding AFSK into a SSB radio. Well in priciple I could construct a VFO that shifts among 4 or 8 or 16 different tones. Or a computer-controlled synthesizer that puts out RF. Would this make wide Olivia or Pactor III legal just so long as I don't use a SSB exciter?
[digitalradio] pactor via sound card?
Hello all, Does anyone know of a way to both copy and transmit on pactor? I need to put together a small digital station with just the xcvr and laptop. I don't need another box!!! Will be using it to send E-mail back from the wilds of Peru this summer if all goes well. Thanks and 73, James HIckox, AA5AO
Re: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES....
Got me. I always thought digital simply meant two stages, on and off. CW is digital, as is RTTY. Its the scheme of the on/off or mark/space that gives us the "mode" of digital transmissions. Analogue is a smooth (albeit sometimes very rapid) transition between the bandwidth limits. Almost all our digital modes are simply keying a tone which rides along on SSB signals - the same as voice does. I put my rig in SSB to transmit and receive PSK and the other digital modes I run. If they do not modulate the signal beyond those parameters, what is the difference if we run voice, digital voice, SSTV , PSK, etc? It is still a SSB signal with some type of modulation. I think we are getting much too involved in trying to outguess ourselves here. CW is different, as we are simply turning the carrier on and off, and even it is an analogue carrier. "Data" has thrown a real kink in amateur radio thinking, and I think we think too much about it. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES > Perhaps now is the time to ask the question...what is the difference between analog and digital? Both are data. > >
RE: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES....
Perhaps now is the time to ask the question...what is the difference between analog and digital? Both are data. In the truest sense of the word, language normally vocalized is data in an analog form. If we digitize it, it becomes digital data. If we take a picture of a printed page and transmit it digitally, it is an image but the "information" carried on the page is a language. The question seems to be if the information sent as a image digitally any different than the information sent digitally without the printing/scanning process. What is different in sending a word processor file or the same file converted digitally (scanned?) to a JPEG or GIF file. Also, is a PDF file an image or digital data file. We have a problem that we REALLY don't know the definitions of "these words"/"terms" that the FCC is using. It matters little what our definition is; rather, what the FCC's definition is. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:54 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] NEWEST RULES PERHAPS IF WHAT IS TRANSMITTED IS NOT FOR DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND GRATIFICATION, THEN IT IS NOT DATA. JUST GONNA HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE AFTER ALL THE SHOUTING IS OVER. DAVID/WD4KPD Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
A dictator is the "head" of a group and not elected or appointed. :-) Most dictators consider themselves "protector of the people" and their interest. All hail the mighty K3UK...you go guy. You protect us as it seems that other more formal organizations can't. :-) Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of KV9U Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group" As long as you did not misrepresent the group as some formal organization, and indicated that it was an internet discussion group, it should be fine. We are basically an ad hoc special interest discussion group that represents a wide spectrum of views. Indicating someone is the head of a group, does suggest that they are elected or appointed in some way, and personally I would just indicate that I moderated the discussion group. You might set up some polls, to get at least some input from the membership. Even though it will not be scientifically accurate polling, it would certainly show support for or against a particular issue. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: >I have begun using the term The Digital Radio Group, when referring >collectively to this email group. This group has almost 2,500 subscribed >members , therefore I think the group represents an active constituency of >data oriented radio operators. > >Hopefully this will not appear overly pretentious, but I have contacted the >FCC about the revised data bandwidth rules and asked them for clarification. >I did so as "head" of the Digital Radio Group. There may be other times when >communication with national or international organizations would be helpful to >our members. As an individual member, I would not express opinion on behalf >of this group, but feel that it may be appropriate to occasionally ask >organizations to clarify their positions. > >So, I have written to Bill Cross and Riley Hollingsworth on behalf of this >group and shared with them some of the key points recently made by members of >this group. I will share any response with the membership. > >Andy K3UK >"Owner". > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006 > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
"2. What about non-digital mode Hams (ARRL members and non- ARRL members) whose enjoyment of the hobby may be impacted by digital mode-related rulings?" No group this large will have members who are NOT also members of other groups. ARRL certainly doesnt represent the wishes of even the majority of their membership at times. But, also the members of this group ARE digital operators, unlike the majority of most any other group, unless it also consists of digital members for that same purpose . Thus, I dont think we have to take into consideration the feelings of other groups. Let them speak for themselves - which certainly appears to be what has happened and to whom the FCC bowed down to. Many groups tried to do away completely with CW, much to the horror of many of us on this group- so let them speak for themselves, and we should speak with our own voice and often and loudly. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure
As Bob, N4HY, and others have explained...the publicly documented description of the mode may not be sufficient for engineers/mathematicians or other individuals to be able to replicate the capability of receiving a Pactor II signal. Additionally, the use of or method of their use of their compression might lead one to believe that there is an attempt or at lease some pretext on the part of the Pactor III code writers to an end that would lead one to suspect that they indeed to wish to make the Pactor III signal difficult for most, and impossible for the many to "decode/decrypt" their transmissions. Note that making a mode/code capable of obscuring the content of a message does not mean that it is encrypted to the point of not being able to read it, only not reasonably easy to read/decipher...the question becomes what would a reasonable man do under reasonable technical conditions to allow himself to read/decipher the transmission. (This is a legal concept.) To be able to decipher is different than decript. I have seen many texts that I cannot decipher and they were not encrypted. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jon Maguire Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:23 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure >Pactor III will violate Part 97 when the new rules go into affect and in fact >may violate Part 97 now due to other problems associated with the mode. Walt, please elaborate on the second part of this statement. Thank you. 73... Jon W1MNK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Failure & FCC Success
kd4e wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> There does seem to be a near consensus of radio amateurs that Pactor 3 >>> simply does not belong on the amateur bands. >> If that is true then BPL has won. > > What, please, do BPL and P3 have in common? Both are of value to their users and thus the community in general. If we holders of the amateur frequencies don't use them to bring significant value to the community, we will have little reason to say BPL shouldn't be using them. > (Other than frequent and well-founded complaints > about QRMing other spectrum users?) That's an organizational issue and has nothing to do with the technologies at hand. > P3 is a mode that is best utilized on dedicated > spectrum vs multi-mode shared spectrum. It is > more suitable to commercial, public service, and > maritime communications and there is tons of > spectrum assigned to those services. It does not > play well with others. Sure it does if the organization is done right. Of course it's not reasonable to expect CW, PSK31(etc) and P3 to exist in the same 10 KHz of a band segment. How about something like: 3.5 - 3.6 MHz - .5 KHz modes 3.6 - 3.65 MHz - Extra voice 3.65 - 3.75 MHz - completely open - P3, 50 KHz data, etc. 3.75 - 4.00 MHz - more voice One good technique to judge the value of something is to put a dollar tag on it. What would happen to the amateur frequencies if we had to pay 1 penny per kiloherz per minute... A 10 minute AM transmission 8 KHz wide would cost 10 * 8 * 1 or 80 cents... A 2 KHz SSB transmission would be 20 cents. PSK31 and CW would take .1 KHz so look at the cost savings there. We have to be relevant - to current technology, to the community and to todays Jr Hi students. 500 Hz data doesn't fit any of those. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
John, The direct printing could also refer to the older technologies of printing to a TD couldn't it? It would be possible to then relay that information without actually printing it out, such as on a sheet of paper with a teleprinter or on a monitor screen? Or would that become data? It is my view that the ITU designators make distinctions where there really should be no distinctions. On your second paragraph, I have to admit that it is one of those "sleeper" items in Part 973(b): /(3) Image/. Facsimile and television emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; C or F as the third symbol; and emissions having B as the first symbol; 7, 8 or 9 as the second symbol; W as the third symbol. However, these "B" modes sound as if they need separate sidebands from the voice channel. It would be interesting to get a reading from the FCC on what these modes are in practical terms. After all, if you can transmit on one sideband with voice and another with darn near anything, analog or quantized, what is wrong with just transmitting on one SB with voice and switching to data or image? Can anyone explain this? Maybe an oversight on the part of the FCC? 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: >The key appears to be whether the information is printed immediately or not. >In 97.3, RTTY is defined as "Narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy." So text >is B if it is printed or D if it is not printed. > >It's interesting that emission types B7W, B8W and B9W (ISB) are still allowed, >so you can legally transmit data anywhere that image transmission is allowed >if it is accompanied by analog or digital voice or image transmission or even >by CW or RTTY. > >73, > >John >KD6OZH > > >
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
> We are basically an ad hoc special interest discussion > group that represents a wide spectrum of views. > > You might set up some polls, to get at least some input from the > membership. Even though it will not be scientifically accurate polling, > it would certainly show support for or against a particular issue. > > 73, Rick, KV9U The views represented on this list are highly diverse and it would be nearly impossible to "represent" them as a singular voice without drifting into errors similar to those of the ARRL. Other than a statistically valid survey of the group using an unbiased measurement tool (unlike most of what is used in the political world of push-polls) I am uncertain how one could begin to speak for this diverse group! :-) The other question one would need to ask is if this group is reasonably representative of Hams interested in digital modes or is the membership a self-selected subset for some identifiable reason? If I am at the FCC I will also want to know two other things: 1. Does this groups represent a diferent, partial, or the same population as the ARRL? 2. What about non-digital mode Hams (ARRL members and non- ARRL members) whose enjoyment of the hobby may be impacted by digital mode-related rulings? HTH ... -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
I agree with Rick. You should get a poll and get some thoughts from. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group" As long as you did not misrepresent the group as some formal organization, and indicated that it was an internet discussion group, it should be fine. We are basically an ad hoc special interest discussion group that represents a wide spectrum of views. Indicating someone is the head of a group, does suggest that they are elected or appointed in some way, and personally I would just indicate that I moderated the discussion group. You might set up some polls, to get at least some input from the membership. Even though it will not be scientifically accurate polling, it would certainly show support for or against a particular issue. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: >I have begun using the term The Digital Radio Group, when referring collectively to this email group. This group has almost 2,500 subscribed members , therefore I think the group represents an active constituency of data oriented radio operators. > >Hopefully this will not appear overly pretentious, but I have contacted the FCC about the revised data bandwidth rules and asked them for clarification. I did so as "head" of the Digital Radio Group. There may be other times when communication with national or international organizations would be helpful to our members. As an individual member, I would not express opinion on behalf of this group, but feel that it may be appropriate to occasionally ask organizations to clarify their positions. > >So, I have written to Bill Cross and Riley Hollingsworth on behalf of this group and shared with them some of the key points recently made by members of this group. I will share any response with the membership. > >Andy K3UK >"Owner". > > > >-- > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006 > >
Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
As long as you did not misrepresent the group as some formal organization, and indicated that it was an internet discussion group, it should be fine. We are basically an ad hoc special interest discussion group that represents a wide spectrum of views. Indicating someone is the head of a group, does suggest that they are elected or appointed in some way, and personally I would just indicate that I moderated the discussion group. You might set up some polls, to get at least some input from the membership. Even though it will not be scientifically accurate polling, it would certainly show support for or against a particular issue. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: >I have begun using the term The Digital Radio Group, when referring >collectively to this email group. This group has almost 2,500 subscribed >members , therefore I think the group represents an active constituency of >data oriented radio operators. > >Hopefully this will not appear overly pretentious, but I have contacted the >FCC about the revised data bandwidth rules and asked them for clarification. >I did so as "head" of the Digital Radio Group. There may be other times when >communication with national or international organizations would be helpful to >our members. As an individual member, I would not express opinion on behalf >of this group, but feel that it may be appropriate to occasionally ask >organizations to clarify their positions. > >So, I have written to Bill Cross and Riley Hollingsworth on behalf of this >group and shared with them some of the key points recently made by members of >this group. I will share any response with the membership. > >Andy K3UK >"Owner". > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006 > >
[digitalradio] Re: "The Digital Radio Group"
Thank you Andy. I believe this group on average is much better equiped to represent our interests than the ARRL is. This action appears very necessary, now and on an on-going basis. ... Duane N7QDN --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have begun using the term The Digital Radio Group, when referring collectively to this email group. This group has almost 2,500 subscribed members , therefore I think the group represents an active constituency of data oriented radio operators. > > Hopefully this will not appear overly pretentious, but I have contacted the FCC about the revised data bandwidth rules and asked them for clarification. I did so as "head" of the Digital Radio Group. There may be other times when communication with national or international organizations would be helpful to our members. As an individual member, I would not express opinion on behalf of this group, but feel that it may be appropriate to occasionally ask organizations to clarify their positions. > > So, I have written to Bill Cross and Riley Hollingsworth on behalf of this group and shared with them some of the key points recently made by members of this group. I will share any response with the membership. > > Andy K3UK > "Owner". >
[digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"
I have begun using the term The Digital Radio Group, when referring collectively to this email group. This group has almost 2,500 subscribed members , therefore I think the group represents an active constituency of data oriented radio operators. Hopefully this will not appear overly pretentious, but I have contacted the FCC about the revised data bandwidth rules and asked them for clarification. I did so as "head" of the Digital Radio Group. There may be other times when communication with national or international organizations would be helpful to our members. As an individual member, I would not express opinion on behalf of this group, but feel that it may be appropriate to occasionally ask organizations to clarify their positions. So, I have written to Bill Cross and Riley Hollingsworth on behalf of this group and shared with them some of the key points recently made by members of this group. I will share any response with the membership. Andy K3UK "Owner".
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
Joe, I think your interpretation is correct, but there is much misinformation about this, mainly from http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/11/15/100/?nc=1 . 73, Mark N5RFX >My interpretation, which is as good as any at this point, is that >"telegraphy" is plain text to be read and interpreted by a human >operator on the spot, whereas "data" is information (including plain >text) which was or is intended to be stored as a file or interpreted by >a computer. Thus: > >Keyboard-to-keyboard QSO: Telegraphy (J2B) >Automated exchange of QSO information: Data (J2D) >MultiPSK's Reed-Solomon mode ID feature: Data (J2D) >Loading and sending a text file: Data (J2D) >Manually delivering/forwarding NTS traffic: Telegraphy (J2B) >Automatically forwarding NTS traffic: Data (J2D) >Forwarding mail: Data (J2D) >Reading mail: Data (J2D) (it was stored in a file on the BBS) >Sending a PDF/ODF/etc: Data (J2D) >Sending a JPG/PNG/etc: Image/Fax (J2C) >Sending a MNG/animated GIF/etc: Television (J2F) > >So, if you're simply having a keyboard-to-keyboard QSO, a 1 or 2 >kHz-wide mode is legal.
Re: Re[2]: [digitalradio] "Omnibus" rules published in Federal Register
AH! Ok, that works...Thanks---Bob C. - Original Message - From: Flavio Padovani To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:12 PM Subject: Re[2]: [digitalradio] "Omnibus" rules published in Federal Register Saludos Bob, The correct link should have one less slant bar: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-19189.pdf Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 1:03:38 PM, you wrote: B> B> B> B> B> B> B> I get an invalid address when I try this link. B> B> B> B> Bob Christenson B> B> WU9Q B> B> B> B> B> - Original Message - B> B> From: John Becker B> B> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com B> B> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:42 AM B> B> Subject: [digitalradio] "Omnibus" rules published in Federal Register B> B> B> B> The wait is over. B> Bandplan changes effective 15 December 2006: B> http:///edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-19189.pdf B> Keep your comments nice. B> B> B> -- 73, Flavio Padovani KP4AWX
RE: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
>I would expect that we will be able to get some help from ARRL HQ on >this since they could publish a list of modes along with their >classifications. That would help a great deal. > Don't know if you saw it or not, but the ARRL updated the "article" on their web site today specifically on this topic, specifically bullet point 2: "The elimination of J2D emissions, data sent by modulating an SSB transmitter, of more than 500 Hz bandwidth. This will make PACTOR III at full capability illegal. Other digital modes effectively rendered illegal below 30 MHz include Olivia and MT63 (when operated at bandwidths greater than 500 Hz), 1200-baud packet, Q15X25 and Clover 2000." Sounds to me like the ARRL considers Olivia and friends J2D emissions. Peter K1PGV
Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
The key appears to be whether the information is printed immediately or not. In 97.3, RTTY is defined as "Narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy." So text is B if it is printed or D if it is not printed. It's interesting that emission types B7W, B8W and B9W (ISB) are still allowed, so you can legally transmit data anywhere that image transmission is allowed if it is accompanied by analog or digital voice or image transmission or even by CW or RTTY. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 02:36 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ? Joe, Your explanation may explain what the FCC meant when they wrote: "To accommodate the concern raised by ARRL, however, we will revise our rules to clarify that the 500 Hz limitation applies only to the emission types we are adding to the definition of data when transmitted on amateur service frequencies below 30 MHz. By amending the rule in this manner, the 500 bandwidth limitation will not apply to other data emission types or amateur service bands in which a higher symbol rate or bandwidth currently is permitted." Even though they are actually "C" or FAX modes, the FCC's decision makes the following into "data" modes: A1C = DSB AM digital FAX with no subcarrier F1C = FM FAX digital modulation with no subcarrier (MFSK) F2C = FM digital FAX with subcarrier J2C = Digital FAX with subcarrier J3C = Analog FAX from SSB transmitter and then add to that, the regular "data" of J2D. So it would not necessarily be text modes per se, but whether the ITU emission classification and/or the FCC considers as "data." It may be that a wide shift RTTY would still be legal since it appears that they did not change that part of the rules. The critical issue is the type of information to be transmitted and whether it is data or machine readable telegraphy. While the following modes are data (J2D) Pactor 3 = 2K20J2D Clover 3 = 2K0HJ2DEN (but can also be considered BEN so that complicates things) Q15X25 = 2K00J2D PSK, MFSK, possibly Olivia (mostly MFSK), Domino, perhaps MT-63 are J2B modes and not J2D? I still am unable to just know this by looking at the information and I have to look at other definitive sources for delineating the ITU classification. I would expect that we will be able to get some help from ARRL HQ on this since they could publish a list of modes along with their classifications. That would help a great deal. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Veldhuis wrote: >In my opinion, this is absolutely WRONG. I have said this here before, >it all comes down to what is considered "data". > >The new restrictions only cover content type "D", which is "Data, >telemetry or telecommand". It does *NOT* include type "B", which is >"telegraphy for automatic reception". It is already established that >RTTY is content type "B" in common use. Therefore, the same type of >traffic being sent with a mode like Olivia, MT63, Pactor-III, etc. must >be considered type "B" as well, the modulation scheme is irrelevant to that. > >My interpretation, which is as good as any at this point, is that >"telegraphy" is plain text to be read and interpreted by a human >operator on the spot, whereas "data" is information (including plain >text) which was or is intended to be stored as a file or interpreted by >a computer. Thus: > >Keyboard-to-keyboard QSO: Telegraphy (J2B) >Automated exchange of QSO information: Data (J2D) >MultiPSK's Reed-Solomon mode ID feature: Data (J2D) >Loading and sending a text file: Data (J2D) >Manually delivering/forwarding NTS traffic: Telegraphy (J2B) >Automatically forwarding NTS traffic: Data (J2D) >Forwarding mail: Data (J2D) >Reading mail: Data (J2D) (it was stored in a file on the BBS) >Sending a PDF/ODF/etc: Data (J2D) >Sending a JPG/PNG/etc: Image/Fax (J2C) >Sending a MNG/animated GIF/etc: Television (J2F) > >So, if you're simply having a keyboard-to-keyboard QSO, a 1 or 2 >kHz-wide mode is legal. > >As an aside, as long as you don't send any text (other than the Pic: >statement), the MFSK16 image mode is legal to use in the phone bands >right now. Though it does send a little incidental digital text, >consider the VIS codes in wide SSTV, and the QSO data burst that MMSSTV >sends. No one has ever lost their ticket over that... > >-Joe, N8FQ > > >
