date:20070318

One other related thought.

With the recent changes to Part 97, I believe that it is now legal to 
send an analog or digital image transmission in the text data portion of 
the bands with signals that are no wider than 500 Hz.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
 Yes, absolutely. Fax is legal only in the phone band.  I even confused 
 myself!
 I don't want to hazard a guess why Hellschreiber, which faxes pictures 
 of characters, is used in the data band and now the phone/image band.
 Leigh/WA5ZNU
 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 8:35 am, kv9u wrote:
   
 Leigh,

 This is the exact opposite of my understanding of Part 97  rules.

 Fax is specifically what is permitted in the phone bands. Hell modes
 were kind of borderline modes since they were similar to CW in some
 respects.

 Upon further reading of Part 97 wouldn't you consider facsimile as
 image? Thus, any areas that image can be transmitted are also legal
 for facsimile (FAX).

 73,

 Rick, KV9U

[digitalradio] USA's Fax, Hell

 Leigh/WA5ZNU wrote:
 I don't want to hazard a guess why Hellschreiber, which 
 faxes pictures of characters, is used in the data band and 
 now the phone/image band.


Hi Leigh,

The regulation by content has been a growing thorn in the FCC rules.
While it once was considered quaint, at this point in ham radio
technology, content has become an absolutely absurd way to regulate
subbands. This is one of the things that keeps USA hams stuck in
technology jail while the rest of the world's hams point and laugh.

For a long time, Hell on HF data subbands was in the gray area of
content rules for FCC. But, in spite of thousands of hams operating
Hell in the data subbands for many years, FCC never issued notices!

Recent rules enacted in December 2006, specifically allow Hell within
USA's HF data subbands (if less than 500Hz bandwidth). 

Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Bruce,

You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very 
different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented 
hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend 
deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.

It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not 
agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules 
changed.

But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too 
extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:

If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz 
limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up 
to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.

http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working 
Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on 
amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.

http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html

I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that 
the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.

73,

Rick, KV9U



bruce mallon wrote:
 This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
 meters with 200 khz wide signals?

 Nice very nice .


 --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   
 Rod,

 I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
 FCC
 for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
 trouble?
 Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
 service was established!
 Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
 so heavy handed?

 I agree with LA4VNA.  We have too many punk amateur
 barracks lawyers
 trying to muck around with the few of us still left
 trying to develop new
 technology.  They're always writing That's illegal
 while they just sit on
 their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
 find something in the
 regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
 road.

 Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
 wonderful avocation!

 73,
 John
 K8OCL

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Bruce, that is an extremely offensive posting.
I happen to LOVE 6M and have operated the
band for almost 50 years.  Sorry, you feel the
way you do.

You are of course, in error once again.
The excellent response from John, KD6OZH,
clarified that our OFDM testing will not be
on the AM calling frequency, but only on
portions of the band seldom utilized even
when the band is open.  That is a lot of
normally empty spectrum in a huge 4 MHz
wide band.

I hope we that we will ALWAYS be able to
enjoy the 6M band together.

73,
John
K8OCL

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Bill Vodall WA7NWP

 This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
  meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Not destroy it - save it...

Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders.  Today its the last
bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while
the real world technologies of digital wide band modes are exploding.
 Not that having a place for museum modes is bad -- we just shouldn't
hold on to them at the expense of the future.

I'm assuming everybody here does know that 6 meters is encompassed by BPL..

73
Bill - WA7NWP

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Chuck Mayfield

OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:

Bruce,

You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.

It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
changed.

But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:

If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz a 45 MHz limit up
to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.

http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdfhttp://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.

http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html

I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.

73,

Rick, KV9U

bruce mallon wrote:
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Nice very nice .

--- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Rod,

I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
FCC
for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
trouble?
Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
service was established!
Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
so heavy handed?

I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
barracks lawyers
trying to muck around with the few of us still left
trying to develop new
technology. They're always writing That's illegal
while they just sit on
their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
find something in the
regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
road.

Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
wonderful avocation!

73,
John
K8OCL

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
3/17/2007 12:33 PM

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread AAR2EY/AAA9DHT


John,

I beg to differ, I do get and from time to time I will offer comments 
to assist someone else who may not be sure of how to proceed with new 
technology in the age of rapid software modem developments.

However with your approach, sooner or later if you have not already, 
you will likely receive one or more FDS-213's or direct FCC correspondence.

All of my Amateur Radio activities are in accordance with the rules, 
I would like to think that everyone who reads and understands the 
rules operate likewise.

It is obvious however that some just don't care, your comments 
exemplify that position.

End of story.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steve, N2CKH


At 10:17 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

Steve,

You just don't get it yet, partner. As long as nobody
complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't
really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police
anything.

IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out
your new mode experiment in the middle of their
net frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK.

73,
John
K8OCL

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Thank you, Bill!  I couldn't have written it any better!

6M is a huge band, that even when it is red hot, as we
hope it is again in a few years, is very coveted by many
businesses, in addition to BPL.

The ARRL HSMM Working Group was trying to save 6M,
in addition to finding a spot to operate SS.

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Bill Vodall WA7NWP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:18:24 -0700

  This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
   meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Not destroy it - save it...

Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders.  Today its the last
bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while
the real world technologies of digital wide band modes are exploding.
  Not that having a place for museum modes is bad -- we just shouldn't
hold on to them at the expense of the future.

I'm assuming everybody here does know that 6 meters is encompassed by BPL..

73
Bill - WA7NWP

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Chuck,

Yes, it is character assassination.

All I am saying is don't go crazy with the FCC rules.
The FCC publicly has stated the purpose of the
rules was NEVER intended to hamper technological
experimenting and other progress by Hams.

Nonetheless, that is the FIRST question many Hams
ask when you want to tray an experiment, when
it should be Will we QRM any of our Ham brothers?

All I know as a wireless pro is that if we Hams insist
on sticking with all the legacy modes while the rest
of the world goes digital, all we will have for frequencies
aare those not wanted by anybody else.  Read the
book 200 Meters and above if a history lesson is needed.

Hope that helps.

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500

OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:

 Bruce,
 
 You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
 different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
 hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
 deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 
 It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
 agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
 changed.
 
 But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
 extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
that:
 
 If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
 limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
 to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 
 http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdfhttp://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 
 Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
 Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
 amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 
 http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 
 I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
 the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
 
 73,
 
 Rick, KV9U
 
 bruce mallon wrote:
   This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
   meters with 200 khz wide signals?
  
   Nice very nice .
  
  
   --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
   Rod,
  
   I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
   FCC
   for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
   trouble?
   Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
   service was established!
   Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
   so heavy handed?
  
   I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
   barracks lawyers
   trying to muck around with the few of us still left
   trying to develop new
   technology. They're always writing That's illegal
   while they just sit on
   their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
   find something in the
   regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
   road.
  
   Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
   wonderful avocation!
  
   73,
   John
   K8OCL
  
  
 
 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
 3/17/2007 12:33 PM

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Walt DuBose

Rick,

You are not in possession of all the facts.

The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and 
other modes on frequencies above HF.

The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish 
the 
task.

The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 the 
board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific works. 
  The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force.

I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed specific 
needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project.  
WE 
did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97.

Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as long 
as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  I agree. 
Some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM and 
ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the purpose 
of 
control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any 
citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the FCC 
telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz 
frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not 
received 
a citation.

Walt/K5YFW



kv9u wrote:
 Bruce,
 
 You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very 
 different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented 
 hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend 
 deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 
 It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not 
 agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules 
 changed.
 
 But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too 
 extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:
 
 If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz 
 limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up 
 to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 
 http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 
 Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working 
 Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on 
 amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 
 http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 
 I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that 
 the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
 
 73,
 
 Rick, KV9U
 
 
 
 bruce mallon wrote:
 
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Nice very nice .


--- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

Rod,

I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
FCC
for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
trouble?
Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
service was established!
Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
so heavy handed?

I agree with LA4VNA.  We have too many punk amateur
barracks lawyers
trying to muck around with the few of us still left
trying to develop new
technology.  They're always writing That's illegal
while they just sit on
their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
find something in the
regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
road.

Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
wonderful avocation!

73,
John
K8OCL

[digitalradio] New release (4.2) of MULTIPSK: MIL-STD-188-141A (ALE) + Unproto+ ARQ FAE , HB9TLK SdR receiver interface, 8-1000 Olivia/Contestia/RTTYM

2007-03-18 Thread Patrick Lindecker

New release (4.2) of MULTIPSK

RX/TX: PSK10/BPSK31-63-125/QPSK31-63-125/CHIP 
(64/128)/PSKFEC31/PSKAM10-31-50/PSK63F - PSK220F + DIGISSTV 
Run/CW/CCW/CCW-FSK/THROB/THROBX/MFSK8/
MFSK16 (+ SSTV)/MIL-STD-188-141A (+ARQ 
FAE)/OLIVIA/CONTESTIA/RTTYM/VOICE/DominoF DF/DominoEX/MT63/RTTY 45/75/ RTTY 
50+SYNOP+SHIP/ASCII/AMTOR FEC/ PACKET 110-300-1200 + APRS+ DIGISSTV Run/
PACTOR 1-FEC/PAX+PAX2 + APRS/FELD HELL/PSK HELL/FM HELL (105-245)/HELL 80/
HF-FAX/SSTV/
RX only: AMTOR ARQ/NAVTEX/RTTY 100/
DSP: Filters + CW binaural reception
PSK Panoramic (BPSK31/BPSK63/PSKFEC31): RX 23 channels simultaneously
CW Panoramic: RX 8 or 23 channels simultaneously
RTTY Panoramic: RX 8 RTTY QSO decoded simultaneously on 22 channels
Programmation of Multipsk reception
TCP/IP digital modem 

CLOCK 1.7 (FRANCE-INTER, DCF77, HBG, RUGBY, WWVB, WWV, WWVH, CHU, GPS, JJY)
Hello to all Ham and SWL,

The new release of MULTIPSK (4.2) is in my Web site (http://f6cte.free.fr). 
The main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: http://multipsk.eqth.org/index.html 
(click on United States).
Another mirror site isTerry's: http://www.hamsoft.co.uk/

Multispk associated to Clock are freeware programs but with functions submitted 
to a licence (by user key).

The main modifications of MULTIPSK 4.2 are the following:

1) Decoding/coding of the MIL-STD-188-141A mode and more. 
Multipsk proposes a sub-set of ALE functions. However, it exists other ALE 
functions and also other mode (i.e MIL-STD-188-110). But Multipsk gives several 
additional functions compared to the FS 1045A specifications, as, for example, 
the Unproto mode which permit to work as in PSK31, or the ARQ FAE mode which 
permits QSO fast and error-free.

Here is a list of the different ways to use this ALE system:


* Sounding (button Sounding (TI)) with THIS IS preamble: you signal your 
presence and will accept a call (and, hence, an automatic link) from a 
responder.


* Sounding (button Sounding (TW)) with THIS WAS preamble: you signal your 
presence but don't accept a call from a responder.


* Reversely, you decode a sounding with a THIS IS preamble or an Anycall, 
global or selective, you decide to call the station (button Answer to FRM) 
and so you establish an automatic link.


* Individual Call (button Call + callsign in the combobox) to establish an 
automatic link with a precise Ham station, the transmitted message being stored 
in the radio-mail (button Mail).


* Reversely you can be called and alerted (alert for licencied versions, only) 
by this individual call, the received message being stored in the radio-mail 
(button Mail).


* Anycall call (button Call + Anycall) to establish an automatic link with 
any station. It is a general CQ call. The possible transmitted message is not 
stored in the radio-mail. The button Answer to RX will permit to answer to 
this call.


* Allcall call (button Call + Allcall) to do a general message broadcast 
(QST). There is no answer to do. The transmitted message is not stored in the 
radio-mail.


* Collective call to a local net (button Call + net adress in the combobox) 
to establish an automatic link with several Ham stations, the possible 
transmitted message being stored in the radio-mail (button Mail).


* Reversely you can be called and alerted (alert for licencied versions, only) 
by this net call, the possible received message being stored in the radio-mail 
(button Mail).


* Automatic scanning (buttons Scan and Stop) of several frequencies until 
being alerted on reception either a valid frame or your own call, according to 
the selected option (for licencied versions, only).


* Unproto (without protocol) communication (buttons RX and TX). You 
manage the QSO as in PSK31 or MFSK16... and you know how you are received by 
the other Ham (through the LQA: BER and SINAD).


* Unproto beacon (button Beacon), transmitted with the LQA, so as to give 
possibility to the other Hams to know how they are received by your beacon.


* ARQ FAE communication. You manage the QSO as in PSK31 or MFSK16, but in this 
case it is an ARQ mode (not a FEC mode as in Unproto). There is no error in the 
transmission, each frame being acknowledged. It is a fast and relatively 
sensisitive full-duplex exchange mode. Before each FAE call, it is 
transmitted, by default, an RS ID for detection by the other Hams.


Some ALE frequencies: 3617, 7040.5, 14109.5, 21117.5 KHz
See specifications further on.

2) addition of the 8-1000 Olivia/Contestia/RTTYM modes,

3) addition of the experimental HB9TLK SdR receiver interface,

This experimental interface is based on the HB9TLK DLL Loop.DLL. This file 
must be put in the Multipsk folder. It permits to connect a SdR transceiver to 
Multipsk (as a VAC cable).

The loop.dll file is available at the adress: 
http://hb9tlk.selfip.com/softrock/index.html;

4) possibility to control the Packet mode (110, 300 et 1200 bauds), through the 
TCP/IP link. Multipsk_client is now in version 3 and downloadable from my site 
(source +

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
policy recommendations were part of the reason
the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.

They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
no matter how painless we tried to make it.

I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
the service survives beyond my life, but I am
not making taking any bets.

This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)

73,
John
K8OCL



Original Message Follows-
From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500

OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:

 Bruce,
 
 You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
 different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
 hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
 deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 
 It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
 agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
 changed.
 
 But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
 extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
that:
 
 If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
 limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
 to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 
 http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdfhttp://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 
 Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
 Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
 amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 
 http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 
 I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
 the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
 
 73,
 
 Rick, KV9U
 
 bruce mallon wrote:
   This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
   meters with 200 khz wide signals?
  
   Nice very nice .
  
  
   --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
   Rod,
  
   I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
   FCC
   for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
   trouble?
   Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
   service was established!
   Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
   so heavy handed?
  
   I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
   barracks lawyers
   trying to muck around with the few of us still left
   trying to develop new
   technology. They're always writing That's illegal
   while they just sit on
   their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
   find something in the
   regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
   road.
  
   Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
   wonderful avocation!
  
   73,
   John
   K8OCL
  
  
 
 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
 3/17/2007 12:33 PM

[digitalradio] Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules

Like laws, ham radio regulatory rules are not black and white.
They are subject to interpretation, tradition, politics, and
convincing arguments.

A gray area is the area of rules where an unclear or unsharp dividing
line may apply to a specific instance, a trend, a group, or in this
case... a communication signal. 

Often, a new convincing argument may move a previously gray area
situation into a more clear definition.

In USA's ham radio rules, there are many gray areas. 

Gray areas always are present in ham regulations and rules because:

1. Technology always moves faster than regulatory process.
2. Some rules are inherently self-contradictory.
3. Regulation rarely anticipates all things possible.
4. New inventions happen.
5. Users deploy technology that has not been previously in wide use.
6. Spirit of the law may tend to obscure or modify a rule.
7. New valid arguments may modify the way rules are interpreted.
8. Enforcement may be different than actual commonly accepted meaning.
9. Valid loopholes may be found or become boldly evident.
10. Technology may be designed to effectively circumvent rules.
11. Technology may have an inherent higher value under Spirit of the
law to preclude enforcement over a long time, thus rendering the rule
null in the practical sense.
12. Civil disobedience or long term use of a particular gray area
method may effectively render it clearly within the rule through
non-enforcement.
13. Pressure through widespread common use in surrounding
jurisdictions may render the rule moot, ineffective, or non-enforced.
14. Humans wrote the rules, and humans are not infallible.
15. The value or strength of one rule may overtake or nullify another
rule when applied to a situation. 
16. Compelling arguments for one side may win over the other side. 

There are other explanations for gray areas, and ham radio digital
communications has many examples. 

Bonnie KQ6XA

[digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules

Generally speaking, gray areas are widely accepted in democratic
societies and have a clear connection to the notion of tolerance,
whereas in societies of totalitarianism, grey areas are typically not
accepted on any level.

The notion is, that there may be a gray area in a rule or regulation,
as an area where no clear rule or precedent exists, or where the rule
has not been applied in a long time... thus making it unclear if it is
applicable at all.

Many people accept gray areas of life as a natural part of the human
experience, whereas others may react with suspicion and a feeling of
defectness or uncompleteness of any thought-system (or paradigm)
accepting gray areas. 

It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding
this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications.

Bonnie KQ6XA

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

 Like laws, ham radio regulatory rules are not black and white.
 They are subject to interpretation, tradition, politics, and
 convincing arguments.
 
 A gray area is the area of rules where an unclear or unsharp dividing
 line may apply to a specific instance, a trend, a group, or in this
 case... a communication signal. 
 
 Often, a new convincing argument may move a previously gray area
 situation into a more clear definition.
 
 In USA's ham radio rules, there are many gray areas. 
 
 Gray areas always are present in ham regulations and rules because:
 
 1. Technology always moves faster than regulatory process.
 2. Some rules are inherently self-contradictory.
 3. Regulation rarely anticipates all things possible.
 4. New inventions happen.
 5. Users deploy technology that has not been previously in wide use.
 6. Spirit of the law may tend to obscure or modify a rule.
 7. New valid arguments may modify the way rules are interpreted.
 8. Enforcement may be different than actual commonly accepted meaning.
 9. Valid loopholes may be found or become boldly evident.
 10. Technology may be designed to effectively circumvent rules.
 11. Technology may have an inherent higher value under Spirit of the
 law to preclude enforcement over a long time, thus rendering the rule
 null in the practical sense.
 12. Civil disobedience or long term use of a particular gray area
 method may effectively render it clearly within the rule through
 non-enforcement.
 13. Pressure through widespread common use in surrounding
 jurisdictions may render the rule moot, ineffective, or non-enforced.
 14. Humans wrote the rules, and humans are not infallible.
 15. The value or strength of one rule may overtake or nullify another
 rule when applied to a situation. 
 16. Compelling arguments for one side may win over the other side. 
 
 There are other explanations for gray areas, and ham radio digital
 communications has many examples. 
 
 Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data

2007-03-18 Thread Roger J. Buffington

Danny Douglas wrote:

  The best answer is NO linears at all. Not gonna happen. But, in those
  countries whee no linears are allowed, things seem to work quite
  smoothly and operators get out and work DX better than most people
  here do.

  Danny Douglas N7DC

Well yeah. Countries in Europe and Asia are not 7000 miles away from 
most other countries as we are here in the States.  I personally do not 
run a linear for fear of RFI, but if I could I would.

de Roger W6VZV

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules

Wilco!

You're response has so much class and rationale.

Original Message Follows
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:23:32 -

Generally speaking, gray areas are widely accepted in democratic
societies and have a clear connection to the notion of tolerance,
whereas in societies of totalitarianism, grey areas are typically not
accepted on any level.

The notion is, that there may be a gray area in a rule or regulation,
as an area where no clear rule or precedent exists, or where the rule
has not been applied in a long time... thus making it unclear if it is
applicable at all.

Many people accept gray areas of life as a natural part of the human
experience, whereas others may react with suspicion and a feeling of
defectness or uncompleteness of any thought-system (or paradigm)
accepting gray areas.

It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding
this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications.

Bonnie KQ6XA

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

  Like laws, ham radio regulatory rules are not black and white.
  They are subject to interpretation, tradition, politics, and
  convincing arguments.

  A gray area is the area of rules where an unclear or unsharp dividing
  line may apply to a specific instance, a trend, a group, or in this
  case... a communication signal.

  Often, a new convincing argument may move a previously gray area
  situation into a more clear definition.

  In USA's ham radio rules, there are many gray areas.

  Gray areas always are present in ham regulations and rules because:

  1. Technology always moves faster than regulatory process.
  2. Some rules are inherently self-contradictory.
  3. Regulation rarely anticipates all things possible.
  4. New inventions happen.
  5. Users deploy technology that has not been previously in wide use.
  6. Spirit of the law may tend to obscure or modify a rule.
  7. New valid arguments may modify the way rules are interpreted.
  8. Enforcement may be different than actual commonly accepted meaning.
  9. Valid loopholes may be found or become boldly evident.
  10. Technology may be designed to effectively circumvent rules.
  11. Technology may have an inherent higher value under Spirit of the
  law to preclude enforcement over a long time, thus rendering the rule
  null in the practical sense.
  12. Civil disobedience or long term use of a particular gray area
  method may effectively render it clearly within the rule through
  non-enforcement.
  13. Pressure through widespread common use in surrounding
  jurisdictions may render the rule moot, ineffective, or non-enforced.
  14. Humans wrote the rules, and humans are not infallible.
  15. The value or strength of one rule may overtake or nullify another
  rule when applied to a situation.
  16. Compelling arguments for one side may win over the other side.

  There are other explanations for gray areas, and ham radio digital
  communications has many examples.

  Bonnie KQ6XA

[digitalradio] RFSM2400

So where and when can hams in the US play with RFSM2400?  I'll be back on 
3587.5 after all the RTTY is done, probably
around 0100Z March 18, on until 0400Z using mil standard .

John
VE5MU

[digitalradio] 30M RFSM2400

at 2315Z beaconing on 10137.5 VFO

John
VE5MU

[digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400

 John VE5MU
 So where and when can hams in the US play with RFSM2400?  
 I'll be back on 3587.5 after all the RTTY is done, probably
 around 0100Z March 18, on until 0400Z using mil standard .

Technically speaking, USA hams can only play with it on dummy loads...
or in the exercise yard of the FCC Technology Jail :)

However, I've noticed that there are some more adventurous ham radio
technology experimenters in USA are not sitting on their duff, waiting
for the rest of the world to pass them by... and some others would
simply prefer to rot on the sidelines. 

Bonnie KQ6XA

[digitalradio] Re: 30M RFSM2400

I've seen some activity on 10145.5kHz USB .
Bonnie KQ6XA

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

 at 2315Z beaconing on 10137.5 VFO
 
 John
 VE5MU

[digitalradio] RFSM2400 80M

well after seeing Bonnie's note will try RFSM2400 on 3620mhz after 0100Z

Some opinions seem tosay that the mode would be legal in the US in the phone 
band as SSTV is?


Will send as many pix as you want on mil std hi hi

John
VE5MU

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Walt DuBose

Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and with 
a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are 
changing.   I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the OFs.

John Champa wrote:
 PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
 policy recommendations were part of the reason
 the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.
 
 They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
 Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
 no matter how painless we tried to make it.
 
 I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
 the service survives beyond my life, but I am
 not making taking any bets.
 
 This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)
 
 73,
 John
 K8OCL
 
 
 
 Original Message Follows-
 From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
 Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
 
 OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
 excuse me while I still have my character
 73, Chuck AA5J
 
 At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
 
  Bruce,
  
  You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
  different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
  hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
  deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
  
  It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
  agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
  changed.
  
  But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
  extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
 that:
  
  If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
  limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
  to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
  
  
 http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdfhttp://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
  
  Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
  Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
  amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
  
  
 http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
  
  I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
  the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
  
  73,
  
  Rick, KV9U
  
  bruce mallon wrote:
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
meters with 200 khz wide signals?
   
Nice very nice .
   
   
--- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
   
Rod,
   
I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
FCC
for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
trouble?
Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
service was established!
Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
so heavy handed?
   
I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
barracks lawyers
trying to muck around with the few of us still left
trying to develop new
technology. They're always writing That's illegal
while they just sit on
their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
find something in the
regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
road.
   
Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
wonderful avocation!
   
73,
John
K8OCL
   
   
  
  
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
  3/17/2007 12:33 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
 telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
 
 Our other groups:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
 
  
 Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Walt,

I certainly hope you are right.  Joel is a progressive fellow.

Since that meeting I have certainly become  more appreciative
of all the work that Chris Imlay did with all the FCC on behalf of
the HSMM Working Group.  For example, look now at the new
rules on SS on the 222 MHz band! They didn't make that change
on there own.

I get the feeling John's code won't handle more than 100 kHz
anyway!  (HI)  But that still is ~140 kbps.  Sure beats AX.25!
And the ground wave range on 222 MHz is as good as on 2M too!

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600

Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and 
with
a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are
changing.   I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the 
OFs.

John Champa wrote:
  PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
  policy recommendations were part of the reason
  the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.
 
  They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
  Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
  no matter how painless we tried to make it.
 
  I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
  the service survives beyond my life, but I am
  not making taking any bets.
 
  This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)
 
  73,
  John
  K8OCL
 
 
 
  Original Message Follows-
  From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
  Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
 
  OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
  excuse me while I still have my character
  73, Chuck AA5J
 
  At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
 
   Bruce,
   
   You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
   different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
   hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
   deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
   
   It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
   agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
   changed.
   
   But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
   extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors
  that:
   
   If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
   limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
   to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
   
   
 http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdfhttp://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
   
   Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
   Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption 
on
   amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
   
   
 http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
   
   I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
   the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the 
U.S.
   
   73,
   
   Rick, KV9U
   
   bruce mallon wrote:
 This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
 meters with 200 khz wide signals?

 Nice very nice .


 --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


 Rod,

 I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
 FCC
 for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious
 trouble?
 Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
 service was established!
 Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
 so heavy handed?

 I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
 barracks lawyers
 trying to muck around with the few of us still left
 trying to develop new
 technology. They're always writing That's illegal
 while they just sit on
 their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
 find something in the
 regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
 road.

 Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
 wonderful avocation!

 73,
 John
 K8OCL


   
   
   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
   Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
   3/17/2007 12:33 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
 
  Our other groups:
 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Walt,

It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing 
technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this 
technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request 
continued, if not even, expanded activity.

Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured 
out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any 
information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been 
working closely with him.

I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty 
substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either.

As I recall,  the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some 
time ago?

The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content. 
Otherwise you would not need encryption.

I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham 
controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to 
more secure control links such as landline has been used.

Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other 
countries that may truly be in a technology jail, if they can not even 
run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Walt DuBose wrote:
 Rick,

 You are not in possession of all the facts.

 The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data 
 and 
 other modes on frequencies above HF.

 The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish 
 the 
 task.

 The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 
 the 
 board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific 
 works. 
   The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force.

 I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed 
 specific 
 needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project.  
 WE 
 did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97.

 Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as 
 long 
 as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  I 
 agree. 
 Some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM and 
 ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the purpose 
 of 
 control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any 
 citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the 
 FCC 
 telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz 
 frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not 
 received 
 a citation.

 Walt/K5YFW



 kv9u wrote:
   
 Bruce,

 You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very 
 different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented 
 hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend 
 deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.

 It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not 
 agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules 
 changed.

 But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too 
 extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:

 If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz 
 limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up 
 to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.

 http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

 Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working 
 Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on 
 amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.

 http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html

 I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that 
 the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.

 73,

 Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400

Considering that a commercial mode like Pactor can be used on the U.S. 
ham bands, it would not require that much to have the specifications 
posted or made available in some way to fulfill the minimal FCC rules 
that are logical and well thought out.

They do not prohibit new technologies that would be appropriate for HF 
use. These high baud rate modems are not something new since they have 
been around for quite some time. They do not work all that well from 
what we can tell, but they may be competitive with other modes with the 
stronger signals.

Once the information is forthcoming, then they can be used on the phone 
bands for sending images. As a liberal on this, I would extend that to 
any bit mapped or compressed document such as a word processor file or 
spreadsheet or presentation, but that is only my opinion.

The best way would be to get FCC interpretation of the rule and if you 
don't like the interpretation then you can petition for change and you 
can get an STA to experiment with it.

KV9U


expeditionradio wrote:
 John VE5MU
 So where and when can hams in the US play with RFSM2400?  
 I'll be back on 3587.5 after all the RTTY is done, probably
 around 0100Z March 18, on until 0400Z using mil standard .
 

 Technically speaking, USA hams can only play with it on dummy loads...
 or in the exercise yard of the FCC Technology Jail :)

 However, I've noticed that there are some more adventurous ham radio
 technology experimenters in USA are not sitting on their duff, waiting
 for the rest of the world to pass them by... and some others would
 simply prefer to rot on the sidelines. 

 Bonnie KQ6XA





 Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
 telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

 Our other groups:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

  
 Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines

Rick,

Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However,
he did not come into the picture until the last year.
A lot of frustration had built up by then.

It was also his recommendation to the Board that the
HSMM Working Group be founded.  That's why we
called him the Father of HSMM.

Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved
in what we were trying to do, and we had their support.

The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of
the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less
on policy and regulations.

But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go
operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first
John KD6OZH must get it to work!  (HI).

73,
John - K8OCL
Former HSMM Chairman


Original Message Follows
From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500

Walt,

It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing
technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this
technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request
continued, if not even, expanded activity.

Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured
out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any
information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been
working closely with him.

I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty
substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either.

As I recall,  the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some
time ago?

The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content.
Otherwise you would not need encryption.

I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham
controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to
more secure control links such as landline has been used.

Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other
countries that may truly be in a technology jail, if they can not even
run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Walt DuBose wrote:
  Rick,
 
  You are not in possession of all the facts.
 
  The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed 
data and
  other modes on frequencies above HF.
 
  The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to 
accomplish the
  task.
 
  The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 
2007 the
  board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific 
works.
The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force.
 
  I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed 
specific
  needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem 
project.  WE
  did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97.
 
  Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption 
as long
  as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  I 
agree.
  Some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM 
and
  ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the 
purpose of
  control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued 
any
  citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to 
the FCC
  telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz
  frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not 
received
  a citation.
 
  Walt/K5YFW
 
 
 
  kv9u wrote:
 
  Bruce,
 
  You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
  different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
  hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
  deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 
  It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
  agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
  changed.
 
  But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
  extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
that:
 
  If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
  limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
  to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 
  http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 
  Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
  Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
  amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 
  http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 
  I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
  the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
 
  73,
 
  Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400

Rick,

I was Ok until that last parargraph and then you fell off the creeen.

Have you ever done it?

It takes several months to get an STA, and it can easily
take 4-5 YEARS to get a reg change.  Even
getting an FCC interpratation can take months!

My suggestion? Just get the protocol posted to a League
website, or other published open source, and then check
with the League's counsel.  If he's cool with it, just use it.

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:50 -0500

Considering that a commercial mode like Pactor can be used on the U.S.
ham bands, it would not require that much to have the specifications
posted or made available in some way to fulfill the minimal FCC rules
that are logical and well thought out.

They do not prohibit new technologies that would be appropriate for HF
use. These high baud rate modems are not something new since they have
been around for quite some time. They do not work all that well from
what we can tell, but they may be competitive with other modes with the
stronger signals.

Once the information is forthcoming, then they can be used on the phone
bands for sending images. As a liberal on this, I would extend that to
any bit mapped or compressed document such as a word processor file or
spreadsheet or presentation, but that is only my opinion.

The best way would be to get FCC interpretation of the rule and if you
don't like the interpretation then you can petition for change and you
can get an STA to experiment with it.

KV9U


expeditionradio wrote:
  John VE5MU
  So where and when can hams in the US play with RFSM2400?
  I'll be back on 3587.5 after all the RTTY is done, probably
  around 0100Z March 18, on until 0400Z using mil standard .
 
 
  Technically speaking, USA hams can only play with it on dummy loads...
  or in the exercise yard of the FCC Technology Jail :)
 
  However, I've noticed that there are some more adventurous ham radio
  technology experimenters in USA are not sitting on their duff, waiting
  for the rest of the world to pass them by... and some others would
  simply prefer to rot on the sidelines.
 
  Bonnie KQ6XA
 
 
 
 
 
  Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
 
  Our other groups:
 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data

2007-03-18 Thread Danny Douglas

The problem with linears is that there are so many of them, they cover up
all other signals, and of course are in a fight with themselves.  If
everyone ran 100 watts, it would only be antennas that made the difference -
beyond props.  I am sitting out here in the country side, and could have run
a linear for the past 24 years, but managed 334 countries without one.  Not
a whole lot of antennas either, with a tower just up 28 ft for a TH3jr, and
several dipoles strung around.

Look how many of us do a good job with the digital modes, and much less than
100 watts.  Also look at 30 meters, where 200 watts is the maximum we are
supposed to run.  Amp power is just not necessary, other than to be as loud
or louder than the amp down the road.  How many amateurs really know what it
means to run only the power necessary for communications?   Some think
that means 3 KW everytime they turn the rig on.


Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message - 
From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data


 Danny Douglas wrote:
 
   The best answer is NO linears at all. Not gonna happen. But, in those
   countries whee no linears are allowed, things seem to work quite
   smoothly and operators get out and work DX better than most people
   here do.
 
   Danny Douglas N7DC

 Well yeah. Countries in Europe and Asia are not 7000 miles away from
 most other countries as we are here in the States.  I personally do not
 run a linear for fear of RFI, but if I could I would.

 de Roger W6VZV





 Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

 Our other groups:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97


 Yahoo! Groups Links





 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007
12:33 PM

[digitalradio] RFSM2400