[digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications. Bonnie KQ6XA It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK from a NON-DIGITAL Ham's view point. EXPLORING / pushing the boundary's of radio are as old as ham radio it's self. Now how do we do this if the rules don't allow it? Good question Do we break the law then after we prove it will work apply for a rule change or go on until we get caught ... that's up to the ham himself. LETS NOT BECOME FREEBANDERS EITHER .. I don't have any problems with what John and others are doing if it doesn't cause problems for others and support any new modes they or others develop that I MY SELF may one day become interested in PROVIDED all of this is done with out displacing/interfering with existing users. The use of LEGACY MODES does not help your cause only provokes others to want to oppose you EVEN IF YOUR RIGHT . At this point the only open band is 222 MHz which may provide just the room they need to prove out new/improved modes for later legalization on other bands. I have been on that band for many years and it is NOT growing . Here is a place that NEEDS use and is NOT getting any. Bruce WA4GCH ON 6 SINCE 66 expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications. Bonnie KQ6XA Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396546091
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting. We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday for a 7 mile link for high speed internet and it is a LOS system. But it gives you a feel what can be done on the higher bands. There are few limits to experimenting that I have seen. How about working on a maximized throughput on HF with narrow signals, perhaps 500 Hz or less? Then you could look at a somewhat wider bandwidths at 1 or even 2 kHz. Unless you consider the current modes to be the best that can be done. For HF, I just don't see enough space for extremely wide modes. I consider wide modes to be anything more than a 2 or 3 kHz bandwidth that a standard HF SSB transceiver does and I consider wider signals on HF to be counterproductive and a step backward. I did not know that it took years to get an STA. I thought the whole point was that it could be done fairly easily. If STA's are not practical then changing the rules is really the only alternative. Based on the recent FCC changes, it does not seem that either ARRL or the FCC is very supportive of what you want to do. Whether you like it or not, that is the democratic process at work. One could use a civil disobedience type of protest, as Bonnie has suggested, but most of us probably find that a bit too risky and outside of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the directions that your group wanted to go. The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be difficult to steer the ship in a new direction. KV9U John Champa wrote: 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
[digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! I agree with this, and would like to suggest that when discussing something as specific as the USA band plan, that the subjects be tagged as such. The rest of the world, or Zone 2, for that matter is not regulated in the same way. We each have our 'special' rules and regs. I find it strange however that the modes are regulated by the government. I've only operated in VK and ZL and as long as the transmission is within the band limits and ITU regs are respected (for things like beacons and satellite) anything goes. Band plans have been developed as agreements on polite operating rather than restrictive regulation. I believe that the posters who suggested that it was the role of amateur radio to push the technology and to experiment with new modes/encoding hit the nail on the head. Once we've had the fun testing it the commercial guys can then go and use it. The power of modern PCs gives DSP power to the amateur, so let's all have some fun and play with the different options. Regards, David. -- David Ingram (VK4TDI) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia http://www.ingramtech.com/ MGRS: 56J MQ 991583Grid Square: QG62lm
[digitalradio] RFSM2400
March 15,2007 As of 1500Z on 14109.5 USB until Z , no beacon , mil std 188 110A, please try a connect John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, KV9U John Champa wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] CQ CH?
Switzerland Dave wrote: What is CQ CH? I'm used to seeing CQ WY, or CQ ID, or even CQ KL7, but CH has me puzzled. Just heard it on PSK31 on 30 meters. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK, Brad, What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are improper? It seems to me that we have found different countries have different rules and it can be very helpful to know what they are. As I recall, it took years for your country to even allow Winlink 2000 operation, while our country has had Aplink, Winlink, Netlink, and eventually Winlink 2000 for several decades. The only rule that I would like to see changed is to allow operation by bandwidth instead of mode. What I really want, is a subset of this, in order to be able to operate wide BW (voice width) transmissions using SSB, digital voice, and digital data of any kind, whether image or text in the wide bandwidth (voice/image) portions of the bands. The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400
John, will you post the method you used to resolve this? Thanks, Howard K5HB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HELP!!! I cannot seem to get this software running properly. I can call another station, and his station answers me , looking for the connect. But I don't see ANY packets from him and can't carry thru with the connection. His signal looks good, everything seems to be working the way it should. any ideas? and is anyone on 40 or 80 tonight with this mode? John VE5MU
RE: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good reference. I have not maintained that page since 2005. Much has happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of date. Actually I didn't know the account still existed. I wonder who is paying for it? Maybe the payments are automatically being withdrawn from one of my bank accounts. :-) Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, KV9U John Champa wrote: 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 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- 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: RFSM2400
The problem appeared at the other end, Terry, VE5TLW, was using a 600mhz computer running W98, which he has used for all other digi modes without a problem. His rig is a TS2000. Switched computers , and everything works as it is supposed to, and what a great piece of software Dmitry and partners have developed. connects under very poor conditions, and seems to be immune to the usual noise etc on 80M over a 1500km distance. Terry is continuing to work on the computer problem, thinks maybe there is something in the windows media player or whatever that might be filtering the output, since on 188mil std the frequency range is .3 to 3.3khz, with an 1800hz center. He did have the same problem with the non-standard, which is .3 to 2.7khz and a 1500hz center. you can reach Terry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Howard Brown To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:32 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400 John, will you post the method you used to resolve this? Thanks, Howard K5HB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HELP!!! I cannot seem to get this software running properly. I can call another station, and his station answers me , looking for the connect. But I don't see ANY packets from him and can't carry thru with the connection. His signal looks good, everything seems to be working the way it should. any ideas? and is anyone on 40 or 80 tonight with this mode? John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007 11:49 AM
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400
John VE5MU wrote: ... everything works as it is supposed to, and what a great piece of software Dmitry and partners have developed. connects under very poor conditions, and seems to be immune to the usual noise etc on 80M over a 1500km distance. Hi John, I agree with you. RFSM2400 is an excellent program, and the decoder is very sensitive. Perhaps we can try a trans-Pacific test of it in a month or so while I'm in Hong Kong. We could connect first by ALE, then switch to RFSM2400. I wish there was a simple 8FSK ALE selective calling in RFSM2400... that would make it much more useful. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United States. The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and very limited population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes to propagation. 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, so all of our radio traffic heard on the ham bands is from the south. The Aussies have Japan as one easy bounce for them, with the multitude of JA hams providing lots of traffic. We used to have a lot of rules, modes , emission types, etc. similar to the FCC. This has since been abolished in favour of frequency limits, maximum bandwidth (6khz) and maximum power allowed. No regulations exixt on what modes can be used where, etc. This has not produced chaos in the ham bands, nor do we set up and operate digital data in what is traditionally the SSB portion of the band. We simply follow the traditional band usage that has been around for 70 years or more. Sure we mix modes at some points, especially on 40M where from 7050 to 7100 is used by SSB, RTTY and other digital modes at the same time in Canada. Has it been a problem? Not to my knowledge. Would I knowingly start calling CQ in a digital mode on top of a SSB QSO? No, out of respect for my fellow hams who were there first. The only real problems we have on 40M is the large number of DX stations using that segment during a contest, transmitting blind since they are all running splits and listening high on 40M. (I know I'll hear from Danny on this) Sure there will always be lids who have to run power and whatever since it is their right to do so,and no guvmint gonna tell me what to do We have all seen them on PSK31, running enough power to run a small village and basically wiping the band out for everyone. fortunately they are the minority. So why not go for less rules? Maybe the FCC would welcome this since they would not have to enforce the present rule structure, thus saving a little money. The hams in the US would then be allowed to experiment with new technologies such as RFSM2400 without fear of penalties, and this in turn would lead to better modes. It seems to come down to a matter of trust and respect within the ham community to be able to work with few regulations. John VE5MU Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007 11:49 AM
Re: [digitalradio] CQ CH?
Robert Meuser wrote: Switzerland It would beon the Internet Dave wrote: What is CQ CH? I'm used to seeing CQ WY, or CQ ID, or even CQ KL7, but CH has me puzzled. Just heard it on PSK31 on 30 meters. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW It is CQ (C)ounty (H)unters.he, he... 73, Jose, CO2JA __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
RE: FW: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Hey, knock it off Steve. Who are you to judge how I feel? I have been licensed for almost 50 years and I have seen regs come and go. I do care. I am NOT saying I don't care! What I am saying is don't replace your brain with the rule book. I worked closely the League's legal staff for 4 years and there is always an alternative interpretations of the regs, even among the FCC staff themselves. Many times the best we could get from them was an informal consensus rather than an official interpretation. So again, get off your high police horse and come down and talk reasonably with us common folk (HI). 73, John K8OCL
RE: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Results were published in our WG report to the Board twice a year. The Board would then publish them with their minutes in QST. John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:25:56 -0500 http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good reference. I have not maintained that page since 2005. Much has happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of date. Actually I didn't know the account still existed. I wonder who is paying for it? Maybe the payments are automatically being withdrawn from one of my bank accounts. :-) Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, KV9U John Champa wrote: 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 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] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Dave, You have made some good points about US hams having too many regs. We seem to have this incestuous love affair with regs, or at least seem to think we lack the ability to perform as good operators without them. It has an impact on our performance and perspective, too! Please note that most Amateur Radio digital radio software comes out of Europe and other areas when the regs are simple: Keep it within the band edges! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:06:17 +1000 Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! I agree with this, and would like to suggest that when discussing something as specific as the USA band plan, that the subjects be tagged as such. The rest of the world, or Zone 2, for that matter is not regulated in the same way. We each have our 'special' rules and regs. I find it strange however that the modes are regulated by the government. I've only operated in VK and ZL and as long as the transmission is within the band limits and ITU regs are respected (for things like beacons and satellite) anything goes. Band plans have been developed as agreements on polite operating rather than restrictive regulation. I believe that the posters who suggested that it was the role of amateur radio to push the technology and to experiment with new modes/encoding hit the nail on the head. Once we've had the fun testing it the commercial guys can then go and use it. The power of modern PCs gives DSP power to the amateur, so let's all have some fun and play with the different options. Regards, David. -- David Ingram (VK4TDI) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia http://www.ingramtech.com/ MGRS: 56J MQ 991583Grid Square: QG62lm
Re: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
I certainly have MY doubts that many hams would live the goodie life if there were no regulations. Just take a look where there ARE regulations; the US highways, and see how many Americans pay attention to the law. Yes, the majority would try to do so, but the minority, and I mean a large minority at that, would NOT. If everyone lived the golden rule, that is the only law that would be needed. But we can certainly see THAT is not the case, in any aspect of life. Mandantory separation of incompatable modes, wherin one would negatively impact on others only makes good sense. If not - then you have mayhem - and dont tell me how good that works in countries that have no regulations. I have been there - done that, and there is nothing like having a squawk group talking on a CW DX freq, interfering with every contest, DX Contact, etc,. night after night. My wife, the non ham, said it exactly - Why not just move to another freq And my response is - that is NOT where the DX is. Even where there are sub-bands, different contries have different sets, making them useless for DX. 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: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:20 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules Dave, You have made some good points about US hams having too many regs. We seem to have this incestuous love affair with regs, or at least seem to think we lack the ability to perform as good operators without them. It has an impact on our performance and perspective, too! Please note that most Amateur Radio digital radio software comes out of Europe and other areas when the regs are simple: Keep it within the band edges! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:06:17 +1000 Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! I agree with this, and would like to suggest that when discussing something as specific as the USA band plan, that the subjects be tagged as such. The rest of the world, or Zone 2, for that matter is not regulated in the same way. We each have our 'special' rules and regs. I find it strange however that the modes are regulated by the government. I've only operated in VK and ZL and as long as the transmission is within the band limits and ITU regs are respected (for things like beacons and satellite) anything goes. Band plans have been developed as agreements on polite operating rather than restrictive regulation. I believe that the posters who suggested that it was the role of amateur radio to push the technology and to experiment with new modes/encoding hit the nail on the head. Once we've had the fun testing it the commercial guys can then go and use it. The power of modern PCs gives DSP power to the amateur, so let's all have some fun and play with the different options. Regards, David. -- David Ingram (VK4TDI) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia http://www.ingramtech.com/ MGRS: 56J MQ 991583Grid Square: QG62lm 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: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007 11:49 AM
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Rick, Sorry. Did I write years to get an STA? My bad. It should only take a 1 -2 months. Paul R. can help. HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize the software, hardware, etc. There have too many cases when the time on the STA ran out before anything actually got tested on the air! It happened to the HSMM Working Group with the 6M OFDM Modem testing. I think John, KD6OZH, got pulled away by our AMSAT brothers to work on a transponder or two, so we had to request a renewal. I supposed they got it as that is the HSMM follow-on project. Again, sorry for the confusion. If you would like to see your WiMax solution published, just let me know. I am editor of the HSMM column in CQ VHF magazine. As to the regs, I like Dr. Bob's (N4HY) of AMSAT fame approach. It definately fits for the FCC: It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to seek permission! (HI) 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:53:35 -0500 What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting. We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday for a 7 mile link for high speed internet and it is a LOS system. But it gives you a feel what can be done on the higher bands. There are few limits to experimenting that I have seen. How about working on a maximized throughput on HF with narrow signals, perhaps 500 Hz or less? Then you could look at a somewhat wider bandwidths at 1 or even 2 kHz. Unless you consider the current modes to be the best that can be done. For HF, I just don't see enough space for extremely wide modes. I consider wide modes to be anything more than a 2 or 3 kHz bandwidth that a standard HF SSB transceiver does and I consider wider signals on HF to be counterproductive and a step backward. I did not know that it took years to get an STA. I thought the whole point was that it could be done fairly easily. If STA's are not practical then changing the rules is really the only alternative. Based on the recent FCC changes, it does not seem that either ARRL or the FCC is very supportive of what you want to do. Whether you like it or not, that is the democratic process at work. One could use a civil disobedience type of protest, as Bonnie has suggested, but most of us probably find that a bit too risky and outside of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the directions that your group wanted to go. The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be difficult to steer the ship in a new direction. KV9U John Champa wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
There is really nothing that baffling when you consider that NZ and Oz are so remote that even the lower HF bands are not often going to bother the larger population areas that much. But it works both ways. The Canadians, who are immediately adjacent to the U.S., have in the past had phone sub bands well below the U.S. amateurs and if you recall what happened some years ago, the Canadian hams were none too pleased with the increased downward phone expansion for U.S. hams and moved their phone operations even lower to continue to have an exclusive area. Of course now we are so far down on 80 meters and to a certain extent on 40 meters that there is not much more room to expand into. The more hams you have under a given set of rules, the more impact you will have if those rules are liberalized. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily bad or even good. But it will change the dynamics between countries. If you have a maximum 6 kHz BW, can you still operate AM phone? Aren't the U.S. rules even more liberal with something more like 9 kHz? I personally do not find it good amateur practice for hams to use SSB below 7100 if they have the next few hundred kHz above that available to them for SSB, unless they are working DX stations who can not go up. Split operation means that you are using twice the BW which is not very spectrum conserving. The current lowering of SSB here in the U.S. to 7125 seems a good fit for current useage, but of course I admit that could change depending upon operating trends. What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United States. The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and very limited population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes to propagation. 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, so all of our radio traffic heard on the ham bands is from the south. The Aussies have Japan as one easy bounce for them, with the multitude of JA hams providing lots of traffic. We used to have a lot of rules, modes , emission types, etc. similar to the FCC. This has since been abolished in favour of frequency limits, maximum bandwidth (6khz) and maximum power allowed. No regulations exixt on what modes can be used where, etc. This has not produced chaos in the ham bands, nor do we set up and operate digital data in what is traditionally the SSB portion of the band. We simply follow the traditional band usage that has been around for 70 years or more. Sure we mix modes at some points, especially on 40M where from 7050 to 7100 is used by SSB, RTTY and other digital modes at the same time in Canada. Has it been a problem? Not to my knowledge. Would I knowingly start calling CQ in a digital mode on top of a SSB QSO? No, out of respect for my fellow hams who were there first. The only real problems we have on 40M is the large number of DX stations using that segment during a contest, transmitting blind since they are all running splits and listening high on 40M. (I know I'll hear from Danny on this) Sure there will always be lids who have to run power and whatever since it is their right to do so,and no guvmint gonna tell me what to do We have all seen them on PSK31, running enough power to run a small village and basically wiping the band out for everyone. fortunately they are the minority. So why not go for less rules? Maybe the FCC would welcome this since they would not have to enforce the present rule structure, thus saving a little money. The hams in the US would then be allowed to experiment with new technologies such as RFSM2400 without fear of penalties, and this in turn would lead to better modes. It seems to come down to a matter of trust and respect within the ham community to be able to work with few regulations. John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
kv9u writes: What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 97.307(f)(3) ... The symbol rate may not exceed 300 bauds ... That applies to all the cw,data subbands below 28 MHz. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. We need regulation by bandwidth only, but that proposal seems to be stalled. :-( -- Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ex-ae6vw) Gualala CA USA 95445
[digitalradio] Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Rick, Those are good points. We must be careful about making cross-cultural comparisons when discussing International regs. We learned that big time in various gun control debates! If we were to compare our radio regs to anyone, it should probably be to Japan, and right off we can see problems in that type of analysis! As for RFSM2400, I am unaware of any specific prohibitions by the FCC, but that isn't the same as permission, or so I was told. I would like to try it out someday, so I would first get it posted to the ARRL Standards page, then I would discuss it with Chris Imlay, and if he was cool with it, I would go ahead and use it. Unfortunately, I don't know what to post! Can anybody (Bonnie?) give me the protocol / standard and I will talk to the appropriateARRL webmaster at the League and get it posted. After that I will send the URL to the League's legal guru and ask to schedule a discussion meeting with him. Nowhe may not give me anything in writing (some would want it in blood before they would accept it...HI) but if he is OK with it, I would document the discussion in my station log, maybe publish it in CQ VHF, and then go for it! I think I would have a reasonable defense if someone asked. Hey, it's published, I talked it over with the League lawyer and he was cool with it, and it's even been published in a mag. What do you want, the Pope's OK too?! (HI...no disrespect to any Romans out there!). I THINK that would do it...but then again I know little about RFSM2400, so maybe I am missing something here. 73, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:02:39 -0500 There is really nothing that baffling when you consider that NZ and Oz are so remote that even the lower HF bands are not often going to bother the larger population areas that much. But it works both ways. The Canadians, who are immediately adjacent to the U.S., have in the past had phone sub bands well below the U.S. amateurs and if you recall what happened some years ago, the Canadian hams were none too pleased with the increased downward phone expansion for U.S. hams and moved their phone operations even lower to continue to have an exclusive area. Of course now we are so far down on 80 meters and to a certain extent on 40 meters that there is not much more room to expand into. The more hams you have under a given set of rules, the more impact you will have if those rules are liberalized. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily bad or even good. But it will change the dynamics between countries. If you have a maximum 6 kHz BW, can you still operate AM phone? Aren't the U.S. rules even more liberal with something more like 9 kHz? I personally do not find it good amateur practice for hams to use SSB below 7100 if they have the next few hundred kHz above that available to them for SSB, unless they are working DX stations who can not go up. Split operation means that you are using twice the BW which is not very spectrum conserving. The current lowering of SSB here in the U.S. to 7125 seems a good fit for current useage, but of course I admit that could change depending upon operating trends. What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United States. The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and very limited population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes to propagation. 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, so all of our radio traffic heard on the ham bands is from the south. The Aussies have Japan as one easy bounce for them, with the multitude of JA hams providing lots of traffic. We used to have a lot of rules, modes , emission types, etc. similar to the FCC. This has since been abolished in favour of frequency limits, maximum bandwidth (6khz) and maximum power allowed. No regulations exixt on what modes can be used where, etc. This has not produced chaos in the ham bands, nor do we set up and operate digital data in what is traditionally the SSB portion of the band. We simply follow the traditional band usage that has been around for 70 years or more. Sure we mix modes at some points, especially on 40M where from 7050 to 7100 is used by SSB, RTTY and other digital modes at the same time in Canada. Has it been a problem? Not to my knowledge. Would I knowingly start calling CQ in a digital mode on top of a SSB QSO? No, out of respect for my fellow hams who were there first. The only real problems we have on 40M is the large number of DX stations using that
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not
include the ARRL legal staff..
Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same
as permissions :)
73 es be well,
Bill N9DSJ
{snipped for brevity}
As for RFSM2400, I am unaware of any specific prohibitions
by the FCC, but that isn't the same as permission, or so I
was told. I would like to try it out someday, so I would
first get it posted to the ARRL Standards page, then I
would discuss it with Chris Imlay, and if he was cool with
it, I would go ahead and use it.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to post! Can anybody
(Bonnie?) give me the protocol / standard and I will talk
to the appropriateARRL webmaster at the League and get
it posted. After that I will send the URL to the League's legal
guru and ask to schedule a discussion meeting with him.
{snipped)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK, Brad, What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are improper? RFSM2400? You know the new mode that triggered this whole hand wringing debate about whether USA hams could or could not use it? 300bd? Ha! Images/Text/Images of text/fax? Ha! It seems to me that we have found different countries have different rules and it can be very helpful to know what they are. As I recall, it took years for your country to even allow Winlink 2000 operation, while our country has had Aplink, Winlink, Netlink, and eventually Winlink 2000 for several decades. Yes, and we now have a complete new set of bandwidth regulations that will guarantee that this situation will not occur again. The only rule that I would like to see changed is to allow operation by bandwidth instead of mode. What I really want, is a subset of this, in order to be able to operate wide BW (voice width) transmissions using SSB, digital voice, and digital data of any kind, whether image or text in the wide bandwidth (voice/image) portions of the bands. We have precisely that sort of regulation now. For HF it reads Any emission mode with a necessary bandwidth of less than 8khz. End of reg. http://www.wia.org.au/licenses/radam_1of97.pdf Schedule 2 is the relevant section. Compare our few paragraphs with yours. Let me know how you go. The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? Nope, I would not agree at all. We have fewer Regs because we have a Bandplan that is a living document to cater for the changes in technology, and our fewer hams comply with the spirit of it. http://www.wia.org.au/bandplans/Australian%20Amateur%20Band%20Plans%20070113 .pdf But from Danny's post, the reason he thinks you need MORE regs is because you can't trust your fellow American to comply and he wants to carry a big stick. Sad situation indeed. 73 de Brad VK2QQ 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI)
Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get
an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use
when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different
views on the same subject!
I don't know what the ARRL pays him, but he earned his
wage that day! He also gets impatient with some of the
nit picking questions Hams ask, so I am forced to like him (HI).
Vy 73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:49 -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not
include the ARRL legal staff..
Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same
as permissions :)
73 es be well,
Bill N9DSJ
{snipped for brevity}
As for RFSM2400, I am unaware of any specific prohibitions
by the FCC, but that isn't the same as permission, or so I
was told. I would like to try it out someday, so I would
first get it posted to the ARRL Standards page, then I
would discuss it with Chris Imlay, and if he was cool with
it, I would go ahead and use it.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to post! Can anybody
(Bonnie?) give me the protocol / standard and I will talk
to the appropriateARRL webmaster at the League and get
it posted. After that I will send the URL to the League's legal
guru and ask to schedule a discussion meeting with him.
{snipped)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
- I can't see the FCC spending a lot of time looking for WMD's since the probability of success in the past has been pretty low.. ( I'm speaking of Wide Mode Digital, what were your thinking?) John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007 11:49 AM
[digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data
The other problem is linearity of the whole chain. The subcarriers get mixed not only in the PA, but in the receiver, sound card etc., which may be interpreted as increased noise on the decoder side. The average YaeComWood was not designed with this in mind. Voice SSB modulation is roughly similar to three carriers. So using multimulticarrier soundmodem with a YaeComWood + 1kW PA will only heat your ham shack without other useful effect. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello to all, For me, the main problem, for Hams, of the multi-carriers modulation (OFDM...) is that the power is drastically limited (if you want to, legitimally, keep linear): If you have two carriers in parallel, the mean power/max power ratio is equal to 1/2 If you have three carriers in parallel, the mean power/max power ratio is equal to 1/3 when n becomes big, the ratio tends to 1/square(n) (the carriers phases being independant, with application of the big numbers law) For example, for MT63 where you have 64 carriers in parallel, the ratio is 1/8. You transmit only 12.5 watts with a 100 watts maximum XCVR.
