Re: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Danny Douglas wrote: 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. I think one difference is that it is harder to get an amateur radio licence than it is to get a drivers licence :-) The drivers licence is seen as a right, so it can't be too hard. The comments people are making regarding the crowded bands in the US is interesting. Tuning around 40m last night, between 7050 and 7100 there were four conversations that I could hear. These were VK5, VK3 and VK2 loud and clear in VK4 with a 6m squid pole antenna. Plenty of room for digital to squeeze in. I can't quite fathom the 1.5kW outputs that the US permits too. 400W here, and that requires some skill I believe. I say this having not pushed out more the 50W on 2m and 5W on anything else. Australia's restrictions on methods of operating rather than modes of operating are frustrating though. No phone patches, IRLP only recently etc. I enjoyed using a full duplex phone patch in ZL in the early 90s. Cellphones were not common and it was a good way of checking in when hiking (even 150km from the patch). I guess each country has its quirks. It just adds to the challenge of DX. 73s, Dave. -- David Ingram (VK4TDI/ZL3TDI) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia http://www.ingramtech.com/ MGRS: 56J MQ 991583Grid Square: QG62lm
[digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Australia's restrictions on methods of operating rather than modes of operating are frustrating though. No phone patches, IRLP only recently etc. 73s, Dave. Dave, we can run phone patches here, that was approved back in the 80's. The only proviso was that, as with all telco devices, the phone patch device had to be Austel approved. There was a magazine project and kit available too. We can run them, we just don't bother. IRLP was here from very early on. The Blue Mountains node 6000 was the first in VK and on air from early 2001. It was also the first IRLP node outside of North America. At that time there were only about 28 other nodes on air, most of them in Canada, and obviously none in ZL. They were not to appear on air for another couple of years. Peter VK2YX then set about installing nodes all over the country. There was nothing in our regs restricting IRLP, just hams resisting new technology. Sounds familiar? Brad VK2QQ
[digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data
So using multimulticarrier soundmodem with a YaeComWood + 1kW PA will only heat your ham shack without other useful effect. Negative. The grounded-grid PA's have no negative effect on SNR if tuned right (tuned for peak power). Those PA's have better lineariy than the 100W push-pull transistors in your rig.
Re: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
I was trying to do some RTTY QSOs last night, on 40, and everytime I found a clear freq, started transmitting a CQ, some South American QRM on SSB came up right on top of me. Tuning around I found at least a dozen Spanish QSOs between 7.050 and 7.01. They are authorized there, and be damn if they arent going to use it, no matter how much QRM it causes others. Now, I know the rest of the world HAS to use that portion for SSB, but Region 2 does NOT. They go there for a couple of reasons: Less QRM from stateside stations above 7.1, and to keep stateside stations from calling them. They were NOT trying to DX, so any place above 7.1 would have worked (of course avoiding short wave broadcast). That was the same problem I had, constantly when I lived in Venezuela - some YL and her cronies geting right on 7.025 and chatting away, from three blocks away, blocking an important CW freq, every night. They could have gone anyplace on the band, up to 7.3Mhz, including smack dab on top of any SWBC station and not had to worry about interference - but chose not to. 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: Dave Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Gray Areas of USA Ham Radio Regulations and Rules Danny Douglas wrote: 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. I think one difference is that it is harder to get an amateur radio licence than it is to get a drivers licence :-) The drivers licence is seen as a right, so it can't be too hard. The comments people are making regarding the crowded bands in the US is interesting. Tuning around 40m last night, between 7050 and 7100 there were four conversations that I could hear. These were VK5, VK3 and VK2 loud and clear in VK4 with a 6m squid pole antenna. Plenty of room for digital to squeeze in. I can't quite fathom the 1.5kW outputs that the US permits too. 400W here, and that requires some skill I believe. I say this having not pushed out more the 50W on 2m and 5W on anything else. Australia's restrictions on methods of operating rather than modes of operating are frustrating though. No phone patches, IRLP only recently etc. I enjoyed using a full duplex phone patch in ZL in the early 90s. Cellphones were not common and it was a good way of checking in when hiking (even 150km from the patch). I guess each country has its quirks. It just adds to the challenge of DX. 73s, Dave. -- David Ingram (VK4TDI/ZL3TDI) 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: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
You really had me going with the length of time it takes to get an STA. Glad to hear it is of a more reasonable time. I do wish they would allow longer STA testing periods, but I quite agree that since they will likely allow any reasonable experiment, you are fairly safe in getting the everything ready before the STA goes into effect. While I don't fully agree with Bob's view on regulations, I do respect his amazing programming abilities. The WiMax setup here is just a very common ISP installed RF link using Alvarion equipment. I use the term WiMax as a generic higher powered version of WiFi. Alvarion did not wait for the final IEEE specification and started marketing their products much earlier. I have seen these kinds of system other communities. They do throttle back the throughput since you are sharing the sector with anyone else on that connection. It can run over 1 Mbps, but they have it below 500 Mbps I have heard. My understanding is that they have a hexagon array of antennas with each covering 60 degrees beam width to cover the full 360 degrees. The power level is a few watts and runs on 2.4 GHz. It can not tolerate the slightest blockage from distant buildings or trees so is truly LOS. The neighbors barn just happens to be in line with a water tower located about 5 or 6 miles away that has one of their access points so there just is no useable signal at my location. Luckily, after cutting down some trees on the other side of the highway, I was able to open up a LOS link to a more distant tower about 7 or 8 miles. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Yes, Chris, But that is only in the text data sub bands. The voice/image/fax areas would allow it as long as it is a published protocol. Do you think that it is unreasonable to have some kind of published protocol? If it had the published protocol, would you be opposed to using it on the HF bands in the high speed/wide bandwidth digital image areas? What is your thinking on what would happen if regulation by bandwidth was enacted? Wouldn't it be likely that the narrow BW modes would be in the text data portions of the bands and the high speed (voice bandwidth or close to voice bandwidth) would be in the voice/image portions? An alternative would be to have wide BW modes at the upper ends of what is now the text data areas, but there is not all that much room available on some of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Chris Jewell wrote: 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. :-(
[digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs
Danny wrote: Less QRM from stateside stations above 7.1, and to keep stateside stations from calling them. They were NOT trying to DX, so any place above 7.1 would have worked (of course avoiding short wave broadcast). I don't know how many times on SSB , while having a chat with a friend, I have had a stateside station break in wanting to exchange information for a contact . VE5 is not that an exotic prefix, but some feel it is important to put another notch on their 1KW gun. On the rare occaison that I get busy and try and chase DX, calling CQ DX gets me a bunch of K6 stations trying to answer. Sorry , K6 is NOT dx. So it is usually bad manners that chase us down below 7100 and 14150., and another reason why I enjoy the digital modes since folks seem to have a higher operating standard and are far more polite John VE5MU
[digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
The cross-cultural part of this discussion reminded me of a broadcast by the late Alistair Cooke. He had just read a book by a U.S. lawyer, who asserted that the thicket of regulations in the U.S. covering every aspect of the law had begun with the Johnson administration and the War on Poverty. Cooke countered with an example of gasoline rationing in World War II. In England there were allotments of gasoline made to various local councils, which were empowered to distribute it at their discretion. In the U.S. there were very detailed regulations at the federal level governing how gasoline would be allotted to individuals. This happened to cause a particular hardwhip with an English military officer who was stationed in the U.S. for liaison with the U.S. military. His position had not been thought of when the gasoline regulations were drawn up, so he had no allocation of gasoline and had difficulty performing his important assignment. It took quite a bit of work to get his situation taken care of. This led me to thinking about philosophical differences in U.S. and English legal systems. In England the gasoline is theoretically the king's to distribute; and he appoints agents to do the detailed work. Theoretically the king is righteous and appoints righteous agents and the gasoline is distributed fairly. If you feel unfairly treated your recourse is to complain to the king, who may replace the corrupt agent or may sustain the agent, in which case you are out of luck. In the U.S. the founding assumption is that kings and their agents will be corrupt sooner or later, so the constitution has many checks and balances to prevent any government agent from having too much power. This philosophy pervades the whole system, so that individuals are not given much discretion in applying the law; there are vast bodies of regulations spelling out precisely how the law is to be applied in every imaginable situation. The notion that a local committee could allocate a supply of gasoline to its constituents fairly is regarded as wishful thinking and absurd.
[digitalradio] 30M 141A Beacon
Beaconing at VFO 10137.5 (+1625 hz) , 30 seconds, mode 141A, 30M is the only band open up here today this at 1630Z... John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs
I know that John, and its pretty sad. I had the same problem in Hong Kong when I called DX. Japan thought they were DX, but I didnt even count the cards from there, I just weighed them by the pound. Even here in Virginia, I can call CQ DX and more than likely have at least one or two stateside stations respond. They dont look my call up to see where I am, and think I am in some rare state (Idaho - Utah ?) I guess and call, no matter how many times I am saying DX. Frankly, anything below Mexico IS DX, but with those guys speaking in Spanish, and sounding like a round robin I dont know why anyone would call them anyway. There are plenty down there that do DXing, and we dont need to work the chatters. Hey - VE5 IS rare down here, I just look and have only 33 VE5 contacts in the past 24 years. 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 Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:35 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs Danny wrote: Less QRM from stateside stations above 7.1, and to keep stateside stations from calling them. They were NOT trying to DX, so any place above 7.1 would have worked (of course avoiding short wave broadcast). I don't know how many times on SSB , while having a chat with a friend, I have had a stateside station break in wanting to exchange information for a contact . VE5 is not that an exotic prefix, but some feel it is important to put another notch on their 1KW gun. On the rare occaison that I get busy and try and chase DX, calling CQ DX gets me a bunch of K6 stations trying to answer. Sorry , K6 is NOT dx. So it is usually bad manners that chase us down below 7100 and 14150., and another reason why I enjoy the digital modes since folks seem to have a higher operating standard and are far more polite John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
I had always heard ( and believed) that our law here was patterned after English Commo Law - until I lived in England for 6 plus years. No Way Jose. Things were done totally different between the two, and then you throw in the English Colony of Hong Kong, and it was even more confusing. I got several calls from a fellow ham who was a high ranking police officer in HK, asking me to translate American English for him. He delt with foreign police agencies, concerning law breakers who affected both countries, etc. One letter in particular give me the willie yet. The Los Angles police had sent him a letter, and he deduced exactly the opposite reply to one of his letter, than I did. I dont remember the wording but how it all came out was he though the LA Police were telling him they were NOT going to return a crook to HK, when what they said was that they WERE. The greatest difference in England and the United States is our common language. By the way, my license here in the states is a small piece of paper, with my call, name, license class on it. My license in England was about 6 double sided pages of informatiion as to what I could, or could NOT do. 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: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:40 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules The cross-cultural part of this discussion reminded me of a broadcast by the late Alistair Cooke. He had just read a book by a U.S. lawyer, who asserted that the thicket of regulations in the U.S. covering every aspect of the law had begun with the Johnson administration and the War on Poverty. Cooke countered with an example of gasoline rationing in World War II. In England there were allotments of gasoline made to various local councils, which were empowered to distribute it at their discretion. In the U.S. there were very detailed regulations at the federal level governing how gasoline would be allotted to individuals. This happened to cause a particular hardwhip with an English military officer who was stationed in the U.S. for liaison with the U.S. military. His position had not been thought of when the gasoline regulations were drawn up, so he had no allocation of gasoline and had difficulty performing his important assignment. It took quite a bit of work to get his situation taken care of. This led me to thinking about philosophical differences in U.S. and English legal systems. In England the gasoline is theoretically the king's to distribute; and he appoints agents to do the detailed work. Theoretically the king is righteous and appoints righteous agents and the gasoline is distributed fairly. If you feel unfairly treated your recourse is to complain to the king, who may replace the corrupt agent or may sustain the agent, in which case you are out of luck. In the U.S. the founding assumption is that kings and their agents will be corrupt sooner or later, so the constitution has many checks and balances to prevent any government agent from having too much power. This philosophy pervades the whole system, so that individuals are not given much discretion in applying the law; there are vast bodies of regulations spelling out precisely how the law is to be applied in every imaginable situation. The notion that a local committee could allocate a supply of gasoline to its constituents fairly is regarded as wishful thinking and absurd. 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: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM
RE: [digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs
HumDXing is the hobby of tuning in and identifying distant radio signals, or making two way radio contact with distant stations in amateur radio. The term DX gets its name the CW abbreviation DX, for distance or distant. Distant 1 a : separated in space : AWAY a mile distant b : situated at a great distance : FAR-OFF c : separated by a great distance from each other : far apart d : far behind finished a distant third So how far do you have to go to be a distant station? One hop, two, three? What I consider distant may not be what someone else calls distant. One ham's DX contact is another ham's local contact. QRA K5YFW From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Danny Douglas Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs I know that John, and its pretty sad. I had the same problem in Hong Kong when I called DX. Japan thought they were DX, but I didnt even count the cards from there, I just weighed them by the pound. Even here in Virginia, I can call CQ DX and more than likely have at least one or two stateside stations respond. They dont look my call up to see where I am, and think I am in some rare state (Idaho - Utah ?) I guess and call, no matter how many times I am saying DX.Frankly, anything below Mexico IS DX, but with those guys speaking in Spanish, and sounding like a round robin I dont know why anyone would call them anyway. There are plenty down there that do DXing, and we dont need to work the chatters. Hey - VE5 IS rare down here, I just look and have only 33 VE5 contacts in the past 24 years. 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 Bradley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:35 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs Danny wrote: Less QRM from stateside stations above 7.1, and to keep stateside stations from calling them. They were NOT trying to DX, so any place above 7.1 would have worked (of course avoiding short wave broadcast). I don't know how many times on SSB , while having a chat with a friend, I have had a stateside station break in wanting to exchange information for a contact . VE5 is not that an exotic prefix, but some feel it is important to put another notch on their 1KW gun. On the rare occaison that I get busy and try and chase DX, calling CQ DX gets me a bunch of K6 stations trying to answer. Sorry , K6 is NOT dx. So it is usually bad manners that chase us down below 7100 and 14150., and another reason why I enjoy the digital modes since folks seem to have a higher operating standard and are far more polite John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM
[digitalradio] 7050kHz-7100kHz SSB vs Digi Data/Texting
Danny Douglas N7DC wrote: I was trying to do some RTTY QSOs last night, ... some South American QRM on SSB came up right on top of me. Tuning around I found at least a dozen Spanish QSOs between 7.050 and 7.01. ... Now, I know the rest of the world HAS to use that portion for SSB, but Region 2 does NOT. They go there for a couple of reasons: Less QRM from stateside stations above 7.1, and to keep stateside stations from calling them. Hi Danny, You are correct that 7000kHz-7300kHz is allocated to hams in ITU Region 2 area, including North/South America... but... I have operated 7MHz SSB extensively in South America over many years, so I must point out that you are incorrect regarding each country's ham band for 7MHz. The 40 meter ham band in many countries of South America and Central America is only 7000kHz to 7100kHz. That is the entire ham band. Hams there cannot use 7100kHz-7300kHz, and even if they could, it would be extremely difficult for them. Here is the reason... In South America, 5MHz to 10MHz is filled with non-amateur SSB stations using converted ham or marine transceivers. Some of the non-amateur HF SSB stations are licensed, most are not! The hams of each country on 40 meters run daily SSB nets in the 7050kHz-7100kHz part of the band. The hams unite as a group on net frequencies, they must band together to protect a frequency every day from the pirates, and it is not easy. The most popular pirate frequency is 7000kHz USB and LSB voice. It is like CB Channel 19 on steroids. On a side note, last year, when IARU in Europe proposed 7000kHz-7003kHz as an international amateur radio emergency frequency, I had to laugh! There is no way this frequency would be usable for ham operation in South America! For many years, especially in the jungle and remote mountain areas of South America, non-amateur HF SSB has been one of the main methods used for all types of family and business communications between villages, ranchos, and outposts. The lack of telephones or the high cost of telephone precluded most common people from using it. Mobile phone has somewhat changed this, but not much. The governments of South America mostly do not stop the HF SSB pirates, because their country would come to a grinding halt if they put these stations off the air. Each village has a little store front, with a radio operator running a 100W SSB transceiver on a car battery with a broadband folded dipole. Each village monitors a specific HF SSB frequency. To call a another village, you dial their frequency on the VFO and say the village name. They send a runner out to bring the person back to the radio. They charge a small message unit of money to the person. Some stations have phone patches. I have personally used this vast loosely-organized network, and I must say, hams could probably learn something from it! There is more daily Emergency Communications traffic and medical traffic on the pirate HF SSB stations in South America than I have ever heard on ham radio. Bonnie KQ6XA OA4/KQ6XA, OA8/KQ6XA, OA9/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
CQ County Hunters. 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
[digitalradio] Re: 30M 141A Beacon
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beaconing at VFO 10137.5 (+1625 hz) , 30 seconds, mode 141A, 30M is the only band open up here today this at 1630Z... John VE5MU Hi John, My ALE is running (including 10MHz) but it only scans the ALE channels. You can see the channel list here: http://hflink.com Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Hi John, No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 k8ocl@ 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
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Bill N9DSJ wrote: I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Hi Bill, I think you may want to hold off on applying for and STA for the high speed 6PSK or 8PSK stuff... it may not be necessary... stay tuned for more info on this. As for available spectrum for experimentation with it... there is plenty available at night on 80 meters. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Bonnie KQ6XA
Thanks, Bonnie, for the answer you gave abt 40 meters. I learned a lot and I agree. Gilles ve2ft -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 2007-03-20 08:07 attachment: Notebook.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Go for it! Better to get started with the bureaucracy and later withdraw the request than to wait and wait for a solution from another direction only to lose time. Spectrum availability on 80M in the evening will vary depending on where you are located. There is heavy local activity on 80M sometimes that others never hear. No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
OK. I'd be glad to helpif Bruce doesn't mind! (HI) I haven't done a search yet. Does anyone have a copy of the protocol? 73, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:50 -0400 Go for it! Better to get started with the bureaucracy and later withdraw the request than to wait and wait for a solution from another direction only to lose time. Spectrum availability on 80M in the evening will vary depending on where you are located. There is heavy local activity on 80M sometimes that others never hear. No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Here Here! Even back in the day when I ran RTTY on a HW-101 (really) people on digital modes were more polite, less antagonistic, and in my humble opinion, had better operating practices. CW came second, and phone a LONG third. Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout! Sorry to go off, but I firmly believe that the digital hams are much, much nicer on an overall basis and I would prefer to QSO with them than many of the fone hams I have heard and worked. On 3/20/07, wb0m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CQ County Hunters. 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: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Found this, but there not much activity yet... http://www.eham.net/forums/Digital/3369 Original Message Follows From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:50 -0400 Go for it! Better to get started with the bureaucracy and later withdraw the request than to wait and wait for a solution from another direction only to lose time. Spectrum availability on 80M in the evening will vary depending on where you are located. There is heavy local activity on 80M sometimes that others never hear. No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
[digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I can do a sked :)
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Joe Serocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
{snipped}
TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode.
{end snip}
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Bill, Well, I was not planning to go for an STA. I don't think it is needed IMHO, publication and an ARRL legal review will be sufficient. 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: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:09:50 - Hi John, No problem; I would be happy to help work towards an STA for RFSM2400, if that is indeed a worthy goal. Think part of the issue is that due to our position in the sunspot cycle *usable* bandwidth for experimentation, at least in the evenings in North America, is very limited. Would need to take that into account...suspect we work from different perspectives (who doesn't?) but no need to let that impact the goal... 73 es be well, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 k8ocl@ 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
[digitalradio] Fw: Fwd: (CARMA) Fire: Unintelligibility of Digital Radio Transmissions
In a message dated 3/20/2007 7:00:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IAFC MEMBER ALERT: FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW Contact: IAFC Communications Department www.iafc.org Common Fireground Noise May Cause Unintelligibility of Digital Radio Transmissions Fairfax, Va., Mar. 20, 2007... The International Association of Fire Chiefs is alerting its members to a potential issue and soliciting their input to a solution. The IAFC has received reports of firefighters experiencing unintelligible audio communications while using a digital two-way portable radio when operating in close proximity to the low-pressure alarm of their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). In addition, other common fireground noise, including powered tools, apparatus and PASS devices, may affect voice intelligibility. This is an industry-wide issue and is not specific to any one manufacturer's radios. There are indications that any digital voice communication product utilizing parametric voice encoders could be affected by this problem. The IAFC does know the problem is not related to any specific radio spectrum, as it is not a frequency of operation issue, or a particular communication standard. Due to these reports, the IAFC board of directors has asked the Communications Committee to form a working group to work with other IAFC committees and sections and other appropriate organizations to investigate and provide recommendations to address this concern. The specific focus of the group will be to: Fully understand the facts and identify potential solutions that may be required. Facilitate industry collaboration among the communications equipment manufacturers to explore options to mitigate or eliminate this concern. Recommend best practices for digital portable radio use on the fireground. The IAFC is asking you to contact the Communications Working Group if you have experienced similar issues. Go to www.iafc.org/digitalproblem to learn more about the tests you can conduct to provide the working group the information it needs to study the issue and make recommendations. Your input is vital to ensure that digital radio technology can be effectively utilized in fireground applications. The IAFC fully understands that many fire departments are using digital radio systems with success, but there may be issues related to voice transmission being interfered with or overridden when common fireground noise is in the background. We appreciate your assistance in testing your systems and reporting back to us. -end- Steve adds: Please participate only if you are legitimately with a fire agency and are experiencing this issue with digital portable radios. Yahoo! Groups Links TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ IAFC MEMBER ALERT: FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW Contact: IAFC Communications Department www.iafc.org Common Fireground Noise May Cause Unintelligibility of Digital Radio Transmissions Fairfax, Va., Mar. 20, 2007... The International Association of Fire Chiefs is alerting its members to a potential issue and soliciting their input to a solution. The IAFC has received reports of firefighters experiencing unintelligible audio communications while using a digital two-way portable radio when operating in close proximity to the low-pressure alarm of their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). In addition, other common fireground noise, including powered tools, apparatus and PASS devices, may affect voice intelligibility. This is an industry-wide issue and is not specific to any one manufacturer's radios. There are indications that any digital voice communication product utilizing parametric voice encoders could be affected by this problem. The IAFC does know the problem is not related to any specific radio spectrum, as it is not a frequency of operation issue, or a particular communication standard. Due to these reports, the IAFC board of directors has asked the Communications Committee to form a working group to work with other IAFC committees and sections and other appropriate organizations to investigate and provide recommendations to address this concern. The specific focus of the group will be to: Fully understand the facts and identify potential solutions that may be required. Facilitate industry collaboration among the communications equipment manufacturers to explore options to mitigate or eliminate this concern. Recommend best practices for digital portable radio use on the fireground. The IAFC is asking you to contact the Communications Working Group if you have experienced similar issues. Go to www.iafc.org/digitalproblem to learn more about the tests you can conduct to provide the working group the information it needs to study the issue and make recommendations. Your input is
[digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Bonnie, I wasn't going to go after an STA, just an ARRL legal review. John Hi John, That may be premature, because the RFSM is still under development, going through changes as we speak. The MIL STD 188-110 standard and FS-1052 that RFSM uses, is printed by the US Govt, for general release, it is a public document, and this qualifies the -110 Standard 8-phase PSK part of the RFSM2400 for street legal for USA hams in the Phone/Image sub-band if the content is Fax, Image, or Voice. For those USA hams who are interested in using RFSM for Texting, FTP, and email, in the RTTY/Data subbands, there may be some interesting developments coming soon on this. I've noticed that there are already many US hams experimenting with it, so it appears that there is a huge popular demand for it :) There is a non-standard part of the RFSM that is 6-phase PSK, and it appears to follow the 8-phase govt standard. This non-standard part may need to be documented and posted on a public website. If and when I am able to get it in an appropriate format, I will put it on the public part of the HFLINK.COM website. Anyone can download it from there, and of course, ARRL can put it on their technical information site also if they want to. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams
Roger! I will await your posting on HFLINK. Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting RFSM2400 Approved for US Hams Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:28:10 - Bonnie, I wasn't going to go after an STA, just an ARRL legal review. John Hi John, That may be premature, because the RFSM is still under development, going through changes as we speak. The MIL STD 188-110 standard and FS-1052 that RFSM uses, is printed by the US Govt, for general release, it is a public document, and this qualifies the -110 Standard 8-phase PSK part of the RFSM2400 for street legal for USA hams in the Phone/Image sub-band if the content is Fax, Image, or Voice. For those USA hams who are interested in using RFSM for Texting, FTP, and email, in the RTTY/Data subbands, there may be some interesting developments coming soon on this. I've noticed that there are already many US hams experimenting with it, so it appears that there is a huge popular demand for it :) There is a non-standard part of the RFSM that is 6-phase PSK, and it appears to follow the 8-phase govt standard. This non-standard part may need to be documented and posted on a public website. If and when I am able to get it in an appropriate format, I will put it on the public part of the HFLINK.COM website. Anyone can download it from there, and of course, ARRL can put it on their technical information site also if they want to. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Gray areas of US ham Regs
I would say it depends a lot on the ops and the bands. On 6, a common HF distance becomes DX, and on 2 meters, Puerto Rico, Baltimore, or even, Grand Cayman is DX. YMMV Jose, CO2JA - DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: HumDXing is the hobby of tuning in and identifying distant radio signals, or making two way radio contact with distant stations in amateur radio. The term DX gets its name the CW abbreviation DX, for distance or distant. Distant 1 a : separated in space : AWAY a mile distant b : situated at a great distance : FAR-OFF c : separated by a great distance from each other : far apart d : far behind finished a distant third So how far do you have to go to be a distant station? One hop, two, three? What I consider distant may not be what someone else calls distant. One ham's DX contact is another ham's local contact. QRA K5YFW __ 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: [digitalradio] 7050kHz-7100kHz SSB vs Digi Data/Texting
Here in Cuba we do not have those freebanders, but sometimes I can hear them on 7000, 1, and even 14103 yesterday, with quite coarse language. Here in Havana we get quite strong QRM from the european broadcasters starting on 7105 since a bit earlier of sunset until sunrise in Europe, which leaves just a few clear patches to use up to 7300. I guess it is the same situation along the East Coast (W4, W3, W2 and W1). Those living more to the west are somehow shielded from that QRM, but here it is strong during the evening and night. I was already a ham when Radio Tirana ueed to broadcast on 7065. It was a great relief when both Radio Tirana and the woodpecker (soviet OTHR) stopped operations. Lets see how it goes when broadcasters move upI do not remember exactly the timetable but they must move above 7200 and clear the lower frequencies on 41 meters sometime before 2010. And it is good that Bonnie reminds the group how life goes where there is no telephone and no Internet...the world is far from uniform development, something that is forgotten quite often. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- expeditionradio wrote: Danny Douglas N7DC wrote: I was trying to do some RTTY QSOs last night, ... some South American QRM on SSB came up right on top of me. Tuning around I found at least a dozen Spanish QSOs between 7.050 and 7.01. ... Now, I know the rest of the world HAS to use that portion for SSB, but Region 2 does NOT. They go there for a couple of reasons: Less QRM from stateside stations above 7.1, and to keep stateside stations from calling them. Hi Danny, You are correct that 7000kHz-7300kHz is allocated to hams in ITU Region 2 area, including North/South America... but... I have operated 7MHz SSB extensively in South America over many years, so I must point out that you are incorrect regarding each country's ham band for 7MHz. The 40 meter ham band in many countries of South America and Central America is only 7000kHz to 7100kHz. That is the entire ham band. Hams there cannot use 7100kHz-7300kHz, and even if they could, it would be extremely difficult for them. Here is the reason... In South America, 5MHz to 10MHz is filled with non-amateur SSB stations using converted ham or marine transceivers. Some of the non-amateur HF SSB stations are licensed, most are not! The hams of each country on 40 meters run daily SSB nets in the 7050kHz-7100kHz part of the band. The hams unite as a group on net frequencies, they must band together to protect a frequency every day from the pirates, and it is not easy. The most popular pirate frequency is 7000kHz USB and LSB voice. It is like CB Channel 19 on steroids. On a side note, last year, when IARU in Europe proposed 7000kHz-7003kHz as an international amateur radio emergency frequency, I had to laugh! There is no way this frequency would be usable for ham operation in South America! For many years, especially in the jungle and remote mountain areas of South America, non-amateur HF SSB has been one of the main methods used for all types of family and business communications between villages, ranchos, and outposts. The lack of telephones or the high cost of telephone precluded most common people from using it. Mobile phone has somewhat changed this, but not much. The governments of South America mostly do not stop the HF SSB pirates, because their country would come to a grinding halt if they put these stations off the air. Each village has a little store front, with a radio operator running a 100W SSB transceiver on a car battery with a broadband folded dipole. Each village monitors a specific HF SSB frequency. To call a another village, you dial their frequency on the VFO and say the village name. They send a runner out to bring the person back to the radio. They charge a small message unit of money to the person. Some stations have phone patches. I have personally used this vast loosely-organized network, and I must say, hams could probably learn something from it! There is more daily Emergency Communications traffic and medical traffic on the pirate HF SSB stations in South America than I have ever heard on ham radio. Bonnie KQ6XA OA4/KQ6XA, OA8/KQ6XA, OA9/KQ6XA __ 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
