Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Roger J. Buffington]

Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
>
>  This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
>  modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
>  no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule.
>
>  73 Bill - WA7NWP

I am confused.  What is a "narrow museum mode?"  PSK31?  MT63?  Olivia? 
i.e. modes used by actual hams in actual QSOs?  I have thought all of 
these modes are a pretty dynamic part of our amateur radio hobby.  PSK31 
was invented by a ham, and its use has been one of ham radio's success 
stories.  Same for Olivia and other modes.

What is a "modern progressive mode?"  Pactor being used by an RVer using 
amateur radio as a cheap way to get internet access?  Is it 
"progressive" because it is not really amateur radio, or is it 
"progressive" because it does not listen before transmitting, as has 
been traditional (and I guess "non-progressive") for all other 
components of amateur radio throughout its long and storied history?  I 
do not understand the labels here.

Sorry, I am confused by these labels. If not listening before 
transmitting is "progressive" and if filling our bands with RV internet 
traffic is "modern" count me in with the non-modern non-progressives.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Roger J. Buffington]

Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
>
> > There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
> > (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was
> > primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the
> > Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system
> > which continues to use the old Winlink software), and for AX.25
> > store and forward.
>
>  There was "detection".. The automatic areas were set up for "packet"
>  and that's always had carrier sense or even audio presence detection.
>  It was the same automatic vs manual station issue then. The whole
>  idea was if you swim with the sharks (operate within the automatic
>  stations segment) then don't whine when you get a toe bit off.

The packet automatic area was confined to a small, disused part of the 
bands under an STA, and was always understood to be a temporary thing 
for experimental purposes.  It did not mean that we were supposed to be 
stuck, in perpetuity, with commercial modes like Pactor Winlink that do 
not listen before transmitting as a matter of policy.

We are about to get a LOT more ordinary hams on the bands due to the 
demise of the CW testing requirements.  This will mean more digital 
keyboard operators, as evidenced by the very large number of /AG and /AE 
stations that have been showing up on the bands during the past month.  
In turn, this will mean the need for more bandwidth for amateur radio 
operators, as opposed to Winlink users, whoever they are. Winlink and 
other automatic modes should look outside of the amateur service for its 
frequency needs.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[bruce mallon]

WALT ... THINK  THINK ... 100 khz wide signals
are going to KILL any band you put them on and do you
think anyone will look for OTHERS before fireing up a
digital radio .. GEESE go on 75 and lissen to SSB
they can't even handle THAT mode ..



--- Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You of course ask a question that only the readers
> can answer.
> 
> For my part it would be Ok to open up the entire
> band for any bandwidth mode but 
> with enforcement of a non-QRM requirment.  Since the
> U.S. FCC does not have that 
> capability, any bandplan would have no real
> enforcement capability.  This plus 
> the fact that Part 97 are administrative rules and
> NOT laws, swift and timely 
> enforcement is hampered.
> 
> On the other hand, if amateur radio WAS covered by
> public law, then any changes 
> might take many years to be enacted.
> 
> Walt
> 
> kv9u wrote:
> > Do you really feel that there is a consensus on
> this group to support 
> > division by bandwith? Based upon many comments,
> there also appears to be 
> > a significant number who are uncomfortable with
> that approach and who 
> > favor keeping mode types separated.
> > 
> > And I would be surprised if the majority was in
> favor of having greater 
> > bandwidths than what is now what a typical SSB
> transceiver uses. The 
> > whole idea being that these are shared frequencies
> and there are a lot 
> > of us and some very limited places to fit our
> signal in at times.
> > 
> > If the ARRL has really reversed its earlier change
> from what I had 
> > thought was 3.5 kHz and now is recommending 3.0
> kHz, then doesn't that 
> > suggest there must be some kind of board policy
> change from several 
> > years ago?
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Rick, KV9U
> > 
> > 
> > Walt DuBose wrote:
> > 
> >>Bonnie,
> >>
> >>I do think the time is right; but, I think it has
> been for several years.
> >>
> >>I truly believe that to just say we need more
> bandwidth without showing why we 
> >>have not case or change to change the League's
> position.
> >>
> >>Show then in as simple terms as possible why more
> bandwidth is needed or why 3 
> >>kHz bandwidth will not support their interest and
> that of amateur radio.
> >>
> >>If this group could come up with a number of
> reasons, and each U.S. amateur 
> >>wrote their individual Division Director
> supporting "our" position(s), or even 
> >>their own valid reasons needing/wanting more
> bandwidth, they I think the League 
> >>would move on the action.
> >>
> >>Truthfully from what I hear from various ARRL
> Board members is that they get few 
> >>messages from their division amateur radio
> operators on most of the ideas that 
> >>the League proposes.
> >>
> >>Thanks for you concern and what you do for Amateur
> Radio.
> >>
> >>73,
> >>
> >>Walt/K5YFW
> >>
> >>expeditionradio wrote:
> >>  
> >>
> >>>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B.
> Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth
> proposal put wide data in
>   
> >>>
> >>>the same band segments with image and voice
> transission. Their members
> >>>seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps
> they need to hear from
> >>>supporters of regulation by bandwidth.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH 
>   
> >>>
> >>>Hi John,
> >>>
> >>>Several years ago, I attempted to correspond with
> all the ARRL staff
> >>>and directors about bandwidth-based spectrum
> management. 
> >>>
> >>>I got nearly zero response. Perhaps the time is
> ripe now.
> >>>
> >>>Bonnie KQ6XA 
> >>>
> 



 

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[Mark Miller]

440 MHz has had a authorized bandwidth of 100 kHz for nearly 20 
years.  The repeaters and other operations there seem to work just 
fine.  Just because the authorized bandwidth is 100 KHz doesn't mean 
that the whole band will be filled with 100 Khz signals.
73,
Mark N5RFX


>WALT ... THINK THINK ... 100 khz wide signals
>are going to KILL any band you put them on and do you
>think anyone will look for OTHERS before fireing up a
>digital radio .. GEESE go on 75 and lissen to SSB
>they can't even handle THAT mode ..

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[bruce mallon]

440 ALSO has NO SKIP and 8 TIMES the space 
NOW how are you going to work it out when 6 is OPEN
world wide ? 

ANYONE with a half a brain knows 6 is not the place
for this ..

also how are you not going to interfere with repeaters
on 2 meters  they cover 3 out of 4 mhz of that
band ?


--- Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 440 MHz has had a authorized bandwidth of 100 kHz
> for nearly 20 
> years.  The repeaters and other operations there
> seem to work just 
> fine.  Just because the authorized bandwidth is 100
> KHz doesn't mean 
> that the whole band will be filled with 100 Khz
> signals.
> 73,
> Mark N5RFX
> 
> 
> >WALT ... THINK THINK ... 100 khz wide
> signals
> >are going to KILL any band you put them on and do
> you
> >think anyone will look for OTHERS before fireing up
> a
> >digital radio .. GEESE go on 75 and lissen to
> SSB
> >they can't even handle THAT mode ..
> 
> 
> 



 

TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[Mark Miller]

Bruce,
I will "work it out when 6 is OPEN" world wide" and not interfere 
with repeaters on 2 meters because I will continue to follow the 
clause that says "no amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously 
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or 
signal" .  How does changing the authorized bandwidth affect the 
prohibition on interference?

73,

Mark N5RFX


>440 ALSO has NO SKIP and 8 TIMES the space
>NOW how are you going to work it out when 6 is OPEN
>world wide ?
>
>ANYONE with a half a brain knows 6 is not the place
>for this ..
>
>also how are you not going to interfere with repeaters
>on 2 meters  they cover 3 out of 4 mhz of that
>band ?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[bruce mallon]

The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .

When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
between 50.7 and 51.5 above that are simplex nets and
repeaters .

On 2 meters here in tampabay 144.200 - 144.300 is week
signal work with nets on 144.210, 144.250 common here
in fl and 144.300 - 144.400 APRS users used in this
state.

EXCEPT for 146.500 - 146.600 and 147.500 - 147.600
evenything above 146.000 is used be repeaters.

simplex nets and users are common on 146.500 ( or
146.490 ) 146.520,146.550 and 146.580 and again on
147.20 55 and 58

now where are you going to put 500 100 khz wide
signals?  EXCEPT on 220 or 440 and only because
220 has no one on it and 440 is so big?




--- Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Bruce,
> I will "work it out when 6 is OPEN" world wide" and
> not interfere 
> with repeaters on 2 meters because I will continue
> to follow the 
> clause that says "no amateur operator shall
> willfully or maliciously 
> interfere with or cause interference to any radio
> communication or 
> signal" .  How does changing the authorized
> bandwidth affect the 
> prohibition on interference?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Mark N5RFX
> 
> 
> >440 ALSO has NO SKIP and 8 TIMES the space
> >NOW how are you going to work it out when 6 is OPEN
> >world wide ?
> >
> >ANYONE with a half a brain knows 6 is not the place
> >for this ..
> >
> >also how are you not going to interfere with
> repeaters
> >on 2 meters  they cover 3 out of 4 mhz of that
> >band ?
> 
> 
> 




 

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[John Champa]

Bruce,

It is uncertain that a typical OFDM 5W signal spread over 100 kHz
would have enough power density to break the squelch
on an FM receiver.

In other words, FM rigs may not even hear the 100 kHz signal.
If they bother to open their squelch, they may note a slight
increase in background noise level, but that is about it.

Try to think of it this way.  You are operating CW using a 250
hertz filter amd a weak SSB signal comes up right on top of you.
Chances are you could operate right through it with no problem.

Another example of imaginary QRM issues is on 2.4 GHz, where
I operate the most.  The FM-ATV stations fire up right on top of our
HSMM signals all the time.  It is accidental.  They hear our 20 MHz
wide signal as a slight increase in the background noise level.
That QRM lowers our data rate a bit, but it is no big deal, so we
don't mind sharing the frequency with them at all.  They up their
power if they need to compensate for us just as you might with
any noisy band condition,  Sp we peacefully co-exist on the same
band and even the same frequencies...sort of, just much different BWs.

In a time period shorter than most of us realize, most of the VHF and
UHF bands will be all digital.  The FCC is moving all other users
in that direction anyway.  No more WFM, just NFM, etc.  They want greater
spectral efficiency.

Look at D-Star digital voice!  It is only 6 kHz bandwidth.

John

Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300   
symbols/second)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT)

The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .

When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
between 50.7 and 51.5 above that are simplex nets and
repeaters .

On 2 meters here in tampabay 144.200 - 144.300 is week
signal work with nets on 144.210, 144.250 common here
in fl and 144.300 - 144.400 APRS users used in this
state.

EXCEPT for 146.500 - 146.600 and 147.500 - 147.600
evenything above 146.000 is used be repeaters.

simplex nets and users are common on 146.500 ( or
146.490 ) 146.520,146.550 and 146.580 and again on
147.20 55 and 58

now where are you going to put 500 100 khz wide
signals?  EXCEPT on 220 or 440 and only because
220 has no one on it and 440 is so big?




--- Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 > Bruce,
 > I will "work it out when 6 is OPEN" world wide" and
 > not interfere
 > with repeaters on 2 meters because I will continue
 > to follow the
 > clause that says "no amateur operator shall
 > willfully or maliciously
 > interfere with or cause interference to any radio
 > communication or
 > signal" .  How does changing the authorized
 > bandwidth affect the
 > prohibition on interference?
 >
 > 73,
 >
 > Mark N5RFX
 >
 >
 > >440 ALSO has NO SKIP and 8 TIMES the space
 > >NOW how are you going to work it out when 6 is OPEN
 > >world wide ?
 > >
 > >ANYONE with a half a brain knows 6 is not the place
 > >for this ..
 > >
 > >also how are you not going to interfere with
 > repeaters
 > >on 2 meters  they cover 3 out of 4 mhz of that
 > >band ?
 >
 >
 >






Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[Mark Miller]

>The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .

I respect your opinion.


>When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
>with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
>between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
>it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
>between 50.7 and 51.5 above that are simplex nets and
>repeaters .

What you are describing is a result of a bandplan, not 
regulation.  Changing the authorized bandwidth does not change the 
bandplan or the requirement that we don't interfere with each 
other.  Perhaps we should limit 6 meters to PSK  and CW type bandwidths?

>On 2 meters here in tampabay 144.200 - 144.300 is week
>signal work with nets on 144.210, 144.250 common here
>in fl and 144.300 - 144.400 APRS users used in this
>state.
>
>EXCEPT for 146.500 - 146.600 and 147.500 - 147.600
>evenything above 146.000 is used be repeaters.


>simplex nets and users are common on 146.500 ( or
>146.490 ) 146.520,146.550 and 146.580 and again on
>147.20 55 and 58

Again, this is the result of a bandplan, not regulation.  How would 
increasing the authorized bandwidth change this bandplan or the 
requirement that we don't interfere with each other?


>now where are you going to put 500 100 khz wide
>signals?  EXCEPT on 220 or 440 and only because
>220 has no one on it and 440 is so big?


Increasing the the authorized bandwidth does not require placing 500 
100 kHz wide signals on 6 and 2 meters.  I think that what you are 
concerned about is the capacity of a band will be decreased by 
increasing the authorized bandwidth.  Since the FCC does not limit 
the number of licensees in the ARS I don't see why they will be 
concerned with capacity.  Increasing the authorized bandwidth does 
not require emissions to use the entire authorized bandwidth.  Its 
like I tell my co-workers when we are traveling: just because the 
room is a smoking room, does not mean you have to smoke in it.

I do understand your concerns Bruce.  I don't see the need to 
increase the authorized bandwidth on 6 and 2 meters and would avoid 
it for political and public relations reasons.

73,

Mark N5RFX

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

I use the numbers that the ARRL and W5YI have used.

I have NO idea what the true numbers are.

However, I do know that if 5,000 or 10,000 thoughful responses were sent
to the ARRL Division Directors with a Cc to the ARRL President, then I
believe that  you would see a change.

If 10% of a Divisions ARRL membership want to vote their current
Director out of office, they could because if I remember from the last
numbers in QST, Division directors are elected by less than 10,000
votes.

Its not easy to get 10,000 division votes...but it can be done if a
couple dozen hams in a division put their mind to it.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of list email filter
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:33 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300
symbols/second)

Walt,

Are there really ~500k 'active' operators, and more than 200k on HF? Or
is that just licenses that haven't expired?  I personally know 2
licensed 'hams' in my area that don't even know what their call signs
are, let alone have any intention of ever owning or operating a radio,
and they tell me that there are lots more like them... organizations
such as the local ski patrol have pushed to have all their members
licensed, they drilled on the tech pool questions and became hams, 5
years after testing, less than 2% of them are active (could put a basic
2m fm station on the air with less than 48 hours notice).  I used to be
the local ARES resource coordinator, and wrestled with the problem of
trying to recruit some of the nearly 130 licensed hams in my area
(population < 6k) into participating in local emergency communications,
fewer than 30 of the over 130 licensed hams were active.  The inactive
licensees actually seemed to have less interest in amateur radio in
general than the general public.  It was much easier to recruit new
members, and get them licensed than it was to get a response out of the
existing amateur population.  Of the ~130 I doubt more than a dozen or
so would care less about bandwidth based band plan proposals, and I
doubt more than 3 or 4 even know about it.

Don't know what it would really take to get the board to 'listen', but
as the vast majority of the respondents seem to be opposed to the
proposed changes; and the fact that they have an unsolicited response
rate as high as it already is, to a proposal with virtually no mass
publicity, not a politician in the world would consider themselves to
have a mandate.  I doubt they'll ask us, because if they did, they
wouldn't like the answer or the numbers at all.  Remember, 'smart' 
lawyers never ask questions they don't already know the answer to, and
'smart' politicians never ask questions when they know the answer
they'll get doesn't support their position.

Erik
N7HMS

Walt DuBose wrote:
> But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 
> active amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on
HF?
> 
> If there were 10 times the number of responses, then the Board might
listen.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW



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: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[Mark Miller]

I think this is true in the part 90 world, but not in part 97.  There 
really is no FCC mandate with respect to the ARS for spectral efficiency.

73,

Mark N5RFX

>In a time period shorter than most of us realize, most of the VHF and
>UHF bands will be all digital. The FCC is moving all other users
>in that direction anyway. No more WFM, just NFM, etc. They want greater
>spectral efficiency.
>
>Look at D-Star digital voice! It is only 6 kHz bandwidth.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[kv9u]

This number is really quite large. I would not concur that there are 
500K active hams though. Not even half of the licensed hams are really 
very active. And the great majority of hams are Technician class and not 
as concerned about anything that might affect HF, so they would not even 
understand or respond to the issues.

It is actually quite rare to get anyone to "write their congress 
person." Normally, you take a written comment and multiply it by at 
least 25 to get a feel for to actual number of people with similarly 
held views. That is why 1471 responses is such a significant number with 
such a small population of hams.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Walt DuBose wrote:
> But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 active 
> amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on HF?
>
> If there were 10 times the number of responses, then the Board might listen.
>
> 73,
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[bruce mallon]

We have had PSK and RTTY and APRS users for DECADES
and because they take up similar space they do not
cause a problem AND they have place themselves AWAY
from most other users . however you know unlike
the 5 watt comments What we see on 6 is the HIGH power
boys crawl out of the woodwork at the slightest band
opening NOW  take 500 100 kHz wide 1KW signals mix
them and add in how intense skip at 50 MHz can be and
it will sound like Cb ...

Last year i sent out over 300 QSL cards on 6 SSB alone
also a smaller number on 52.525 FM and a handful on
50.4 AM I have PSK-31 but at this time it is not
working correctly but one opening MANY psk-31 stations
were on 6 along with the CW/SSB/AM and FM guys.

The ARRL grips about BPL then wants to place it on 6
meters .

IF the ARRL had restricted it to ABOVE 50.5 and BELOW
51.5 Most of us could live with it because that part
of the band is VERY lightly used and far enough away
from weak signal users that it would not be likely to
cause problems .

2 Meters is a similar problem everything above 145 has
users on it  and below 144.300 is weak signal work
.

This is NOT a digital must be stopped thing but a
digital needs to be able to live with all the other
modes . and the ARRL idea that us old foggys are
going to die off is going to be prove wrong .
they seem to be bent of KILLING us .

I must remind you only the good die young . 
And I'm not known for being good .






 

Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall

[kv9u]

Walt,

These numbers are completely unrealistic. Even as someone who is 
politically active with ham issues, I rarely send any comments to my 
division director and never the president. And not even the FCC. So 
someone is sending these messages, but they are doing it to the FCC 
because that is who makes the rules.

The one thing that probably surprised a number of us was the power that 
an individual petitioner had relative to the the ARRL. It seemed it was 
almost equal status at times. The FCC picked and chose what they wanted 
as the outcome and selected from the various proposals and comments. 
Even quoting certain hams comments as factual studies of frequency useage.

The overwhelming majority of hams are not ARRL members. In fact, the 
number is very low, around 20% from what I have heard. Those 80% of hams 
do not have a voice at ARRL. But they do have a voice at the FCC, and as 
they recently found out,  it is quite a strong one.

The ARRL has to be very careful with their decisions and policy as most 
leadership does not want to disconnect from their members too far. In 
the latest FCC rule decisions, I have seen people attack the ARRL as if 
they had asked the FCC to make certain decisions. In fact, the FCC made 
decisions contrary to the ARRL's recommendations.

73,

Rick, KV9U



DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> However, I do know that if 5,000 or 10,000 thoughful responses were sent
> to the ARRL Division Directors with a Cc to the ARRL President, then I
> believe that  you would see a change.
>
> If 10% of a Divisions ARRL membership want to vote their current
> Director out of office, they could because if I remember from the last
> numbers in QST, Division directors are elected by less than 10,000
> votes.
>
> Its not easy to get 10,000 division votes...but it can be done if a
> couple dozen hams in a division put their mind to it.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[Mark Miller]

Bruce,

>We have had PSK and RTTY and APRS users for DECADES
>and because they take up similar space they do not
>cause a problem AND they have place themselves AWAY
>from most other users .

This is what bandplanning, gentlemen's agreements, and cooperation 
give us.  Your example shows how a 32 Hz mode is living amongst 3 kHz 
and 16 KHz modes.

>however you know unlike
>the 5 watt comments What we see on 6 is the HIGH power
>boys crawl out of the woodwork at the slightest band
>opening NOW  take 500 100 kHz wide 1KW signals mix
>them and add in how intense skip at 50 MHz can be and
>it will sound like Cb ...

What if we said: take 2500 20 kHz wide 1KW signals mix
them and add in how intense skip at 50 MHz can be and
it will sound like Cb?

>Last year i sent out over 300 QSL cards on 6 SSB alone
>also a smaller number on 52.525 FM and a handful on
>50.4 AM I have PSK-31 but at this time it is not
>working correctly but one opening MANY psk-31 stations
>were on 6 along with the CW/SSB/AM and FM guys.

I have worked 6 on PSK31.  It is quite fun.


>IF the ARRL had restricted it to ABOVE 50.5 and BELOW
>51.5 Most of us could live with it because that part
>of the band is VERY lightly used and far enough away
>from weak signal users that it would not be likely to
>cause problems .

This can be done with bandplanning.  We cannot assume that the folks 
who would choose to run 100kHz signals are unlawful or uncooperative types.

>This is NOT a digital must be stopped thing but a
>digital needs to be able to live with all the other
>modes .

Agreed, and we must have faith in our fellow ham.

>I must remind you only the good die young .
>And I'm not known for being good .

Excellent!

73,

Mark N5RFX

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Walt DuBose]

Dave,

In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting, 
there 
was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was doing. 
And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.

So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail servers on 
line in the U.S. confronting WinLink?

And spare me the "well its not MS" because one could just as well have written 
a 
PSKMail type applications for MS.  Rein just felt comfortable in using Linux. 
And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use WinLink or 
change to Linux.

This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when it comes 
down 
to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find another or 
pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want.  I didn't have to 
beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a parched 
land.

The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a past-time/ 
hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility.  We each need 
to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the best of 
capabilities.  In some cases it might be only a "well done" or "thanks".  But I 
am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really appreciate 
being told that they ARE appreciated.

And thanks for your effort in amateur radio.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

Dave Bernstein wrote:
> The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for the 
> WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their 
> implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand on 
> QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate first 
> step than calling in the FCC as a blunt instrument.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> > Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already
>> > in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is 
> 
> not
> 
>> > malicious, but it is clearly willful.
>>
>>We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
>>
>> > An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not support
>> > any semi-automatic system that violates §97.101 would provide the
>> > incentive required for the WinLink organization to immediately
>> > incorporate busy frequency detection in their PMBOs -- 
> 
> particularly
> 
>> > if this announcement contained an appropriately supportive quote 
> 
> from
> 
>> > the FCC's Hollingsworth.
>>
>>But will the ARRL and FCC agree to ban the use of any digital
>>mode that does not have always-on busy frequency detection (when
>>initially connecting and for at least the first two minutes -- to
>>permit a "hidden transmitter" to be detected on the handover of an
>>ongoing QSO) and also always-on clear-mode ID's?
>>
>>Ham history teaches us that the Ham fraternity unfortunately
>>includes the same percentage of selfish scoff-laws as the rest of
>>society.  We could blindly open the floodgates but carelessly
>>opening things up without proper boundaries will not create greater 
>>freedom but will instead create freedom-limiting anarchy.
>>
>>The 11 meter band is clear evidence of the failure to
>>maintain and enforce necessary boundaries.
>>
>>If the FCC fails to enforce existing regs then adding more
>>freedom for the selfish and careless to spread the problem is
>>hardly a wise choice.
>>
>>If the FCC shows evidence of a sustainable commitment
>>to the aggressive enforcement of existing regs *then* relaxing
>>the boundaries would make sense.
>>
>>It is unfortunate to experimentation and technological
>>advancement that this is necessary but blame the selfish
>>scofflaws and not the ARRL or the FCC.
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
>>Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
>>Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[John Becker]

At 03:23 AM 3/26/2007, you wrote in part:

Sorry now  I am confused by this labels.

> RV internet traffic

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Danny Douglas]

HUH?
"So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail
servers on
line in the U.S. confronting WinLink"

Its not that people particularly hate/dislike WINLINK.  Its that the great
majority of hams believe that an automatic forwarding system , with
automatic stations talking to each other, (no matter what you name it) has
no business on the ham bands.  Why build something else that will do the
same thing, when THAT, is what you HATE?



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: "Walt DuBose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting


> Dave,

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[John Becker]

At 11:42 PM 3/25/2007 Dave, AA6YQ  wrote:

Personally, I'd give them a 3 KHz segment on 20m, 


Easy, Dave your hatred is showing once again.

But in truth this really would be like giving the PSK guys
point three KC of the band. Either way it just ain't going
to work and Ray Charles could see this.

[digitalradio] Politics be gone

[Chuck Mayfield]

OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics, 
including; ARRL and FCC.
Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And body contains (ARRL OR 
FCC) then delete_message.

Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to 
digitalradio.

73, Chuck AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Mark Miller]

The root cause of the complaints can be traced to the way that Pactor 
III was introduced to the amateur bands.  Most hams today consider 
the appropriate bandwidth of a signal in the RTTY/Data subbands to be 
500 Hz.  Wider bandwidth modes have been tolerated, but they 
typically are limited to one or two frequencies.  MT63 is a good 
example.  You did not find MT63 typically on more than 1 frequency 
per band, and you found that operators limited their bandwidth to 
1000 Hz with the occasional foray to 2000 Hz.  On 40 and 80 meters 
they limited their bandwidth to 500 Hz.  m.  The introduction of 
Pactor III into the amateur radio bands flew in the face of such 
tradition.  It was used by a small number of users who unnecessarily 
spread out over the bands, and quite frankly pissed people off.  Now 
the impression is that Pactor III users are spectrum grabbers.  The 
main objection to the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition was the 
fear that Pactor III would proliferate in what is now the phone 
bands.  If PACTOR III had been deployed with constraint, I don't 
think you would find the angst that we have now against the 
mode.  Even before PACTOR III, there was a bias against automatically 
controlled digital stations.  I can remember this in the early 90s 
when APLINK was around.  Many hams feel that QSO's should be between 
two humans, not a human and a machine.  This bias against unattended 
operation was already present when Pactor III was introduced.  Had 
the bandwidth used, been commensurate with the number is users I 
don't think PACTOR would have the poor reputation that it does 
today.  Its really not a technical issue as much as it is a public 
relations issue.  Why is there no SCS presence at Dayton and why is 
there not a Winlink or PACTOR forum at Dayton?  The answer can be 
found in the way that unattended stations using Pactor were 
deployed.  I am not sure what it will take to correct this, but the 
damage has been done.


>In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board 
>Meeting, there
>was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink 
>was doing.
>And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.

[digitalradio] What's the roar?

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide digital signal 
that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but only S-5 now. Can 
anyone tell me what this "noise" is about? It sounds almost at bad as the old 
Russian jamming signals from years gone by.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?

[kv9u]

Bob,

Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station 
operating under DRM.

OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very 
similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide 
> digital signal that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but 
> only S-5 now. Can anyone tell me what this "noise" is about? It sounds 
> almost at bad as the old Russian jamming signals from years gone by.
>  
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>  
>  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[kv9u]

There is a fairly significant difference between PSKmail and 
Winlink2000. Assuming that an individual even supports the concept of 
internet connections via radio, it would be nearly impossible to 
substitute one system for the other and have a similar outcome.

PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current protocol), low 
interference potential to other stations. Only runs on Linux OS which 
95% of hams in the U.S. do not use or have any current interest in using 
so can never become popular here, but other areas may be better. Very 
slow transmission rate impractical for long messages. Servers can be set 
up by anyone and at any location. Basically free or very low cost system.

Winlink2000: has potential for relatively fast  transmission rates (for 
radio link speeds) on both HF and VHF, but with extremely wide bandwidth 
modes.  Practical system for casual users who travel, due to centralized 
system, making it possible to retrieve messages through different 
connections. HF Servers very limited in location and location decided by 
the controllers of the system. Extremely expensive to set up.

Both systems use the internet for most of the pathway. Winlink 2000 
tends to be more fragile due to the many different server configurations 
that it must work through, but makes it more convenient because it 
doesn't matter which server you use.

There would have to be a MS OS system developed in order to compete with 
the existing Winlink 2000 system here in the U.S. Also, the system would 
have to use a much faster protocol than PSKmail to be practical.

In practical terms, it seems that Winlink 2000 is ideal for the 
traveling ham who wants a commercial access point to the internet for 
casual e-mail and that it doesn't matter which access point is used, the 
addressee still gets the mail .

A MS OS, higher speed version of PSKmail would likely work better for a 
direct link into the internet from a user who is at a fixed location or 
not moving too much, and can access the same server each time. It could 
be via VHF, but more likely it would be more successful using HF if the 
distance is very far. In my area, that might be 20 miles or so:(

73,

Rick, KV9U



Walt DuBose wrote:
> Dave,
>
> In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting, 
> there 
> was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was 
> doing. 
> And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.
>
> So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail servers 
> on 
> line in the U.S. confronting WinLink?
>
> And spare me the "well its not MS" because one could just as well have 
> written a 
> PSKMail type applications for MS.  Rein just felt comfortable in using Linux. 
> And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use WinLink or 
> change to Linux.
>
> This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when it comes 
> down 
> to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find another or 
> pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want.  I didn't have 
> to 
> beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a parched 
> land.
>
> The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a past-time/ 
> hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility.  We each 
> need 
> to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the best of 
> capabilities.  In some cases it might be only a "well done" or "thanks".  But 
> I 
> am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really appreciate 
> being told that they ARE appreciated.
>
> And thanks for your effort in amateur radio.
>
>   

[digitalradio] Mode testing and operating

[John Bradley]

For those of you who are still interested in the original purpose of this 
group, maybe we should take that private and avoid the QRM 
being generated on this reflector by the US amateur community. personally, I'm 
tired of wading through literally hundreds of emails on the same topic.


please send an email direct to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , in turn I will share the 
email addresses collected with the group. If there is enough interest, 
maybe consider establishing another reflector which would deal with the 
development, technical and operating of digital modes, and ban all policy 
discussions on ARRL and the FCC which are more than covered here and on the HF 
link site. 

John
VE5MU

Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?

[kv9u]

Bob,

Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station 
operating under DRM.

OK, I turned on the rig here and I can still hear it. Very similar to 
ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide 
> digital signal that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but 
> only S-5 now. Can anyone tell me what this "noise" is about? It sounds 
> almost at bad as the old Russian jamming signals from years gone by.
>  
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>  
>  

Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?

[Robert Chudek]

Thanks Rick,

Looks like I need to "study up" on some of these technologies you "guys" are 
discussing. My first step was joining the reflector a while back. My on-the-air 
experience with digital modes has been limited to CW, RTTY, Pactor, and 2m 
PacketCluster.

I see Google is my friend. I already found "Radio Explorer"...

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


  - Original Message - 
  From: kv9u 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?


  Bob,

  Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station 
  operating under DRM.

  OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very 
  similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.

  73,

  Rick, KV9U

  Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
  > On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide 
  > digital signal that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but 
  > only S-5 now. Can anyone tell me what this "noise" is about? It sounds 
  > almost at bad as the old Russian jamming signals from years gone by.
  > 
  > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
  > 
  > 



   

RE: [digitalradio] What's the roar?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Wasn't me. Ididn't hear anything on 4147 before I left for work this morning.
Our groups test signal stopped at 07:00 CST and was centered around 7.2 MHz and 
covered 100 kHz and running 10 watts or so peak power for the signal.  Four 
transmitters all at one location and trasnmitting a single data stream all 
synced together...on 4 different antennas.  The date stream from each 
transmitter was not more than 6 kHz wide and consisted of a simple B&W picture 
with the station's call.  Antennas were near ground folded dipoles with 3 
counter poises for each FD.  The feedpoint impedance was 50 ohms.  Two antennas 
running N-S and two antennas running E-W.  All 100 ft from the transmitter 
site.  Four remote receivers located at 20, 50, 75 and 100 miles were used.  
All were receiving 100% copy of the data.  Data sequence was 1 minute on and 5 
minutes off each hour.  Each transmission had a new data stream (picture).  

The hardest thing was getting the antennas set up and deciding weather to use 
my call of that of one of the other 3 hams involved.

There were a couple of dozen SSB and AM signals on top of my signal last night 
with at least a dozen QSOs that I could hear.  
 
Thanks to a rather large research firm for allowing us to use their equipment.
The format was OFDM with interleaving as described in on the firms' web page.

As far as I can tell, the results were the same as the firm's test on their 
test frequencies but they will have to run the received data in their lab as we 
were only recording the information.  It was interesting to see if QRM affected 
the signal.  Listening to the QSOs on band, no one seemed to notice the signal. 
 The band faded about 04:00 local time.  Talkback was on 75M SSB and via cell 
phone when 75 went out. 

I'd like to try the same set up with 5/10/15 WPM CW sometime.  I have done this 
with 2 CW transmitters before but never 4 transmitters.  And you need to do 
this when the band is not very occupied.

Walt



From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Robert Chudek - K0RC
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:51 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] What's the roar?


On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide digital signal 
that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but only S-5 now. Can 
anyone tell me what this "noise" is about? It sounds almost at bad as the old 
Russian jamming signals from years gone by.
 
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
 

Re: [digitalradio] Proposal: Non-Disaster Automatic Ops on 60M Only

[Bill Aycock]

Excellent !! This is the logical answer to most of the Emcomm 
spectrum preemption and interference problems! Thanks.

At 07:56 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote:
>Proposal:  Non-Disaster Automatic Ops on 60M Only
>
>Let's petition the FCC to restrict all automatic
>mode ops to 60M except when specifically requested
>on other Ham bands during a declared disaster.
>
>This will eliminate conflicts with user-attended
>modes, eliminate a source of hassle for the FCC,
>and still permit development of the mode(s).
>
>And 60M is already channelized.
>
>--
>
>Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
>~~
>Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
>Personal: http://bibleseven.com
>~~
>
>
>
>
>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: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Darrel Smith]

Using Per's Live-CD it is possible to run pskmail without affecting  
your MS machine and you get a chance to enjoy the one of the recent  
Linux Distros. Maybe after trying the disk you will think about  
dumping MS altogether.


Darrel
VE7CUS


PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current protocol), low
interference potential to other stations. Only runs on Linux OS which
95% of hams in the U.S. do not use or have any current interest in  
using

so can never become popular here, but other areas may be better. Very
slow transmission rate impractical for long messages. Servers can  
be set
up by anyone and at any location. Basically free or very low cost  
system.

Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone

[Andrew O'Brien]

and maybe I, as moderator, should pay more attention to the issue.
Andy K3Uk


On 3/26/07, Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


  OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics,
including; ARRL and FCC.
Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And body contains (ARRL OR
FCC) then delete_message.

Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to
digitalradio.

73, Chuck AA5J







--
Andy K3UK
Skype Me :  callto://andyobrien73
www.obriensweb.com

Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone

[John Bradley]

 i would rather stay where I am , but this is getting 'way out of hand. There 
is a forum where the politics of all this can be discussed, rather than on here

Why don't you use the "three strikes" rule? If people insist on carrying on 
political discussions on here,  particularly dealing with
one particular country, give them 2 warnings and then punt them?

John
VE5MU


  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew O'Brien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone



  and maybe I, as moderator, should pay more attention to the issue. 
  Andy K3Uk

   
  On 3/26/07, Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics, 
including; ARRL and FCC.
Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And body contains (ARRL OR 
FCC) then delete_message.

Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to 
digitalradio.

73, Chuck AA5J






  -- 
  Andy K3UK
  Skype Me :  callto://andyobrien73 
  www.obriensweb.com 

   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 3/26/2007 
2:31 PM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall

[John Champa]

Walt,

I think Rick has some good points here.  The FCC has their own
agenda, and contrary to times past does NOT follow ARRL recommendations.

Again, I don't think the FCC is really all that much in favor of reg by BW.

We  can send Bruce to DC.  He'll talk some smarts into 'em.  (HI)

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:04:19 -0500

Walt,

These numbers are completely unrealistic. Even as someone who is
politically active with ham issues, I rarely send any comments to my
division director and never the president. And not even the FCC. So
someone is sending these messages, but they are doing it to the FCC
because that is who makes the rules.

The one thing that probably surprised a number of us was the power that
an individual petitioner had relative to the the ARRL. It seemed it was
almost equal status at times. The FCC picked and chose what they wanted
as the outcome and selected from the various proposals and comments.
Even quoting certain hams comments as factual studies of frequency useage.

The overwhelming majority of hams are not ARRL members. In fact, the
number is very low, around 20% from what I have heard. Those 80% of hams
do not have a voice at ARRL. But they do have a voice at the FCC, and as
they recently found out,  it is quite a strong one.

The ARRL has to be very careful with their decisions and policy as most
leadership does not want to disconnect from their members too far. In
the latest FCC rule decisions, I have seen people attack the ARRL as if
they had asked the FCC to make certain decisions. In fact, the FCC made
decisions contrary to the ARRL's recommendations.

73,

Rick, KV9U



DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
 > However, I do know that if 5,000 or 10,000 thoughful responses were sent
 > to the ARRL Division Directors with a Cc to the ARRL President, then I
 > believe that  you would see a change.
 >
 > If 10% of a Divisions ARRL membership want to vote their current
 > Director out of office, they could because if I remember from the last
 > numbers in QST, Division directors are elected by less than 10,000
 > votes.
 >
 > Its not easy to get 10,000 division votes...but it can be done if a
 > couple dozen hams in a division put their mind to it.
 >
 > Walt/K5YFW
 >
 >

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[John Champa]

Dave,

Another good point!  The ARRL does NOT, I believe, listen much
to non-members...and that is the way it should be!

Their main concern is to keep it's members happy, which is OK, as long as 
it's for
the ultimate good of the service...that can be a very tough balance act!

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 
symbols/second)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:10:42 -

 >>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000
active amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on
HF?

 >>>Yes. Here's the ARRL's characterization back when there were only
~900 comments:

"There were more than 900 comments filed in response to the ARRL
Petition. This inordinately large response to a petition for rule
making was expected by ARRL."

(from http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?
native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518329398 )

 >>>Would a response characterized by the ARRL as "inordinately large"
not be sufficient to warrant attention? Its since grown by more than
50%

 >>>And you've chosen the wrong denominator. The correct one
is "number of ARRL members".

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Dave Bernstein]

That's not a competent defense, Walt. The fact that WinLink's 
functionality is unique does not diminish the QRM that WinLink 
generates. Rather than confront this head on -- perhaps by confining 
WinLink PMBOs to a small number of narrow band segments until busy 
frequency detection was implemented -- a disinformation campaign was 
launched: the remote user will ensure that the frequency is clear, 
the hidden transmitter effect is a myth, the real problem is 
panoramic reception, etc.

The reason we don't seen hundreds of PSKMail servers confronting 
WinLink is that there isn't much interest in sending email over HF.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
> 
> In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board 
Meeting, there 
> was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink 
was doing. 
> And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.
> 
> So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of 
PSKMail servers on 
> line in the U.S. confronting WinLink?
> 
> And spare me the "well its not MS" because one could just as well 
have written a 
> PSKMail type applications for MS.  Rein just felt comfortable in 
using Linux. 
> And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use 
WinLink or 
> change to Linux.
> 
> This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when 
it comes down 
> to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find 
another or 
> pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want.  I 
didn't have to 
> beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a 
parched land.
> 
> The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a 
past-time/ 
> hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility.  
We each need 
> to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the 
best of 
> capabilities.  In some cases it might be only a "well done" 
or "thanks".  But I 
> am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really 
appreciate 
> being told that they ARE appreciated.
> 
> And thanks for your effort in amateur radio.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> > The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for 
the 
> > WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their 
> > implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand 
on 
> > QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate 
first 
> > step than calling in the FCC as a blunt instrument.
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e  wrote:
> > 
> >> > Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's 
already
> >> > in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is 
> > 
> > not
> > 
> >> > malicious, but it is clearly willful.
> >>
> >>We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
> >>
> >> > An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not 
support
> >> > any semi-automatic system that violates §97.101 would provide 
the
> >> > incentive required for the WinLink organization to immediately
> >> > incorporate busy frequency detection in their PMBOs -- 
> > 
> > particularly
> > 
> >> > if this announcement contained an appropriately supportive 
quote 
> > 
> > from
> > 
> >> > the FCC's Hollingsworth.
> >>
> >>But will the ARRL and FCC agree to ban the use of any digital
> >>mode that does not have always-on busy frequency detection (when
> >>initially connecting and for at least the first two minutes -- to
> >>permit a "hidden transmitter" to be detected on the handover of an
> >>ongoing QSO) and also always-on clear-mode ID's?
> >>
> >>Ham history teaches us that the Ham fraternity unfortunately
> >>includes the same percentage of selfish scoff-laws as the rest of
> >>society.  We could blindly open the floodgates but carelessly
> >>opening things up without proper boundaries will not create 
greater 
> >>freedom but will instead create freedom-limiting anarchy.
> >>
> >>The 11 meter band is clear evidence of the failure to
> >>maintain and enforce necessary boundaries.
> >>
> >>If the FCC fails to enforce existing regs then adding more
> >>freedom for the selfish and careless to spread the problem is
> >>hardly a wise choice.
> >>
> >>If the FCC shows evidence of a sustainable commitment
> >>to the aggressive enforcement of existing regs *then* relaxing
> >>the boundaries would make sense.
> >>
> >>It is unfortunate to experimentation and technological
> >>advancement that this is necessary but blame the selfish
> >>scofflaws and not the ARRL or the FCC.
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>
> >>Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
> >>Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
> >>Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
>

[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Dave Bernstein]

My disdain is for a shoddy implementation that transmits on 
frequencies without first verifying that they are clear, John. 
Compared with the alternative, which is to shut them down until they 
comply with 97.101 like everyone else, 3 KHz on 14 MHz is pretty 
generous.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 11:42 PM 3/25/2007 Dave, AA6YQ  wrote:
> 
> Personally, I'd give them a 3 KHz segment on 20m, 
> 
> 
> Easy, Dave your hatred is showing once again.
> 
> But in truth this really would be like giving the PSK guys
> point three KC of the band. Either way it just ain't going
> to work and Ray Charles could see this.
>

Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone

[Jose A. Amador]

Agree. Having my own opinion, I have refrained to participate lately on 
the ongoing threads because
what I see in the bottomline is hate, and my way or no way on mails. It 
is a waste of time.

It is a pity all the space wasted here with another list available for 
such discussions.

I am not under the jurisdiction of FCC and I am not a member of ARRL.

I am not going to say I don't care, I do, because the US is a large 
neighbor close to us.
But so much HATE mail is boring, to say the least. It also creates 
(should I say reinstates?)
a BAD image.

I believe we had enough of that, and that discussion should move to 
where it is welcome.

Jose, CO2JA

---

John Bradley wrote:

>  i would rather stay where I am , but this is getting 'way out of
>  hand. There is a forum where the politics of all this can be
>  discussed, rather than on here
>
>  Why don't you use the "three strikes" rule? If people insist on
>  carrying on political discussions on here, particularly dealing with
>  one particular country, give them 2 warnings and then punt them?
>
>  John VE5MU
>
>
>
>  - Original Message - *From:* Andrew O'Brien
>   *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>   *Sent:* Monday, March 26, 2007
>  11:26 AM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone
>
>  and maybe I, as moderator, should pay more attention to the issue.
>  Andy K3Uk
>
>
>  On 3/26/07, *Chuck Mayfield* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > wrote:
>
>  OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics,
>  including; ARRL and FCC. Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And
>  body contains (ARRL OR FCC) then delete_message.
>
>  Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to
>  digitalradio.
>
>  73, Chuck AA5J



__

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] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[John Champa]

Guys,

Here is my guess...the ARRL would NOW love to do reg by BW,
but the FCC isn't buying it.  They don't want to get into that
level of detail in any enforcement actions.

The agency may go along with it for VHF and UHF because the
impact is more local, but on HF their ability to enforce (or NOT)
reg by BW would be on international display every day...and they
have what, two or three guys doing the work on a daily basis?

Think about it!

But, if I am wrong, please remember that I like my crow medium rare!

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 
symbols/second)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:46:50 -

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
 >
 > The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in
the same band segments with image and voice transission. Their members
seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from
supporters of regulation by bandwidth.
 >
 > 73,
 >
 > John
 > KD6OZH

Hi John,

Several years ago, I attempted to correspond with all the ARRL staff
and directors about bandwidth-based spectrum management.

I got nearly zero response. Perhaps the time is ripe now.

Bonnie KQ6XA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Jose A. Amador]

Dave Bernstein wrote:

>  the hidden transmitter effect is a myth,

Have you already programmed a cyberionosphere responding to your wishes?

C'mon! Be realistic.

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

[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting

[Dave Bernstein]

I don't understand your response at all, Jose. I was citing examples 
from WinLink's disinformation campaign. Their claim that the hidden 
transmitter effect is a myth was made on this very reflector; we can 
find it if its important to you.

No, I don't have code that controls ionospheric propagation. But its 
on the list...

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> 
> >  the hidden transmitter effect is a myth,
> 
> Have you already programmed a cyberionosphere responding to your 
wishes?
> 
> C'mon! Be realistic.
> 
> 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: [digitalradio] Mode testing and operating

[Tim Holmes]

sounds like a plan John - count me in -- the political stuff is driving me
NUTS


Tim Holmes
W8TAH

On 3/26/07, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



For those of you who are still interested in the original purpose of this
group, maybe we should take that private and avoid the QRM
being generated on this reflector by the US amateur community. personally,
I'm tired of wading through literally hundreds of emails on the same topic.


please send an email direct to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , in turn I will share
the email addresses collected with the group. If there is enough interest,
maybe consider establishing another reflector which would deal with the
development, technical and operating of digital modes, and ban all policy
discussions on ARRL and the FCC which are more than covered here and on
the HF link site.

John
VE5MU










--
Tim Holmes
W8TAH - Amateur Extra Operator
Medina County AEC
Skywarn Advanced Storm Spotter Certified
StormNet Chase 9

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)

[Rodney Kraft]

This, and ALL the other discussions slamming the ARRL & FCC NEED to go to THIS 
GROUP!!!  The group below was specially started for JUST SUCH discussions!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

PLEASE

This is NOT what this group is all about!  PLEASE take it ELSE WHERE!

Rod
KC7CJO

 
-
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone

[Steinar Aanesland]

" I believe we had enough of that, and that discussion should move to
where it is welcome." I am totally agree with you Jose.

73 de LA5VNA Steinar




Jose A. Amador wrote:
>
>
> Agree. Having my own opinion, I have refrained to participate lately on
> the ongoing threads because
> what I see in the bottomline is hate, and my way or no way on mails. It
> is a waste of time.
>
> It is a pity all the space wasted here with another list available for
> such discussions.
>
> I am not under the jurisdiction of FCC and I am not a member of ARRL.
>
> I am not going to say I don't care, I do, because the US is a large
> neighbor close to us.
> But so much HATE mail is boring, to say the least. It also creates
> (should I say reinstates?)
> a BAD image.
>
> I believe we had enough of that, and that discussion should move to
> where it is welcome.
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>
> ---
>
> John Bradley wrote:
>
> > i would rather stay where I am , but this is getting 'way out of
> > hand. There is a forum where the politics of all this can be
> > discussed, rather than on here
> >
> > Why don't you use the "three strikes" rule? If people insist on
> > carrying on political discussions on here, particularly dealing with
> > one particular country, give them 2 warnings and then punt them?
> >
> > John VE5MU
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - *From:* Andrew O'Brien
> >  *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> >  *Sent:* Monday, March 26, 2007
> > 11:26 AM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Politics be gone
> >
> > and maybe I, as moderator, should pay more attention to the issue.
> > Andy K3Uk
> >
> >
> > On 3/26/07, *Chuck Mayfield* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics,
> > including; ARRL and FCC. Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And
> > body contains (ARRL OR FCC) then delete_message.
> >
> > Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to
> > digitalradio.
> >
> > 73, Chuck AA5J
>
> __
>
> 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
>
>  

[digitalradio] Traffic or email ?

[John Becker]

At 03:14 PM 3/26/2007, Dave, AA6YQ wrote in part:

>The reason we don't seen hundreds of PSKMail servers confronting 
>WinLink is that there isn't much interest in sending email over HF.

Just when does a piece of ARRL type traffic becomes email?


Once upon a time between 068 and 075 the band was full of pactor
PMBO's. with a Amtor here and there. Them came PSK and some 
idiot said let's operator right in the middle of them. And the complaining 
and bitching started and to this date has NEVER stopped. Some will
not let it.

It just amazes me how many has bad comments about pactor
but never ever in a day in their live seen it or operated it,   why ?
Maybe because it requires a special box. 

Having said my mind let me put my moderator hat on.
This thread and "ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital" is now over, reason-
we beat this horse 5 or 6 times last year. And the year before that.
There has NOT been a new thing added since then.

If you have something to say about this do it direct.
My email address is in the header.

John, W0JAB

[digitalradio] Automatic Busy Channel Detection

[expeditionradio]

BACKGROUND
There has recently been a lot of bloated theoretical talk about
Automatic Busy Detection. My observation is that most of the operators
who glorify it and exalt its virtues, have nearly zero experience
using it on the air! The same guys who have no experience with it,
want to make auto busy detection mandatory for everyone else! Let's
get down to the reality of automatic busy channel detection.
 
AUTO BUSY DETECTION - THE REALITY
I can tell you from real experience using it on a daily basis in the
ham bands, that automatic busy detection should never be mandatory! 

The reality is, automatic busy detection is a two-edged sword:

Automatic busy detection has big advantages.
Automatic busy detection has big drawbacks. 

WHO IS CURRENTLY USING AUTO BUSY DETECTION?
There are some of us who have been using automatic busy detection with
ALE for a number of years on the ham bands. In fact, I believe the ham
radio ALE network is one of very few nets that currently use automatic
busy detection on a regular basis. 
Does anyone else know of another HF system using auto busy detect?

ADVANTAGES
It helps prevent interfering transmissions when a channel is busy. In
some cases, the busy detector is more reliable than a human operator.
Certainly, even the simplest auto busy detectors are much more
courteous and polite than most "contest operators" or "avid DX
chasers". The auto busy detector can greatly help to enable
automatically controlled stations to interact and cooperate reliably
with manual stations. I've found that it is generally convenient to
use automatic busy detection for normal operation when the radio is
scanning or listening on a channel for stations to connect. It also
provides a polite way to automatically postpone station ID
transmissions until an ongoing QSO on a channel is completed. As an
example, my busy detector is programmed to return to a channel and try
again 6 minutes later.

DISADVANTAGES
Noise can cause false busy channel indication. This prevents use of an
otherwise clear channel. Reliable positive and reliable negative
discrimination for all signal and noise cases may not be dependable or
practical in the ham band environment where any type of signal working
at any QSO level of SNR may be transmitted on any frequency. Some of
these signals may appear as noise or as too weak to be reliably
detected by the human ear, by human eye viewing a waterfall. One clear
example is Olivia MFSK with QSOs operating at -15dB SNR. Most humans
cannot perceive these extreme weak signal QSOs and the busy detector
may not either.
 
ADJACENT CHANNEL INTERFERENCE
Minor adjacent channel interference to a busy-detector-enabled station
has the potential to totally prevent or stop communications. This is
especially important for emergency traffic, and is also important for
reliability on a daily basis. 

ABUSE OF SYSTEM BY INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
If automatic busy detection was to be mandatory or obligatory, all
stations using it would become very tempting targets for nefarious
intentionally interfering operators to abuse the system. Operators
using automatic busy detection would be open to potential abuse when
it becomes known that any intentional QRM will halt their transmissions. 

SUSCEPTABILITY TO INTENTIONAL AMBUSH 
There is great potential for a nefarious operator to lie in wait on a
clear channel, and ambush all others who attempt start a QSO. It would
be possible for any nefarious operator to anonymously stop a bonafide
QSO already in progress, simply by QRMing the automatic busy detector.

REMEDY TO INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
I have personally experienced intentional interference, and
fortunately, I was aware of the situation and simply disabled the auto
busy detector. 

CONCLUSION
In my experience over the past several years, automatic busy detection
seems to work best when no one knows you have it enabled! This goes
hand-in-hand as an option that can be easily turned on/off at will by
the operator. 

Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA

.

[digitalradio] Politics be gone -- THIS THREAD IS OVER

[John Becker]

Let's get back the D-R

John, W0JAB 
list moderator

Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?

[Pete]

Its Radio NZ  DRM operating from Taupo 59+++ here and wipe out fair 
chunk of band !! De Pete ZL2AUB
>
>
>
> Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station
> operating under DRM.
>
> OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very
> similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
> Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> > On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide
> > digital signal that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but
> > only S-5 now. Can anyone tell me what this "noise" is about? It sounds
> > almost at bad as the old Russian jamming signals from years gone by.
> >
> > 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
> >
> >
>
> 
> 
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 26-03-07 
> 2:31 PM
>   

[digitalradio] Digital radio?

[list email filter]

Somehow it seems that the spirit of amateur radio that is supposed to 
advance the radio art, has left the ham shack, and been replaced by a 
fear of anything that might challenge the status quo.

Digital radio is exciting, because in the world of surface mount 
technology, its one of the last refuges for technical innovation 
available to the modern if not average ham, and some of us seem to be 
letting the politics of a single system divert our efforts.  Here we sit 
in the golden age of information and communication... oh forget it, I'm 
heading outside with a slingshot to see if I can get my wires back in 
the trees.

See you on the air!

73,

Erik
N7HMS

[digitalradio] Re: Automatic Busy Channel Detection

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In 
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
te:

BACKGROUND
There has recently been a lot of bloated theoretical talk about
Automatic Busy Detection. My observation is that most of the operators
who glorify it and exalt its virtues, have nearly zero experience
using it on the air! The same guys who have no experience with it,
want to make auto busy detection mandatory for everyone else! 

>>>No one here has suggested making busy frequency detection 
mandatory for everyone. What's been suggested is that unattended 
stations incorporate busy frequency detection in their station 
control software to keep from QRMing pre-existing QSOs.

>snip<

DISADVANTAGES
Noise can cause false busy channel indication. This prevents use of an
otherwise clear channel. Reliable positive and reliable negative
discrimination for all signal and noise cases may not be dependable or
practical in the ham band environment where any type of signal working
at any QSO level of SNR may be transmitted on any frequency. Some of
these signals may appear as noise or as too weak to be reliably
detected by the human ear, by human eye viewing a waterfall. One clear
example is Olivia MFSK with QSOs operating at -15dB SNR. Most humans
cannot perceive these extreme weak signal QSOs and the busy detector
may not either.

>>>A perfect busy frequency detector is not required. Yes, there will 
be false positives, and these will cause unnecessary delays in 
message delivery. However, the systems in question are conveying non-
critial messages where such delays cause no harm -- except during 
emergencies, when busy frequency detectors will have been disabled. 
Yes, there will be situations where a busy detector fails to detect a 
weak or unrecognized signal. If such a detector is only 80% 
effective, it would reduce the incidence of QRM from unattended 
stations by a factor of 5 -- a huge improvement. And as you have 
often argued, amateurs can improve current performance through 
innovation.

 
ADJACENT CHANNEL INTERFERENCE
Minor adjacent channel interference to a busy-detector-enabled station
has the potential to totally prevent or stop communications. This is
especially important for emergency traffic, and is also important for
reliability on a daily basis. 

>>>Discussions here have frequently noted that busy frequency 
detectors should be disabled during emergency conditions.


ABUSE OF SYSTEM BY INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
If automatic busy detection was to be mandatory or obligatory, all
stations using it would become very tempting targets for nefarious
intentionally interfering operators to abuse the system. 

>>>Busy frequency detection need only be incorporated in the software 
that controls unattended stations.


Operators using automatic busy detection would be open to potential 
abuse when it becomes known that any intentional QRM will halt their 
transmissions. 

>>>QRMing an unattended automatic station provides little in the way 
of psychic reward, as no frustrated or angry human response can be 
provoked. An automatic unattended station could easily outlast any 
human QRMer. Again, delayed message delivery would not be a 
significant problem except during emergency conditions, during which 
time busy frequency detection would be disabled. 


SUSCEPTABILITY TO INTENTIONAL AMBUSH 
There is great potential for a nefarious operator to lie in wait on a
clear channel, and ambush all others who attempt start a QSO. It would
be possible for any nefarious operator to anonymously stop a bonafide
QSO already in progress, simply by QRMing the automatic busy detector.

>>>see previous response.


REMEDY TO INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
I have personally experienced intentional interference, and
fortunately, I was aware of the situation and simply disabled the auto
busy detector. 

>>>Clearly your station is attended, not unattended. Recent 
discussions of busy frequency detectors here have focused on their 
incorporation in control software for unattended stations.


CONCLUSION
In my experience over the past several years, automatic busy detection
seems to work best when no one knows you have it enabled! This goes
hand-in-hand as an option that can be easily turned on/off at will by
the operator. 

>>>That conclusion makes sense for those attended stations who chose 
to use a busy frequency detector. We've been discussing busy 
detection in unattended stations.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


   

.
>