[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Here we go again.. la5vna
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF search text
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:47:30 - cesco12342000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This should do it, but untested with wsjt deep search yet. http://www.qslnet.de/member/hb9tlk/deepsearch.html Does this deserve a mention in The Bozo's Guide? The more people that sign up the more useful it will be. Has anyone started using it, and had any success? I only have one SSB transceiver, my IC706, which is in the car most of the time (K1 K2 for CW only in the shack). I only operate digital modes when I bring the 706 in to the house. This tends to be weekends only, so I haven't had a chance to try out the new CALL3.TXT from Cesco's site yet, but a few people are signing up. Wonder what the critical mass is to make it useful? Cheers, John GM4SLV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Hear we go again WHAT ? --- radionorway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here we go again.. la5vna __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] New Digitalradio interactive spotting/sked webpage
I have added a bit of code that calculates the distance and bearing between you and another user, based on your grid squares. As before, hovering over a callsign yields this info. Worth noting is that the distance will be displayed in miles if you have a US or British call, and kilometers for other prefixes. Are there any other countries out there that mainly use miles to measure distance? Anyway, unless any more bugs are uncovered I think it's pretty much done. -Joe, N8FQ On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:31:31 -0400 Connect to http://www.electroblog.com:8090/drsked/drsked.php
[digitalradio] FCC Report and Order on Software and Cognitive Radio
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-66A1.pdf -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up. Hunter S. Thompson
[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Sorry to hear about the cancer. One of the nastier banes of human existence. Actually too many hams don't understand the rules and reg concerning these terms. Read the definition of automatic control. On a simplex frequency, how would a remote station exert control over the transmitting station while it is transmitting? The FCC carefully defines what control of an amateur station consists of. They then go on to define control operator and automatic control and what is required for exerting control. There are only two catagories, a live station control operator (either local or remote) and automatic control. That's all there is. Under the definitions, another station CAN NOT control a station unless it exerting commands that can adjust a transmitter. In this case the station is being operated remotely. Consequently, the term semi-automatic control just does not exist! You may define semi-automatic operation in relation to a communication between a station with a control operator and one with automatic control. Similarly, manual operation may have the connotation of a communication between two stations with control operators or full automatic operation to describe a communication between two automatically controlled stations. These would all be legitmate, but semi-automatic control is not a legitimate description under the FCC Part 97 rules. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fail to discern any value in questioning the legitimacy of the commonly used terms to describe direct operator control, semi-automatic control, and full automatic control, they are self-defining and represent the three categories of real-world operation. Their relative legality is a matter for the FCC to clarify, but they certainly do exist, often in actual documented practice though denied by the tiny minority who are misusing them. John, W0JAB -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ham-macguyver/ Ham House 10 Acres For Sale in Florida: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
[digitalradio] ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile
ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile NEWINGTON, CT, Apr 27, 2007 -- The ARRL has announced it's withdrawing its controversial November 2005 Petition for Rule Making (RM-11306) calling on the FCC to establish a regulatory regime to segment bands by necessary bandwidth rather than by emission mode. The League cited widespread misconceptions surrounding the petition as a primary reason for deciding to remove it from FCC consideration. The ARRL left open the option of refiling the same or a similar petition in the future, however. The withdrawal of the petition will permit a full discussion and consideration of options at the July 2007 meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors, said ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN. The petition then can be recast with a better explanation of its scope and the reasons for the proposed changes. The ARRL Executive Committee recommended withdrawing the petition when it met by teleconference April 10. The ARRL Board of Directors subsequently okayed the EC's recommendation by mail vote. The ARRL Board continues to support the concept of regulation by maximum emission bandwidth as a way to facilitate the eventual transition from analog to digital communication modes. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, emphasized that the League seeks a regulatory framework that's fully compatible with both narrowband and wideband analog emission modes now in common use on the ham bands. Sumner expressed the hope that a refiled regulation-by-bandwidth petition would address -- and hopefully avoid -- widespread misconceptions about RM-11306, either in its original form or as amended earlier this year. Irrespective of the present controversy over the petition's proposals, he pointed out, the League repeatedly sought comment on its regulation-by-bandwidth concepts before filing its petition with the FCC. The ARRL first sounded out the Amateur Radio community regarding regulation-by-bandwidth three years ago. A September 2004 It Seems to Us . . . QST editorial Regulation by Bandwidth followed, explaining the concept and its rationale. Hundreds of subsequent comments from ARRL members and others helped to bring the issues on which the amateur community was not in agreement into focus. That led to a second editorial, Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues, in April 2005 QST, soliciting additional comments on the plan's most contentious points. That drew hundreds more constructive and critical comments, and the ARRL took all input into account in developing a draft petition for the Board's consideration. The ARRL filed the petition in November 2005, and the FCC put it on public notice in January 2006. In all, the amateur community has posted upward of 1000 comments on RM-11306. While some comments appropriately reflected concerns about the proposed substantial shift in regulatory philosophy, others tended to reflect a lack of understanding of existing rules, of the ARRL's proposals, or both. Some expressed the view that the League was attempting to promote or legitimize particular data modes, such as Winlink. The petition, in fact, had nothing specifically to do with Winlink or any other particular data mode, Sumner maintains. It was, rather, a means of facilitating data experimentation, which is somewhat stifled under the current rules that apply almost exclusively to analog modes. A major distraction in the public debate related to automatically controlled data stations, and assertions that adopting the League's petition would permit such facilities to run roughshod over CW and other traditional modes. Sumner says automatic control is not even an essential component of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals, which would leave in place restrictions on automatically controlled stations. Revisions to RM-11306 the ARRL filed earlier this year to accommodate changes in Part 97 that occurred since November 2005 only seemed to generate additional controversy and lead to further confusion, Sumner concedes. Those revisions would have largely confined regulation by bandwidth to the VHF and UHF bands. One misunderstanding resulting from an unintentional editorial error in the League's revisions gave rise to concerns that the ARRL's proposed 3 kHz bandwidth limitation for data emissions represented an expansion of the currently permitted maximum bandwidth. Quite the contrary, Sumner explains. In fact, 3 kHz bandwidth would have been a new limitation, because the present baud rate limit applies to individual carriers, he said. Therefore, for emissions such as OFDM [orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing], which use multiple carriers, there is no effective bandwidth limit in the HF bands now. Sumner notes that under current rules, a single OFDM signal could conceivably -- and legally -- occupy an entire HF band. Harrison assured that the League intends to offer a far better explanation of the consequences of
[digitalradio] What can I do with a Timewave PK-232 DSP ?
Hi I've recently inherited a Timewave PK-232 DSP, which appears to be a high end TNC. The problem I have with the hardware is that the operator manual has been lost and it isn't available from Timewave so I really don't know much about what the PK-232 DSP will do. Does anyone have experience with the PK-232 DSP and can tell me what it's good for? If there's anyone who has an electronic copy of the operator manual and can share it, that would be great. I'm just getting started in Digital Radio (and all of Ham radio - I got my license just a couple of months ago) and I'm interested in the newer modes, particularly JT65A. It doesn't appear that I need pricy hardware like the PK-232 DSP do operate JT65A, but maybe I'm missing something... Thanks John - KI6HUJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Doc (David?), much of your comments are very good but there is one point I would like to disagree with: the Winlink Development Team is very cooperative with people who want to add support for Linux (and I assume OSX). They have gone so far as to make certain code available. Granted, this is not open source but it is very, very cooperative. I did not intend to imply that they were anti-Linux, just that the fully functional app is only available in a proprietary MS version of windows format. Great news to read that they have made their code available for Linux development, too bad the Pactor folks have been less forthcoming despite early promises otherwise. I remain skeptical as to the widespread adoption of radio-Internet links on already crowded Ham spectrum. Sure would seem better to move such ops to new dedicated spectrum being abandoned by shortwave stations and broadcasting SSB links which have moved to satellite and cable. Perhaps a whole new licensing system for radio-Internet ops who are primarily appliance ops. It could become a new stepping stone from computer geeks to Ham Radio! In my opinion, the automatic operation should continue to be limited on the ham bands until busy detection is implemented. It has been my view that automatic operation might be banned from all Ham bands except perhaps the already channelized and hyper-regulated 60M segment. Or, see previous suggestion re. a new Service on new spectrum. :-) You probably know this already but just in case, there is a package called Mono that allows you to run .NET programs on Linux. It may be possible to run WL2K (the PMBO code) with this tool. Also, there is a Linux version of TelPac. I have not heard of Mono, will have to check that out. I have used WINE, it handles some but not all MS apps under Linux. There are a couple of others as well. Is TelPac a complete or partial implementations? Those of us who want to use Linux will need to help work on those versions. Howard I dream of sufficient coding competence to develop anything! What little I did in the past with BASIC, various macros, and a tiny bit with C, has been lost due to lack of use. Even my HTML and JAVA coding is weak. I love the guys on the Puppy Linux forum who can whip up a chunk of code in a heartbeat and who have woven together a magnificent tiny operating system to which it is really easy to add apps. I am trying to learn the process for making what are called DotPups. -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html Ham QTH: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
It doesn't exist legally but does in function. When a Ham, or the ARRL, flips a switch and begins essentially unattended operation without regard to QRM consequences something mid-way between truly attended-local and/or attended-remote operation and 100% unattended automatic/2-way broadcasting is occuring. This type of operation includes an element of broadcasting as a human is not actively involved in checking for QRM nor in detecting efforts to join the conversation. Perhaps we need a new term because automatic has certain specific meanings and broadcasting is one-way. What is happening is that automatic/2-way broadcasting operations are being mislabeled attended-local and/or attended-remote operation when they are *not* human attended. What shall we label this format of operation we definitely need a proper label so that we may then debate the proper boundaries. The FCC carefully defines what control of an amateur station consists of. They then go on to define control operator and automatic control and what is required for exerting control. There are only two catagories, a live station control operator (either local or remote) and automatic control. That's all there is. Under the definitions, another station CAN NOT control a station unless it exerting commands that can adjust a transmitter. In this case the station is being operated remotely. Consequently, the term semi-automatic control just does not exist! -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html Ham QTH: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
[digitalradio] RE: [illinoisdigitalham] ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile
Mathew, I don't think the League is trying to control anything. My guess is that the FCC simply isn't buying the concept! Perhaps it looks too much like an enforcement nightmare. 73, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Matthew Genelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [illinoisdigitalham] ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:50:55 -0500 All- Wow. The league wants total control of boxing new modes into a smaller part of the specrum; meanwhile we keep the analog junker repeaters happy with their bandwidth-hogging transmitters nicely segmented away from new technology. Too bad - you'd think the amateur service would have room for both; antiquated technology and new fangled digital modes. Thanks for the invite to this list -- great discussion taking place on here. Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- Fast Computer Service Co. 612.605.5382 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Thompson Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [illinoisdigitalham] ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile NEWINGTON, CT, Apr 27, 2007 -- The ARRL has announced it's withdrawing its controversial November 2005 Petition for Rule Making (RM-11306) calling on the FCC to establish a regulatory regime to segment bands by necessary bandwidth rather than by emission mode. The League cited widespread misconceptions surrounding the petition as a primary reason for deciding to remove it from FCC consideration. The ARRL left open the option of refiling the same or a similar petition in the future, however. The withdrawal of the petition will permit a full discussion and consideration of options at the July 2007 meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors, said ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN. The petition then can be recast with a better explanation of its scope and the reasons for the proposed changes. The ARRL Executive Committee recommended withdrawing the petition when it met by teleconference April 10. The ARRL Board of Directors subsequently okayed the EC's recommendation by mail vote. The ARRL Board continues to support the concept of regulation by maximum emission bandwidth as a way to facilitate the eventual transition from analog to digital communication modes. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, emphasized that the League seeks a regulatory framework that's fully compatible with both narrowband and wideband analog emission modes now in common use on the ham bands. Sumner expressed the hope that a refiled regulation-by-bandwidth petition would address -- and hopefully avoid -- widespread misconceptions about RM-11306, either in its original form or as amended earlier this year. Irrespective of the present controversy over the petition's proposals, he pointed out, the League repeatedly sought comment on its regulation-by-bandwidth concepts before filing its petition with the FCC. The ARRL first sounded out the Amateur Radio community regarding regulation-by-bandwidth three years ago. A September 2004 It Seems to Us . . . QST editorial Regulation by Bandwidth followed, explaining the concept and its rationale. Hundreds of subsequent comments from ARRL members and others helped to bring the issues on which the amateur community was not in agreement into focus. That led to a second editorial, Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues, in April 2005 QST, soliciting additional comments on the plan's most contentious points. That drew hundreds more constructive and critical comments, and the ARRL took all input into account in developing a draft petition for the Board's consideration. The ARRL filed the petition in November 2005, and the FCC put it on public notice in January 2006. In all, the amateur community has posted upward of 1000 comments on RM-11306. While some comments appropriately reflected concerns about the proposed substantial shift in regulatory philosophy, others tended to reflect a lack of understanding of existing rules, of the ARRL's proposals, or both. Some expressed the view that the League was attempting to promote or legitimize particular data modes, such as Winlink. The petition, in fact, had nothing specifically to do with Winlink or any other particular data mode, Sumner maintains. It was, rather, a means of facilitating data experimentation, which is somewhat stifled under the current rules that apply almost exclusively to analog modes. A major distraction in the public debate related to automatically controlled data
[digitalradio] Announcing the Digitalradio 7th Anniversary WAC Challenge/Award
Announcing the Digitalradio 7th Anniversary WAC Challenge/Award Open to ALL radio amateurs. This May 11th, 2007, the digitalradio email group will be seven years old. We started May1th 2000. To mark this occasion we will be issuing a digital radio challenge, as follows. Your task : Work all continents in seven (7) different modes over a seven day period . Start : UTCMay 11th End : 2359 UTC May 17th Mimimum exchange = callsign and RST (or RO/RRR in FSK441 JT65) Bands: Any bands authorized by license class. Approved digital modes: PSK10, PSK110AMPSK31, PSK63 , PSK125 (QPSK is permitted but will not count as different mode), 45 baud RTTY, ASCII, MFSK 8, MFSK 16 , Olivia (all variants count as one mode) , Dominoex (all speeds count as one mode) , Throb, ALE (including ALE FEC), SSTV /DSSTV, PAX 1 or 2) Chip 128/64, MT63, Packet 300,1200, or 9600 (count as one mode) . , Pactor 1, Amtor, FSK441, JT65, Contestia, RTTYM, Hell, Voice, DRM (WinDRM)., CCW (not plain old CW) . 27 different modes. ARRL rules on WAC will apply The following information should be helpful in determining the continental area of a station located adjacent to a continental boundary. North America includes Greenland (OX) and Panama (HP). South America includes Trinidad Tobago (9Y), Aruba (P4), Curacao Bonaire (PJ2-4) and Easter Island (CE0). Oceania includes Minami Torishima (JD1), Philippines (DU), Eastern Malaysia (9M6-8) and Indonesia (YB). Asia includes Ogasawara Islands (JD1), Maldives (8Q), Socotra Island (7O), Abu Ail Island (J2/A), Cyprus (5B, ZC4), Eastern Turkey (TA2-9) and Georgia (4L). Europe includes the fourth and sixth call areas of Russia (R1-6), Istanbul (TA1), all Italian islands (I) and Azores (CU). Africa includes Ceuta Melilla (EA9), Madeira (CT3), Gan Island (8Q), French Austral Territory (FT) and Heard Island (VK0) Antarctica is not required. So, work WAC on seven separate modes. 42 QSOs in one week. Certificates to all that compete the challenge and submit a log to K3UK by May 31, 2007. -- Andy K3UK Owner. Digitalradio. 2746 subscribers
[digitalradio] Off-topic, but any help appreciated
I'll understand if the moderators boot this! Anyone have any experience with a computer simply turning itself off for no apparent reason? I get no error messages, and no warning of any type. When I turn it back on, it comes on fine, without even going through chkdisk, as if it was turned off intentionally. This is a Gateway Pentium IV, 3.4 Ghz unit with 1G of RAM. No other signs of trouble. Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of via the reflector. I hate burning good bandwidth for OT stuff. Thanks in advance Dave KB3MOW
[digitalradio] We need a competition
I was thinking about the whole conundrum of PactorIII the other day, well after getting clobbered by a PT III MB coming up in the middle of my QSO on 40 meters, I started to think about it, and thought you know what I need, I need a tool that lets me decode Pactor III transmissions. Let me look at who the operator of the Pactor III MBO is, and what the traffic is that is so important that one of those *()*(**( machines can come up in the middle of an on going QSO, and what sort of very important traffic was being passed. Then I thought that I was too cheap to go out and buy a Pactor III modem just so I could play like I am an OO and report people to the FCC for using amateur frequencies for commercial means by monitoring Pactor III MBO's and forgot about it a bit. Then I got PO'd over the idot MBO that came up on top of my QSO, and realized that I had no way of telling who the idot MBO was. So thinking that I am cheap and at the same time thinking I'm PO'd about this, I thought well maybe if a group of people put up a bounty, a prize, staged a contest, what ever you want to call it for the first software developer who can come up with a stand alone Pactor III reception and decoding program, that would be just the ticket for me to find out who the jammers are behind the Pactor III system. Heck might even be able to look at some of the traffic which needs to be run over our scarce HF resources, and which we have all been assured is not commercial. Just imagine, every keyboard jockey running Fldigi, gMFSK, MixW, Multi PSK or one of the others out there firing up a program to monitor and report to the FCC any violations of the regulations of the Amateur service, like commercial use of amateur radio spectrum. Quite a vision of the future. So do you think the ARRL would sponsor this contest, or should a group of like minded amateurs pass the hat and start the contest? A random rant.
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile
ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition Although this might delay USA hams' release from Technology Jail, perhaps it will lead to the development of a better bandwidth-based spectrum management plan, without the need for AM phone loophole contortions, ridiculously narrow 200Hz bandwidth segments, voice-prohibition bands, or data-prohibition bands. Perhaps this will also lead to more reasonable HF Automatic Subbands that could work toward pleasing both sides of the aisle such as: 1980-2000 kHz 3575-3630 kHz 7100-7125 kHz 10135-10150 kHz 14100-14125 kHz 18080-18110 kHz 21100-21150 kHz 24900-24930 kHz 28100-28200 kHz It would be good to see band segmentation at more reasonable power/bandwidths (necessary bandwidth): 500Hz at 1.5kW PEP Transmitter Power 3kHz at 1.5kW PEP Transmitter Power 5kHz at 100W PEP Effective Radiated Power in the General SubBands 10kHz at 100W PEP Effective Radiated Power in the Extra SubBands 500Hz Bandwidth limitation is not needed on some bands, but it would be helpful on 80-17m bands. Some suggestions for 500Hz SubBand segmentation: 3500-3535 kHz 7000-7025 kHz 10100-10115 kHz 14000-14025 kHz 18068-18075 kHz This could go along with a reduction of the Extra-only segments at the bottom of the 80m and 40m bands to: 3500-3510 kHz 7000-7010 kHz -- 73---Bonnie KQ6XA (Trying out the new Nomex catsuit)
Re: [digitalradio] We need a competition
A good random rant ! Even if someone enabled the code in free soundcard software,. Maybe someone has a Pactor III modem that can be accessed via the web?If we ran audio from our rigs to a web interfaced modem, would it decode the audio? Andy On 4/27/07, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about the whole conundrum of PactorIII the other day, well after getting clobbered by a PT III MB coming up in the middle of my QSO on 40 meters, I started to think about it, and thought you know what I need, I need a tool that lets me decode Pactor III transmissions. Let me look at who the operator of the Pactor III MBO is, and what the traffic is that is so important that one of those *()*(**( machines can come up in the middle of an on going QSO, and what sort of very important traffic was being passed. Then I thought that I was too cheap to go out and buy a Pactor III modem just so I could play like I am an OO and report people to the FCC for using amateur frequencies for commercial means by monitoring Pactor III MBO's and forgot about it a bit. Then I got PO'd over the idot MBO that came up on top of my QSO, and realized that I had no way of telling who the idot MBO was. So thinking that I am cheap and at the same time thinking I'm PO'd about this, I thought well maybe if a group of people put up a bounty, a prize, staged a contest, what ever you want to call it for the first software developer who can come up with a stand alone Pactor III reception and decoding program, that would be just the ticket for me to find out who the jammers are behind the Pactor III system. Heck might even be able to look at some of the traffic which needs to be run over our scarce HF resources, and which we have all been assured is not commercial. Just imagine, every keyboard jockey running Fldigi, gMFSK, MixW, Multi PSK or one of the others out there firing up a program to monitor and report to the FCC any violations of the regulations of the Amateur service, like commercial use of amateur radio spectrum. Quite a vision of the future. So do you think the ARRL would sponsor this contest, or should a group of like minded amateurs pass the hat and start the contest? A random rant. -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition Good why don't they resubmit with a new regulatory standard that no proprietary waveforms will be allowed to operate on any Amateur radio frequency? If you want to use your modulation/coding scheme on Amateur frequencies, you would be required to release under say the GPL scheme. That would allow independent software developers to develop tools which allow the amateur community to self police operations and monitor operations and traffic, precluding the real or imagined issue of commercial use of Amateur radio spectrum...full stop.
[digitalradio] Re: We need a competition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A good random rant ! Even if someone enabled the code in free soundcard software,. Maybe someone has a Pactor III modem that can be accessed via the web?If we ran audio from our rigs to a web interfaced modem, would it decode the audio? Andy Nope...I am suggesting a free program that allows the thousands of digital hams to self police, monitor and report operations of Pactor III MBO's which do not follow the law and the spirit of amateur radio operations, specifically prohibitions of use of amateur radio for commercial proposes. Every one of these PT III MBO's operating on Amateur frequencies should be held to high standard of making sure that the service is not being used for commercial purposesever! The only way to insure that standard is the tradition of self policing that amateur radio was built on, and is impossible now that there is a closed proprietary modulation and coding scheme in use on our bands. I'm not even talking about the technical issue about being able to converse in this mode, merely monitor it, which by the way MixW can do for Packtor I right now I believe.
[digitalradio] The BOZO guide in Spanish
Dear friends: Yesterday I sent by mail to K3UK a file with my translation to spanish of the superb Bozo'z Guide for JT65A. It is like a modest contribution to the nice work of Andrew, in the hope that it be usefull to everybody and contribute in the develop of the digital modes. Thanks again. Juan Carlos LU9DO
[digitalradio] e-mail over HF
What I would like to see developed is a MS OS version of PSKmail so that this technology could be used to a greater degree here in the U.S. Linux adoption is very low yet and probably will be this way for many years in this part of the world. Automatic operation has been with us for many years and it would be very unlikely for the FCC to rescind the rules on RTTY/data automatic operation. Especially considering the strong support from the ARRL that got this adopted a decade or so ago. What I personally would like to see are cross platform, inter-operative narrow to medium bandwidth, non-proprietary modes for messaging on HF so that the bands are shared more equitably instead of having stations with extreme wide bandwidth operation and which are inefficient users of the spectrum compared to many narrow, but simultaneous users being able to communicated on our shared frequencies. When you use Mono, don't you have to write programs with this in mind? Or can you actually convert existing programs? My impression is that you need to develop programs that can access the Mono API and C# language. 73, Rick, KV9U kd4e wrote: I remain skeptical as to the widespread adoption of radio-Internet links on already crowded Ham spectrum. --- It has been my view that automatic operation might be banned from all Ham bands except perhaps the already channelized and hyper-regulated 60M segment. --- I have not heard of Mono, will have to check that out. I have used WINE, it handles some but not all MS apps under Linux. There are a couple of others as well.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile
Why is a 200 cy bandwidth ridiculous? I was greatly love to see that, where we are using PSK. Why do you want 500 cy on 3.5-3.535? Thats CW country and that would only draw other modes into where the CW DX is. Likewise 40-30-20 and 17 meters. We dont need 500cy for cw do we? And EXCUS ME? Dropping the Extra only segments to 10 kc on 40 and 80? I passed that test in order to get 25 KC. You will have a heck of a sales job on that one. Bonnie, there are still many of us that arent interested one iota in automatic modes, and probably the majority of those are the very ones working down in that lower segment. You will never sell ME on it. This is exactly the reason the ARRL is drawing back on this to start with. Any change at all is going to make a LARGE segment of amateurs very unhappy. I certainly see a reason for bandwidth management, but not at this cost. 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: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:57 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition, Plans to Refile ARRL Withdraws Regulation by Bandwidth Petition Although this might delay USA hams' release from Technology Jail, perhaps it will lead to the development of a better bandwidth-based spectrum management plan, without the need for AM phone loophole contortions, ridiculously narrow 200Hz bandwidth segments, voice-prohibition bands, or data-prohibition bands. Perhaps this will also lead to more reasonable HF Automatic Subbands that could work toward pleasing both sides of the aisle such as: 1980-2000 kHz 3575-3630 kHz 7100-7125 kHz 10135-10150 kHz 14100-14125 kHz 18080-18110 kHz 21100-21150 kHz 24900-24930 kHz 28100-28200 kHz It would be good to see band segmentation at more reasonable power/bandwidths (necessary bandwidth): 500Hz at 1.5kW PEP Transmitter Power 3kHz at 1.5kW PEP Transmitter Power 5kHz at 100W PEP Effective Radiated Power in the General SubBands 10kHz at 100W PEP Effective Radiated Power in the Extra SubBands 500Hz Bandwidth limitation is not needed on some bands, but it would be helpful on 80-17m bands. Some suggestions for 500Hz SubBand segmentation: 3500-3535 kHz 7000-7025 kHz 10100-10115 kHz 14000-14025 kHz 18068-18075 kHz This could go along with a reduction of the Extra-only segments at the bottom of the 80m and 40m bands to: 3500-3510 kHz 7000-7010 kHz -- 73---Bonnie KQ6XA (Trying out the new Nomex catsuit) 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
[digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of via the reflector. I hate burning good bandwidth for OT stuff. Thanks in advance Dave KB3MOW Dave Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap.
