Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[Alan Barrow]

Brent Gourley wrote:
> Please check for your email preferences for each email address you use
> on yahoo. If you leave one particular block unchecked, then a list
> owner/moderator cannot send you invitations to join his group.
I believe the messages were sent direct via email, not through the yahoo
groups "Invitation" system. The check box you mentioned had no effect on
his emails.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

[digitalradio] Re: on another note

[jhaynesatalumni]

Something I forgot to mention earlier in suggesting a Pentium with
sound card might be usable as a dedicated DSP engine - the K6STI
software absolutely required an ISA SoundBlaster.  If we want to
define a new DSP engine we need some higher level of abstraction
to be able to cope with hardware that becomes unobtainable.

This is also a problem with other kinds of DSP engines out there -
sooner or later you can't get the DSP chip and the A/D and D/A
chips that you can today.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: on another note

[Rick W]

While the Pactor 2 and 3 modes are quite good, they do use a constant 
100 baud signaling rate. SCS indicated a number of years ago that their 
tests showed that with what at that time, they considered strong DSP, 
the desire for improved data throughput and  I think resistance to 
Doppler, the 100 baud speed was a good compromise. However, under some 
circumstances, primarily severe ISI multipath, there are going to be 
times that these modes simply do not work and some sound card modes may 
work, albeit at very slow speeds.

SCS also claimed that they could work down to around -15 dB SNR or so, 
but others have pointed out that there really is not much, if any 
throughput at that point, but it can maintain the link. Reminds me how 
frustrated I used to be with Clover II. I would be connecting to Ray, 
W7GHM, the inventor of Clover and Clover II (and CCW), but we would have 
very little throughput between his island in Washington state an my QTH 
in SW Wisconsin:(

The reason that Pactor 2 and 3 modes work so well overall, is the 
ability to scale. No one has had either the desire or ability to design 
a new sound card mode with this adaptive ability except on a limited 
basis with the SCAMP protocol developed by KN6KB, who is also the 
developer of WINMOR. But as I always say, it only takes one person. And 
maybe others will now be willing to help develop the open protocol for 
other uses that we need. Especially because it will have a very narrow 
200 Hz mode as well as 500 and wider modes. This has tremendous potential.

As QST showed some time back, even a low end sound card does quite well 
with sound card modes. Maybe it could be shown that a more sophisticated 
sound card protocol needs a superior sound card but WINMOR is been 
tested with the Tigertronics Signalink USB which has one of the lower 
quality sound cards with a relatively poor SNR and low frequency noise 
products that you likely won't find on a built-in card. A modest ~ $30 
sound card such as the Creative Soundblaster Audigy SE might have at 
least a magnitude or even several magnitudes better SNR.

The test that I perform, (and all digital hams really should) is to 
monitor my own signal with a nearby receiver and determine whether there 
is any noticeable rise in background noise when you key the sound card 
with no signal. With the aforementioned Audigy SE, I can not hear 
anything. With my SL-USB it is of course another story:( Even so, the 
SL-USB has its place, in my view, for ease of use and particularly for 
emergency situations where you want to keep things as simply as possible.

The problem with the proprietary SCS products is that 99.9% of hams will 
never have such a modem so you can obviously not expect P2 and P3 to 
communicate with very many other hams. Its main forte is for e-mail to 
get to the internet via HF distances using Winlink 2000. Although rarely 
needed, some hams who travel might find it convenient. If I was an RV or 
blue water mariner, I would give serious consideration to buying this 
kind of product. For casual ham use it has minimal value since the whole 
point is to contact other hams who have similar technology and almost 
none have it and they don't use it for keyboard contacts as (believe it 
or not) we used to do with Amtor, Pactor, and Clover II.

As Jim points out, Pactor could be run on DOS based computers (K6STI and 
a later version of BMKMulti with some basic interface such as a AEA 
CP-1, etc.), but some claimed the capabilities were not as good. I have 
a friend who likes old stuff and scrounging and he runs Pactor with some 
kind of DOS set up for MARS. With Pactor 2 and 3, this is not possible 
due to licensing issues, even if the computer could handle the timing.

WINMOR should perform better than Pactor and may be competitive with P2 
in terms of speed although I am not sure about robustness. And to do 
that it will have to be as wide as some of the widest P3 speed levels, 
so it is perhaps not a totally fair comparison since P2 is ~ 500 Hz.

I think there are more than a few of us who are excited about the 
direction things seem to be going.

73,

Rick, KV9U






jhaynesatalumni wrote:
>
> I would say that adapting to changing band conditions and utilizing
> FEC as much as possible are not inherent limitations of sound card
> modems, but are simply artifacts of the higher-level protocols.
> There's the modulation scheme layer, and the encoding layer where
> the FEC is applied, and then an adaptive layer that comes in 
> where the sender gets feedback from the receiver that things are
> not going very well and something else should be tried.  Now this
> layer may call for a change down in the modulation scheme layer,
> to use something more robust and slower when things are not going
> well, and to hop up to something faster and less robust when
> conditions permit.
>
> I think you're right too about the quality of sound cards.  What we
> get with onboard sound or with the low-priced

[digitalradio] Re: MF Tele Type

[Andrew O'Brien]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "ea3aqs"  wrote:
>
> Isn't there a Yahoo Group concerning that mode MF Tele Type ?
>


I am not sure but the author and many users are active in this group.

Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] Moderator Statement : illinoisdigital group

[Andrew O'Brien]

I would suggest that this topic be left alone.  The Illinois group is
gone  and I am sure the owner will do what he can to defend his
reputation.  I do not wish to have this issue played out further via
the digitalradio group.  Since Rick has confirmed what I suspected
(Yahoo took the Illinois group down), I will ask that the issue be
dropped from this board.  I considered it a "related" matter since the
Illinois group was a digital radio group, albeit a competing group.
Now the mystery is over, please use this digitalradio group for its
primary purpose.  We approach our 9th anniversary as the leading
digital mode group, thanks to many varied contributors.

Andy K3UK
Owner
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Tim N9PUZ]

Chuck Mayfield wrote:
> I only wish Yahoo would find another sponser for the group.
> What happened to all the good information in the files section?
> What happened to all the good information in the posts?
> Who actually owns the posts by group members?
> Are we all to be punished?

I know nothing about this specific case but own and moderate several 
groups so I know a little about Yahoo in general.

The worst thing for any Yahoo group is to have one single owner. If 
that owner's email begins bouncing or the owner gets banned from Yahoo 
the group ends up in limbo until it is deleted for inactivity. It's my 
understanding that Yahoo will not turn it over to anyone else, even 
someone who was a moderator, but not an owner, of the group.

Tim, N9PUZ

RE: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[Scott Gillis N3UJJ]

Rick,

 

I know for a fact that several members of this group (including myself)
complained directly to Mark about his REPEATED invitations (which he
ignored) so the complaints were forwarded to Yahoo.

 

 

Scott Gillis N3UJJ 
  My Hamshack
  My Current Location
  My Amateur Weather Station

 

Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.
~Abraham Lincoln~

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Rick W
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 09:07
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

 

If it is true that Yahoo will just stop a group based on complaints, 
then that is very troubling as it could happen to any group with 
malicious activities by certain individuals making false claims.

However, he indicated that he had no warning from Yahoo.

As owner of another group that had Mark's posts at times, which were 
repeated on various groups, the material he was presenting was not spam 
that I saw, but directly associated with amateur radio, usually digital 
radio.

If you are referring to sending information to an individual to join a 
group, is that spam when it is related to their interest area? I have 
sent messages to specific individuals to join the HFDEC group when I 
felt that they would be the type of hams who would find that of value.

I admit that Mark was a major promoter of his specific digital 
interests, but we each have our specific interests.

73,

Rick, KV9U
moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications)

James R. Gorr wrote:
> Maybe it was because of all the spam requests sent to join their group.
>
>
> 

[digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Scott Gillis]

Rick,

I think we have reached the point of beating a dead horse (so to speak)

But for the record, Mark never had the courtesy or respect, to reply to 
a single person.

And most likely ignored Yahoo's eMails also.

I see that he removed all references to illinoisdigital group from his 
QRZ profile about 10 days ago.

Scott Gillis (N3UJJ)

[digitalradio] Re: Using CTSS on a digipeater?

[vinceinwaukesha]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Breitenfeldt" 
 wrote:
>
> If I wanted to setup a "closed" Digipreater on 145.09 Mhz on a high 
> mountain peak, so that I could limit activity to only ECOM traffic,
> would the use of a CTSS tone decode be a viable option?  Would a 
CTSS 
> tone interfere with Packet operations?

A) What is there about ECOM that would inherently make only ECOM 
communications use CTCSS?  Most of the plain ole analog voice 
repeaters around here use CTCSS on the input.  Perhaps in some areas 
only ECOM radios have CTCSS tones, but not here nor most areas.

B) What is there to gain by making sure that the ECOM infrastructure 
is only tested by real genuine ECOM traffic vs continuous testing by 
random hams?  Far better to find out the digi is desensed or the amp 
is fried under non-ECOM conditions.

C) Also since somewhere around 99% of actual emergency communications 
is handled by casual operators whom rise to the occasion, I'm not 
sure most emergency comms would be able to use a confusingly 
configured "closed" digipeater.

So, moral and ethical issues aside, what are the technical problems:

1) SLOW CTCSS on some radios.  Neither you nor anyone else using the 
digipeater can use a radio that is slow, or at least you'll have to 
slow the TXDELAY down to the speed of the slowest CTCSS decoder on 
the channel...  Assuming everyone configures correctly, it'll merely 
be slow, but more likely they'll have massive retransmit problems.

2) Hidden Xmitter problems mean this simply cannot work.  If either 
the users or the digi filter out non-CTCSS traffic to only 
hear "closed" traffic, then they'll transmit on top of the more 
legitimate "open" traffic because the TNCs will think the frequency 
is open.  The end result is no thruput for either the "closed" users 
or "open" users, just alot of interference.

73 de Vince N9NFB EN53ua

[digitalradio] Moderator Gone Wild: illinoisdigital group

[expeditionradio]

Since illinoisdigitalham group is now gone, there 
has been quite a lot of discussion about it.

It seems that Mark's rise to power as a group owner 
and especially, as a moderator, was rather sudden. 
Many of the successful group owners and moderators 
have developed their groups over many years, working 
up to it slowly and gaining their experience. In Mark's 
quest for an instantly huge membership for his group, 
it seems that he may have lost sight of an essential 
part of how this is done... through Netiquette. 

Netiquette is not just about being polite in public.
It is an essential part of co-existing with others 
on the internet peacefully. Spamming, one of the 
"deadly sins of Netiquette", will get one into 
deep doo-doo trouble, even if it is for a good cause :)
Cross-posting is another delicate Netiquette issue. 
But, harvesting the email addresses of ham operators 
from groups, to spam those hams, is one of the things 
that will bring down the wrath of many internet-savvy 
individuals upon the perpetrator.
 
Most group members have higher expectations for the 
behavior of moderators than they do for the average 
person on a group. Moderators are expected to be 
angels and saints, even in the face of the slings and 
arrows of insult and indignation. They are looked to, 
for guidance in solving disputes, while simultaneously 
serving as sergeant-at-arms to police the group when 
a bad boy can't be talked down through gentle persuasion. 

In all of these situations, it seems that Mark might 
have had high aspirations to do the right thing. 
But perhaps, did a quest for power eclipse an otherwise 
very beneficial endeavor? Perhaps we won't get to know the 
answer to that.

Before I go on, I want to personally say that I've 
never harbored any ill will toward Mark. I was very 
supportive of him and his initial efforts to build a 
group about digital ham radio. I had nothing to do with 
Yahoo's action leading to his account being terminated 
for violation of Yahoo's Terms of Use. Now that the 
illinoisdigitalham group has been deleted by Yahoo, 
there are a huge number of hams out there who are 
coming forward about their experiences with spam 
from Mark, and their attempts to get him to stop. 

I will add my own interesting experience with Mark 
that happened on illinoisdigitalham group. It is 
a typical example of moderator Netiquette failure:

I posted a message on illinoisdigitalham group, as 
part of an ongoing discussion about FCC digital 
rules. In this particular case, Mark intercepted 
my message with his moderator control panel. 
Before my message was posted to the group, Mark 
secretly changed the text of my message, to have the 
exact opposite meaning from what I had written. 
Then he let it go to the group, as if what he 
wrote had been written by me. It looked just like 
a message from me, but it was from Mark. He 
wrote some erroneous things. Everyone thought it 
was a posting from me. Mark never gave any explanation,
he never even gave a hint to others about what he had done :) 
I wrote another message to the group that explained 
what had happened, and Mark blocked it. 

In an exchange of private email with Mark, he refused 
to provide any explanation on what he had done, 
and refused to retract it on the group. At that point, 
there was nothing I could do but accept the fact 
that anything sent on his group could be twisted by 
him into a falsehood at his whim. So, I curtailed my 
participation in his group from then on. 

In private correspondence with other hams, I 
discovered that I wasn't alone in my experience... 
several other hams had exactly the same or similar things 
happen with Mark and his group. 

Even after my personal bad experience with Mark, 
I continued to allow Mark to post and participate 
in all of the groups that I moderate, with the 
proviso that he always follow the group guidelines 
like the rest of the membership. For the most 
part he did so. But recently, I found out that he 
had been harvesting email addresses from postings 
on my groups, and adding them to his mass email 
address list for spammings. 

Those hams were not too happy about it. Some of 
them complained to Yahoo. 

As they say 
"What Goes Around Comes Around".

Does the saga of illinoisdigitalham end here? 
illinoisdigitalham is gone... for now.
Will it re-appear in another incarnation?
Perhaps this experience will serve as an 
example for groups, on what to avoid in the future.

Running a large group for hams, or any other 
circle of interest, is not an easy thing to do. 
Yahoo isn't easy to deal with, they can really 
cause problems for owners of groups. The membership 
takes constant time and energy. There is 
pressure from all sides.

Moderators and group owners are human. They are 
prone to the same human frailties that every other 
mortal on this planet endures.  

I wish Mark all the best of good fortune in 
whatever endeavors in ham radio he pursues in the 
future. 

Best Warm Re

Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[Brent Gourley]

I also own and or moderate groups in other endeavors.

Please check for your email preferences for each email address you use on 
yahoo. If you leave one particular block unchecked, then a list owner/moderator 
cannot send you invitations to join his group.


KE4MZ, Brent
Dothan, AL
bg...@comcast.net
www.wb4zpi.org


  - Original Message - 
  From: JAMES ROSPOPO 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group


Rick,

Please read Yahoo's Terms of Use, which is at the bottom of each 
email..  Pay particular attention to the spam policy within the Terms of Use..  
It says in there that your Yahoo ID can be terminated without notice for 
violating that policy.  What Mark was doing fits one of the examples of 
spamming as listed in the spam policy.  Also remember when each of us signed up 
for Yahoogroups we had to accept the conditions of the Terms of Use.  So we 
were informed of what is expected and not allowed when we signed up.

73's

Jim, KE4CON



--- On Mon, 2/23/09, Rick W  wrote:

  From: Rick W 
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group
  To: digitalra...@yahoogroups..com
  Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 1:59 PM


  I agree that what Mark did was clearly overzealous. If he did this to 
my 
  group I could see that he could be removed or better yet blocked from 
  posting if you don't want to deal with having to moderate each 
message. 
  That would have given him a stronger message.

  But the fact is that you would not find a stronger promoter of 
digital 
  ham radio anyplace. Consider the effort and cost he has donated to 
the 
  cause with his promotional efforts and travel.

  I can see where Yahoo could threaten him with taking down the group 
if 
  they really have received the number of complaints that posters have 
  indicated.

  What I have a real problem with is if they did not warn him. I do not 
  think it is appropriate to just destroy a group without some warning. 
If 
  they had warned him and he continued to do the messaging, then that 
is 
  another thing. Otherwise, as I mentioned, a concerted effort by 
  malicious individuals could cause the destruction of any group.

  73,

  Rick, KV9U

  John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
  > Rick this is true but I must ask is there really a need to post it
  > to every ham list on yahoo? I was getting it 20 or so times.
  >
  > On the list that I either own or moderate he was set to "no mail".
  > This tells me one thing only. He did not want anything going to his 
  > in box and must have been reading from the group site.
  >
  > But since he never posted to the list other them his SPAM that 
  > tells me the he also never read anything at all.
  >
  > There is a move about to keep him off yahoo.
  > What do you think is going to happen the next time?
  >
  > John, W0JAB
  >
  > 

   



  

Re: [digitalradio] on another note

[Howard Brown]

Hi John,

Let's reserve judgment just a bit longer.  Maybe the performance of Winmor will 
be good enough so that we won't need to buy the expensive modems.  Maybe it 
will listen before transmitting.

Now if they would modify the Winlink system so that it listened before 
transmitting and there was some competition to bring prices down, maybe more of 
us would be interested in Pactor 3. As it is, it should not be operating in the 
amateur bands.

Howard K5HB





From: John Bradley 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; hfl...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: multi...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:47:46 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] on another note


 As many of you know, I have been very active with digital
communications over the past number of years, eagerly testing the latest and
greatest, and was honored when Andy gave me recognition last year in with his
digital awards. I have been and continue to be a strong proponent of digital
communications within the emergency services field, have worked in emergency
services as a planner, communicator, trainer and consultant. This, as well as a
passion for Search and Rescue is a summary of most of my ham radio activities
over the past 20 years.
 
I have been known to be somewhat outspoken at times, I have
locked horns with Bonnie more than once, I have had interesting off post 
political
commentaries with Roger the lawyer, and from time to time, been called anti 
American,
anti Canadian, Anti Ham, anti pactor, and anti auntie, even. I have gleefully
participated in some of the lively debates on these posts and have come awfully
close to being punted by moderator Andy. So you are asking yourself by now,
where is this crazy Cannuck going with all this??
 
Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the light (
actually a whole mess of little ones but who is counting)
 
Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2
usb modem with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what
this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried, including
RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else I have tried. I
have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000 miles away on what I would
call a “dead” band. I have connected to RMS stations at least 500
miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and resumed these connections by
about 3PM , still when nothing else could be heard on the band. 
 
I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would
work 10db into the noise. At the time my reactions was “yah,right!!!”
but it really does. If you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has
undergone an abrupt change of direction, from using soundcard modes with
internet access, to using P3 for primary links and sound card modes for the
last mile or so…… and would like to hear other opinions.
 
we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are
expensive, the operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc
etc.  but how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard
software? 
 
John
VE5MU
   

[digitalradio] Re: on another note

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rud Merriam"  wrote:
>
> First, I would not dismiss sound card modes. I think there is much more
> that can be done with them. One of the main issues IMO is that they
> don't (1) adapt to changing band conditions, and (2) don't utilize FEC
> as much as is possible. (We also might need much better sound cards.
>

I would say that adapting to changing band conditions and utilizing
FEC as much as possible are not inherent limitations of sound card
modems, but are simply artifacts of the higher-level protocols.
There's the modulation scheme layer, and the encoding layer where
the FEC is applied, and then an adaptive layer that comes in 
where the sender gets feedback from the receiver that things are
not going very well and something else should be tried.  Now this
layer may call for a change down in the modulation scheme layer,
to use something more robust and slower when things are not going
well, and to hop up to something faster and less robust when
conditions permit.

I think you're right too about the quality of sound cards.  What we
get with onboard sound or with the low-priced add-in boards is the
lowest grade the consumer will accept.  You can't blame the
manufacturer for providing that when the consumer will accept such
junk - I mean if all you are going to use it for is to listen to
loud, intentionally-distorted rock music then you aren't going to
care much about signal to noise ratio or linearity.

You can find some sound card evaluations on the web; and some have
been discussed on this group.  There are really good ones, but
then the prices are up there with the dedicated DSP engines like
the SCS modems.  The challenge is to find one that is good enough -
and considering all the noise and crud of the HF channel maybe it
doesn't have to be very good to be good enough.

The big win for sound card modems is that everybody has one already,
and that lots of people are writing software that can use them,
so lots of experimentation is going on.  We've already got dozens
of digital soundcard modes that nobody uses because they have not
attracted enough attention or shown enough superiority over others
to make people want to use them.
  
> Second, further gains could be made using external DSP boards.
> These are not that expensive today.

What we are talking about here are products that have their own
DSP processor and memory and A/D/A conversion, and you can
download the firmware that runs the DSP from a PC.  The advantage
seems to be that the DSP processor is not getting interrupted by 
all the other activity that is going on in the PC; and the receiver
can maintain synchronism with the transmitter over a long period
of time.  This is presumably important for some modulation and coding
schemes - they can spend as much time as they want getting
synchronized initially, and then they don't need to spend much
effort to stay synchronized afterward.

The problem we all realize is that there is no single DSP engine
out there that we have all agreed to use and therefore people have
an incentive to write software for; so it remains a niche activity.
I recall this is where PSK was before the sound card software was
developed - it ran on a dedicated DSP engine and so few people had
them that there was little incentive for others to get them.

If the SCS products were (are?) open to third-party development,
so that others might write PSK or MFSK or Olivia modems to run
on them, perhaps we would all buy them and quit using the sound
cards.  I don't think it's realistic to expect SCS or any other
vendor to spend their own money to add popular modes to their
products, esp. when the sound card versions are out there for free.
There once was the HAL PCI-4K DSP modem developed for Clover but
later adapted to run RTTY and Pactor-I.  Clover was once used
for message-passing systems as well as for conversational operation.
I don't know how relatively good or bad it was as a modulation
scheme compared to some of the others.  It seemed to me that a
main drawback could have been remedied - it seemed to get stuck
trying to send a long block when conditions were too poor and
for some reason it could not fall back to sending short blocks
which might get through.

There also once was the K6STI RITTY software that was designed
to run under DOS and for a while could run Pactor-I as well as
RTTY.  This leads me to wonder if a suitable DSP engine could
be made from a PC and a sound card but not running a general
purpose operating system.  Maybe FreeDOS is a candidate for
the operating system, or maybe we just need a single-minded
loader that can load and run a single PC program and communicate
with another PC over Ethernet or USB or even RS-232.  The
other PC running a conventional OS would handle the higher-levels
of protocol and the user interface.

Jim W6JVE

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Chuck Mayfield]

I only wish Yahoo would find another sponser for the group.
What happened to all the good information in the files section?
What happened to all the good information in the posts?
Who actually owns the posts by group members?
Are we all to be punished?

John, Exactly how does one actually contact Yahoo??

Chuck AA5J

Rick W wrote:
>
> It sounds like either Mark is being dishonest with me, or your contact
> had inside information that he did not share with Mark.
>
> I too would think that Yahoo gave a warning, but at this point we just
> don't know.
>
> Don't bitch about Mark being reinstated as long as he stops his over
> promotion of digital. It is too bad that he could not channel his
> enthusiasm for digital in a more productive manner. It is rare to find
> many who really try to promote digital and while you might think it is a
> gain to be rid of him, I think that it is really more of a net loss.
>
> Talking about the stock market right now is depressing though. I wonder
> if we can ever recover from our current losses we already have, not to
> mention the possibility of further losses if we really do go into a
> depression. Never thought we would have something like this happen in my
> lifetime. But the checks and balances were all bought and sold by the
> rich it appears:( Pretty sad country we now live in.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
> John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> > DIRECT MESSAGE -
> >
> > Rick
> > He was warn many many times.
> > People have been bitching at him for the last 2 years.
> >
> > I was myself was not told if yahoo gave any warning but
> > one would think they did before taking any action.
> > But what I do know is that they (yahoo) saw the same post
> > going to some 43 list it opened eyes. The day he got booted
> > my contact told me he would be removed that day.
> >
> > I for one talk to the corp office as a yahoo stock holder
> > about 6 weeks ago. And if he is reinstated I'll be bitching
> > with a very loud voice. And if he reinstated I will sell ALL
> > of the close to 93K shares.
> >
> > You know what they say - money talks and bullshit walks.
> > I put a hell of a lot of money into yahoo when I sold my
> > company 3 years ago.
> >
> > John
> >
>
> 

Re: [digitalradio] on another note

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi John

I have had the same experience . I have also been testing the SCS PTC2
usb modem with a pactor3. Although  I love Patrick's ale400 mode , I
have to admit ,

nothing can compete with the P3 mode. 


73 de la5vna Steinar 

John Bradley wrote:

>

>  As many of you know, I have been very active with digital
communications over the past number of years, eagerly testing the
latest and greatest, and was honored when Andy gave me recognition last
year in with his digital awards. I have been and continue to be a
strong proponent of digital communications within the emergency
services field, have worked in emergency services as a planner,
communicator, trainer and consultant. This, as well as a passion for
Search and Rescue is a summary of most of my ham radio activities over
the past 20 years.


> I have been known to be somewhat outspoken at times, I have locked
horns with Bonnie more than once, I have had interesting off post
political commentaries with Roger the lawyer, and from time to time,
been called anti American, anti Canadian, Anti Ham, anti pactor, and
anti auntie, even. I have gleefully participated in some of the lively
debates on these posts and have come awfully close to being punted by
moderator Andy. So you are asking yourself by now, where is this crazy
Cannuck going with all this??



> Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the light ( actually a whole 
> mess of little ones but who is counting)



> Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb
modem with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by
what this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried,
including RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else
I have tried. I have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000
miles away on what I would call a “dead” band. I have connected to RMS
stations at least 500 miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and
resumed these connections by about 3PM , still when nothing else could
be heard on the band.


> I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would work 10db
into the noise. At the time my reactions was “yah,right!!!” but it
really does. If you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has
undergone an abrupt change of direction, from using soundcard modes
with internet access, to using P3 for primary links and sound card
modes for the last mile or so…… and would like to hear other opinions.


> we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are expensive, the
operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc etc.  but
how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard software?


> John

>

> VE5MU

RE: [digitalradio] on another note

[David Little]

John,
 
You have confirmed what others already know about P3.  
 
I sold my PTC IIex last year, when the Winmor protocol was announced to
be in development.  
It should introduce an ARQ mode to compete with P3, but will not replace
it.
 
I had the SCS in a go kit with either a Yaesu FT-897D or and Icom
IC-7000, manual antenna tuner, switching power supply, sound card
interface, USB to 8 Serial port converter, communications speaker and
sometimes an auto tuner.
 
http://www.se-hams.com/html/emcomm1.html
 
That go kit has also found it's way into the Netcomm Magazine, as well
as World Radio in the past year.
 
It allowed me to setup remotely, string a dipole (actually put a
furniture moving pad on top of the car and a tripod to be a center
support, with ends staked to ground) in NVIS configuration.  Then, the
best demo was to send email (actually SMS messages) to various
volunteers (read unbelievers) cell phones.  
 
For spice, I could include the location, time and frequency to show how
unlikely it would be for me to connect to a RMS at that time of day, on
that band, covering that distance.
 
When this got boring, I substituted the rig for an Icom IC-703+ and
lowered the maximim operating potential to 10 watts.  With that combo, I
could connect to around 80% of the RMS stations that I picked based on
time of day, frequency and distance.  
 
I know there will always be folks that will not accept P3 within the
amateur spectrum.  It is a real shame, because it could really make the
Amateur Radio Service stand out in an emergency with serious loss of
infrastructure.
 
As it is, the Winlink system is really concentrating on the MARS
services and direct to the served agencies on NTIA spectrum.One
major catastrophe, and the lack of the amateur community to move high
volume traffic over long distances may bring unexpected consequences if
the Amateur Radio Service is evaluated as compared to the MARS services.
The jury is still out on that.
 
But, as you have stated, P3 does an amazing job of connecting and moving
data at much higher than expected speeds under the worst of conditions.
Add the ability to utilize binary (compressed) format with attachments
of which the size limit can be controlled on the fly by collaborating
with the RMS operator, or event specific, routing formats, and priority
determination by subject line...  You end up with a protocol that can
move a served agency's traffic in the format that they are accustomed to
using, to be retrieved by the intended agency, using their WL2K system;
already in the EOC, or their agencies support group.
 
Winmor and P3 will serve side by side in the RMS stations in the near
future; bringing the best of both worlds.  But, when speed, accuracy and
ability to cut through the worst of conditions are the criteria on which
success is determined; P3 will still come out on top.
 
David
KD4NUE
 
 
 
 
 


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [

mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:48 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; hfl...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: multi...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] on another note


  -  S N I P -

Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb modem
with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what
this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried,
including RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else
I have tried. I have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000
miles away on what I would call a "dead" band. I have connected to RMS
stations at least 500 miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and
resumed these connections by about 3PM , still when nothing else could
be heard on the band. I had in the past heard the claims that this modem
would work 10db into the noise. At the time my reactions was
"yah,right!!!" but it really does. If you have a chance, try it out . 

 

So my thinking has undergone an abrupt change of direction, from using
soundcard modes with internet access, to using P3 for primary links and
sound card modes for the last mile or so.. and would like to hear other
opinions.we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are expensive,
the operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc etc.
but how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard software?


 

John

VE5MU

RE: [digitalradio] on another note

[Rud Merriam]

First, I would not dismiss sound card modes. I think there is much more
that can be done with them. One of the main issues IMO is that they
don't (1) adapt to changing band conditions, and (2) don't utilize FEC
as much as is possible. (We also might need much better sound cards. The
study reported at

http://www.baudline.com/solutions/full_duplex/imic_v0.06/index.html is
pretty grim.)
 
Second, further gains could be made using external DSP boards. These are
not that expensive today.
 
I have explored some of this in the past but got seriously distracted a
year or so ago with a broken arm, some surgery and other issues. Nothing
serious but just a pain in the eh, shoulder and other places. I will be
turning my attention to either digital communications or robotics now
that all that distraction is finished. 
 
 - 73 - 
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
http://TheHamNetwork.net   

-Original Message-
From: John Bradley [mailto:jbrad...@sasktel.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:48 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; hfl...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: multi...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] on another note



 As many of you know, I have been very active with digital
communications over the past number of years, eagerly testing the latest
and greatest, and was honored when Andy gave me recognition last year in
with his digital awards. I have been and continue to be a strong
proponent of digital communications within the emergency services field,
have worked in emergency services as a planner, communicator, trainer
and consultant. This, as well as a passion for Search and Rescue is a
summary of most of my ham radio activities over the past 20 years.

 

I have been known to be somewhat outspoken at times, I have locked horns
with Bonnie more than once, I have had interesting off post political
commentaries with Roger the lawyer, and from time to time, been called
anti American, anti Canadian, Anti Ham, anti pactor, and anti auntie,
even. I have gleefully participated in some of the lively debates on
these posts and have come awfully close to being punted by moderator
Andy. So you are asking yourself by now, where is this crazy Cannuck
going with all this??

 

Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the light ( actually a
whole mess of little ones but who is counting)

 

Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb modem
with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what
this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried,
including RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else
I have tried. I have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000
miles away on what I would call a "dead" band. I have connected to RMS
stations at least 500 miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and
resumed these connections by about 3PM , still when nothing else could
be heard on the band. 

 

I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would work 10db into
the noise. At the time my reactions was "yah,right!!!" but it really
does. If you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has undergone an
abrupt change of direction, from using soundcard modes with internet
access, to using P3 for primary links and sound card modes for the last
mile or so.. and would like to hear other opinions.

 

we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are expensive, the
operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc etc.  but
how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard software? 

 

John

VE5MU

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Rick W]

It sounds like either Mark is being dishonest with me, or your contact 
had inside information that he did not share with Mark.

I too would think that Yahoo gave a warning, but at this point we just 
don't know.

Don't bitch about Mark being reinstated as long as he stops his over 
promotion of digital. It is too bad that he could not channel his 
enthusiasm for digital in a more productive manner. It is rare to find 
many who really try to promote digital and while you might think it is a 
gain to be rid of him, I think that it is really more of a net loss.

Talking about the stock market right now is depressing though. I wonder 
if we can ever recover from our current losses we already have, not to 
mention the possibility of further losses if we really do go into a 
depression. Never thought we would have something like this happen in my 
lifetime. But the checks and balances were all bought and sold by the 
rich it appears:( Pretty sad country we now live in.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> DIRECT MESSAGE -
>
> Rick
> He was warn many many times.
> People have been bitching at him for the last 2 years.
>
> I was myself was not told if yahoo gave any warning but
> one would think they did before taking any action.
> But what I do know is that they (yahoo) saw the same post
> going to some 43 list it opened eyes. The day he got booted
> my contact told me he would be removed that day.
>
> I for one talk to the corp office as a yahoo stock holder
> about 6 weeks ago. And if he is reinstated I'll be bitching
> with a very loud voice. And if he reinstated I will sell ALL
> of the close to 93K shares.
>
> You know what they say - money talks and bullshit walks.
> I put a hell of a lot of money into yahoo when I sold my 
> company 3 years ago.
>
> John
>   

Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[JAMES ROSPOPO]

Rick,
 
Please read Yahoo's Terms of Use, which is at the bottom of each email.  Pay 
particular attention to the spam policy within the Terms of Use.  It says in 
there that your Yahoo ID can be terminated without notice for violating that 
policy.  What Mark was doing fits one of the examples of spamming as listed in 
the spam policy.  Also remember when each of us signed up for Yahoogroups we 
had to accept the conditions of the Terms of Use.  So we were informed of what 
is expected and not allowed when we signed up.
 
73's
 
Jim, KE4CON
 


--- On Mon, 2/23/09, Rick W  wrote:

From: Rick W 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 1:59 PM






I agree that what Mark did was clearly overzealous. If he did this to my 
group I could see that he could be removed or better yet blocked from 
posting if you don't want to deal with having to moderate each message. 
That would have given him a stronger message.

But the fact is that you would not find a stronger promoter of digital 
ham radio anyplace. Consider the effort and cost he has donated to the 
cause with his promotional efforts and travel.

I can see where Yahoo could threaten him with taking down the group if 
they really have received the number of complaints that posters have 
indicated.

What I have a real problem with is if they did not warn him. I do not 
think it is appropriate to just destroy a group without some warning. If 
they had warned him and he continued to do the messaging, then that is 
another thing. Otherwise, as I mentioned, a concerted effort by 
malicious individuals could cause the destruction of any group.

73,

Rick, KV9U

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Rick this is true but I must ask is there really a need to post it
> to every ham list on yahoo? I was getting it 20 or so times.
>
> On the list that I either own or moderate he was set to "no mail".
> This tells me one thing only. He did not want anything going to his 
> in box and must have been reading from the group site.
>
> But since he never posted to the list other them his SPAM that 
> tells me the he also never read anything at all.
>
> There is a move about to keep him off yahoo.
> What do you think is going to happen the next time?
>
> John, W0JAB
>
> 

[digitalradio] on another note

[John Bradley]

 As many of you know, I have been very active with digital communications
over the past number of years, eagerly testing the latest and greatest, and
was honored when Andy gave me recognition last year in with his digital
awards. I have been and continue to be a strong proponent of digital
communications within the emergency services field, have worked in emergency
services as a planner, communicator, trainer and consultant. This, as well
as a passion for Search and Rescue is a summary of most of my ham radio
activities over the past 20 years.

 

I have been known to be somewhat outspoken at times, I have locked horns
with Bonnie more than once, I have had interesting off post political
commentaries with Roger the lawyer, and from time to time, been called anti
American, anti Canadian, Anti Ham, anti pactor, and anti auntie, even. I
have gleefully participated in some of the lively debates on these posts and
have come awfully close to being punted by moderator Andy. So you are asking
yourself by now, where is this crazy Cannuck going with all this??

 

Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the light ( actually a whole
mess of little ones but who is counting)

 

Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb modem with
a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what this thing
can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried, including RFSM8000,
and works further into the weeds than anything else I have tried. I have
connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000 miles away on what I would
call a "dead" band. I have connected to RMS stations at least 500 miles from
me on 80M well into mid morning, and resumed these connections by about 3PM
, still when nothing else could be heard on the band. 

 

I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would work 10db into the
noise. At the time my reactions was "yah,right!!!" but it really does. If
you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has undergone an abrupt
change of direction, from using soundcard modes with internet access, to
using P3 for primary links and sound card modes for the last mile or so..
and would like to hear other opinions.

 

we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are expensive, the operators
insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc etc.  but how could this
mode be incorporated with current soundcard software? 

 

John

VE5MU

[digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[John Becker, WØJAB]

DIRECT MESSAGE -

Rick
He was warn many many times.
People have been bitching at him for the last 2 years.

I was myself was not told if yahoo gave any warning but
one would think they did before taking any action.
But what I do know is that they (yahoo) saw the same post
going to some 43 list it opened eyes. The day he got booted
my contact told me he would be removed that day.

I for one talk to the corp office as a yahoo stock holder
about 6 weeks ago. And if he is reinstated I'll be bitching
with a very loud voice. And if he reinstated I will sell ALL
of the close to 93K shares.

You know what they say - money talks and bullshit walks.
I put a hell of a lot of money into yahoo when I sold my 
company 3 years ago.

John


At 01:59 PM 2/23/2009, you wrote:

>What I have a real problem with is if they did not warn him. I do not 
>think it is appropriate to just destroy a group without some warning. If 
>they had warned him and he continued to do the messaging, then that is 
>another thing. Otherwise, as I mentioned, a concerted effort by 
>malicious individuals could cause the destruction of any group.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[Rick W]

I agree that what Mark did was clearly overzealous. If he did this to my 
group I could see that he could be removed or better yet blocked from 
posting if you don't want to deal with having to moderate each message. 
That would have given him a stronger message.

But the fact is that you would not find a stronger promoter of digital 
ham radio anyplace. Consider the effort and cost he has donated to the 
cause with his promotional efforts and travel.

I can see where Yahoo could threaten him with taking down the group if 
they really have received the number of complaints that posters have 
indicated.

What I have a real problem with is if they did not warn him. I do not 
think it is appropriate to just destroy a group without some warning. If 
they had warned him and he continued to do the messaging, then that is 
another thing. Otherwise, as I mentioned, a concerted effort by 
malicious individuals could cause the destruction of any group.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Rick this is true but I must ask is there really a need to post it
> to every ham list on yahoo? I was getting it 20 or so times.
>
> On the list that I either own or moderate he was set to   "no mail".
> This tells me one thing only. He did not want anything going to his 
> in box and must have been reading from the group site.
>
> But since he never posted to the list other them his SPAM that 
> tells me the he also never read anything at all.
>
> There is a move about to keep him off yahoo.
> What do you think is going to happen the next time?
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] MF Tele Type

[Siegfried Jackstien]

no ... as far as i know there is no special mmftty group
but the programmer sometimes writes here and reads this group
dg9bfc
  - Original Message - 
  From: ea3aqs 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 6:18 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] MF Tele Type


  Isn't there a Yahoo Group concerning that mode MF Tele Type ?



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Alan Barrow]

Rick W wrote:
> But I can see that receiving many repeated requests to be a bit 
> annoying. Whenever I have sent a request to an individual to join, it 
> has been a personal message and not something automated. Perhaps he was 
> using some automated technique and it wound up sending many duplicates?
>
>   
I would get one average about one request a month from him to join
illinoisdigital. If I posted frequently that month, I'd see more. So I
suspect he was harvesting email addresses and sending requests based on
that.

Is it SPAM? By the original definition, harvesting email addresses &
spewing unsolicited emails to them like "spam through a fan", yep.

Was not an opt in, was not a single "Hi, saw your post on xyz, you might
find abc interesting". personal email.

I never reported him, but came close to it a couple of times.

> It certainly expanded his group rapidly and it was one of the better 
> groups discussing digital issues since it allowed for much more open 
> discussions on digital matters. I did have a lot of "local" information 
> for his area that probably would not interest those outside of our 
> region.
I scanned the group content every now & then, and found very little
original content that was of interest. I'm also not a big fan of
fragmenting discussion groups unless there is unique traffic that would
overwhelm a broader group.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Chris Jewell]

I didn't complain either, but after about 5 or so of his messages I
added this to my .procmailrc:

# advertisements in various Y! ham-radio mailing lists
*From: .*wb9...@yahoo.com
/dev/null

73 de kw6h, ex-ae6vw
Chris Jewell

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM

[kh6ty]

Vojtech,

Another good suggestion! :-)

I see the wheels have been turning in Vojtech's mind!

RSID is already in fldigi, so will try that.

I hope others reading this will also try that, and all the modes, and let us 
know their experiences. Testing is slowed down by the necessity to find 
someone else with the same setup, but that should become easier to do as 
time goes on.

73, Skip KH6TY



- Original Message - 
From: "Vojtech Bubnik" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM


> As more people try using digital modes on 2 meter FM, the overall best
> performing mode will automatically surface, but for the longest
range on
> digital modes (not counting CW), it is really necessary to use SSB,
and in
> that case, we have found that MFSK16 is just too critical for tuning
to be
> used with transceivers without a TCXO.

Skip, how about to try MFSK16 with RSID? The RSID solves the intial
tuning on key down. Once the signal is tuned, AFC shall track it.
73, Vojtech




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: 2/21/2009 
3:36 PM

[digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM

[Vojtech Bubnik]

> As more people try using digital modes on 2 meter FM, the overall best 
> performing mode will automatically surface, but for the longest
range on 
> digital modes (not counting CW), it is really necessary to use SSB,
and in 
> that case, we have found that MFSK16 is just too critical for tuning
to be 
> used with transceivers without a TCXO.

Skip, how about to try MFSK16 with RSID? The RSID solves the intial
tuning on key down. Once the signal is tuned, AFC shall track it.
73, Vojtech

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Rick Scott is right on with his comments.
Remember what Andy our list owner said in a post on Feb 19 09
at 02:37Z

"I am guessing that it was taken down due to violation of Yahoo rules.
Several people have written to me privately complaining about what
they perceived as violations.  I refrained from doing anything because
the group was in some sense a competitor to my digitalradio group. 
Competition is good, so I did not want to do anything that would imply
I am biased .  The issues raised were related to multiple cross
posting and frequent solicitations to join the Illinois group, often
after they had asked for the solicitations to stop.

The owner  made some good contributions here but seemed to get a bit
lost at times, a few times items I posted here were later re-posted as
new items by this person.

Since the Illinois group was activated and undertook major PR efforts,
postings to this group dropped about 40%.  Perhaps we will see some
increased use here.

Andy K3UK
Owner -Digitalradio "


The only way I got it to stop was to block him at my mile server.

John, W0JAB


At 10:30 AM 2/23/2009, you wrote:
>Just so I understand it, are you saying that he repeatedly sent join 
>requests to the same person (such as yourself)?
>
>I personally don't consider a request to join another group to be spam 
>at all, but each to his own. I do know that there have been individuals 
>who were very pleased to join the other group since it fit well with 
>their interests.
>
>But I can see that receiving many repeated requests to be a bit 
>annoying. Whenever I have sent a request to an individual to join, it 
>has been a personal message and not something automated. Perhaps he was 
>using some automated technique and it wound up sending many duplicates?
>
>It certainly expanded his group rapidly and it was one of the better 
>groups discussing digital issues since it allowed for much more open 
>discussions on digital matters. I did have a lot of "local" information 
>for his area that probably would not interest those outside of our 
>region. Initially, it was intended for a fairly small geographic area 
>with what I would call an emphasis on D-Star, but evolved into a world 
>wide digital discussion group with a high level of comfort.
>
>If he gets reinstated, I suspect he will be tempering any automated 
>messaging.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>
>John Taylor wrote:
>> At the risk of stirring an unwanted debate, I for one DO consider
>> repeated "join requests" as SPAM. Why? Mark has repeatedly joined
>> other "related" groups and immediately started gathering names from
>> that group to solicit memberships in his group. I do know, from
>> personal experience, that there have been many direct requests to Mark
>> to stop sending these requests, only to see the solicitation multiply
>> in number almost immediately. On Mark's own groups, he claims to be so
>> against SPAM, yet he is one of the worst abusers. The only surprise
>> that seeing his group shut down is the time it has taken for it to happen.
>>
>> Most of us in these groups have enough intelligence to select the
>> groups and interests we want to participate in. Repeated
>> "solicitations" from a "related" group are in my opinion absolutely
>> nothing but SPAM.
>>
>> I had joined his group at one time and most of the posts on the group
>> were nothing more than cross posts from here and other groups, often
>> by Mark himself. I really had no reason to receive the same
>> information 4 or 5 different times, just so I could get the info from
>> 4 or 5 different groups. When I left his group, I asked repeatedly
>> that he stop soliciting me to rejoin. That has NOT stopped.
>>
>> John
>>   
>
>
>
>
>
>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
>
>Recommended software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Simon (HB9DRV)]

I kept receiving join requests and lots of unsolicited postings - got fed up 
with it but didn't complain, just put it down to him being very eager.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Rick W" 


> Just so I understand it, are you saying that he repeatedly sent join
> requests to the same person (such as yourself)?

[digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Scott Gillis]

I think that Yahoo has done the right thing, and I find it hard to 
believe that Mark says that he had no warnings.

Myself as well as many others sent emails to Mark asking him to stop, 
he choose not to reply to any eMails (to myself or others)

Marks actions were consistent with a spammer (ignoring replies, as 
well as requests to stop), this was NOT abuse by one of his members, 
but abuse from the moderator of the group himself (who should know 
better).

When Mark ignored all the eMails asking him to stop, myself (and 
others) forwarded our complaints and ignored eMails to Yahoo (which 
I'm sure was able to see that he got)

How can he say he got no warning?

Didn't he think that ignoring everyone's requests to stop would 
escalate to Yahoo? 

(Sorry if this is a dup, but my first reply via eMail never showed up)

Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Rick this is true but I must ask is there really a need to post it
to every ham list on yahoo? I was getting it 20 or so times.

On the list that I either own or moderate he was set to   "no mail".
This tells me one thing only. He did not want anything going to his 
in box and must have been reading from the group site.

But since he never posted to the list other them his SPAM that 
tells me the he also never read anything at all.

There is a move about to keep him off yahoo.
What do you think is going to happen the next time?

John, W0JAB



At 08:07 AM 2/23/2009, you wrote:
>As owner of another group that had Mark's posts at times, which were 
>repeated on various groups, the material he was presenting was not spam 
>that I saw, but directly associated with amateur radio, usually digital 
>radio.

[digitalradio] MF Tele Type

[ea3aqs]

Isn't there a Yahoo Group concerning that mode MF Tele Type ?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[Rick W]

Just so I understand it, are you saying that he repeatedly sent join 
requests to the same person (such as yourself)?

I personally don't consider a request to join another group to be spam 
at all, but each to his own. I do know that there have been individuals 
who were very pleased to join the other group since it fit well with 
their interests.

But I can see that receiving many repeated requests to be a bit 
annoying. Whenever I have sent a request to an individual to join, it 
has been a personal message and not something automated. Perhaps he was 
using some automated technique and it wound up sending many duplicates?

It certainly expanded his group rapidly and it was one of the better 
groups discussing digital issues since it allowed for much more open 
discussions on digital matters. I did have a lot of "local" information 
for his area that probably would not interest those outside of our 
region. Initially, it was intended for a fairly small geographic area 
with what I would call an emphasis on D-Star, but evolved into a world 
wide digital discussion group with a high level of comfort.

If he gets reinstated, I suspect he will be tempering any automated 
messaging.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Taylor wrote:
> At the risk of stirring an unwanted debate, I for one DO consider
> repeated "join requests" as SPAM. Why? Mark has repeatedly joined
> other "related" groups and immediately started gathering names from
> that group to solicit memberships in his group. I do know, from
> personal experience, that there have been many direct requests to Mark
> to stop sending these requests, only to see the solicitation multiply
> in number almost immediately. On Mark's own groups, he claims to be so
> against SPAM, yet he is one of the worst abusers. The only surprise
> that seeing his group shut down is the time it has taken for it to happen.
>
> Most of us in these groups have enough intelligence to select the
> groups and interests we want to participate in. Repeated
> "solicitations" from a "related" group are in my opinion absolutely
> nothing but SPAM.
>
> I had joined his group at one time and most of the posts on the group
> were nothing more than cross posts from here and other groups, often
> by Mark himself. I really had no reason to receive the same
> information 4 or 5 different times, just so I could get the info from
> 4 or 5 different groups. When I left his group, I asked repeatedly
> that he stop soliciting me to rejoin. That has NOT stopped.
>
> John
>   

[digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group

[John Taylor]

At the risk of stirring an unwanted debate, I for one DO consider
repeated "join requests" as SPAM. Why? Mark has repeatedly joined
other "related" groups and immediately started gathering names from
that group to solicit memberships in his group. I do know, from
personal experience, that there have been many direct requests to Mark
to stop sending these requests, only to see the solicitation multiply
in number almost immediately. On Mark's own groups, he claims to be so
against SPAM, yet he is one of the worst abusers. The only surprise
that seeing his group shut down is the time it has taken for it to happen.

Most of us in these groups have enough intelligence to select the
groups and interests we want to participate in. Repeated
"solicitations" from a "related" group are in my opinion absolutely
nothing but SPAM.

I had joined his group at one time and most of the posts on the group
were nothing more than cross posts from here and other groups, often
by Mark himself. I really had no reason to receive the same
information 4 or 5 different times, just so I could get the info from
4 or 5 different groups. When I left his group, I asked repeatedly
that he stop soliciting me to rejoin. That has NOT stopped.

John
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W  wrote:
>
> If it is true that Yahoo will just stop a group based on complaints, 
> then that is very troubling as it could happen to any group with 
> malicious activities by certain individuals making false claims.
> 
> However, he indicated that he had no warning from Yahoo.
> 
> As owner of another group that had Mark's posts at times, which were 
> repeated on various groups, the material he was presenting was not spam 
> that I saw, but directly associated with amateur radio, usually digital 
> radio.
> 
> If you are referring to sending information to an individual to join a 
> group, is that spam when it is related to their interest area? I have 
> sent messages to specific individuals to join the HFDEC group when I 
> felt that they would be the type of hams who would find that of value.
> 
> I admit that Mark was a major promoter of his specific digital 
> interests, but we each have our specific interests.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications)
> 
> 
> James R. Gorr wrote:
> > Maybe it was because of all the spam requests sent to join their
group.
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[Rick W]

If it is true that Yahoo will just stop a group based on complaints, 
then that is very troubling as it could happen to any group with 
malicious activities by certain individuals making false claims.

However, he indicated that he had no warning from Yahoo.

As owner of another group that had Mark's posts at times, which were 
repeated on various groups, the material he was presenting was not spam 
that I saw, but directly associated with amateur radio, usually digital 
radio.

If you are referring to sending information to an individual to join a 
group, is that spam when it is related to their interest area? I have 
sent messages to specific individuals to join the HFDEC group when I 
felt that they would be the type of hams who would find that of value.

I admit that Mark was a major promoter of his specific digital 
interests, but we each have our specific interests.

73,

Rick, KV9U
moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications)


James R. Gorr wrote:
> Maybe it was because of all the spam requests sent to join their group.
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group

[James R. Gorr]

Maybe it was because of all the spam requests sent to join their group.


--- On Sun, 2/22/09, Rick W  wrote:

> From: Rick W 
> Subject: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 6:24 PM
> I was able to contact Mark, WB9QZB, and he indicated that
> his yahoo 
> e-mail account and the group were disabled by Yahoo with no
> notice or 
> explanation.
> 
> It is very difficult to even contact Yahoo customer
> service, which is 
> offshore, but he is working through corporate in California
> to attempt 
> to get the group restored.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked
> Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
> 
> 
> Recommended software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or
> Multipsk
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

  

[digitalradio] Using CTSS on a digipeater?

[Terry Breitenfeldt]

If I wanted to setup a "closed" Digipreater on 145.09 Mhz on a high 
mountain peak, so that I could limit activity to only ECOM traffic,
would the use of a CTSS tone decode be a viable option?  Would a CTSS 
tone interfere with Packet operations?  
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM

[kh6ty]

> Thank you for that explanation. I didn't know the modulation mode would 
> make
> a difference. It would have been interesting to test the theory with Skip.
> Unfortunately, we live too far apart for VHF/FM.
>
> Thanks again...
>
> Tony - K2MO

Tony,

You do not need to test only with me! You can test with anyone else the 
proper distance away who has both 2 meter FM and SSB capability and an 
interface.

In fact, such a test will be more informative with one other than just 
myself. Andy's sked page is one way to arrange for tests, and an email to 
this reflector might also uncover someone who would like to work with you 
and is the right distance away. In fact, you can sometimes just rotate a 
beam to reduce a signal to become however weak you need it to be. You could 
also use contacts on HF to arrange for a sked with someone at the right 
distance and with the necessary equipment. The IC-706MKII, FT-857, and 
FT-897 are all popular rigs with multimode capability, as are the IC-746Pro 
and TS-2000.

This kind of thing is what ham radio is all about - go for it! :-)

73, Skip KH6TY

[digitalradio] Frequencies RFSM8000 and MIL-STD 188-110 (Re: RFSM8000 qrg's?)

[expeditionradio]

Hi Wolf,

Here is the Centre of Activity frequency list  
we have been using for RFSM8000 and MIL-STD 188-110 
testing, file transfer, auto, and some images:

VFO FREQ KHZ / MODE=USB
1806.0 
1840.5 
3584.5 
3626.0
7040.5
7065.0
7100.0 
10142.5
14101.0
14112.0
14233.0
18104.5
18111.0
21116.0
28096.0
28327.5 

73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA


> Wolf oe7ftj wrote: 
> Are there CoA frequencies with RFSM8000 between 
> individuals or dedicated frequencies with 
> automatic stations or servers or gates with
> RFSM8000 modulation?