Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com said: I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other normal Windows programs. Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers. Cygwin implements a *POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin). MinGW is a port of GCC to win32 with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better C99 support. Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as native as it gets. -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
[digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777 Trevor
[digitalradio] Re: More on FCC contacts
I'm with Steinar let's dump ROS as a digital mode. We have allowed an immature 29 year old without a ham radio license to turn the digital modes community upside down with aberrant behavior. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@arrl.net PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #222 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org Hello Rein As I have told you before , there is something fishy going. Lets forget about this ros/josh thing and go back to modes like olivia, ale400 and jt65. Ros/josh gives me creeps. la5vna Steinar Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777 Trevor
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777 Trevor
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Warren, Guess I should have better said, there is 'currently' no way. Universal use of RSID would make it possible to change to the other mode to communicate, but it has to be universally used, of course. Once you use the same mode, nothing special is needed. Just negotiate frequency changes using the interfering mode and then switch back to the one you were using. The point is only that there must be a way to communicate between stations trying to use the same frequency in order to have sharing. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
(unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Thanks for the reply Skip. As you probably know the scenario is different over here with the regulations permitting bandwidth up to the size of the band, no emission type restriction, no mandatory band plans and complete freedom to develop your own modes with IDs given in whichever mode you are using. It is baffling at times trying to understand the situation in the States. I guess it has a lot to do with history and access to phone bands being determined by license class and of course various groups keen to protect their patch. New modes can appear and then disappear far too quickly for any formal regulation process to keep up with, Amateurs have to work out for themselves means of voluntarily sharing the spectrum. It does work outside the States. I'm sure within a few years someone will develop an efficient digital Voice mode (with license free Codec) that will exceed the performance of SSB on most paths, then we'll all be digital users and the strict divide between digital and phone will disappear. 73 Trevor M5AKA
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs written in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Stelios Bounanos m0...@... wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, g4ilo jul...@... said: I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other normal Windows programs. Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers. Cygwin implements a *POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin). MinGW is a port of GCC to win32 with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better C99 support. Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as native as it gets. -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Good point, Dave. I can see perhaps using RSID for digital mode separation, but I think phone has to always be separated from digital space. Even if the phone operator has a computer, he is not likely to fire up a digital mode in the middle of a phone QSO to ask someone to QSY or vice versa. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave AA6YQ wrote: Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org http://www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
Julian, An Olivia DLL already exists for MixW, but I do not think that it is documented sufficiently for others to use. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs written in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Stelios Bounanos m0...@... wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, g4ilo jul...@... said: I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other normal Windows programs. Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers. Cygwin implements a *POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin). MinGW is a port of GCC to win32 with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better C99 support. Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as native as it gets. -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
A roger beep that substitutes RSID instead , sends mode/callsign and a Q-sign ? In a PIC inside the rig. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I'm with Skip here. First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact on the problem. Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to this discussion, RSID is not supported by single-mode software and would be no use even if it did because as well as RSID you have got to have a common mode of communication. So for this to work everyone would have to use software that had RSID enabled permanently and supported at least two modes one of which would be the common communication one. Also, the RSID has to work down to the same depth in the noise as the modes you are trying to protect. Otherwise you will have a system for asking if the frequency is in use which would be no more effective than just listening. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Warren Moxley k5...@... wrote: Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
What is your solution? --- On Mon, 3/8/10, g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com wrote: From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:35 AM I'm with Skip here. First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact on the problem. Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to this discussion, RSID is not supported by single-mode software and would be no use even if it did because as well as RSID you have got to have a common mode of communication. So for this to work everyone would have to use software that had RSID enabled permanently and supported at least two modes one of which would be the common communication one. Also, the RSID has to work down to the same depth in the noise as the modes you are trying to protect. Otherwise you will have a system for asking if the frequency is in use which would be no more effective than just listening. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Warren Moxley k5...@... wrote: Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Ever heard of Mic-E protocol? --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:26 AM A roger beep that substitutes RSID instead , sends mode/callsign and a Q-sign ? In a PIC inside the rig. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. com wrote: Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings,
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
It’s more easily decoded than two handclaps in front of the microphone… 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Dave AA6YQ wrote: It’s more easily decoded than two handclaps in front of the microphone… Handclaps have been ruled as in violation of Part 97 due to the spreading function from the white noise component. They are technically SS and banned below 222 mhz. However, long whistles, repeatedly saying RaaddeeOO HHHooolahh with your processor cranked to the max are allowed and should be used instead for mode determination. I read this on a website somewhere must be official! :-) Have fun, Alan km4ba PS: Just trying to follow Dave's lead lighten the tone a bit!
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds. FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable, but not who it is. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ /aa...@ambersoft.com/* wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Dave AA6YQ *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Subject:* RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no
[digitalradio] RS ID survey today on 20M
Here are the results of two hours of monitoring the entire digital band on 20M 14065-14110 37 BPSK31 25 BPSK250 04 RTTY45 02 MFSK16 01 CONTESTIA-8-250 Some of the above may be the same station (especially the PSK250) . In just over two hours only 5 modes heard. Seems we still have some ways to go in getting RSID to be used regularly. My SDR/Multipsk combo was set to respond only to RSIDs, other modes may have been in use without RSID. 18:06:17 UTC BPSK250 3902 Hz 17:50:38 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:46:04 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:45:24 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:39:34 UTC MFSK16 0.0041 M 17:38:46 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:37:44 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:36:42 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:36:11 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:35:09 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:34:38 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:31:43 UTC MFSK16 0.0040 M 17:30:06 UTC BPSK312454 Hz 17:30:06 UTC BPSK31 0.0021 M 17:29:24 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:28:54 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:26:20 UTC RTTY-45 0.0162 M 17:25:09 UTC RTTY-45 0.0123 M 17:23:19 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:23:19 UTC RTTY-45 0.0102 M 17:22:42 UTC RTTY-45 0.0141 M 17:21:32 UTC BPSK312395 Hz 17:21:31 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:20:51 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:20:12 UTC BPSK312390 Hz 17:20:12 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:04:30 UTC CONTESTIA-8-250 0.0008 M 17:03:17 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:59:18 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:57:58 UTC BPSK312702 Hz 16:57:57 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:52:37 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:51:22 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:51:10 UTC BPSK312869 Hz 16:50:33 UTC BPSK312863 Hz 16:49:58 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:49:18 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:48:43 UTC BPSK312298 Hz 16:48:43 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:48:07 UTC BPSK312293 Hz 16:47:04 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:30:16 UTC BPSK31 0.0012 M 16:27:04 UTC BPSK312401 Hz 16:27:03 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:26:24 UTC BPSK312395 Hz 15:47:56 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:47:27 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:40:21 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:39:53 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:39:34 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:38:11 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:37:06 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:36:18 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:36:08 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:35:39 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:35:00 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:33:41 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:33:01 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:32:51 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:31:40 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:31:34 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:31:07 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:30:59 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:41 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:22 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:00 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:21:35 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:21:28 UTC BPSK250 689 Hz 15:21:25 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M
Re: [digitalradio] RS ID survey today on 20M
Andy, Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY? Take those out, and not much RSID use at all! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Here are the results of two hours of monitoring the entire digital band on 20M 14065-14110 37 BPSK31 25 BPSK250 04 RTTY45 02 MFSK16 01 CONTESTIA-8-250 Some of the above may be the same station (especially the PSK250) . In just over two hours only 5 modes heard. Seems we still have some ways to go in getting RSID to be used regularly. My SDR/Multipsk combo was set to respond only to RSIDs, other modes may have been in use without RSID. 18:06:17 UTC BPSK250 3902 Hz 17:50:38 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:46:04 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:45:24 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:39:34 UTC MFSK16 0.0041 M 17:38:46 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:37:44 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:36:42 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:36:11 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:35:09 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:34:38 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:31:43 UTC MFSK16 0.0040 M 17:30:06 UTC BPSK31 2454 Hz 17:30:06 UTC BPSK31 0.0021 M 17:29:24 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:28:54 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:26:20 UTC RTTY-45 0.0162 M 17:25:09 UTC RTTY-45 0.0123 M 17:23:19 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:23:19 UTC RTTY-45 0.0102 M 17:22:42 UTC RTTY-45 0.0141 M 17:21:32 UTC BPSK31 2395 Hz 17:21:31 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:20:51 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:20:12 UTC BPSK31 2390 Hz 17:20:12 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:04:30 UTC CONTESTIA-8-250 0.0008 M 17:03:17 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:59:18 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:57:58 UTC BPSK31 2702 Hz 16:57:57 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:52:37 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:51:22 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:51:10 UTC BPSK31 2869 Hz 16:50:33 UTC BPSK31 2863 Hz 16:49:58 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:49:18 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:48:43 UTC BPSK31 2298 Hz 16:48:43 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:48:07 UTC BPSK31 2293 Hz 16:47:04 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:30:16 UTC BPSK31 0.0012 M 16:27:04 UTC BPSK31 2401 Hz 16:27:03 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:26:24 UTC BPSK31 2395 Hz 15:47:56 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:47:27 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:40:21 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:39:53 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:39:34 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:38:11 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:37:06 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:36:18 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:36:08 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:35:39 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:35:00 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:33:41 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:33:01 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:32:51 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:31:40 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:31:34 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:31:07 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:30:59 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:41 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:22 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:00 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:21:35 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:21:28 UTC BPSK250 689 Hz 15:21:25 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M
Re: [digitalradio] RS ID survey today on 20M
Exactly ! On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:10 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Andy, Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY? Take those out, and not much RSID use at all! 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Yep, same concept. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Warren Moxley k5...@yahoo.com wrote: Ever heard of Mic-E protocol? --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:26 AM A roger beep that substitutes RSID instead , sends mode/callsign and a Q-sign ? In a PIC inside the rig. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. com wrote: Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it. Some are using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign, CQ CQ and just 73's. It is pretty effective. I have started using both RSID TX and Video ID. I have seen many that will use video ID but do not use or refuse to use RSID. The issue I see on many post is negative. That will never work because... I guess negative posts are easier than suggesting a possible solution. Maybe guys are not suggesting solutions because they think someone will shoot it down anyway so why try? It is better to try and fail than not try at all. I had a boss one time a long time ago tell me that it is easy to tell when a man is not working, he never makes any mistakes. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 1:40 PM Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds. FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable, but not who it is. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. com wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we
[digitalradio] HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available
HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available http://www.sdr-radio.com/Downloads/March8th2010TechPreview1e.aspx cool Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] RS ID survey today on 20M
It is easy to imagine that the BPSK250 RSID is probably being used mostly for PSKMAIL stations, which is a good idea now. Notice how the times are clustered. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Exactly ! On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:10 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net wrote: Andy, Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY? Take those out, and not much RSID use at all! 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Warren, I have several electronics patents and am often asked by laymen how one invents something, and what to do if they invent something. I advise them that very few inventors come up with something new and just make money off the patent royalties or sale itself. Instead, document and witness the idea, keep it a trade secret, and manufacture the item yourself. I had to do that when I created the first consumer VHF FM weather-alert radio in 1974 and, believe me, it was a difficult struggle, because so many thought the idea was worthless and would not back it. Nevertheless, I went ahead anyway, designed the radios, and built a factory to make them. Today, 27 years later, that concept has blossomed into an entire industry. With your extensive background in software, maybe people are looking to YOU to research and provide a workable solution. This will never work is just part of the discussion and brainstorming process, and not necessarily a negative statement. The idea is to keep throwing out ideas for criticism and discussion, even if at first glance the idea may appear to be unworkable to many. Yes, suggesting a successful solution often takes lots of thought, and sometimes hard work, if it is to be a reasonably good solution. Saying something will not work often spurs others to want to prove that it might. So, don't write those comments off as being completely negative - they just might well become the catalyst of an idea that will work. I had to go to the extreme step of teaching myself to program in Delphi just in order to write DigiTalk for the blind ham. Not being very smart, nor much of a programmer, it took me many months, but in the end, the program that speaks the PSK31 text as it comes in is in use by the blind ham community (Courage Hams) and I am almost ready to release an updated version for XP, VISTA, and W7 that works with Fldigi and Multipsk. So, solutions often only come about from long periods of struggle. Fldigi is open source, so anyone who wants to modify the source to add a solution and test it is welcome to do so. Maybe YOU can do it, since you already have a head start with your software experience. It is a good idea - now show us the solution! ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it. Some are using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign, CQ CQ and just 73's. It is pretty effective. I have started using both RSID TX and Video ID. I have seen many that will use video ID but do not use or refuse to use RSID. The issue I see on many post is negative. That will never work because... I guess negative posts are easier than suggesting a possible solution. Maybe guys are not suggesting solutions because they think someone will shoot it down anyway so why try? It is better to try and fail than not try at all. I had a boss one time a long time ago tell me that it is easy to tell when a man is not working, he never makes any mistakes. --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 1:40 PM Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds. FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable, but not who it is. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ /aa...@ambersoft. com/* wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Dave AA6YQ *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the ³universal QRL² signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org http://www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. *From: *Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com aa...@ambersoft.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver -- e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the universal QRL signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
There is another problem if phone and data are not in separate segments of the bands. Phone is the easiest to use interface to the radio. Everybody knows how to talk, so the demand for phone space is always greater than the demand for data space. The result is that if there were no restrictions, phone operators would take over the entire band and there would be no place for digital modes, even narrow ones, to operate. It is probably easier to accept as necessary the separation of phone and data on HF, where there is limited spectrum space, and look for a solution for different digital modes to communicate and share. On VHF and above, where there is much more space, there is no legal separation between data and phone. ATV is only allowed on UHF because it needs so much bandwidth and therefore there needs to be more space. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. *From: *Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com aa...@ambersoft.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver -- e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the universal QRL signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In narrowband segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many digi programs. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:01:57 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the ³universal QRL² signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode
Re: [digitalradio] HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available
Nice looking radio. However, I could hear no signals when tuning the bands. Suggestions, please. (Keep 'em clean). Regards, George, NJ3H --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: [digitalradio] HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sdr...@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 3:17 PM HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available http://www.sdr- radio.com/ Downloads/ March8th2010Tech Preview1e. aspx cool Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
There still has to be a gentleman's agreement, or band plan, to separate phone and digital. Phone is in so much demand that allowing phone everywhere will result in phone operators just taking over the whole band. This was vetted thoroughly during the debates on ARRL's regulation by bandwidth petition, and it got nowhere! In addition, there can be as many as 50 PSK31 stations using the space needed by just one phone station, so those 50 PSK31 station can more easily share a fixed space (as is now done by gentleman's agreement) with other than to look for a space that might be taken by a phone station. If all emission types were eliminated, PSK31 stations would have a hard time finding any place at all to operate and other PSK31 stations would not know where to look for them if they did. With the current regulations, phone stations (i.e. wide) stay in specified spaces and data stations (i.e. relatively more narrow - MT63-2000 excluded for example) share the rest of the band with CW and other data stations by gentleman's agreement. It is not perfect, or course, especially during contests when the space is not large enough to hold all operators wanting to use it, but it probably works better than no phone/data legal division at all, because, unfortunately, as was found out, not all operators are gentlemen! There was an experiment in which rats were put into two cages. One had enough room and the other was overcrowded. It was not too long before some of the more powerful rats in the overcrowded cage ate the less powerful until there was no more overcrowding. This is similar to what would happen if phone stations could operate anywhere to avoid crowding. The same is true with powerful unattended digital stations, but the situation is even worse, since they cannot practically QSY. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In narrowband segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many digi programs. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:01:57 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. *From: *Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com aa...@ambersoft.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver -- e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the universal QRL signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I'm not sure the solution is a technical one at all. For instance the ROS users (even many US ones) are still causing major interference to the Net105 packet network. Even if RS ID was appropriate for packet (which it isn't) I don't think it would stop the QRM. It's a complete lack of understanding of what is already present on the bands (witness the NCDXF incident), possibly no comprehension that they are running a 2.2KHz wide mode and then maybe an attitude of my technology is superior (or cooler?) than yours even though our network has been operating continuously since 1986. Can you imagine the uproar if we decided to uproot and choose 14070 for our packet network?! These very same hams would probably be telling us that 14070 is an established PSK31 frequency and to take our mode elsewhere! Do many of our new generals/extras just expect to ride roughshod over everyone else? Or is it a growing attitude amongst more seasoned hams? I don't know the answer but the attitude I perceive seems much ruder and devil-may-care than it used to be. When I was a new HF op I spent 90% of my time just listening and making absolutely sure I wasn't going to cause any interference to anyone. Now I'm an older ham I STILL operate where I listen 90% of the time. If I couldn't have a QSO in a 2.2KHZ wide digital mode because the bands were full of sigs SO WHAT? I would CHOOSE a narrower bandwidth mode myself or work some CW or go fishing. I would never deliberately cause QRM. 73 Sholto
[digitalradio] Re: HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available
I assume you tuned in a server station? If so, just pick another from the list and see if that works, Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, George n...@... wrote: Nice looking radio. However, I could hear no signals when tuning the bands. Suggestions, please. (Keep 'em clean).  Regards, George, NJ3H --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@... Subject: [digitalradio] HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sdr...@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 3:17 PM  HB9DRV SDR-Radio updated 1e now available http://www.sdr- radio.com/ Downloads/ March8th2010Tech Preview1e. aspx cool Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I think you have hit the nail on the head. If you look at where there is not a problem, it is where modes have established their own place on the band that people largely adhere to. PSK31, WSPR, JT65A all have their own places on the bands and people know what to expect there. Olivia too, until ROS came along and started transmitting over the frequencies they use. No need for RSID if you know what to expect on a frequency. RTTY on the other hand is distinctive enough and loud enough that users can find each other by ear, and if you can't hear them you probably aren't interfering with them. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sho...@... wrote: I'm not sure the solution is a technical one at all.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Skip, You may be missing my point, not sure. Let me try again. I will try, English is not my strongest subject. Let me say one thing before I get into it. I really appreciate and enjoy your posts and you seem to have a even temperament which is getting more rare these days on reflectors. You also seem to have a lot of expertise in RF, which always makes me think and I am sure I will learn from you. Thank you for all your work and posts on this reflector. Writing code is a different process than creating the specs. There many software developers who can create beautiful code who did not create the specs or come up with the idea on what to create. Just like there are people who want something built and have a great idea but have not the talent to do it. Many times it takes many people involved with different skills to create a product. I too have a few patents and did not have enough electronics background to accomplish my project, but sought the advice and help of others to get the job done. After many years of teaching myself electronics from the basic to the advanced I finally succeeded in building the project I wanted and got the investors to help and factory to build it. The problem is these days as far as a product as concerned to make money, you have to build a product people are willing to pay for that is more than it cost to make it. Not easy! A lot of research goes in to it. Starting with a needs analysis, that is you have to give them what they want, not what YOU want, and what they are willing to pay for. There are many talents involved in creating a good product that will sell. Even in software, that is software you sell for a profit and is competitive. Often the idea man, the software developer, and the person who can market the product are all different people. In very large software projects there may be hundreds of people all writing different parts of the code who are very specialized in different areas. Software development is becoming very specialized. These days I am writing software on ATMEL chips, among some others and am becoming specialized mainly on this chip manufacture. This is very different from what I used to do, write software for oil and gas and tele-comms. I majored in Math and computer science in the late 60's and am still learning every day. This will never work is just part of the discussion and brainstorming process, and not necessarily a negative statement. . I truly understand what you are saying, believe me I do! When I was working as manager of software developers I found it helpful to brain storm when we were involved in an impossible job and let the ideas flow freely. When harsh criticism came from people from my team as soon as an idea came out, people shut up and not another idea ever came from these people. Good ideas are often over looked because of it. Some of the best ideas our company had came from these silly ideas the critics hated and would never work. I had a business partner that was always telling me that we should try this and that and I would tell him that would never work, only days after I thought about it and did find a way to do it his way, though it was not easy. He was not a software guy and he had no idea what could be done and not done. I did the same to him, he was a great electronics engineer and I was always pushing him harder and harder to go into areas he was not familiar with. We complimented each other's talents and some how always solved the problem. I am now involved with RACES in Garland, Texas. There are many people with a lot of talents I tap into in areas I do not have the expertise in. I am not experienced in building antennas, so I ask for help. A great guy who helped me build a Super J-Pole and he did a wonderful job. I demoed his handy work and showed that his antenna did what the ARRL claimed. There was a jerk who said, he did not believe it would do any better job than a simple dipole, even though the antenna has proven itself many many times by many people and was written up years ago in the ARRL antenna book. There is always one in the crowd. In my experience, criticism that is harsh, not constructive is NOT warranted, EVER. Criticism like this is never helpful and only hurts, and is what the critic mostly wants, to make himself look good at the your expense. I have learned the hard way that constructive criticism needs to wait until all the brainstorming is over, otherwise good ideas are passed over. I am interested in seeing ham radio advance, and we have a lot of talent in this country, as shown on this reflector. Anyway I have said enough, and will not have any more to say on the subject. 73, Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 2:52 PM
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Hi Jose. You have a point too nobody had made me to stop and think about. FEC or UWB in whatever way, carried to the extremes, are two sides of the same coin. It happens, never mind. Sometimes also telecommunication engineers have not a clear vision of what they are designing :-D On crowded spectrum, efficiency certainly counts. In a message oriented and power limited fading communication system what counts is the relationship between the channel coherence time (the time interval over which the channel response can be considered almost constant) and the message duration. If the message duration is not much longer than the channel coherence time there's no other possibility than to exploit frequency diversity. In this case, transmitting your message over a narrow band channel whose coherence time were much longer than your message, you would suffer a severe message loss due to the fact that the channel attenuation is frequently larger than the average for the entire duration of your message. If instead the duration of the message were much longer than the channel coherence time, the energy of any message you would receive would be not very different from its average. In this case a clever coding system would not behave so differently from a non fading channel and would approach its capacity by few dBs. For a low-rate system which transmits messages in the range of 50 bits/message and the message length is 60 seconds or so, as i.e. both K1JT's JT65 or WSPR do, there's no need for bandwidth expansion (besides FEC of course). In these cases the channel coherence time is usually much less than the message duration and frequency diversity would be of little help. Joe designed them well :-) For communication systems with the same message information content but in which messages were required to be transmitted much faster, say in three seconds, the channel coherence time would be of the same order of magnitude of the message length and time diversity can't be exploited. In this cases, frequency diversity is mandatory whether implemented by what FCC calls a spread spectrum system or not. This is what, in my opinion, ROS has tried to address. I couldn't care less if it is legal or not, I just hope it could cohexist with the modes I'm already using. Mr. Darwin selection rules will do their job and select the better. By the way, we amateur radios already experiment daily frequency hopping spread spectrum communications. We continuously hop from the 160 m band to the 10 m band accordingly to the HF propagation conditions and, sincerely, I do not understand why FCC is so permissive with us (or better, with US amateurs). Has this to do with federal agents reaction times? ;-) 73s, Nico, IV3NWV
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
[digitalradio] IV3NWV, designer of PERSEUS SDR receiver !
http://www.youtube.com/user/IV3NWV 73 Rein W6SZ