from:"Dr. Howard S. White"

Falvio "Particularly.Emergency Communications"
is mentioned in Part 97.1 that you quoted.
But we can argue about the number of angels on the
head of a pin all day long...
Realistically the fact that HAM EMCOMM exists and
has shown by its exemplary service in disaster after disaster is perhaps the
best protection we have for us retaining the ham bands.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Flavio
Padovani
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 9:59
AM
Subject: Re[2]: [digitalradio] ARRLWeb:
Army MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network
Saludos Dr.,I strongly disagree with your point. Read
the definition of the 97.3.(a).(4). Nowhere is Emergency Communications
mentioned.97.3(4)Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for
the purpose of self training, intercommunication and technical investigations
carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.On
the basis and purpose part, just previous to this part, it states that it
intends to recognize and enhance the value of the amateur service to the
public as a voluntary non commercial communications service, particularly with
respect to providing emergency communications.Read VERY CAREFULLY and
do not misinterpret the regulations.Amateur radio is a
hobby.However, if we fear that it is going to disappear as such a
hobby unless we turn into en emergency service, and we are willing to accept
that, so be it. For me, when this becomes and emergency service, that will be
the end.Friday, March 3, 2006, 1:14:33 PM, you
wrote:DHSW> DHSW> DHSW>
Actually Danny, according to Part 97.1 the government
alreadyDHSW> gave us the Ham Bands and their primary use is to be used
for Emergency CommunicationsDHSW> DHSW>
DHSW> DHSW> We sometimes forget that the "Hobby" use is
a secondary use ofDHSW> the bandsas no where in part 97 does
it say the Amateur Service is a hobby.DHSW> DHSW>
__DHSW> Howard
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LADHSW>
Website: www.ky6la.com DHSW> "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished"DHSW> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego
Fires,
911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Improving the Service/Hobby/Art

Actually if you look as some of the really old 
histories.. even before 1912 when the US Government first issued call signs, you 
will find amazing stories of Hams coming to the rescue...so Our Proud EMCOMM 
history dates from almost the earliest days of Ham Radio
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Flavio 
  Padovani 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

  Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:46 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Improving 
  the Service/Hobby/Art

  Saludos James,
  Youn are absolutely right, James. The intention is made very clear in the 
  first quoted section ((a) Recognition and enhancement of 
  the value of the amateur service
  to the public)). The writers 
  of the regulations RECOGNIZED some value and wanted to enhance it. THEY DID 
  NOT CREATE an emergency service. They just were aware, many years after the 
  service was created, that the potential for emergency communications existed 
  in the Amateur Service. If the amateur service is an emergency service, why is 
  not it mandatory that every ham in the US should train periodically in 
  emergency procedures.
  I have several certificates from different organizations awarded for public 
  service. All of them are proudly displayed in my ham shack. I have volunteered 
  my services every time a natural disaster has ocurred in Puerto Rico and 
  actively participate in an antillean weather net during the hurricane season. 
  But I am not an emergency operator, just a ham that is willing to help others 
  when needed.
  The amateur radio service is very clearly defined in the regulations:

  (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the 
  purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical 
  investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly 
  authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with 
  a personal aim and without pecuniary interest. 

  Saturday, March 4, 2006, 8:40:54 PM, you wrote:

  j>    I'm sorry but you need to do a little 
  more historical research. 
  j>  Amateur Radio was/is primarily authorized 
  because of items 97.1
  j>  (b)(c)(d).  Amateur Radio has been 
  around, recognized, and authorized
  j>  by the US Government since the early 1900's. 
   Early amateurs were
  j>  recognized for their contributions to the 
  radio art and as trained
  j>  operators, especially for the military. 
   Emcomms did not exist in the
  j>  early days of amateur radio and was not why 
  Amateur Radio was
  j>  allocated the frequency bands we currently 
  enjoy.
  j>  
  j>  One of the histories shows that "In 1924, 
  Amateurs received new bands
  j>  at 80, 40, 20, and 5 meters."  At the 
  time, they were considered
  j>  pretty unimportant.  I am sure these 
  allocations weren't made because
  j>  of our contributions to emcomms.
  j>  
  j>  Do a google on "history of amateur radio" and 
  read some of the many
  j>  articles and pages devoted to our history. 
   You won't find emcomms
  j>  mentioned anywhere until relatively 
  recently!
  j>  
  j>  And, Part 97.1 (a) implicitly recognizes 
  other values of the amateur
  j>  service by the simple mention of just one of 
  them.  This mention of
  j>  one item (emergency communications) does not 
  mean it is the 'primary'
  j>  reason that amateur radio is authorized. 
   If they meant 'primary', in
  j>  other words more important than the others, 
  then that is what they
  j>  would have said.  Instead, the rules use 
  the word 'particularly' which
  j>  is a totally different connotation, i.e. 
  special attention given to
  j>  this one item.
  j>  
  j>  Also, I am not a lawyer so maybe someone who 
  is can give a better or
  j>  more accurate interpretation, but in my 
  training of dealing with labor
  j>  law and union contracts, if the authors 
  intended one principle to be
  j>  more important than another, they would have 
  said so in no uncertain
  j>  terms.  With no indication that the 
  principles are ranked in order of
  j>  importance, one must assume that they are all 
  equal.
  j>  
  j>  Jim
  j>  WA0LYK
  j>  
  j>  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   >> In the U.S., amateur radio is primarily 
  authorized because of the 
   >> potential for emergency communications. It 
  is listed as the first of
  j>  the 
   >> 5 principles and I always point that out 
  when I teach an entry level 
   >> class for potential new hams. I would not 
  weigh the 5 principles as 
   >> equal, but rather as supporting the 
  overall concept.
   >> 
   >> My understanding is that in some 
  countries, amateur radio is considered 
   >> more of a hobby to provide activities for 
  the citizens. In the past, 
   >> Japan

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network






If you want to go into ancient history... Amateur 
Radio has been part of EMCOMM since at least before the Titanic... in fact it 
was the Titanic Disaster that caused the rules that required all ships to carry 
radios and that the radios must be manned 24/7.   Yes CW was king of 
EMCOMM back then because there was not other means of communications.. but as 
new technologies were developed CW's primacy in EMCOMM has been greatly 
diminished.
 
Current amateur allocations by the FCC are ruled by 
Part 97 of the Communications Act of 1933 as Amended many times...
 
Clearly the Congress when creating Part 
97 saw EMCOMM as the first reason they allowed the Amateur Radio SERVICE... 
and Congress never called it a Hobby
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jgorman01 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:13 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army 
  MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network
  Amateur Radio was allocated the 80, 40, 20, and 5 
  meter bands in 1924,when Morse Code was King.  Are you trying to tell 
  us that emcomms wasthe primary purpose of amateur radio in 1924?  
  By the way, the FCC does not allocate amateur radio frequencies.  
  Thatis done via international treaties.  The FCC issues licenses 
  tooperators to use those allocated frequencies.  The frequencies 
  willstill remain allocated to amateur use even if the FCC decides 
  tocancel all US amateur licenses.  For the FCC to allocate 
  thosefrequencies to some other use would require abrogating 
  ourinternational treaty obligations and isn't likely to happen.  
  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. 
  White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> No being training in 
  Legal interpretations...> > But typically when you place 
  something first in a list and use the words> > "particularly 
  with respect to providing emergency communications"> > > 
  One might interpret it to means that it was the most importantreason of 
  the> reason listed.> > The point I was making is that 
  no where is ARS listed as a Hobby> > And clearly the major 
  justification that the FCC uses to allocate us our> frequencies is 
  EMCOMM> > > > 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">   - 
  Original Message - >   From: 
  jgorman01>   To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>   Sent: Saturday, March 04, 
  2006 5:53 AM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army 
  MARS ImplementingWinlink 2000> with Airmail Network> 
  > >   Howard,> >   I hate to 
  burst your balloon, but you are totally misinterpreting 
  the>   FCC regulations.  Part 97.1(a) says,> 
  >   "(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the 
  amateur service>   to the public as a voluntary noncommercial 
  communication service,>   particularly with respect to 
  providing emergency communications."> >   This doesn't 
  say ONLY with respect to emcomms.  It sure doesn't 
  say>   the primary use of ham radio is for emcomms. And in 
  fact, (a) is only>   one of five principles used in designing 
  FCC rules and regulations.>   To argue which of the five 
  principles is more important is like>   arguing which of the 
  Ten Commandants is more important. They are all>   equally 
  important!> >   With your interpretation, even (b) and 
  (c) would take a back seat to>   emcomms.  This would 
  make the current ARRL petition for bandwidth>   regulation a 
  loser from the start since its effect on emcomms was not>   
  considered or addressed at all in the petition.  The ARRL should 
  have>   at least mentioned emcomms rather than designing the 
  proposal solely>   around promoting experimentation.> 
  >   Jim>   WA0LYK> 
  >   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. 
  White">    wrote:>   
  >>   > Actually Danny, according to Part 97.1 the 
  government already gave>   us the>   > 
  Ham Bands and their primary use is to be used for 
  Emergency>   > Communications>   
  >>   > We sometimes forget that the "Hobby" use is a 
  secondary use of the>   > bandsas no where in part 97 
  does it say the Amateur Service is a>   
  hobby.>   > 
  ___

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network

No being training in Legal
interpretations...
But typically when you place something first in a
list and use the words
"particularly with
respect to providing emergency communications"
One might interpret it to means that it was the most
important reason of the reason listed.
The point I was making is that no where is ARS listed as a
Hobby
And clearly the major justification that the FCC uses to
allocate us our frequencies is EMCOMM
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:53
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army
MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network
Howard,I hate to burst your balloon, but you are
totally misinterpreting theFCC regulations. Part 97.1(a)
says,"(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur
serviceto the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication
service,particularly with respect to providing emergency
communications."This doesn't say ONLY with respect to emcomms.
It sure doesn't saythe primary use of ham radio is for emcomms. And in
fact, (a) is onlyone of five principles used in designing FCC rules and
regulations. To argue which of the five principles is more important is
likearguing which of the Ten Commandants is more important. They are
allequally important!With your interpretation, even (b) and (c)
would take a back seat toemcomms. This would make the current ARRL
petition for bandwidthregulation a loser from the start since its effect
on emcomms was notconsidered or addressed at all in the petition.
The ARRL should haveat least mentioned emcomms rather than designing the
proposal solelyaround promoting experimentation.
JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard
S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Actually Danny,
according to Part 97.1 the government already gaveus the> Ham Bands
and their primary use is to be used for Emergency>
Communications> > We sometimes forget that the "Hobby" use
is a secondary use of the> bandsas no where in part 97 does it say
the Amateur Service is ahobby.>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] ARRLWeb: Army MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network

2006-03-03 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Actually Danny, according to Part 97.1 the 
government already gave us the Ham Bands and their primary use is to be used for 
Emergency Communications
 
We sometimes forget that the "Hobby" use is a 
secondary use of the bandsas no where in part 97 does it say the Amateur 
Service is a hobby.
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Danny Douglas 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:03 
AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRLWeb: Army 
  MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network
  
  I think that is just fine, and a perfect example 
  of where and when something like Winlink could and should be used.  
  Outside the amateur bands.  If the government wants hams to be involved 
  in emergency communications they should do the same:  give us additional 
  (outside ham band) frequencies.  Todays modern tranceivers mostly can be 
  modified easily to expand the hf bands, thus amateurs and their equipment can 
  be configured and used to support these requirements.
   
  
- Original Message ----- 
From: 
Dr. Howard S. 
White 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:59 
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] ARRLWeb: Army 
MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network

This announcement should really stir up some 
new rantings from the Anti-Everything Forces...
 
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/02/5/?nc=1
 
Have fun!!!
__Howard 
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"
 



No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 
3/3/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[digitalradio] ARRLWeb: Army MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network

2006-03-02 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






This announcement should really stir up some new 
rantings from the Anti-Everything Forces...
 
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/02/5/?nc=1
 
Have fun!!!
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: 
www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - 
Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
 





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] The US Ham radio service

2006-03-01 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Danny and Mel:
 
Great work Danny...
 
and Sorry you have such a jaundiced view of 
Volunteerism...Hal
 
Coming from another country (Canada) and living and 
working in many countries around the world, I saw first hand the amazing power 
of American Volunteerism compared to having the government take care of it for 
you.
 
I have lived in those countries where the 
Government take care of you and also take 60% -90% of everything you earn so 
that they have the funds to support the bloated beaurocracies they support to do 
it
 
Frankly there is a very good reason for the 
saying... Leave it to Private Enterprise ... because those governments that take 
60% - 90 % of your money really do a very crummy job of itThere is nothing a 
government cannot find a way to do worse or more expensively...
 
Frankly our American Volunteers do a far better job 
of public service than the government employed workers I have seen in most other 
countries
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Danny Douglas 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:03 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The US Ham 
  radio service
  
  Im sorry you think that way Harv.  This 
  whole country was formed with volunteers, from the start, with 
  non-professional military (I live right next door to the original (Don't Tread 
  On Me) Culpeper minute men.  Even the Founders were volunteers.  If 
  you want to pay 75 or 90 percent of your salary as taxes, I am sure the 
  government can supply all the services you desire or need.  Well - maybe 
  not at that.  I can remember back when our 
  local "rescue" (Texas) was the local funeral director.  He would 
  often get calls to go out to a wreck on US 66 , jump in his  "ambulance" 
  (a retired hearse) and run through town looking for one of us teenagers to go 
  help him.  More than once, I happened to be walking out of the 
  postoffice, or headed to or from a Scout meeting, when he would see me, and 
  come screeching to a stop.  I would hop in, and away we went.  We 
  picked up the victim, threw him/her on a stretcher, shoved it in the hearse, 
  and away we drove (probably about 35 miles) to the nearest hospital.  
  There was little or no treatment of the victim, other than what I may have 
  known as a Scout.  In fact, when I got back out of the Army, was living 
  at home and attending a Junior College, I took a red cross first aid class, 
  and that same undertaker was a fellow student.  It was his first 
  "emergency" first aid course also.  He was also my Scoutmaster for a few 
  years, so pretty much knew the same first aid I did. 
   
  It was only in the early 70 and later 
   that most of the present volunteer rescue squads were formed, and then 
  only because of the TV program "Emergency" and the sudden awakening of the 
  public to the woeful ill equipped and trained - or competent non-existent 
  emergency medical services that we had here in the United States.  
  Most every one of them started with volunteers.  City and County 
  governments have taken over many of them over the past couple of decades, 
  but the majority, in the suburbs and remote areas still run with a largely 
  volunteer staff.  Ours here in Madison County Virginia has only 
  very recently become a mixed bag of professional in the daytime 5 days a 
  week, with volunteers making calls at night and on 
  weekends.  Our fire department is still totally volunteer.  
  
   
  Given the fact of these very important emergency 
  services, and the millions of free hours they provide the public, and the fact 
  that they must also have money earning projects (here in Virginia its a weekly 
  BINGO game that provides the majority of the monies, but the local governments 
  do kick in a bundle too).  and must find staff to run those activities as 
  well.  I find it ludicrous that we hams cant get ourselves out of our arm 
  chairs and away from the screens for a few hours a month (at the least) and 
  get out and volunteer our equipment, expertise and time to assist these other 
  volunteers in their activities.  Refusal to assist the "government" , 
  being it police or National Guard etc. is refusal to help yourself.  
  After all WE are the government.  These professionals are our servants 
  and deserve every bit of support we can provide, and a few hour of public 
  service are the very least of that. 
   
  I urge every ham to get involved.  Over the 
  past 55 plus years as a Scout Leader, I have taught that, over-and-over, to 
  Scouts. and have often been pleasantly surprised how often I meet one of them 
  - adults now - who are our rescue or fire department squad members, or members 
  of a local police department.

Re: [digitalradio] The US Ham radio service

2006-03-01 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Title: RE: [digitalradio] The US Ham radio service

Mel
To give you another view of the EMCOMM issue in the
USA
The USA is geographically significantly larger than
Europe.
Our taxation is significantly lower than
Europe.
So US government, in spite of the Billions $$, they
spend on EMCOMM, likely spends a lot less per square mile and per person
they need to protect.
To make up for this shortfall in funding, the USA
very much depends on volunteerism...
Unpaid volunteers provide much of the Emergency
public services that you in Europe and the UK expect the government to
provide.
As a result Ham Radio is expected to provide EMCOMM
during those times when government services no longer have the capacity to
handle the loads.
Hence we US hams are very serious about
EMCOMM.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA

To: 'digitalradio@yahoogroups.com'

Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:12
AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] The US Ham
radio service

One reason for using amateur radio is that during "normal"
everyday operations the agency/organization uses their radios for normal
business. In emergencies, there is generally a need for increased
communications both in equipment and trained operators. Agencies and
organizations cannot budget for emergency communications personnel to work
full time and only be used during an emergency. Thus the reason for
auxiliaries springing up during the early part of the 20th century...the
assisted agencies and organizations when there was the need for additional
personnel.
Thus amateur radio acts an communications auxiliary for many
agencies and organizations during emergencies.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message- From:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Dr. Howard S. White Sent: Wednesday, March
01, 2006 1:28 AM To:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Fw:
[digitalradio] The US Ham radio service
Mel:
As one who has lived and worked in your country and enjoyed
the gentlemanly civility of UK and European Amateurs I can understand your
attitude. It really was a pleasure using Ham Radio over
there.
I do not know if you ever saw the RSGB video on Ham
Radio...but their entire EMCOMM section was a replay of US EMCOMM.. as the UK
does not have any Natural Diasasters to speak of...
On the other side of this issue, tonite I am teaching an
Amateur Radio Licensing class at the USCG Auxiliary. They
have decided that as a result of their experience in many natural disasters
(which for some lucky reason of geography the UK and Europe rarely have) and
especially Katrina that 100% of their members need to get their Amateur Radio
Licenses. Hard to believe that with the Billions of $$ the government
spends on communications, they still had to fall back to Ham Radio as their
last line of communications
So Ham Radio is much more serious stuff over here... We really
have a role to play in EMCOMM.
And I guess that is why some of us take it so seriously...

For me, Katrina was intense.. I did not sleep for 3 1/2 days
while passing traffic on 20M and 40M...
Frankly I never had so much fun in ham radio and felt so
needed as during Katrina...
It even was more intense that our massive 2003 San Diego
Fires... where hams were the only communications for about 7
days
As Andy said, probably only about 10% of us do EMCOMM But I
wish there were more...
How do digital modes such as PSK, MFSK and Winlink come into
EMCOMM?
.. Well actually they all can be quite useful... Modes
such as PSK and MFSK and Olivia can get through when most other mechanisms
such as SSB or CW will no longer work... Winlink adds a new dimension to
EMCOMM allowing us get help from wide areas through the Internet when no other
means are available...
Ham Radio in EMCOMM is there for those time when all else
fails... it is not a substitute for commercial or government
systems
...but when all else fails, theres always HAM RADIO

... at least in the USA. __
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM
KY6LA Website: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" -
Original Message - From: Mel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday,
February 27, 2006 3:04 PM Subject: [digitalradio] The
US Ham radio service
Hello everyone,
The belief that in the United States of America amateur

Fw: [digitalradio] The US Ham radio service

2006-03-01 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Mel:
As one who has lived and worked in your country and
enjoyed the gentlemanly civility of UK and European Amateurs I can understand
your attitude. It really was a pleasure using Ham Radio over
there.
I do not know if you ever saw the RSGB video on Ham
Radio...but their entire EMCOMM section was a replay of US EMCOMM.. as the UK
does not have any Natural Diasasters to speak of...
On the other side of this issue, tonite I am
teaching an Amateur Radio Licensing class at the USCG
Auxiliary. They have decided that as a result of their
experience in many natural disasters (which for some lucky reason of geography
the UK and Europe rarely have) and especially Katrina that 100% of their members
need to get their Amateur Radio Licenses. Hard to believe that with the
Billions of $$ the government spends on communications, they still had to fall
back to Ham Radio as their last line of communications
So Ham Radio is much more serious stuff over
here... We really have a role to play in EMCOMM.
And I guess that is why some of us take it so
seriously...
For me, Katrina was intense.. I did not sleep for 3
1/2 days while passing traffic on 20M and 40M...
Frankly I never had so much fun in ham radio and
felt so needed as during Katrina...
It even was more intense that our massive 2003 San
Diego Fires... where hams were the only communications for about 7
days
As Andy said, probably only about 10% of us do
EMCOMM But I wish there were more...
How do digital modes such as PSK, MFSK and Winlink
come into EMCOMM?
.. Well actually they all can be quite
useful... Modes such as PSK and MFSK and Olivia can get through when most other
mechanisms such as SSB or CW will no longer work... Winlink adds a new
dimension to EMCOMM allowing us get help from wide areas through the Internet
when no other means are available...
Ham Radio in EMCOMM is there for those time when
all else fails... it is not a substitute for commercial or government
systems
...but when all else fails, theres always HAM
RADIO
... at least in the USA.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Mel

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:04
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] The US Ham radio
service
Hello everyone,The belief that in the United States
of America amateur radio is regarded like the USN, the USCG,the USAF
etc.is pretty widespread among the amateur radio fraternity. It would be
interesting to know how PSK and other digital modes blend into this
service.I believe it would be safe to assume that in the many
countries of Europe, radio amateurs regard talking to their friends
or sending PSK messages on their transmitters to other amateurs as a
hobby, a pleasant pastime. We don't attach the seriousness and intensity
to the hobby as do our American friends, perhaps we are too relaxed with
this attitude. This is reflected in the civility which is shown to all
the users of 80 and 40 metres from the many countries of Europe,, and this
makes amateur radio a pleasure.Mel G0GQK

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital- Sick of Flapping Lips Too....

2006-02-27 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Tim:
Thank you for yet again for voicing your usual
extremist anti Winlink, anti Bandwidth Regulation, anti ARRL and anti virtually
everything else opinions.
Unfortunately we do not live in the idealized dream
world that you wish it to be...
With EMCOMM, we have to deal with the real world
situations as they arise.
FACT: After the last earthquake, It took
several hours for the automatic self aligning systems to be plugging into power,
reboot, realign, reconnect or whatever they needed to do get back on the
air .. While it was better than the several days of previous incarnations, it
was still not good enough and Amateur Radio had a role to play (including some
Digital Communications) until things got back on line. In fact, the
California Office of Emergency Services maintains, I believe, 10 HF Amateur
Stations that are used when your idealistic automatic self aligning
systems fail when you most need them
FACT: In the 2003 Fires, smoke was so intense
that virtually all UHF and Satellite Systems were either blocked or refracted by
the smoke to the point where they were not reliable. Amateur Radio had a
major role to play until the smoke dissipated several days later and government
communications were usable again. It got pretty intense when Ham Radio
operators had to go out and rescue Fire Fighters whose 800 MHz Radios were
blocked by smoke..
Winlink, along with Packet, SSB, CW, PSK, FM and
RTTY are just some of the tools that were available to us Hams to provide
communications when all else failed.
Which in these cases they did and we were
needed.
Discard any one of our tools or the ARRL, just
because you hate it, makes no sense...
Basically Most of the Rest of the World has already
got it right and they are waiting for the US to stop yakking about it and just
catch up to them
I have to agree with our friend "Sick of Flapping
Lips"
that frankly I am also getting very tired of your
anti everything rhetoric.
I apologize to them that I feel obligated to
correct your continual distortions of facts and reality
and your attempts to rewrite history to fit your
anti-everything views of life.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-25 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Tim:
Please stay where you are.. we already have
enough people in California...
California has started equiping EOC's with self
aligning antennas...because in previous major earthquakes. it took several days
to manually realign the antennas...
In the last major quake, those equiped with self
aligning antennas, while no where near instantaneous, were able to get back on
the air in a few hours.
During the period that they were off the air, Ham
systems have a role to play...
However when you get to the problems of shelters
and outlying areas... there are no permanent installations so the satellite
connection with self aligning antennas is just not available.. ...
plus during our 2003 Fires.. we found that both that 800 MHz Public
Safety Systems and the satellite coverage had reliability problems
getting through the dense smoke which blocked or refracted the
signals..
Here Ham Systems .. of which Winlink is just one
tool in our arsenal...usually have a major role to play for the duration of the
disaster...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:41
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
If all else available to these EOC's failed then I hope to
God I am never in the area they are responsible for when a disaster
occurs. With the self-aligning satellite links that provide mega-bit
rates up and down that are available today for less than $2500 a year, an
EOC without one is just being penny-wise and pound foolish.And if
you come back and say that the EOC's are located where there is no
satellite access, then I'll repeat, I hope to God I am never in the area
they are responsible for when a disaster occurs. Such idiocy in site
location and management is totally unacceptable. Nobody minds you
being a cheerleader, Howard, and I agree with you that Winlink should be a
tool in our arsenal, but when you start throwing out such totally
unbelievable stuff, all you do is hurt the credibility of the people in
charge of the EOC function in your county or state. I'm sure they
appreciate you doing that. tim ab0wrOn Saturday 25 February
2006 12:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> Obviously you are not
interested in a simple statement of fact...>> The 2 EOC's were
equiped with their usual equipment + Winlink. The usual> systems
failed to connect because there was no direct propagation between> the
EOC's. Winlink because of its ability to automatically
take> advantage of relay connections was able to connect and pass the
traffic> when all else failed in this situation. The beauty
of Winlink is that one> can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic
so as propagation changes> there is usually a PMBO within range making
for a fairly reliable means of> communications.>> Winlink
was not a planned mode for the SET... but when all else failed..>
Winlink came to the rescue..>> In spite of the Winlink Haters
out there... and there were also several in> both EOC's at the time
>> I know you do not want to hear it... but Winlink Worked
when all else> available to the EOC's failed>> We, hams,
need to consider Winlink as ONE of our tools in our arsenal for>
EMCOMM __>
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA>
Website: www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham
Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-25 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Obviously you are not interested in a simple
statement of fact...
The 2 EOC's were equiped with their usual equipment
+ Winlink. The usual systems failed to connect because there was no direct
propagation between the EOC's. Winlink because of its ability
to automatically take advantage of relay connections was able to connect and
pass the traffic when all else failed in this situation. The beauty
of Winlink is that one can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic so as
propagation changes there is usually a PMBO within range making for
a fairly reliable means of communications.
Winlink was not a planned mode for the SET... but
when all else failed.. Winlink came to the rescue..
In spite of the Winlink Haters out there... and
there were also several in both EOC's at the time
I know you do not want to hear it... but Winlink
Worked when all else available to the EOC's failed
We, hams, need to consider Winlink as ONE of our
tools in our arsenal for EMCOMM
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
doc
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:48
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
> Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> All other Modes
(including several Weak Signal> Digital modes) Failed to Connect the
San Diego> EOC to the Imperial County EOC during the
SET.*All*? Every possible mode was tested?Really?
Do we have documentation of what wastested and what variables were changed
frommode to mode?The realities of propagation and the
competenciesof other digital modes raise serious doubts aboutthe
efficacy of such an assertion.Same power, same antennas, equally
competent opsat both ends?Or, token efforts with known-inferior
digital modesand/or inferior hardware at one end or both?Given the
history of hype one is required to becynical.IMHO, YMMV ... 73,
doc kd4e

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-24 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Joe:
 
As I said, I was in the field and not at the 
EOC's  so I do not know the exact sequence...
 
 
One of the great things about 
Winlink...
 
You can almost set it and forget it...
 
You Do Not need to know the band and frequency of 
the receiving station... 
 
You only need to know the frequencies of the 
Winlink PMBO Nodes
 
Using the Airmail client which has the list of 
frequencies in it, you can search the bands for a PMBO Node to connect 
to...
 
You connect to the PMBO node... send the Email.. 
the node passes it to the Internet.
 
At the other end.. the Winlink Station connects to 
a PMBO Node or the Internet.. and takes its Email off the Internet.
 
BOTH EOC's were equiped with Winlink Stations that 
polled the Nodes to see if there was traffic...
 
The traffic appeared in their Email 
Inboxes...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe 
  Ivey 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:50 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  
  There is one thing that puzzles me. How did you 
  manage to set up Winlink between the two EOC's
  if you could not communicate? It appears to me 
  that both would have to know the band/frequency
  and that the other EOC had to know that the other 
  was going to switch to Winlink. Sounds sort of
  strange to me. Guess they used ESP?
   
  Joe IveyW4JSI
   
  Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not 
matter
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dr. Howard S. 
White 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:17 
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
traffic handling and digital

All other Modes (including several Weak Signal 
Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County 
EOC during the SET.  
 
Doc:
 
You were so hung up in your theoretical 
analysis that you missed the point
 
Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation 
path directly between the two EOC's during the test.  Plus the path is 
difficult at best of times due to intervening mountain ranges.  They 
had hoped HF Sideband and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the 
propagation gods were against them...
 
Winlink was not planned to be included in the 
SET.  Winlink was tried as a total afterthought (because like you the 
EOC managers were very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its 
installation) when all other modes failed.  I have been lead to 
believe that the EOC Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to 
prove that Winlink would also be useless in the SET Scenario.
 
Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a 
node over a thousand miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY 
relay the messages to the Imperial County EOC.  
 
As I was out in the field at the time, and do 
not have first hand knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was 
connecting through a different Winlink Node.
 
Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that 
Winlink was the only mode that worked when all else failed...as they had 
expected Winlink to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a 
number of them into Winlink converts.
 
Doc:
 
I loved your theoretical analysis of the 
situation.. 
 
but the Bottom Line Real World results in the 
Simulated Emergency Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate 
the effects of a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly 
could...
 
... showed that Winlink Worked...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
UnpuAmanished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 
  7:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS 
  and traffic handling and digital
  > The point I am making is that us hams have a 
  lot> of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this> 
  irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one> of our tools makes 
  no sense...I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink 
  being"discarded".  That is a red herring.The points I 
  made, and they were intentionallyprecise, were:1.  Were 
  any other weak-signal digital modes tested?Winlink is one of

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-24 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






All other Modes (including several Weak Signal 
Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC 
during the SET.  
 
Doc:
 
You were so hung up in your theoretical analysis 
that you missed the point
 
Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation path 
directly between the two EOC's during the test.  Plus the path is difficult 
at best of times due to intervening mountain ranges.  They had hoped HF 
Sideband and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the propagation gods were 
against them...
 
Winlink was not planned to be included in the 
SET.  Winlink was tried as a total afterthought (because like you the EOC 
managers were very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its installation) 
when all other modes failed.  I have been lead to believe that the EOC 
Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to prove that Winlink would 
also be useless in the SET Scenario.
 
Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a node 
over a thousand miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY relay the 
messages to the Imperial County EOC.  
 
As I was out in the field at the time, and do not 
have first hand knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was connecting 
through a different Winlink Node.
 
Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that 
Winlink was the only mode that worked when all else failed...as they had 
expected Winlink to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a number 
of them into Winlink converts.
 
Doc:
 
I loved your theoretical analysis of the 
situation.. 
 
but the Bottom Line Real World results in the 
Simulated Emergency Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate the 
effects of a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly 
could...
 
... showed that Winlink Worked...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
UnpuAmanished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:14 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  > The point I am making is that us hams have a 
  lot> of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this> 
  irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one> of our tools makes no 
  sense...I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink 
  being"discarded".  That is a red herring.The points I made, 
  and they were intentionallyprecise, were:1.  Were any other 
  weak-signal digital modes tested?Winlink is one of many, and one of the 
  most complex.Why test only the most expensive and the most 
  complexrather than several different digital modes?2.  In 
  proper emergency communications planning one*always* seeks the most 
  commonly available, leastcomplex, and most effective mode(s) for 
  communication.There is no evidence that such was done re. digitalmodes 
  in this case.3.  Winlink was not listed as to be "discarded", 
  onlyas not the wise choice as a top-tier tool.  Nothingpresented 
  in your reaction/reply has in the slightestway factually argued against 
  that assertion.There are standards and science which are 
  supposedto guide professional and wise decision making foremergency 
  communications.The assertion that Winlink is (or was) the only 
  andbest mode simply fails to meet the standard.  ThatWinlink was 
  the *only* weak-signal digital mode testedmakes an entirely different 
  statement having nothingto do superiority and something else to do 
  withskewing the playing field.How about inviting operators of 
  several differentdigital modes to the test.  Then using 
  real-worldprobabilities postulate equipment failure.  It 
  isimpossible to not find a higher probability thatnecessary pairs of 
  rare Winlink stations at bothcritical ends will either not be in place or 
  suffersome sort of failure then one of the more common(due primarily 
  to cost) and more reliable (dueprimarily to simplicity) digital modes will 
  reallybe there when things really get ugly.Let me 
  illustrate.If one does a test that says that one must completea 
  relay of a package across difficult terrain andthe vehicles chosen are two 
  each Chevy S10's (SSB Voice),Honda Accords (CW), SUVs (complete VHF/UHF FM 
  RepeaterLink system), and Hummer H2s.Those vehicles would need to 
  be in precise positions(the equivalent of EOC's) prior to the suddenly 
  declaredrelay.  They would have to be fully fueled, manned 
  bycompetent drivers, and absent mechanical problems.One would face 
  a series of serious challenges.Winlink, like the Hummer H2, is rare 
  and the probabilitythat sufficient hardware/software combinations at 
  bothends (and "both ends" is an unpredictable because EOC'smay be 
  breached by an earthquake or terrorist attack)when needed with antennas 
  and power and everythingrequired

Re: [digitalradio] Analog-Digital Emergency Net?

2006-02-24 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Gee Doc 
 
Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to have regulation 
by bandwidth like most of the rest of the world and not have to be concerned 
with regulatory barriers to your net?
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:35 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 
  Analog-Digital Emergency Net?
  Perhaps Homeland Security could ask the FCC to 
  grantpermission for such a Net at the edge of CD/Digitaland 
  Phone?e.g. 7150, 14150, 28300?The more complex alternative 
  would be to map outthe necessary minimum of freqs (+/-) QRM on 
  whichalternative modes could be utilized.More complex but less 
  challenging than asking theFCC to flex the regs, even for the sake of 
  HomelandSecurity-relevant communications testing!doc> I 
  have long wanted to be able to do this, here in the U.S., just like is 
  > done now with SSTV on several HF bands.> > But what you 
  propose is currently illegal on all HF amateur bands except > for 160 
  meters.> > Or did you mean that stations would QSY to the 
  various required parts of > the band to operate these different 
  modes?> > 73,> > Rick, KV9U





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Doc:
 
It's amazing to me how fast the irrational Winlink 
Haters crawl out of the woodwork on this reflector
 
A brief report on the drill is on Page 1 and 
Page 2 of the San Diego Section ARES Alert
 
www.qsl.net/sdgarrl/alert0905.pdf 

 
Most of the rest of the documentation is on the San 
Diego ARES Reflector on Yahoo.
 
Was Winlink a primary communications tool planned 
for the drill?
 
... Definitely not...
 
In fact, Winlink was very much an 
afterthought  and ultimately an act of desperation... 
 
The people manning SD EOC were very much the 
Luddites who were opposed to even equipping the EOC with Winlink [I was not 
even at the EOC as I was manning a Mountain Top (my house) as a HF/VHF/UHF 
relay until the simulated earhquake disabled my tower]
 
BUT
When all else failed to connect to Imperial County EOC, the Luddites in 
the SD EOC finally tried Winlink...
 
They were able to connect through a HF Node in Texas which enabled 
them to pass vital traffic from EOC to EOC.
 
The point I am making is that us hams have a lot of tools in our EMCOMM 
arsenals.. and using this irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one of our 
tools makes no sense...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:03 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  I would like to see the documentation of this.As a 
  former employee of a state emergency managementagency and a former section 
  emergency coordinator anda Ham for a long time the scenario described must 
  bemissing some important variables.If HF Winlink could hold 
  effective communications onHF then so could a dozen or more modes.  
  There is notechnological reason why HF Winlink was "the only"reliable 
  mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewedto be certain of that 
  outcome.Not looking for an argument, just some healthy 
  cynicismbased on a little knowledge of politics and science.HF 
  Winlink may have been "one of many" modes morecapable of effective weak 
  signal communications but onecannot ever make the claim that it would be 
  the "only".Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the 
  highvalue of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be apoor 
  first/primary choice.  The hardware is so rare asto be readily 
  postulated as "probably unavailable" atboth ends and the complexity of the 
  systems rise abovestandard emergency requirements for 
  mission-criticalapplications.A third-tier or fourth-tier 
  nice-to-have perhaps.IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e> Last 
  August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San > 
  Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9 > 
  earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which > 
  destroyed most of the local infrasture.>  > Due to the 
  simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and > power 
  sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land > Line 
  voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial > 
  County EOC.>  > The only communications that proved 
  reliable was HF Winlink.  San Diego > EOC was able to connect into 
  a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County > was able to connect to 
  another HF node and we established and maintained > both Critical, 
  Tactical and H&W communications through Winlink Email.>  
  > I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else 
  failed > during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in 
  the wool > Winlink Haters around here.>  > Could we 
  have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..>  > We 
  tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)... > 
  however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for 
  > relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or 
  > reliability...> > So there definitely is a place for 
  Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Last August San Diego Section ARES ran a
Simulated Emergency Test in San Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the
effects of a 7.9 earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario)
which destroyed most of the local infrasture.
Due to the simulated outages of local
infrastructure, repeaters and power sources, we were unable to establish
VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC
and the Imperial County EOC.
The only communications that proved reliable was HF
Winlink. San Diego EOC was able to connect into a Winlink Node in Texas
and Imperial County was able to connect to another HF node and we established
and maintained both Critical, Tactical and H&W communications through
Winlink Email.
I might note that the success of HF Winlink when
everything else failed during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died
in the wool Winlink Haters around here.
Could we have accomplished the same with HF voice
Relays?..
We tried HF voice without much success (they were
in a HF dead zone)... however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF
stations around for relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of
use or reliability...
So there definitely is a place for Winlink
EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:19
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Tim,I think we all understand your position on
this. If you take it very far, I would have to say that 95% or more hams
would recommend that any kind of automatic operation be prohibited on
amateur radio frequencies. As I said earlier, subbands may be a solution
for now, but long term, maybe not. Nothing is perfect.For example,
if I am monitoring a frequency and start calling a digital CQ or answer a
digital CQ and an automatic digital station comes on frequency, I have no
way of knowing if they were there first unless I happen to be using their
mode. If a Pactor station comes up, I would know that they are interfering
with my Q because, they are going to be operating as an ARQ mode.
This is another significant benefit to ARQ modes, since they insure that a
station coming up on the frequency knows right away whether the frequency
is busy or not. And it doesn't have to occur on a special part of the
band.Now if I am monitoring a frequency and start calling a digital CQ
or answer a digital CQ or try to connect with an automated system and a
human op somewhere starts transmitting on the frequency, I would often
consider them to be encroaching. If they were using a different mode, I
would have no way of knowing if they were there first. Does this happen
very often? Pretty rare, but it does happen. If I am on the same mode, I
may be able to read the mail if they are stronger and maybe not. This is
one of the limitations of digital modes at this time. With CW or voice
you can more easily determine who was there first. QRL in CW as some
suggest is going to be of less value due to the fewer and fewer hams who
will even know CW, but if they hear it, even if they can not understand
it, they will know the frequency is being used, so that has value in
ID'ing a busy channel.As far as using e-mail during emergencies,
you only use e-mail for large files of data. You NEVER, EVER, use e-mail
for critical, tactical messaging. Any emergency operations MUST always
have a solid voice link first. This is one of the most basic tenents of
emergency communication. It is only after you have tactical communications
that you even consider having e-mail linking. But e-mail links can be
useful in emergency situations.One of the best object lessons
(apparently true) about e-mail was when e-mail was used to call for an
emergency test for an organization. The message was sent out at the end of
the week so that everyone would know of the participation on Saturday
morning. Unfortunately, the e-mails did not get delivered to the
recipients until Sunday :( Big problem.I know of a Winlink 2000
situation where the system was to be used to demonstrate its effectives
for emergency use and it utterly failed. Some of the messages came through
much later, but it showed that you can not absolutely rely on any of these
systems to work 100% of the time. But often they do work rather well. When
we were testing SCAMP, I was able to link between my station in SW
Wisconsin, to a station in Nova Scotia, transfer a letter size document in
a few minutes and have the message back on my desktop as e-mail a

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL to file Encryption Petition with the FCC

2006-02-13 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Bottom Line... "the rest of the world has already figured it out and is
patiently waiting for the USA to catch up"
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:31
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL to file
Encryption Petition with the FCC
Howard,If I read you right, since this is in
paragraph (a), then paragraphs(b) through (e) are subordinate to it.
Your statements seem to saythat if emcomms require it, then the rest of
the basis and purposeparagraphs should take a back seat to
emcomms.Does 'self-policing' and the freedom to experiment, use any
frequencyin our bands, use practically any transmitter, etc. have any tie
inwith you?Not to many messages ago, you were saying that FCC
regulations werepreventing amateur experimentation and new digital
protocols. Do youthink the FCC will continue to allow this if we
can't self-policeourselves?The FCC's policy for radio services
that are not self-policing is touse type accepted, channelized, extremely
difficult to modify radios. In other words, they regulate on the
front-end so they don't have tospend money on enforcement. Do you realize
that if we voluntarily giveup the ability to self-police that is probably
what we will end upwith? Where will experimentation and new digital
protocols be done inthe amateur bands with this type of
regulation?With any luck, they may just require this for radio's with
encryption.However, with homeland security being an important issue, they
mayrequire ALL hams to cease using existing equipment on 6m and above
andmove to type accepted equipment. Would this be ok with you since,
asyou say, emcomms is the primary purpose of ham
radio?JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.
Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> EMCOMM has
always been the first reason for existence of HAM Radio.>
> Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose > The
rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide anamateur radio
service having a fundamental > purpose as expressed in the following
principles: > (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the
amateur serviceto the public as a voluntary non-commercial communication
service,particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
> > > I agree that the ARRL could do a better job of
selling...> > >
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Trust Me: this is not another rant!

2006-02-12 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Thank You John for putting it so
succinctly
As much as I get sucked in to answering the
Anti-Everything Rants...
Bottom Line...
"the rest of the world has already figured it out
and is patiently waiting for the USA to catch up"
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:25
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Trust Me: this is
not another rant!

I should have clarified the subject line

- Original Message -
From: John Bradley

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL to file Encryption Petition
with the FCC

ya know what? my patience is at an end with the
constant , long winded arguments which keep circling the drain.
FCC part 234159.4657? who really cares? ARRL
makes no difference to the rest of the world!!! we have figured it out, and
patiently waiting
for the USA to catch up.
Why don't you take these arguments private, or
set up another Yahoo group may I suggest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
or in its encrypted form , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My delete key has become worn out from overuse,
my brain died about 500 messages on the same subject ago.
the only reason I'm still here is the ocaisonal
gem that I find in a very large pile of male cow excretement, which keeps me
reading the titles at least.
take pity on a tired old brain and go fight in
the parking lot
John
VE5MU

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] ARRL to file Encryption Petition with the FCC

2006-02-11 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Read the 2nd Motion 29 again:
 
They voted Unanimously to have the the General Counsel, Chief Technology Officer and 
Executive Vice President to file a petition"
 
So they were indeed showing good 
judgement!
 
So Tim:
 
You are free to continue your ANTI-EVERYTHING 
Rantings...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tim Gorman 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:37 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL to file 
  Encryption Petition with the FCC
  Yep, I just plain screwed up. I apologize to everyone on 
  the list. Mr. Bodson of the Roanoke Division seems to have shown 
  exceptional judgement. I would note that the vote was NOT unanimous. 
  Do you know how YOUR Director voted?tim ab0wrOn Saturday 
  11 February 2006 00:24, Michael Keane K1MK wrote:> At 07:36 PM 2/10/06, 
  Tim Gorman wrote:> >The ARIL just got roundly criticized by the 
  Amateur Radio community> >for its HF> >Internet petition 
  with the FCC. Here comes the next installation - this> > time for 
  VHF.> >> >Check out the following URL's:> >http://www.arrl.org/announce/board.html> 
  >http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2006/january/> 
  >> >For those who don't have access to the ARRL site, here is an 
  excerpt.> >> 
  >---> 
  >Minutes of the 2006 Annual Meeting> >ARRL Board of Directors 
  January 20-21, 2006> >> >29. On motion of Mr. Butler, 
  seconded by Mr. Bodson, it was unanimously> > VOTED that the ARRL 
  Board of Directors instructs the General Counsel,> > Chief 
  Technology Officer and Executive Vice President to file a petition> 
  > with the Federal Communications Commission permitting security of 
  data> > for computer-to-computer communications on domestic 
  transmissions above> > 50 MHz at the earliest opportunity.> 
  >--->> 
  When excerpting, it's always best to capture what was actually 
  done...>> In looking at slightly more context, the minutes of 
  the 2006 Meeting> of the BoD are seen to read:>> 28. By 
  request, Mr. Imlay expanded upon the written report of the> General 
  Counsel, highlighting the background for and implications of> moving 
  forward with filing a petition for encryption of data for> 
  computer-to-computer communications on domestic transmissions above 50 
  MHz.>> On motion of Mr. Bodson, seconded by Mr. Bellows, it was 
  VOTED to> relieve the General Counsel of the requirements set forth at 
  Minute> 29, of the 2004 Second Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors, 
  which reads:>> 29. On motion of Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. 
  Bodson, it was> unanimously VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors 
  instructs the> General Counsel, Chief Technology Officer and Executive 
  Vice> President to file a petition with the Federal 
  Communications> Commission permitting security of data for 
  computer-to-computer> communications on domestic transmissions above 50 
  MHz at the earliest> opportunity.>> 29. Mr. Fallon, as 
  Chairman, presented the report ...>> So, the Minute 29, 
  excerpted in teh original message in this thread> was actually Minute 
  29 from the BoD Meeting in July, 2004.>> Check that out here: 
  >> 
  So, the motion and vote from the Board meeting last month was "to> 
  relieve the General Counsel of the requirements set forth..." by the> 
  action taken back in 2004; those requirements were for the General> 
  Counsel "to file a petition... at the earliest opportunity." In> 
  essence the Board's action was to remove the matter from the> 
  fast-track and put it on the back burner.>> It's an extremely 
  confusing bit of anti-serendipity that had a> quotation of Minute 29 
  from the July 2004 Meeting just happen to fall> right between Minute 28 
  and Minute 29 of the January 2006 Meeting.> Which variant of Murphy's 
  Law was that?>> 73,> Mike K1MK>> Michael 
  Keane K1MK> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a 
  Digital mode QSO? Connect to  
  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org>> Other areas of 
  interest:>> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/> 
  DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policy> discussion)>>> Yahoo! Groups 
  Links>>>





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL to file Encryption Petition with the FCC

2006-02-10 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






EMCOMM has 
always been the first reason for existence of HAM 
Radio.
 
 Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose 



   
The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide 
an amateur radio service having a fundamental 

purpose as expressed in the following principles: 


(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of  the amateur service to 
the public as a voluntary non-commercial communication 
service, 
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. 
 
 
I agree that the ARRL 
could do a better job of selling...
 
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  N6CRR 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:10 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL to file 
  Encryption Petition with the FCC
  > If we Hams want to play a role in EMCOMM then we 
  need to be able toserve our Agencies requirments for confidentiality when 
  all else fails...Harold;Thereâs a game I like to play, 
  itâs called âWhat dog in the fightâ?Your dog is very visable 
  With your statement:âIf we Hams want to play a role in EMCOMM then we 
  need to be able toserve our Agencies requirements for confidentiality when 
  all elsefails...âIt seems your dog in the fight, along with the 
  WinLink crew,  is oneof wanting some reason to be asked to be 
  involved in some meaningfulway with Disaster Relief using amateur radio. 
  Seems you are advocatingchanging the Amateur Radio regulations to feed 
  your dog.I think most folks in the Amateur community are in favor of 
  usingtheir Amateur radio stations and skills in the name of 
  disasterrelief, but there has not been a real integrated plan put 
  forwardwhich establishes what that role should be, and by the way points 
  to aneed for a changes in the rules of Amateur Radio. Your 
  position seems to be that for Amateur Radio to relevant todisaster plans, 
  it must have some new attributes which only a fewâVisionariesâ 
  understand, like:Interoperability and connectivity with government and 
  public WAN/LANSover short, medium and long distances.  Security 
  of data transmission.Multi-Media transport, not sure what the League means 
  by that one andis it consistent with what people think the nature of 
  Amateur radioreally is. The ARRL, the WinLink folks and few others 
  seem to be pushing for somevision of where Amateur Radio should be 
  heading, would it not be agood thing to have a dialog with the Amateur 
  community about thisradical new âVisionâ and where it is taking the 
  community beforeproposing rule changes to facilitate the vision? RM11305 
  and RM11306were overwhelming rejected in comments made by the community, 
  any newproposals such as encryption will fail in similar fashion if the 
  caseis not made for why the change is necessary, before proposing the 
  change. Change in Amateur Radio is inevitable by the way, itâs 
  selling theneed for change to the stakeholders and selling the 
  âVisionâ to thecommunity which has been 
  lacking.





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] ARRL to file Encryption Petition with the FCC

2006-02-10 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

We tried Part 15 many variations of 802.11 type
solutions and they just do not work ... Our terrain is far too mountainous and
varied for reliable line of sight..
We cannot reliably provide communications to the
Red Cross Shelters with any existing or potential Part 15
technology...
During the 2003 San Diego Fires... we saw that ATT
and all the Common Carriers failed... They lost power, their lines burned
down, their towers burned down... Even satellite phones were blocked by heavy
smokeevery known form of communications failed except Ham
Radio...
Hence...Ham Radio as the "When All Else Fails"
solution..
Tim's Anti-Everything Hysteria clearly has no
traction with the ARRLor any of the served agencies...or the
FCC
Because the realities of EMCOMM and the needs of
our Served Agencies for secure communications "When All Else Fails" is such that
they need encryption...
Remember that that according to Part 97.1 the first
reason for the existence of Ham Radio is EMCOMM.
Yes encryption can be broken... anything can be
decrypted...it's just a matter of time and money
But those of us on the Front Lines of EMCOMM try to
do the best we can to serve the needs of the public and our Served
Agencies..When All Else Fails...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:45
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL to file
Encryption Petition with the FCC
Howard,On Friday 10 February 2006 19:23, Dr. Howard
S. White wrote:> Of course, Tim is spreading his usual anti ARRL, Anti
Winlink, Anti Change,> Anti Internet and Anti Virtually Everything Else
missinformation rants to> make his point.ROFL! So much
attributing motive, Howard. Can you read my mind?>> The
reason that the ARRL BOD voted UNANIMOUSLY to support encryption was>
due to practical real world experience during the recent disasters.And
that recent experience, as documented in the HSMM's own paper, was that
many of the served agencies went with Part 15 vendors (i.e. WiFi) that
could do encryption legally. And the HSMM wants them to come to the ARS
instead.Bottom line: JEALOUSYI quote from the Level 1 ARES
training manual: "Do not think about how to use ham radio to send the
message - just think about the best and fastest way to send it".In
other words, Part 15, 802.11 services already exist. We, as emergency
communicators, should be thinking about how to use those services to the
best advantages rather than perverting the ARS to a purpose for which it
was never intended. I repeat, JEALOUSY! The ARRL should read their
own training material.>> Those of us who worked EMCOMM
for Served Agencies such as the Red Cross> during the most recent
disasters have found that there was significant> reluctance to use Ham
Radio (SSB, FM, CW, Winlink, Packet) to pass critical> information such
as Casualty Lists, Emergency Requisitions, and of course,> Patient
Information. The Red Cross and other Agencies were very
concerned> that this information could be intercepted by the Press and
misinterpreted> causing significantly more harm than good. [Just
look at all the incorrect> reports on shootings and rapes during
Katrina that turned out to be> figments of the Press's
imagination]Again, I repeat from the ARRL's own ARES Level 1 training
manual: "if absolute privacy is required, the message should not be
transmitted by Amateur Radio. In some cases, the most appropriate method
might be hand delivery by a radio-dispatched courier." The ARRL has lost
sight of what it preaches in its own training material.The fact
that the Red Cross wants to send some material in encrypted format should
not be a carte blance for the ARS to jump up and say "We will change the
entire paradigm of the ARS in order to be your common carrier
service!"YOU need to read the ARES Level 1 manual again, Howard. Part
15 exists. Why not use it for its intended purpose? Are you too PROUD to
stoop to doing that? Are you too proud just like the HSMM? They won't even
call the equipment they use WiFi equipment because they "are licensed
users of the technology under Part 97". WooHoo>> Tim
may be correct that HIPPA may not require the Red Cross to encrypt>
Patient Information... But you tell that to a doctor in a field
hospital...> who, as a result of HIPPA, is now fearful of his license
if Patient> Information might be compromised... he is not go

Re: [digitalradio] ARRL to file Encryption Petition with the FCC

2006-02-10 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Of course, Tim is spreading his usual anti ARRL,
Anti Winlink, Anti Change, Anti Internet and Anti Virtually Everything Else
missinformation rants to make his point.
The reason that the ARRL BOD voted UNANIMOUSLY to
support encryption was due to practical real world experience during the recent
disasters.
Those of us who worked EMCOMM for Served Agencies
such as the Red Cross during the most recent disasters have found that there was
significant reluctance to use Ham Radio (SSB, FM, CW, Winlink, Packet) to pass
critical information such as Casualty Lists, Emergency Requisitions, and of
course, Patient Information. The Red Cross and other Agencies were very
concerned that this information could be intercepted by the Press and
misinterpreted causing significantly more harm than good. [Just look at
all the incorrect reports on shootings and rapes during Katrina that turned out
to be figments of the Press's imagination]
Tim may be correct that HIPPA may not require
the Red Cross to encrypt Patient Information... But you tell that to a doctor in
a field hospital... who, as a result of HIPPA, is
now fearful of his license if Patient Information might be compromised... he is
not going to argue with you about whether it is legal or not.. he is just plain
not going to take a chance and use Ham Radio...
But a lot of other non HIPPA information such as
Casualty Lists also needs to be encrypted as well.. as who wants to find out
from some random newspaper reporter that a loved one was injured or killed...

I have even run into the need for encryption with
my local ARC group planning sessions. We are trying to figure out how to
cover wide areas of San Diego County Emergency Shelters for Fire and Earthquake
Evacuation Disasters. The Head of the ARC Communications Group has already
issued an edict that he will not consider any solution that does not provide
encryption of vital information. This scenario is being repeated all over
the county...
Hence the UNANIMOUS VOTE!
Anyways... Encryption is already legal to save life
and property under Section 97.409
The ARRL Vote is just to codify in law those times
when it is not a 97.409 situation.
If we Hams want to play a role in EMCOMM then we
need to be able to serve our Agencies requirments for confidentiality when all
else fails...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:36
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] ARRL to file
Encryption Petition with the FCC
The ARIL just got roundly criticized by the Amateur Radio
community for its HF Internet petition with the FCC. Here comes the next
installation - this time for VHF.Check out the following
URL's:http://www.arrl.org/announce/board.htmlhttp://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2006/january/For
those who don't have access to the ARRL site, here is an
excerpt.---Minutes
of the 2006 Annual MeetingARRL Board of Directors January 20-21,
200629. On motion of Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Bodson, it was
unanimously VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors instructs the General
Counsel, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President to file a
petition with the Federal Communications Commission permitting security of
data for computer-to-computer communications on domestic transmissions
above 50 MHz at the earliest
opportunity.---As
discussed on this list before, encryption of access information is
absolutely needed in the future. This petition, however, is for complete
encryption of the entire transmission stream, both access information as
well as any messaging. FACT: Amateur Radio is under no mandate by
HIPAA to encrypt any personal information. FACT: The American Red
Cross is under no mandate by HIPAA to encrypt any personal information (as
confirmed in a letter from the Dept. of HHS). Note: The acronym ARIL
at the start of the message is NOT a mistake. It is my opinion that the
ARRL has been co-opted by about 10 people into becoming the American Radio
Internet Relay organization. This petition is just further proof.
This proposal was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the BOD. That means YOUR
Director voted for it. You should let your Director know immediately how
you feel about this. Either YES or NO. tim ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

Re: [digitalradio] The UK Amateur Radio Band Plan

2006-02-07 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Thanks for sharing your direct experience from 
UK, Canada and Australia.. on your voluntary bandplans..
 
I have personally also had direct experience with 
these plans and found just like you all have found that they work exceedingly 
well..
 
And of course, there is no good reason to think 
that they would not work just as well in the USA...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mel 
  
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:55 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] The UK Amateur 
  Radio Band Plan
  For those who may be interested to know80 
  metres*3.500 to 3.510    CW DX 
  portion3.500 to 3.560    CW band 
  allocation3.560 to 3.585    Novice portion3.580 
  to 3.620    CW and digital modes3.620 to 
  3.800    Phone allocation and CW3.775 to 
  3.800    Phone DX portionI cannot recall when I last 
  heard anyone using CW in the phone section20 
  metres*14.000 to 14.069  CW portion14.070 to 
  14.099  digital modes14.099 to 14.101  beacons14.101 
  to 14.112  digital mail boxes etc14.112 to 14.350  phone 
  allocation and CW14.125 to 14.300  SSB contest 
  allocation14.225 to 14.235  SSTV/fax allocationOnce again 
  I cannot recall the last time I heard CW in the phone SSB 
  section.This plan has been in force for many years and as far as 
  most operators are concerned the allocations of band space work quite 
  satisfactorily.  Having read most of the comments regarding what are 
  called sub-bands, not subbands, it is difficult to understand why 
  there should be any conflicts of 
  interests.G0GQK





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] SubBands (WAS- ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF)

2006-02-07 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

At our local VEC Meeting we heard that the FCC is
rumored to be eliminating the CW barrier in its entirety in the next week...or
so... effective about July
So there will be an influx of new General "No
Coders'
But do not get your hopes up...
I have been teaching Tech and General Classes...and
the numbers have not risen dramatically because of the impending elimination of
the Code Barrier... nor do we expect them to rise appreciably...
In fact, 99% of the students I get are as a result
of Katrina and EMCOMM Interests.. not a desire to chat on SSB
Your fears of new band crowding is very likely NOT
going to happen
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
John Becker

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:34
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] SubBands (WAS-
ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF)
What is going to happen when and if the HF bands
areopened up for SSB to the "no-coders" ? Pick a numberfor your turn
on a band or just a 27Mhz free-for-all.At 10:59 PM 2/6/06, you
wrote:>Since most, if not all Central and South American countries have
no>subbands, they go where they want, when they want. Our SSB
moving down any>bit at all, with simply cause them to come down below,
and into the>CW/digital bands, to talk to each other and/or make DX
contacts away from>our QRM/ I lived there, and I
know. It was an exasperating experience>trying to work 40 CW with
some idiot YL sitting on 7.025 talking to her>buddies across
town.

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-07 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Dave:
 
This is scary... we actually agree... 
 
I even like your wording.. which makes a Heck of a 
lot of sense...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:56 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We 
  should replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:"No 
  automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied  frequency, 
  or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning of each 5 minute 
  interval of operation."Polite automatic stations can operate where 
  they like. Control operators for rude automatic stations will lose their 
  licenses. No sub-bands. No mercy.    
  73,    Dave, 
  AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> why would we re-do regulations 
  which have been in effect for 50 years, or longer,  allowing SSB down 
  to 14100 and 7050 in Canada?> > Lately those regulations are no 
  longer in effect but I have yet to see anyone operating below those 
  freq's, so far respecting the > "gentleman's agreement" which is how 
  our band plan is now run.> > I can't , for the life of me, 
  understand why you guys keep getting mired in the desire for more 
  regulations, completely out of step with the rest of the globe. > 
  > > John> VE5MU>   - Original 
  Message - >   From: jgorman01 >   To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   Sent: Monday, February 06, 
  2006 7:37 PM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF> > >   
  As long as countries like Canada would redo their regulations 
  and>   prevent stations from simply moving lower since it is 
  legal to so.> >   Jim>   
  WA0LYK> >   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Danny Douglas"  wrote:>   
  >>   > The exact reson we need INTERNATIONAL 
  subbands.>   > >   > - Original 
  Message - >   > From: "jgorman01" 
  >   > To: 
  >   > Sent: Monday, 
  February 06, 2006 3:09 PM>   > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 
  ARRL proposal removes baud rate>   limitations 
  on>   > HF>   > >   
  > >   > > The real problem right now is not 
  expanding our SSB segments, but>   > > rather that 
  expansion forcing other countries SSB even lower.>   > 
  > Canadian, Mexican, and Central American SSB stations are already 
  far,>   > > far down in the lower parts of 80m and 
  40m.  So far in fact that>   > > sometimes it 
  is hard to have CW or PSK qso's.  How many more will 
  show>   > > up if our SSB segments expand.  
  Sometimes we forget we are not the>   > > only hams 
  in the world.>   > >>   > > 
  Regardless of what is officially said, hams in other countries 
  are>   > > allowed to operate this low for only one 
  reason, to avoid qrm from US>   > > SSB 
  stations.  They will continue to do, making it harder and 
  harder>   > > for both CW and the narrow digital 
  modes.>   > >>   > > 
  Jim>   > > WA0LYK>   > 
  >>   > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny 
  Douglas"  wrote:>   > > 
  >>   > > >>   > > > 
  - Original Message - >   > > > From: "KV9U" 
  >   > > > To: 
  >   > > > Sent: 
  Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM>   > > > Subject: 
  Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate>   
  > > limitations>   > > > on 
  HF>   > > >>   > > 
  >>   > > > > Danny,>   > 
  > > >>   > > > > Even if the CW subbands 
  shrink, it does not mean that there will>   > > be 
  any>   > > > > shortage of spectrum for CW. From 
  what I have read of the>   > > proposals, 
  any>   > > > > narrow mode can always be used in 
  a wider mode subband. Just>   like 
  you>   > > > > can today. No one loses anything. 
  In fact, it is the exact>   opposite>   
  > > > > because other hams will gain the privelege to use more 
  modes>   over a>   > > > > 
  wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are the>   
  overwelmingly>   > > > > most popular modes and 
  use the most bandwidth for a given>   amount 
  of>   > > > > communication 
  intelligence.>   > > > >>   > 
  >>   > >>   > 
  >>   > >>   > 
  >>   > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  
  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org>   > 
  >>   > > Other areas of 
  interest:>   > >>   > > The MixW 
  Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/>   
  > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policy>   > discussion)>   
  > >>   > >>   > > Yahoo! 
  Groups Links>   > >>   > 
  >>   > >>   > 
  >>   > >>   > 
  >>   > >>   > 
  >>   > >>   > > -- 
  >   > > No virus found in this incoming 
  message.>   > > Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.>   > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus D

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-06 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Danny:

When SSB first came out.. it was incredibly 
expensive for us Average Hams...who could not afford let alone dream of a 
Collins... 

But with increased usage.. other manufacturers came 
into the market with different less expensive designs ... and the rest of us 
could afford to jump on the bandwagon...

FM was equivalently too expensive ... so we used 
Surplus commercial police and taxi radios... manufacturers took note... and came 
out with inexpensive ham radio gear...

Digital had a similar history.. early expensive 
modems... and little usage.. then the miracle of the computer sound card and it 
became affordable to every ham

So do not discount DV at this early stage in its 
development .. because of the price...

Some ham will figure out an inexpensive solution.. 
probably based on Sound Cards...

__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Danny Douglas 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:43 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
  Those answer my questions.  It is NOT cheap,  not 
  readily available for meto use in my computer with already owned 
  equipments.  Let me know when itis.Danny- 
  Original Message - From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: 
  Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:30 PMSubject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitationson HF> At 11:13 PM 
  2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:> > >> > >At 09:47 
  PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:> > >> > 
  >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 
  3KHz.> > >> > >Peter,> > >Please get 
  your facts right.> > >I and others have been using digital voice 
  on the HF bands for> > >the last 3 or 4 years in less the 
  2.5Kc.> > >> > >Even from to mobile.> > 
  >> >> >Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  
  Obviously I need educating.> >Please say more. A pointer to a paper, 
  something...> >> >de K1PGV>> > 
  > 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  
  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org>> Other areas of 
  interest:>> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/> 
  DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policydiscussion)>>> Yahoo! Groups 
  Links>> 
  -- > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG 
  Free Edition.> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - 
  Release Date: 2/4/2006>>

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Artie...
You seem to be making my point...
Instead of being an engineer and concentrating on
developing DV technology.. (BTW good luck with your
experiments)
You first have to be a lawyer and attempt to
decipher arcane regulations to see if your experimentation might even be
legal...
The point of bandwidth regulation even in its
limited form as proposed by the ARRL
is that you can stop with the
lawyering
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Arthur J.
Lekstutis
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 8:25
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Hi,I've been an engineer for a long time, but I'm
new to ham radio. Where exactly is this limitation defined by the FCC in
the US? What document (and maybe section) defines the limitation of 300
baud regardless of the bandwidth?Also: are you saying that the FCC
allows us to transmit multiple 'signals' simultaneously on a single piece
of equipment, each within the bandwidth and bit rate limitations of a
single mode, even though the end effect is a higher total throughput?
While I'm asking that: can I transmit each 'signal' at full legal power
(as long as it's the minimum required for communications)? I really must
read the regulations closely...I'm experimenting with digital voice.
Right now I'm still working on the codec side to reduce the required bit
rate, but at some point I have to start working on a suitable modulation
technique and need to know the rules of the game.Later,Artie
LekstutisKC2MFS>1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot
experiment on HF unless our>regs are changed. We currently have
minimal bandwidth regulations. >Someone is certainly welcome to correct
me, but I don't know of any HF>modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300
baud or higher. They all use>multiple tone modems and modulate
individual pairs at a substantially>lower baud rate. Like 12 tone
pairs, each at a rate of 60 baud which>give an equivalent rate of 720
baud, substantially over the 300 baud>regulation.
>> >

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Rick
I for one do not love the ARRL plan.. but it is an
improvement over the existing limitation on baud rates and mixing of data, voice
and image...and it is likely the best we are going to be able to get at this
time.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 4:56
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in
the U.S.For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first.
If it ever proved to be successful on VHF/UHF in a narrow bandwidth
format, then it could be adopted for HF use as well.Just wishing
something technical to happen or believing that you can have multiple
voice conversations within the ultra narrow 3 KHz or so BW is very
unlikely due the scientific limitations. But even if current theory was
shown to be false and a breakthrough ever occurred, it would be easy to
test on HF.The bandwidth proposals seem to me to LIMIT the future
possibilities for new voice and high throughput modes on HF due to the
very limits placed up the maximum bandwidths permitted on HF. Right now
the main limit is baud rate.From what the best minds in the
commercial world have been able to come up with, we don't see any digital
voice modes that are narrow (~ 3 KHz). While the reason for the required
move to digital was to narrow the BW's, they are still much wider than 3
KHz if I understand the current state of the art and while they work
fairly well under good signal conditions, they can be a problem under
difficult conditions where older analog signals may get through when the
digital ones do not. The move to digital seems to be more related to
spectrum conservation.Even though high data throughput real time modes
are difficult to work with narrow BW signals, we should see some
improvement (and we have) with data modes that do not have to be as much
in real time and which have a magnitude less signalling rate throughput
needs.I see no legal framework changes that will "free" developers to
do all that much on HF except for the baud rate increase. But that did not
need a sea change to implement. As you know you have made pronouncements
about this and were asked to give examples of what limitations were now
present with existing rules and you have not responded.The one
limitation that I have been most concerned about is the ability to mix
data/voice/(analog or digital)/ and image on one frequency. Based upon
ARRL statements and looking at the overall plan, I am not sure if this
will be allowed under new band plans.Rick, KV9UDr.
Howard S. White wrote:> JIm:> > You have made a
very good case as to why we need to experiment and > come up with new
technologies...> > Instead of concentrating on all the
potential and imaginary > negatives... which very much reflect the old
anti SSB and anti FM > arguments...you need to look at the
positives...> > There are a myriad of technologies for
squeezing high baud rates into > tiny channels... there are a myriad of
new and not so new technologes > out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and
Spread Spectrum...> > It's going to take some clever hams
to develop these into a practical > DV system for HF on Ham
Radio...> > I believe that the technology is there to
allow multiple QRM free > multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice
bandwidth... some ham > needs to put it together... and some ham
(likely not in the USA under > current baud rate limited rules) will
likely do it..> > Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will
likely be computer based... > maybe even sound card based as that is
the cheapest technology and > it is likely that you will still be
able to use your HF transceiver> > New
Modes: Stop being so negative.Heck... new modes is what
> this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new versions of
> DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things>
> I do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a
> better way.> > DV... has lots of potential to
give us more channel capacity with less > QRM... we just need to legal
framework in place so that we can > experiment with it to dispell all
those imaginary negatives> >

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Good question...
Several Answers..
1. The
rest of the world can already experiment on HF.. and will do so..whether we
change our regs or not...
2. HF has very
different propagation characteristics that necessitate different DV solutions
than those on VHF and UHF.
3. HF is much
more crowded and not channelized - which will necessitate different DV solutions
than those on VHF/UHF
4. HF DV has
to be able to work in QRM and very low S/N ratios... not usual conditions on
VHF/UHF.
5.
HF space is much smaller... necessitating DV solutions that fit the much smaller
bandwidths...
So while you might be able to design something at
VHF/UHF... you need to be able to test it on HF...and the best way to test it is
for many people to become Beta testershence the need to change the
rules
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
list email
filter
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Gentlemen,Like many of the members of this forum, I've
been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to
(perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the
propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental
point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new digital modes
on say UHF? Once the technological hurdles have been cleared on UHF by the
masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even allowed to experiment because
of the repressive government regulations they are burdened with, couldn't the
then proven technology be ported to HF?Our HF spectrum is extremely
limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over the world are happily using it all
now, that is to say, it's full up. Until we have a digital solution that will
help solve that issue, and allow for more qso's in our little playground, why
can't we experiment on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF
activities? Just because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that
we have to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width
restriction.As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to
know?"73,Erik KI4HMS/7PS. I'm a no-code tech who has
run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both 2m and 440, just because I could run
9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean I have to. I for one would be happy to run
experimental digital modes with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an
underutilized resource, perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start
using it to 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.' On Feb
3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
JIm: You
have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and come up with
new technologies... Instead
of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary negatives... which very
much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM arguments...you need to look at
the positives... There
are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into tiny
channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes out there
... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread
Spectrum... It's
going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical DV system
for HF on Ham Radio... I
believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free multiple
QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham needs to put it
together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under current baud rate
limited rules) will likely do it.. Equipment..
Anything Hams develop will likely be computer based... maybe even sound card
based as that is the cheapest technology and it is likely that you will
still be able to use your HF
transceiver New
Modes: Stop being so negative.Heck... new
modes is what this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new
versions of DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things I
do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a better
way. DV...
has lots of potential to give us more channel capacity with less QRM... we
just need to legal framework in place so that we can experiment with it to
dispell all those imaginary
negatives __Howard
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished"&

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-03 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






JIm:
 
You have made a very good case as to why we need to 
experiment and come up with new technologies...
 
Instead of concentrating on all the potential and 
imaginary negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM 
arguments...you need to look at the positives...
 
There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing 
high baud rates into tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new 
technologes out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum...
 
It's going to take some clever hams to develop 
these into a practical DV system for HF on Ham Radio...
 
I believe that the technology is there to allow 
multiple QRM free multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some 
ham needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under 
current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it..
 
Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will likely be 
computer based... maybe even sound card based as that is the cheapest 
technology and it is likely that you will still be able to use your HF 
transceiver
 
New Modes:    Stop being so 
negative.Heck... new modes is what this Reflector is all about... 
Olivia, Contestia...new versions of DV...we welcome new modes as they improve 
things
 
I do not have all the answers.. I just know that 
there has to be a better way.
 
DV... has lots of potential to give us more channel 
capacity with less QRM... we just need to legal framework in place so that we 
can experiment with it to dispell all those imaginary negatives
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jgorman01 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 6:53 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  Oh boy, oh boy.Your the one that indicated 
  multiple QSO's on the same channel on HFwere possible with TDM/CDM, in 
  fact that's why they were invented.The channel bandwidth of GSM is 
  exactly relevant to this discussion. You have to know the RF bandwidth per 
  user in order to make anintelligent decision about using the technology at 
  HF.  That is unlessyou have reason to believe that you can transmit 
  more data in asmaller RF bandwidth at HF than you can at UHF.The 
  other problem with your scenario is operational.  For example,lets 
  just assume you can get 20 qso's in 100 kHz.  And you set up 
  thechannel from 14250 to 14350.  Either you have the FCC dedicate 
  thatchannel for that purpose, or you have to share.  If you share, 
  one SSBqso in that space would prevent 20 other qso's from 
  happening.The biggest problem is how to accomplish upgrading hardware 
  andsoftware when new developments come along.  You won't be able to 
  useyour handy dandy HF tranceiver for a bandwidth like this, and 
  forgetcomputer sound cards with a 100 kHz bandwidth.  Now everyone 
  spendstheir hard earned money (and expect it to cost quite a bit)to 
  getsetup and guess what, 6 months later someone comes along and 
  says,hey, I can now get 23 users into that same space and since my 
  methodis newer and better, my method wins!  But, if you want to use 
  it, youhave to buy new hardware and software!That will go over 
  real big won't it.I don't know what you think spread spectrum will buy 
  you in a"standard" HF channel.  You can only get enough data through 
  thatstandard channel for one conversation to occur.  Normally one 
  wouldestimate the total bandwidth required by multiplying the bandwidth 
  peruser by the number of users you want on that channel.  That's 
  becauseyou have to send the same amount of data per user only quicker so 
  youdon't get delays or latency.If you try to add a second 
  conversation in a bandwidth designed forone conversation, your going to 
  have long delays while the otherstation sends. And in fact, it could be 
  two other stations sending ifthere are two parties per qso.  You may 
  not mind the stuttering soundbut I sure would.  Ultimately, 
  you have to decide if the spectrum, technical, andeconomic efficiencies 
  are any greater with a system like this versusplain old SSB or DV in a SSB 
  channel!  It is not evident to me thatthis will be the 
  case.JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. 
  Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> The commercial 
  GSM numbers are not relevant to this discussion ..weare talking about Ham 
  radio which has different design parameters...> > Using spread 
  spectrum for example it should be possible havemultiple QSO's in a 
  standard HF voice channel> > More important, if we design 
  systems to maximize b

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-03 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






The commercial GSM numbers are not relevant to this 
discussion ..we are talking about Ham radio which has different design 
parameters...
 
Using spread spectrum for example it should be 
possible have multiple QSO's in a standard HF voice 
channel
 
More important, if we design systems to maximize 
band utilization we should be able to carry many more QRM free QSO's on our 
current bandswhich would have the benefit of not only curing current 
overcrowding but also virtually eliminate annoying QRM
 
So rather than sowing seeds of fear of the 
unknown... we, especially on this digital reflector should be embracing the 
new technologies...
 
The technologies are out there just waiting for 
some clever hams to implement them..
 
The point I am making is that we need to have rules 
that allow us to be able to experiment...on HF... as well as 
VHF/UHF...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jgorman01 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:39 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  I am 
  assuming your comments were meant to be applicable to the HFbands since 
  there is nothing to stop hams from doing it on the higherUHF bands.  
  For educational purposes, would you share with the group the 
  RFbandwidths used for the "shared channels" you are talking about 
  andhow many conversations that channel can carry.  That way everyone 
  candecide how applicable the technology would be on the HF bands. 
  Perhaps the GSM/TDMA channel bandwidths and capacity would be 
  best.JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. 
  Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Cingular, 
  AT&T use GSM which is a form of TDMA for their 
  CellularSystems.> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">   - 
  Original Message - >   From: F.R. Ashley 
  >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:14 PM>   Subject: Re: 
  [digitalradio] ARRL proposal removes baud ratelimitations on HF> 
  > > > - Original Message 
  - > From: Dr. Howard S. White 
  > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:28 
  PM> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal 
  removes baud ratelimitations on HF> > 
  > Which is why they developed Time Division 
  Multiplexing and CodeDivision Multiplexing ... so that multiple QSO's can 
  share the samechannel> 
  ^^> 
  Howard,> > Its been quite a while since 
  I've heard someone mention TimeDivision Multiplex.  Have you ever 
  heard a TDM signal?  Years ago, Itried unsuccessfully to find some 
  TDM signals and copy them.   If mymemory serves me correctly, 
  weren't TDM signals transmitted almostcontinuously, but most of the time 
  containing no data, just a carrier?  Also, I cannot remember who used 
  TDM, can you refresh my memory?> > 73 
  Buddy WB4M> > > > >   Need a 
  Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org> 
  >   Other areas of interest:> >   The 
  MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/>   
  DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policydiscussion)> > > > > 
  >-->   
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a..  Visit 
  your group "digitalradio" on the 
  web.>   
  > b..  To unsubscribe from this group, 
  send an email to:>  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
  > c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is 
  subject to the Yahoo! Terms ofService. > > 
  >-->





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio

Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF






Cingular, AT&T use GSM which is a form of TDMA 
for their Cellular Systems.
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  F.R. 
  Ashley 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:14 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  
   
  
- Original Message ----- 
    From: 
Dr. Howard S. 
White 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:28 
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL 
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

Which is why they developed Time Division 
Multiplexing and Code Division Multiplexing ... so that multiple QSO's can 
share the same channel
^^
Howard,
 
Its been quite a while since I've heard someone 
mention Time Division Multiplex.  Have you ever heard a TDM 
signal?  Years ago, I tried unsuccessfully to find some TDM signals and 
copy them.   If my memory serves me correctly, weren't TDM signals 
transmitted almost continuously, but most of the time containing no data, 
just a carrier?   Also, I cannot remember who used TDM, can you 
refresh my memory?
 
73 Buddy WB4M
 
 





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

Which is why they developed Time Division
Multiplexing and Code Division Multiplexing ... so that multiple QSO's can share
the same channel
Here is a simple thought...
Use a calling frequency...computers make the
connection and choose a calling algorithm and start spread spectrum...result
Multiple QSO's sharing the same channel without interference
None of this is rocket science.. it is being done
commercially every day
We just need to figure out how to best apply it to
ham bands... to maximize the QSO's with minimum expense and minimum
QRM...
That's the fun of experimentation on Ham Radio..
figuring out how to do new things that no one has done before...
Heck.. Ham Radio used to lead the radio
world with the invention of new technologies.. the new ARRL Proposal to remove
Baud Rate Limitations is just another tiny step to return Ham Radio to its
former glory
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:35
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
On
Thursday 02 February 2006 01:54, Dr. Howard S. White
wrote:>> and I suspect that several spread spectrum QSO's
could share the same> bandwidth...>> making for much more
efficient band utilization .and less QRM>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.comAnyone willing to list out the benefits and problems
of spread spectrum for Howard?I'll start --
Benefit -- interference immunity to someone that doesn't
know your coding algorithm.Problem -- how do you
talk to someone else running spread spectrum if they don't know your
coding algorithm?Problem -- if everyone runs the same coding algorithm
so they can talk together then how do multiple conversations share the
same bandwidth?tim ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Problem: a (almost) total lack of knowlege.

Graeme
In spite what Tim is wishing for, realistically
people have been shutting down packet nodes here in California due to lack of
traffic and if it were not for the need to keep the digipeaters on the air to
service 2M Winlink for EMCOMM, I suspect that packet would quietly
disappear.
In fact, I am currently trying to convince the
local repeater council not to shut down their packet systems so that
Winlink EMCOMM can stay on the air through their wide area digipeater.
Frankly Winlink EMCOMM is the only system here still using Packet as a last mile
transport mechanism. Hopefully we will soon get some funding for a more
modern system such as D-Star to replace packet.
I agree with Tim that voice is much faster than
typing if you need to get a simple message across.. However, if you need to send
a complex message then something like Winlink wins hands down as it is virtually
error free.. and if you need a wide area transfer of the message...to say
multiple recipients... again Winlink wins..
Take a look at www.Winlink.org if you want to get up to
date with some of the lastest developments.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:31
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Problem: a
(almost) total lack of knowlege.
On Wednesday 01 February
2006 19:49, list email filter wrote:>
Graeme,>>> 2. You want to install a stand-alone
digipeater, bbs, and / or gateway,> i.e. doing this without a computer
running. These days the only people> interested in this are the
APRS folks, and with everyone wanting to run> an igate, even that's
rare.>Graeme,This is not necessarily true. I
have two 2m packet nodes running old AEA & MFJ tnc's at home. The
Salvation Army is getting equipped with one. More packet nodes are being
installed all over.Several of these are running JNOS on the
computer to provide internet linking as well as amateur radio networking
(called amprnet).Lot's of people are waking up to the fact again that
packet has a lot to offer as far as portability and capability for use
during emergencies.The sound card modes are nice but when someone
tells you the reason they are nice is because they use less bandwidth than
phone --- look out. Typing on a keyboard will never replace talking into a
microphone. And soundcard digital voice is a long ways off
yet.Anyway, don't be impatient if it takes a while to learn about all
this.Get on Google and search for "packet radio" and then try adding
soundcard to the search.You'll find lots to read!tim
ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

My life experience has been that most people resist
change especially when it comes to new technology and more especially when it
involves a paradigm shift...I was around for the SSB wars and the FM wars and
clearly remember the initial fights with the "old guard" to get them
adopted . The comments then almost perfectly mirror the comments
today about DV Once the "early adopters" got enough traction to
get the new technologies past the "Luddites" and built up a critical mass of
users, then the economic engine took over, the prices dropped and the majority
finally followed suit Frankly I have done very well economically by
always being ahead of the curve...and understanding the natural resistance of
people to even inevitable change.
So yes.. the majority is resistant to almost every
change...until the economic case becomes overwhelming...
Yes ... I am probably overly optimistic about the
current state of DV... but we need to be able to experiment with the many
possible variations of the technologies... without having to constantly consider
arcane regulations...that were written for the last century...There is probably
some ham out there...like Nino, IB8BLY, who might just come up with a Spread
Spectrum 2400 baud HF system (not legal under current US regs) that works at
acceptable S/N rations and yet enables multiple QSO's in the same bandwidth of a
HF phone QSO.
Yes D-Star looks very interesting.. and maybe there
may be a way to make it or some similar technology work on HF...
Yes ... I agree that the proposed changes the ARRL
is requesting is nowhere near enough to give us the freedom we need to
experiment... but it is at least a small first step...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital
voice on HF
Howard,Your clear implication was that the
majority of hams are resistant to new technologies. The facts do not
support your contention if you look long term at how things have evolved.
While there were a few people who poked fun at the audio quality of SSB,
most of us were very interested in moving toward SSB as economics
permitted. We were not resistant due to some nostalgia issue.At
this time, DV does not seem to have enough advantages over SSB. And it may
never have. There seems to be some limitations due to the science behind
the technology. With the relatively narrow bandwidth proposals, there will
be some severe limits put upon DV on HF bands. Perhaps there will be some
kind of breakthrough eventually but I am somewhat skeptical of it due to
the scientific limits.At this point, DV appears to offer higher
quality audio, with good frequency response and low noise but the tradeoff
is that signals have to be quite good or else you have no signal at all.
Because HF is often running close to the edge on many signals, this is not
a useful mode. It can work on spot frequencies, so that stations are able
to tune in the signal.Your belief that DV will lead to an order of
magnitude of capacity seems very unrealistic. Again I am skeptical that
this is technically possible with narrow BW's. The cell phone systems do
not use narrow technology. When you consider the amount of traffic on cell
phone frequencies, the BW used per user is very high.The current
rules do NOT impede DV experimentation. DV is used now by those who wish
to use it.I would suggest that if the new BW limitations are adopted,
we will likely have more restrictions for the development of DV since the
BW's are so limited. Even the narrowest DV used on commercial circuits are
much wider than anything we currently have on HF. It can work on VHF, of
course, and we are seeing some movement toward that direction with
D-Star. But it does not seem to be useable on
HF.KV9UDr. Howard S. White wrote:> I did
not call the majority "stupid" - you did... I said that the > majority
usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming to embrace > the new
technologiesHarking back to the economic argument of AM vs > SSB...
I recall very clearly that the AM forces were using exactly the > same
economic argument against SSB.. ie why abandon perfectly good AM >
radios and buy expensive SSB radios... Well 50 years later you are
> using the same unrealistic argument against DV.>
> In reality we need to experiment with these new technologies...and
> with experimentation just like with SSB they will get much less
> expensive The equivalent example is your cell phone which
is a > very inexpensive DV transceiver wherein upwards of 20 QSO's

Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-01 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Thanks Nino for the idea... That's the kind of
imaginative thinking we need in Ham Radio especially if we remove the regulatory
shackles from innovators...
and I suspect that several spread spectrum QSO's
could share the same bandwidth...
making for much more efficient band utilization
.and less QRM
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Nino Porcino
(IZ8BLY)
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:58
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
Rick KV9U wrote:> Although you could
theoretically go to much higher baud rates, [...]> would it be
practical to do so?>> Is anyone else on here concerned that the
ARRL bandwidth regulation>> proposal removes all baud rate
limitations on signals in the HF>> bands and 2 meters?while
traditional narrowband modes can't make advantage of higher
baudrates,because of the reduced sensitivity, "spread spectrum" modes can.
Think ofChip64 which is limited by design at 300 baud. Increasing it to
2400 baud,it could be 8 times more efficient.-
NinoIZ8BLY
___
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

2006-01-31 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Thank you Tim...
Clearly your mind is made up... and I agree that it
is not worth replying to you either
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:23
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital
voice on HF
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:36, Dr. Howard S. White
wrote:> I did not call the majority "stupid" - you did... I said that
the majority> usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming to
embrace the new> technologiesROFL!!So if they
aren't stupid then what are they? Just stubborn? Not as visionary as YOU,
perhaps?> Harking back to the economic argument of AM vs SSB...
I > recall very clearly that the AM forces were using exactly the same
economic> argument against SSB.. ie why abandon perfectly good AM
radios and buy> expensive SSB radios... Well 50 years later you
are using the same> unrealistic argument against DV.I don't
know where you were during the AM/SSB changeover but by 1975 it was *far*
cheaper to buy a Swan 150, a Kenwood TS-520, or Tempo 2020 than it was to
buy a Johnson Ranger. And they provided better weak signal operation.
If you want to do DV today it will cost you TWICE what it costs to
operate SSB because you have to buy the SSB transceiver anyway plus an
expensive adapter that provides less capability than the SSB by
itself!The only one being unrealistic here is YOU. You are suggesting
that people are making a BAD decision when they decide to not DOUBLE or
TRIPLE their investment in their station to get less capability.
>> In reality we need to experiment with these new
technologies...and with> experimentation just like with SSB they will
get much less expensive Yes, there needs to be experimentation.
And then there needs to be someone like Collins radio to offer the mode at
an economic price with more capability than SSB! Until that happens you
are just blowing smoke up people's backsides. Changing the regulation mode
won't help anything - there's nothing to move TO!> The
equivalent example is your cell phone which is a very inexpensive DV>
transceiver wherein upwards of 20 QSO's share a single analogue voice>
channel without any QRM...I can go out and buy a cheap cell phone. I
can't go out and buy a cheap DV transceiver. And if you've never
suffered QRM on your cell phone then you just weren't paying attention!
Which is not surprising. Would you even be able to recognize it if it
happened?> For Ham use, there does not need to be a >
central server.. in fact thats one of the interesting areas we can>
experiment with.ROFL!! The words of a troll. I'm gradually waking up
to the fact that you really don't know much about the technology - you are
just like a cheerleader that has no idea about what kind of plays the
football team is running. You are a professional engineer and don't
understand how a trunked system works? You suggest we can get 20 QSO's
on one channel just like cell phones do and then turn around and say it
doesn't require operating like cell phones do in order to do
it?Like I said - a troll.It's not worth replying to anything
else you say.tim ab0wr>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

2006-01-31 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

 Digital Voice" world you espouse.  
  It would helpexplain WHY folks should spend hard earned money so 
  do!JimWA0LYK==--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:>> I see that we are both excited about the possibilities 
  of DV andintelligent filters and multiple QSO's on the same HF channel 
  ...programs such as PSK Deluxe already show us that we can 
  decodemultiple information streams within the same bandwidth... Imagine 
  howneat it would be to do this in a DV contest> > 
  Regulations are very much like tariffs.. they protect the statusquo... and 
  invariably the unintended consequences of tariffs is thatthey make the 
  industries that they initially protect much weaker inthe long run because 
  they have not been exposed to competition.   Liketariffs, 
  regulations protecting the status quo are very popular withthe "majority' 
  as the "majority"  usually has to be dragged kickingand screaming to 
  accept any change (spark gaps, CW, AM, SSB, FM,Digital) even if in the 
  long run change will be beneficial forthemHeck, if we left decisions 
  on new technology to the "majority"we would likely not have progressed 
  beyond smoke signals andheliographs...> > So it ultimately 
  is not a "majority' vs. "minority' thing.. butrather it is whether we want 
  to innovate into the 21st century or justmaintain the status quo of the 
  20th century> > For me.. the exciting possibilities of 
  innovation wins every time...there are just too many cool things out there 
  to try and play withouthaving to be constantly looking over your shoulder 
  to try to decipherall those arcane interpretations of FCC rules...just so 
  you can figureout if the latest thing you are playing with is legal or 
  not...> > I want to stop playing lawyer and get back to 
  engineering..and thefun of innovating new technologies...> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

2006-01-30 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

I see that we are both excited about the
possibilities of DV and intelligent filters and multiple QSO's on the same HF
channel ...programs such as PSK Deluxe already show us that we can
decode multiple information streams within the same bandwidth... Imagine how
neat it would be to do this in a DV contest
Regulations are very much like tariffs.. they
protect the status quo... and invariably the unintended consequences of tariffs
is that they make the industries that they initially protect much weaker in the
long run because they have not been exposed to competition. Like
tariffs, regulations protecting the status quo are very popular with the
"majority' as the "majority" usually has to be dragged kicking and
screaming to accept any change (spark gaps, CW, AM, SSB, FM, Digital) even if in
the long run change will be beneficial for themHeck, if we left
decisions on new technology to the "majority" we would likely not have
progressed beyond smoke signals and heliographs...
So it ultimately is not a "majority' vs. "minority'
thing.. but rather it is whether we want to innovate into the 21st century
or just maintain the status quo of the 20th century
For me.. the exciting possibilities of innovation
wins every time... there are just too many cool things out there to try
and play without having to be constantly looking over your shoulder to try to
decipher all those arcane interpretations of FCC rules...just so you can figure
out if the latest thing you are playing with is legal or
not...
I want to stop playing lawyer and get back to
engineering..and the fun of innovating new technologies...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:43
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice
on HF
This
goes to part of my question and it is excitingto envision "smart
filters".Of course a cell phone is only handling same modesabsent
many of the huge variables present on HF Hambands so the challenge is
considerably more complex.I am certain that Hams and associated
business interestsare up to it. We just need the ARRL and FCC to
thinkcarefully before they act and to consult the majorityvs the
minority of Hams *prior* to decision making.73, kd4e> Dr.
Howard S. White wrote:> DV opens up the possibilites for intelligent
digital > QRM filters.. wherein we could program radios it ignore
> other DV signals occupying virtually the same frequency> ...
imagine the possibilities of multiple DV QSO's > occupying the same
bandwidth as a single SSB or AM QSO> ... Heck you are already doing
this with your cell phone > ...where upwards of 20 simultaneous
conversations share > the same channel. Imagine the
possibilities--
~~Thanks!
& 73, doc
kd4e
|_|___|_|
| | & |
|
{| /\
{| / \
{| / \
{| / @ \
{| | |~_||
| -| | |\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =West
Central
Florida~~~

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

2006-01-30 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

e. 
  But there is nothing preventing the experimentation of digital 
  voice at this time from what I have read of the rules. 
  The problem here in the U.S. is the ability to send 
  "data" on a voice channel. It is sort of legal by some 
  interpretations, but not really clearly legal. The idea that a digital picture (image) is OK to send on a voice channel, but 
  other data are not is so absurd as to defy logic. 
  Sometimes you might want to use SSB analog voice and 
  then send an image, either analog or digital. This is 
  done all the time in the voice portion of the bands. But some times you might want to send a data file. 
  Further, even if bandwidth proposals go through, they are 
  still making it sound like this problem will not 
  necessarily be corrected. They may still require 
  analog and digital to be kept in separate areas with bandplans. This really concerns me. 
  73, 
  Rick, KV9U 
  Dr. Howard S. White wrote: 
  > I for one want to start experimenting with digital voice 
  technologies > on HF...  There is a lot of 
  really cool stuff out there to try that > could 
  give us 100% voice copy with S/N in the -db ranges.  It would be 
  > really cool to copy voice when my CW friends 
  could no longer copy code > like we now do with 
  Olivia But most of these new technologies > 
  are currently screwed up with the current regulations. > __ 
  > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  
  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA > Website: www.ky6la.com 
  <http://www.ky6la.com> > "No 
  Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Ham Antennas Save 
  Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" > > - 
  Original Message - > 
  *From:* N6CRR <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  > *To:* 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> 
  > *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2006 
  8:05 PM > *Subject:* 
  [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  > <mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>, 
  Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 
  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...> wrote: 
  > > > > I really LOVE it when people tell me 
  why I think what I think. > 
  > > > The scenario I 
  mentioned is *EXACTLY* what I would be doing > > if it were legal.  What's plain 
  silly is having that scenario > > prohibited simply because one it 
  involves switching from voice > > to digital. > > > > (By the way, I'm a member of MARS, 
  and that's EXACTLY how we > 
  > handle a lot of traffic.  It's efficient and effective.) 
  > > 
  Paul > > I'm sure that given the high volume of 
  traffic on the MARS nets > 
  handles now day, the switching from voice to digital or other modes of 
  > operation works well for you and 
  MARS, great! > > I however don't see a crying demand for 
  this mode of operation on > 
  Amateur frequencies , and I am of the belief that most of the noise 
  > generated in support of this 
  change is based on being able to give > more spectrum to delivery of email, and 
  other digital data products > over scarce HF spectrum resources. I don't 
  see the demand for it now, > and frankly I don't think that Amateur 
  Radio is about providing an > alternative to conventional internet 
  services. > > Maybe HF frequencies allocated to MARS 
  operations are a good place for > a trial of this sort of shared MARS voice 
  and Digital email and other > data content delivery system? 
  > > 
  Cheers! > > 
  > > > > Need a 
  Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas 
  of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan 
  policy > discussion) 
  > > > > > 
   
  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
  > > *  Visit your 
  group "digitalradio >   <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio>" on the 
  web. >    
  > 
  *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >    
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] >   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  >    
  > 
  *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
  >   
  Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > 
   
  > >--

Re: [digitalradio] Re: knock it off "RANT"

2006-01-29 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






You quote the RSGB statement of the fact 
that:
 
"-The IARU Region 1 
HF Bandplan has served the amateur community very well for many 
years,"
 
Need I say any more...
 
What few minor non compliance issues that exist 
are being addressed by the Ham community themselves and not by the slow and 
heavy hand of inflexible Government Regulations.
Why are you so afraid to trust the 
US Ham Community - which has to be the most respectful of the rules in the 
worldnot to comply with a Voluntary BandPlan?
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tim Gorman 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:10 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: knock it 
  off "RANT"
  from 
  the RSGB, Improving Bandplan Compliance, paper number 138-An 
  increasing proportion of the Amateur Radio community is using non-CW modes 
  and deploying beacons within the CW communication 
  sub-bands.-national societies could do more to improve compliance with 
  IARU bandplans.-Note: The authors believe that the degree of 
  compliance within the CW sub-bands in particular is indicative of the 
  respect for IARU bandplans in general.-The IARU Region 1 HF 
  Bandplan has served the amateur community very well for many years, and 
  has always been made available by the IARU member societies through a 
  range of printed publications and internet resources. However, in recent 
  years, it has been observed that a) an increasing number of Amateur 
  Radio operators can be heard operating data and telephony modes as well as 
  beacons that transmit position and propagation data within the CW 
  communication sub-bands: b) non-Morse stations within the CW 
  sub-bands are getting more aggressive and more confident, believing that 
  they are "entitled" to do what they do.-from the Conclusions 
  section2) That each national society (or, initially, a small 'pilot' group 
  of national socieites) work together to develop common and consistent 
  methods for bandplan compliance by  a) logging incidents of 
  non-compliance within their national borders;  b) producing regular 
  reports that summarise the 
  non-compliances.***************On 
  Sunday 29 January 2006 02:14, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> Thank You 
  Brad for you usual clear headed analysis of the US situation.>> 
  It is indeed a very sad statement about some US hams that they do not 
  trust> others to abide by a Gentlemen's agreement and that they believe 
  that very> parochial attitudes must apply to the rest of the world who 
  share the same> bands.>> There is something called the 
  Law of Psychological Reciprocity"  which> roughly paraphrases as 
  "I will trust you will do to me what I would do to> 
  you"    The lack of trust seems to imply that those who do not 
  trust their> fellow hams to behave properly do so because they do not 
  trust themselves> to obey the rules.  Since  you and I have 
  lived in countries with> regulation by bandwidth, we know it works and 
  that you can trust the vast> your fellow hams to obey the "Gentlemen's 
  Agreements"> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital TV (off topic)

2006-01-29 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Have several wide screen HD TV's... Spent 
$5,500 for a 51" plasma about 2 years ago.. which I bought online at what was 
then a good price... By comparison, the latest one was just spent $949 for a 32" 
LCD at Costco which currently sits over my radio station desk and looks really 
cool during contests displaying contest data and digital waterfalls.Costco 
has lots of big HD TV's well under $2K now that are more than 
good enough... Don't waste your money on the extended warranty as the prices are 
dropping so fast if it breaks that you could replace with a new one for the cost 
of the warranty.
 
Picture Quality... You gotta be visually 
challenged.. no comparison whatsover between HD and DTV.  Just look at a 
football game in HD and see the brand of beer they are drinking in the stands.. 
you could never see that on DTV...
 
Seriously though.. after 2/17/09 every tv broadcast 
will be HD.. so why waste money on old soon to be obsolete technology  
AND  expect a lot of TV Sales after the Superbowl as they try to get rid of 
unsold inventory...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  obrienaj 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:33 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Digital TV 
  (off topic)
  I like the idea of a widescreen TV and have begun looking 
  around for one.  For the life of me, I don't see the $5000 plasma 
  screen pictures (in stores) as a whole lot better than the picture I 
  currently get from my satellite provider (standard definition).  I 
  looked carefully at a 42 inch DTV and a 42 HDTV , with a $3000 price 
  diference, I could see NO difference.  The salemans said he saw a 
  big difference, maybe I am digitalblind.Andy K3UK--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "SHERMON HALL, JR." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:>> Rick> > I agree with you I have a big 
  screen. It makes it a lot easier for my old eyes to see what is 
  happening.> > SHERMON HALL> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>   - Original 
  Message - >   From: KV9U >   To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   Sent: Friday, January 27, 
  2006 3:17 PM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Digital TV (off 
  topic)> > >   The cable and satellite companies 
  will provide whatever the public wants >   and for as 
  long as the public wants it. To do otherwise would lose 
  >   market share in a very competitive market.> 
  >   I have actually been very disappointed how slo the 
  change has been >   coming. I am not usually an early 
  adopter  and prefer to be at least a >   bit back of 
  the bleeding edge, but I wanted a large screen HDTV mainly 
  >   for watching DVD's and so a few years ago went for a 
  fairly large screen >   with older CRT technology which 
  was a good choice. I added a tuner a >   while ago and 
  can get off air from the major networks due to my ridge 
  >   top location. But the stations are still mostly tx on low 
  power. One of >   them is about 40 miles away and running 
  1 KW (to a gain antenna at a low >   height) and I can rx 
  OK, so when they finally switch and put the digital >   
  signals on the "good" antennas and higher power, I think things will be 
  >   pretty easy to rx.> >   Of course 
  no local stuff is HDTV and a lot of network isn't either. 
  >   Considering that at one time we were going to turn off 
  analog about now >   (spring of 2006). But of course it 
  never happened and will take many >   more years from 
  what it looks like.> >   I would point out that the 
  Japanese HD system is analog and so they have >   to 
  abandon their system if they wish to switch to digital. At least we 
  >   are going to make the switch here in the U.S. from a 
  horrible inferior >   analog system to a fairly decent HD 
  system in one jump. Once you watch >   HDTV on a big 
  screen, it is hard to tolerate even DVD quality. Imagaine 
  >   what will happen all over again (just like going from 
  video tape to DVD) >   with the switch in a few years 
  from DVD to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD whichever >   (or both) 
  wins in the marketplace. We will likely want to buy some of 
  >   our movies all over again in the new higher definition 
  format:)> >   73,> >   Rick, 
  KV9U> >   SHERMON HALL, JR. wrote:> 
  >   > Danny>   >  
  >   > Yes you cable company will say this so will the 
  satellite companies, >   > because the FCC has 
  mandated that they must provide converter. But >   > 
  this will only be for a few years and then they are to go 
  away.>   >  >   > I have worked 
  in electronics and broadcast now for more years than I 
  >   > want to think about.>   >  
  >   > What the FCC is doing is what they want to do. The 
  broadcaster's >   > didn't want the change. The f

Re: [digitalradio] Re: knock it off "RANT"

2006-01-29 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Thank You Brad for you usual clear headed analysis
of the US situation.
It is indeed a very sad statement about some
US hams that they do not trust others to abide by a Gentlemen's agreement and
that they believe that very parochial attitudes must apply to the rest of the
world who share the same bands.
There is something called the Law of Psychological
Reciprocity" which roughly paraphrases as "I will trust you will do to me
what I would do to you" The lack of trust seems to imply
that those who do not trust their fellow hams to behave properly do so because
they do not trust themselves to obey the rules. Since you and I have
lived in countries with regulation by bandwidth, we know it works and that you
can trust the vast your fellow hams to obey the "Gentlemen's
Agreements"
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Brad
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:41
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: knock it off
"RANT"
--- In
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
"Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...>
wrote:>> Can the Moderator, please stop this rubbish.>
Can US hams please realise that this is a worldwide group and it isread by
hams around the world.> If you want to discuss your internal US
problems do it somewhere else.> > Ross>
ZL1WN>Hear Hear. This has got to be the most long
winded, irrelevant, parochial threadever. And it all comes down to lack of
trust. Americans do not trusteach other to comply with a Gentlemans
Agreement. It's sad.Brad VK2QQ

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant

2006-01-28 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






I for one want to start experimenting with digital 
voice technologies on HF...  There is a lot of really cool stuff out there 
to try that could give us 100% voice copy with S/N in the -db 
ranges.  It would be really cool to copy voice when my CW friends could no 
longer copy code like we now do with Olivia But most of these new 
technologies are currently screwed up with the current regulations.
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  N6CRR 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:05 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 
  Rant
  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  wrote:>> I really LOVE it when people tell me why I think what I 
  think.> > The scenario I mentioned is *EXACTLY* what I would be 
  doing> if it were legal.  What's plain silly is having that 
  scenario> prohibited simply because one it involves switching from 
  voice> to digital.> > (By the way, I'm a member of MARS, 
  and that's EXACTLY how we> handle a lot of traffic.  It's 
  efficient and effective.)PaulI'm sure that given the high 
  volume of traffic on the MARS netshandles now day, the switching from 
  voice to digital or other modes ofoperation works well for you and MARS, 
  great!I however don't see a crying demand for this mode of operation 
  onAmateur frequencies , and I am of the belief that most of the 
  noisegenerated in support of this change is based on being able to 
  givemore spectrum to delivery of email, and other digital data 
  productsover scarce HF spectrum resources. I don't see the demand for it 
  now,and frankly I don't think that Amateur Radio is about providing 
  analternative to conventional internet services. Maybe HF 
  frequencies allocated to MARS operations are a good place fora trial of 
  this sort of shared MARS voice and Digital email and otherdata content 
  delivery system? Cheers!





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant

2006-01-28 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

John ... Like you I have lived and worked in many
countries with voluntary bandplans...
THEY WORK VERY WELL... or I would not be suggesting
them...
But us US Hams love to keep our blinkers on and
ignore the successes in the rest of the world...
We hate to try anything new.. and just because
it works well everywhere else, it cant work in the provincial old
USA
It's that kind of innovative thinking that put
GM and the rest of the US Car industry in the hole it currently is
in...
But your wisdom is falling on deaf ears on this
reflector as they are totally focused on the anti-Pactor 3 rantings and
ant-Internet rantings...to listen to the postive results from the rest of the
world or to even consider the harm the current regulation have done to stiffle
innovation in the USA.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:46
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant

To me as an outsider, ie not a citizen of the
USA, it's both interesting and confusing as to why Hams in the US feel that
they need structure and
many regulations in order to make the bandplan
work.
There are collectively a whole whack of
Europeans who are making a voluntary plan work, as well as us Cannucks
it comes down to an issue of respect among members of the Ham community
there is ample room for all users, including the dreaded pactor 3 stations,
so I can't understand why the desire for rules and regulations in a
bandplan?
So far the rest of the world seems satisfied
with a voluntary plancertainly worth a second look. Keep in mind
that it is easier to have more regulations brought in if the need is there,
rather than trying to convince the FCC that more regulations should be
dropped.. the old inertia theory of government.
John
VE5MU

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306 Rant

2006-01-27 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

You asked for an example and I gave you a
simple one...
You know full well that are a myriad of examples of
technologes that are illegal in the USA because of our outmoded
regulations...
On the positive side, the FCC has already
recognized in many pronouncements that regulation by mode is overregulation and
will likely approve one of the new proposals.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 4:50
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306
Rant
On Thursday 26 January 2006 23:53, Dr. Howard S. White
wrote:> How about the time that Mixw included Video inside of
MFSK...illegal in the> USA .. but legal everywhere
else..>> And I could give you many more
examples...>>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.comThis is the best, THE BEST, you could come up with? This
is your reasoning for totally changing the regulation paradigm?
All this would take is one simple change to say in the regulations
that transmission of images via digital data streams is allowed in the
data portions of the band. Quick, simple, and easy.If
you have other examples, run-em out. Somehow I suspect we will never see
them. They will just remain the big "Boogie-Man" out "there" somewhere,
always threatening but never quite materializing. tim
ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant

2006-01-27 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Except we share those same bands with the rest of 
the world and we will have to live with their regulation by bandwidth even if we 
do not do it...
 
So the rest of the world will continue to advance 
the art of radio and us US hams will be stuck in the 20th century
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  kd4e 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:49 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 
  Rant
  > It's permissible in most of the rest of the 
  world..."The rest of the world" is rarely a useful 
  construct(though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone elseis doing 
  it!")Much of the rest of the world is a socialist politicalmess or 
  is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts.They have vastly different 
  cultural norms, enforcementagencies, and other variables.The facts 
  necessary to establish any relevance fromthe experience of "the rest of 
  the world" have notyet been presented.Specifically where in "the 
  rest of the world"?Communist China?  Totalitarian North Korea or 
  Iran?Are we talking about civilized and densely packedareas such 
  as Japan or parts of Europe?What are the population percentages of 
  licensed active Hams?What power levels are they permitted to 
  use?What sort of gain antenna systems are in use?How active is 
  the enforcement wing of their regulatorybody compared to the minimally 
  active FCC?We may or may not wish to emulate others but we 
  firsthave to know what it is that we are being asked to emulateand the 
  probability of success here.We have too much experience in the 
  political realm thatteaches us that most of the models of other 
  countriesare either impractical or undesirable here in the USA.-- 
  ~~Thanks! 
  & 73, doc 
  kd4e    
  |_|___|_|    
  | | & | 
  |   
  {|   /\  
  {|  /  \ 
  {| /    \    
  {|    /   @  \   
  {|    |   |~_||    
  |   -| |    |\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html  
  KD4E =West 
  Central 
  Florida~~~





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant

Tim:
You ignore the fact that PSK31 in the USA on 40M is
smack in the middle of other countries allocations for other modes...We QRM
their QSO's with PSK just like they QRM us with other modes.. its a 2 way
street...
I would love to have world wide agreement on a
bandplan...which is possible if we go to Regulation by Bandwidth so that we can
be compatible with the rest of the world..
You are totally misreading the RSGB, Denmark and
Swiss Documents... No where do they suggest that they return to the bad old days
of regulation by mode... nor do they suggest that it is Chaos...in fact they are
quite pleased with the results and the RSGB has just published their latest
voluntary bandplans
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:52
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
Yeah, right. No chaos.Only on 40m when the Canadian
and South American SSB take out psk31 in the states at this
location.Want to see what will happen if anything goes? Listen to
3585-3590khz in the early evening when we are trying to have CW nets and
have to put up with SSB QRM.That's!!! the future if a Canadian
plan is put in place.Howard, you've been given the IARU document
references where the problems in Region 1 were laid out in the September,
2005 Plenary. You can keep saying there "is not any chaos" there but the
published documents prove you wrong. Denmark, Switzerland, and the RSGB
all introduced documents stating otherwise. How long are you going to keep
your head in the sand along with the ARRL?tim ab0wrOn
Thursday 26 January 2006 20:28, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> Actually I
have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth in Canada...> and it
works extremely well... NO CHAOS>> And talking to many
people in Region 1... there definitely is not any> "chaos" that you
would like to happen..>> yes the bandplans are restrictive in
places but they are set be the amateur> community and can easily be
changed by the amateurs... to accomodate> current communications
volumes...>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306 Rant

How about the time that Mixw included Video inside
of MFSK...illegal in the USA .. but legal everywhere else..
And I could give you many more
examples...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:01
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306
Rant
On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:21, Dr. Howard S. White
wrote:> Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason
for> RM-11305/6.>> There is a third Camp...those of
us who love to experiment [isn't that one> of the reasons for amateur
radio] who are kept in technology jail by the> current outmoded
regulation by mode>> US Hams are falling further and further
behind in "advancing the art of> radio" because we are shackled by the
archaic rules..>> And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far
enough in freeing us from> Technolgy Jail...>*EXACTLY*
what experimentation is being held back, Howard? This was discussed in
a thread right here not three weeks ago and the conclusion was that this
was a false claim.So tell us -- exactly what experimentation is
being held back?I can tell you what experimentation will be held back
by the bandwidth regulation proposal -- digital modes using
adaptive bandwidth techniques. You won't be able to go from narrow to wide
to narrow to wide unless you do it in the wideband area along with all the
other wideband digital and analog signals - like the high powered SSB.
That's going to be a hell of place to find a spot to experiment in, isn't
it?But the ARRL -- and you apparently -- aren't concerned at all about
that, right? That kind of experimentation isn't part of your "third camp",
I guess. You'd rather see the entire band full of high powered SSB and
aggressive ARQ modes so NO experimentation on anything else will be
possible.tim
ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant

Actually I have had experience with Regulation by
Bandwidth in Canada... and it works extremely well... NO
CHAOS
And talking to many people in Region 1... there
definitely is not any "chaos" that you would like to happen..
yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but
they are set be the amateur community and can easily be changed by the
amateurs... to accomodate current communications volumes...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:34
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
Perhaps you should read some of the Region 1 member's
bandplans andassumptions for making those bandplans. I think you
will find thatthey are very restrictive. In addition, you will find
that they arehaving trouble enforcing those very bandplans and are
suffering fromthe forcasted 'chaos' that many of see happening if this
type ofregulatory scheme is accepted.I wish we were at a sunspot
maximum while these arguments were beingmade. It would give everyone
a better view of what can happen!JimWA0LYK--- In
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:>> Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real
reason forRM-11305/6.> > There is a third Camp...those
of us who love to experiment [isn'tthat one of the reasons for amateur
radio] who are kept in technologyjail by the current outmoded
regulation by mode> > US Hams are falling further and
further behind in "advancing the artof radio" because we are shackled by
the archaic rules..> > And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly
far enough in freeing usfrom Technolgy Jail...> > Personally
I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to the model that therest of the world
is adopting...and which we will ultimately adoptsome time in the future...
even if RM-11306 is the best we can do fornow...> > And I am
constantly amazed at the provincial attitudes of US Hamswho we can ignore
the rest of the world.> > If the rest of the world is or will be
regulation by bandwidth...andwe share those same frequencies with the rest
of the world... What isthe point of keeping us in Technology
Jail?when everyone else onthose same frequencies is not?>

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

Yaesu ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306 Rant






Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real 
reason for RM-11305/6.
 
There is a third Camp...those of us who love to 
experiment [isn't that one of the reasons for amateur radio]  who are kept 
in technology jail by the current outmoded regulation by mode
 
US Hams are falling further and further behind in 
"advancing the art of radio" because we are shackled by the archaic 
rules..
 
And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far enough 
in freeing us from Technolgy Jail...
 
Personally I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to 
the model that the rest of the world is adopting...and which we will ultimately 
adopt some time in the future... even if RM-11306 is the best we can do for 
now...
 
And I am constantly amazed at the provincial 
attitudes of US Hams who we can ignore the rest of the world.
 
If the rest of the world is or will be regulation 
by bandwidth...and we share those same frequencies with the rest of the 
world...  What is the point of keeping us in Technology Jail?when 
everyone else on those same frequencies is not?
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  N6CRR 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:16 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] RM-11306 
  Rant
  The whole bandwidth RM issue brings what I think is a 
  philosophicalargument to Amateur Radio and it is probably a good time to 
  put thediscussion in those very simple philosophical points of view. 
  On the one hand we have the Winlink, and email over HF radio 
  camp,which seem to view Amateur Radio in general as an ends to a means. 
  Themeans appears to be well intentioned and altruistic in nature, but 
  isfraught with conflicts of interest due to financial interests in 
  termsof equipment providers by parties who are advocates of this sort 
  ofservice. While the RF and radio aspects of Winlink are important 
  issome ways, the payload or content of the information appears to be 
  thedriving force. From personal communications from amateurs to 
  nonamateurs via email to access to sources of information to the 
  amateurradio operator which are not readily available by other means, such 
  asweather forecasts etc, it's the information content which is 
  important.  On the other hand are the traditionalists who view 
  Amateur Radiocommunications as a direct person to person form of 
  communications.Third parties operating on scare spectrum resources for the 
  benefit ofcontent, at least in the form of "Robot" servers are alien to 
  thispoint of view. The information content in the traditional view 
  ofAmateur radio is not structured and is in some sense, the 
  informationcontent is what ever a fellow amateur wishes to convey.  
  This point ofview values the art and pleasure of communications higher 
  than thecontent.  (I'm in this camp by the way)Turning from 
  the fundamental philosophical issues, there are otherissues at play that 
  range from the use of proprietary modulationformats and techniques on what 
  are public spectrum resources, to therole of automation of use of radio 
  spectrum along with allocation ofspectrum resources to tasks. 
  The ARRL in it's infinite wisdom has seen fit to ignore 
  thefundamental differences in opinion on this fundamental point of 
  viewwhich may be present membership of the league, while at the same 
  timethose that are more interested in the content of the 
  communicationshave done exactly what their point of view tells them is the 
  correctthing, namely advocated with rule making that empowers their point 
  ofview.  I'm not quite sure if the ARRL is merely incompetent, tone 
  deafor bought and paid for, I leave that for others to decide. In 
  short, the debate turns over a fundamental view of what is amateurradio 
  is, and what it will become in the future.  In the finalanalysis, it 
  is the role of the FCC to listen to the public, for whothey work, and 
  issue rules which seek to balance the two points of view. Comment, 
  don't comment, but at the end of the day, things will eitherchange or not 
  change based on comments made by the owners of thespectrum, 
  you.





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio

[digitalradio] Tech Classes PowerPoints?

2006-01-16 Thread Dr. Howard S. White







I have been volunteered into teaching several Tech 
Classes for public service agencies so that they can get their 
volunteers to become hams.  I have been fortunate enough to have been 
sent a CD with all the tests, etc
 
...BUT.
 
I am wondering if anyone has already developed some 
Amateur Technician Classes PowerPoint teaching tools as I really do not want to 
have to reinvent the wheel again
 
You can respond directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Conflict SubBands: Why Olivia 14101-14112kHz USA Automatic Sub-Band?

2005-12-31 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Bonnie
As usual what you write makes too much
sense...
Be sure to put on your asbestos
suit
Yes ... we need a world wide bandplan.. without any
glacial government regulation...
And most of the world will ultimately go that
way...like Canada and Australia
But the USA is a special place... our radio waves
always stay within our borders and we do not hear anything from the rest of the
world...
so they are going to tell you that we need the
government to make sure that we do not try anything new...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
expeditionradio
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:21
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Conflict
SubBands: Why Olivia 14101-14112kHz USA Automatic Sub-Band?
><> Today, I note
that OLIVIA is plastered all over the > Part 97.221 sub-bands. Why
would they use these frequencies? > Because they have obvoiously been
cleaned out and left for > the operations that are pertinant to 97.221.
> Not good considering we have purposely crammed > ourselves in
these spaces to be good stewards of the current > regulatory
envrinment. Hi Steve,Question:Why is Olivia manual
keyboarding in the 14100-14112kHz USA
AutomaticSub-Band?Answer:After doing some research into the Olivia
14MHz disaster, I found thereason Olivia users are camping out above
14101kHz. The Oliviabandwidth default is 1kHz. Olivia was originally
designed and startedin Europe. The IARU Region 1 Bandplan
(Europe/Africa/MidEast), andsome European radio rules dictate 500Hz
maximum bandwidth below14099kHz and 2.7kHz bandwidth above 14101kHz. Also,
the bandplandetails "digimode" between 14101kHz and 14112kHz. Hence, to
useOlivia, european stations must camp between above 14101kHz and
below14112kHz on 20 metres. A very similar thing happened with MT63
on14109.5kHz some years ago, but MT63 never reached the fad status
ofOlivia, and MT63 use has decreased to near zero over the years.
The overlay of USA radio regulations forming the 97.221 sub-band
at14101kHz to 14112kHz falls flat when you consider that
radioionospheric propagation knows know political or IARU
regionalboundaries... and the IARU bandplanners of different regions
andnations often don't agree or exist in the same radio
environment.In 2005, as you probably know, the huge increase in Olivia
keyboardingactivity camping out around 14107.5kHz caused the ALE network
to moveup from where it had been for the past 5 years (14107.5kHz). The
ALEnetwork's move took a great effort on the part of hundreds of
ALEoperators to re-program their only 14MHz ALE data/sounding
channel.The ALE network would have moved earlier, due to the massive
OliviaQRM, but generally speaking, it requires about 6 months notice, and
atleast 6 months for changes in the amateur ALE channels to
propagateamong all operators (some ALE controllers require manual entry
orspecial cabling, fill files, and setups for programming). The ALE
netmoved up as far as it could, to 14109.5kHz and then we actively
putthe Olivia community on notice that we simply could not move
anyhigher than that. (By the way, I'm an Olivia operator, too.)The
sub-bands among the regions and nations are constantlyconflicting, which
will lead to even more Olivia-like mode-based andcontent-based bandplan
conflicts. At the same time, we also are seeinga huge change in the nature
of how we communicate on HF. Take a listenbetween 14230 and 14240 sometime
and you will see a similar situationin progress. The fact is, with
the growth of high speed robust HF digitalcommunications technology,
amateur radio is seeing changes from anolder bandwidth-centric model to
the use of a newer time-centric modelfor data exchange. This means that
the future will see moretime-sharing of frequencies on a rapidly
interactive and dynamic basisthan there has been in the past. This fact is
part of what is causingthe "growing pains" and misunderstanding among the
rank and file forbandwidth-based spectrum management in USA. Most hams are
familiar andthus comfortable with the operational aspects of the slow
informationexchange model such as voice, CW, and realtime keyboarding.
More frequency space is needed for wider bandwidth signals in the
IARURegion 1 bandplans on 14MHz. More space is also need for
widerbandwidth automatic operation in USA. For several years, I've
beenadvocating a 500Hz/3kHz bandwidth sub-band separation at or
about14050kHz or 14075kHz. I don't believe a sub-band for 200Hz
bandwidthis beneficial at all, or practical in the sense that most hams
couldnot live with strong and wea

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NOT RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006






 
Obviously the ARRL is not keeping its Bandplan up 
to date... 
 
as PSK has been on 14071.5 for a very long 
time...
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:03 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NOT 
  RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006
  Operating PSK on 14071.5 is a violation of the current ARRL 
  HF bandplan. Only RTTY is permitted there.   
  73,   Dave, AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  wrote:>> having never worked 160M ... I cannot confirm your 
  observations...> > But on 2M they definitely obey the 
  bandplan... and the voluntary repeater coordination...> > 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"> > 
  >   - Original Message - >   From: 
  Dave Bernstein >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:22 
  PM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NOT RESTRUCTURING. UK 
  bandplan 2006> > >   Exactly right, Howard: 
  hams obey rules. > >   Do they obey voluntary HF 
  bandplans? Demonstrably not. Take a look >   at the ARRL 
  bandplan in > >   http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html> 
  >   According to this bandplan, the only HF band segment 
  available for >   digital mode operation other than RTTY 
  or Packet is 1800 to 1810. >   Every one of us who 
  operates PSK anywhere other than 1800 to 1810 is >   in 
  violation of this bandplan. > >  
  73,> >  
  Dave, AA6YQ> >  > 
  >   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. 
  White" >   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>   
  >>   > I must agree with Brett... Dave... you just 
  don't trust your >   fellow hams as much as Brett, Bonnie and 
  I do...>   > >   > I have been a ham 
  for almost 48 years and have lived in and >   operated from 
  countries all over the world...>   > >   
  > I have found Hams to be the most law abiding, anally rule obeying 
  >   and courteous people I have ever 
  known.>   > >   > Yes there are a few 
  bad apples.. but they are such a tiny tiny >   minority... 
  that they really are not a problem...  [even those >   
  automatic stations you hate so much are only 1 or 2 stations not 
  >   hundreds]...>   > 
  >   > So why penalize only the US Hams.. [because the US 
  will be the >   only ones who still have these strict 
  Government regulations] >   because of a very tiny 
  minority...>   > >   > Heck... we have 
  Voluntary Bandplans that work on 2M and 440M >   already in 
  the USA... >   > >   > and Voluntary 
  Bandplans work everywhere else in the world...>   > 
  >   > I know I will never convince you Dave... 
  >   > >   > but fortunately the world 
  is changing and it looks like the FCC is >   also 
  starting to see the wisdom of getting out of the business of 
  >   micromanaging ham bands...>   > 
  __>   
  > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  
  KY6LA>   > Website: www.ky6la.com >   
  > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished">   > "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">   > 
  >   > >   >   - Original 
  Message - >   >   From: Dave Bernstein 
  >   >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   >   Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:49 
  PM>   >   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NOT 
  RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006>   > 
  >   > >   >   Bonnie, your 
  post perfectly illustrates why government >   regulation of 
  >   >   amateur band allocations is, 
  unfortunately, required.  >   > >   
  >   In reference to the UK band plan authors, you say "The 
  writers >   of >   >   
  bandplans that do not follow on-the-air activity trends, with 
  >   room >   >   for 
  communications technology to thrive should not complain when 
  >   >   their bandplan is not accepted or 
  closely followed by hams on->   the->   
  >   air." In other words, hams will only accept and obey a 
  bandplan >   they >   >   
  personally deem reasonable. >   > >   
  >   There is no bandplan that all hams will deem reasonable; 
  >   operators >   >   have 
  different interests, and different levels of empathy for 
  >   other >   >   spec

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006






Can't think of another NGO... locally we have 
repeater coordination councils.. that seem to work very well... 
 
and I do not think they are under the ARRL?  

 
Maybe we need to set up a Bandwidth Coordination 
Council... or something like that...
 
But logically the ARRL would be the first 
choice..
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:12 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 
  Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 
  2006
  Yes, I would.I'm skeptical of the ARRL's ability to 
  execute given its poor track record in this area. Is there an alternative 
  NGO that could take on the mission?    
  73,    Dave, AA6YQ--- 
  In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  wrote:>> So you would accept a "mandatory" bandplan if it were 
  in the hands of a non governmental organization [NGO]  (such as ARRL) 
  as long as it had enforcement power?> > I do not believe 
  that there would be anarchy  but> > I could probably 
  live with a mandatory bandplan and  as long as we took it out of the 
  inflexible hands of government and gave it to hams to regulate and modify 
  through their own NGO such as we do with 2M repeater 
  coordination...> > 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"> > > 
  >   - Original Message - >   From: 
  Dave Bernstein >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:02 
  PM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in 
  our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006> > 
  >   What's the point of modifying a voluntary bandplan, 
  Howard? As >   Bonnie points out, individual hams will do as 
  they see fit. The >   current ARRL bandplan is broadly 
  ignored.> >   We face a choice in the governance of 
  our amateur bands. That choice >   is not "government 
  regulations vs. voluntary band plans"; >   its "government 
  regulations vs. anarchy".> >   There is an 
  alternative: a mandatory band plan. By "mandatory", I >   
  mean "not voluntary". Violate the band plan, and you lose your 
  >   license to operate for a period of time; violate it 
  again, lose your >   operating priveleges for a longer 
  period. A mandatory band plan >   would provide the long-term 
  flexibility you seek, Howard, without >   creating a 
  free-for-all -- assuming that its steward is both >   
  competent from an allocation perspective and credible from an 
  >   enforcement perspective.> 
  >  73,> 
  >  Dave, 
  AA6YQ> > >   --- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" >   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>   >>   > 
  The point of the UK RSGB pronouncement is that Region I has 
  >   Regulation by Bandwidth and NOT MODE.>   
  > >   > Bandplans are VOLUNTARY Bandplans established 
  by the local >   hams...in this case the RSGB 
  and>   > >   > NOT BY GOVERNMENT 
  REGULATION...>   > >   > So when the 
  UK Hams decide that they need to modify the Voluntary >   
  Bandplan as Hams find that their needs change...>   > 
  >   > They do not have to go back to the Government each 
  time to make >   changes...>   > 
  >   > This is the exact same way they do it in Canada... 
  and >   Australia... and much of the rest of the world with 
  wihich we share >   these same bands>   
  > >   > So why do we in the USA need the FCC to 
  overregulate us...>   > 
  __>   
  > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  
  KY6LA>   > Website: www.ky6la.com >   
  > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished">   > "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">   > 
  >   > >   > >   
  >   - Original Message - >   
  >   From: Tim Gorman >   >   To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   >   Sent: 
  Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:59 PM>   >   
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our 
  >   future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB ban

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006






So you would accept a "mandatory" bandplan if it 
were in the hands of a non governmental organization [NGO]  (such as ARRL) 
as long as it had enforcement power?
 
I do not believe that there would be anarchy  
but
 
I could probably live with a mandatory 
bandplan and  as long as we took it out of the inflexible hands of 
government and gave it to hams to regulate and modify through their own NGO 
such as we do with 2M repeater coordination...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:02 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 
  Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 
  2006
  What's the point of modifying a voluntary bandplan, Howard? 
  As Bonnie points out, individual hams will do as they see fit. The 
  current ARRL bandplan is broadly ignored.We face a choice in the 
  governance of our amateur bands. That choice is not "government 
  regulations vs. voluntary band plans"; its "government regulations vs. 
  anarchy".There is an alternative: a mandatory band plan. By 
  "mandatory", I mean "not voluntary". Violate the band plan, and you lose 
  your license to operate for a period of time; violate it again, lose your 
  operating priveleges for a longer period. A mandatory band plan would 
  provide the long-term flexibility you seek, Howard, without creating a 
  free-for-all -- assuming that its steward is both competent from an 
  allocation perspective and credible from an enforcement 
  perspective.   
  73,       Dave, AA6YQ--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:>> The point of the UK RSGB pronouncement is that Region I 
  has Regulation by Bandwidth and NOT MODE.> > Bandplans are 
  VOLUNTARY Bandplans established by the local hams...in this case the RSGB 
  and> > NOT BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION...> > So when 
  the UK Hams decide that they need to modify the Voluntary Bandplan as Hams 
  find that their needs change...> > They do not have to go back 
  to the Government each time to make changes...> > This is 
  the exact same way they do it in Canada... and Australia... and much of 
  the rest of the world with wihich we share these same bands> 
  > So why do we in the USA need the FCC to overregulate us...> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"> > > 
  >   - Original Message - >   From: 
  Tim Gorman >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:59 
  PM>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwith-Based Bandplans in 
  our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006> > 
  >   While they may anticipate changes to phase out mode 
  references at some point >   in the future, it may be a 
  long time before that is done. > >   Region 1 passed a 
  resolution (I believe it was unanimous) at the Sept Plenary 
  >   that digital and analog signals should be 
  separated.> >   The RSGB seems to be following this 
  recommendation (see the list below) by >   reserving 
  spaces that do not allow digimodes. > >   1.840-1.843 
  All modes>   1.843-2.000 Telephony and 
  Telegraphy>   3.590-3.600 Narrow band unattended 
  stations>   3.600-3.620 Wideband unattended 
  stations>   3.600-3.650 All modes>   
  3.650-3.700 Telephony and Telegraphy>   3.700-3.800 All 
  modes>   7.038-7.040 Narrow band unattended 
  stations>   7.040-7.043 Wideband unattended 
  stations>   7.043-7.200 All modes (except 
  digimodes)>   10mhz - no wideband modes, no unattended 
  stations>   14.089-14.099 narrow band unattended 
  stations>   14.101-14.112 wideband unattended 
  stations>   14.112-14.125 All modes (except 
  digimodes)>   14.125-14.350 All modes> 
  >   I believe that careful reading of these quotes with the 
  full context provided >   will show that they are not 
  wanting to be in the business of trying to define >   
  every possible digital mode or even analog mode. That does not mean they 
  >   won't continue to segregate based on analog versus 
  digital.> >   tim ab0wr> >   
  On Tuesday 27 December 2005 15:31, expeditionradio wrote:>   
  > Here are some significant quotes from the UK RSGB 2006 bandplan, 
  that&g

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NOT RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006






having never worked 160M ... I cannot confirm your 
observations...
 
But on 2M they definitely obey the bandplan... and 
the voluntary repeater coordination...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:22 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NOT 
  RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006
  Exactly right, Howard: hams obey rules. Do they 
  obey voluntary HF bandplans? Demonstrably not. Take a look at the ARRL 
  bandplan in http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.htmlAccording 
  to this bandplan, the only HF band segment available for digital mode 
  operation other than RTTY or Packet is 1800 to 1810. Every one of us who 
  operates PSK anywhere other than 1800 to 1810 is in violation of this 
  bandplan.    73,   
  Dave, AA6YQ   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I must 
  agree with Brett... Dave... you just don't trust your fellow hams as much 
  as Brett, Bonnie and I do...> > I have been a ham for almost 48 
  years and have lived in and operated from countries all over the 
  world...> > I have found Hams to be the most law abiding, anally 
  rule obeying and courteous people I have ever known.> > Yes 
  there are a few bad apples.. but they are such a tiny tiny minority... 
  that they really are not a problem...  [even those automatic stations 
  you hate so much are only 1 or 2 stations not hundreds]...> 
  > So why penalize only the US Hams.. [because the US will be the 
  only ones who still have these strict Government regulations] because 
  of a very tiny minority...> > Heck... we have Voluntary 
  Bandplans that work on 2M and 440M already in the USA... > > 
  and Voluntary Bandplans work everywhere else in the world...> > 
  I know I will never convince you Dave... > > but fortunately the 
  world is changing and it looks like the FCC is also starting to see the 
  wisdom of getting out of the business of micromanaging ham 
  bands...> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"> > 
  >   - Original Message - >   From: 
  Dave Bernstein >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:49 
  PM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NOT RESTRUCTURING. UK 
  bandplan 2006> > >   Bonnie, your post 
  perfectly illustrates why government regulation of >   
  amateur band allocations is, unfortunately, required.  > 
  >   In reference to the UK band plan authors, you say "The 
  writers of >   bandplans that do not follow on-the-air 
  activity trends, with room >   for communications 
  technology to thrive should not complain when >   their 
  bandplan is not accepted or closely followed by hams 
  on-the->   air." In other words, hams will only accept 
  and obey a bandplan they >   personally deem reasonable. 
  > >   There is no bandplan that all hams will deem 
  reasonable; operators >   have different interests, and 
  different levels of empathy for other >   spectrum users. 
  No matter how well a band plan is engineered, some >   
  subset of the ham population will find it sufficiently unreasonable 
  >   to justify ignoring it -- just as you have. With no 
  threat of >   penalty for ignoring the bandplan, the result 
  will be chaos -- just >   like herding cats, to use your 
  analogy.> >   This is exactly why the ARRL's proposal 
  to replace government >   regulation with a bandplan must be 
  rejected. > >  73,> 
  >  Dave, 
  AA6YQ> >   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "expeditionradio" >   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:>   >>   > The RSGB Bandplan for 
  2006 is not a "restructuring" at all. >   > It is simply a 
  new bandplan for the new year.>   > >   
  > Anyone can issue a bandplan! >   > Bandplans can be 
  modified without government approval, and RSGB is>   > 
  free to have another new bandplan in 2007 if they like.>   
  > >   > USA hams should take note not to confuse 
  bandplans with government>   > radio regulations. In 
  USA it takes a long time and bureaucratic >   
  action>   > to change government radio regulations. 
  >   > >   > A few countries

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NOT RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006

2005-12-27 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

I must agree with Brett... Dave... you just don't
trust your fellow hams as much as Brett, Bonnie and I do...
I have been a ham for almost 48 years and have
lived in and operated from countries all over the world...
I have found Hams to be the most law abiding,
anally rule obeying and courteous people I have ever known.
Yes there are a few bad apples.. but they are such
a tiny tiny minority... that they really are not a problem... [even those
automatic stations you hate so much are only 1 or 2 stations not
hundreds]...
So why penalize only the US Hams.. [because the US
will be the only ones who still have these strict Government regulations]
because of a very tiny minority...
Heck... we have Voluntary Bandplans that work on 2M
and 440M already in the USA...
and Voluntary Bandplans work everywhere else in the
world...
I know I will never convince you Dave...

but fortunately the world is changing and it looks
like the FCC is also starting to see the wisdom of getting out of the business
of micromanaging ham bands...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Dave
Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:49
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NOT
RESTRUCTURING. UK bandplan 2006
Bonnie, your post perfectly illustrates why government
regulation of amateur band allocations is, unfortunately, required.
In reference to the UK band plan authors, you say "The writers of
bandplans that do not follow on-the-air activity trends, with room for
communications technology to thrive should not complain when their
bandplan is not accepted or closely followed by hams on-the-air." In other
words, hams will only accept and obey a bandplan they personally deem
reasonable. There is no bandplan that all hams will deem reasonable;
operators have different interests, and different levels of empathy for
other spectrum users. No matter how well a band plan is engineered, some
subset of the ham population will find it sufficiently unreasonable to
justify ignoring it -- just as you have. With no threat of penalty for
ignoring the bandplan, the result will be chaos -- just like herding cats,
to use your analogy.This is exactly why the ARRL's proposal to replace
government regulation with a bandplan must be rejected.
73, Dave,
AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> The RSGB Bandplan for
2006 is not a "restructuring" at all. > It is simply a new bandplan for
the new year.> > Anyone can issue a bandplan! > Bandplans
can be modified without government approval, and RSGB is> free to have
another new bandplan in 2007 if they like.> > USA hams should
take note not to confuse bandplans with government> radio regulations.
In USA it takes a long time and bureaucratic action> to change
government radio regulations. > > A few countries have a
government radio regulation that the hams must> follow their IARU
society's bandplan.> > Getting all hams to follow bandplans
precisely, in most areas of the> world "is like herding cats". A
well-written bandplan tends to follow> what the actual on-the-air
activity trend is. Bandplans that try to> radically constrict or
inhibit popular on-the-air activities are> doomed to failure! The
writers of bandplans that do not follow> on-the-air activity trends,
with room for communications technology to> thrive, should not
complain when their bandplan becomes obsolete the> moment it is
published. They should not complain when their bandplan> is not
accepted or closely followed by hams on-the-air.> > As a side
note, as for the absurd 7040-7043kHz automatic slice in the> RSGB
2006 bandplan, it is very short-sighted and counterproductive for>
anyone to expect a method of operating to be confined to a tiny
3kHz> window on the 7MHz ham band. In europe, there is just too
much QRM on> 7MHz to expect operators to be locked without room to
grow or without> the capacity to QSY when there is a need to
communicate.> > Bonnie KQ6XA>

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

2005-12-27 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

The point of the UK RSGB pronouncement is that
Region I has Regulation by Bandwidth and NOT MODE.
Bandplans are VOLUNTARY Bandplans established
by the local hams...in this case the RSGB and
NOT BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION...
So when the UK Hams decide that they need to modify
the Voluntary Bandplan as Hams find that their needs change...
They do not have to go back to the Government each
time to make changes...
This is the exact same way they do it in Canada...
and Australia... and much of the rest of the world with wihich we share
these same bands
So why do we in the USA need the FCC to
overregulate us...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:59
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan
2006
While they may anticipate changes to phase out mode
references at some point in the future, it may be a long time before that
is done. Region 1 passed a resolution (I believe it was unanimous) at
the Sept Plenary that digital and analog signals should be
separated.The RSGB seems to be following this recommendation (see the
list below) by reserving spaces that do not allow digimodes.
1.840-1.843 All modes1.843-2.000 Telephony and
Telegraphy3.590-3.600 Narrow band unattended stations3.600-3.620
Wideband unattended stations3.600-3.650 All modes3.650-3.700 Telephony
and Telegraphy3.700-3.800 All modes7.038-7.040 Narrow band unattended
stations7.040-7.043 Wideband unattended stations7.043-7.200 All modes
(except digimodes)10mhz - no wideband modes, no unattended
stations14.089-14.099 narrow band unattended stations14.101-14.112
wideband unattended stations14.112-14.125 All modes (except
digimodes)14.125-14.350 All modesI believe that careful reading of
these quotes with the full context provided will show that they are not
wanting to be in the business of trying to define every possible digital
mode or even analog mode. That does not mean they won't continue to
segregate based on analog versus digital.tim ab0wrOn Tuesday
27 December 2005 15:31, expeditionradio wrote:> Here are some
significant quotes from the UK RSGB 2006 bandplan, that> illustrate the
trend in spectrum planning away from mode-based and> toward
bandwidth-based.>> " For a number of years the International
Radio Union (IARU) in Region> 1 has been developing a bandplan based on
the principle of emission> bandwidths rather than the mode itself. This
was found to be necessary> with an ever increasing interest in new
modes resulting in varied> bandwidths being used...">> "
It is anticipated that in coming years references to specific modes>
will be phased out as operators become used to thinking in the>
bandwidth occupied rather than the mode being used...
">>> Bonnie
KQ6XA Need a
Digital mode QSO? Connect to
telnet://208.15.25.196/>> Other areas of interest:> The
MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/>>
Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free
link> below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html>>
Yahoo! Groups Links>>>

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Why is Mix W so popular ?

2005-12-17 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

It just does everything well.. it is very
inexpensive.. $50 has all the digital modes and always is adding new ones...
so far at no extra cost.. the user groups give great support...there are always
new Betas coming out with great new features.. and modes...
It has a great CAT interface for virtually every
radio... It ties in my rotor control and it sets the beam to the right direction
automatically... It incorporates spots...so by clicking on a spot, my radio goes
to the right frequency and the beam turns to the right location and my callbook
CD fills in the log... all I need to do to do a digital QSO is hit the
first Macro Key and virtually everything is automatic from
there
HRD has a much prettier CAT interface... and DXLabs is dynamite for
logging... both are free.. and I run those as wellbut MixW is definitely my
primary digital interface and is always on whenever I on the air...
Try it for free at www.mixw.net
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Mel

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:38
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Why is Mix W so
popular ?
During the past month I've been noting the types of
operating software used by PSK operators, and the most popular one in use
is Mix W. I've never used it, in fact I've never seen illustrations of
the operating page. Why is it so popular.? And it isn't even
free ! What advantages has Mix W over other software ?73,
Mel
G0GQK

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Ham radio

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Icom ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Safe is Amateur Radio






Thank you Dave for your Brilliant Headline:  
You have given me a great idea for our antenna fight in San Diego
 
"Incompetent Politicians Attempting to Destroy Only 
Emergency Service That Worked"
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:46 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Safe is 
  Amateur Radio
  My point was not that hams would swing an election, Walt. 
  The government's emergency management capabilities have been broadly 
  criticized; in contrast, amateur radio has been publicized as one of 
  the few bright spots. Were DHS or some other government agency to 
  attempt to expropriate amateur frequencies, the headline would be 
  "incompetent bureacrats attempting takeover of service that worked well". 
  Such a situation would draw a crowd a politicians seeking to save amateur 
  radio from the bureaucracy. They would be playing to their voters, not 
  hams.This is not an uncommon scenario.   
  73,  Dave, AA6YQ--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dave,> > 
  Realistically, 650,000 hams with each one have 4 friends who will 
  support> his view (2.6 million individuals or about 52,000 per 
  state) aren't going to> influence the outcome of many, if any, 
  congressional or senate election.> Ok, maybe in Alaska.  And 
  CERTAINLY NOT in California or Texas.> > Walt/K5YFW> 
  > -Original Message-> From: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Behalf Of Dave Bernstein> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:09 
  PM> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [digitalradio] 
  Re: How Safe is Amateur Radio> > > Re "When did that ever 
  matter to a government official.  Hey, > amateur radio worked...so 
  lets get their frequencies."> > It tends to matter to the ones 
  facing election. The opportunity to > publicly save amateur radio from 
  an incompetent government > bureacracy would be irresistable.> 
  > 73,> 
  >    Dave, AA6YQ> 
  > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC 
  CONS/LGCA > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> 
  > Good questions Dave...> > > > -Original 
  Message-> > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Bernstein> > 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:51 PM> > To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Safe 
  is Amateur Radio> > > > > > With all due 
  respect, Walt, the approach you are taking could be > > used by 
  anyone to justify anything. "During my trip to DC last > week, > 
  > I heard several high-ranking governmental officials saying that > 
  > unless semi-automatic operation without busy detectors is confined 
  > > to sub-bands, they'll annex the entire 20m amateur band as a 
  QRM-> > free zone exclusively for emergency communications". 
  Convincing? > Of > > course not. > > > > 
    The folks I have been chatting with are no hams 
  but rather> >   communications folks in 
  FEMA and the National Guard.  The> > 
    FEMA folks aren't very high up the food chain 
  but I believe> >   that they are 
  repeating what they are hearing.> > > > 
    It isn't the high-ranking government officials 
  that drive> >   policy...its the 
  GS-12s, 13s and 14s.  The are the ones> > 
    who brief the GS-15s and SESs who if they like 
  what the GS-> 15s> >   say 
  forward the "brief" to the agency head who determines if > 
  he/she> >   wants to send it to their 
  congressional liaison.> > > > 
    I will be at a breakfast in the morning with 
  the head of a > major> >   
  agency to hear what he has to say about communications > 
  problems> >   during Katrina and 
  Rita.  I'll let you know if anything > salient> > 
    comes from the individual's 
  talk/speech.> > > > The "requirements" you mention all 
  sound off-hand and ad-hoc. No > > serious emergency communication 
  system design would be entirely > > driven by a static printed 
  page-per-minute parameter. Unless you > > provide the names and 
  positions of your requirements sources, no > one > > can 
  judge whether they are competent to set such requirements. And > 
  > unless you provide the names and positions of those officials you 
  > > say are lusting after amateur frequencies, no one can judge 
  > whether > > they have the gravitas to follow through on 
  such a threat.> > > >   
  Off-hand and ad-hoc is how things get entirely out-of-hand.> > 
  > >   Agree on the static 
  page-per-minute spec.  I mainly hear that> > 
    from the non-tech folks who simply have to 
  process data. > That's> >

Re: [digitalradio] How Safe is Amateur Radio






Bob:
 
You are so incredibly wrong about HF for emergency 
services I do not know where to begin...
 
So simply put.KATRINA Hams on HF Saved 
Lives...
 
The list is incredibly long...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Website: www.ky6la.comMember SCAMP Alpha Test 
TeamMember  ARES® National Task Force Digital Network Management 
TeamSecretary: Coronado Emergency Radio Operators IncSecretary: San 
Diego Amateur Radio Emergency Services Group"Ham Antennas Save Lives - 
Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bob 
  Macklin 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:51 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] How Safe is 
  Amateur Radio
  The HF bands are useless for emergencg services. 
  Thelocal PD & FD used to use the Low Band FM, The movedto High 
  Band FM, then to UHF, and now seem to be moredependent on cell 
  phones.As for emergency traffic on HF look at what happenedon 
  December 7th, 1941!Bob MacklinK5MYJSeattle, Wa.--- 
  "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> 
  DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:> > > I wish I could say 
  that we aren't in any danger of> loosing amateur > > radio 
  frequencies...but I am afraid the truth is> that even 650,000 > 
  > amateur radio operators in the U.S. is an> insignificant 
  minority.> >> > Read the article at > 
  >>http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/37647-1.html> 
  >> > When the public expects their lives and property> to 
  be protected by > > their governments - local, state or federal 
  -> without distinction as > > to who is ultimately 
  responsible, as they are> today, then its just a > > matter 
  of a whim of the government to take away> all our amateur radio 
  > > privilages to fulfill what the public expects if> more 
  communications > > frequencies are needed.> >> > 
  If hams radio doesn't meet the public's conceived> need for it, then it 
  > > will be gone...taken away.> >> > I've 
  already heard individuals from within the> "Beltway" talking about 
  > > the frequencies hams have and how they could be> used for 
  emergency > > communications by local, state and the federal> 
  government.> >> > Walt/K5YFW> >> 
  >  > > I would guess that at least as regards our 
  HF> frequencies, the present > international treaties governing 
  radio are some> protection.> > de Roger W6VZV> 
      
  __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access 
  over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html









  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  
Ham radio
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth and Olivia and DRM

Brad:

Give them a break... 

They want the US government looking over their 
shoulders all the time...

They want to spend their time counting angels on 
the head of a pin rather than experimenting or operating.

They want rules and regulations to cover every 
minute permutation and combination that might ever happen...

They want to forget that they once were known as 
the "Land of the Free"

They are too busy worry about what might happen so 
they do not have time to innovate...

Just because the rest of the world seems to be able 
to free itself of the shackles of burdensome regulations is no reason that They 
would ever want to be let out of Technology Jail...

They are very comfortable with the Status 
Quo...even if it kills them!

DRM?  Anyone figured out if it is legal in the 
USA yet?  

__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Brad Granger 

  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:24 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth and 
  Olivia
  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  wrote:>> >>>AA6YQ response below> > 
  > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Brad Granger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> 
  > wrote:> >> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> > 
  > wrote:> > >> > > It may have been eloquent, 
  Howard, but Brad's statement is > > > demonstrably 
  incorrect.> > > > > >    73,> 
  > > > > >    Dave, 
  AA6YQ> > > > Which part of it was incorrect 
  Dave?> > The part (in your message 12149) where you said> 
  > "You guys have only had access to Oliva for a few months. The rest 
  > of us have been using the mode for much longer."> > 
  Olivia was released in December 2004. "us guys" were QRV on Olivia > as 
  of the 23rd of that month. I provided URLs substantiating both > facts 
  in my earlier posting.> > 73,> 
  > Dave, 
  AA6YQ>Yeah, and then went into a huddle, after the fact, trying 
  to decide whether it was legal or not. So how are you guys doing 
  with DRM?Brad.

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth

Members of Congress and Senators are elected
locally but represent us in our National Forum called Congress..
If you do not like the ARRL position why do you not
run for office and change it.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:13
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Bandwidth
Howard,Give me a break!They are NOT a
national elected body. Their elected positions are elected by a minority
of their membership and their membership is a minority of the amateur
community. And I *am* a member. I don't consider them representative of my
views and neither do a lot of others. If they were to ever separate
QST subscription from ARRL membership their membership would drop even
lower.tim ab0wrOn Tuesday 29 November 2005 13:15,
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> I absolutely agree with Rick on this
point.. the ARRL may not be perfect..> but it is our only national
Elected body...>> If you do not like their stance on an issue..
become a member... get> involved and run for an elected
position...>> and change their position...>>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] voluntary band plans

Frankly I have no idea about Region 1 and their
compliance after January 1, 2006..
My experience in Canada is that the Voluntary
Bandplan works extremely well... with compliance well above 99.9% of the
QSO's
From talking to VK's who also have a Voluntary
BandPlan... they tell me that they get similar high compliance
levels.
Of course, you will always have the rouge
operators... we have them here in the US as well.. but why penalize everyone
just so you can police a few rouges
As a non Native American...I have always
wondered why people in the USA seem to want to be so highly (IMHO) over
regulated by the government. It would seem to me to be counter
intutitive that a country that claims to be the "Land of the Free" seems to have
so much less actual freedom because of the visibly heavy hand of
regulation. It seems that virtually everywhere I turn there is some
bureaucrat telling what I can and cannot do or some regulation tightly defining
what is allowed and not allowed. Individuals seem to have little freedom
of discretion. I have lived and worked in a lot of countries around the
world. While I can point you to bureaucratic excesses in virtually all of
them, compared to the USA most countries tend to leave much more discetionary
power to the individual. So much for Freedom
A good example.. just try to put up an antenna
tower in California... I have had towers in lots of countries with virtually no
bureaucratic input and definitely not a squeak from any neighbor... By
comparison, you would think that I was trying to murder my neighbors by the
outcry and bureaucratic hysteria I got here.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Dave
Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:12
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] voluntary band
plans
Howard, I am trying to better understand how voluntary band
plans might work. As has been noted here earlier, the new IARU region 1
band plan, which goes into effect on January 1 2006, specifies sub-bands
for unattended data-mode stations; see http://www.rsgb.org.uk/davos/documents/c4/c4bandplans.pdf
.Looking at http://winlink.org/stations.htm ,
several region 1 Winlink stations are currently running Pactor 3 on
frequencies outside the 2700 Hz sub-bands specified by the new band plan.
Will these stations be QSYing into compliance on or before January
1? 73, Dave,
AA6YQ

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] the rest of the world

2005-11-30 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Bill
 
As I have long said my ideal model is 
Canada...where for once the government got it right..
 
http://www.rac.ca/service/bandplan.htm
 
Bands are designated by bandwidth.. Amateurs have 
developed a Voluntary Bandplan
 
and for the most part it works very 
well
 
Take a look at Austrailia also...
 
http://www.wia.org.au/bandplans/
 
Same concept... Bands designated by Bandwidth.. 
Amateurs developed a Voluntary Bandplan.
I am sure you could Google a few more 
countries...that do the same...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  From: 
  Bill 
  Aycock 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] the rest of 
  the world
  Howard-I have seen you crying "wolf" a lot, but have 
  seen NO SPECIFICS. What agencies in what countries have these regulations, 
  and exactly how is the requirement stated?Specifics, 
  please.Bill-W4BSGDr. Howard S. White wrote:> Actually 
  the truth is exactly opposite of what you are saying...>  > 
  They have a Regulation by Bandwidth and a Voluntary BandPlan>  
  > __> 
  Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> 
  Website: www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed 
  Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego 
  Fires, 911">  >>  
  >> - Original Message 
  -> *From:* Tim Gorman 
  > *To:* 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> 
  > 
  *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:49 PM> 
  *Subject:* [digitalradio] the rest of the 
  world>> To 
  all:>> For those of you who have been 
  told the rest of the world is going> 
  with> bandwidth regulation and we are falling 
  behind, here are some of the> recommendations 
  approved in September, 2005 by the IARU, Region 
  1> Plenary. It> 
  certainly looks to me like they are recommending regulation 
  by> mode, not> 
  bandwidth (unless CW, telephony, and digital data are 
  not> considered to 
  be> 
  "modes").>> 
  *>> 
  ---DV05_C4_Rec_11>> IARU Member 
  Societies should encourage the development of 
  improved> 
  openly> specified modulation techniques, 
  including corresponding modem> 
  hardware,> which can be combined or integrated 
  into channel-sharing digital> 
  network> 
  protocols.>> Proposed by RAAG, seconded 
  by RSGB, approved unanimously>>> 
  ---DV05_C4_Rec_13>> It is recommended 
  that the following proposed principles for new> 
  IARU Region 1> HF bandplans be accepted, and 
  that the principles be included in> the 
  IARU> Region 1 HF Manager's 
  Handbook:>> CW 
  operation is accepted across all bands, except 
  within> beacon 
  segments.>> 
  Telephony (including AM) is limited to certain 
  telephony> 
  segments.>> 
  Digital data modes are limited to certain digital 
  segments.>> 
  Digitised speech is considered a digital data mode 
  regarding> 
  bandplan> 
  matters.>> The 
  current IARU Region 1 band plan is well known and 
  receives> a 
  high> degree of respect and adherence within 
  the IARU Region 1; hence> major 
  changes> to the bandplan are not necessary for 
  the time being.>> Proposed by SARL, 
  seconded by RAAG, approved with 4 
  abstentions>>> 
  ---DV05_C4_Rec_16>> The bandplan as 
  shown for 40m is endorsed from 29 March 
  2009:>> 7,000 - 7,050 kHz NB 
  CW>> 7,050 - 7,075 kHz MB 
  Digimode>> 7,075 - 7,200 kHz WB 
  Phone>> NB Bandwidth less than 200 
  Hz> MB Bandwidth less than 500 
  Hz> WB Bandwidth less than 2700 
  Hz>> Proposed by OeVSV, seconded by 
  DARC, approved with 2 abstentions>> 
  >>> 
  I suppose we can argue about what it all really says 
  but> Recommendation 
  13> seems to be rather specific about what the 
  intent is.>> I would also recommend 
  taking a close look at Recommendation 11.> 
  Could it be> saying something about proprietary 
  hardware?>> tim 
  ab0wr> Need a 
  Digital mode QSO? Connect to   
  telnet://208.15.25.196/>> Other areas of 
  interest:> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/>> 
  Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick 
  commerical> free link 
  below> http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html> 
  SPONSORED LINKS> Craft 
  hobby>

Re: [digitalradio] the rest of the world

2005-11-30 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Actually the truth is exactly opposite of what you are saying...
They have a Regulation by Bandwidth and a Voluntary
BandPlan
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:49
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] the rest of the
world
To all:For those of you who have been told the rest
of the world is going with bandwidth regulation and we are falling behind,
here are some of the recommendations approved in September, 2005 by the
IARU, Region 1 Plenary. It certainly looks to me like they are
recommending regulation by mode, not bandwidth (unless CW, telephony, and
digital data are not considered to be
"modes").*---DV05_C4_Rec_11
IARU Member Societies should encourage the development of improved
openly specified modulation techniques, including corresponding modem
hardware, which can be combined or integrated into channel-sharing digital
network protocols. Proposed by RAAG, seconded by RSGB, approved
unanimously---DV05_C4_Rec_13 It is recommended that the
following proposed principles for new IARU Region 1 HF bandplans be
accepted, and that the principles be included in the IARU Region 1 HF
Manager's Handbook: CW operation is accepted across
all bands, except within beacon segments. Telephony
(including AM) is limited to certain telephony segments.
Digital data modes are limited to certain digital
segments. Digitised speech is considered a digital
data mode regarding bandplan matters. The
current IARU Region 1 band plan is well known and receives a high degree
of respect and adherence within the IARU Region 1; hence major changes to
the bandplan are not necessary for the time being. Proposed by SARL,
seconded by RAAG, approved with 4 abstentions
---DV05_C4_Rec_16The bandplan as shown for 40m is endorsed
from 29 March 2009: 7,000 - 7,050 kHz NB CW 7,050 - 7,075 kHz
MB Digimode 7,075 - 7,200 kHz WB Phone NB Bandwidth less than
200 Hz MB Bandwidth less than 500 Hz WB Bandwidth less than 2700 Hz
Proposed by OeVSV, seconded by DARC, approved with 2 abstentions
I
suppose we can argue about what it all really says but Recommendation 13
seems to be rather specific about what the intent is.I would also
recommend taking a close look at Recommendation 11. Could it be saying
something about proprietary hardware?tim ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: 39 Tone DQPSK - ARQ Modem in PCALE with FT P - (Soundcard)

2005-11-29 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Reality Check:
 
If the Public as serviced by Government Agencies 
and Non Government Agencies providing Emergency Services are not our "Customers" 
in an Emergency... 
 
then who are our "Customers"?
 
How could do you suggest we service the Public if 
we do not provide the service needed by the various agencies?
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"
 
 
 
 
 
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tim Gorman 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:06 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 39 Tone 
  DQPSK - ARQ Modem in PCALE with FT P - (Soundcard)
  On Tuesday 29 November 2005 10:23, DuBose Walt Civ AETC 
  CONS/LGCA wrote:>>   If you 
  can't provide or won't provide a service that your "customer"> 
  wants,>   they may be asking for your 
  frequencies.  Remember its "our bands"> if we> 
    fulfill our charter.  If we don't, "our 
  bands" may become "someone> elses bands.">> 
    But I'm not asking any ham to spend money above 
  your normal> transceiver>   and 
  computer.  I'm asking for a high-speed, robust mode that can be> 
  developed>   by your computer using its 
  sound card or perhaps inexpensive> external PCI, USB> 
    or other common hardware.>> 
    I heard it this way..."few if any will need or 
  want SSB."  Now> everyone uses SSB.> 
    Times change.Part 
  97.1(a)".value of the amateur service to the public as a 
  voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect 
  to providing emergency communications."It says value to the 
  public, not value to our customers. Not value to government agencies. Not 
  value to non-government agencies.Your use of quotes around the word 
  customers does not go unnoticed. What you don't seem to realize is that it 
  is oh so revealing.tim ab0wr





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html






  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth

2005-11-29 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

The ARRL is The National Organization.. if you do
not like it.. join and get elected as a Director and have your say in
policy...
How could a "Constitutional Convention" possibly
come together in one place to represent the 675,000 US Amateurs?
Such a convention would be physically
impossible
Get real... we all know you do not like some of the
ARRL policies... but rather than standing on the sidelines..
Get involved in the ARRL... you would be surprised
at how much more you could accomplish by working within the organization than
criticizing it from the sidelines...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:59
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Bandwidth
Rick,Just because there are no other national
representative bodies, that doesn't make the ARRL into a body representing
all of amateur radio by default. I only listed the other items to show
that the ARRL does a poor job of representation in many areas, not to say
that CQ magazine is a national organization. Calling a German
Shepard a wolf because there aren't any other wolves around doesn't
actually make the German Shepard into a wolf. Calling the ARRL *the*
representative organization for the amateur community just because there
aren't any other national representative organizations around doesn't make
the ARRL *the* representative organization.I still like the idea
of some kind of "constitutional convention". Canvass the community for a
coordinating organization and go from there.BTW, having ARRL
positions elected by 20% of the amateur community is meaningless to the
community as a whole. That's really a non-sequitur. The issue is that the
ARRL is NOT representative of the entire community. If they were they
would have more than 20% of the amateur community voting for elected
positions in the organization.Just ask yourself, if the ARRL were to
separate QST subscribing from ARRL membership with two different payment
schedules and the ability to be one without being the other, how many
actual members do you suppose the ARRL would have versus how many QST
subscribers?I think any honest person would say that the membership
would be even less than it is today. Doesn't that say
something?tim ab0wrOn Tuesday 29 November 2005
07:54, Williams wrote:> Tim,>> There is NO other U.S.
national ham organization. There are specialty> areas as you might
expect for our extremely diverse service (much of> which is hobby).
There have been attempts to form new national amateur> radio
organizations in the last few decades, but they went nowhere. Even>
Canada finally merged their CARF organization back into the
CRRL.>> Magazines, while being useful, have little political
clout and do not> make up a national organziation that speaks for us.
Personally, I think> that ARRL does a creditable job with representing
so many interests. And> that includes old time radio, VHF, contests,
DXing, digital. (Speaking> of digital, you can expect something new in
the Jan issue of QST).>> All of our Division Directors and Vice
Directors are ELECTED positions,> not ordained by anyone. Similarly,
ALL of our Section Managers are> ELECTED positions. This is completely
the opposite of your> characterization of these positions, so it
appears that you have some> kind of agenda, and it does not seem to be
dealing fairly with the facts.>> I don't agree with the
leadership position on some things and I let them> know. At the next
election, I, or others, can run for their seat if one> can garner
enough support from other hams. And it can't be just digital> hams
either. It has to come from the broad base of hams or it would be>
difficult to have a serious candidacy.>> Rick,
KV9U>

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth

2005-11-29 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

I absolutely agree with Rick on this point.. the
ARRL may not be perfect.. but it is our only national Elected
body...
If you do not like their stance on an issue..
become a member... get involved and run for an elected position...
and change their position...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Williams
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:54
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Bandwidth
Tim,There is NO other U.S. national ham
organization. There are specialty areas as you might expect for our
extremely diverse service (much of which is hobby). There have been
attempts to form new national amateur radio organizations in the last few
decades, but they went nowhere. Even Canada finally merged their CARF
organization back into the CRRL.Magazines, while being useful, have
little political clout and do not make up a national organziation that
speaks for us. Personally, I think that ARRL does a creditable job with
representing so many interests. And that includes old time radio, VHF,
contests, DXing, digital. (Speaking of digital, you can expect something
new in the Jan issue of QST).All of our Division Directors and Vice
Directors are ELECTED positions, not ordained by anyone. Similarly, ALL of
our Section Managers are ELECTED positions. This is completely the
opposite of your characterization of these positions, so it appears
that you have some kind of agenda, and it does not seem to be dealing
fairly with the facts.I don't agree with the leadership position on
some things and I let them know. At the next election, I, or others, can
run for their seat if one can garner enough support from other hams. And
it can't be just digital hams either. It has to come from the broad base
of hams or it would be difficult to have a serious candidacy.Rick,
KV9UTim Gorman wrote:> On Monday 28 November 2005
16:56, Williams wrote:> > The reason that the ARRL will be the
primary organization that develops> > a band plan is precisely that
they are the defacto U.S. National Amateur> > Radio Organization.
They do represent the full gamut of competing ham> > interests. Even
those who are not members.>> Wait a minute! Who says they are
the defacto U.S. National Amateur Radio> Organization? They represent
VHF interests so poorly that another > magazine by> another
company is in circulation specifically for VHF - and is supported>
solely by advertising and subscriptions. They represent other >
interests so> poorly that both CQ and World Radio are major competitors
to the QST> magazine. They represent QRP interestss so poorly that
enough people> subscribe to the QRP Homebrewer Magazine to make it a
going concern.>> That is why I, and I suspect many others, feel
there needs to be an> established process whereby all interests can be
equally and fairly> represented in any "voluntary" band planning
process. Otherwise, the > buy-in> for the "voluntary" band plan
will be so low that few will abide by it. I> would even consider using
a type of Plenary meeting where > participation as a> voting
member would require a certain number of signatures on a petition.>
Everyone with a qualifying number of signatures would get one vote. >
I'm sure> there are a lot of other ways of doing this.>>
But just annointing the ARRL as the Priest-Kings of Amateur Radio and>
investing them with the power to dictate for everyone borders on >
violating> the "no taxation without representation"
paradigm.>

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio]

Like most US Hams.. I am about as confused about
the current regulatory situation as you are...
We constantly have to look over our shoulders to
see if the latest digital mode is legalyes... we could publish some
documentation about the protocol on a web site to disclose it... and if I were
the author of the protocol.. I might be able to do that...by taking a hour or
two or three from my development time to do that
But what if someone in Europe writes a new
Olivia style protocol... lets call it FREDand sends me a copy of FRED
as the first US Ham to play with it... well to be legal ... I would have to
figure out the protocols which would be difficult without source code or source
information... do up a web site and publish the protocols BEFORE I could play
with it... AND lets say FRED includes Video and Images and FAX and AM and
FSK and FM in FRED...Now I have to read regulation books to see if FRED is legal
or not...
So rather than concentrating on experimenting with
FRED.. I have to become a Web Site Designer and Publisher and a Communications
Lawyer...BEFORE I can be an Experimenter..
Each of these steps may seem simple ... but
together.. it is a big pain in the buttand a major impediment to developing
new technologies in the USA...
Bandwidth based regulation .. such as the Canadian
Model.. eliminates these regulatory hastles...
Clearly simplification of the rules will benefit
the advancement of technolgy in the USA.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Leigh L Klotz,
Jr.
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:20
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Something about this has been puzzling me.The FCC,
when specifically asked [1] about mixed information content picture. and
text with digital modulation, chose to respond by proposing to allow AM
and FM (A1C and F2C) image modes "currently in use". The NPRM says that
they did this to "contribute to the advancement of thr radio art," and the
other language they use is consistent with the request to allow MFSK16
pictures, but the end result seems to be just allowing Hellschreiber and
analog SSTV.[1] <http://www.nvbb.net/~jaffejim/n5rfx%20info.htm>[2]
<http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi>Leigh
/ WA5ZNUOn Mon, 28 Nov 2005 1:13 pm, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:>
For example the combination of image and data in MFSK is illegal in the
> USA...

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth

Being that the ARRL is the Only National
Organization representing Amateur Radio, and as it likely represents a Majority
of Active Ham and Membership is Open to All Hams so those who are not already
members can join and have a say, it would seem logical that the ARRL develop the
Voluntary Band Plan.
How can one possibly develop a bandplan when we do
not know what the rules will be until the FCC publishes its decisionBUT...
there will likely be a significant time span between the date when the FCC
decides in favor of Bandwidth Regulation and the date at which the new
regulations go into effect There would be more than sufficient time during
that period to define a bandplanonce we know what the rules will
be...
"Compete"...sounds like every contest I have ever
been inNo problem and actually a lot of fun... just put up a good
antenna...and point it where you expect to talk... works for me.it
is quite a thrill to bust through pileups in digital
contests
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:08
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Bandwidth
On Monday 28 November 2005 13:51, Dr. Howard S. White
wrote:>> If I have a vote.. I would vote for the minimum
regulation necessary and> leave it up to us Hams to decide how we want
to use our bands with our own> bandplans (WHICH I AM SURE THE ARRL WILL
DEVELOP AFTER WE KNOW WE ARE GOING> TO REGULATION BY BANDWIDTH AS IT IS
A WASTE OF TIME TO PLAN IT NOW WHEN WE> DO NOT KNOW THE FINAL BASIS FOR
THE PLAN)... I think the FCC will likely> ultimately go to the minimum
regulation model as that would be the least> cost /burden model for
them... Their pronouncements over the past few years> shows that that
is their preferred model...>>>
__> Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA> Website:
www.ky6la.com> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas
Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">The ARRL
represents less than 20% of the licensed hams in the US. Why should they
be the organization to develop the band plan the other 80% of the amateur
community is to follow?If you wait until the regulation is in place
before developing a bandplan, the *real* bandplan will be determined by
ModeWar/PowerWar. There will be no going back once that is decided -
unless the FCC puts some policing powers in place. They will likely have a
hard time giving policing power to an organization representing a minor
fraction of the total amateur community.How will YOU like having to
compete with lowend-to-highend SSB signals on the bands?tim
ab0wr

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio]

The point being that why do we even need to think
about whether a mode is legal or not...
For example the combination of image and data in
MFSK is illegal in the USA...
If we had bandwidth only regulation, then all modes
and combinations thereof would be legal as long as they fit within the
bandwidth...and we would not have to spend energy on regulatory
nonsense...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Paul L Schmidt
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:22
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Brad Granger wrote:> That was then followed by a
blizzard of posts in February by USA hams> (ronchap being one very
concerned fellow) trying to decide whether the mode> was legal, trying
to ensure sufficient documentation to FCC for approval,> etc. Many
ceased operation until the matter was cleared up.It didn't help that a
"citation" apparently from an OO was representedas being from the
FCC. Correspondence with the FCC shortly afterwardconfirmed that the
mode was, and had been, legal in the U.S.-ps

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth






I actually enjoy driving on the Autobahn where 
there are no speed limitsDepending on the vehicle I am driving.. I cruise at 
150 - 200Kph which is within my comfort zone for driving.stick to Lane 2 so 
that those more skilled than I can pass at 280 -300 Kph in Lane 1... Ironic 
though it may seem... the pigs don't rule the roost on the Autobahn.. and their 
safety records are better than ours where we have all those rules...Yet another 
irony is that Germany where there are no Autobahn Speed Limits has perhaps one 
of the most restrictive regulatory environments for the rest of their society I 
have ever observed.. so nothing seems to make logical sense...
 
The philosphical difference is that some societies 
have decided that they do not need a heavy regulatory environments to make 
things work  and some societies seem to what to highly regulate 
themselves...  
 
If I have a vote.. I would vote for the minimum 
regulation necessary and leave it up to us Hams to decide how we want to use our 
bands with our own bandplans (WHICH I AM SURE THE ARRL WILL DEVELOP AFTER WE 
KNOW WE ARE GOING TO REGULATION BY BANDWIDTH AS IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO PLAN IT 
NOW WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW THE FINAL BASIS FOR THE PLAN)... I think the FCC will 
likely ultimately go to the minimum regulation model as that would be the least 
cost /burden model for them... Their pronouncements over the past few years 
shows that that is their preferred model... 
 
Telegraphy... Every few years there is an uproar to 
finally remove Telegraphy as a licensing barrier...The FCC spends time and money 
studying its removal... from their prior pronouncements... they would have 
already done so in 1998(?) except for international requirements which 
finally have been removed by WARC 2003.   I think that this time they 
finally will just remove it... and forever not have to spend time and money 
dealing with the Telegraphy barrier again...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"
 
 
 
 
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Danny Douglas 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 6:35 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and 
  Olivia
  
  May I ask just how removing the telegraphy 
  licensing barrier will go a long way to reducing the burden on the FCC?  
  They don't write the test, they don't give the test and they don't score the 
  test.  I am starting to feel that people simply don't like "rules to live 
  by" and it has nothing to do with limited resources.  In that case, lets 
  get idiotic and just do away with things like speed limits - we can always get 
  out of the way of the guy flying at 90mph down our two lane road.  Speed 
  limits are for not only the safety of the driver, but of others on the road; 
  passengers, pedestrians etc.  Radio rules are not only for the one user, 
  but for everyone else on the bands as well.  Reduce the rules, and you 
  have the pigs ruling the roost, to mix metaphors.
   
   
  
----- Original Message - 
From: 
Dr. Howard S. 
White 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:10 
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth 
and Olivia

Mark:
 
Very perceptive of you... in the long run, the 
FCC has a lot of better things to do than spend their 
limited resources continuing the excessive regulation of the Ham 
Bands... Removing the Telegraphy licensing barrier and reducing excessive 
Ham Regulation will go a long way to reducing the burden on the FCC and many 
of their pronouncements over the past few years show that is the way they 
are leaning.  So maybe the FCC might take one giant step 
and bring Ham Radio into a 21st Century Regulatory Regime in 
one broad stroke...
 
__Howard 
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"
 
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Miller 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:11 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth 
  and Olivia
  At 03:03 PM 11/27/2005, you wrote:>Even if the 
  ARRL adopts the more restrictive ARRL model ... I predict that >in 
  the longer run we will ultimately get to the Canadian 
  ModelIf I was forced to make a wager, that is where my 
  money would go.  We will have to see how the telegraphy testing 
  rule pans out.  That will tell us what typ

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia

Mark:
Very perceptive of you... in the long run, the FCC
has a lot of better things to do than spend their limited resources
continuing the excessive regulation of the Ham Bands... Removing the Telegraphy
licensing barrier and reducing excessive Ham Regulation will go a long way to
reducing the burden on the FCC and many of their pronouncements over the past
few years show that is the way they are leaning. So maybe the FCC
might take one giant step and bring Ham Radio into a 21st Century
Regulatory Regime in one broad stroke...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Miller
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:11
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and
Olivia
At 03:03 PM 11/27/2005, you wrote:>Even if the ARRL
adopts the more restrictive ARRL model ... I predict that >in the
longer run we will ultimately get to the Canadian ModelIf I
was forced to make a wager, that is where my money would go. We will
have to see how the telegraphy testing rule pans out. That will tell
us what type of regulatory environment the suites the FCC. They have
refused to mode segregate 160 meters, they refused to set a maximum
bandwidth for telephony, and they want to drop telegraphy proficiency
testing. I think a trend is starting to show. I would expect
some sort of omnibus re-alignment of part 97.73,Mark
N5RFX

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Region 1 Bandplan and ARRL Petition






Mark:
 
The point is that the Region 1 Plan is a Voluntary 
Bandplan... 
 
Not fixed in stone with difficult to change 
government regulation!
 
Regulation is by bandwidth... NOT 
Mode...
 
Which is what the ARRL is attempting to do in a 
limited way...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Miller 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:02 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Region 1 Bandplan 
  and ARRL Petition
  At the urging of Tim AB0WR I did go to the Region 1 IARU 
  site at http://www.iaru-r1.org and 
  take a look at the Region 1 General Conference, Davos, 11 to 16 September 
  2005.From DV05_C4_Rec_13It is recommended that the following 
  proposed principles for new IARU Region 1 HF bandplans be accepted, and 
  that the principles be included in the IARU Region 1 HF Manager's 
  Handbook:CW operation is accepted across all bands, except within beacon 
  segments.Telephony (including AM) is limited to certain telephony 
  segments.Digital data modes are limited to certain digital 
  segments.Digitised speech is considered a digital data mode regarding 
  bandplan matters.The current IARU Region 1 band plan is well known and 
  receives a high degree of respect and adherence within the IARU Region 1; 
  hence major changes to the bandplan are not necessary for the time 
  being.I was a bit surprised to see the last statement, especially 
  since I went in expecting to read about problems with their band 
  plan.  I also looked at the Region 1 bandplan for 2006 and found the 
  maximum bandwidth limits are remarkably like the ARRL proposed 
  regulation.  The exceptions were that the ARRL was more generous with 
  the wider bandwidths 3.5KHz (9Khz AM) versus 2.7 KHz in the Region 1 
  Bandplan.  The bandplan starts on page 20 of the document http://www.iaru-r1.org/pdf/DV05-Final%20Plenary.pdf 
  .  It looks like the ARRL petition is right in line with the region 1 
  bandplan when it comes to bandwidths.  The region 1 bandplan could 
  overlay the ARRL proposed regulations with only slight modifications as a 
  result of authorized frequency differences between Region 1 and Region 
  2.73,Mark N5RFX





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html









  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  
Ham radio
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia

2005-11-27 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Mark:
 
Thanks for your very lucid summary...
 
My vote is for the Canadian Model where we set 
the maximum bandwidth for each band.
 
I might note that much of the rest of the world is 
going to this style model...
 
Even if the ARRL adopts the more restrictive ARRL 
model ... I predict that in the longer run we will ultimately get to the 
Canadian Model
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Miller 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 1:33 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and 
  Olivia
  Kevin,The current part 97 rules are very generous 
  as to what modes are authorized on HF.  I don't think that you will 
  find any reasonable and appropriate mode for HF that would not be 
  allowed.  Olivia and Chip 64 are the newest mode examples that I can 
  think of that are being used today and there is no reason that they could 
  not have been developed in the U.S., but they were not and that is 
  great.  We in the U.S. certainly do not have a monopoly on brain 
  power.In the 80 through 10-meter bands we do have a 300 baud limit on 
  symbol rate in the RTTY/Data subbands, and a 1K mark/space limit.  I 
  think this was also correctly posted earlier.  The 300 baud limit is 
  mostly meaningless when using OFDM type baseband signals as is the 
  mark/space limit.  In effect we really don't have any bandwidth 
  limits in the RTTY/Data subbands.  In the phone/image subbands there 
  is the clause:"No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a 
  communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The 
  total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first 
  symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that 
  of a communications quality A3E emission"What does that really 
  mean?  It is mostly ambiguous.  The problem is that modes in the 
  U.S. are segregated by content, that is the 3rd symbol of the ITU 
  designator.  This is where the problem comes in and has been correctly 
  brought to light in this forum.  In my OP ED piece in the May 2004 
  issue of QST I go through the history of our current regulations.  
  Here are some pertinent facts:Historically mode emissions have 
  been segregated to protect CW from interference.  As time went on, 
  and communications methods advanced, new communications modes were 
  introduced that did not fit the definition of the standard CW, Phone, and 
  RTTY emissions that dominated amateur radio for many years.  In 1977 
  the FCC issued Docket 20777 with the goal to de-regulate the amateur radio 
  service and to streamline part 97.  One aspect of Docket 20777 was to 
  eliminate emission segregation and replace it with bandwidth 
  segregation.  The plan was to create four categories of permissible 
  bandwidth. The categories were: less than 350 Hz; less than 3.5 kHz; less 
  than 35 kHz and greater than 35 kHz.  This would have made the 
  technical restrictions far looser allowing greater experimentation as new 
  modes were created.  The problem with docket 20777 was with the way 
  the bandwidths were assigned.  Certain emission types could not 
  operate where they had traditionally operated.  AM enthusiasts for 
  example could only operate above 28 MHz.  The amateur radio community 
  filed comments with the FCC opposing the bandwidth segregation of docket 
  20777 and the FCC did not adopt those changes.  The next real action 
  by the FCC occurred in 1988 when PR Docket No 88-139 was released.  
  From this docket we have the foundation of our current part 97 
  rules.  In this docket the FCC states: "We wish to recognize and 
  encourage the experimental nature of the amateur service.  It is 
  appropriate to avoid, to the extent possible, placing in the rules 
  detailed regulations and specifications for the configuration and 
  operation of various amateur communications systems. Such regulations and 
  specifications would reduce the flexibility that is a hallmark of a 
  service free to branch out and follow an infinite number of paths This 
  enables amateur operators to utilize their individual stations in creating 
  and pioneering communication systems that are limited only by their 
  personal interests, imagination and technical skills."  Then under 
  advancing the radio art the FCC states: "It is our intent that amateur 
  operators in the United States be allowed to experiment with the full 
  range of modulation types."  They go on to state: " The principal use 
  of emission designators in regulations for the amateur service is to 
  relegate the transmission of certain inharmonious emission types to 
  different segments of the frequency bands."  It clearly wa

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia






Kevin:
 
We in  the USA live in possibly the most 
restrictive regulatory regime in the World 
 
People like Bonnie have aptly named it "Technology 
Jail"
 
For Example:
 
To develop a new Digital Communications 
Mechanism... one has to go through all sorts of regulatory hoops.. such as 
publishing protocols before you actually use it on the air... the rest of the 
world can just work on new protocols without such restrictions.. which is why 
most new Digital Modes originate, are tested and developed outside of the USA.. 
and only when they are mature enough to be published can they be used in the 
USA...
 
To work with a Digital Communications Mechanism 
that combines modes.. such as image and data.. such as Pictures in MFSK.. such 
are illegal in the USA... because our outdated regulation by mode does not allow 
us to use such combined modes...
 
The list of outmoded restrictions goes on and on... 
which is why the ARRL recognized the need for a change...
 
Much of the rest of the world regulates bandwidth 
only... how we use the bandwidth is left up to the amateurs.. seems to work very 
well in the rest of the world...  They clearly lead us now in innovation... 
so they must be doing something right...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin der Kinderen 
  
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 8:44 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and 
  Olivia
  
  
  How have the rules 
  prevented US hams from developing any of the advanced or more recent modes? 
  Specifically, why couldn't something like Olivia have been developed in the 
  US or used long before when it 
  first became available?
   
  Are the rules 
  preventing, discouraging or providing no incentive for developments in the 
  US?
   
  I ask because I don't 
  know, no sarcasm intended.
   
  Kevin  
  K4VD
   
  
  Kevin der 
  Kinderen
  http://kj4qf.net/
   
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr. Howard S. 
  WhiteSent: Sunday, November 
  27, 2005 04:25To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and 
  Olivia
   
  
  Thank you Brad for so elequently 
  making my point...
  
   
  
  __Howard 
  S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  
  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
  Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
  911"
  
   
  

- Original Message - 


From: Brad VK2QQ 


To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 


Sent: 
Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:48 PM

Subject: 
[digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia

 
 
You guys have only had access to 
Oliva for a few months. The rest of us have been using the mode for much 
longer. You are presently way behind in your use and access to new 
modes.
 
Brad.





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html









  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  
Ham radio
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

Thank you Brad for again so eloquently making my
point...
As you know we in the USA are very provincial in
that we believe that entire planet revolves around us...
People like Dave still think that if the FCC
regulates something those rules that must also apply to the whole
planet...
Clearly they do not...
Most of the rest of the world is going to or has
gone to Bandwidth regulation with Voluntary Bandplans...
Yet somehow... people like Dave want us to believe
that by keeping the ancient US Regulatory Regime that it will apply to the rest
of the world...
Yes Dave may have a valid point about a very tiny
problem of automated QRM without busy detectors...
.. but to continue to keep US Amateurs in
Technology Jail because of this is ludicus
The ARRL proposal is a tiny step into the
21st Century for US Amateurs... it does not nearly go far enough... but it
is a positive first step...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Brad VK2QQ

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:44
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Bandwidth-Based
FCC Rules for USA
>Message:
3 Date: Sat,
26 Nov 2005 18:31:45 - From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Subject:
Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA>In the US, there is currently
no restriction on semi-automatic >operation with bandwidths of 500 hz
or less, but semi-automatic >operation with bandwidths greater than 500
hz is restricted to >designated sub-bands.>The ARRL
proposal, if adopted, would eliminate the current .restriction on
semi-automatic operation with bandwidths greater than >500 hz. It is
this aspect of the ARRL proposal that I (and evidently >many others)
find unacceptable.>
73,> Dave,
AA6YQDave, WHY do you need the FCC to apply the restrictions
for you? Why do younot feel that USA hams can develop their own bandplan
and apply their ownrestrictions on the digital modes?Why do you
apparently feel that if the FCC policed the restrictions it wouldmake any
difference to the rest of the world?Brad.

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia

Thank you Brad for so elequently making my
point...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Brad VK2QQ

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:48
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and
Olivia

Says
Dave:
In your previous post,
you cited the development of Olivia and PSK
by non-US amateurs as
evidence that current US regulations are
stifling innovation. I
asked you to explain this; instead of a
direct response, you
invoked "previous conversations" and attempted
to change the subject to
pictures in MFSK. If you make an assertion,
you should be prepared to
back it up with facts and logic; if you
can't, then you'll peg the
needle on our BS detectors, and destroy
your
credibility.
You guys have only had access to
Oliva for a few months. The rest of us have been using the mode for much
longer. You are presently way behind in your use and access to new
modes.
Brad.

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

SPONSORED LINKS

Craft hobby

Hobby and craft supply

Ham radio

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

Dave:
The link you point to for Region 1 is a Voluntary
Band Plan...
It is not Fixed by Regulation as you would have us
continue to do in the USA so that we would remain in technology
jail
In fact, it is a very good example of the type of
Voluntary Band Plan that the ARRL might suggest that we adopt.
For your Information here are links
to:
Canada Band
Planshttp://www.rac.ca/service/bandplan.htm
From Region
3 http://www.wia.org.au/bandplans/
THESE ARE ALL VOLUNTARY BAND PLANS... NOT FIXED IN
REGULATIONS.
Again... you conveniently forget that the Amateur
Bands are used World Wide.. the US Regulations only restrict US Amateurs.. while
the rest of the world is free to innovate...and use the allocations... so
keeping restrictions on US while the rest of the world does not have them makes
little sense... which is what the ARRL is trying to correct with their
proposal.
You and I have already had several discussions
about Technology Jail.. and you are well aware about how the ancient US
Restrictions by Mode have severely limited innovation in the USA... One
easy example is the sending of pictures via MFSK which is illegal in the USA but
it legal everywhere else...there are dozens of other examples
Your fixation on the relatively few Pactor 3
stations and their current non use of existing Busy Detection technology has
totally blinded you to the bigger picture of the need to free US Amateurs from
outmoded restrictions...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
Dave
Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 2:08
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re:
Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA
>>>AA6YQ comments below--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
"Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...>
wrote:> Having worked from countries with and without Bandwidth
Restrictions.. I speak from the benefit of operating inside out
outside of technologying jail...> Simply put.. our US bandwidth
by mode restrictions no longer make sense in the 21st
Century...> and have gone a long way to keeping US amateurs
trailing behind Hams in other countries when it comes to new technological
developments... just look at all the new digital modes... Olivia,
PAX... all developed by Non US Hams...>>>Please explain
how US bandwidth-by-mode restrictions prevented US amateurs from
developing Olivia or PAX. > While I do not believe that the ARRL
goes far enough in removing us from Technology Jaillas I believe that
the Canadian Band Model is much superior, I applaud the ARRL for its
forward first step... > Yes.. Dave.. Digital modes should use
busy detectors like those we tested with SCAMP>>>The busy
detection technology tested in SCAMP has not been deployed in any
operational semi-automatic or automatic HF message-passing service.
> .. but please we do not need to legislate their
existence... >>>The SCS PTC-II modem, widely used to support
semi-automatic and automatic operation in Pactor, Pactor-II, and
Pactor-III, provides a busy-channel detector -- yet none of the
operational semi-automatic or automatic HF message-passing services
exploit it to avoid QRMing ongoing QSOs.>>>Demonstrably,
the operators of these services must be incentivized to update their
protocols with modern technologies. We have already seen what happens in
the absence of such incentives: nothing.>>>"Jailing"
semi-automatic operation with protocols that lack busy detectors and
universal QRL capabilities will not stifle innovation; on the contrary, it
will encourage the development and deployment of technologies that allow
semi-automatic and automatic operation to coexist with other users across
the bands. Were such regulations enacted, I wager we'd see busy detection
in Winlink within 3 months.> Yes.. there are bad operators..
everywhere in the world.. and no amount of legislation will fix their poor
habits...> It's about time to stop keeping ancient restrictions on
US operators while the rest of the world advances into the 21st
century...>>>We are well beyond the point where
arm-waving and pontification constitute effective argument. Take a good
look at IARU region 1's 2006 band plan; you'll see that unattended
operation is confined to sub-bands:http://www.rsgb.org.uk/davos/documents/c4/c4bandplans.pdf
73, Dave,
AA6YQ

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflecto

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

2005-11-25 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Having worked from countries with and without
Bandwidth Restrictions.. I speak from the benefit of operating inside out
outside of technologying jail...
Simply put.. our US bandwidth by mode restrictions
no longer make sense in the 21st Century...
and have gone a long way to keeping US amateurs
trailing behind Hams in other countries when it comes to new technological
developments... just look at all the new digital modes... Olivia, PAX... all
developed by Non US Hams...
While I do not believe that the ARRL goes far
enough in removing us from Technology Jaillas I believe that the Canadian
Band Model is much superior, I applaud the ARRL for its forward first step...

Yes.. Dave.. Digital modes should use busy
detectors like those we tested with SCAMP
.. but please we do not need to legislate their
existence...
Yes.. there are bad operators.. everywhere in the
world.. and no amount of legislation will fix their poor habits...
It's about time to stop keeping ancient
restrictions on US operators while the rest of the world advances into the 21st
century...
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"

- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:44
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
Bandwidth-Based FCC Rules for USA

As a non US Ham, I would like to comment
on the discussion so far.

1) Canada has done away with a formal band and
mode plan a few years ago, and, so far it has worked on a voluntary basis. I
can also see the possibility that the Brits raise, having a few hams abuse
the voluntary band plan, perhaps making it necessary for defining
segaments/modes based on common use.. ie 14000-14065 CW, 14066-14149
digital, including RTTY, 14150-14350 SSB , with a small segment for
SSTV between 225 and 335. Within these mode segments there would be few
restrictions on bandwidth, only general regulations on max power,
interference etc .
2) As the digital modes have improved, the
operation of "automatic" stations has become less of an issue for those of
us who are on the bands regularly.With OLIVIA
, for example it is possible to work right on top of a Pactor 3 signal, with
little loss of data. There were, in the past, far more automatic stations,
with everyone and their trusty PK232MBX running a pactor mailbox on either
40 or 20M . while these could be classed as semi automatic, I know
that the answering mailbox QRM'd someone. Sure , some of the less robust
modes suffer from pactor QRM, but the new ones seem to work better. I
think this argument is well past it's "best before" date.
3)It is time for a new mail box mode, besides
Pactor, which would incorporate other ideas which have been presented
already, such as a "busy " detect protocol which would help eliminate QRM
from the automatic stations. The folks who developed Pactor have done so to
make money on expensive modems, and it is time for newer technology. If a
new ARQ mode was developed which would come close to pactor in terms of
speed, I think there would be a migration away from pactor fairly quickly.

4) As a general suggestion, we as a ham
community need to re-focus all this energy which is going into regulatory
affairs, into developing new hams. The FCC and Industry Canada both know
that, if they are patient and don't do anything to encourage interest in ham
radio, hams will disappear, and already have started to disappear at an
alarming rate, since the average age is fairly old. We have to change our
regulations and licensing requirements to attract new blood, and lots of it
. There are lots of computer savvy younger folks out there who need to see
and hear what our exploits and public services are...
5) The cynic in me thinks that, since lobbyists
and governments are the same the world over, the ARRL and the FCC will move
at a snail's pace, so not to interupt the expense account luncheons they
have come to enjoy
so that's my 2 bits worth
John
VE5MU
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
telnet://208.15.25.196/Other areas of interest:The MixW
Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/Looking
for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link
belowhttp://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.0.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/182 - Release Date:
11/24/05

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to

Re: [digitalradio] Question about HF-email - It works!

2005-06-15 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Winlink Development Team is currently beta 
testing SCAMP 
 
which is a Free sound card based ARQ HF mode 
for Email 
 
that works under Windows and does not require the 
use of an expensive modem or a TNC.
 
You can download a beta version 
at:
 
 ftp://www.winlink.org/help/SCAMP/
 
and you can find out more information 
at:
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCAMPprotocol/
 
There are several working test PMBO's using SCAMP 

 
so you should be able to send some email via 
HF.
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.comMember SCAMP Alpha Test 
TeamMember  ARES® National Task Force Digital Network Management 
Team


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  John Becker 
  
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:29 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Question 
  about HF-email
  Paul you 
  have it right up to here.At this time there is no software that will 
  doPactor or Amtor ARQ mode due to the tighttiming required between to 
  stations.I did do some playing with a linux programbut it would 
  only do 35 to 40 per cent ofwhat the TNC would do.If you are going 
  to play Amtor, Pactor andpacket on the HF bands and have a goodlink 
  you will be better of getting, as you put itan  "  proprietary 
  box  ".John, WØJABAt 01:03 PM 
  6/15/05, you wrote in part:>Assuming just Pactor (software mode in some 
  digital software>applications) won't work, is there any current 
  development towards the>ability to send/receive email via HF rigs 
  without requiring a>proprietary box?>>Thanks and 
  73,>Paul>>The K3UK 
  DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT 
  telnet://208.15.25.196/>>Yahoo! Groups 
  LinksThe K3UK 
  DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Scanning

2005-04-20 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

A Couple of Comments:
1. My 6 SSB Channels
equivalency assumed equal distribution of traffic over the 24 hours of the
day... in the real world, traffic tends to cluster around the hours when people
are awake so more peak bandwidth is needed.
2. Your encouragement of the
transistion to SCAMP is admirable... but not realistic at this time as SCAMP is
still very much a beta product and currently is no where near as robust as
PACTOR...
SCAMP is NOT YET a viable alternative to
PACTOR.
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com

- Original Message -

From:
Dave
Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:49
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Scanning
A good example of scanning is provided in the "Station
Description" section of Steve K4CJX's web page at http://www.winlink.org/stations/k4cjx.htm
.Excerpting from this description,>>>Beginning of
excerpt<<>>End of ExcerptI suspect that the
rationale behind this scanning is to spread a particular PMBO's callers
across multiple frequencies, reducing the probability that two or more of
them will collide due to the hidden transmitter problem: A in San Diego
hears a clear frequency and attempts to connect to K4CJX on 14076.9, B in
Boston hears a clear frequency and attempts to connect to K4CJX on
14076.9, K4CJX hears them both on 14076.9 but cannot successfully connect
with either due to the mutual QRM. If callers of K4CJX randomly
distribute themselves across K4CJX's 4 scanning frequencies, the
probability of collision is proportionally reduced by a factor of 4
compared to the single-frequency case. The distribution is not random,
however; for K4CJX station 1, its driven by both band and modem. A caller
without a 40m antenna (or without 40m propagation) cannot call on the
7076.9 or 7101.2 frequencies, nor can a user without a modem capable of
running Pactor 3 call on the 7101.2 or 14106.7 frequencies. Thus the
actual reduction in collisions depends on time-of-day, propagation, the
ratios of users capable of operating on each band, and the fraction of
users with modems that support Pactor 3 operation.If K4CJX station
1 is connected to a user on 14106.7, it cannot possibly answer connection
requests on 7076.9, 7101.2, or 14076.9. Connection requests are made by
attended stations; assuming polite operators, connection requests would
only be made on 7076.9, 7101.2, or 14076.9 if those frequencies were
clear. While its inefficient to allow a connection request at a time when
the PMBO station cannot possibly respond, if the frequency in question is
clear, and if the call is not excessive in duration or repetition, what's
the harm? The harm is that any frequency scanned by a Winlink PMBO is
a "no-man's land" for any other QSO due to the risk of hidden-transmitter
QRM from that PMBO. Thus increasing the number of frequencies scanned
by a PMBO reduces the spectrum available to other operators for QRM-free
QSOs. While such an increase may reduce the
time-from-request-to-connection for Winlink users, its wrong to do this by
inconveniencing other operators -- unless, or course, an emergency has
been declared and the PMBO is handling emergency traffic. Equipping the
PBMO with effective busy-frequency detectors is the only way to eliminate
this problem.With respect to bandwidth requirements, we've seen rather
precise data detailing the number of messages handled by Winlink each day.
Howard KY6LA boiled this down to "the equivalent of 6 SSB channels",
or 18 kHz. Understandably, Winlink users need access to the range of
bands so that messages can be passed throughout the day whether the
solar flux is high or low. But Winlink is passing email messages, not
handling realtime conversations. There is no justification for applying
Erlang traffic models, as would be the case if the traffic was real-time
and latency was criti

Re: [digitalradio] Emergency Communications: was Win Link

2005-04-13 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






Dean:
 
I applaud your efforts...
 
The reason I gave up on simple packet for EMCOMM is 
that for every test exercise I attended, people spent hours trying to get it to 
work...The commands and codes were so arcane ... that none of the less technical 
people could communicate.. and the served agencies... were totally glassy 
eyed
 
The point of the Winlink ARESCOM initiative is that 
it already works with Packet TNC and Sound Cards as a transport 
mechanism.  You don't have to write more software.. and for the most part 
it is relatively transparent to you...it is not that difficult to set up Winlink 
as your digital EMCOMM system...suggest you look at www.winlink.org .. and there are a lot of 
relatively non technical people who have done soand the Served Agencies .. 
understood it immediately and wanted it...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 

 
 
 
 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean Gibson 
  AE7Q 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:57 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Emergency 
  Communications: was Win Link
  I see I stirred up a hornet's nest.  Good!  
  That's one way to get good information:I wasn't counting off-shore 
  amateur radio operations;  clearly amateur radio is much more 
  valuable in countries with a less-developed infrastructure.  However, 
  the frequency of incidents in this country where amateur radio 
  communications "saved the day" are becoming increasingly less 
  common.  Perhaps one or two a year in this country?  There's a 
  lot of effort in organization, meetings, drills, etc being spent on 
  preparing for a very few disasters, and in many cases we're not all that 
  prepared anyway.  Isn't there a more efficient way to be prepared 
  and/or provide this service?Perhaps this is just my perspective from 
  seeing the groups in one area of the country/  Perhaps it is 
  different in other areas?  If so, tell me about how YOUR group is 
  making efficient use of its members while still being prepared.  I'd 
  say more about the state of the RACES group I work with, but this is a 
  public forum and I have to work with them.  They are all nice people, 
  but woefully unprepared in my opinion.  Some are hams who are drawn 
  to public service, and others are those who were drawn to public service 
  and became a ham in order to communicate. 11 Extras, 7 Advanced, 7 
  Generals, 48 Technicians.   Many need help in changing the PL 
  tone on their radios (we give them advance notice if a drill will require 
  same).  We depend upon a repeater that many cannot hit reliably, even 
  in the weekly drill.  It's all VHF/UHF;  no HF.  However, we 
  are using packet in our city EOCs, and have just (two months ago) moved up 
  from ARESpack to FNpack.  I'm trying to get interest in a packet 
  program that is: (1) Open source (2) will work with sound cards.  
  Lukewarm interest, since the EOCs have TNCs but no sound cards.  
  However, precious few of the members have TNCs, and the only way (it seems 
  to me) for people to be prepared to use a packet program in a 
  drill/emergency, is if they can practice at home, on their own system, and 
  a sound card (if they don't have one) plus a sound card interface is a lot 
  cheaper than a TNC.So, I'm writing a program in Java (*not VB*) 
  that uses the AGWPE program, and it WILL be open source (probably 
  GPL).  After 2.5 days, it already replaces AgwTerm and 
  AgwMonitor.  I have to add a formatted input page for a typical RACES 
  message, logging messages to disk, and printing.  I haven't decided 
  whether it will be FNpack compatible;  I'd like it to be.On 
  2005-04-12 23:39, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> 
  Buddy:>>> 
  The 2003 San Diego Cedar Fires ...>The K3UK 
  DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Emergency Communications: was Win Link

2005-04-13 Thread Dr. Howard S. White






The original point of your post was that Ham Radio 
in EMCOMM is a joke...
 
Clearly it is not.. 
 
Cedar Fires did not use Winlink because it was not 
yet available... would we have used it if it were available.. definitely ... 
especially for shelter management...etc..
 
The current Tsunami case...Winlink continues to 
play a major role
 
Digital is starting to play a major role with the 
served agencies especially since they are already used to using email for 
logistics, etc...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:29 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Emergency 
  Communications: was Win Link
  
  But did they use Winlink?  
  That was the gist of my original post.   As an avid RTTY op for the 
  past 23 years, I doubt very seriously RTTY is used in local 
  disasters.   Two meters or other VHF bands yes, but digital, 
  no.
   
  Buddy WB4M
  All outgoing emails scanned with Norton's Anti-virus.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dr. Howard S. 
White 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:39 
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Emergency 
Communications: was Win Link

Buddy:
 
 
You don't have to go so far as India... How 
about something closer to home... like San Diego
 
  
The 2003 San 
Diego Cedar Fires
    
Most people are unaware that during 
the recent 2003 Cedar Fires which so devastated San Diego that Land Lines 
Telephones failed due to downed wires, Cellular Systems failed due to 
overloading, downed towers, failed links and signal refraction from smoke 
and most seriously the 800 MHz trunked emergency radio network which was 
used by all the fire fighters, police and other emergency workers failed due 
to overloading and severe signal refraction from the 
smoke.   In other words there was virtually no 
communications whatsoever for several days.. EXCEPT
The 
only group that was able to provide consistent reliable communications was a 
group of 180+ volunteer amateur radio operators operating under the auspices 
of ARES®, CERO, ARC, CDF and CARES.   This, of 
course, is not surprising as in most civil emergencies, such as 9/11; 
Amateur Radio Operators are usually the only ones that continue to 
communicate reliably when all other means of communications fail.
Why 
do government communications systems always fail in true emergencies and our 
ham systems continue to work? The simple answer is bio diversity.  We 
have many more frequencies, many more modes and many more highly qualified 
trained operators than the government does.   In the rush for 
funds, Congress sold off much of the government emergency spectrum to the 
private sector.  This sale which forced government emergency services 
into a single tiny band of frequencies coupled with totally inadequate 
funding, leaves the public totally unprotected every time a major emergency 
hits us.   The government communications systems which work OK 
during normal times, they just can't handle the volume or diversity of real 
emergencies 
So 
much for Ham Radio becoming a joke!

__Howard 
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good 
Deed Goes Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado 
Masochist""Krazy Yankee Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Steve Waterman, 
  k4cjx 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:21 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win 
  Link
  Buddy, Daily. We get requests from the U.S. 
  Coast Guard every other week or so, as well as other country agencies, 
  and we have a good track record in finding these vessels. 
  During the last Hurricane episode, we were the only visible 
  communications from many of the islands, the most widely known was 
  Grenada, but there were many more, including coastal areas within th 
  USA.During the Tsunami Disaster (still a disaster, still 
  pumping traffic) offshore vessels out off the shallow coastal areas 
  barely felt the "bump," however, they were able to get to shore and 
  assist where feasible. They still are assisting. The recent 
  failure of INTELSAT 804, which was a major pipeline for several New 
  Zealand Common Carriers

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link






Buddy:
 
See my post on the San Diego 2003 Cedar Fires...18 
months ago..
 
Hams definitely saved the day
 
 
How about 9/11... 
 
Hams were there as communicators when all the other 
systems failed.. 
 
The list is updated daily
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:34 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win 
  Link
  Great overall post, Dean!  Especially this 
  part:>>   1. Ham radio is dying, because modern 
  communications technology has>  passed it, 
  and the amateur community, even if totally united 
  (ha>  ha), doesn't have the resources to 
  combat it in any meaningful way.>   2. The attempt to justify 
  amateur radio by its role in providing>  
  emergency and public service communications is rapidly becoming 
  a>  joke.Can someone tell me the 
  last time there was an emergency that wiped out "normal" communications, 
  and a bunch of hams got on Winlink and saved the day?   When a 
  severe emergency happens, like a tornado, hurricane, or nuclear war,  
  I think most people are mainly concerned with saving their bacon, and not 
  getting on the air.73 Buddy WB4M The K3UK 
  DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[digitalradio] Emergency Communications: was Win Link

Buddy:

You don't have to go so far as India... How about 
something closer to home... like San Diego

The 2003 San 
Diego Cedar Fires

Most people are unaware that during the 
recent 2003 Cedar Fires which so devastated San Diego that Land Lines Telephones 
failed due to downed wires, Cellular Systems failed due to overloading, downed 
towers, failed links and signal refraction from smoke and most seriously the 800 
MHz trunked emergency radio network which was used by all the fire fighters, 
police and other emergency workers failed due to overloading and severe signal 
refraction from the smoke.   In other words there was virtually no communications whatsoever for 
several days.. EXCEPT
The 
only group that was able to provide consistent reliable communications was a 
group of 180+ volunteer amateur radio operators operating under the auspices of 
ARES®, CERO, ARC, CDF and CARES.   This, of course, is 
not surprising as in most civil emergencies, such as 9/11; Amateur Radio 
Operators are usually the only ones that continue to communicate reliably when 
all other means of communications fail.
Why do 
government communications systems always fail in true emergencies and our ham 
systems continue to work? The simple answer is bio diversity.  We have many 
more frequencies, many more modes and many more highly qualified trained 
operators than the government does.   In the rush for funds, Congress 
sold off much of the government emergency spectrum to the private sector.  
This sale which forced government emergency services into a single tiny band of 
frequencies coupled with totally inadequate funding, leaves the public totally 
unprotected every time a major emergency hits us.   The government 
communications systems which work OK during normal times, they just can't handle 
the volume or diversity of real emergencies 
So much 
for Ham Radio becoming a joke!

__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Steve Waterman, 
  k4cjx 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:21 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win 
Link
  Buddy, Daily. We get requests from the U.S. 
  Coast Guard every other week or so, as well as other country agencies, and 
  we have a good track record in finding these vessels. During the 
  last Hurricane episode, we were the only visible communications from many 
  of the islands, the most widely known was Grenada, but there were many 
  more, including coastal areas within th USA.During the Tsunami 
  Disaster (still a disaster, still pumping traffic) offshore vessels out 
  off the shallow coastal areas barely felt the "bump," however, they were 
  able to get to shore and assist where feasible. They still are assisting. 
  The recent failure of INTELSAT 804, which was a major pipeline for 
  several New Zealand Common Carriers, the Military, and Broadcast 
  Stations, failed permanently. High revenue users were placed on other 
  satellites, but very many islands were left without communications. We 
  were able to provide communications for many of those without it. We still 
  do. In fact, a PMBO is being set up in India along with the PMBO in 
  Darwin, Australia specifically to assist with these last two 
  unfortunate incidents.There is other not so public assistance 
  coming out of other parts of the World, and they are still in operation. 
  Best I can give you there is to review the CBS documentary of past efforts 
  in that part of the world with a video called "Last Voice From Kuwait" I 
  think still at the ARRL, although I am not certain if they have copies. 
  There is a more, such as the horror show weather in Puru and Chili 
  immediately after the hurricanes last year, but hopefully, you get the 
  picture. Steve, k4cjx--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Great overall 
  post, Dean!  Especially this part:> > >> 
  >   1. Ham radio is dying, because modern communications 
  technology has> >  passed it, and 
  the amateur community, even if totally united (ha> 
  >  ha), doesn't have the resources to combat 
  it in any meaningful way.> >   2. The attempt to 
  justify amateur radio by its role in providing> 
  >  emergency and public service communications 
  is rapidly becoming a> >  
  joke.> > Can someone tell me the last time there was an 
  emergency that wiped out > "normal" communications, and a bunch of 
  hams got on Winlink and saved the > day?   When a severe 
  emergency happens, like a tornado, hurricane, or > nuclear 
  war,  I think most people are mainly concerned with saving their 
  > bacon, and not getting on the air.> > 73 Buddy 
  WB4MThe K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER 
  AT telnet://208.

Re: [digitalradio] Microham USB Microkeyer






Buy a RigExpert.. It has a built in sound card and 
works much better than the internal sound cards
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Miller 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:14 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Microham USB 
  Microkeyer
  Ron,It seems to get good reviews on eHam.  
  http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/4598 
  .  Seems pretty expensive, and you still need a sound 
  card.73,Mark N5RFXAt 06:41 PM 4/12/2005, you 
  wrote:>Presently running a home made soundcard interface with a 
  FT-1000mp but>it (Soundcard interface) has draw backs, no FSK keying or 
  CW keying.  I>miss the sharp filter that the rtty and packet modes 
  in the FT1000mp>provided plus the FSKing>>PC is short on 
  serial and parallel ports, it is a 1.8Mhz AMD using a>sound blaster 
  card.  I run Logger32 w/PSK and MMTTY, MMvari, Olivia and>MT63 to 
  name a few.>>Question:>>What is the impression of 
  the _Microham USB Microkeyer_ by current>users?  From what I can 
  tell from the specifications it may meet my>needs and probably some I 
  haven't figured out yet.>>Any problems?  Any significant 
  draw backs to utilizing a USB port verses>the current trend of a serial 
  or parallel port for keying>>Thanks for any 
  feedback>>Ron - 
  W4LDE>>>The K3UK DIGITAL 
  MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT 
  telnet://208.15.25.196/>-->Yahoo! 
  Groups Links>    * To visit your group on the web, go 
  to:>    * > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
  >>    *>    * To 
  unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:>    * 
  > 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  >>    *>    * Your use of 
  Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! 
  Terms of Service.The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING 
  CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/









Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team






Good question... 
 
Of course one of the other factors is that Pactor 
is still effective when conditions are poor.   SCAMP is nowhere 
near as robust right now...
 
Give them some more time to perfect SCAMP so 
that it is capable of working in the rough conditions (low S/N) that Pactor 3 
does and maybe .
 
Remember I am one of the guys who likes channel 
busy detectors
 
I just wish human operators of all other modes 
(SSB,CW, PSK, RTTY, etc) were as courteous of others as SCAMP now 
is.
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist""Krazy Yankee 
Six Loves America"Website: www.ky6la.com 

 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:32 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the 
  Winlink team
  No, Howard, I'm wondering why a service that requires 
  only the equivalent of 6 SSB channels to move its traffic is optimizing 
  above all for throughput rather than taking into account the QRM it causes 
  to others. SCAMP might be slower than Pactor, but it is fast enough to 
  do the job, and eliminates the QRM.   
  73,   Dave, AA6YQ--- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:> Dave:> > You are getting rhetorical...> 
  > as a practical matter SCAMP is still at best an experimental 
  transport mechanism.  PACTOR is not...> > Give it time 
  and see how things work out.> > SCAMP has a siginificant cost 
  advantage over PACTOR...> > Will cost win out over speed?  
  > > Will SCAMP speeds approach/pass PACTOR?> > 
  Only time will tell!> > 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> "No Good 
  Deed Goes Unpunished"> Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado 
  Masochist"> "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America"> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > > > > > > > 
  >   - Original Message - >   From: 
  Dave Bernstein >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  >   Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:27 AM>   
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team> > 
  > >   For non-realtime message delivery, you would 
  choose a protocol that >   QRMs ongoing QSOs over one 
  that is slower but doesn't QRM ongoing >   QSOs?> 
  >   73,> 
  >  Dave, 
  AA6YQ> > > >   --- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" >   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>   > Dave:>   
  > >   > In my dreams the answer is yes.   
  >   > >   > Rick who is writing the 
  SCAMP code says that Pactor 3 is very >   good...and would be 
  hard to beat...>   > >   >  
  I,  personally, would love it if SCAMP could replace 
  PACTOR>   > >   > ... but 
  unfortunately, the real world creeps into my dreams.. >   
  > >   > we just have not yet been able to achieve 
  the Speeds of Pactor >   3 with SCAMP...  
  >   > >   > .. if and when we ever do, 
  and there is not then a Pactor 4 mode >   out there, then 
  it is possible..>   > >   > 
  __>   
  > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  
  KY6LA>   > "No Good Deed Goes 
  Unpunished">   > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado 
  Masochist">   > "Krazy Yankee Six Loves 
  America">   > Website: www.ky6la.com >   
  > >   > >   > >   
  > >   > >   >   - 
  Original Message - >   >   From: Dave 
  Bernstein >   >   To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   >   Sent: 
  Monday, April 11, 2005 10:12 PM>   >   Subject: 
  [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team>   > 
  >   > >   > >   
  >   Please explain why SCAMP would not totally displace Pactor 
  as a >   >   transport protocol for 
  Winlink.>   > >   
  >  73,>   > 
  >   
  >  Dave, 
  AA6YQ>   > >   >   --- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" >   
  >   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>   
  >   > >   >   > --- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" >   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >   >   > 
  wrote:>   >   > > >   
  >   > > >>>AA6YQ comments 
  below:>   >   > > >   
  >   > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve 
  Waterman, k4cjx

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team