RE: [digitalradio] New question
Just picked this up from HamSpots: Due to increased abuse of the Cluster Network by spam auto-spots generated by the ROS software. HamSpots will no longer provide a Local Spot Chat facility for the promotion of the ROS mode. HamSpots will no longer report a consolidated view of ROS Cluster spots. All ROS Cluster spots have been removed from other HamSpots pages. Effective: 16-July-2010, 2100utc Wonder what this software is really up to? From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:36 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Andy You make a lot more sense than some of the children in this group who want to just whine to the FCC and ARRL. On 7/15/10 6:15 PM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view of why this fine software and mode are not worth the hassle. Andy K3UK On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jim, N1SZ n...@japierson.com wrote: Dave All, No, I was thinking the same thing. Let's take a look at some significant red flags with the ROS software: 1.)Special code added in apparent anger to keep critics from using the software (although reportedly removed in recent versions) 2.)Won't make the source code open for public inspection (not that it is 100% required, but it would allay a lot of concerns about the software) 3.)Requires Gmail e-mail account and password - (giving such things away would make any IT security professional lose their mind). is this still the case? 4.)PDF literature provided by Jose had PDF file signatures and Authored by signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose's own work... I wonder how that happened? 5.)Automatically sends messages to a hard coded list of servers. and possibly other places? 6.)Apparently sends bogus callsigns and spots to various reflectors 7.)Gives users little if any control over the software's spotting to the internet 8.)Now, after going away for a short time, has a new version that if you try and defeat the automatic spotting with a firewall, it automatically shuts down. (Sounds like a child's temper tantrum to me.) Well, I've make it known that I've been suspicious of Jose's intentions all along, but if this all seems Normal to you and doesn't bother you.. I say good luck and press on with your use of ROS. But from my limited interactions in the world of IT security, it sure sets off a lot of alarms and warning signs to me. Jim N1SZ
RE: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Skip! Well said. Now let's see how many people in the group really pay attention to what they read. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:28 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
[digitalradio] Re: 3rd Generation Digital radio
That was why someone suggested that 220 be looked at rather than 440. Both 2m and 440 have heavy usage with analog repeaters plus SSB/CW (and satellite). Thus 220, or 900 Mhz, would be far better for a third generation digital (trunked) network. After all it is going to mean a new radio anyway. As for tactical, that is a term used by the ARES group in my county for five simplex frequencies on 2m and five on 440 that are backup for when the repeaters go down. They are also used during exercises and during disasters for local communications at the scene. The national trunking networks on 800 have five frequencies that are for simplex and tactical operations. If we have a ham version of a trunked, digital network, that is a feature that needs to be included. Just some thoughts but you did bring up good points. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, af6it af...@... wrote: A perhaps narrow outsider's opinion: There is potential here for both good and for wreaking havoc with fellow users of VHF/UHF amateur bands given a paradigm shift into a G3 digital era. Improving upon packet's abilities could be a very good thing- particularly for those involved in EmComm. But running analog FM users away just because commercial gov't users have had the change to digital crammed down their throat would be a very bad idea. If it can peacefully co-exist with current users- then no problem! As a potential user I confess that I'm not terribly interested in digital modes up here. Adding more specialized equipment has no appeal nor any advantage to my operating style. HF digital is much more exciting useful to me. (YMMV) My greatest fear is that someone in an urban upper 5% utilization zone might find a listening ear in the FCC who would recklessly force a draconian change to make us all go 100% digital VHF above- even for the 95% who have no trouble finding available analog freq's. This is ham radio after all- not hard core government EmComm! (Which is I suppose STILL waiting to see how beneficial the move will prove to be for them) One other comment: Tactical ham frequencies??!!! What in the world??? For ham SWAT teams? LOL Didn't Indianapolis PD get into trouble for less than that? :-) 73 de Stu AF6IT --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Greg n9nwo@ wrote: If the first generation of digital was PACKET-IRLQ-Echolink-APRS (generation Zero was CW and RTTY), then the second generation was D-Star. D-Star brought everything together along with digital voice. While D-Star is great, its technology is already dated. So what will the third generation of digital radio look like? I am thinking that it will be more like the Trunked Radio (digital) or either P25 phase II or TETRA. TETRA is 25 Khz wide channel with four TDMA slots with a very low cost handheld (under $400) and is used in Europe within the 400 Mhz band. P25 digital currently is 800 Mhz, FDMA (25 Khz channel). Phase II will move to a single 12.5 Khz channel with two TDMA slots. Additional capacity can be added with additional repeaters (12.5 Khz) working under a common controller. So, could we do something like that within amateur radio? We have to be above 220 Mhz in order to get 9600 baud rates. If we look at bands, 900 Mhz may be to high and 440 may be too crowded. It was suggested that we go 220 as it gives a mix of characteristics of both 2m and 440 and is fairly open. If we go to P25 (phase II) we do have to overcome the cost of the VOCORDER. That could be done with open P25 in software in an software defined radio (SDR). Most of the military radios these days are SDR. A trunked system would allow us at least state wide communications that would include voice, data and position reporting (APRS). Also that one could link into the system via VoIP (like D-Star or Echolink). A small community might only need a single repeater with two FDMA slots. In big cities it might be that there are multiple repeater sites with two or three repeaters (4 to 6 slots). Also five simplex frequencies for tactical operations or remote areas (like using 146.52 and 144.39 now). Using 9600 baud rates would allow for greater amounts of information. And an SDR would be flexible enough to handle such data rates. Any comments or ideas? Let the flame wars begin.
[digitalradio] 3rd Generation Digital radio
If the first generation of digital was PACKET-IRLQ-Echolink-APRS (generation Zero was CW and RTTY), then the second generation was D-Star. D-Star brought everything together along with digital voice. While D-Star is great, its technology is already dated. So what will the third generation of digital radio look like? I am thinking that it will be more like the Trunked Radio (digital) or either P25 phase II or TETRA. TETRA is 25 Khz wide channel with four TDMA slots with a very low cost handheld (under $400) and is used in Europe within the 400 Mhz band. P25 digital currently is 800 Mhz, FDMA (25 Khz channel). Phase II will move to a single 12.5 Khz channel with two TDMA slots. Additional capacity can be added with additional repeaters (12.5 Khz) working under a common controller. So, could we do something like that within amateur radio? We have to be above 220 Mhz in order to get 9600 baud rates. If we look at bands, 900 Mhz may be to high and 440 may be too crowded. It was suggested that we go 220 as it gives a mix of characteristics of both 2m and 440 and is fairly open. If we go to P25 (phase II) we do have to overcome the cost of the VOCORDER. That could be done with open P25 in software in an software defined radio (SDR). Most of the military radios these days are SDR. A trunked system would allow us at least state wide communications that would include voice, data and position reporting (APRS). Also that one could link into the system via VoIP (like D-Star or Echolink). A small community might only need a single repeater with two FDMA slots. In big cities it might be that there are multiple repeater sites with two or three repeaters (4 to 6 slots). Also five simplex frequencies for tactical operations or remote areas (like using 146.52 and 144.39 now). Using 9600 baud rates would allow for greater amounts of information. And an SDR would be flexible enough to handle such data rates. Any comments or ideas? Let the flame wars begin.
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will kill the petition. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Peter G. Viscarola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone notice that the vast majority of the negative comments about the petition are (nearly) identical. Sort of reminds me of the Send the following letter to your Congressman! like the NUMBERS count and not the content. I sure wish that petitioners -- both pro and con -- would think for themselves and file thoughtful, personal, comments to help the FCC... instead of merely submitting what amounts to a form letter that expresses somebody ELSE's views. de Peter K1PGV
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hatzakis Jr MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more use of this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the licensing requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the bottom ends of the band will really be in 50 years with CW operators? I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for ham radio. I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on the HF bands. I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for the following reason: 1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding in this spectrum. Well Pactor III is already crowding out the other modes and they want more space. They tried that already. Remember RM-11306? 2.) The automatic PACTOR II III modes are an invaluable service to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators. This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical operators. So you are saying that sailors are more important than other hams? There is a service called Sailmail that they can pay for that does the same exact thing? Why do you have to put this garbage on the ham bands? It is because they are cheap and want their free email. I guess Yahoo and Google have really made us cheapskates lately. 3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than completely ban them. Ok we give Pactor III it's own spectrum then we have to give packet, psk31, psk125, RTTY, CW, SSB, SSTVetc all their own spectrum. Now would this not kill innovation faster than limiting bandwidth of pactor III? Besides this RM does not ban pactor III as you seem to think it does. It only limits the Speed Level to SL1 and SL2. 4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase the number of available operating modes to encourage further hams use of HF spectrum. See #3 above about giving each mode it's own slice of the amateur radio spectrum. Greg KC7GNM
[digitalradio] Re: FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok so you are telling me there is always a live operator sitting at a PMBO 24/7? Unattended for the clueless means the station operator is not at the controls. Yes I did. No matter what happens if you read starting at line 4 of page 11 of the PDF file you can see that this is no more then more damn noise from the anti-wide people. And I'll say it again here that under FCC rules there is no such thing as a unattended station what there is (for the clueless) automatically controlled data station. Got it? At 08:54 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will kill the petition. Greg KC7GNM
[digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
I can tell you why. Because P3 is 2.4khz wide and every other mode you mentioned is much smaller so it takes up less spectrum and the fact that it is being used for email that is technically against part 97 because there is an alternative called sailmail out there. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: Well John, Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh? Patrick vk2pn And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different? Just trying to understand why so many HATE the mode of pactor.
[digitalradio] Re: Need new emergency communications mode
Ok question for you. Do you have screen shots that show they were occupying the same space? If the pactor station was in P1 or P2 then it is possible for packet and Pactor to operate within the same space of 3khz. Now if it was PIII then that is a different story as these two cannot share the same space. That is what is happening all the time on 14.105 lsb. I have no problem with a pactor, rtty, cw, or PSK31 station operating all in the same 3khz of space, however when you have a station that starts out in P1 then suddenly switches to P3 and goes from 200hz to 2.4khz then there is a problem. I have never had a problem with winlink as a service. I have had the problem of them causing too much interference. There has not been a weekend that I don't hear a pactor station interfering with packet QSO's. At first I just thought it was random with only a few users doing it, now it is almost as if they just don't care anymore. That is why I am on my crusade to eliminate the inteference from these pactor robots. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you say this is true with any Automatic Station ? RTTY - Amtor as well as Pactor or even PSK mail. The reason I ask is I was reading the mail up on 7103.5 last evening between 2 pactor station, when someone on packet called up another packet station right on top of them. I really fail to see how anyone would not know the frequency was already in use by a AQR mode. Since one should hear one if not both sides of the QSO. I dislike the bad rap that just one mode is getting when in fact it's all of them.
[digitalradio] Re: What scenarios require 24/7?
Rick I can tell you now they will not be able to tell you. All Bonnie can do is say it is needed 24/7 but cannot give a good scenario that will fit. All she keeps doing is saying emcomm 24/7 and nothing else. If you do get more from the winlinkers I would be very suprised. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is interesting that you do not understand my first question, since that gets to the crux of all this posturing by the HFLinker's belief that a 24/7 system is needed to be some kind of first alert that only we hams will have. If we know that there is a disaster, then we will either be in the disaster and will be scrambling to do what we can, typically with tactical communication, or we will be outside the disaster with an intact communication system and may be awaiting mutual assistance requests. This will rarely be done with e-mail or digital contacts unless it is the only way to get through (very unlikely indeed) and most of the requests are done through District or Section level requests for help, and this can occur several days after the onset of the incident. If you have had any of the ARRL ARECC Emergency Communications courses, then you know that our major concern is not with emergencies (which happens everyday with heart attacks, accidents, etc.) nor even with disasters of which most of us have no special training as hams, beyond our ability to communicate (hopefully). Our major concern occurs when there is a communications emergency. This can be due to loss of normal communications or even degraded communications as you point out. If you had not had an HF 24/7 alerting system, would that have impacted your ability to help with shuttle disaster? If you had not had an HF 24/7 alerting system, would that have impacted your ability to support communications for a marathon or other public service event? None of events you mentioned seem to need this HF 24/7 alerting system and I have run many different disaster scenarios in my mind with no success in coming up with this critical need. My question is: what are the actual scenarios that require the need for an HF 24/7 alerting system? 73, Rick, KV9U
[digitalradio] PSK31 on DSB Re: Newbie question...
Why would you want to transmit on 2 different sidebands at once with psk31? All you are doing is hogging up part of the spectrum. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. It will work fine! You will transmit PSK31 on 2 frequencies simultaneously. The frequencies will be offset in Hz from each other by 2 times the audio freqeuncy of the PSK31 So, to maintain a narrow bandwidth, your audio frequency should be as low as possible, perhaps 250Hz to 400Hz range. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Anil Raj anil@ wrote: Can anyone advise whether I can use a DSB transmitter for transmiting PSK31? 73s de SM0D
[digitalradio] Re: PACTOR-WIDE MODES-EMERGENCY COMMS: Cooling off period
The original pactor is fine since it is only 200hz wide. Even P2 is fine but when a station transmits on PIII now we are wasting 2.4khz of bandwidth using a mode that is only 30% faster than P2 but 500% wider. That is why it has a bad rap. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's look at it from the other side of the fence. Not just at Pactor but look at the other wide modes also. It seems to me that Pactor as a mode of operation is getting a bad rap. I know many bad talking it are doing so just from what they read or hear NEVER EVER having copied and of it. At 08:05 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: The topic relating to automatic operations, PACTOR QRM, wide band, and the value of emergency services, requires a cooling off period. Have your say until 2359 UTC 19/10/07 , then I will halt all comments on this topic until something new emerges to the debate. Andy K3UK Owner.
[digitalradio] Re: Newbie question...
Probably not since DSB is AM. What type of DSB radio are you attempting to use on PSK? Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Anil Raj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone advise whether I can use a DSB transmitter for transmiting PSK31? 73s de SM0D
[digitalradio] Re: The top five reasons why PMBO QRM is your fault
You know I almost believe each and every one of these. Almost sound exactly what the winlink crowd is saying. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. You're using panoramic reception and consider signals anywhere on your waterfall to be QRM 2. You're operating in a mode other than Pactor 3. You're operating on a frequency exclusively owned by Winlink 4. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs stays these PMBOs from the swift delivery of their appointed messages 5. You didn't support the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal, so we didn't get more frequencies for our PMBOs, so we're not runnin' no stinkin' busy frequency detectors 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
I totally disagree. Expanding the auto sub-bands would only make room for more PMBO's which later on would want more spectrum because the last bit they got was not sufficient enough. When is enough, enough. Why are we thinking about using these band hogging protocols like Pactor 3 instead of trying to find ways to use spectrum efficient modes like PSK31? The problem with giving more room is simple. You give them more and they will start getting fatter and then ask for more and more and more. Why can't the space hogs learn to try and use more efficient modes. P3 is only 30% faster than P2 or P1 yet it takes up 500% more bandwidth. Where is the gain there? The point is Bonnie I have seen digital radio going down the tubes thanks to winlink. Most hams have cold shivers when they hear that word. Is this a new way to try and get more space since RM11306 was defeated by a majority of hams? Until winlink and other spectrum inefficient modes can cooperate and share the hf spectrum then I don't think they need more space to operate in. They already are a menace in the auto sub bands as it is. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The use of the Automatic Sub Bands on HF ham radio for digital data has been increasing tremendously over the past 5 years. Obviously, automatic and similar types of operation have become extremely popular with ham operators. This growth pattern appears to be continuing into the future as more digital methods and innovation are forged. The use of HF radios interfaced with computers is now commonplace, especially for ham radio emergency communications systems. When the Automatic Sub Bands were originally defined in the 20th century, the number of HF operators using automatic systems was much smaller than it is now. Currently, hams using these segments are experiencing severe congestion and longer waiting times for frequency availability, while adjacent band segments lay nearly dormant. There is now a great need to expand the Automatic Sub Bands, especially for the North America and European regions. A reasonable suggestion is that automatic sub bands be approximately 10% of each HF ham band. In other words, if an HF band is 350kHz wide, then at least 35kHz of it should be available as an automatic sub band for standard 3kHz bandwidth signals. It is especially important that 3kHz bandwidth be available, because this provides the best flexibility and enables modern fast time-division sharing methods for efficient spectrum use, with many stations sharing the same spectrum in short intervals of time. This trend is away from older slow data methods using frequency division sharing. Here are some suggested expanded frequency ranges for HF automatic band segments. 1805-1815 Worldwide 1990-2000 North America 3560-3610 North America 3590-3630 Worldwide 7100-7125kHz North America 7100-7110kHz Worldwide (in the new international band) 7035-7045kHz Worldwide 10140-10150 Worldwide 14085-14125kHz Worldwide (n 14099.5-14100.5 IARU beacon net) 18100-18109.5kHz Worldwide 21090-21135kHz Worldwide 24920-24929.5kHz Worldwide 28100-28199.5kHz Worldwide A push should be made by digital operators everywhere around the world to recognize and allocate band segments that are the same, or overlapping worldwide. This is needed to assure the interoperability and standardization necessary for emergency communications. It is in the interest of all HF ham operators for bandplanners and spectrum regulating authorities to designate adequate and reasonable portions of the HF bands for automatic use. 73---Bonnie Crystal VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Bonnie did you read my entire post or did you just read the part you clipped out? Why don't auto stations try to conserve the space they have instead of trying to gobble up more. The point is winlink and ALE are two bandwidth hungry modes that should be looking to reduce the bandwidth they use instead of begging for more space. Make the modes share freqs instead of having one PMBO per freq like Steve and you apparently want. Only about 1% of the hams use the auto sub bands. I am included in that group, and you want 10%? Where is the logic in that? Does not pass the math test there. What happens in 5 years if you do get your 10% now? Will you be back here begging for 15%? Point is winlinkers are starting to QRM themselves as well as getting complaints filed on them for not listening and busting up a QSO already in progress. What huge number of hams? Sorry but again 1% is not a huge number. Don't know where you learned math at but where I learned it that is a very small minority, not huge at all. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg KC7GNM wrote: The point is Bonnie I have seen digital radio going down the tubes thanks to winlink. ... I don't think they need more space to operate in. They already are a menace in the auto sub bands as it is. Greg, Digital radio has been progressing tremendously. I operate every day in the auto sub bands, in various parts of the world. I have never found winlink to be anything like the menace you say it is. In fact, it appears to be one of the very few entities that provides such wonderful service to a huge number of hams every day. Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm. It is certainly not asking too much that 10% of each ham band be devoted to one of the primary purposes for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service. Greg, where is your volunteer force of non-automatic operators providing 24/7 emergency service on HF? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Bonnie you keep forgetting one important factor in your automatic scenario. There has to be a human on either end to 1) send the message and 2) to read the message. What is the winlink station going to do? Automatically send food and water? Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roger W6VZV wrote: Where is the 24/7 volunteer force? Red Cross, RACES, and other minuteman style ham volunteer groups. Roger, Respectfully, those are all wonderful groups. But none of them provide 24/7 access for emergency traffic on HF. At best, their response is measured in hours or days. Such 24/7 emergency access only exists with automatic systems. If you are voluteering to provide 24/7 service with manual systems, you will need more than just handwaving and oratory. You will need operators on duty around the clock, and a real system for alerting them. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
No one is saying you don't have a right to get on the air. What this thread is about is expanding a sub-band that does not need to be expanded. Also the problem with folks like you, not saying you do, that cause so much harmful interference it is making it hard for us to get on the air. Now I flip that question back to you. Do we have a right to get on the air using other modes besides winlink? Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a look at this map http://winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx I don't ZL3LL about 2000 miles south east of the big island of Hilo had any internet connection to post this location update. nor did any most of the hams all around Australia. Yeah that's right, each and every one of them green pins on that map is a ham. Now are you saying that they have no right to get on the air while at sea? Show us some of this business-related traffic. I have never seen any at all pass my screen. Not any. John, W0JAB At 07:00 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote: Automatic operation is mainly a way for boaters and RVers to use the ham bands for cheap internet access. This is not a valid use of our amateur spectrum and is probably illegal since most of this traffic is business-related. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Hi Jose!!! You hit the nail right on the head. people also need to remember that, when the power, land line and cell phone towers along with the internet fail due to a catastrophe Ham Radio will always be there and be able to get through. 73, Greg, W8GCD [EMAIL PROTECTED] No trees were killed in the transmission of this message but, several million electrons were inconvienced. - Original Message - From: Jose Amador To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes --- Joel Kolstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Pactor, packet Amtor, etc. all died because of the need for a $300 TNC, I think amateur radio as a hobby really is dying! $300 in today's money is nothing compared to what many amateurs paid for their HF rigs years ago. I believe that remembering the 80's and 90's would be good. You cannot use the same yardstick in every country, there are specificities you cannot ignore. While in North America the hams used TNC's, in Germany a group of hams, precursors of the Baycom Group invented the Digicom and the Digicom modem. Even before, when the americans rode Cadillacs and Buicks, the germans used their VW beetles and the french their Citroens... I also feel a decline in ham radio. Many reasons can be invoked. A friend once told me that - nowadays, with the Internet and cell phones, there is no need to torture yourself with learning electronics and the Morse code. Ham radio is for romantics Lucky us that there are still romantics writing code and homebrewing equipment! 73 de Jose, CO2JA __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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 * 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: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] new operator question - I did not find an FAQ
Hi Peter! I am also new to digital radio but have done a lot of digging about hardware and software. First; The computer with the correct software installed MixW, MMTTY and several others have taken the place of the TNC. With that said. Second; you need a sound card interface between your computer and radio equipment. West Mountain Radio, MFJ and others make these. You might even venture if so inclined to build your own. just Google on digital sound card interface as well as digital mode software. Hope this along with others in the groups input helps. Hope to QSO with you on RTTY sometime. 73, Greg DeChant, W8GCD [EMAIL PROTECTED] No trees were killed in the transmission of this message but, several million electrons were inconvienced. - Original Message - From: pcooke2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:33 PM Subject: [digitalradio] new operator question - I did not find an FAQ Hello - Eventhough I have had my tech license for a couple of years. I am finnally getting the courage and $ to adventure in ham. looking at the files with this group I noticed there was no FAQ oriented towards novices. Lets start with the Hardware and Software. Please correct me if wrong. For digital radio I need a: TNC, radio, computer, and some software. Where can I find a feature comparason of the various hardware and software used in digital radio. Any suggestions on the best bang for the buck? Peter Cooke KG6OUE 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) 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: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
