Re: [digitalradio] HAPPY HOLIDAYS
MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!!! Rodney KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop Electronics Tech 1 --- On Tue, 12/22/09, AC5JV,GEORGE ac...@yahoo.com wrote: From: AC5JV,GEORGE ac...@yahoo.com Subject: [digitalradio] HAPPY HOLIDAYS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 6:41 AM HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL FROM AC5JV,GEORGE
[digitalradio] NBEMS
NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System Is anyone familiar with this mode? What type of equipment is needed? I have an MFJ-1250C. Will this work with this or will I need a different type of interface? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS
Thanks guys! Am impressed with the speed of the replies!!! I'll search out a PSK-31 interface and give it a try!! Thanks again!! I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill Rodney KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop Electronics Tech 1 --- On Fri, 7/31/09, kh6ty kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: kh6ty kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 8:44 AM Rodney, The same interface you use for PSK31 will work. NBEMS is a software suite. Go to www.w1hkj.com/ NBEMS and download the software for your windows or Linux version. Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Rodney wrote: NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System Is anyone familiar with this mode? What type of equipment is needed? I have an MFJ-1250C. Will this work with this or will I need a different type of interface? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY. home.comcast. net
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS
The County EOC will have an ARES unit attached to it. Each city within that County will have an ARES unit assigned to it, provided there are enough hams in that area, otherwise they are broken down into sections. Each section, or ARES unit, will have a set of frequencies assigned to them in the HF, VHF, UHF bands. Again, the modes used on these bands are set up, depending on what the ARES unit personnel are set up to use. As for the ARRL, I don't think there's an Official band segment designation for this particular mode, besides, during an emergency, all bets are off and you can and will use any means necessary to get communications through. NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System is just what it means, an Emergency Messaging system! Most likely it's only going to be used during emergencies. Being a former AEC or our local city ARES unit, we employed Ham, CB, FRS, MURS, cell phones... to get the job done and it all worked with relatively few issues! As long as the ARES, CERT, and RACES personnel are properly trained, things usually go off without any major hitches. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill Rodney KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop Electronics Tech 1 --- On Fri, 7/31/09, Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com wrote: From: Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 2:54 PM Rodney wrote: NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System Is anyone familiar with this mode? What type of equipment is needed? I have another question along these lines. How is it used? How does the ham community coordinate what frequencies are used for emergency messages? Is anyone monitoring those frequencies? Or is this just a new set of protocols on top of a few digital modulations, without much of a use case yet? Considering the availability of cheap single-band SDRs, like softrock, I could see having some frequencies reserved for NBEMS, and having a few stations in each region monitoring those frequencies, etc... -- All rights reversed.
Re: AW: [digitalradio] NBEMS
How about in English??? I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill Rodney KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop Electronics Tech 1 --- On Fri, 7/31/09, postmaster (do1fwm) postmast...@yahoo.de wrote: From: postmaster (do1fwm) postmast...@yahoo.de Subject: AW: [digitalradio] NBEMS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 3:10 PM genau deine fragen! NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System (schon wieder was neues!) Gibt es jemanden, mit diesem Modus? Welche Art von Ausrüstung ist erforderlich? Ich habe eine weitere Frage in diese Richtung gehen. Wie wird es genutzt? Wie funktioniert die Schinken-Community zu koordinieren, was Frequenzen sind für die Not-Nachrichten? Gibt es jemanden, Überwachung dieser Frequenzen? Oder ist dies nur eine neue Reihe von Protokollen auf ein paar digitale Modulation, ohne viel von einer Verwendung Fall noch? Angesichts der Verfügbarkeit von preiswerten Single-Band SZR, wie softrock konnte ich mit einigen Frequenzen für NBEMS, und nach ein paar Stationen in den einzelnen Region Überwachung dieser Frequenzen, etc. .. -- Alle Rechte umgekehrt. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht--- -- Von: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] Im Auftrag von Rik van Riel Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Juli 2009 23:54 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS Rodney wrote: NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System Is anyone familiar with this mode? What type of equipment is needed? I have another question along these lines. How is it used? How does the ham community coordinate what frequencies are used for emergency messages? Is anyone monitoring those frequencies? Or is this just a new set of protocols on top of a few digital modulations, without much of a use case yet? Considering the availability of cheap single-band SDRs, like softrock, I could see having some frequencies reserved for NBEMS, and having a few stations in each region monitoring those frequencies, etc... -- All rights reversed. - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] OFF TOPIC
I haven't been following this thread until now, but are you building these antennas for portability or are you using them in a base configuration? I've found 300-ohm twinlead to be the best as far as portability and ease of construction. I live in the Portland Oregon area and haven't seen any 450-ohm ladder line, anywhere, at least not for sale. I've never worked with it so I really can't make many comments on it, but it would seem to be harder to work with and the physical size wouldn't make it condusive to back packing! Personally, I have a copper J-Pole that I can break down and take with me every where I go. I also have the twinlead J-Poles that have served me well in most mobile situations! Just my thoughts! Rod KC7Cjo --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Alan J. Wilson ke4...@gmail.com wrote: From: Alan J. Wilson ke4...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] OFF TOPIC To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 9:30 PM Why do you prefer the SlimJim over the J-Pole? LB Cebik did an in depth comparison of the two antennas and found the J-Pole to be slightly better in performance. Recently, our club had a J-Pole antenna building party and it was difficult to get them tuned up where we wanted them using TV twinlead. My best success with homebrew verticals has been when I used 450 ohm slotted line, but I have never tried building the SlimJim's. Maybe they are easier to match? 73, Rick, KV9U Alan Wilson wrote: You can build 2m slimjim out of 450 ladderline for less than 5 bucks...Look on http://www.hamunive rse.com, I've built several and they are very easy to construct, easier and better than the jpole...73, Alan
Re: [digitalradio] Winter field day advice
I've never heard of a Winter Field Day. Is this ARRL sanctioned, or is it something local to your club? Would be interesting! Rod KC7CJO --- On Thu, 1/8/09, deadgoose38 deadgo...@comcast.net wrote: From: deadgoose38 deadgo...@comcast.net Subject: [digitalradio] Winter field day advice To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 6:52 AM I am in charge of the digital system for our club's winter field day later this month. I have a fair amount of experience with BPSK-31 and Olivia on 40 meters. Of course, that works nicely in late afternoon and early evening, but I need to know what/where/what frequency to use during the DAY, as we want something to show the public. I have an FT-817ND, and a variety of antennas available to me. What is the collective wisdom of this group? Thanks! /paul W3FIS in Slower Lower Delaware
Re: [digitalradio] OFF TOPIC
Thanks! Antennas are a science all on their own and I LOVE to mess with them. Any information I can get on them helps! I like to hear how others fix/modify/build their antennas! I know that it may seem off topic, but it IS related to Ham Radio! Thanks again! Rod KC7CJO --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net wrote: From: Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] OFF TOPIC To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 11:22 AM J-Poles, or for that matter, SlimJims, could be built for either portable or fixed operation from 450 ohm slotted twin lead. I have a fixed home J-Pole constructed from 450 ohm window line and sealed in PVC. Because the velocity factor is significantly slowed down by the PVC, you have adjust the size of the antenna. The 450 ohm line is available from ham dealers such as AES, etc. There are two kinds of 450 ohm twin lead that I have used. The very heavy duty type with multistrand 14 AWG and the much lighter single strand 18 AWG. While I don't recommend the 18 AWG for long term use, e.g., making an open wire fed antenna, or G5RV and ZS6BKW types, this can work well for lighter weight portable dipoles, and making J-Poles for VHF, either free hanging or inside a PVC. For back packing I would choose the TV twinlead and have it as a roll up and if I used a walking stick, would have a ready short mast. Of course you only need the twin lead for the Q section and the main half wave part of the antenna can be wire. I have done it both ways. When using the 450 ohm line inside PVC it tends to stay firmly upright and does not sag like wire is prone to do. The reason I don't like the copper tubing designs is the exposure of the connections to the weather. With a soldered connection on the J-Pole encased in PVC, it seems to work well. I use a different approach with the addition of a bottom Tee which is positioned so the feedpoint is at right angles to the Q section. I hope to have a write up about this in the files section of the hfdec yahoogroup to add to our antenna projects section. It can never be published in QST since it is not finessed and uses things like electrical tape to throw it together, HI. 73, Rick, KV9U Rodney wrote: I haven't been following this thread until now, but are you building these antennas for portability or are you using them in a base configuration? I've found 300-ohm twinlead to be the best as far as portability and ease of construction. I live in the Portland Oregon area and haven't seen any 450-ohm ladder line, anywhere, at least not for sale. I've never worked with it so I really can't make many comments on it, but it would seem to be harder to work with and the physical size wouldn't make it condusive to back packing! Personally, I have a copper J-Pole that I can break down and take with me every where I go. I also have the twinlead J-Poles that have served me well in most mobile situations! Just my thoughts! Rod KC7Cjo
[digitalradio] Motorola iBoard
Guys, Has anyone been able to adapt the Motorola iBoard (folding keyboard for the Nextel phones) to use with a Dell Pocket PC?? Rod KC7CJO
Re: [digitalradio] RFI-Free PCs?
Bill, I haven't been following this thread, but THANKS! You've answered several questions that I had! Now I have a question: I have an 11-meter rig in my shack (Sorry guys, but I started in CB LONG before I became a Ham and that was in 1981) that has HALF SCALE noise! I also have the same problem with my 10-meter rig! So basically, they are both useless! I've turned off all my cordless phones, computers and anything else I can think of that would cause this, but it still exists. I live in a residential area so there are houses all around me. I'm HOPING that the problem is in MY house and not in someone else's house, that way I can locate and fix the problem! Any ideas on WHAT could be generating this noise? Rod KC7CJO Bill Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:17:22 -0400, Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Need to replace the PC in the shack and would like to find something that's RFI-free out of the box. REPLY FOLLOWS What kind of RFI? RFI caused by the computer and picked up by your receiver or RFI caused by your transmitter and picked up by your computer? A couple of general observations: The first kind is caused mostly by the monitor, not the computer. Going to an LCD monitor, as you are, will cure most of that kind. The second is more difficult, but try to have the computer and transmitter physically close together with the two chassis bonded together with a short ground wire. Without that bonding wire, your interconnecting wiring creates a sort of small loop antenna. The bonding wire shorts it out. And best of all, if you can, is keep your antenna as far away from your equipment as possible, and use coax feedline instead of open wire. Use a balun at the junction of antenna and feedline to prevent current from flowing on the outside of the coax. Such current flows as a result of unbalance in the antenna system and is a major cause of RF-in-the-shack syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of computer RFI. 73, Bill W6WRT - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[digitalradio] Commercial APRS
Guys, I work for our local County as their Radio Tech and our Road Department would like to be able to keep tabs on some, not all, of their vehicles, especially in areas where their cell phone coverage is flaky at best. They have a UHF system located on a mountain top approximately 4250', centrally located within the County. Not having any experience with APRS, would this be a viable way to do this? I know that APRS can be monitored via the internet, but is that strictly for Amateur use, or can the software be purchased for commercial useage? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
I believe you're right! It was set up to be a VENT group. Don't think it ever really accomplished anything nor did it really get off the ground! Rod Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rodney writes: Just did a Group search and it's there. It's called, FCCSUCKS, but there's only ONE message on it and who knows if it even has a moderator!. I agree, someone (NOT me) needs to start an FCC Rules discussion group! Rod KC7CJO It appears that the digipol Y!-group was set up for exactly this purpose, but there seem to be no members or messages. I have a vague recollection that our moderator may have established that group so he'd have someplace to which to banish the endless flamewars about the FCC subbands-by-bandwidth NPRM, WL2K sucks|rocks, automatic busy detection for bots should is mandatory|is infeasible, etc, but I'm not sure I'm not confabulating here. :-) 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW) -- Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 1396 Gualala CA USA 95445 - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
There used to be a group called, FCC Sucks!, or something like that, but I haven't heard anything from it in a long time. Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we need to have a place where the discussions of FCC rules are appropriate. Does anyone know of such a group on Yahoo?? Andy, would you consider creating such a group?? Howard K5HB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, dl8le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Per definition the DIGITALRADIO GROUP is A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air activity. The ongoing discussion about legal or formal topics since a couple of weeks with constant repeating of all the old arguments without any new ideas or aspects is more than boring and for sure not in line with the original definition. It's just repeating something and no interest in carefully considering the other party's arguments. And, worst of all, only one part of the different subjects of this group, the air activity if this term can be applied at all, is discussed over and over again with absolutely no progress. Please count the posts on FCC regulations, fundamental (and unfortunately non-technical) contributions to emergency communication in particular the spending of 250 KUSD for radio equipment etc (I don't want to waste my time to list all what I have read in the past weeks since I joined this group), and then compare that number to the posts on real topics of this group. The ratio between the two figures is in my opinion completely inadequate. I like open discussions but there should be an end sometime, at least that the different parties come to the conclusion that there will be no agreement. That is at least an agreement. If the present discussions will continue I will for sure leave this group. The group will survive it, of course, but I wonder if not many others not commenting in public will look for a better alternative to the meeting place the Digitalradio Group is offering at the moment. 73 Juergen, DL8LE - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Just did a Group search and it's there. It's called, FCCSUCKS, but there's only ONE message on it and who knows if it even has a moderator!. I agree, someone (NOT me) needs to start an FCC Rules discussion group! Rod KC7CJO Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we need to have a place where the discussions of FCC rules are appropriate. Does anyone know of such a group on Yahoo?? Andy, would you consider creating such a group?? Howard K5HB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, dl8le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Per definition the DIGITALRADIO GROUP is A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air activity. The ongoing discussion about legal or formal topics since a couple of weeks with constant repeating of all the old arguments without any new ideas or aspects is more than boring and for sure not in line with the original definition. It's just repeating something and no interest in carefully considering the other party's arguments. And, worst of all, only one part of the different subjects of this group, the air activity if this term can be applied at all, is discussed over and over again with absolutely no progress. Please count the posts on FCC regulations, fundamental (and unfortunately non-technical) contributions to emergency communication in particular the spending of 250 KUSD for radio equipment etc (I don't want to waste my time to list all what I have read in the past weeks since I joined this group), and then compare that number to the posts on real topics of this group. The ratio between the two figures is in my opinion completely inadequate. I like open discussions but there should be an end sometime, at least that the different parties come to the conclusion that there will be no agreement. That is at least an agreement. If the present discussions will continue I will for sure leave this group. The group will survive it, of course, but I wonder if not many others not commenting in public will look for a better alternative to the meeting place the Digitalradio Group is offering at the moment. 73 Juergen, DL8LE - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Alan, I APPLAUD your efforts during that storm! Your last statement hit home, that if people don't practice they won't be prepared! Our problem is that we train and train and train, but are NEVER called upon during the Statewide or County exercises. Doesn't do ANY good to practice what you've trained for if you're never asked to play! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop Alan Barrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jgorman01 wrote: Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive to the shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this appears to be an appeal to emotion. Rural, yes, as most of Coastal Miss is. Storm passes. Roads are not clear, not safe. Big Green helicopter lands. Get's them MRE's and pallets of water. Tells them the storm has passed. Leaves. No power, no phones. This site did have water pressure. And nothing happens More nothing. No relief, no magic COWS (cells on wheels). County EOC is leveled. Police are dealing with fires critical emergencies. There is no way to call them. Shelter manager has no communication with their HQ, as their HQ is just getting setup. She cannot leave, nor are non-relief/emergency vehicles allowed on the road. Ham's drop in. Vectored via HF to the ad-hoc county EOC setup at an elementary school. From there, they deploy to the largest known shelters. Some shelters are unknown status. Others have big issues. Yes, I have a 4wd truck. I did not have to use it, but many areas low passenger cars would not have worked. Ham's were able to drive in, provided: - They had ARC placards on their windshields - The local EOC's (usually emergency) had notified law enforcement (via ham liaison) that they were moving through. When our group entered coast Miss from rural miss, we came at night into a blacked out city effectively under curfew. We were stopped at most intersections and cleared through. So yes, when ham's showed up and setup 2m at the shelters, it usually established their first communication with the county EOC's, and slightly later ARC local HQ. Even on day 10 of the event, 2m ham nets were the only communication the shelters had with their HQ. Phones were up down even once they started working again. The 2m net was requested to remain in place well after citizens were allowed to travel, power was back, etc (day 12 or so). It was much longer than that before phone service was reliable and cell service worked for any by local SMS. I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would open a shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply vehicles nor that had SOME kind of communications. You've never been onsite for a large event then. Shelters are established prior to the event. And fill rapidly. And are absolutely in the disaster zone. I am pretty sure that the government authorities would not authorize this either. To do otherwise is simply asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the future thereby adding to the problem. You sir, are mis-informed. Shelters are already established. Some do require relocation after the event. In fact that was one of the activities I coordinated was establishing communications in a new shelter setup 10-15 miles away from one that had to be evacuated due to water/structural damage. Relocation of shelters and the people moves required significant coordination, and ham 2m radio was the only real time comms they had. Sad but true. 1950's simplex technology. Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the facts. Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of communication, but never the less, it is communications. ARC shelter managers cannot leave. Those in place prior to a storm stay unless relieved, and most did not have anywhere to go, they were impacted as well. At the shelter in question, the shelter manager was local, but had been dropped off and did not have a vehicle. There is no runner capability, they barely had enough trained staff to man all the shelters! ARC volunteers who come in later fly in, and are ferried into place. Vehicles for use by ARC were in high demand. None were available for runner use, nor were ARC volunteers commonly used for this. They had far more important work staffing/relieving/relocating shelters. Was there occasional info flow from people dropping off staff later in the event? Yes, but it was not timely, accurate, or efficient. And in most cases, hams were there first. In several cases the team I was on was the first to establish contact with the ARC shelters from outside the little city/county and get status/needs reports back to ARC hq.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network
Jim, and everyone else, I am the Radio Tech for Clackamas County, Oregon and I KNOW the problems that the Hams have getting Digital communications going to and from a disaster scene! My experience with the ARES units in Oregon and our local County OEM is that the equipment that they, the Government, buys for ARES use STAYS with and FOR ARES use! We have a VERY, VERY proactive EC in our District and trust me when I say that the County Goverments and the State OEM keep their hands off the Hams! After all, Hams are VOLUNTEERS and it wouldn't take much for the Hams to back off and let the State and County Governments to flounder and get a very BAD reputation! No, this money that our Governor has given the State OEM for this project is legit! Our Amateur Radio community has impressed him on more than one occassion and he's serious! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this ever increasing number of government agencies doing this scare the bejeebers out of anybody. That is, the government buying permanent infrastructure and someday wanting a return on investment, like using it to augment regular communications? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:35 PM 1/9/2008, you wrote: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network The State of Oregon's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) received $250,000 from Governor Ted Kulongoski's Strategic Reserve Fund to further develop and enhance a statewide Amateur Radio digital communications network, announced ARRL Oregon Section Manager Bonnie Altus, AB7ZQ. This network, the Oregon ARES Digital Network (http://ares.csepp.net/d3web/OADN.pdfOADN), http://ares.csepp.net/d3web/OADN.pdf already uses a combination of different radio equipment and spectrum segments, computers and the Internet to provide a robust backup communications system in times of disaster. With its enhancements, all Oregon counties will be able to communicate with the state OEM, she said. In December, this system proved its usefulness in the storms and floods by utilizing http://www.winlink.org/Winlink http://www.winlink.org/ stations in Lincoln and Clatsop Counties to communicate with OEM. Early in that activation, the OEM's Amateur Radio Unit found they were not able to keep up with maintaining a complete log of communications when using voice communications, but Winlink activities maintained an automatic log for them. According to Altus, the primary purpose of the OADN is to provide back-up digital communications capabilities between county Emergency Operations Centers and Oregon Emergency Management and other state agencies in Salem, in the event that normal communications systems fail in an emergency. During the December storms, Amateur Radio operators were there to help. After a visit to one of the severely affected towns, Governor Kulongoski said, I'm going to tell you who the heroes were from the very beginning of this...the ham radio operators. These people just came in and actually provided a tremendous communication link to us. Oregon's OEM said the radio operators were tireless in their efforts to keep the systems connected. When even state police had difficulty reaching some of their own troops, ham radio worked, setting up networks so emergency officials could communicate and relaying lists of supplies needed in stricken areas. Through an Intergovernmental Agreement between the individual county Emergency Mangers and Oregon's Office of Emergency Management, ARES/RACES groups in each county will be responsible for installation, maintenance and operation the network. Mlooks like enough money to buy some dedicated commercial frequencies, to move WinLink off the Ham bands :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network
Unless the affected Counties have been able to change out or reprogram their equipment to be able to operate in Narrow Band mode, they can't operate on those frequencies! They are designated for Narrow Band operation only! jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not knocking the volunteers for sure. I do have a question. How come the money wasn't invested in public safety equipment using public safety NTIA assigned frequencies to do the same thing? These don't require ham licenses to operate and could expand the resource pool of operators. As a taxpayer, I would want to know why my government has to rely on volunteers to provide public safety communications. I know the current administration and politicians probably have every intention of letting the equipment stay with ARES. But, as you know, things change, sometimes for the worse. This may not always be the case. And even if it happens in your area, it may not occur elsewhere. I'm just worried we are setting ourselves up to be purchased sometime in the future. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, and everyone else, I am the Radio Tech for Clackamas County, Oregon and I KNOW the problems that the Hams have getting Digital communications going to and from a disaster scene! My experience with the ARES units in Oregon and our local County OEM is that the equipment that they, the Government, buys for ARES use STAYS with and FOR ARES use! We have a VERY, VERY proactive EC in our District and trust me when I say that the County Goverments and the State OEM keep their hands off the Hams! After all, Hams are VOLUNTEERS and it wouldn't take much for the Hams to back off and let the State and County Governments to flounder and get a very BAD reputation! No, this money that our Governor has given the State OEM for this project is legit! Our Amateur Radio community has impressed him on more than one occassion and he's serious! Rod KC7CJO Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this ever increasing number of government agencies doing this scare the bejeebers out of anybody. That is, the government buying permanent infrastructure and someday wanting a return on investment, like using it to augment regular communications? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley engineering@ wrote: At 07:35 PM 1/9/2008, you wrote: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network The State of Oregon's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) received $250,000 from Governor Ted Kulongoski's Strategic Reserve Fund to further develop and enhance a statewide Amateur Radio digital communications network, announced ARRL Oregon Section Manager Bonnie Altus, AB7ZQ. This network, the Oregon ARES Digital Network (http://ares.csepp.net/d3web/OADN.pdfOADN), http://ares.csepp.net/d3web/OADN.pdf already uses a combination of different radio equipment and spectrum segments, computers and the Internet to provide a robust backup communications system in times of disaster. With its enhancements, all Oregon counties will be able to communicate with the state OEM, she said. In December, this system proved its usefulness in the storms and floods by utilizing http://www.winlink.org/Winlink http://www.winlink.org/ stations in Lincoln and Clatsop Counties to communicate with OEM. Early in that activation, the OEM's Amateur Radio Unit found they were not able to keep up with maintaining a complete log of communications when using voice communications, but Winlink activities maintained an automatic log for them. According to Altus, the primary purpose of the OADN is to provide back-up digital communications capabilities between county Emergency Operations Centers and Oregon Emergency Management and other state agencies in Salem, in the event that normal communications systems fail in an emergency. During the December storms, Amateur Radio operators were there to help. After a visit to one of the severely affected towns, Governor Kulongoski said, I'm going to tell you who the heroes were from the very beginning of this...the ham radio operators. These people just came in and actually provided a tremendous communication link to us. Oregon's OEM said the radio operators were tireless in their efforts to keep the systems connected. When even state police had difficulty reaching some of their own troops, ham radio worked, setting up networks so emergency officials could communicate and relaying lists of supplies needed in stricken areas. Through an Intergovernmental Agreement between
Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!
Ok, I misunderstood your first email. My bad! I AGREE with you on this one!!! Rod Jaak Hohensee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rodney You are wrong. You know laws/regulations, but ham-robots dont. Ham-robots have strong mantra - emergency. And strong mission - helping people. What you and other ham-humans have against this rhetoric? Ham-humans need better rhetoric against ham-robots. Like this: Mantra for ham-humans: Ham bands robotfree! Robots act in ham-bands like communication terrorists. Ham-humans mission: To developing human communication skills for any case, not only for emergency. For emergency better widely used QRP-readiness. 73, Jaak ES1HJ/QRP Rodney wrote: Tolerant of what? Intentional interference? Don't think so! Tolerant of blatant breaking of laws and regulations? NOT! Jaak Hohensee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: ...This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world we should always be a bit more tolerant, don't you think? 73 de Demetre SV1UY New era beginning... HNY 2008 from DigiQRP community. -- Jaak Hohensee ES1HJ/QRP - . -- Jaak Hohensee ES1HJ/QRP - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
The question I have in all this is: Was this interference problem an issue BEFORE the reduction in the Amateur Licensing requirements, OR did this start occurring AFTER it??? Either way, the FCC must make a decision that we ALL have to live with, whether we agree with it or not! This subject is now beating a dead horse! IF you have a complaint, aim it at the FCC, NOT each other on this forum! All too often I've seen threads go on and on without accomplishing ANYTHING good! It usually causes people to leave a perfectly good forum needlessly, but they get hurt feelings and it accomplishes NOTHING! Again, IF you have a complaint or compliment about RM-11392, the information is at the URL given at the beginning of this thread! Write the FCC about it. It would be more effective if you would WRITE a letter to the FCC (you know the old fashioned way, paper and pen)! I'm personally tired of seeing this thread, or any other COMPLAINT thread, continue on and on and on. This Group, Forum, whatever you want to call it, is to help out our fellow Hams interested in DIGITAL RADIO! What it is NOT for is to complain incessantly about a subject! Give out the information needed to address the issue to the proper agency ie.; The FCC, ARRL... then complain to THEM and STOP bashing each other! Moderator, can we PLEASE move on??? Rod KC7CJO Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392 Steve, We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the majority of operators. If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide. Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of intentional interference. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch
Re: [digitalradio] FCC: Petition to Kill Digital Advancement
I too, agree with the petition! There NEEDS to be some reining back of some, if not A LOT of the HF, as well as VHF UHF band operators! I'm NOT a fan of Internet Radio (IRLP or Echolink). Internet is NOT Radio! A LOT of these IRLP and Echo link nodes are oblivious to the fact that there ARE other people using that particular frequency and jump in over the top of them. This can be life threatening in an emergency! I'm FOR some regulation or regrouping! Rod KC7CJO Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology. In a real national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes. I agree with this petition, the author has given much thought to it. I also don't think that digital modes will be of much use in an emergency - I have often thought that this is just an excuse to promote the technology. Simon HB9DRV - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
RE: [digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater
I AGREE!!! Dave Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, A very well thought out comment that I agree with 100%. TNX 73, Dave N0EOP -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater I strongly oppose the operation of unattended stations that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is locally clear. The problem isn't simply that these stations are unattended, its that they are both unattended and deaf to the presence of other signals. The fact that such stations are activated by a remote operator is of no help, since that remote operator cannot reliably ensure that the frequency is clear at the unattended station's location. The protocol/mode employed by such deaf robots is irrelevant; they are as unacceptable in CW as as they are in Pactor III. Banning a particular mode because some irresponsible operators happen to employ that mode in their deaf robots would be like banning cars because some people drive drunk. The proper solution is to keep the drunks off the road, not prevent everyone else from driving. For the same reason, we ought not ban unattended operation; only incompetent/rude automatic operation should be prohibited (e.g. unattended stations without busy frequency detectors). Modes like Pactor III that can dynamically expand their bandwidth do impose a responsibility on their users to ensure that the full range of frequencies they might use remains clear throughout the QSO. So if you're using Pactor III in keyboard-to-keyboard mode, make sure that all 3 Khz is clear before you call CQ, and if your modem starts at a lower bandwidth and then expands, listen to make sure that the expansion won't QRM a neighbor. If you consider this requirement to be inconvenient, then configure your modem to remain in a narrower sub-mode. Banning modes because their current implementation is expensive would be a very bad idea. Peter G3PLX originally developed PSK31 to run on dedicated out-board hardware because at the time, PCs and soundcards did not yet provide the needed horsepower and development environment. I'm sure that the hardware he used cost more than most hams would have been willing to spend at the time. Should Peter have been prevented from putting this equipment on the air? Preventing this sort of development on the assumption that anything worth doing can be done now with a PC and soundcard would be extremely short- sighted. If a company chooses to implement an advanced protocol with an expensive hardware device, then the market should decide whether or not their approach is sensible; they should not be subject to some arbitrary and hard-to-change price ceiling established by government regulation. In order for amateur radio operators to police themselves, however, all protocols must be openly defined and unencrypted. Compression is fine, so long as anyone can decompress and decode to plain text. If Pactor III does not currently comply with these requirements, then its use should be curtailed until compliance is achieved. I also believe that its wrong-headed to ban email or any other form of message transfer. While I'm not the least bit interested in sending email mesages or images over HF, my personal preferences should not be imposed on other operators -- and neither should yours! As long as the content remains consistent with local restrictions on commercial and indecent content, there's no reason to legislate content. It's a testament to the arrogance of those who operate, use, and defend deaf robots that they have managed to stir up so broad an upwelling of negative emotion in the amateur community. But making policy decisions while you're angry is never a good idea. By focusing on the real issue -- unattended stations without busy frequency detectors -- we can preserve our shared spectrum without imposing unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions. I plan to read the proposed RM in detail and file a comment consistent with the above position. In the mean time, I have a release to get out the door... 73, Dave, AA6YQ - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
RE: [digitalradio] Why Amateur EmComm?
I agree with Rud! Amateur Radio has ALWAYS been the base point for EVERY type of communications with in the US and most of the rest of the World! If it's out there, most likely it started in Amateur Radio! Emergency Communications has ALWAYS been an integral part of Amateur Radio, at least here in the USA. AND it's ALWAYS been VOLUNTARY!!! Amateur Radio Operators have ALWAYS been there, and hopefully always WILL be, to lend a hand, or mic, to help out in times of emergencies! ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Services) is NOT mandated by ANYONE. It IS supported by the FCC. In fact, the FCC put ARES under control of the ARRL, along with RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service). I whole heartedly DISAGREE that Amateur EMCOMM is going away! In fact, quite the opposite IS occurring! Hurricane Katrina and the attack on 9/11/01 has shed more light on the LACK in communications in the Public Safety sector than any other incident that I can recall! I'm the Radio Tech for our County, and speaking for my County and the surrounding metro area, there is a HUGE misconception concerning it's 800 MHz trunking system! All the elected officials seem to think that the Public Safety communications system is going to work flawlessly in an emergency! WRONG!!! I've seen what happens when a minor incident happens! The system becomes overloaded and just shuts down! They do simulcast on VHF, which they keep saying needs to go away. I keep telling them NOT a smart move as it's the ONLY system they have that is RELIABLE! Anyway, ARES plays a HUGE part in at least OUR county's communication viability and is highly supported by our County officials!!! I could go on and on citing instances where Amateur EMCOMM has come to the rescue, but you get my point! Rod KC7CJO Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Flavio, The Basis and Purpose mean that these are the reasons the ARS exists in the US. It is more than a value. It is a long standing tradition to provide this service in the US. I believe it is also true in Canada. I cannot speak for the rest of the world. From the comments I am seeing it apparently is not for them. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Flavio Padovani Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:38 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why Amateur EmComm? Saludos Rud, I can not see in your quote any mandate for EmComm by the FCC. If I can read right, the regulations just recognize a value (usefulness ?) fo the service for EmComm. I think that the EmComm argument is new and is being utilized to try to save the amateur service. In the long run, we hams are going the way of sailboats, steam locomotives, dinosaurs and CW. Lets enjoy what we have while we can. Thursday, October 18, 2007, 12:34:59 PM, you wrote: RM From the US FCC regulations: RM §97.1 Basis and purpose. RM The rules and regulations in this Part are RM designed to provide an amateur RM radio service having a fundamental purpose as RM expressed in the following RM principles: __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters
Can you explain what this means to all of us?? Are there Repeaters that are NOT treated as repeaters? Rod KC7CJO Mark Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Forwarded Message From: Jay Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:15:49 PM Subject: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted: That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such. Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members. The letter will be sent to the FCC's Bill Cross today. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
Re: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question
All I can tell you is to contact the local VFW and they might know who to contact. Rod KC7CJO USAF, RET Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A little different from the usual questions... Curt KA2SLC, a former active member of this group, is now a Silent Key. His body remains unclaimed by family. I have been told he is a U.S. veteran, does anyone know of a veteran's groups that might assist in getting a veteran a decent burial? Andy K3UK - TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
I have an HF rig, but rarely get on HF because of my wife and neighbors. But after reading the past few threads, I'm GLAD that I DON'T get on HF! Sounds as if it's gotten to be nothing more than a low frequency CB band!! Whatever happened to common courtesy? Or better yet, COMMON SENSE?? I operate primarily on VHF UHF and I've found that since the CW requirement has been lifted, the bands, and it sounds like ALL of them, have been taken over by RUDE, inconsiderate human know-it-alls, who don't give a hang for the regulations that were put in place to keep the Amateur Airways AND the hobby a FUN place to be! Sorry, but the FCC pulled a BONE HEAD act on this one! Now true hams are left to clean up, what we can, and police the bands. It's a FACT that unless someone is purposefully interfering with a public safety band or some BIG business with MEGA BUCKS, the FCC will just ignore the complaint! Sorry, my soap box! Rod KC7CJO list email filter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Danny, I've got to say I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, and I'm just a little hopeful that a few of the list members did a little thinking, and that a few newbies 'might' have realized they can 'get by' without a $3k linear and an additional $200 a month on the old electric bill. Even the it takes a kilowatt to drown out everyone else on the band so that a person half way around the world running a K2 on a battery into a wire can't ignore me guy hasn't risen to defend the 400 watt rag chewer. In my mind, I'll take that not as a victory, but at least to mean there is hope. In the end, its a hobby. There are people in the world that define who they are by something they are passionate (or perhaps obsessive) about. I long ago learned it is pointless to challenge their beliefs, successfully doing so is tantamount to invalidating their lives. Its much easier to enjoy life, and let them find comfort in their own beliefs. I'll stick around and jump back up on the soapbox every now and then, I don't need a victory, just getting a few people to actually think is more than I should really have hoped for. Who knows, if enough people think about it, in the words of Arlo Guthrie, friends they may think it's a movement. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Danny Douglas wrote: Give it up Erik. Money talks, and talks louder than anyone else. Some PSK operators are no different that the guys on 80 meters, talking across town, using linears so they can drown out everyone else on the band. They dont need it, know they dont, but do it so they CAN be the loudest on the bands. I have heard them time and again, when someone else trys to come in and say something. Suddenly there is silence, they they go to talking about the other guy not having a linear since they cant hear him 40 over s9, like they can each other. Or better yet, the jerk in Florida who comes on top of a conversation, calling for someone in California (who he hasnt talked to in the past 4 hours) and cant quite hear someone calling him so goes back to calling his buddy. He then states this is W4X in podunk city Fl. calling W6XXX on 'OUR ASSIGNED AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCY, blah blah blah. There are pigs/ Hogs/ Jerks everywhere. It doesnt matter that he is running 400 watts on the PSK band. He is allowed to do it by the rules, and hang the power necessary for communications. He is going to do it his way, and ignore every one else. Then of course you have the other guy who hears this, brings his kw up on the freq, and blows away not only the offending station, but everyone else - to make his point. And to those who say THEY need that 100 or 200 or 300 watts to make the contact, because of all the other interference --- you wouldnt need it, if the others were running 20 watts too. Its a never ending circle of outshooting the other guy. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: list email filter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall before you guys key up must be clueless. Announce your
Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.
I agree with your Rant! We have a local repeater that isn't toned, but that's another Rant, that is constantly accessed by people who aren't anywhere near the repeater! I'm talking a couple of hundred miles! These people are accessing a local repeater on THEIR end! They only need a couple of watts to adequately do their communications. NOT 75-watts or more (which includes a high gain antenna). The ONLY time MAX power should be used is when it's NECESSARY, NOT all the time! You jam/block other users from ever gaining access. You access repeaters unintentionally (maybe??). AND it's just plain RUDE! Contrary to Bart Simpson, it's NOT, repeat NOT, cool to be rude! It's just plain RUDE!!! There, that's MY RANT! KC7CJO list email filter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, everyone remember their (and my) blood pressure... just a minute while I get the asbestos armor adjusted... Rant What would the bands be like if say... digital contest points were ahhh divided by power output, and people started working on operating skills? Or does the concept of using the minimal power necessary for reliable communications really fly in the face of the plug-n-play point-n-click crowd? /Rant I know it's not a new idea, just getting tired of seeing my whole waterfall blank out to a single station. Honestly, there are stations out there that are worse than my microwave oven. Oh well, at least I know how well my IF Shift works, and I've finally found a use for my narrow filter on the digital modes. Well, I feel much better now. ;) -- 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. - Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search. - Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Amateur Radio in Disasters/What we really need
I have a question: Being in Oregon, there is little need for Tornado watchers! However, SHOULD something like that occur, without having to stay by the radio or terminal 24/7, is there a program that allows for or provides ALARMS that are audible to alert a network of Packet stations? To me this would be a GREAT feature to have, especially in an area where sudden storms are a regular occurrence. I realize that there are radios that have a NOAA alert setup in them (The TM-271A for one) But I don't keep my radio on 24/7 and it's mounted in my vehicle and my FT-1500 (Base station) doesn't have that feature (that I know of). I use the FT as my Packet station as well and can keep it up and running 24/7, so some kind of alert signal, transmitted via Packet, would be a GOOD thing! I'm rather new, green, ignorant...to Packet and only know how to send and receive Packet messages! I'm not up on how to do all the bells and whistles my TNC can do. That's why I joined THIS group! Any ideas? Rod KC7CJO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering the number of years I have supported ARES/RACES and Skywarn, most of the value of amateur radio has been with Skywarn. Yes, we were heavily involved with the flood of 1965 in the upper Midwest U.S., but nothing like that since due to infrastructure improvements. With cellphones often working from nearby towers, you might even be able to maintain tactical emergency communication which is mostly what local government wants us to do in case of more widespread damage which in our area would typically be freezing rain pulling down power and communications lines. Within the last few years we have provided nearly real time observation of storm cells from our spotters, including two tornadoes a few minutes apart, and yet hams were enroute and tracking literally a couple of minutes behind the tornado. Typically, the NWS will call us on 2 meters and ask if we can see any rotation when they are observing it on radar. My ridge farm was within 4.5 miles of the small tornadoes touch down point that took out a person's home with the person in the home. The occupant was severely injured (broken back) but survived when the house was moved 100 feet or so. The other tornado hit a small community and caused widespread damage. In the past couple weeks we had a rotation to the south of me and at first it seemed like it could head directly for my QTH but it swerved to the east and went over the community to my east and rotation ceased just as it moved 7 miles further north right in line with another community. Our spotters could see no rotation (good visibility) and it avoided a tornado warning that otherwise would have had to have been issued by NWS since they saw the rotation on screen but they could not tell if it was reaching the ground. Only a human can really do that. And no one in our area has the capability to stay in direct contact with NWS via radio ... except for radio amateurs. Having said this, we still prepare for possible digital communication. Our club has several drills each year, plus public service support for WAR (Wisconsin Adventure Racing). We even try to improve our digital communications on VHF, although we have not been able to get Winlink 2000 to work when you need it. Not that we really needed it, of course, as it is mostly an exercise in possibilities. What I want to see happen is GREATLY increased use of HF digital modes but thus far we have almost no interest in my State:( There are perhaps a dozen members on the Wisconsin HF digital yahoogroup and over the past couple of years there have been only a few posts by me. And this is any kind of HF digital, not just emergency communications. We really need to have BBS systems for HF that lets you use a sound card to inexpensively time shift communication. This requires an ARQ mode that can get through difficult condx with a full ASCII character set. Nothing like that exists yet for the Windows environment. How about someone with the knowledge and interest in bringing an improved PSKmail to the Microsoft Windows environment that has an error free keyboard mode and also has a rudimentary BBS and perhaps even an e-mail component too? 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: As far as I know there is no amateur radio support even needed. Here in Kansas the National Guard manages and is responsible for the State EOC and for implementing support plans for all county and local EOC's. They have also integrated plans with all the law enforcement agencies for communications. The State EOC itself is a secured military facility and I do mean secured. If you even pull into the driveway to turn around an MP is on your ass immediately. They have even pulled the RACES station out due to neither needing it and due to security. The National Guard had their
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Ah, I see what you guys are getting at: IRLP First, that's INTERNET, NOT Amateur Radio! Radio's should be linked via the AIR WAYS, NOT over phone lines. But that's MY opinion! You're just trying to safe guard your personal information, which really shouldn't be going over the Air Ways anyway! Rod John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, The International Regs changed last January (2006) to allow Amateurs to use encryption. However, not for international traffic. It's only permitted for internal domestic traffic; It is not permitted between Amateurs of different countries without specific authorization (ITU?)...according to the League's attorney. John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:17:20 -0700 expeditionradio writes: Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses The many administrations which don't permit amateurs to carry third party traffic at all (in many cases to protect their national government's monopoly position as a provider of secure radiocommunication within their borders) seem unlikely to agree to revise the International Radio Regulations in a way which would make it easier for their hams to conceal that they might be carrying third-party traffic. 4. To shield system passwords Logins over potentially-compromised media (including ham radio) should use technical means to cryptographically authenticate transmissions, but that does not require cryptographic concealment of the content. If I chose, I could use private-key encryption to ssh into my shell account at my ISP, while passing the text of my session in the clear. Someone who sniffed my packets would be able to see what I was doing during my session at my ISP, but would not be able to masquerade as me using the information gleaned from tapping my lines or sniffing my packets. Something similar involving, e.g., exponential key exchange, could be used over ham radio. Multiple-use passwords sent in the clear became obsolete for network use more than a decade ago: there is no reason why ham radio should adopt content encryption to make up for the weaknesses of such obsolete methods of authentication. 5. To shield station remote control Concatenate the command and a timestamp, and use a crytographically strong a hash of the combination to prove that the command comes from someone authorized to remotely control the station, and to prevent replay attacks. There is no need to cryptographically conceal the command itself, only to cryptographically sign it. Challenge-response single-use passwords are another possible solution, still not requiring cryptographic concealment. 6. To secure access to stations Same answer as number 4 or 5, depending on what exactly is meant by that. 7. To control satellites The same as number 5. (ISTR that crypto concealment for control of ham satellites is already authorized, but I assert that there is no technical need for it: crypto authentication would be sufficient.) 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham Same answer as numbers 1-3. 9. To protect medical information Now we *may* be getting somewhere, but I'm still not sure. It seems to me that, e.g., a hospital could call via ham radio for helicopter evacuation of a patient to a regional trauma center, providing sufficient information about the case to justify dispatching the helicopter, but provide the actual name of the patient to the EMTs along with the patient's file and the patient himself when the helicopter arrives, rather than by radio. Is it really necessary to transmit personally-identifiable medical information over ham radio in emergencies? 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality See reply to items 1-3. 11. To control repeaters See reply to item 5.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
This, and ALL the other discussions slamming the ARRL FCC NEED to go to THIS GROUP!!! The group below was specially started for JUST SUCH discussions! [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLEASE This is NOT what this group is all about! PLEASE take it ELSE WHERE! Rod KC7CJO - Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Sir, There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and because crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them. Not to mention that there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of NEW ideas and some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some serious trouble. So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms and keeping spouting legalities, should the need arise! If people don't obey the laws that are already in place, our government produces MORE laws and THAT, my friend, is what takes AWAY freedom! Rod KC7CJO Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's not legal under your FCC Part 97 ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote: Hi Tony, I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut. The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC Part 97 for data. Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is published. /s/ Steve, N2CKH - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
Can we put this one to REST?? - Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Re: [digitalradio] Packet
Will YAPP work with the MJF-1270C as well on XP How hard it is to set up?? I'm ok operating Packet, but know NOTHING about having to set it up. Rod KC7CJO John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lots out there. I have been using YAPP since about 1985. John - W0JAB At 04:14 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: I need software to run a Kantronics PC3+ on Windows XP. What is available Dan N0ZIZ - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [digitalradio] Packet
But Windows XP doesn't have a DOS platform, how can it work? Are you sure you're working in WIndows XP? John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes it will. Works with all my TNC. It's a dos program but very easy to use. What are you using now for packet? John, W0JAB At 05:04 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Will YAPP work with the MJF-1270C as well on XP How hard it is to set up?? I'm ok operating Packet, but know NOTHING about having to set it up. Rod KC7CJO - Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
[digitalradio] Packet software for XP
Does anyone know of a good Packet program for Win XP? Thanks! Rod KC7CJO - It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
[digitalradio] Packet using Windows XP
Thanks for the reply and software, but I should have been more specific. I have an MFJ-1270C TNC and would like to be able to use it with my XP machine! The software that was sent doesn't have any MJF drivers in it. I've looked at the site that was sent and it only has DOS drivers. I DO have a Windows 98 machine and can use Picture Packet on it with no problems. I just don't want to have to have a second computer on my already cluttered desk. If anyone has an idea, please let me know. Thanks! Rod KC7CJO - Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA.
[digitalradio] TM-271E to MFJ-1270C packet cable
Does anyone have the wiring diagram for the cable for connecting a TM-271E to an MFJ-1270C TNC? I have the pin outs for BOTH, but the terminology or designations for the pins vary too much for me to grasp. What I've done is to modify the TM-271A with a Packet Pigtail, just like the TM-271E version. They are identical except for this particular item, that and the E version has been limited to about half the bandwidth that the A version is. Thanks! Rod KC7CJO - Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
