Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>
>
>  At 08:58 AM 1/24/2008, you wrote:
> > You really need to grow up, John. If you have personal problems,
> > solve them, but how about keeping them off the forum.
>
>  Really Roger after this comment :
>
>  " I doubt you do much digital communications at all, John. I know
>  that I never run across you on the air. "
>
>  I have made it a point to try and work you just to prove you wrong.
>
>  John, W0JAB

If you had the perspicacity to check, John, you would have noticed that 
the above comment, which is true, was private email and conspicuously 
marked as such.

Again, if you have personal problems, solve them, but don't bore the 
rest of us with them on this forum.  This forum is not a place for you 
to "prove yourself."

I am finished with this thread and with corresponding with you.

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5

[Roger J. Buffington]

w6ids wrote:
>
>
>  Hi John
>
>  At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting
>  with an S9 signal. It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a
>  cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or
>  losing privileges.
>
>  I can hear a PACTOR signal underneath but obviously, cannot copy. I'm
>  hearing now three total PACTOR signals.
>
>  Still listening
>
>  Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Your post seems to indicate that the station that initiated the S-9 
signal either did not listen, or could not hear, the other signals on 
the frequency.  This is the inherent problem when there is no one 
listening *at the location of the transmitter.*

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  Looking for P1 connect and Roger.

You really need to grow up, John.  If you have personal problems, solve 
them, but how about keeping them off the forum.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>  I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When some
>  programmer develops an an add-in that reads speed limit signs and
>  prevents me from going too fast, I'll stop running into other cars
>  and people.
>
>  Any criticism I receive between now and then from victims or
>  onlookers will be disregarded as pot-stirring.
>
>  73,
>
>  Dave, AA6YQ

Great analogy.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  So tell me (and others) how someone operating a mode with a waterfall
>  display and seeing a signal (so be it a pactor signal) QRM that
>  ongoing keyboard to keyboard QSO?
>
>  It seems to be that *any* pactor signal is fair game for anyone that
>  *only* knows that is a pactor signal to QRM it.
>
>  John, W0JAB

A complete non-sequitur, John.  The problem is robots acting as 
low-budget email providers QRMing ordinary amateurs.  Not the reverse.  
Ordinary non-Pactor digital mode ham ops never intentionally QRM anyone. 
  Anyway, the number of Pactor QSOs is so small that I doubt it ever 
happens.

By doing what they do, these Robots are violating Asimov's First Law of 
Robotics.  [see generally "I, Robot"; see also "The Robots of Dawn"].  
This is not permitted, John. 

It has to stop, John.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Roger J. Buffington]

Jack Chomley wrote:
>
>  The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet
>  mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you
>  did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my
>  hobby...
>
>  73s
>
>  Jack VK4JRC

We understand, Jack.  But please remember the Three Laws of Robotics 
that govern the behavior of you Robots:

1.  A Robot shall not harm a human being (including QRMing a human 
being) or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed or QRMed.

2.  A Robot must obey the orders of a human being but only if such order 
does not conflict with the First Law.

3.  A Robot must protect its existence, but only if such protection does 
not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

So, you see, when a Pactor robot QRMs others, it is violating the First 
Law.  Can't do that.

Hey, sorry for the sad attempt at humor.  Some of my best friends are 
Robots.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group

[Roger J. Buffington]

Danny Douglas wrote:
>
>  And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered
>  with the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its
>  continuance will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he
>  isnt likely to go to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of
>  venem. The subject IS the major discussion here, and this IS about
>  digital radio. Without the discussion, it would not be a free
>  discussion of what digital radio is doing today, or should be doing.
>  Frankly, those who have no interest in the subject, must not really
>  be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each and every one of
>  us. Danny Douglas N7DC

It appears as though those of us who do not favor, and do not 
appreciate, the practice of Winlink stations to transmit QRM 
indiscriminately  are being told to either shut up or leave. 

I might point out that most of the discussions about Pactor originate 
when one of the Pactor advocates posts something to the effect that the 
rest of us must make way for robot Pactor stations whenever necessary, 
Pactor robot operations are more important than what the rest of us are 
doing, Pactor Winlink stations own certain frequencies, etc.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:

[Roger J. Buffington]

kh6ty wrote:

>  97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall
>  transmit:
>
>  (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be
>  furnished alternatively through other radio services.
Excellent point.  The above regulation, interpreted reasonably, would 
outlaw 99.9% of Winlink activity within FCC jurisdiction.

>  All the discussion about how Winlink users trample others on the
>  frequency is directly related to "using" the ham bands as a free
>  email service, instead of for person-to-person, real-time, *hobby*
>  communications. There is no second person in real-time, that can
>  communicate the need to QSY when advised there is an ongoing QSO on
>  the frequency, local to his station, but not detectable by the remote
>  station, in an email delivery system. It is this capability that
>  makes it possible for radio amateurs to *share* a limited amount of
>  spectrum that one-way systems do not possess.
>
>  Skip KH6TY

Very well said. 

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Roger J. Buffington]

Jose Amador wrote:
>
>
>  For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations.

Indeed, Jose, this is always possible.  Who among us has not on some 
erroneous occasion transmitted without listening long ENOUGH, and 
instead unintentionally QRMed an innocent QSO?  But VERY few of us would 
ever do such a thing intentionally; I like to think that none of us would.

Winlink, by contrast, transmits without first listening as a matter of 
*policy* by deliberately eschewing modest technical modifications, 
already in being but not in use, which would allow it to listen first.  
This is because its guiding lights have concluded that Winlink 
transmissions are more valuable than other forms of ham activity, and 
the latter must be made to give way to them.  This explains the proposal 
on various Winlink websites of "channelization" whereby certain (many!) 
frequencies are argued to be Winlink priority frequencies, which the 
rest of us may use only on sufferance.

If this were an upward trend, it would eventually have to result in an 
outright ban of Winlink, unless we want to see much of our bands 
comprised of nothing but over-the-air email dumps.  Fortunately, Winlink 
is very inefficient compared to the conventional internet.  The rise of 
Wi-Fi in RV parks and boat marinas, and the steady drop in the cost of 
boat satellite communications will likely result in its gradual, and I 
trust timely, demise.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>  No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are
>  unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing
>  other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's no
>  fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars
>  because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor because
>  some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use unattended
>  Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors.
>
>  John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving
>  the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really
>  think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the
>  problem". You seem to be saying "turn the clock back 10 or 15 years
>  and keep it there".

I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess.  
And you are right.  No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it is 
Pactor operated in a courteous fashion.  There is an interesting 
question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented modes 
such that identification in these modes is legal?  SCS claims that these 
are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights.  I don't know the 
answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking.  Put simply, if it 
takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to decode the ID, is the 
ID legal?

Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North America.  
I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is as dead as 
Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well.  When you visit the SCS 
website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed at 
non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial users. As 
far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor.

Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have 
made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes 
within the reach of most ham operators worldwide.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
> > Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor
> > Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times
> > I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we
> > were able to work through it.
>
>  Roger - how do you know it's WinLink stations and not me and K0ABC in
>  a keyboard to keyboard QSO?
>
>  I know you have had a anit-wide rant for a long long time. But it's
>  really be showing more and more in the last 2 weeks.

Your problem, John, is that you are unable to stick to an argument of 
the issues.  Instead, everything becomes personal with you as evidenced 
by the above ad hominem remarks.  Disappointing.

As to how I knew it was a Winlink station and not you, very simple.  1) 
I doubt that you do Pactor keyboard QSOs more than once in a blue moon 
(no one does); 2) under the circumstances of the interference, I simply 
refuse to believe that ANY live operator, including you, would have 
operated in such a flagrantly inconsiderate manner.  I sure hope that 
this helped your thinking, John.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:

>
>  This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I
>  opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all
>  to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away.
>
>  Bonnie KQ6XA

Actually, what is childish is the never-ending assertion by Winlink 
advocates that they can and should be allowed to operate in a fashion 
involving transmitting without listening.  Twice in the last seven days 
I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top 
of my QSO.  Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from 
about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it.  (QRO 
can come in handy when it comes to Pactor.)  But the Pactor station's 
actions were as illegal as heck.  This sort of thing needs to be put 
down by the FCC and I trust that it will be.

As boaters and RVers get Wi Fi access to the internet more and more, 
Pactor will die out.  As it should.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Roger J. Buffington]

Alan Barrow wrote:

>  I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a
>  cop wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and
>  discomfort because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked,
>  somewhat desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to
>  help, and did so.
>
>  I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags.

I totally agree with the above.  The times I participated in emergency 
communications it was a tiresome but necessary chore involving 
discomfort, boredom, and a considerable sacrifice of time.  (My own role 
was very minor, but there were dedicated hams there that really 
contributed a lot.) The local Red Cross services needed hams with HTs 
and mobile rigs.  The work we did was tedious but necessary.  I have no 
desire to be a cop or a firefighter, and I personally do not enjoy 
Emcomm. I did a hitch in the Army and that was enough for me.

The strength of ham radio in the context of emergency communications  is 
not that we are all sitting around all the time just itching to monitor 
for that SOS or whatnot.  It is that amateur radio provides a reservoir 
of private citizens who own and know how to quickly deploy things like 
generators, antennas, and SSB/FM transceivers.  We can quickly put 
together makeshift but effective communications in environments where 
all other communications are temporarily down and out.  Katrina, the 
1994 California earthquake, are but two examples.  There are countless 
others.

I do agree that some persons with agenda have used the Emcomm argument 
as a cloaking device to pursue an agenda.  Winlink immediately comes to 
mind in this regard.  But this should not take away from the civic 
minded hams in many countries who regularly make a real contribution to 
emergency communications.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:

>  Maybe all would be well if the word "WinLink" had not been used.

Probably.  Other forms of amateur communication listen before they 
transmit, thereby preventing unnecessary QRM.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network

[Roger J. Buffington]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  Another point to consider is that the Government Employee who will be
>  operating this equipment is maintaining (and will probably continue
>  to maintain) and average age south of 40 years old.  The same cannot
>  be said for the Amateur Radio community who is letting attrition and
>  lack of appeal to younger members raise the average age north of 60
>  years old.

Let me get this straight.  You are saying Government Employees are going 
to be operating Government equipment on the ham bands?

>
>  There is something about that survival instinct that trumps tradition
>  fed attrition every time.

A meaningless statement if there ever was one.

>
>  The time to be worrying about this dynamic, and making preparations
>  to prevent it from happening was decades ago.  At this point in time,
>  all the bluster is as useful as re-arranging the deck chairs on the
>  Titanic.

I have no idea what most of the above post means, but if you are ready 
to write amateur radio off, I am not.  I don't know what the average age 
of the hams who responded to the last group of emergencies was, but I do 
know that they did a bang-up job, as usual.  Mostly with relatively 
simple modes like SSB and FM voice.  And they did it without a lot of 
Government employees or equipment.  In fact, it is the very fact that 
hams privately own lots of things like generators, transceivers, 
quickly-deployable antennas, etc.(and the skill to use them) that makes 
amateur radio a unique resource.  Time and time again it has been 
amateur radio, not a gaggle of Government employees, that provides 
communication in emergencies.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network

[Roger J. Buffington]

jgorman01 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
>
Exactly right.  When the Government buys infrastructure and puts it on 
your property, i.e. the ham bands, it does not take long before it 
becomes their property, i.e. the ham bands.

Great.  Just great.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rick wrote:
>
>  I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>  exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>  Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE
>  400 around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over
>  our frequency.
>
>  It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is
>  just plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call
>  it. The Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if
>  that station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some
>  time before that happened.

I was working an MFSK QSO Saturday, and a Pactor station fired up right 
on our frequency.  He obviously couldn't have cared less at the 
initiating end that we were there.  And of course at the other end there 
was no human being to curb this illegal activity.  The QRM was intense, 
but I QROed to 200 watts and eventually it went away.  Plain and simple 
illegal behavior by the Pactor station. 

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>  Demetre, amateur radio in the United States is governed by FCC
>  regulations.
>
>  Would the fact that Winlink PMBOs flagrantly violate these
>  regulations have something to do with your suggestion that we ignore
>  them?
Thank you for that, Dave.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  Too many lawyers in USA killed PACKET RADIO. The way you are going on
>  you are going to kill all DIGITAL RADIO too.
>
>  Hey guys hold your horses. It is a hobby not a court of law.
>
>  73 de Demetre SV1UY

Hey, Demetre, you got something against lawyers? 

We lawyers LOVE digital radio.  Down with anti-lawyer bigotry.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  Rick You keep lumping " automatic " together with " unattended "
>
>  As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station
>  untended as well as the WL2K site.

A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at 
the location of the receiver* is unattended.  Some have confused the 
issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is 
activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is 
"attended" because it was activated by the distant station.  This is 
"unattended" transmitting because the distant station cannot check the 
channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip.

So Rick's use of the terms was correct.  The concept of a distant 
activating station "attending" a remote transmitter is incorrect.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.

[Roger J. Buffington]

Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>  Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response
>  from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and
>  generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
>
>  The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a
>  god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to
>  PART97 and The Amateur's Code.
>
>  - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid,
>  that is...
>
>  Stop by at WinLink-Watch to see the pics. -
>  http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm
>  
>
>  73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

I doubt you'll see many Pactor QSOs.  Pactor is dead and will stay dead.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 08:34 PM 1/1/2008, you wrote:
> > John, you might ask yourself if your above comment is worthy of
> > your personal level of maturity.
>
>  Roger please, I'm not the one that can't fine a pactor QSO.
>
Yes, John, a terrible moral failing, I know... 8-)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 01:20 PM 12/31/2007, you wrote:
> > I might be wrong but I think that MixW can parse Pactor1 FEC.
> >
> > de Roger W6VZV
>
>  Why even try? You have stated a number of times "pactor is dead" !

John, you might ask yourself if your above comment is worthy of your 
personal level of maturity.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!

[Roger J. Buffington]

Howard Brown wrote:
>  LAWS OF RADIO ROBOTICS
>
>  A robot operator may not QRM a human operator or, through inaction,
>  allow a human operator to be QRMed.
>
>  A robot operator must obey orders given it by human operators
>  especially orders to stop transmitting until the frequency is clear.
>
>  A robot operator must handle its own messages as long as such
>  operation does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
>
>  73, Howard K5HB

ROTFL! So true. 

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Sholto Fisher wrote:
>
>  You know I head a Pactor-1 FEC call around 14,061 a couple days ago
>  but I don't have my PK-232 anymore so couldn't reply. I wonder if it
>  was someone in this group?
>
>  73 Sholto KE7HPV.

I might be wrong but I think that MixW can parse Pactor1 FEC.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Sholto Fisher wrote:
>
>  You don't, you would use either Pactor-1 FEC or RTTY to call CQ
>  first.
Yes, I know.  That was my point.  I haven't heard a Pactor FEC signal in 
3 or 4 years.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Nick wrote:
>
>  CQing on 14.0755 Pactor ARQ FWIW... de Nick KU2A FN42dw

How does one CQ in Pactor ARQ?

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Roger J. Buffington]

w6ids wrote:
>
>
>  - Original Message - From: "Bill McLaughlin"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To:
>> Sent: Sunday, December 30,
>  2007 12:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD
>  For KBD - KBD?

I was active on the TNC modes, i.e. Amtor, Pactor, RTTY for a lot of 
years, roughly 1989-2003 or so.  Pactor was quite popular until the 
early 2000s, when PSK31 was introduced by Peter Martinez.  This ushered 
in an age of narrow-frequency soundcard modes, which made ownership of a 
TNC unnecessary to work these new modes.  This was a good thing because 
prior to this only a limited number of hams bothered with the digital 
modes (indeed most hams did not know what Amtor and Pactor were) due to 
the cost of the TNC, which was several hundred dollars.  When this 
happened I owned the top-of-the-line TNC at that time, the SCS PTC-II.  
Before that I had owned a PK232 (a good unit for what it was), and for a 
brief time, the Kantronics Kam Plus (not a good unit).  Within a year 
after the debut of PSK31, Pactor K-to-K activity dropped to almost nil.  
Oh, for a while you could scare up a contact now and then, but it was 
hard going.  At some point I threw in the towel, my PTC-II went into the 
junk drawer, and not long ago I sold it to a boater.  Since the early 
2000s period, I don't think I have heard a Pactor FEC signal one single 
time, which indicates that no one is calling CQ for Pactor contacts any 
more, and thus whatever Pactor you hear is mailbox robot activity, or, 
less likely, people calling each other on schedule.

I have gotten a couple of private emails this weekend, including one 
from a European ham, which emails confirm that Pactor is now dead other 
than for mailbox use both in North America and in Europe.

Your PK232 is quite obsolete because it cannot even do Pactor II, and 
cannot be modified to do so.  If you do what most people did, you will 
pitch it.  Other than Pactor 1, your computer sound card or higher-end 
units such as the Navigator or the Signal-Link units will do far more 
than any TNC will do if you are simply interested in ordinary amateur 
radio contacts, i.e. QSOs.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>
>  - Original Message - From: "Roger J. Buffington"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com>>
>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
>
> > snip< Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one
> > American company the name of which escapes me.
>
>  It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units.
>
>  Charles, N5PVL

Yes, that is the one.  The hardware was mostly SCS-built as I recall, 
but they did try to differentiate the product somehow or other.  In any 
case they were the only company ever to license Pactor protocol from SCS 
if I remember correctly.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>

>
>  Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
>  not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
>  wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
>  not mean to offend you.

No worry, Demetre.  You did not upset me.  I was merely pointing out 
that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome.  I assume that you 
will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention.

You have not once shown that any of my points were in error.  You 
mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently)  for 
a refutation of someone's logical argument.  On the other hand, you are 
clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several 
persons on this forum have pointed that out at length.

On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that 
ever happened.  I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA 
(until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they 
frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were 
reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it.  HAL did 
the same thing.  So did Kantronics.  This reverse-engineering led to 
some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor 
hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could 
support Pactor II.  If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an 
SCS modem.

OK, signing off for the weekend.  This thread has become repetitive and 
tiresome.  Moderator, no need to point that out to me.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  Well,
>
>  I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
>  one.

You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you.  I 
have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent 
upon returning courtesy with bad manners.  Please stop that.
In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit.  Used it for GTOR.  It was 
horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my 
first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used 
to own.  GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone.

Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units 
lacked memory-arq.  OK, fine.  My experience with the unit, as I 
mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor.
>
>  As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did
>  that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I
>  know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though

Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company 
the name of which escapes me.  They were not a business success, and I 
think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than 
different modems using licensed Pactor protocol.  I do not believe that 
any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight 
license with SCS for Pactor.  This leads to the inference that SCS wants 
to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees.  I may be mistaken 
about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  Hi Rick,
>
>  Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
>  1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
>  protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.

Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless 
I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units.

>  As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious
>  american company does reverse engineering.

AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying 
degrees of success.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there
>  are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my
>  friend.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word "many."  
In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European 
digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost.  That 
was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2 
Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and 
SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2.  For reasons 
I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license 
Pactor from SCS.  Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some 
success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2. 
(The HAL attempts to implement "P-Mode" were a failure, it appeared to 
me.)  This further diminished Pactor's popularity to the point where 
KtoK use of Pactor is as extinct as the Dodo bird in North America at 
least.  I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is 
these days I can rarely hear or work Europe.  When you tell me that 
Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this 
reason.  If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in 
Europe and Pactor originated there.  Or am I wrong, Demetre?

It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators) 
to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more 
or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats.  Since 
probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC 
vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by 
interfacing one's radio to the computer.  Once I switched over from 
Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor 
buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes.

There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say.  This illustrates the 
need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of 
this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment 
of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art.

Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the 
mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get 
access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the 
horribly inefficient Winlink system.  Heck, you can get internet access 
via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days.  They are adding Wi 
Fi capability to boat harbors here in California.  This trend will 
likely spell the end to Winlink.  And Pactor.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>
>  Hmm OK,
>
>  I hope this anti SCS thing is not going to end to being an
>  anti-European thing Roger. I get that feeling somehow, since SCS is
>  not an American company.

My dear fellow, I once owned an SCS PTC-II.  Very few American hams ever 
bought one--they never sold well here.  Does that sound like the act of 
an "anti-European?"  Please, let us keep the argument at a professional 
level and not resort to ad hominem attacks of this low nature.
>
>  Also anyone can class your claims againstt Winlink and PACTOR as pure
>  propaganda.

A purely meaningless statement, my friend.  I have simply pointed out, 
as have others, that Winlink and Pactor stations do not listen before 
transmitting, unlike essentially the entire rest of the amateur 
community.  Since the Winlink/Pactor people acknowledge the truth of 
this point, I would hardly call it "propaganda."  Now, your 
characterization of this as "The Great Global Amateur Communications 
System" or something like that might be rightfully characterized as 
propaganda by some.

But not by me, Demetre, not by me.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Roger J. Buffington]

Howard Brown 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?

Excellent points.  I too am optimistic that Mark's petition will pass in 
some form that will eliminate or greatly reduce Pactor mailbox abuses.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>  You have your opinion and I have mine. Now if you can't be bothered
>  to look for PACTOR keyboard to keyboard QSOS this is your problem not
>  mine. When I look I can always find some.

You know, it may be that way in Europe.  After all, SCS is there.  Here 
in the States there are essentially zero Pactor K-toK qsos.  I **did** 
look for them.  For years.  But none, sorry.  As James Madison once 
said, facts are stubborn things.

>As for Winlink not been an
>  emergency resource, I have read and still read otherwise in the
>  radio amateur literature around the world.

Yeah, I've read some of this too.  Most of it is pure propaganda by 
people with obvious agendas.  Winlink and mailboxes are a negligible 
contributor to emergency communications.  Facts are stubborn things, 
Demetre.

>  If you just want to spoil a Great Radio Amateur Global Communication
>  System 

Well, far be it from me to spoil a (drum roll) Great Radio Amateur 
Global Communication System

Happy New Year de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR
>  AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM.
>
>  There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming
>  about.

My station does.  A human operator.

>
>  Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you
>  write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for
>  free to the Radio Amateur community?
>
>  I know why. If you did that you would not have anything to whine
>  about!!!
>
>  73 de Demetre SV1UY

OK, a couple of points.

1.  No one is defending W1AW or the other practices that involve 
transmitting without listening.  I happen to think that all such 
practices are morally wrong and legally questionable.  Regrettably, the 
FCC has already said that W1AW can get away with its broadcasts.  A bad 
call, but there you are.

2.  Pactor is far more ubiquitous in its transmit-without-listening 
practices than anything else on the air.  The Pactor community flatly 
refuses to change its practices, and they routinely QRM innocent QSOs 
with impunity and indifference. Mark's superb petition will help curb this.

3.  I sold my SCS modem because Pactor as a Keyboard-to-Keyboard mode is 
as dead as Julius Caesar.  No matter what a few outliers may say, Pactor 
is dead as far as ordinary ham radio goes.  It is now solely a mailbox 
mode, used mainly to provide cheap, inefficient internet service to 
those who are not able to hook up to the usual internet grid.  Doesn't 
sound much like ham radio to me.  Other commercial services are a better 
provider of this capability--it is not appropriate for amateur radio.

4.  I am a yachtsman myself.  I can attest that very few yachtsman use 
amateur radio, let alone Pactor, for even a tertiary communications 
system when at sea.

5.  Winlink is largely irrelevant to emergency communications, 
propaganda to the contrary.  Having operated emergency communications in 
numerous fires and earthquakes, I can attest that Winlink was never a 
resource.  The simplest modes, i.e. FM and SSB, provided the bulk of 
amateur-supplied communications.  Simpler is better.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 07:28 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
> > Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada
> > keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for
> > robots.
>
>  Yeah Roger you keep saying that yet I seem to find them all the time.
>  Have you given it a try?

Yes, for years.  This year I finally realized that Pactor is dead dead 
dead as a QSO mode and I sold my SCS PTC-II.  To a boater, by the way, 
not a ham.  For over a year I never heard one K-to-K Pactor QSO; really 
none for several years. They aren't out there no matter what you keep 
saying.

You keep telling us about all the digital QSOs you have on Pactor, but I 
never work you on any of the modes, and I have been active on all of them.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Bernstein wrote:
>
>  I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
>
>  73,
>
>  Dave, AA6YQ

That is because they never do.  The SCS TNCs can be set to ID in CW, but 
in practice no one ever does.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 05:46 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
> > I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the
> > violators.
>
>  1. what are you going to do when you find a KB2KB QSO going on?

Be darned surprised.  There are almost zero, goosegg, nada 
keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor.  The mode is dead except for robots.

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: Your excellent petition

[Roger J. Buffington]

Mark Miller wrote:
>
>  Forwarded with the permission of G3PLX

Thank you for sharing this Mark.  If you and Peter Martinez are both for 
the petition, that along with my independent review is good enough for me.

Sorry to see some of the ad hominem "bozo" remarks on this forum.  Hey, 
I thought I was the only guy who labels his socks by day.  :-)

This petition, if adopted, will be a huge step towards advancement of 
the digital modes on the amateur bands, and a clean-up of non-amateur 
modes and practices that threaten our bands.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rud Merriam wrote:
>
>  This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for
>  those who express strong displeasure with Pactor.
>
>  Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its
>  bandwidth?
>
>  Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a
>  fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band
>  conditions?

I think the issues are these:

1.  The Pactor stations do not listen before transmitting.  Thus, they 
habitually QRM other forms of digital communications.

2.  Pactor 3 is WIDE.  But this could be tolerated to an extent if the 
operators listened before transmitting.  The Pactor community 
categorically refuses to do this.

3.  Pactor will almost always push a live operator off of a frequency 
because its mechanical nature will just keep transmitting more or less 
indefinitely until the frequency clears up, i.e. the live operator gets 
discouraged and goes elsewhere, often with a good QSO having been 
ruined.  I have experienced this countless times.  This is what the 
Pactor community calls "co-existence."

I do not think that fixed versus variable bandwidth is a major issue, 
although bandwidth obviously is.  Not listening before transmitting at 
any bandwidth is unacceptable, nor is it accepted by most of the amateur 
community, although up to now non-enforcement by the FCC has allowed this.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[Roger J. Buffington]

W2XJ wrote:
>
>  Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the
>  unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I
>  participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be
>  a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just
>  playing politics.

The Pactor community has its own agenda which mainly involves squeezing 
the rest of the digital hams into a tiny sliver of the bands, operating 
on sufferance of powerful, non-listening Pactor/Winlink stations.  These 
stations reserve the right to seize a frequency from others by sheer 
mechanical force and robot perseverance.  This agenda will make someone 
a lot of money selling proprietary Pactor hardware, and allow a few 
people to control a LOT of spectrum.  As best I can determine the 
petition in question would put an end to this.  What good can come of 
1.5Khz wide, high-powered stations transmitting without listening?  None 
at all, is the obvious answer.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
>  First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was
>  not a PACTOR operator.

The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and 
indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on 
the part of the Winlink community that they refuse to listen to 
determine if a frequency is clear before they transmit.  This dangerous 
practice must stop.  We have all tried "gentlemen's agreements" and 
ordinary "spirit of ham radio" approach but the Pactor community is 
intransigent, and appears to have its own agenda which is contrary to 
the interests of amateur radio as a whole.  Any petition that will 
eliminate this kind of operations will be a good thing.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
>  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Barry Garratt"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > HUH!
> >
> > They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running
> > then ?
>
>  Spark.
>
>  Bonnie KQ6XA

Yes, CW replaced spark gap in much the same way that PSK31 and later 
sound card modes replaced Pactor as primary digital communications 
modes.  The innovation of the sound card modes made digital modes 
economical for most hams, and the digital modes have become far more 
ubiquitous than in the days when everyone needed a TNC to do digital 
modes.  It freed hams from monopolists with proprietary modes aimed at 
forcing people to buy their hardware.

Pactor is now pretty much dead as a QSO mode because there is no need to 
buy an expensive proprietary TNC to do advanced digital work.  Which is 
why very few hams own TNCs these days.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Phil Barnett wrote:
>
>  On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote:
> >> How will this RM will KILL digital radio?
> >
> > It will prevent present digital data technologies that now use
> > normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing of
> > frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast digital
> > technologies than enable many stations to use the same frequency
> > simultaneously. It will kill all the great new types of interaction
> > with new technologies, now and in the future.
>
>  That's not how. That's what.

Grin, good point Phil.

OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink?

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink in practice is not Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

w6ids wrote:
? I do not like an automobile to be moved down the
>  highway without a driver controlling it with his/her hands on the
>  wheel.
>
>  What am I saying to you? That I do not like automobiles or that I do
>  not like illegal and/or improper use of automobiles?
>
>  Tell me which?

Meaning no offense, but your last two posts were completely 
incomprehensible.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  OK Roger,
Whether you like it or not all the
>  above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away
>  because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them!

Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a 
few years from now.  They are dying out as RVers get Wi Fi internet 
access in their parks, and boaters are increasingly using satellite 
telephone/internet.  Few hams bother with Pactor or own TNCs any more.  
This is a problem that will likely take care of itself over time, as 
most problems do.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>  We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it",
>  you just won't admit it.
>
>  The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital
>  mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended
>  stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the
>  frequency is locally clear.

Hear hear!!

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

Sholto Fisher wrote:
>
>  It can also clog up our bands.
>
>  For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has
>  been on going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go
>  through is titled:
>
>  
>  Do we really need 262Kb emails like this on HF

No, what we need is FCC enforcement to prevent this sort of abuse.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  Some will never ending complain about anything and everything.
>
>  Bottom line - it worked and very well.

Actually, I doubt that Winlink did much of anything.  The original post 
read a lot more like a PR effort by people with an agenda than anything 
of substance.  I've done disaster communications in fires, earthquakes, 
and drills, and Winlink never amounted to anything.  I doubt that has 
changed.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  Well,
>
>  Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw
>  qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual
>  wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys
>  pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency
>  arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off
>  for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When
>  human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower
>  priority.
>
>  73 de Demetre SV1UY

The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham 
radio.  Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, 
without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham 
radio.  It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Roger J. Buffington]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> *Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies*
Of course, the problem with Winlink is that since Winlink stations do 
not, as a matter of policy, listen before transmitting, there is a grave 
risk that a Winlink station will interfere with other emergency 
traffic.  Other forms of emergency communication (the main ones, i.e. 
stations manned by human beings) do not have this flaw, because they 
listen before transmitting as required by the laws of essentially all 
countries.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] DRCC multiplier Numbers / 1/1/08 contests

[Roger J. Buffington]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>
>  Due to the pending 1/1/08 contests sponsored by this group, I'm a
>  little behind on creating DRCC numbers. I will probably finish the
>  the backlog of requests in the next day or so. It is good to see the
>  interest, hopefully it will translate to good activity in the JT65A
>  New Years Crawl and also the DRCC Olivia contest..
>
>  I had reserved a few low DRCC numbers when I first established the
>  number system. Since the 1/1/08 contests have DRCC numbers below 100
>  as multipliers, I have issued some of the reserved low numbers to
>  recent applicants who state they will be active in the contest. These
>  low numbers are close to being fully issued. If you really plan on
>  being active in the contest, and would like to swap you high number
>  for a low number, contact me soon. I have a handful of low numbers
>  left.

I see that you modestly assigned yourself #1.  :-)

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  Points taken. What about the times I and other have been up around
>  075 to 077 with KB to KB on one of the Pactor modes and without
>  seeing any text someone starts calling CQ with one of the sound card
>  modes?

There is a difference.

1.  In the last 5 years of operating I have not heard one single Pactor 
K-to-K QSO, so what you are describing is extremely rare.  I know that 
it is; that is why I just gave away my SCS PTC-II modem.  No one to talk 
to with it.  Except for a very few, Pactor is not a QSO mode.  It is 
less common on the digital modes as a QSO mode  than old A.M. is on the 
phone bands.

2.  What you are describing is not policy.  In other words, while the 
Pactor people admit and are proud of the fact that they refuse to listen 
before transmitting, other amateurs do not deliberately do this as 
policy.  Oh, the occasional careless Op may do it by accident, but not 
as policy.  The Pactor people have made a deliberate decision to 
transmit without listening, other hams be darned.

There is simply no excuse for deliberately deciding, as a matter of 
policy, not to listen before transmitting.  What if there is emergency 
traffic on the frequency, for example.

Again, I hope this helps you, John.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  Roger your beating a very dead horse. In just 41 days all the wide
>  robots will have to be in their own sub-band.
>
>  I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon.
>
>  John, W0JAB

You mean you hope that the anti-Pactor stuff will stop.  But you have 
completely missed my point.  Which was, to make it clearer, that merely 
because a given bad practice (e.g. Pactor stations transmitting without 
listening as a matter of policy) isn't immediately stamped out by the 
FCC, such inaction does not mean that the practice is "legal."  That is 
my point. 

Hope this helped you, John.  ;-)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize

[Roger J. Buffington]

Howard Brown wrote:
>
>  Garrett, I have always wondered why the FCC allows this to happen. It
>  seems to me that they are violating the rules.
>
>  I have a similar question about Pactor 3. Can someone explain why it
>  is allowed? My impression is that it is wider than 500 Hz and isn't
>  that the maximum bandwidth?
>
>  Howard K5HB

Keep in mind that the enforcement resources of the FCC are pretty 
limited, and Pactor 3 is not all that ubiquitous.  Just because the FCC 
doesn't put a stop to things like Pactor 3 being too wide, Pactor robot 
stations transmitting without listening, etc. does not mean that these 
things are "legal."

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  Roger regardless of what you think about Amtor and Pactor - both are
>  still doing very well. Other then a hand full of CW and SSB QSO's the
>  log book is full of both Amtor and Pactor 1, 2 and 3.
>
>  John, W0JAB

Incredible.  And I am on digital almost every morning and evening, and 
never hear these ubiquitous signals for the past four years or so.  
Golly propagation is a funny thing, is it not?

Pactor and Amtor are as dead as Julius Caesar as ordinary 
QSO/keyboard-to-keyboard modes except maybe for a few (read: FEW) 
afficianados perhaps including you.  That's why I finally unhooked my 
PTC-II modem.  That's why most digital ops no longer have a TNC operable 
in the shack.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:

>  Well just add the rest of the keyboard modes while your at it...

Great idea!  With mode multipliers.

>And
>  please make sure you do add both the keyboard mode of Amtor and
>  Pactor.

Ten extra points for using a time machine, because that is what you'll 
need to work anyone on these modes.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY contester's survey

[Roger J. Buffington]

Brian A wrote:
>
>  Roger,
>
>  What about shared resoures don't you understand?

I don't particularly care for the tone of your post.  Thanks for the 
lecture.  Conversation ended. SK

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY contester's survey

[Roger J. Buffington]

Brian A wrote:
>
>  Look at:
>  http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html
>  
>
>  It reflects the comments of over 500 RTTY contesters.
>
>  One major conclusion: More RTTY contests wanted.
>
>  This is despite the fact that there are at least 32 now.
>
>  So if you think RTTY contests are going to disappear, think again.

I don't think anyone thought that RTTY contests were going away.  I do 
think that a) a lot of the RTTY contesters pretty much don't do much ham 
radio except contesting; and b) we need to learn to co-exist with 
contests such that a contest does not mean a suspension of the ordinary 
band plans, i.e. RTTY in the RTTY portion of the band, not on top of 
everyone else.

Sure, some of these chaps probably would like there to be RTTY contests 
52 weeks a year.  I guess that is about what you are saying.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Sloan wrote:
>
>  A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
>  problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the
>  Navigator?
>
>  TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP
>
Dave did you try what I told you with NavOptions, changing "15" to 
"Normal"?  I am pretty sure that was your friend's problem.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Sloan wrote:
>
>  Hi Roger, He worked with Glenn yesterday and Glenn is gone for the
>  week-end. Of course he doesn't want to wait. He says the interface
>  shows he is keying and the radio shows it is keying. But, he is
>  getting nothing out. I told him to try raising his ALC some and to
>  also check the cable. It looks like he must be getting the PTT but,
>  no data into the radio. I have a different radio and use my
>  soundcard. So, I'm not all that much help to him. Tom has psk working
>  with his Winpsk.
>
>  TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP

OK, I think I know the problem.  The little control program that comes 
with the Navigator may have defaulted to 15db (attenuated).  Be sure ch1 
and ch2 (atten) are set to NORMAL in the NavOptions program.  I'll bet 
that is the problem.  Try it now.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Sloan wrote:
>
>  A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
>  problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the
>  Navigator?
>
>  TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP

It is slightly tricky to set up, but once you get it set up it works 
wonderfully, and in a trouble-free fashion.  If your friend has trouble 
have him contact Glenn at US Interface support, and he'll have it 
squared away quickly.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] QSO or QRM? ...or Contest?

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
>  The recent RTTY contest leads one to ponder: "Why don't we see much
>  backlash against contests?"

More flame bait. 

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Current balun

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
>  If our objective is to welcome and encourage new digital mode
>  operators, then I suggest that we *never* respond to questions in
>  anything less than a positive and constructive way -- no matter how
>  ambiguous, poorly worded, defensive, or just plain wrong-headed the
>  question may be.
>  73,
>
>  Dave, AA6YQ

Hear hear.  Not all of us are electrical engineers or technicians by trade.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rud Merriam wrote:
>
>  Roger,
>
>  As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
>  technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is
>  to explore the digital technologies.
>
>  Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there
>  is that, also.
>
>  My license allows me to do this and I intend to do so within the
>  regulations.
>
>  There is one ham's reasons for pursuing my part of this hobby.
>
>  Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
>  http://TheHamNetwork.net 

Works for me, friend.  A little experimenting is a good thing.  I like 
messing with radios and messing with boats, and messing around with 
radios on boats.  I'll do my thing and you do yours.  And I'll bet that 
you listen before you transmit, too, which the regulations require of us 
both.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB 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.

1.  It habitually involves transmitting without listening first, as 
required by good operating practice and by law.

2.  Because it is spectrum-inefficient. 

3.  Because it involves using precious ham radio spectrum as a cheap 
form of email service.

In the past, when Pactor was used for traditional amateur radio 
purposes, and in accordance with good operating practices (i.e. 
listening first, John) I used Pactor and liked it.  In fact I presently 
own three Pactor TNCs ... a PK232, a Kam (long story, what junk), and a 
PTC-II. 

Hope this helped.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
> > "Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
> > third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"
>
>  And just why do you think every message passed is email?
>
>  It seems to me you have never copied the traffic. Right?
>
>  John, W0JAB

Wrong, John.  I own a PTC-II modem.  I have copied Pactor, done Pactor 
QSOs (practically until I was the last ham in North America trying to 
use Pactor for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs ... it is as dead as Julius 
Caesar now, by the way.)  Do you?  Do you even know what you are talking 
about?

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dan KA3CTQ wrote:
>  I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1%
>  asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a
>  "land grab". Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any
>  examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change.

Exactly right.  I have been a ham for 40 years, and active on digital 
for almost 20.  During this time I have participated in emergency 
communications in the aftermath of earthquakes, and during fires.  
Never, not once, did automated systems make a measurable or significant 
contribution to any emergency communications.  The myth that they do is 
merely cover for them to push forward their agenda.  And that agenda has 
nothing, nada, to do with emergency communications.

Every emergency in my lifetime that involved emergency communications by 
hams was handled by SSB and CW stations, and FM stations, manned by live 
amateurs, usually operating under rough field conditions. 

Unattended Pactor transmitters should not be permitted on HF at all.  
Most or (likely) all that presently operate on HF are illegal because 
they transmit without checking the frequency to see if it is in use.

Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a 
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery.  This is band 
pollution, about on a par with BPL.

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
> > Alan G3VLQ wrote: In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic
> > operation should be banned world wide. Automatic operation might be
> > essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm essential, I think not.
>
>  Alan,
>
>  Are you ready, along with all your friends, to personally monitor HF
>  24/7 for emergency communications?
>
>  You are welcome to your opinion, but the reality is, that we already
>  have 24/7 access communications being provided on HF by automatic
>  stations worldwide.

A pleasant little myth--all of these robot stations just standing by to 
respond to emergencies.  This is supposed to justify their constant 
QRMing of human operators when they transmit remorselessly without first 
listening.  It is very possible for a robot station to unknowingly 
(since they do not listen before transmitting) QRM other stations 
carrying emergency traffic.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>
> > One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do
> > not, for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages
> > that pass on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that
> > some are. I will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect. I
> > was, quite likely, wrong about that and therefore should not have
> > said that.
>
>  Sorry for the bottom post but it's short.
>
>  Again I have *NOT* seen any even on the WinLink internet network.
>
>  Show me.
>
>  John, W0JAB

Per other posts in this thread, evidently even the Winlink people admit 
it, so consider yourself shown.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:

>  Roger, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
>
>  If you can provide such 24/7 access on HF with manually operated
>  stations, they do so now. Show us your volunteer operator army on
>  duty. Otherwise, your continued protests ammount to little more than
>  lip service.

As a wise man once said, "in the face of [such] ignorance, the Gods 
themselves contend in vain."

I have said about all I have to say, as I believe that the absurdity of 
Bonnie's posts speak for themselves.

One last thing.  I like to say only what I *know* to be so.  I do not, 
for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages that pass 
on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that some are.  I 
will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect.  I was, quite likely, 
wrong about that and therefore should not have said that.

I hope that the majority of amateurs will resist strongly the 
Pactor/Winlink attempts at a frequency grab.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio 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.

Sorry, but that is not what I've seen during two decades of operating.  
The robot stations are at most bit-players.
>
>  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.

This is offensive rhetoric, and inaccurate.  I will bet that north of 
99% of all emcomm, and all of the important emcomm, over the past three 
decades has been done via live amateur operators, not automatic 
stations.  The oratory and handwaving are by the Pactor bunch, who 
plainly have a different agenda than the rest of amateur radio.  This 
agenda does not involve emergency communications, although that is a 
convenient argument in support of a frequency grab.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:

>  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?

I have participated in numerous emergency communications scenarios, 
through several earthquakes and fires.

Never, not once, was automatic operation even involved in passing 
emergency traffic. 95% of it was done either on HF SSB or FM repeaters 
or simplex for short-range communications.  Mostly the latter.

Where is the 24/7 volunteer force?  Red Cross, RACES, and other 
"minuteman" style ham volunteer groups.  Not on Winlink.

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] Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio 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.
>
.
What nonsense.  In fact it is a small group of hams that are using robot 
techniques, and if anything the number peaked in the 90s and has been 
decreasing ever since in terms of actual signals on the air. (Admittedly 
some of this decrease may be due to the sunspot cycle minimum).  
Automatic operations are extremely unpopular with most hams, and are far 
out of the mainstream of amateur radio.  Most of the communications are 
probably illegal under US and other countries' regulations due to the 
lack of listening before transmitting, and in many cases the 
communications consists of business over-the-air internet messages which 
are violative of US Part 97 and other country counterparts.

Automatic operation will continue to decrease as wireless internet 
service becomes more common, and Pactor robot operations will become 
less and less desireable as RV Parks, and boat marinas will allow users 
Wi Fi internet access.  Most hotels do this now.  Even Starbucks does 
this now.  Pactor and unattended operation will then gradually fade away 
as a third-rate alternative to direct internet access.

By the way, let's all remember who started this obvious flame-bait thread. 

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>
>  Do you ever transmit SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands Dave? I'd love
>  to see you doing that!
>
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
>
>  73 de Demetre SV1UY

Talk about a false analogy.  By this "logic" anytime a human digital 
station operates where Pactor operates (i.e. everywhere there is 
digital) we are transmitting inappropriately.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Only using wide digital modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Les Warriner wrote:
>
>  Your statement was that you would increase power to interfere with
>  him/her deliberately.

Wrong.  I said that I would increase power to keep the Pactor station 
from taking the frequency.  By the way, I don't imagine in your 
investigation of the facts (of which there is none) that you are aware 
that SCS Pactor modems do that *automatically* ... if the link slows 
down (say, because there is a live QSO on frequency interfering with 
them) they increase power automatically.  By your "analysis" this is 
illegal, of course.  But since that is a robot station doing it, of 
course that is OK with you.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Only using wide digital modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Les Warriner wrote:
>
>  And is strictly illegal by Part 97.  5 KW linears are available.
>  Want the address?  No wonder why Hollingsworth spends so much time in
>  California.

It is illegal to start on low power and increase the power to maintain a 
contact on what was a clear channel at the beginning of the QSO?  Do you 
have a cite for that proposition?  I would love to see it.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Busy frequency detection

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rick wrote:
>
>  It is important to make two things clear on the busy frequency
>  detection vis a vis, Winlink 2000:
>
>  1) The current main Winlink 2000 developer successfully wrote the
>  busy dectection program several years ago. I seriously doubt if any
>  reasonable ham would have found it to be inadequate in preventing
>  unintentional transmission by an station operating automatically.
>
>  2) Long after it was tested, the Winlink 2000 administrator openly
>  announced that they would not be willing to use such detection
>  because the frequencies were so busy that the automatic station would
>  often not be able to have a clear frequency in which to transmit and
>  would be standing by for long periods of time.

In other words, they won't exercise the courtesy that everyone else is 
supposed to and does exercise by listening first.  They just want to 
knock other users off of a frequency when they want to use it.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Only using wide digital modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rick wrote:
>
>  Demetre,
>
>  What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all
>  hams.
>
>  Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in
>  between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything that
>  is not the voice/image sub bands.

People have been suggesting for years that a small area be designated 
for automated digital (Pactor, in other words).  The Pactor guys have 
refused.  THEY are the ones who insist that wherever digital can go, 
Pactor can go.  The only solution is to do what I do--if a Pactor signal 
comes on freq, up the power until he has to stop.  It works.  (New 
linear coming soon solely for this purpose).

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: center of the waterfall question

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Bernstein wrote:
>
>  Whether you find an interesting signal by clicking on traces in a
>  panoramic tuning display or by rotating your tranceiver's tuning
>  dial, ideally you should then direct your digital mode application to
>  place the selected signal at a pre-specified optimal audio offset by
>  appropriately QSYing your transceiver.
>
>  Though different names are used to describe this function, most
>  digital mode applications have provided it for a long time.
>
>  73,
>
>  Dave, AA6YQ

Exactly.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tests in ARQ FAE

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Brian A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  wrote:

> > Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests
> > that what these "wonder modes" want and or need is channelized,
> > clear channel frequencies, with no human factor strengths added. Is
> > that realistic to expect on the ham bands?
> >
> > 73 de Brian/K3KO
>
>  I'm afraid that only PACTOR 2 or 3 has any chance of making it
>  through these conditions OM. Everything else fails.

Actually, I had Olivia and PSK QSOs through the RTTY QRM this weekend.  
By judicious use of the narrow filters and IF Shift/Width controls, I 
was quite able to work through even severe QRM, where RTTY stations 
would start transmitting nearly on top of us.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] center of the waterfall question

[Roger J. Buffington]

Bill Aycock wrote:
>  Frank- I think that there is MUCH confusion in our ranks on this
>  subject. For instance, I set my rig to one frequency (usually
>  14,070.00) and leave it there. I tune to different signals by moving
>  the "marker" that shows the offset from the base frequency on the
>  waterfall. The radio bandwidth is many times as wide as the signal
>  width (for PSK31), and many signals can be accommodated in the
>  passband. I have a tuneable Digital filter, and one of the most
>  educational tricks is to shift the upper and lower audio limits of
>  the filter, and watch the result on the waterfall One of the sources
>  of the confusion is the ambiguity in the meaning of "best". I think
>  that it is highly improbable that we can get a clear definition. Good
>  luck- Bill-W4BSG
>

In my opinion there are two "classes" of radios for digital use, and 
which type you have dictates how you handle the center frequency 
question.  Older  "legacy" radios do not allow use of narrow crystal 
filters (originally intended for CW) in the digital modes.  The 
designers of these radios either ignored the digital modes altogether 
(requiring, for example, interfacing the radio through the mic 
connector) or simply didn't care much (my FT-900, an otherwise good 
radio, falls into this category).  These radios can be used for digital, 
but lack the most important QRM-fighting tools--the crystal and 
mechanical filters.  For these radios you can get away with tuning by 
leaving the VFO alone and simply "moving the marker" on the waterfall to 
the signal you wish to receive.  But you will miss receiving many, many 
signals if the band is at all crowded if you tune using this technique.

Newer radios generally all allow use of the narrow crystal and 
mechanical filters in the digital modes and typically have a special 
"DIGI" mode setting for this purpose.  For radios of this type, it is 
*very important* to tune the station that you are working to the center 
frequency rather than simply moving the "marker" on the waterfall and 
not touching the VFO.  The reason is that otherwise you cannot use the 
crystal and mechanical filters of your rig effectively.  The optimal way 
to tune a station with a modern rig is to place the received signal in 
the center frequency passband, typically either 1000hz (most Yaesu 
radios, for example) or 1500 hz, and then utilize the rig's narrow 
filter.  For PSK31, literally the narrower the better -- for example, my 
Mark V's 250hz filters are super for PSK modes, and the 500hz filters 
are great for MFSK, 500hz Olivia, Domino, and MT63.  Doing this also 
makes the IF width and shift controls much more effective, and often you 
can use these controls to eliminate even a QRMing signal that is inside 
the narrow passband "corridor."

Placing the received signal in the center frequency passband often makes 
a huge difference in your ability to receive a signal.  Often if there 
is a strong PSK signal elsewhere on the band, it will desensitze your 
receiver through AGC action to the point where you are not receiving the 
weaker signals at all.  Kick in the narrow filters, and this problem 
will disappear.  This is true even with higher-end rigs such as the 
FT1000MP/Mark V.  Sure, you can work stations by simply moving the 
"marker" to the station you want to work rather than tuning the same 
station to your rig's center frequency, but this technique is 
sub-optimal and makes the signal you wish to receive subject to QRM and 
AGC desensitization even from signals 1Khz or more away. 

You can usually readily see how important 1) tuning the received signal 
to the center frequency and 2) kicking in the narrow filters actually 
is, by watching the waterfall.  Often the waterfall on the rig will be 
dark when the passband is wide open, and much lighter on the received 
signal once the filters are kicked in.  This is because some stronger 
signal outside of the filter passband is desensitizing the receiver.  I 
can often copy signals with the filters in the circuit that are 
completely invisible on the waterfall without the filters.

The best digital programs recognize the importance of tuning the 
received signal to the center passband frequency, and make this easy to 
do.  DM780 has a center frequency marker, and with one click of an icon 
it automatically tunes the received signal to the center passband (moves 
the received signal "marker" to the "C" center frequency marker).  One 
more click and you can kick in whichever narrow filters your rig has 
that are appropriate for the mode, e.g. 500hz for MFSK, much narrower 
for PSK.  MixW also enables the user to do this with a few clicks by use 
of an easy-to-program macro function.

As the band conditions start to improve, with more signals on the band 
(remember, we are presently right at the solar minimum) using the narrow 
filters on digital modes will become more and more important. 

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: jt65a is an automatic mode

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
>
>
>  JT65a is certainly an automatic mode. It is as automatic as any other
>  automatic system. It perfectly fits the definitions of automatic in
>  both the strictest sense and in many other ways, figuratively,
>  literally and as used in RF communications:
>

It sounds like a ghastly prescription for useless QRM.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

[Roger J. Buffington]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>
>  Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was
>  saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about
>  the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the
>  matters among ourselves ?

I sure hope that is not what he meant.  How are we supposed to "resolve 
matters among ourselves?"  The Winlink people are violating the plain 
letter of the law by transmitting without even pretending to listen 
first.  They appear determined to keep doing it until someone enforces 
the law to make them stop.  Not real complicated.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rud Merriam wrote:
>
>  My only criticism is you are lumping a tool, PACTOR, into a procedure
>  discussion. PACTOR is a tool that has nothing to do with unattended
>  operation, except it is used in unattended operation.

Which is about all it is used for.  Nothing wrong with Pactor as a live 
QSO mode, but it is pretty much not used for that anymore.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

[Roger J. Buffington]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:

>  When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the
>  transmission mode, Cross explained, the control operator need not be
>  at the control point, but must employ station control devices and
>  procedures while transmitting that ensure compliance with the FCC
>  rules and does not cause harmful interference to ongoing
>  communications of other stations.
>
>  The operational rule, Cross said, is: "Your call sign, your
>  responsibility."

But these Pactor stations are not doing that.  They transmit without 
listening at all, and the result is often QRM of innocent QSOs that 
would not have occurred had a control operator checked the frequency 
before transmitting.  Instead, live QSOs are threatened by mindless and 
persistent machine-induced transmissions.  And the Pactor/Winlink crowd 
has categorically refused to implement any kind of busy-channel checking 
systems.  Worse, they insist that they be allowed to operate on the same 
freqs. as live operators.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>  -
>
>  So if I were you and the above description covers you I would buy an
>  SCS-modem. The cheapest one is the PTC-IIex.
>
>  73 de SV1UY
>
Andy, if you ever make it to California I can look in my junk closet for 
my PTC-II modem (will support Pactor 1,2,3).  I quit using it years 
ago.  Don't know if I still have it or not.  There is next to zero 
Pactor QSO activity, and the PSK implementation is inferior to what you 
get with MixW, not to mention it doesn't support most of the other 
soundcard modes.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>
>  First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it
>  transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have
>  their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human
>  operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and
>  make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will
>  make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the
>  autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if
>  in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good
>  cause.

I doubt whether this has ever happened.  What if the robot interferes 
with a live QSO in which lifesaving traffic is being passed?  There is 
no excuse for any station on either end ever transmitting without 
listening first.  Pactor mailboxes routinely, often, and flagrantly 
violate this basic principle of amateur radio.

Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in
>  this case you canreport them to FCC.
Often the Pactor stations don't even ID.


>I think that this is called
>  semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING
>  taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was
>  it OK then and it is not OK now?
Because the Packet stations were confined to a portion of the bands in 
which live QSOs usually were absent.  The Pactor stations, inexplicably, 
insist on operating in the small portions of the bands in which live 
QSOs are present.  Further, the packet stations were few, and operating 
at least in the USA under a limited STA.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX

[Roger J. Buffington]

Vojtech Bubnik wrote:
>
> > Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used?
>
> > From my point of view, MT63 has high number of carriers, which
> > implies
>  low crest factor - the effective transmitted power will be much lower
>  than of single tone mode like Olivia, if you make sure PA is not
>  overdriven by peaks where the amplitude maxima of multiple carriers
>  meet.
>
>  Some argue that the mode is fast, but are not there Olivia submodes
>  with the same throughput?
>
>  73, Vojtech OK1IAK

There is no Olivia mode that can match MT63 for thruput.

It is true that MT63 has a lower duty cycle.  This enables higher output 
from the rig.  I can easily run MT63 at 200 watts and not overheat the 
finals on my FT-1000MP/Mark V.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX

[Roger J. Buffington]

Simon Brown wrote:
>
>  Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used?
>  From what I read it's not so great for chit-chat.
>
>  Simon Brown, HB9DRV

MT63 is an interesting mode.  It has very rapid thruput, and is highly 
resistant to QRM.  Thus it actually is an excellent mode for 
keyboard-to-keyboard ragchews if conditions are not too bad, even in its 
500hz version.  The 1000hz version is of course even more resistant to 
QRM with faster thruput.  This mode had a decent following until we hit 
the current sunspot minimum with its often-lousy band conditions.  That 
is about the time Olivia emerged as an alternative, with its lesser 
thruput but better performance under very poor band conditions.
-
--
Roger J. Buffington
Buffington Law Firm, PC
Telephone: 714.842.6124
Facsimile:  714.842.6134
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://buffingtonlawfirm.com

CONFIDENTIAL and not subject to discovery.  This correspondence is 
protected by the Work-Product Doctrine and Attorney-Client Privilege, 
and is intended only for the designated recipient.  If you have received 
this message in error, please delete this message and contact our 
office.  Thank you.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX

[Roger J. Buffington]

Simon Brown wrote:
>
>  FWIW I tried the DominoEx-4/8/16 today without FEC. Nice mode - at
>  the moment I'm only supporting the 8kHz sample rate modes without any
>  FEC. If the need arises I'll add the 11.025kHz variants.
>
>  To complete my current programming effort I guess I should look at
>  MT63 - there's the very fine source from gMFSK which I understand.
>
>  .
>
>  Now to peruse the MT63 sources...
>
>  Simon Brown, HB9DRV

YES!!

de Roger W6VZV
DM780 user

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Very confused

[Roger J. Buffington]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>
>  I think the point was simply that there may be some new,
>  inexperienced, operators on 10...not poor operators.  If they were at
>  28300, they are WAY OFF the recommended PSK31 frequency of 28120 USB.
>
>
>  Andy K3UK

Not 28070?

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Very confused

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave wrote:
>
>  I have apparently missed the memo that covered the way calls are made
>  and answered on PSK31. I just answered a CQ sent by one station,
>  only to have a completely different station call me back and start a
>  QSO as if I had answered him! This is at least the 4th or 5th time
>  this has happened in the last week or so, and it seems to be only on
>  10m PSK.
>
>  W1XYZ calls CQ, I call W1XYZ de KB3MOW, and K9ABC calls me back with
>  his name, RST, and QTH. I could almost understand if it were a
>  contest and all I answered was a QRZ?, but these are CQs I'm
>  responding to.
>
>  Where did I go wrong?

Can't imagine.  I do many PSK qsos per week and never have that happen.  
Kinda odd.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] MFSK16 activity

[Roger J. Buffington]

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>
>  Quite a lot of MFSK16 activity on 20M today. Don't forget this useful
>  mode.
>
>  Andy K3UK

Indeed.  My favorite digital mode.  I live for the day when DM780 
includes it!  :-)

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Champa wrote:
>
>  Bruce,
>
>  When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about wide
>  band HSMM on 6-meters?
>
>  You are worried about 100 kHz when the band maybe opens in a few
>  years out of a 4,000 kHz wide band. Get real! Attach brain to
>  keyboard.
>
>  I am getting very tired of reading about something you know
>  absolutely nothing about, as in cognitive radio DSP design.
>
>  Please knock it off, and stick with things you have EXPERIENCED. Your
>  comments are much more worthwhile and enjoyable in that context.
>
Not a very civil post.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought

[Roger J. Buffington]

Brian A wrote:

>  You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz
>  away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3
>  KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only
>  seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter
>  of 2x to 3x tx bandwidth will capture all of the signal. Note this
>  filter must be within the AGC loop or you must turn the AGC off and
>  use the RF gain control to avoid distortion. External audio filters
>  and may 'DSP' filter rigs are outside of the AGC loop. Get a 200Hz IF
>  filter any you will be pleasantly surprised how many of the so
>  called problems disappear.

Exactly right.  Sometimes I call CQ and at first do not see (or hear) 
anyone coming back to my call.  Then I kick in my cascaded 250hz 
filters, and suddenly there is a readable signal that was not readable 
without the filter due to some strong adjacent signal or other that had 
been de-sensing my receiver's AGC.  Narrow filters are a must for 
effective PSK operations.  Asking everyone to operate QRP so that no 
one's signal is strong is simply absurd; it is not the answer.  What 
about my locals, who run around 50 watts and are still S9+20?  Am I 
supposed to expect them to operate at 1 watt?  Of course not.  Those who 
operate solely with a 3 Khz passband on PSK are going to experience very 
poor operating results and no help for it.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.

[Roger J. Buffington]

Danny Douglas wrote:
>
>  Absolutely spot on Erick. That is one reason that we try to tell new
>  people, on the digital bands, to start with as few watts as they can.
>  There is just no reason to run 100 watts ( and I expect some run
>  more) on the PSK, etc. digital modes. Everytime I say that though,
>  someone jumps in the middle and says that a well adjusted signal,
>  blah blah blah, wont cause problems. Ive been told to get a receiver:
>  get a rig: get a filter, etc. I have all three thank you - but that
>  doesnt mean that the person transmitting such signals is not
>  responisble to the amateur code and should not run the "minimum power
>  needed to make contacts". One can almost always tell who is exceeding
>  necessary power, just from the view on the waterfalls. When one
>  signal out of 20 appears 4 time brighter, and has traces above and
>  below their main signal for half the width of the waterfall, they are
>  exceeding power badly. Especially with PSK, many of us use broadband
>  copy software, so we can see and copy every signal on the band at the
>  same time. With one of those signals, I see the same station readout
>  on a dozen or more channels of that window. Often, they just wipe out
>  everyone else.

There is never an excuse for running an unclean signal on PSK or any 
other mode, i.e. with sidebands, etc.  In fact, this is a violation of 
Part 97 and analogous regulations in other countries that require a 
signal to conform (more or less) to the state-of-the-art as regards purity.

On the other hand, it is a myth that PSK only requires 20 or 30 watts 
for effective communication.  This is no more true of PSK than it is of 
the ultimate digital mode, CW.  The laws of physics control all, and a 
signal using more power will *sometimes* get through when a signal using 
20 or 30 watts will not get through.  This can be the difference between 
a solid QSO and no QSO.  There is a reason why most CW operators run 100 
watts or more.  Nevertheless, some ops are operating under the 
misconception that PSK is "digital" and therefore the power level does 
not matter.  This is no more true of PSK than any other mode, such as CW.

The real problem on PSK is that many operators do not know how to use 
their narrow filters and IF width and shift controls to filter out 
strong adjacent signals.  They plop their VFO on 14070 or so, and tune 
their rigs with the software (essentially by "tuning" the soundcard 
frequency) with their IF wide open.  Every strong signal on the band 
then pumps their AGC and they wonder why all the traces but one or two 
are faint and unreadable.  Sure you can operate this way, so long as you 
don't mind not being able to read many signals that a little filtering 
would render quite readable.  I am often surprised by the number of 
operators who have no understanding as to how to filter out QRM on PSK.  
Instead, some take the position that no one should have a strong signal 
at all.  (One wonders, do those who argue this also believe that no one 
should run a high-gain antenna?  Is everyone on PSK supposed to run only 
verticals or dipoles?).   This argument is, I submit, absurd on its 
face.  Here at the bottom of the sunspot cycle signals are often darned 
weak, and some power will make otherwise infeasible qsos possible.  Most 
rigs, if properly tuned, will permit a clean PSK signal at 100 watts. 

I happen to have several neighbor hams who are frequently S9 + 20 on my 
s-meter.  I nevertheless have no difficulty working on the same band as 
they do, because I use my filters and IF controls accordingly.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.

[Roger J. Buffington]

Peter G. Viscarola wrote:

>
>  Let me hasten to add: I certainly DO NOT want to be an discourteous
>  operator, and I ONLY wish to operate my station in accordance with
>  best practices. Seriously.
>
>  So, how does one reconcile the oft-repeated mantra "only run 25W or
>  40W" with my experience? Am I *really* bothering my fellow hams, or
>  operating outside the bounds of acceptable practice, if I crank my
>  PSK31 output to 85W to get a "new one", when my signal is clean and
>  my measured IMD is low?
>
>  If my (strong but clean) signal captures somebody's AGC should they
>  not simply narrow/change their IF bandwidth to eliminate the strong
>  signal (heck, when in a PSK31 QSO I often narrow down to 50Hz just
>  for this purpose). If they see sidebands due to receiver overload or
>  lack of sound card dynamic range, is that a problem with MY station?

I agree with you totally.  Many PSK operators need to learn how to use 
their narrow filters as you describe.

de Roger W6VZV