[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no "phone band." BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY wrote: > > Julian, > > For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow > then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that > the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal. > > Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of > the US ham population and therefore wrecking the phone bands for over > 50% of hams worldwide? Perhaps you have never had a QSO destroyed by a > Pactor-III or Pactor-II mailbox... > > Regulations in this country protect as well as hinder sometimes. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > On 7/20/2010 7:23 AM, KH6TY wrote: > > > > Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - > > the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for > > everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? > > > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY wrote: > >> > > >> > > Just use common sense.. > >> > Garrett / AA0OI > >> > > >> > > >> > "Common sense" says follow the regulations, because they were made for > >> > the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to > >> > do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. > >> > > >> > Regulations are not "guide lines" - they are LAW for the benefit of > >> all. > >> > Band plans are "guide lines", not regulations. > >> > > >> > What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The > >> > regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as > >> many > >> > users to be treated as fairly as possible. > >> > > >> > 73, Skip KH6TY > >> > > >> > >> We also have a saying over here, "the law is an ass". > >> > >> Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this > >> discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for > >> example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could > >> arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission > >> mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be > >> caused by using it. > >> > >> I think a sense of proportion is needed. > >> > >> Julian, G4ILO > >> > > >
[digitalradio] Re: New poll for digitalradio
Perhaps those who are in favor of RM-11306 took the wise advice not to "mail bomb" the FCC with comments that all say the same thing. There is only strength in numbers when that strength has a purpose. I personally see no purpose in asking over 5,000 US hams who use "local or automatic control" per Part 97.221 to email comments. It just creates "noise." This is also the case with those involved with EmComm. A few well thought out comments to the FCC are of more value than mail bombing to prove some point. Lastly, the total number of comments received are not representative of the US Amateur population for any respectable sampling, and can hardly be stated as "overwelming either way. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open > discussion here of the impact of remotely-invoked unattended > operation on digital mode stations are also those speaking strongly > in favor of the expanded use of remotely-invoked unattended > operation. > > Its a bit late for the mushroom strategy, guys. The overwhelming > majority of comments filed with the FCC opposed the ARRL proposal, > and many of those were authored by the participants of this > reflector. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley > wrote: > > > > move them to the policy group discussions. as well as > the long , on-going debates about the ARRL. Let's keep the focus on > > digital radio in a global sense, letting the US hams debate the > ARRL issues elsewhere. > > > > John > > VE5MU > > - Original Message - > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:10 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] New poll for digitalradio > > > > > > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > > digitalradio group: > > > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as > Pactor) , their usefulness, > > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > > o I don't care either way > > o I don't know. > > > > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys?id=2151961 > > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! > Groups > > web site listed above. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to > Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan > policy discussion) > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply > > > > > > -- - > --- > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms > of Service. > > > > > > -- - > --- > > > > > > > > > > -- - > --- > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: > 2/24/06 > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
I believe that the ARRL is suggesting that "symbol rate" is not the best way to define a protocol. The symbol rate of most any modern protocol is going to be much less than it is currently defined. For example, Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a speed of max speed of 200 bps, while Pactor 3 has a symbol rate of 100 baud (SN8) and an uncompress max rate of 2733 bps (uncompressed.) The ARRL petition is simply requesting that digital rates be defined by bandwidth rather than symbol rate. I think this is certainly a more modern approach. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good question... > > Several Answers.. > 1. The rest of the world can already experiment on HF.. and will do so..whether we change our regs or not... > 2.HF has very different propagation characteristics that necessitate different DV solutions than those on VHF and UHF. > 3.HF is much more crowded and not channelized - which will necessitate different DV solutions than those on VHF/UHF > 4.HF DV has to be able to work in QRM and very low S/N ratios... not usual conditions on VHF/UHF. > 5.HF space is much smaller... necessitating DV solutions that fit the much smaller bandwidths... > > So while you might be able to design something at VHF/UHF... you need to be able to test it on HF...and the best way to test it is for many people to become Beta testershence the need to change the rules > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > Website: www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" > - Original Message - > From: list email filter > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF > > > Gentlemen, > > Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to (perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new digital modes on say UHF? Once the technological hurdles have been cleared on UHF by the masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even allowed to experiment because of the repressive government regulations they are burdened with, couldn't the then proven technology be ported to HF? > > Our HF spectrum is extremely limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over the world are happily using it all now, that is to say, it's full up. Until we have a digital solution that will help solve that issue, and allow for more qso's in our little playground, why can't we experiment on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF activities? Just because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that we have to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width restriction. > > As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to know?" > > 73, > > Erik KI4HMS/7 > > PS. I'm a no-code tech who has run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both 2m and 440, just because I could run 9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean I have to. I for one would be happy to run experimental digital modes with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an underutilized resource, perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start using it to 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.' > > On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote: > > > JIm: > > You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and come up with new technologies... > > Instead of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM arguments...you need to look at the positives... > > There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum... > > It's going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical DV system for HF on Ham Radio... > > I believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it.. > > Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will lik
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
There are different standards (e. g. STANAG 4539) achieving 9600 bit/sec within 3 kHz of BW at an SNR of only 21 dB. That is today. The ITU is adopting further standards on HF which will exceed this with similar bandwidths. I don't believe anyone expects to experiment with or achieve a bandwidth or speed capable of what is possible above 28 MHz. However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio art also includes HF. The issue is that there is little incentive to further develop digital protocols for high speed binary transfer since under Part 97.221, there is little space to use what already exists. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes! > > Finally a voice of reason that understands what I've been trying to > say. There is no reason you can't take one of the current crop of HF > transcievers that also include 2m and experiment to your hearts > content on something that will work at HF also. > > The ridiculous assertion about FCC regulations stifling > experimentation is just so much jawboning about nothing that I wasn't > even going to respond anymore. It comes mainly from folks that wan't > nothing more than plain old dialup data access to the internet via HF > regardless what it does to the rest of the amateur population. If it > takes up 100 kHz of space for one connection so what, it is the me > generation after all. The argument is just gussied up to make it > sound important in the hope someone at the FCC will listen and agree. > Doesn't matter that the physics won't allow what their asking for, > just get the bandwidth and then they can do as they wish. > > Thank you for your rational, well thought out post! > > Jim > WA0LYK > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, list email filter > wrote: > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread > > with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to (perhaps playing > > devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the propagation > > and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental > > point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new > > digital modes on say UHF? Once the technological hurdles have been > > cleared on UHF by the masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even > > allowed to experiment because of the repressive government regulations > > they are burdened with, couldn't the then proven technology be ported > > to HF? > > > > Our HF spectrum is extremely limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over > > the world are happily using it all now, that is to say, it's full up. > > Until we have a digital solution that will help solve that issue, and > > allow for more qso's in our little playground, why can't we experiment > > on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF activities? Just > > because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that we have > > to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width > > restriction. > > > > As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to know?" > > > > 73, > > > > Erik KI4HMS/7 > > > > PS. I'm a no-code tech who has run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both > > 2m and 440, just because I could run 9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean > > I have to. I for one would be happy to run experimental digital modes > > with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an underutilized resource, > > perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start using it to > > 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.' > > > > On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote: > > > > > JIm: > > > > > > You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and > > > come up with new technologies... > > > > > > Instead of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary > > > negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM > > > arguments...you need to look at the positives... > > > > > > There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into > > > tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes > > > out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum... > > > > > > It's going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical > > > DV system for HF on Ham Radio... > >
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Dean, I see nothing in Part 97 about volume of traffic. Currently, there are a total approximately 280,000 monthly minutes. What volume would you suggest?? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dean Gibson AE7Q <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Volume of traffic is the issue. > > -- Dean > > On 2006-01-24 12:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote: > > Buddy, > > > > Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air > > licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those > > who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about > > mode of operation. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Rick, I have no objections to protocol or operation type placement, but I am vigorously opposed to hard coded regulated sub-bands. "Semi- automatic (local or remote control" stations using P1 and P2 now VOLUNTARILY operate below the RTTY VOLUNTARY portion of the bands. They exclude the VOLUNTARY portion used by PSK, VOLUNTARILY. And, it stays above the VOLUNTARILY placed CW segments. Remember, data can legally move down to the bottom of the bands with the proper licensed operator, but it doesn't. At least, not WL2K. The difference is that with hard coded segments, there is no flexibility for future protocols and systems. I, for one, am not smart enough to second quess the future. I suspect it will be like the rest of the telecom universe, "wired and wireless." Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Based upon the proposal by ARRL to FCC, we can expect that if it is > adopted, wider bandwidth signals will be forced to operate above 14.100. > The very place that a number of them operate right now. Your > characterization of a station squatting in any their authorized areas is > very inappropriate, Steve. You have it exactly backwards. Anyone can > operate anyplace they choose in their authorized band of frequencies, > while the automatic operations must stay in their subband if fully > automatic or if over 500 Hz. The downside of operating in the current > fully automatic/wide BW semi automatic subbands is that you are likely > to experience more interference since the automatic stations do not > have adequate carrier sensing for a busy channel (even though it is > technically proven to work well with the past years development). > > Why would anyone operate say around 14.108? For one thing, you have to > go where others are and if a DX station is calling up there, (like a G > station an hour or so ago, and you want to work them, you need to be > there. Same with many other stations in that part of the band. You can > not expect things to revolve around just the U.S. We all know that RF > does not respect political boundaries. > > If the ARRL recommended BW's and recommendations are adopted by the FCC, > several things are going to happen: > > -- the semi-automatic stations will be able to operate anyplace on the > bands that their BW permits. I personally oppose this and want all > stations that operate in any kind of automatic status to stay in a > subband unless they have adequate busy channel detect. > > -- wider BW modes (> 500 Hz) are not going to be able to operate where > they do now. They would be forced to move up. Examples are above > 14.100, 7.100, 21.150, etc. So many of us who typically work within the > first 100 KHz of a given band are going to have to move whether we like > it or not. No one likes to give up priveleges, but this proposal is > going to cause it, should it go into effect. > > -- although the voice and wider digital frequencies are the same > subband, from what ARRL has said, there will still be a bandplan that > will likely keep the digital modes away from the analog voice modes. A > lot depends upon how well things work out. With the current spot digital > and analog image frequencies, along with analog voice, there does not > seem to be much of a problem. But there are only a few operators. > > -- unless digital voice becomes quite a bit better in a 3.5 KHz BW, I am > skeptical that digital voice will ever be all that popular on HF. The > quality is nice if you have a good S/N ratio, but too often would drop > out and frustrate users. > > -- Olivia is not necessarily a wide bandwidth mode. It does have > narrower BW's since it can be adapted to conditions. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote: > > > The problem is not with PSK, the problem is with OLIVIA, whose users > > have incorrectly determined that because their stations use a 1000 Hz > > signal, that they must squat in the auto-forward Part 97.221 sub- > > bands. In these sub-bands, the normal "listen before you transmit" > > criteria is a bit different since some of these stations are > > unattended and under fully-automatic control. My question is, why are > > OLIVIA stations there? This is just excellent verification that > > those using "local and remote control" must have somewhere else to go. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Dave, RM-11306 is making an attempt to rectify this situation. On 40 meters for example, a station under "local or remote control, with a bandwidth of over 500 Hz, cannot move from the 5 KHz space provided, regardless of who else is there, including fully automatic stations. With P3, the signal is 2.4 KHz wide (-24) and when stations who are not bound by Part 97.221 start moving in that 5 KHz space, where is the "spirit" of Amateur radio? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No one owns a frequency, Steve. The sub-bands defined in 97.221 are > not defined for exclusive use by semi-automatic and automatic > stations. You use of the verb "squat" is both legally incorrect and > in complete opposition to the spirit of amateur radio. > > The real issue here is lack of a band plan. Despite an explosion of > new digital modes over the past several years, the ARRL has made no > effort to update its band plan. Leadership on their part could have > gone a long way towards reducing frictions such as these. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The problem is not with PSK, the problem is with OLIVIA, whose > users > > have incorrectly determined that because their stations use a 1000 > Hz > > signal, that they must squat in the auto-forward Part 97.221 sub- > > bands. In these sub-bands, the normal "listen before you transmit" > > criteria is a bit different since some of these stations are > > unattended and under fully-automatic control. My question is, why > are > > OLIVIA stations there? This is just excellent verification that > > those using "local and remote control" must have somewhere else to > go. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > At 06:42 PM 1/20/06, you wrote: > > > >I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned > with > > > >eliminating the problem. > > > > > > Maybe I just don't understand the size of this problem > > > not being on PSK > > > > > > > > > >A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a > > > >frequency. If I find a clear frequency, I should be able to use > it > > > >without subsequent threat of QRM from remotely-controlled > automatic > > > >stations that weren't QRV when I first checked. > > > > > > Like we both have pointed out before, this will not > > > happen till we can copy someone with in 250 miles > > > of are own QTH or their software can listen to every > > > digital known to man > > > > > > > > > > > > >PSK31 and its successors are certainly stimulating more digital > > mode > > > >QSOs. If you're thinking about this from the perspective of > > > >frequency ownership, I can see how you'd view this trend > > negatively. > > > >If you're thinking about technical innovation and the future of > > > >amateur radio, however, the trend is undoubtedly positive. > > > > > > > >A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine > > > >to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is > incapable > > > >of listening before transmitting. > > > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > > > > At the rate this is going there will be 68 new digital modes > > > in 10 years. > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Buddy, Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about mode of operation. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "F.R. Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just wish someone would explain to me why ham radio needs to be turned > into a free email system, especially for non-hams to use. I fear this is > just the foot in the door.. > > Buddy, > WB4M > > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:10 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies > > > > Conversational QSOs don't necessarily turn around every 15 seconds, > > Steve. One could call QRL? and legitimately listen while the unheard > > station is transmitting, and, hearing nothing, activate the remote > > station. > > > > Yes, I have been on WinLink. In fact, you and I have exchanged email > > messages via Winlink. Perhaps your database is not completely > > accurate. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6Q > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Dave, > >> > >> You may also mention that that propagation moves in both > > directions. > >> If I am in one location, and here one of the two stations pulsing, > > I > >> would certainly know that there is another station on that > > frequency. > >> So, hearing only one half of the pulsing would certainly tip me > > off > >> that I may interfere if I call. So, what you describe is seldom > > the > >> case. More likely, the station calling just did not pay attention > > to > >> what was on frequency in the first place. Sort of like hearing a > > DX > >> station knowing that when you call, you will QRM. Some just go for > >> it, anyway. But, this is not specific to local and remote > > controlled > >> stations, who do hear one of the two stations pulsing back and > > forth. > >> > >> Ever been on Winlink 2000 to speak from experience? I don't see > > you > >> in the database. Tell me when you were QRMed, and I will look in > > the > >> log files to verify it. > >> > >> > >> Steve, k4cjx > >> > >> > >> > >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > If you can't hear them, likely they can't hear you either, John. > >> The > >> > simple case you cite is rarely a problem. > >> > > >> > With remotely-controlled automatic operation, the situation is > > more > >> > problematic. Say you're remotely controlling a station in Boston > > on > >> > a frequency already in use by a station in Kansas City. You > > can't > >> > hear the station in Kansas City, so you direct the automaticly- > >> > controlled Boston station to proceed. When the Boston-based > > station > >> > transmits, it QRMs the station in Kansas City, who > > (unfortunately) > >> > hears the automatic station just as well as you do. > >> > > >> > 73, > >> > > >> > Dave, AA6YQ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > At 10:09 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > >> > > >Has the FCC waived the responsibility to avoid QRMing > >> > > >a station already on frequency? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Yes if they can hear them. Key word being " can " > >> > > > >> > > But as you know it is very hard to copy someone close > >> > > to you on some bands. Here at his QTH I have a ring > >> > > going out to about 250 miles that I can not copy. > >> > > > >> > > Me near St Louis can not copy someone on the same frequency > >> > > in Kansas City. > >> > > > >> > > And it seem that some seem to forget this fact. > >> > > > >> > > John, W0JAB > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > > discussion) > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
The problem is not with PSK, the problem is with OLIVIA, whose users have incorrectly determined that because their stations use a 1000 Hz signal, that they must squat in the auto-forward Part 97.221 sub- bands. In these sub-bands, the normal "listen before you transmit" criteria is a bit different since some of these stations are unattended and under fully-automatic control. My question is, why are OLIVIA stations there? This is just excellent verification that those using "local and remote control" must have somewhere else to go. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 06:42 PM 1/20/06, you wrote: > >I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with > >eliminating the problem. > > Maybe I just don't understand the size of this problem > not being on PSK > > > >A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a > >frequency. If I find a clear frequency, I should be able to use it > >without subsequent threat of QRM from remotely-controlled automatic > >stations that weren't QRV when I first checked. > > Like we both have pointed out before, this will not > happen till we can copy someone with in 250 miles > of are own QTH or their software can listen to every > digital known to man > > > > >PSK31 and its successors are certainly stimulating more digital mode > >QSOs. If you're thinking about this from the perspective of > >frequency ownership, I can see how you'd view this trend negatively. > >If you're thinking about technical innovation and the future of > >amateur radio, however, the trend is undoubtedly positive. > > > >A reminder, John: the only automatic operations I would confine > >to "a small part of the band" are those whose software is incapable > >of listening before transmitting. > > > > 73, > > > At the rate this is going there will be 68 new digital modes > in 10 years. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
>From k4cjx: They have been aware of electronic signal detection for some time now. Then, they participate in contests Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sadly, the ARRL is usually behind in their suggestions to rules. They seem > to want something in concrete, and already in use, before they will fully > support it. I too think the auto detection should be required, but since > its not in general use, I dont know how many of the ARRL officers are even > aware of its availability. I know I wouldnt be, if I were not a member of > this group and had never read about it anywhere else. > > - Original Message - > From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies > > > > With the current state of the art, as exemplified by the beta testing of > > SCAMP, it is completely proven that monitoring of the channel can be > > done by machine, in order to prevent transmission on a busy channel. It > > doesn't even scan anything as it is able to detect any modulation in the > > pass band. Even a continuous carrier, even if very weak will block > > transmission unless the human operator intervenes. Same with other > > modulation types, including voice. > > > > In some cases the detected "signal" can be an internal birdie, some odd > > spurs, etc. that are not a legitimate signal. The software can be > > adjusted for different settings to trigger only if the signals are below > > a certain point. > > > > There has to be the ability of the operator to make some adjustments or > > you might never be able to transmit. That was my experience during the > > beta testing. You have to take into consideration those signals that may > > trigger the detector if you have a wider passband and a nearby signal is > > affecting the software even though it is outside your signal width. > > Better filters will help of course but not everyone has them. > > > > I am disappointed that the ARRL did not recommend automatic detection to > > the requirements for both automatic and semi-automatic stations. > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > > > > > kd4e wrote: > > > > > So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has > > > not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in > > > violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection > > > is an obvious solution with tons of history to prove > > > itself reliable. > > > > > > I do understand that apps would have to scan for a > > > variety of modes but that should not be difficult > > > given their proprietary hardware and software and > > > the commercial motivation to remain legal. > > > > > > Sounds like all that needs to happen is a one line > > > instruction from the FCC: > > > > > > "All Ham ops are reminded that all new QSO's using > > > any mode must not QRM existing QSO's regardless of > > > the mode of that QSO and the failure to do so remains > > > a violation risking fines and license and equipment > > > forfeiture." > > > > > > And perhaps a second line notifying that commercial > > > hardware and/or software marketed to the Ham market as > > > "automatic" or "unattended" must demonstrate a non- > > > removable capacity to meet the non-QRM requirement > > > via busy-frequency checking or fail in Type Approval > > > and that existing hardware/software must be retrofitted > > > or removed from the market. > > > > > > Anyone owning older equipment unable to be retrofitted > > > should be reminded by the FCC that they must manually > > > check for existing activity or be subject to QRM > > > action. > > > > > > Does that about cover it? ;-) > > > > > > Thanks & 73, kd4e > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006 > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Dave, I agree with this. My issue is that in order to obtain some flexibility for the shrinkage and expansion of such operations, or for that matter, ANY operations, present and future, hard coding band planning by type or mode of operation is not the way to do it. Rather, I am suggesting that such segmentation should be voluntary in nature. Hardcoding anything like that only stunts the ability to advance the radio art. For example, it is a good thing that those arguing against the status quo some time ago did not set SSB off in some separate sub-band because the majority then using AM thought it was inappropriately used in the existing "phone band." I suggest that, as with the rest of the telecom world, there is and will be "wired" and "wireless" and the integration will not always be in real-time. Anyone transferring data in speeds greater than typing speeds should not be required to sit and watch the flow. Rather, enabling technologies will take that task, but who know knows what space requirements are necessary to carry us through the next decade. I certainly don't. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The fact that some operators violate the rules is no excuse to > permit more violation of those same rules. We should strive to > correct the problem, not expand it! > > Your team's work with busy detection in SCAMP is greatly > appreciated, Steve. One hopes we'll soon see this technology in > WinLink PMBO software and the other message-passing services. > > I favor the continued permission of fully automatic control within > the HF spectrum; the rationale is to facilitate experimentation and > technical advancement. I would not restrict fully automatic > operation with "listen before transmit" capability, just as I would > not restrict remotely-controlled automatic operation with the same > capability. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't personally do not advocate or favor stations under fully > > automatic control within the HF spectrum, especially when there > are > > other avenues for transfer. I do certainly avocate "listening > before > > tranmitting" under remote or local control, and I agree that > signal > > detection should be deployed. > > > > The resulting occasional "hidden transmitter effect" talked about > by > > some is minimal when compared to what is experienced during any DX > > pileup or contest, especially, when one is not directly or > indirectly > > involved in such a contest. But, of course, no one complains about > such > > things, and to date, as far as I know, no one has been cited for > > either. Be that as it may, we are experimenting with active signal > > detection rather than the currently passive signal detection. That > was > > the main purpose in experimenting with SCAMP. But, I sonder why > there > > is not active signal detection experimentation for contesting. > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > At 08:59 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > > > >If the hard-coded sub-band only applied to automatic stations > > > >without the ability to avoid QRMing a busy frequency, then > > > >appropriately improving your protocol and software would allow > you > > > >to operate anywhere, subject only to bandwidth segmentation. > > > > > > > > > Will * never * happen > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Holly sox,
Under the conditions you propose Dave, what should we do with all
that QRM during major contests? Should we put sub-bands in for it,
also? How about an FCC ruling with the same language and make it mode
independent?
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has
> not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in
> violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection
> is an obvious solution with tons of history to prove
> itself reliable.
>
> I do understand that apps would have to scan for a
> variety of modes but that should not be difficult
> given their proprietary hardware and software and
> the commercial motivation to remain legal.
>
> Sounds like all that needs to happen is a one line
> instruction from the FCC:
>
> "All Ham ops are reminded that all new QSO's using
> any mode must not QRM existing QSO's regardless of
> the mode of that QSO and the failure to do so remains
> a violation risking fines and license and equipment
> forfeiture."
>
> And perhaps a second line notifying that commercial
> hardware and/or software marketed to the Ham market as
> "automatic" or "unattended" must demonstrate a non-
> removable capacity to meet the non-QRM requirement
> via busy-frequency checking or fail in Type Approval
> and that existing hardware/software must be retrofitted
> or removed from the market.
>
> Anyone owning older equipment unable to be retrofitted
> should be reminded by the FCC that they must manually
> check for existing activity or be subject to QRM
> action.
>
> Does that about cover it? ;-)
>
> Thanks & 73, kd4e
>
> > Technical solutions -- busy frequency detection, for example --
have
> > been developed, but have not been deployed by any major message-
> > passing service that uses remote-controlled automatic operation
on
> > HF. The FCC's confidence was evidently misplaced.
> >
> > Rather than eliminate the sub-bands, as Steve and the ARRL
advocate,
> > we should retain them, but allow automatic operation outside the
sub-
> > bands when controlled by qualified application software:
qualified
> > to not transmit on already-occupied frequencies.
> >
> >73, Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --
> ~~
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>
> |_|___|_|
> | | & | |
>{|
>/\ {|
> / \ {|
> /\{|
> / @ \ {|
> | |~_||
> | -| ||
> \ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
> KD4E =
> West Central Florida
>
> ~~~
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Dave, You may also mention that that propagation moves in both directions. If I am in one location, and here one of the two stations pulsing, I would certainly know that there is another station on that frequency. So, hearing only one half of the pulsing would certainly tip me off that I may interfere if I call. So, what you describe is seldom the case. More likely, the station calling just did not pay attention to what was on frequency in the first place. Sort of like hearing a DX station knowing that when you call, you will QRM. Some just go for it, anyway. But, this is not specific to local and remote controlled stations, who do hear one of the two stations pulsing back and forth. Ever been on Winlink 2000 to speak from experience? I don't see you in the database. Tell me when you were QRMed, and I will look in the log files to verify it. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you can't hear them, likely they can't hear you either, John. The > simple case you cite is rarely a problem. > > With remotely-controlled automatic operation, the situation is more > problematic. Say you're remotely controlling a station in Boston on > a frequency already in use by a station in Kansas City. You can't > hear the station in Kansas City, so you direct the automaticly- > controlled Boston station to proceed. When the Boston-based station > transmits, it QRMs the station in Kansas City, who (unfortunately) > hears the automatic station just as well as you do. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > At 10:09 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > > >Has the FCC waived the responsibility to avoid QRMing > > >a station already on frequency? > > > > > > Yes if they can hear them. Key word being " can " > > > > But as you know it is very hard to copy someone close > > to you on some bands. Here at his QTH I have a ring > > going out to about 250 miles that I can not copy. > > > > Me near St Louis can not copy someone on the same frequency > > in Kansas City. > > > > And it seem that some seem to forget this fact. > > > > John, W0JAB > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
I don't personally do not advocate or favor stations under fully automatic control within the HF spectrum, especially when there are other avenues for transfer. I do certainly avocate "listening before tranmitting" under remote or local control, and I agree that signal detection should be deployed. The resulting occasional "hidden transmitter effect" talked about by some is minimal when compared to what is experienced during any DX pileup or contest, especially, when one is not directly or indirectly involved in such a contest. But, of course, no one complains about such things, and to date, as far as I know, no one has been cited for either. Be that as it may, we are experimenting with active signal detection rather than the currently passive signal detection. That was the main purpose in experimenting with SCAMP. But, I sonder why there is not active signal detection experimentation for contesting. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 08:59 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > >If the hard-coded sub-band only applied to automatic stations > >without the ability to avoid QRMing a busy frequency, then > >appropriately improving your protocol and software would allow you > >to operate anywhere, subject only to bandwidth segmentation. > > > Will * never * happen > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Dave, Domestically, yes, Internationally, this is not the case. Only where it is not possible such as countries where such operations are not permitted or practical is there variation. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The answer to the question Bill Pace posed is contained in 97.221 (c): > > "(c) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a > RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such > emission types provided that: > > (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under > local or remote control; and > > (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station > occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz." > > Here "any other frequency" refers to "outside the automatic sub- > bands". Thus US-based Winlink PMBOs can legally operate outside the > automatic sub-bands only when occupying a bandwidth of 500 hz or > less, which rules out Pactor 3. Winlink is not just keeping the > peace, Steve, it is complying with the law. > > The full text of 97.221 is available in > > http://www.ncvec.org/page.php?id=136 > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Domestically,per Part 97.221, stations under "automatic control" > and > > stations OVER 500 Hz under "local or remote control" (semi- > automatic) > > are in these sub-bands. A station that has a live human being > control > > operator is allowed operation anywhere below the "phone band." > > > > Why would anyone who is not constrained by Part 97.221 operate in > > these sub-bands? Please see the memo I received recently from > Bill > > Cross of the FCC. Winlink 2000 maintains its operations with > Pactor 3 > > in the Part 97.221 sub-bands just to keep the piece. However, if I > am > > correct, OLIVIA does not fall under initiating an auto-start > station > > nor is it under "automatic control." That being the case, > > domestically, OLIVIA may operate from the "phone band" down to the > > bottom of the band, assuming the control operator has the proper > > license. > > > > Look below: > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: William Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:56 > > To: K4CJX; Riley Hollingsworth > > Subject: RE: Need permission > > > > > > Steve, > > > > Keep in mind that the rules are written for all amateur service > > operators and that you guys use a lot of lingo that is not in the > > rules such as PMBO, unattended-which usually means automatically > > controlled, "the subband" etc. > > > > Assuming you're asking about Section 97.221, I see 2 segments in > 20 > > meters for automatically controlled digital station--14.095- > 14.0995, > > which is a tad less than 5 kHz, and 14.1005-14.112, which is a tad > > less than 12 kHz. Where is the rule about "a 2.1 KHz digital > > signal"? This also applies only to automatically controlled > > stations. If the operator is there and monitoring the station it > is > > under local or remote control, so the frequency limitations on > > automatically controlled digital stations don't apply. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hams need to start flooding the FCC with documented > > > complains about Pactor III QRMing when users fail to > > > check for a busy frequency or are using Ham spectrum > > > for illegal purposes (e.g. business purposes). > > > > > > We also need to be "above reproach" and make certain > > > that we also check for busy frequencies. > > > > > > If the Pactor III folks are hogging too much spectrum > > > it is likely that many of their operations are improper > > > since no one operates 24/7. > > > > > > If there are enough angry Hams the ARRL and FCC can > > > be pressured to do the right thing and restrain the > > > Pactor III folks. > > > > > > I do not have the capacity to decode the proprietary > > >
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Yes, this is the case. I don't know why anyone would pick the Part 97.221 sub-bands to operate. This is the problem with the formation of a hard-coded sub-band. We can't move out of the way with a station over 500 Hz, but those operating OLIVIA may. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not being subject to FCC rules, and therefore not really knowledgeable, somebody pointed out the other day that us Olivia operaters were > operating in an area set aside for automatic operations (14107.5 +/- ) , so some QRM might be expected. > > So I guess I think the best idea is to move to 14073 and up for Olivia and other modes. ? > > John > VE5MU > - Original Message - > From: John Becker > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:58 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Olivia frequencies > > > At 12:43 PM 1/18/06, you wrote: > >Hams need to start flooding the FCC with documented > >complains about Pactor III QRMing when users fail to > >check for a busy frequency or are using Ham spectrum > >for illegal purposes (e.g. business purposes). > > > Did you ever stop to think maybe the guy * really * did > not hear you? > > I don't know about your QTH but here on 20 meters I can't > hear a station within about 200 - 250 miles. > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > > > > -- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > -- > > > > > -- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 1/18/06 > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia frequencies
Domestically,per Part 97.221, stations under "automatic control" and
stations OVER 500 Hz under "local or remote control" (semi-automatic)
are in these sub-bands. A station that has a live human being control
operator is allowed operation anywhere below the "phone band."
Why would anyone who is not constrained by Part 97.221 operate in
these sub-bands? Please see the memo I received recently from Bill
Cross of the FCC. Winlink 2000 maintains its operations with Pactor 3
in the Part 97.221 sub-bands just to keep the piece. However, if I am
correct, OLIVIA does not fall under initiating an auto-start station
nor is it under "automatic control." That being the case,
domestically, OLIVIA may operate from the "phone band" down to the
bottom of the band, assuming the control operator has the proper
license.
Look below:
Steve, k4cjx
-Original Message-
From: William Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:56
To: K4CJX; Riley Hollingsworth
Subject: RE: Need permission
Steve,
Keep in mind that the rules are written for all amateur service
operators and that you guys use a lot of lingo that is not in the
rules such as PMBO, unattended-which usually means automatically
controlled, "the subband" etc.
Assuming you're asking about Section 97.221, I see 2 segments in 20
meters for automatically controlled digital station--14.095-14.0995,
which is a tad less than 5 kHz, and 14.1005-14.112, which is a tad
less than 12 kHz. Where is the rule about "a 2.1 KHz digital
signal"? This also applies only to automatically controlled
stations. If the operator is there and monitoring the station it is
under local or remote control, so the frequency limitations on
automatically controlled digital stations don't apply.
Bill
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hams need to start flooding the FCC with documented
> complains about Pactor III QRMing when users fail to
> check for a busy frequency or are using Ham spectrum
> for illegal purposes (e.g. business purposes).
>
> We also need to be "above reproach" and make certain
> that we also check for busy frequencies.
>
> If the Pactor III folks are hogging too much spectrum
> it is likely that many of their operations are improper
> since no one operates 24/7.
>
> If there are enough angry Hams the ARRL and FCC can
> be pressured to do the right thing and restrain the
> Pactor III folks.
>
> I do not have the capacity to decode the proprietary
> and hidden-from-common-mode-detection Pactor III so
> it is up to others to decode and document the content.
>
> I am also between rigs so am unable to be on the air
> for another week or two at least but sure am hearing
> lots of reports everywhere of serious and growing
> conflicts on the bands.
>
> Fixing the problem will require a lot of monitoring
> and documenting and the filing of complaints. It
> always has every time problems like this have occured.
>
> > Thanks I appreciate the original reason and they were certainly
valid,
> > but all we are starting to do is butting our heads against pactor
III, and as more
> > people use Olivia, we are getting quite a bit of QRM.
>
> --
> ~~
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>
> |_|___|_|
> | | & | |
>{|
>/\ {|
> / \ {|
> /\{|
> / @ \ {|
> | |~_||
> | -| ||
> \ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
> KD4E =
> West Central Florida
>
> ~~~
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006
Today, I note that OLIVIA is plastered all over the Part 97.221 sub- bands. Why would they use these frequencies? Because they have obvoiously been cleaned out and left for the operations that are pertinant to 97.221. Not good considering we have purposely crammed ourselves in these spaces to be good stewards of the current regulatory envrinment. Regarding signal detection, we are totally rebuilding the PMBO into an "RMS" or radio message server. It will include much more than Pactor as things develop. Where possible, we intend to use such technigues until we are taken advanage of by those who do not. Steve, k4cjx Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I agree. > > Such techniques already exist, as you have pointed out, but are not > exploited by today's message passing software. To encourage the > deployment of these techniques, I am suggesting that protocols > failing to exploit them be confined to subbands, while protocols > that do exploit them be given free reign (subject only to bandwidth > constraints, as would be all other signals). > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > I would think that using signal detection techniques would solve > that > > issue. We have been experimenting with them lately and yes, there > is > > work to be done, but that is what this is all about. > > > > Steve, k4cjx > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > I am not as confident about predicting the demise of Amateur radio > as you are in your comments below. > > >>>I have not predicted the demise of amateur radio. I have > predicted that approval of the ARRL proposal will increase the > conflict between attended and remotely-controlled automatic > stations. If left unchecked, this will certainly increase > frustration levels, and probably lead to increased sales of > amplifiers and beams.From k4cjx: What resists, persists. If I get a beam and amp and you get a beam and amp, we are right back where we started, right? Best to work it out as has been the case with every other mode of operation (AM vs. SSB, etc.) There is only conflict if you allow conflict. Band segmentation by types of operation or protocol can certainly take place without it being law. That is certainly done today, and successfully.> > First of all, the 1995 FCC comments are 1995 FCC comments, although, > I do agree that stations under automatic control should be in a > specific place, but I do not agree that it should be hardcoded in > formal regulation. > > >>>My point is that in 1995, the FCC made clear its expectation that > amateurs would resolve the conflicts between attended and automatic > operation. The technology has been developed, but it has not been > deployed: hardly a testimonial to our readiness to expand the co-> existence between attended and remote-controlled automatic operation.> > I was partially responsible through the Amateur Radio Digital > Society for making the sub-bands happen. That was great until it > wasn't. Look how long it has taken to get around to making some > adjustments to our bands. Not good. > > >>>The regulation I have suggested would only confine automatic > operation to subbands when the protocols used were incapable of > detecting busy frequencies, and incapable of detecting a universal > QRL. The both incentivizes protocol improvement, and eliminates any > need for future regulatory changes. "Polite" protocols would not be > confined.From k4cjx: You can write in your comments about "polite protocols" and while you are at it, also make sure that we include contest weekends, okay? Let's set a separate hardcoded segement for those who work contests. Where do you think these separate segements should be? We would want them hardcoded, too? Perhaps we should designate another 5 KHz on 40 meters for all protocols during contests when they become "impolite modes"?> > > You asked for my specific FCC quotes. I did not post their more > recent comments since I had posted them on several occasions in the > past, but here they are:> > >snip<> > >>>Nothing in those quotes can be construed as "the current > voluntary segments work for all", as you claimed in your post.From k4cjx: I claim that the FCC is suggesting Voluntary band planning. In their FCC Order for RM-10740, 11/2004, they describe how they visualize the domestic Amateur radio spectrum should be regulated:"Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor."From k4cjx Seems faily clear to me. I think that they are dead-on.> > Dave, exactly, when in the recent past, were you QRMed by a Winlink > station under Local or remote control? Please provide your times > and dates and frequencies so I can provide my information.> > >>>Over the years, I have been QRM'd on many occasions by Pactor > signals, primarily on the 40m band. Until obtaining an SCS modem > last year, however, I was incapable of decoding a callsign, or > attempting to convey that the frequency was already in use. Since > then, I have been QRM'd on two occasions, but in both cases took > minutes to switch from soundcard RTTY to the SCS modem; by the time > I was QRV Pactor, the offender was gone. I have been extending > WinWarbler and Commander to reduce the switchover time.From k4cjx: dave, I cannot answer about "Pactor" stations, but I can answer about Winlink 2000 local and remote controlled stations, which as you know are ALL initiated by a live human being control operator, who must be present to do this initiation. They ALL
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006
Dave, I would think that using signal detection techniques would solve that issue. We have been experimenting with them lately and yes, there is work to be done, but that is what this is all about. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I responded to most of this in my previous post. > > The ARRL proposal will allow remotely-controlled automatic operation > everywhere. If its adopted, I assume that message passing services > will rush to escape the current automatic sub-bands; you confirmed > this in your previous post. I agree that most will use wider digital > modes, which may indeed reduce QRM to PSK and RTTY operations. But > the potential for conflict between attended and remotely-controlled > automatic stations will greatly increase. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject > for > > the most part. However, tell me that the hidden transmitter effect > > does not play a role in contests, when all reason seems to > stop..and > > by agreement for most. > > > > Specifically when and where is your conflict with automatic > > controlled stations, currently. I mean not in concept, but on the > > bands? Where is your conflict with stations under local and > remote > > control? I note that you are talking about FEC(maybe) narrow band > > protocols at typing speeds being interfered with by high speed > data > > transfer. Won't the current band plan eliminate that issue? > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set > forth > > > in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. > This > > > doesn't prevent mistakes -- which I agree occur every day -- but > > > does an excellent job of discouraging longterm, willful > violation. > > > > > > There is also a voluntary component to HF operation. CW, RTTY, > PSK, > > > MFSK, and other digital mode operators have evolved defacto sub- > > > bands, and co-exist effectively even where subbands are shared > > > between modes. A critical ingredient to this cooperation is the > > fact > > > that most QSOs are between attended stations. If I'm looking to > > call > > > CQ PSK63 on 14073.5, I'll make sure that frequency is clear > before > > > calling; if there's an MFSK QSO already in progress there, I > won't > > > call. > > > > > > In contrast, voluntary cooperation has not resolved the conflict > > > between attended stations and automatic stations controlled by a > > > remote station. As has been discussed here frequently, the > hidden > > > transmitter effect allows an automatic station to QRM an ongoing > > QSO > > > whose signals aren't being heard by its controlling station. It > is > > > important to note that, despite the FCC's explicit expectation > when > > > it approved HF automatic operation in 1995, available techniques > > > that would reduce hidden transmitter QRM have not been deployed. > > > > > > At present, the use of remotely controlled automatic stations is > > > constrained by 97.221: if the bandwidth is greater than 500 hz, > > > operation is confined to specified subbands. The ARRL's proposal > > > eliminates the 97.221 limits on remotely controlled automatic > > > stations. Pactor III, for example, would be legal in any part of > > any > > > 3 kHz segment -- whether attended, or remotely controlled. If > the > > > ARRL proposal is adopted, the currently unresolved conflict > between > > > attended and remotely controlled automatic stations will > escalate > > as > > > message-passing networks expand to meet the growing demand for > > their > > > services. > > > > > > To address this conflict and others, the ARRL's proposal > includes a > > > stipulation that the League "will promptly undertake a procedure > to > > > establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband > > > allocation petition, and, until
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006
Dave, I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject for the most part. However, tell me that the hidden transmitter effect does not play a role in contests, when all reason seems to stop..and by agreement for most. Specifically when and where is your conflict with automatic controlled stations, currently. I mean not in concept, but on the bands? Where is your conflict with stations under local and remote control? I note that you are talking about FEC(maybe) narrow band protocols at typing speeds being interfered with by high speed data transfer. Won't the current band plan eliminate that issue? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set forth > in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. This > doesn't prevent mistakes -- which I agree occur every day -- but > does an excellent job of discouraging longterm, willful violation. > > There is also a voluntary component to HF operation. CW, RTTY, PSK, > MFSK, and other digital mode operators have evolved defacto sub- > bands, and co-exist effectively even where subbands are shared > between modes. A critical ingredient to this cooperation is the fact > that most QSOs are between attended stations. If I'm looking to call > CQ PSK63 on 14073.5, I'll make sure that frequency is clear before > calling; if there's an MFSK QSO already in progress there, I won't > call. > > In contrast, voluntary cooperation has not resolved the conflict > between attended stations and automatic stations controlled by a > remote station. As has been discussed here frequently, the hidden > transmitter effect allows an automatic station to QRM an ongoing QSO > whose signals aren't being heard by its controlling station. It is > important to note that, despite the FCC's explicit expectation when > it approved HF automatic operation in 1995, available techniques > that would reduce hidden transmitter QRM have not been deployed. > > At present, the use of remotely controlled automatic stations is > constrained by 97.221: if the bandwidth is greater than 500 hz, > operation is confined to specified subbands. The ARRL's proposal > eliminates the 97.221 limits on remotely controlled automatic > stations. Pactor III, for example, would be legal in any part of any > 3 kHz segment -- whether attended, or remotely controlled. If the > ARRL proposal is adopted, the currently unresolved conflict between > attended and remotely controlled automatic stations will escalate as > message-passing networks expand to meet the growing demand for their > services. > > To address this conflict and others, the ARRL's proposal includes a > stipulation that the League "will promptly undertake a procedure to > establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband > allocation petition, and, until such time as that band plan is in > place, the existing band plan will be in force." This quote is taken > from http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2005-arlb017.html . > > The ARRL's existing band plan has been obsolete for years. Besides > ignoring not-so-recent developments like PSK, it makes no attempt to > resolve the conflict between attended and remotely controlled > automatic operation. Despite the widespread concern expressed over > its proposed elimination of constraints on remotely controlled > automatic operation, the ARRL has not seen fit to provide a > prototype band plan that would illustrate how this conflict might be > resolved, or to describe the process by which such a band plan would > developed and evolved, or to describe how longterm, willful > violations of the band plan would be addressed. > > We can have our cake and eat it too. Allocating frequencies based on > bandwidth rather than content would be a step forward, and automatic > operation is fully consistent with the principles of amateur radio. > Where the ARRL proposal falls fatally short is in eliminating the > current constraints on remotely controlled automatic operation > without providing a credible means of eliminating its conflict with > attended operation. > > Restricting remotely controlled automatic operation to subbands > until the effects of hidden transmitter QRM are reduced to levels > experienced with attended operation would correct this fatal flaw in > the ARRL proposal. Techniques for accomplishing this reduction -- > busy detectors, universal QRL -- are available. History has shown > that they will not be deployed unless incentivized by regulation. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006
plan. After all, I would think that they might have a dendency to clobber any digital signal in that space, but only in the short-term. Remember, SSB had the same issue with AM. And, they both seem to co-exist today. Right? The FCC even denied a petition to keep 6 KHz AM and SSB out of the bands. Why do you think this happened? Geez, and they will all be there at their transmitters clobbering digital modes, too. No problem with "hidden transmitter effects."We must accept the additional responsibility provided to us by NOT blocking the opportunity provided to us by the the FCC and ARRL's band plan. BTW, in my opinion, the FCC is very aware that any digital transmission of data transfer greater than real-time typing speed is likely to be under remote control. Why shouldn't it. Look at the rest of the communications world. There is "wired" and there is "wireless." It will integrate among many services and license types as well as many regulatory agencies with various Rules. Not all of it will be real-time, at least, that is my observation.Another observation: I am delighted with the choice of our new FCC lead. if her future in that position is anything like her past elsewhere, great innovations will come from our way. Hopefully, the Amateur radio service will be their with the rest of this innovation. I would think it will unless we block our opportunities. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >>>AA6YQ comments below.> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > Since I first started using HF in 1955, my own experience with RTTY, > CW and Winlink 2000, which uses "local and remote control" per Part > 97.221, says that the current voluntary segments work for all. > > >>>That's because your practice has been to either deny the > existence of the hidden transmitter effect, or to ask for a > description and then dissapear after its provided. I'm sure you find > it convenient to assert that the current arrangement works for all, > but I assure you that it does not. When I'm QRM'd by an automatic > station under control of a station (per 97.221) that can't hear my > signal, its definitely not working for me. > > The FCC publicly agrees. > > >>>Please provide a citation so we can see with what the FCC is > publicly agreeing.> > >>>In its 1995 amendment of part 97 to permit automatic operation on > the HF bands, the FCC said this:> > "We do recognize the concerns of those who oppose the proposal on > the basis of potential interference, and in response to these > concerns we are limiting when automatic control can be employed. > First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the > automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically > controlled station from causing interference. Second, we are > designating subbands to which transmissions between two > automatically controlled stations are confined. These subbands are > a small portion of the spectrum otherwise available for digital > emission types. We also are confident in the ability of the amateur > service community to respond, as it has in the past, to the > challenge of minimizing interference with novel technical and > operational approaches to the use of shared frequency bands."> > >>>What is notable is the failure over the past 10 years to deploy > and exploit technical and operational approaches that would in fact > mitigate the interference caused by automatically operated stations > under control of a remote station. SCS modems, for example, include > a busy frequency detector. Is it exploited by today's HF message-> passing protocols to minimize interference from the hidden > transmitter effect? No. > > >>>See http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/fcc97221.htm for document > from which the above paragraph was extracted.> > In addition, the ARRL also thinks that they would work better, spur > more development, and without as much conflict, if they were > separated first by bandwidth. I agree. > > Domestically, the majority of the "local and remote control" > operation is held within the current domestic auto sub-bands, and > the remaining local and remote controlled operation resides per Part > 97.221, outside these sub-bands.> > >>>I also support the "separation by bandwidth" aspect of the ARRL > proposal. However, this proposal would eliminate the constraint that > confines most "local and remote control operation", as you call it, > to sub-bands. Furthermore, it would elminate any mechanism for > enforcement, replacin
[digitalradio] Re: FYI: RESTRUCTURING: UK GETS NEW BANDPLANS IN 2006
Mark, So many years ago, the ARRL ad-hoc digital committee was given a draft of the IARU Region 1 bandplan to use as a model. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 01:24 PM 12/26/2005, you wrote: > >Unlike the United States which is looking at regulating Amateur Radio > >operations by overall bandwidth it appears that for now the U-K and > >most of Europe is content to stay with defined band segment to > >separate various modes. > > > If you look closely there is a column labeled maximum bandwidth. With the > exception of 40 meters (for obvious reasons), the frequency ranges and the > bandwidths look a lot like what is in the ARRL petition to regulate by > bandwidth. > > 73, > > Mark N5RFX > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006
Since I first started using HF in 1955, my own experience with RTTY, CW and Winlink 2000, which uses "local and remote control" per Part 97.221, says that the current voluntary segments work for all. The FCC publicly agrees. In addition, the ARRL also thinks that they would work better, spur more development, and without as much conflict, if they were separated first by bandwidth. I agree. Domestically, the majority of the "local and remote control" operation is held within the current domestic auto sub-bands, and the remaining local and remote controlled operation resides per Part 97.221, outside these sub-bands. For those areas outside the auto sub-band on 20 and 40 meters, no domestic operation is above 077 VOLUNTARILY, so that there is no conflict with those operating RTTY in their own volunarily placed segment. There is no operation within the VOLUNTARY PSK segment, and none below 063, where CW operates VOLUNTARILY. Remember, also, that it is legal to operate local and remote control data all the way down to the bottom of the bands with the proper license. However, you will find no domestic Winlink station operates there, period. All of this is voluntary, and changing the band plan by bandwidth will certainly assist those who have conflicts with various modes of operation, not that they will stop complaining, but their complaints will be for protocols that share equal bandwidths and types of operation. Winlink is becoming less and less prominent due to the expansion of digital modes. And, although no one can predict the future, if Amateur radio intends to survive, it will certainly follow the rest of the telecommunications industry by moving more into the digital arena. Even the FCC states this publicly. They have said their own rules are currently "impeding the radio art." Should the ARRL band plan petition eventually become law, then Winlink 2000 will continue to VOLUNTARILY assign frequencies in spots that will not be viewed as conflicting. However, as more enabling technologies become available, Winlink and the current protocols it uses will certainly be replaced. Such has always been the case and there is no reason why it will not continue. Regardless, In my opinion, placing a prorocol that utilizes state-of- the-art error control coding and "pulse shaped OFDM," which I think yields the best spectral efficiency possible on HF today, with a relatively primitive, uncoded, single-carrier DBPSK "real-time conversational" system without ARQ, will mostly be eliminated with the ARRL plan. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gentlemen, > > It is not can a voluntary band plan work, it is will it work? The answer is simply NO. Simply put everyone think they are right and everyone that does not see my side of the story is wrong. Just because it is legal to operate this mode or bandwidth on this frequency then I am going to do it. Just listen in any day on 14.230, a frequency that is a gentlemen's agreement for SSTV. You can not (in most cases) carry on a QSO without another station key up and start sending during a QSO. Most of the time is from Europe. Then there are some that has no idea where the SSTV frequencies are. There are also some that does not know what that weird noise is, and some of the are US hams. On ANY contest weekend, listen on the SSTV frequencies and see how many contester are using those frequencies for contest. Also when a RTTY contest is going on, listen around the frequencies where the other digital modes normally operate. CW is the same. Now you tell me that a bandwidth bandplan will work voluntary. If you say yes, then I see right off that you just have not been on the HF bands very much. > > As for the unattended station goes, I personally disagree with them. I believe there should be no unattended stations below 10 meters. Just how much of the traffic that is passed on a daily basics is worth the time of day. > > Joe > W4JSI > > Age is mind over matter > If you don't mind, it does not matter > - Original Message - > From: Dr. Howard S. White > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 4:24 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006 > > > Can't think of another NGO... locally we have repeater coordination councils.. that seem to work very well... > > and I do not think they are under the ARRL? > > Maybe we need to set up a Bandwidth Coordination Council... or something like that... > > But logically the ARRL would be the first choice.. > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6
[digitalradio] Re: Pactor III Legal or Not?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone know if Pactor III is legal here in the US? > > Was on 20 meters around 14.107 or so and a booming ~2.5 KHz signal > that could have only been Pactor III was cranking. Who knows what the > station was doing, gotta have a PTIII decoder program. > > By the way, any hope of a Pactor III like decoder for one of these > sound card programs? > > N6CRR > Here is your information from the FCC regarding US stations using Pactor 3. However, without more information about the origin of the transmitting stations, it may apply to another country. Pactor 3 is may be copied with the proper software and SCS modem. I know of no soundcard that will copy Pactor 3. Some Pactor 3 that you hear contains a binary format called B2F, which is published on http://www.winlink.org/B2F.htm. Not all stations using B1F or B2F are Winlink stations. For example, the ARRL NTS/D uses B1F, which is published on the FBB WEB site. §97.309 RTTY and data emission codes. (a) Where authorized by §97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following SPECIFIED digital codes: (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications. (b) Where authorized by §§97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this Part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an UNSPECIFIED digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used." Steve, k4cjx Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Software for PTC II
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Hatzakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to hear what programs people use with the SCS PTC-II series of > TNC's for PSK, RTTY, SSTV etc? I just picked one up and not feeling like I > am taking full advantage of it. > > Thanks, Michael K3MH > Michael, You might look at the SCS site for their freeware software for various applications. Airmail is great for HF Pactor and VHF/UHF Packet, but there are others that use the "typing speed" modes. They are listed and downloadable from the SCS URL at http://www.scs- ptc.com/software.html Steve, k4cjx Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: HF packet to internet & SCAMP questions
Rick, The default 24 hour time limit is 30 minutes for most PMBOs, however, this varies with the specific PMBO. Any PMBO will grant additional time upon request. Scamp is in a holding pattern since much work is being done to eliminate the primary central server/backup central server in favor of Common Message Servers, which all run redundantly with mutliple phase commits. In other words, should one Common Message Server go down, the Radio Message Servers (PMBOs) automatically route to the remaining Common Message Servers. Currently, there are two in production and one more testing, but we will quickly to a five server system. 3 in the US, one in Eu and one in Aus. I know that Rick, KN6KB, is also looking at some basic changes to SCAMP, but I do not know more. FYI, Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > From my perspective you have three choices for HF connectivity, but I would > not call any of them real time since they are mailer type programs: > > Winlink 2000 with a hardware modem which then could get you into an HF PMBO > to send e-mail but you would be limited under normal circumstaces to a > maximum 30 minute connect time per 24 hours if I remember the imposed time > limit from their system. > > JNOS2 which uses some of the same hardware selection but would probably > require something at the home station. > > PSKmail which is a newly developed system from a European ham that permits > sending e-mail via an ARQ version of PSK63. Slower throughput, but much > smaller footprint than many of the wide band ARQ modes, and of course no > time limitations. > > Winlink 2000 is primarily for Windows OS, JNOS for Linux or DOS, and PSKmail > primarily for Linux. > > You could use the Winlink 2000 system to access a Telpac to route e- mail if > there is one close enough to you. Or you could set up a Telpac at your home > QTH if you can reach it via VHF since Telpacs are designed for packet. > > I have been a SCAMP beta tester and found it to be simply amazing in terms > of its speed and care in not transmitting on a busy channel. It requires > around a 10 db S/N ratio to work and that is often difficult to come by on > HF so the developer is hoping to include additional modes as a fall back and > that might work under weaker signal conditions. > > At this time the developer is working on other things so no SCAMP > development has occurred since the spring. Hopefully this winter (in this > hemisphere) he can return to working on it at times. The previous beta > versions of Paclink SCD which is the SCAMP software, had a timer in them > that make them quit working by a certain date and I believe we are well past > that date so there is nothing you could test right now. > > Maybe others can come up with some other solutions? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of zl1tbg > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 17:55 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] HF packet to internet & SCAMP questions > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Message from tim ab0wr re: Winlink-winkink 2000
Winlink "Classic" or Winlink 3.0 works perfectly with the SCS driver povided with this Package. However, the problem of identification remains. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My apologies, I pressed the wrong button and deleted a message from a new member, Tim ab0wr , rather than approved it. Sorry Tim, welcome to the group. > > Here is Tim's original message. > > == > > Rick, > > Please be very careful in accepting anything you read from the WL2K > people about how Winlink Classic works. > > The problem with identification after a failed connection attempt is > not trivial when you are using an older modem. It is not, however, a > Winlink Classic problem, it is a *modem* problem. The AEA pk- 232mbx, > one of the commonly used pactor I modems, does not provide a way to > send an indentification after a failed connection attempt in pactor > mode. The client software would have to put the modem in another > mode, e.g. morse or packet, in order to send an identification > string. It would then have to put it back into pactor listen mode. I > believe the older Kantronics modems have the same problem. My guess > is that WL2K won't work any better with these modems than Winlink > Classic. Nor will Airmail. > > The answer would be to rewrite Winlink Classic to work with an SCS > modem capable of doing the identification after a failed connect > attempt. > > Bottom line, k4cjx is *really* advocating banning the use of AEA > pk-232mbx modems and Kantronics all-mode modems from being used in > pactor modes since they won't identify at the end of a *MANUAL* > connection attempt that fails, let alone an automatic attempt. > > Of course, this will push everyone into buying SCS modems. > > If I can find it, there is a fellow in Europe that is developing a > rival to WL2K using mfsk16 or mfsk32, I believe. It is set up to > work with jnos or tnos or one of the variants and is written in Perl > if I remember correctly. If I can find his web site, I'll post it. > While it won't be quite as fast as pactor III it will be very > robust, much cheaper, and open source. I suspect you will see a lot > of people moving to this type of operation if he has time to publish > it. > > tim ab0wr > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink vs. Winlink 2000 et al
THERE IS NO "TIMEBOMBS" IN ANY WINLINK RELATED SOFTWARE. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell wrote: > > Andrew J. O'Brien writes: > > > > > For the record, I don't even want to > > >use ANY software that had such potentially disabling code. > > > > > > I may have missed some of this thread, are you talking about > > software that would "disable" if there was a signal present on the > > frequency? I > > I don't think so. > > The quoted message was NOT about code to prevent QRMing an existing > QSO, which I'm pretty sure everyone on the list would agree is a good > idea, if not mandatory. Replacing "robot lids" with "robot > considerate ops" is surely progress. :-) > > The Winlink guy said that the programmers SHOULD have put a timebomb > in the original WL program, so it wouldn't run after a certain date > (now in the past), and added "lesson learned", which I interpret to > mean that there is probably a timebomb in WL2K, and that there will > surely be one in future programs from the same person or team. I > think the message you quoted means that timebombed code is bad: I > certainly agree, especially w.r.t. emergency communications. > > I'm a worker-bee emcommer, not the drafter of my local group's plans, > but I certainly hope that no one involved in EmComms planning depends > on any program supplied by people who think that timebombs are a good > idea. Given the earlier message from the WL guy, and the League's > position promoting the use of WL2K for emcomms, there is a risk that > ham radio may avoidably fail to deliver a message needed to prevent > deaths, injuries, or property damage in an emergency. > > A program that must be reliable, because human safety depends on it, > should be a simple as it can be and still get the job done. Features > that are not necessary should be omitted, because they may harbor > disabling bugs that could get someone killed, or at least could > prevent them being saved or assisted. In such a context, a timebomb > is certainly an unnecessary feature. Software development decisions > that are acceptable for games or business software can get people > killed when used in programs critical to human life. > > 73 DE AE6VW, ex-KG6YLS > > -- > Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 1396 Gualala CA 95445 > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~-> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: I thought Auto Pactor was Illegal?
Rick, I guess you are quoting me regarding the original automatic forwarding of Winlink Classic. The very reason we moved TO Winlink 2000 is why we moved FROM Winlink Classic. That is, to take fully automatic forwarding OFF the HF bands once there was a more appropriate and efficient forwarding option using the Internet. The FCC has NO definition for "semi-automatic operation." Rather, they refer to it as either "local" or "remote control." But, leaving that discussion for another time, Winlink Classic was not made for the current Windows operating systems. I doubt if it would work with a Windows op system greater than Windows SE. It used Borland C++ (16 bit) and was designed for the earlier Windows operating systems. Remember, the system it replaced was a DOS system called ApLink. Winlink Classic is difficult to use, and with most modems I hear it being used with today, is actually used illegally because it does NOT properly identify when no connection is made. That is, when an automatic station calls and no one answers, there is no CW or FEC identification. It just stops pulsing the called station. NOT GOOD! We are not opposed to Winlink Classic for any other reasons than what I have stated above, and our intent is certainly not to force those using it to move to Winlink 2000. Winlink Classic should not be used because of what it does NOT do, and not because we want to attract those who are using it into Winlink 2000, although, of course, they are welcomed as users. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are not that many programs that operate automatically and in the past > I think there was a "common" view by many that you could not do this in > software. Well, Rick, KN6KB proved that you can do it and do it amazingly > well. But it apparently was not an easy task and took a lot of work. > > I doubt that Winlink (the Original Winlink "classic" that is used as the > basis for the NTS/D and MARS digital systems) have this feature, but perhaps > Winlink 2000 will have it with the sound card mode if Rick can return to > work on SCAMP later this year. Also, the same issue holds true for the new > automatic messaging systems such as the new JNOS2 and PSKmail programs as > well as a few others. > > The general attitude of the Winlink 2000 group has not been very positive > toward sharing code with others of the amateur community. It does not mean > they have to share all their code, but at least help others from having the > reinvent the wheel over and over. The one exception is that KN6KB has > indicated a willingness to put some parts of the SCAMP protocol into GPL > once it is refined. Of course some of this stuff comes from GPL'd Linux > sources in the first place. > > The Winlink 2000 administrator recently went on record saying that ... > "Winlink Classic, built for Windows 3.1, is no longer supported and has not > been supported since 1998. The great mistake was not putting a time bomb in > that software. Lesson learned." > > Needless to say, it would be difficult to imagine a more hostile attitude to > the amateur community who uses the Winlink system, e.g., the NTS/D and MARS > networks digital networks. > > My understanding is that is not possible to improve on this version of > Winlink because the source code is being intentionally withheld from further > software development in the amateur community so that no one could improve > it. The thinking was that everyone would be forced to move to Winlink 2000. > So even if you had a solution, you would not be able to implement it with > the "Original" Winlink system. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Andrew J. O'Brien > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 15:05 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] I thought Auto Pactor was Illegal? > > > But , Rick, why has something similar not been added to other modes? > - Original Message - > From: Rick Williams > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:55 PM > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] I thought Auto Pactor was Illegal? > > > As mentioned earlier, it has already been done. The hope is that Rick, KN6KB > will eventually share the routines he developed for SCAMP with other > developers of automated software. > > If you have ever tried out SCAMP you will realize that it is even more of a > watchdog than a human operator. A number of times when I would have gone > ahead and tried to connect on what superficially appeared to be a
[digitalradio] Re: STILL SICK AND TIRED OF THE PACTRASHERS
Pactor on 14080? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "RussellHltn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I try to stay away from where the pactrashers operate but how > come they seem to migrate to any qso on the band? <<< > > Sounds like less of an issue with the mode then some operator that's getting > his jollies jamming people. Let's put the blame where it belongs - the > operators. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: STILL SICK AND TIRED OF THE PACTRASHERS
WG3G, Trinidad, is NOT on the Air. He has NOT been on the air for weeks. An all-user message went out as well as to his own user list making this announcement. I find it hard to believe that a call that we have blocked since the beginning of April is on the air calling a station that is known not to be present. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a hard time trying to understand why W7NTF is still > using this call. He got a new one April 9th of this year. > > Are you sure about this Richard? > > John, WØJAB > > > > At 09:13 AM 8/5/05, K2TFT wrote: > >This morning on 40m was qrmed by a pactrash station calling for WG3G, > >as usual, N7QDN and W7NTF. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] RE: [airmail2000] Kantronics KPC-3+/KPC-9612+ Service Bulletin
Seems rather expensive for their error! Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 18:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [airmail2000] Kantronics KPC-3+/KPC-9612+ Service Bulletin The link below may be of interest to KPC-3+ and/or KPC-9612+ owners using these TNC's for Airmail's VHF module or TELPAC (VHF): http://www.kantronics.com/support/kpcbulletin.html Kantronics has discovered an anomaly in the ver. 9.0 ROM which affects the APRS DIGI applications. They are releasing a new version 9.1 The point is that owners of older KPC3+ ver. 7.0 and higher or KPC-9612+ ver. 8.0 and higher, can also take part by purchasing new 9.1 ROM's at a special rate before Sep. 12, 2005. I'm a KPC3+ ver 8.3 owner and this sounds like a good way to upgrade to 9.1 (I don't work for Kantronics). 73 de va3rsa, Richard __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: 40m qrm
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "swl0720" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > N7QDN, WG3G and W1ON wanted by an unknown station on 7071 > pactrash...rat now!! W1ON has already been dealt with by Riley so >she won't be there but why don't you guys answer these calls? Might >be some important ham grams to pass. This is not at all true. W1ON was deliberately pirated on top of the 20 meter SSB maritime mobile service net by someone unknown. It was discovered by someone in Florida. The sysop of the MITRE Amateur radio club for W1ON wrote to Riley Hollingsworth to provide this information. With it, he also furnished his own tranmit log, which is automatically generated with each transmission. No one ever discovered who was doing this, but it is not uncommon. Below is the letter written to Riley Hollingsworth. To my knowledge, no reply was received. So much for rumors and careless statements Steve, k4cjx Winlink network administrator -Original Message- From: David G. Willard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: None To: Riley Hollingsworth Cc: Bill Cross Subject: Incident report Gentlemen; The following paragraphs document our investigation of a reported incident of digital transmissions on a 20 meter SSB net. The undersigned believe these transmissions were not originated by the reported callsign. We believe the incident is now closed. Winlink 2000 W1ON PMBO Report of Digital Call Sign W1ON Heard On 14.300 MHz At 21:40L on 6 May 2004 the Security Department of the Mitre Corporation in Bedford, Massachusetts was contacted via telephone by Donald Kay of Panama City, Florida to report that the call sign of the Mitre-Bedford Amateur Radio Club's station, W1ON, was heard in a digital transmission on the Maritime Mobile Service Network on 14.300 MHz at 0200Z on 6 May 2004 and at 0106Z on 7 May 2004. The station Trustee was immediately notified who then contacted the Club's President, the Station Manager (SM) and Assistant Station Manager (ASM). Since the Station Manager was on a road trip and could not be immediately contacted, the Assistant Manager disabled the HF transceiver on the morning of Friday 7 May 2004 to prevent any transmission until the situation could be assessed. It was decided by all concerned that it would be prudent to leave the transceiver disabled over the weekend. The President contacted the complainant, Mr. Kay, by telephone on Friday 7 May 2004 and he assured Mr. Kay that we were taking his complaint seriously and that we would contact him again when we had conducted a thorough investigation. We did not inform Mr. Kay that we had taken the transceiver off the air. The SM remotely reviewed the transmission log maintained by the PMBO program and found that NO TRANSMISSIONS had occurred at the specified times and dates. Extracts from the log are presented as an attachment. On Monday, 10 May 2004, a telephone conference was established with Mr. Kay, the President, the Station Manager and Steve Waterman, K4CJX, (the Winlink 2000 (WL2K) network coordinator) to discuss the results of our investigation, to present our hypothesis as to what had transpired and to inquire whether any further digital transmissions using the W1ON call sign had been copied on the voice net frequency. We queried Mr. Kay to determine what type of digital transmission he had received and what equipment he had been using. He stated it was ordinary FSK packet/ASCII and that he was using a standard TNC. All he had been able to copy was "W1ON.." at both times. We presented the following analysis from the PMBO prospective. A. We explained that a WL2K PMBO makes most of it's transmissions in PACTOR 2 or 3 and cannot be copied in FSK/ASCII. If the client calls in PACTOR 1 however, the PMBO will respond in PACTOR 1. B. The WL2K PMBO never initiates a connection but rather only responds to a connect request. C. The frequency scanning module of the PMBO program halts the scanning on the frequency that a connect request is first heard. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that any response issued by the PMBO would occur on the voice net frequency. Moreover, the WL2K Scanner module is programmed to prohibit placement of the transceiver in the SSB portion of band. We concluded that the reported transmissions of W1ON did not originate at W1ON. We offered the following possible scenarios to explain the observed transmissions. 1. Based on the common interest of boaters with the WL2K digital network and the Maritime Mobile Service SSB voice network and the likely participation by boaters in both, it is possible that a boater inadvertently left his transceiver manually tuned on the voice frequency and proceeded to attempt a digital c
[digitalradio] Re: ATTN: WG3G
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "swl0720" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SOMEBODY WANTS TO TALK TO YOU REAL BAD ON 7071.2 PACTRASH WILL YOU > PLEASE ANSWER THE STATION...IT DOES NOT ID AND IS CAUSING A LOT OF QRM > ON THE 40M BAND...PROBABLY GOT SOME HAM GRAMS FOR YOU TO PASS ON... WG3G, Trinidad, Scan 40 m Center Frequencies: 7036.9(P2) 7101.4(P3) For the last 3 years, Airmail, the only client program usable for WG3G forces an identification of the both the calling station and the station being called. Obviously, someone, using some older (more than three years) version of Airmail or some other software is simply intentionally causing trouble, but it makes for an effective post, right? WG3G does not operate anywhere near the frequency listed above, and never has. Steve, k4cjx Winlink network administrator The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Scanning
Rick, We would LOVE to have a redundant system, but only if it wishes to meet the criteria that we impose on our own system, This would include the B2F format, which allows binary attachments, and the ability to route Ham-to-ham messages or Ham<>Internet recipient messages without the use of Packet H-routing. Because our routing is dynamic and there is no "Home" BBS. Rather, all stations on the system are transparent. There is more, but this is the essential stumbling block. Regarding Scanning: There is NO channelization in Amateur radio. In other words, no one "owns" any frequency. This includes the nets, etc. By agreement, such frequencies are generally set asside for operations, but not by regulation (a whole nother subject!) To channelize Amateur radio frequencies, the FCC would have to increase its resources toward Amateur to a much greater extent than I personally believe they would consider. Fact is, they are moving the other direction. Scanning provides the user several benefits. Most of the 24 US PMBOs scan two to four frequencies per radio. For example, I scan two frequencies on 30 meters. This gives the user an option should one of those two frequencies be otherwise occupied. Airmail, the client software will call for a period of a little less than 3 seconds per frequency scanned per radio, plus a 3 second FEC burst giving the station called and the calling station identification. So, if a station calls, the time that station calls is 9 seconds. Airmail code was written this way about two years ago and it cannot be over-ridden. As we add functionality to Airmail, eventually, the older versions will be replaced, and this will be the order of the day for all users. You are absolutely correct about the "scare tactics" sent out as a result of a an all-user message being sent announcing that we were refreshing the Acceptance list of Internet users. Routinely and periodically, we clear the acceptance list and start over simply to reduce the number of SPAM hits bouncing up against the system. However, each time that announcement is made, those who oppose what we are doing spread that rumor. They never spend the time to correct their assertions. Oh well... such is Amateur (radio) politics. FYI, Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Skip, > > Anyone attempting to connect to a PMBO is really no different than any other > ham calling CQ in the hopes of receiving a reply, except that in the case of > having a PMBO potentially on frequency it is more likely that a contact can > be made. It is dramatically more efficient than any other third party > traffic. > > As far as your suggestions on scanning, are you suggesting that each PMBO > have only one frequency and then to make up for the need to have many > different frequencies available to meet the constantly varying propagation > conditions, you would need to have many more PMBO systems in operation? > > My main concern is emergency communications planning and deployment so I do > have a bias toward that end and I hope that most hams who want to see > amateur radio survive also have a similar "bias." > > One of the things that I have tried to promote to the WL2K controller has > been to increase the number of HF PMBO stations. (And for that matter the > vhf/uhf only PMBO's as well). Especially for the lower bands 80 and maybe > even 160, which will not tend to cause interference during daylight hours > since signals do not travel as far and those bands are very lightly used. > These new PMBO's could use the new SCAMP mode to eventually replace much or > hopefully all of the Pactor modes someday. > > If you had an HF PMBO at least every 100 miles or so, they could handle > traffic without requiring the use of the higher frequencies and that would > free up those longer range frequencies for blue water and emergency traffic > folks. > > Since Winlink 2000 is administered by one person for the entire worldwide > system, they have indicated they do not have the ability to add many > additional stations. > > Because WL2K is a proprietary system, they do not want any redundant system > to "compete" with their system, even though it would be far better for the > amateur community, and for emergency communications, to have many such > systems in place that are not directly connected to each other. If one WL2K > system failed, you would have other options. And yes, the chance of this > happening needs to be placed in the calculus of emergency planning. > > By the way, I did not see any retraction of your claim that the WL2K had > been infected by a virus, when in fact it had not. We need to keep a > balanced persp
[digitalradio] www.arrl.org
Please note the recent actions of the ARRL Executive Committee. They are to be applauded for their vision and courage. Please let's get beyond the present situation, protocols, and biases, and plan for the future. This means, let's get beyond the present perceptions of existing operations. For Weinlink 2000, I can assure you that its toology and methodology will evolve to whatever extent necessary to become optimal. There is no marraige to any specific topology, or protocol. In the overall scheme of things, it should not be the only digital methodology advancing. With digital spectrum available, there will ample opportunities to bring many digital methodologies forward. Binary bits are binary bits, and there is no reason why they cannot carry voice, data and image on the same frequencies with the same tranmission. Thanks, Steve, k4cjx The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Tanks buddy, And we all want to "stick the other mode" somewhere else. Band planning by bandwidth will allow RTTY to sit without the problems of Pactor wide or narrow. In fact, If they do retain the auto-sub-bands for Packet, it will also remain free to auto-forward, machine-to- machine. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see your point. I have been through some hurricanes here in NC that took > out my power for over a week at at time. I did not use WinLink, nor did > anyone else, to contact the local power company to get my power restored. > I used my cell phone. > > Steve, I have been reading the banter concerning WinLink. > I think you and several others are missing the main point. And that point > is simply this: Digital ops like myself have grown VERY weary of > unattended, trashy Pactor stations cranking up on top of an on- going QSO. > I have NOTHING against Pactor, as I used it extensively for years for nice > QSO's. I have NOTHING against WinLink unless you guys decided to set up > shop in the middle of the RTTY/Digital areas and crank out more extra wide > signals and ruin those freqs for you personal satisfaction. > Packet was successful in ruining the upper part of the 20 meter (14.085 - > 14.100) RTTY area. We can thank the ARRL for deciding that area should be > for HF Packet. Thank gosh Packet has almost disappeared from that area. > I am also not so comfy with all of this interaction with ham radio via the > internet either. The is amateur radio, not amateur e-mail or amateur BBS or > amateur internet. > Summary: Put Winlink in a corner so you guys can exchange email all day. > Put it above 14.100 on 20 meters. Don't take things personally Steve, > I'd feel the same if SSTV or AM or FM was going to plop down on top of RTTY > frequencies. I hate to see this turn into one big digital free- for-all. > > Buddy WB4M The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Emergency Communications: was Win Link
Imperial county (next door?) used it extensively accoring to the Red Cross there. This thread needs to end. It is going nowhere. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But did they use Winlink? That was the gist of my original post. As an avid RTTY op for the past 23 years, I doubt very seriously RTTY is used in local disasters. Two meters or other VHF bands yes, but digital, no. > > Buddy WB4M > All outgoing emails scanned with Norton's Anti-virus. > - Original Message - > From: Dr. Howard S. White > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:39 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Emergency Communications: was Win Link > > > Buddy: > > > You don't have to go so far as India... How about something closer to home... like San Diego > > > The 2003 San Diego Cedar Fires > Most people are unaware that during the recent 2003 Cedar Fires which so devastated San Diego that Land Lines Telephones failed due to downed wires, Cellular Systems failed due to overloading, downed towers, failed links and signal refraction from smoke and most seriously the 800 MHz trunked emergency radio network which was used by all the fire fighters, police and other emergency workers failed due to overloading and severe signal refraction from the smoke. In other words there was virtually no communications whatsoever for several days.. EXCEPT > > The only group that was able to provide consistent reliable communications was a group of 180+ volunteer amateur radio operators operating under the auspices of ARES®, CERO, ARC, CDF and CARES. This, of course, is not surprising as in most civil emergencies, such as 9/11; Amateur Radio Operators are usually the only ones that continue to communicate reliably when all other means of communications fail. > > Why do government communications systems always fail in true emergencies and our ham systems continue to work? The simple answer is bio diversity. We have many more frequencies, many more modes and many more highly qualified trained operators than the government does. In the rush for funds, Congress sold off much of the government emergency spectrum to the private sector. This sale which forced government emergency services into a single tiny band of frequencies coupled with totally inadequate funding, leaves the public totally unprotected every time a major emergency hits us. The government communications systems which work OK during normal times, they just can't handle the volume or diversity of real emergencies > > So much for Ham Radio becoming a joke! > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America" > Website: www.ky6la.com > > > - Original Message - > From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:21 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link > > > > Buddy, > > Daily. We get requests from the U.S. Coast Guard every other week or > so, as well as other country agencies, and we have a good track > record in finding these vessels. > > During the last Hurricane episode, we were the only visible > communications from many of the islands, the most widely known was > Grenada, but there were many more, including coastal areas within th > USA. > > During the Tsunami Disaster (still a disaster, still pumping traffic) > offshore vessels out off the shallow coastal areas barely felt > the "bump," however, they were able to get to shore and assist where > feasible. They still are assisting. > > The recent failure of INTELSAT 804, which was a major pipeline for > several New Zealand Common Carriers, the Military, and Broadcast > Stations, failed permanently. High revenue users were placed on other > satellites, but very many islands were left without communications. > We were able to provide communications for many of those without it. > We still do. > > In fact, a PMBO is being set up in India along with the PMBO in > Darwin, Australia specifically to assist with these last two > unfortunate incidents. > > There is other not so public assistance coming out of other parts of > the World, and they are still in operation. Best I can give you there > is to review the CBS documentary of past efforts in that part of the > world
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
When Hams don't think they may add value to emergency communications, its all over! Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Gregg Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Buddy, > > Great points you make there. You are absolutely correct about technology! I mean, they now have cellphones that don't need towers or electricity to function properly. Cellphones always work perfect. And telephone service, why the phone systems never fail! > > 1. 9/11/2001 - When the WTC collapsed, it took with it a majority of cellphone, public service, and broadcast transmitters with it. In the ensuing chaos, the remaining cellphone circuits jammed within SECONDS rendering cellphone service virtually useless within 10 miles of ground zero. > > 2. The date I do not recall, but when a US Air Boeing 737 crashed while on approach to Pittsburgh International Airport the crash site was remote-enough that many of the responding fire/rescue/police units were out of range from their 800mhz trunked systems. In addition, when they reverted to cellphone use, they found the circuits almost immediately swamped because of a lack of coverage and everyone trying to use their phones. Commercial broadcast media urged people to avoid using cellphones - or even landlines in the area of the accident so that emergency personnel could communicate. The crash occurred a few miles outside a fairly good sized city and only 20 miles from Downtown Pittsburgh. > > 3. Within the last 2 years, again the exact date I do not recall, a contractor accidentally cut a fiberoptic cable in a rural area between Huntington and Charleston, WV. This cut randomly crippled local and long-distance telephone circuits in both cities for almost 8 hours. > > Now, do I advocate a system that sometimes blocks large chunks of spectrum - absolutely not! But if you truly believe that ham radio is useless, then please surrender your license to the FCC - you are needlessly taking-up a callsign assignment that would be used by someone else. > > Gregg Hendry > W8DUQ > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:34 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link > > > Great overall post, Dean! Especially this part: > > > > > 1. Ham radio is dying, because modern communications technology has > > passed it, and the amateur community, even if totally united (ha > > ha), doesn't have the resources to combat it in any meaningful way. > > 2. The attempt to justify amateur radio by its role in providing > > emergency and public service communications is rapidly becoming a > > joke. > > Can someone tell me the last time there was an emergency that wiped out > "normal" communications, and a bunch of hams got on Winlink and saved the > day? When a severe emergency happens, like a tornado, hurricane, or > nuclear war, I think most people are mainly concerned with saving their > bacon, and not getting on the air. > > 73 Buddy WB4M The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Of secondary importance to this message is the following: http://www.kyham.net/emcomm/ares/digital/systems.html and it may not be current, but its an indication of Winlink 2000 for KY EmComm. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Mike/k1eg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can give you one example. The ice storm of 94 here in KY knocked out all > communications except Amateur. Winlink wasn't around then but if it had it > would have been used I'm sure. Packet Radio was used in that storm. > > Mike K1EG > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:34 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link > > > > > > Great overall post, Dean! Especially this part: > > > > > > > > 1. Ham radio is dying, because modern communications technology has > > > passed it, and the amateur community, even if totally united (ha > > > ha), doesn't have the resources to combat it in any meaningful way. > > > 2. The attempt to justify amateur radio by its role in providing > > > emergency and public service communications is rapidly becoming a > > > joke. > > > > Can someone tell me the last time there was an emergency that wiped out > > "normal" communications, and a bunch of hams got on Winlink and saved the > > day? When a severe emergency happens, like a tornado, hurricane, or > > nuclear war, I think most people are mainly concerned with saving their > > bacon, and not getting on the air. > > > > 73 Buddy WB4M > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Buddy, Daily. We get requests from the U.S. Coast Guard every other week or so, as well as other country agencies, and we have a good track record in finding these vessels. During the last Hurricane episode, we were the only visible communications from many of the islands, the most widely known was Grenada, but there were many more, including coastal areas within th USA. During the Tsunami Disaster (still a disaster, still pumping traffic) offshore vessels out off the shallow coastal areas barely felt the "bump," however, they were able to get to shore and assist where feasible. They still are assisting. The recent failure of INTELSAT 804, which was a major pipeline for several New Zealand Common Carriers, the Military, and Broadcast Stations, failed permanently. High revenue users were placed on other satellites, but very many islands were left without communications. We were able to provide communications for many of those without it. We still do. In fact, a PMBO is being set up in India along with the PMBO in Darwin, Australia specifically to assist with these last two unfortunate incidents. There is other not so public assistance coming out of other parts of the World, and they are still in operation. Best I can give you there is to review the CBS documentary of past efforts in that part of the world with a video called "Last Voice From Kuwait" I think still at the ARRL, although I am not certain if they have copies. There is a more, such as the horror show weather in Puru and Chili immediately after the hurricanes last year, but hopefully, you get the picture. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great overall post, Dean! Especially this part: > > > > > 1. Ham radio is dying, because modern communications technology has > > passed it, and the amateur community, even if totally united (ha > > ha), doesn't have the resources to combat it in any meaningful way. > > 2. The attempt to justify amateur radio by its role in providing > > emergency and public service communications is rapidly becoming a > > joke. > > Can someone tell me the last time there was an emergency that wiped out > "normal" communications, and a bunch of hams got on Winlink and saved the > day? When a severe emergency happens, like a tornado, hurricane, or > nuclear war, I think most people are mainly concerned with saving their > bacon, and not getting on the air. > > 73 Buddy WB4M The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Dave, The hidden transmitter issue is solved with signal detection unlike contesting, it has a solution. Your earlier statement regarding the ability of the signal detection in the SCS modem has some disagreement. You stated that the SCS modem only looks for Pactor signals: If you want to disagree, be my guest, but please read the note from Hans-Peter Helfert, the inventor of Pactor 1, II and III regarding the signal detection used in his SCS modems. Not have been involved in writing the code, I will watch the discussion with interest. My posts seem to be getting repetitive replies, and are getting tiring. I am going to give this a rest for a while. I have your points of view. Thanks for your comments. Steve, k4cjx >From Hans-Peter Helfort: - Original Message - Mid: SMTP9338406 From: SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: K4CJX-1;SMTP:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 4/12/2005 11:21:00 Subject: Re: Help, please.. Steve, > From Dave Bernstein, aa6yq: > Several times now, you have mentioned the busy detector in the SCS > modem, and each time, I've reminded you that it only detects Pactor > signals and is thus of no use as a general solution to the hidden > transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up? The busy detector of the current PTC firmwares detects: - all kinds of FSK signals with shifts from 50 Hz to 300 Hz (RTTY, G-TOR, 300 Bd FSK-Packet, etc.) - PACTOR - all signals that generate an unsymmetric spectrum within the detector passband. (Depending on the frequency offset also narrow- bandwidth signals like CW or PSK31 are recognized, but there is a small chance that the detector fails when the signal is excatly centered in the middle of the passband. The detector was not designed for signals with very low bandwidth as it is not reasonable to share a band segment between 100 Hz and 500 Hz wide modes anyway. Nevertheless, though not very reasonable, a very sensitive detector for narrow-bandwidth signals could be added - if really required. Of course, then there is a risk, that a single weak carrier completely blocks a PMBO.) 73 de Peter --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've asked you to explain, other than by pure assertion, how > segmenting the bands by bandwidth solves the hidden transmitter > problem. In response, you asked for a description of the hidden > transmitter problem with an example; that's been provided. > > Now you are again asserting that segmenting the bands by bandwidth > solves the hidden transmitter problem, but with no explanation of > exactly how this would work. If you cannot provide an explanation, > then the logical conclusion is that you don't have one. Neither does > anyone else. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > Segmenting the bands by bandwidth, where narrow band > conversational > > modes, who use control operators on each end is the answer to this > > issue. However, I will agree that signal detection will start > playing > > a role in semi-automatic operations. I suspect, with more digital > > activity forthcoming, the 45 active Winlink stations will be > dwarfted > > by other semi-automatic and fully-automatic operations. In fact, > it > > should become a viable part of fully-automatic operations as well. > > Without specific channalization, or frequency ownership, there is > > always going to be a problem. Bandwidth segmentation is a first > step. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Steve, > > > > > > I think you know full well what is the hidden transmitter > effect. > > You must > > > know that in the HF bands a station calling an unattended > station > > has no > > > idea whether > > > the frequency is clear at the unattended side. If the calling > > station > > > could monitor the unattended station first, then the manned > station > > could > > > insure that the frequency is clear. It is a simple fact this > does > > not > > > occur. To say that the calling station is the control operator > of > > the > > > unattended station is a ruse. Its like > > > saying the guy that uses a repeater on 2m is the control > operator. > > Now for > > > your example: > > > > > > There are 4 stations. Lets call them A, B, C, and D. Stations A > > and B are > > &g
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Dave, Even though semi-automatic operations are NOT confined to the US sub- bands for signals over 500 Hz IF the semi-auto station is not in the US, we have been keeping them there where possible as a courtesy. However, obviously, it is not an optimal solution. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the bands have division by bandwidth, then Winlink on Pactor 2 > won't be QRMing CW and PSK QSOs, but will be QRMing RTTY and MFSK > QSOs. > > Segmentation by bandwidth is a good thing, but does not solve the > hidden transmitter problem -- it exchanges one group of victims for > another. > > Busy detectors solve the hidden transmitter problem. Without busy > detectors, semi-automatic operation must remain confined to > designated sub-bands; this doesn't eliminate the QRM either, it just > reduces the range in which it occurs. > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Dave, > > > > If the bands have divisions by bandwidth, wouldn't you find the > CW/PSK folks > > in a completely different area from the wider BW modes? > > > > The RTTY/Pactor II modes would also not be in the area of the > wider digital > > modes either such as SCAMP/P3/MT-63/Olivia etc. > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:04 AM > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink > > > > > > > > > > I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a > > contester. > > > > Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does > > that make it ok for Winlink on Pactor to QRM in-progress QSOs? > > Absolutely not. > > > > Please explain how band planning by bandwidth will mitigate QRM > > caused by Winlink on Pactor due to the hidden transmitter effect. > > > >73, > > > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: > 4/12/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, Steve. You have conveniently ignored the solution I've been > proposing and proceeded to shoot down two proposals I've never made. > Is this your idea of constructive discourse? > > The solution I submitted to the ARRL on 4/6, copied to this > reflector, is > > 1. Station automation application software is deemed "qualified" if > it demonstrably refrains from responding to an incoming request if > such a response would QRM an ongoing QSO in SSB, CW, RTTY, PSK, > MFSK, or SSTV modes -- unless overridden by an operator during a > declared emergency. With specifying modes, this voluntary ruling would be restricting this process to only the above protocols, with obvious omissions. I would rather state, "ASO in protocols that can be reasonably detected." > > 2. Semi-automatic operation with unqualified station automatic > software remains restricted to today's defined sub-bands; one year > from the adoption of this proposal, the extent of these sub-bands > should be significantly reduced (but not eliminated). I believe this is going to happen. > > 3. Semi-automatic operation with qualified station automation is > restricted only by signal bandwidth, like any other amateur > transmission under the new bandwidth-based proposal. Agreed! > > Under this proposal, Winlink on SCAMP could be used anywhere on the > amateur bands, subject only to restrictions on signal bandwidth to > which all amateur transmissions would be subject. I agree, and I believe that this is being reviewed by the author of SCAMP. Steve, k4cjx > > Kindly address your critique to the above proposal. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > The ONLY answer for your satisfaction would be to totally > channalize > > the Ham bands and utilize free signalling. Since this is not a > > practical methodology, QRM is enherent, and will happen, > regardless > > of my perception of the "hidden transmitter effect." To listen to > > you, Winlink 2000 is the only segement of the Amateur population > that > > has the ability to QRM. I think not, but many do think that > bandwidth > > segmentation will reduce the problem. I see a round robin thread > > taking place here with no end in site. > > > > I understand your reasoning, Winlink 2000 should have its own band > > segmentation, away from everything else. Now that is a smart move > if > > I have ever heard one. Yup, let's push to regulate such a move so > > that when Winlink 2000 is no more due to whatever reasoning or > > circumstance, that segment of the band sits for years while > someone > > figures out how to get rid of the static regulation. Good idea? > That > > is what we have now. It does not work. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > For non-realtime message delivery, you would choose a protocol > that > > > QRMs ongoing QSOs over one that is slower but doesn't QRM > ongoing > > > QSOs? > > > > > > 73, > > > > > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave: > > > > > > > > In my dreams the answer is yes. > > > > > > > > Rick who is writing the SCAMP code says that Pactor 3 is very > > > good...and would be hard to beat... > > > > > > > > I, personally, would love it if SCAMP could replace PACTOR > > > > > > > > ... but unfortunately, the real world creeps into my dreams.. > > > > > > > > we just have not yet been able to achieve the Speeds of > > Pactor > > > 3 with SCAMP... > > > > > > > > .. if and when we ever do, and there is not then a Pactor 4 > mode > > > out there, then it is possible.. > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > > > > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > > > > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado
[digitalradio] Re: SCAMP vs P3 Mode
Rick, One point here in a very good message. IF both control operators are present, and IF the bandwidth of the protocol is wider than 500 Hz, operations are NOT limited to the auto-sub-bands. Also, if an unattended station is NOT in the United States, and a US Amateur is present, he may transmit to the unattended station outside the US auto-sub-bands. As good citizens, to date, we have placed as many of the 45 semi-automatic stations as their laws allow in our US auto-sub- bands as a courtesy to all. However, for SCAMP experimentation during development, there IS operations above the current automatic sub- bands for SCAMP testing. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a beta tester of SCAMP I have had some hands on with the mode using the > Paclink SCD program. In fact, at this moment I am attempting a 20 meter > SCAMP connection from Wisconsin to a station in Nova Scotia. Looking at > SCAMP vs. P modes: > > 1. If you want the highest possible throughput under the best possible > conditions, P3 mode is the best available high speed wide bandwidth digital > mode on amateur radio. But it is a propietary mode and very costly. > > While Pactor modes work below the noise, < 0 db S/N ratio, they do slow down > considerably as they adapt to conditions. So realistically, for reasonable > message throughput, it does appear that to get transfer rates of several > thousand bytes per minute, you need to be above the noise with any current > mode. > > SCAMP currently requires something around 10 db S/N to work at all. This is > higher than the initial simulation testing suggested and it has been a > disappointment. However, based on other programs that use the same RDFT > protocol, such as DIGTRX, the same thing held true. > > The RDFT software developer has been working on improved protocols for > weaker signal conditions. My understanding is that they still plan on using > the rather high 122 baud rate. I have wondered what would happen if the baud > rate was lowered to say half rate with another rate in between, but > apparently he has a reason for not doing this. > > If the mode had an adaptive speed for throughput of "only" 500 net bytes per > minute, but could work below the noise, it would still be very effective for > emergency communications. In fact, I would take the position that this is > necessary for success. > > Others may be planning new modes but aren't saying too much at this time > except for an MT-63 ARQ mode that K9PS is working on. But it would be much > better if you could use just one software program to make this work under > emergency conditions. > > It is surprising to me how few hams there are who can do programming and are > also willing to develop digital modes. I really thought a decade ago that we > would be much further along by now. But as computers continue to become more > powerful there will surely be more development along those lines. > > 2. There is some resistance to SCAMP from existing P mode users, partially > due to SCAMP's (currently) less robust throughput but there is some buyer's > remorse from some hams who invested between ~$800 and perhaps up to $1500 > for the proprietary SCS modem and they don't want to see anything that could > erode their investment, and human nature being what it is, you can't really > blame them. > > 3. For emergency setups, sound card set ups may not be quite as easy as > having a dedicated modem. > > 4. SCAMP mode connections have to be installed on existing or new PMBO > stations. WL2K totally controls the entire world's distribution of who gets > these and where they are located. Steve, K4CJX is concerned about inadequate > HF space on the automatic subbands where SCAMP must currently operate. > > My preference is to have many stations that operate on more NVIS paths, > especially on 80 meters which is otherwise pretty quiet during the daytime, > that can handle WL2K traffic at the Section level. This mostly avoids any > hidden tx issues. > - - - - > Well surprisingly, the connection was made on 14.114 and several of my > messages went out to the Nova Scotia station that has a test SCAMP port! > Some messages have been sitting here a week or so. Well that is no worse > than it used to be when I was in AF MARS and they would intentionally delay > delivery of messages due to wanting to keep everything in their system. > > I even received some incoming messages too. When it works, it is pretty > nifty. Net throughput was just short of 1900 bytes per minute. Not bad, not > bad at all. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > &
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Bob, Of course, and with Winlink 2000, if we have repeated offenders as users, first a warning and then they get removed. This goes for message content as well. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob DeHaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And if an OT may say something (licensed since 1961 and self- employed doing > networking SOHO) I was taught by my Elmer W4MLT, first listen then > transmit...I assume this rule of behavior is still applicable? > > 73, > > Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T ex WA4AZR, DJ0AL, KF5MS and a couple of MARS calls. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 14:41 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink > > > Steve, > > I think you know full well what is the hidden transmitter effect. You must > know that in the HF bands a station calling an unattended station has no > idea whether > the frequency is clear at the unattended side. If the calling station > could monitor the unattended station first, then the manned station could > insure that the frequency is clear. It is a simple fact this does not > occur. To say that the calling station is the control operator of the > unattended station is a ruse. Its like > saying the guy that uses a repeater on 2m is the control operator. Now for > your example: > > There are 4 stations. Lets call them A, B, C, and D. Stations A and B are > in MT63 QSO on 14.109.5 MHz USB dial (14.110.5 center frequency). The MT63 > QSO occupies +/- 500Hz from 14.110 to 14.111 MHz. Station D is an > unattended WinLink PMBO on 14.109.9 MHz. Station C is a user of the > WinLink Network wishing to link with Station D. Station C listens on > frequency for activity. Station C hears no activity. Station C initiates > the link and Station D responds. Station D QRM's station B because of > favorable propagation between Stations B and D. Station A does not hear > station C or D, station C does not hear stations A or B, but station B > hears station D. Station D needs a detector that detects activity in the > bandwidth that will be occupied to prevent startup of the link, or station > C needs to be able to listen to the receiver output of station D to > determine if the channel is occupied. > > This is just one example. This concern was known to the FCC in 1995 when > PR Docket 94-59 was released. The FCC stated: > "First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the > automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled > station from causing interference. Second, we are designating subbands to > which transmissions between tow automatically controlled stations are > confined." > > So you can see from these statements there is no definition of > semi-automatic operation. There are stations with a control operator, and > stations that are automatically controlled. It is responsibility of the > "control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically > controlled station" to "prevent the automatically controlled station from > causing interference". Before the sound card mode explosion this was not > as big of a problem. After the soundcard mode explosion, unattended > stations using PACTOR did not keep up with the times and incorporate the > tools necessary to allow the control operator that is connected to the > automatically controlled station to comply with the FCC rules. The FCC > also stated that " we also are confident in the ability of the amateur > service community to respond, as it has in the past to the challenge of > minimizing interference with novel technical and operational approaches to > the use of shared frequency bands". You have to admit Steve, the WinLink > community has been dragged kicking and screaming in to the 21st century > realization that the bands and modes have changed, and no longer are FSK > signals the only kids on the block. > > 73, > > Mark N5RFX > > > At 05:40 AM 4/12/2005, you wrote: > > >Please explain "hidden transmit effect" with an example. Please > >explain how it is impossible for this also to occur with control > >operator presence. > > > > > >Steve, k4cjx > > > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > > > > I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a > > > contester. > > > > > > Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does > > > that make
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
With the exception of W1AW bulletin and code practice operaions, I fully agree. Regulation of bandwidth by protocol is not working. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n4zkf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also agree it should have it's own space. What I don't agree on is one group OR one mode getting it's own little piece of the pie all to itself. > > Dave > n4zkf > > > "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > With proper band planning by bandwidth, this issue will be mute. > There is room on our bands for all digital modes, past, present and > future. Wilink 2000 is a small player in the grand scheme of what is > to come. Segregation by mode of operation or style of operation is > long past. I do think that fully automatic "no human side" auto- > forwarding should have its own space, but that is just my own point > of view. > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the packet systems too Mike? > > They also handle a lot of what some here > > are calling "email". Or should all "traffic" nets > > that pass anything that could be sent via AOL > > be shut down. > > > > Seem to me everything was rosy till PSK got here. > > > > This "anti- any mode except for" crap has got to stop soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 01:05 PM 4/8/05, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues > interesting. > > >The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it > via > > >SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used > > >only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the > > >Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their > > >personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a > commercial > > >carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link > > >traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down > since > > >the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier. > > >73's > > >Mike KL7AR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > - > Yahoo! Groups Links > >To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > Make Yahoo! your home page The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Dave, Segmenting the bands by bandwidth, where narrow band conversational modes, who use control operators on each end is the answer to this issue. However, I will agree that signal detection will start playing a role in semi-automatic operations. I suspect, with more digital activity forthcoming, the 45 active Winlink stations will be dwarfted by other semi-automatic and fully-automatic operations. In fact, it should become a viable part of fully-automatic operations as well. Without specific channalization, or frequency ownership, there is always going to be a problem. Bandwidth segmentation is a first step. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve, > > I think you know full well what is the hidden transmitter effect. You must > know that in the HF bands a station calling an unattended station has no > idea whether > the frequency is clear at the unattended side. If the calling station > could monitor the unattended station first, then the manned station could > insure that the frequency is clear. It is a simple fact this does not > occur. To say that the calling station is the control operator of the > unattended station is a ruse. Its like > saying the guy that uses a repeater on 2m is the control operator. Now for > your example: > > There are 4 stations. Lets call them A, B, C, and D. Stations A and B are > in MT63 QSO on 14.109.5 MHz USB dial (14.110.5 center frequency). The MT63 > QSO occupies +/- 500Hz from 14.110 to 14.111 MHz. Station D is an > unattended WinLink PMBO on 14.109.9 MHz. Station C is a user of the > WinLink Network wishing to link with Station D. Station C listens on > frequency for activity. Station C hears no activity. Station C initiates > the link and Station D responds. Station D QRM's station B because of > favorable propagation between Stations B and D. Station A does not hear > station C or D, station C does not hear stations A or B, but station B > hears station D. Station D needs a detector that detects activity in the > bandwidth that will be occupied to prevent startup of the link, or station > C needs to be able to listen to the receiver output of station D to > determine if the channel is occupied. > > This is just one example. This concern was known to the FCC in 1995 when > PR Docket 94-59 was released. The FCC stated: > "First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the > automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled > station from causing interference. Second, we are designating subbands to > which transmissions between tow automatically controlled stations are > confined." > > So you can see from these statements there is no definition of > semi-automatic operation. There are stations with a control operator, and > stations that are automatically controlled. It is responsibility of the > "control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically > controlled station" to "prevent the automatically controlled station from > causing interference". Before the sound card mode explosion this was not > as big of a problem. After the soundcard mode explosion, unattended > stations using PACTOR did not keep up with the times and incorporate the > tools necessary to allow the control operator that is connected to the > automatically controlled station to comply with the FCC rules. The FCC > also stated that " we also are confident in the ability of the amateur > service community to respond, as it has in the past to the challenge of > minimizing interference with novel technical and operational approaches to > the use of shared frequency bands". You have to admit Steve, the WinLink > community has been dragged kicking and screaming in to the 21st century > realization that the bands and modes have changed, and no longer are FSK > signals the only kids on the block. > > 73, > > Mark N5RFX > > > At 05:40 AM 4/12/2005, you wrote: > > >Please explain "hidden transmit effect" with an example. Please > >explain how it is impossible for this also to occur with control > >operator presence. > > > > > >Steve, k4cjx > > > > > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > > > > I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a > > > contester. > > > > > > Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does > > > that make it ok for Winlink on Pactor to QRM in-progress QSOs? > > > Absolutely not. >
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
Dave, The ONLY answer for your satisfaction would be to totally channalize the Ham bands and utilize free signalling. Since this is not a practical methodology, QRM is enherent, and will happen, regardless of my perception of the "hidden transmitter effect." To listen to you, Winlink 2000 is the only segement of the Amateur population that has the ability to QRM. I think not, but many do think that bandwidth segmentation will reduce the problem. I see a round robin thread taking place here with no end in site. I understand your reasoning, Winlink 2000 should have its own band segmentation, away from everything else. Now that is a smart move if I have ever heard one. Yup, let's push to regulate such a move so that when Winlink 2000 is no more due to whatever reasoning or circumstance, that segment of the band sits for years while someone figures out how to get rid of the static regulation. Good idea? That is what we have now. It does not work. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For non-realtime message delivery, you would choose a protocol that > QRMs ongoing QSOs over one that is slower but doesn't QRM ongoing > QSOs? > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave: > > > > In my dreams the answer is yes. > > > > Rick who is writing the SCAMP code says that Pactor 3 is very > good...and would be hard to beat... > > > > I, personally, would love it if SCAMP could replace PACTOR > > > > ... but unfortunately, the real world creeps into my dreams.. > > > > we just have not yet been able to achieve the Speeds of Pactor > 3 with SCAMP... > > > > .. if and when we ever do, and there is not then a Pactor 4 mode > out there, then it is possible.. > > > > __ > > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America" > > Website: www.ky6la.com > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Dave Bernstein > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:12 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team > > > > > > > > Please explain why SCAMP would not totally displace Pactor as a > > transport protocol for Winlink. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>AA6YQ comments below: > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >snip< > > > > > > > > > > >>> I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower > to > > > > implement multi-mode busy detection with a pure software > > upgrade, > > > > but lets assume for a moment that this is technically > feasible. > > SCS > > > > would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, > > testing, > > > > and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users > decide > > to > > > > invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a free > > software > > > > solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the answer to this > > > question, why would SCS undertake the development? > > > > > > From k4cjx: Primarily because with Winlink 2000 alone, they > have > > > over 5,000 such modems in the hands of users. Secondly, SCAMP > is > > not > > > there to take the place of Pactor 3. Rather, it will > eventually be > > > another option, but not for several sectors of its population. > > > Lastly, I believe that if it is at all possible, SCS, who have > > always > > > responded positively to such requests for improvement, have > the > > know- > > > how to get this accomplished thr
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Please explain "hidden transmit effect" with an example. Please explain how it is impossible for this also to occur with control operator presence. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a > contester. > > Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does > that make it ok for Winlink on Pactor to QRM in-progress QSOs? > Absolutely not. > > Please explain how band planning by bandwidth will mitigate QRM > caused by Winlink on Pactor due to the hidden transmitter effect. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dave, > > > > Interesting logic. How about attempting a QSO during a contest > > weekend? I do believe that with band planning by bandwidth, and > with > > some agreements in place, both scenarios can be resolved. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > No matter how you move things around, Steve, Winlink on Pactor > is > > > going to QRM the QSOs with which it shares spectrum -- unless > you > > > arrange for Winlink to have its own exclusive sub-bands, or > unless > > > SCS provides multi-mode busy detectors. > > > > > >73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > > > As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, > for > > > > whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and > > > > courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come > up > > > > with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I > would > > > hope > > > > they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and > move > > > the > > > > narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they > can > > > > share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however. > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors > met > > > two > > > > > days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation > by > > > > > bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would > dramatically > > > > increase > > > > > the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic > operation, > > > and > > > > > with it, unfortunately, QRM. > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL > > makes > > > a > > > > > decision, or delays its decision for some significant > interval. > > > > > > > > > >73, > > > > > > > > > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read > enough > > > > about > > > > > > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be > > here > > > > for a > > > > > > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place > in > > > ham > > > > > radio > > > > > > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red > > > Cross > > > > > etc, > > > > > > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in > my > > > > opinion > > > > > > only, most likely the same way packet has. > > > > > > > > > > > > So since this is about digital modes other then just > winlink, > > > can > > > > we > > > > > > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or > new > > > > mode > > > > > > coming out. > > > > > > > > > > > > 73 > > > > > > Kurt > > > > > > WA8VBX The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Dave, Interesting logic. How about attempting a QSO during a contest weekend? I do believe that with band planning by bandwidth, and with some agreements in place, both scenarios can be resolved. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No matter how you move things around, Steve, Winlink on Pactor is > going to QRM the QSOs with which it shares spectrum -- unless you > arrange for Winlink to have its own exclusive sub-bands, or unless > SCS provides multi-mode busy detectors. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for > > whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and > > courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come up > > with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I would > hope > > they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and move > the > > narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they can > > share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors met > two > > > days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation by > > > bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would dramatically > > increase > > > the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic operation, > and > > > with it, unfortunately, QRM. > > > > > > I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL makes > a > > > decision, or delays its decision for some significant interval. > > > > > >73, > > > > > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough > > about > > > > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here > > for a > > > > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in > ham > > > radio > > > > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red > Cross > > > etc, > > > > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my > > opinion > > > > only, most likely the same way packet has. > > > > > > > > So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, > can > > we > > > > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new > > mode > > > > coming out. > > > > > > > > 73 > > > > Kurt > > > > WA8VBX The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Dave, Yes we have. The most severe. A real pain in the butt, but to date, it is working. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant to say "Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or > SWL with access to an SCS modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, > harvest email addresses, and sell them to spammers, I assume that > you have deployed an enterprise-scale anti-virus and anti-spam > solutions comparable to those employed by ISPs." > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an > SCS > > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and > > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an > enterprise- > > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. > > > > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the > airwaves, > > content filters might also be a good idea. > > > >73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party > > traffic > > > Content Rules: > > > > > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part > of > > a > > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of > forwarding > > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that > violate > > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative > > > communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing > > such > > > communications once they become aware of their presence." > > > > > > > > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, > > that > > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have > > been > > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper > content, > > or > > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. > If > > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy > of > > the > > > license is required. > > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's > > comment > > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling > > his > > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike > > and > > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message > will > > not > > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce > > the > > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could > > find a > > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction. > > > > > > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions > > here > > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor > > protocol > > > in > > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the > > busy > > > > detectors that would enable station automation software like > > > Winlink > > > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is > > > > already in use. > > > > > > > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been > > QRM'd > > > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other > users > > > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop > > pretending > > > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK > > operators > > > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your > > credibility > > > > is called into question. > > > > > > > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink > > detects > > > > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent > &
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Dave, My point is that the motive for doing anything has to be justified some reward. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically extract > addresses from the log, the capture of which would be continuous, > automatic, and unattended. The captured email addresses would not be > random -- they would be guaranteed live. > > So your response to my constructively identifying a possible > weakness in Winlink is "If you succeed in gathering a saleable > amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the addresses". > You and other memebers of your team often whine about negative > attitudes towards Winlink, but you'll throw a gratuitous jab at the > drop of a hat; reap what you sow. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to grab > a > > few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do such > > things, have much better methods. Try it and see how it works. If > > you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, let > me > > know how you bid the addresses. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an > > SCS > > > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and > > > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an > > enterprise- > > > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. > > > > > > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the > > airwaves, > > > content filters might also be a good idea. > > > > > >73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party > > > traffic > > > > Content Rules: > > > > > > > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part > of > > > a > > > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of > > forwarding > > > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that > > violate > > > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative > > > > communications. They are, however, responsible for > discontinuing > > > such > > > > communications once they become aware of their presence." > > > > > > > > > > > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper > message, > > > that > > > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have > > > been > > > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper > content, > > > or > > > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. > If > > > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy > of > > > the > > > > license is required. > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's > > > comment > > > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in > labeling > > > his > > > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that > Mike > > > and > > > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message > will > > > not > > > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it > induce > > > the > > > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could > > > find a > > > > > less intimidating way o
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi commercial traffic)
PHone patches take place all the time and in significant numbers in Europe. If I am mistaken, then so be it, but I believe you will find the Europeon Maritime Mobile Service Net performing these on a daily basis. http://www.eu-mmsn.org/pages/home.html Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob DeHaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Phone Patches are a mostly US capability and a poor example. They are > illegal for Radio Amateurs in most of the world, including Germany. > > 73, Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T > > _ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 17:03 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link (NOW Commercial and quasi > commercial traffic) > > François, > > Both you and Mike are not hitting the point. I would seriously doubt that > every time you talk on the radio you limit your discussion to "just" > technical matters. I'm sure you've mentioned the weather, talked about your > family, mentioned a great movie you saw or book you read and spoken of other > ham friends. Once again this has missed the mark. How about phone patches > for military personnel that are stationed abroad? We won't let them talk to > family and friends anymore? > > Eric, KB6YNO > > -- Original message -- > > > > > > > Mike hits the point . > > > > Ham radio is not an American radio service limited to the borders of > > the lower 48s > > Canadian regulation (Iknow third world countries don't count) but > > nevertheless Canadian Regs state that Ham communications should be "of > > technical nature or not warrant the use of commercial means"... in past > > times autopatch on the vhf was tollerated before de advent of cellular > > phone... etc.. > > > > Sending traffic that could and should be sent on the net or phone lines > > should be reserved to the net and phonelines,, > > > > And even if ham radio can be of invaluable help in emergencies and > > disasters situations no one should "hijack" world wide international > > requencies on the pretention that a system mode or whatever is > > prepairing 7 days a week 24 hours a day for some eventual local or > > regional emergency... > > > > And finaly who cares if 1% of stations carry 75% of illegetimate > > trafic... > > > > François VE2KV > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > _ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a million questions and the source code is required but I can do > the busy detection > algorithms in short order. I have been too swamped to do anything > about modem work but > if I can help make this better I will consider doing it. I am buried in > software defined radio > work and AMSAT work but I do not believe this channel occupied algorithm > is horrid. > If we did our own ALE, we could move around and find unoccupied channels > and transmit > there. Why have we not? >From k4cjx: We scan now, offering clear channels, or at least, perceived clear channels, but ALE would cause utter chaos as would free signalling. In addition, Winlink 2000 is NOT fully automatic. We have enough problems with those who complain about "Pactor" now. I know this is illogical, but we are attempting to be good citizens regardless of many suggestions from those who oppose anything we do. For more detailed information about what is done with Barry Sanderson's RDFT, you should contact KN6KB. I don't think he participates in these discussions. You can find him on the Scampprotocol Yahoo reflector. Steve, k4cjx > > Is RDFT run as an external executable? Is it incorporated in the source > corpus for SCAMP? > How does this work? What changes have been made to RDFT if any? How > are the > error correction functions handled as binary or soft? > > MANY questions need to be answered before any useful contribution can be > made unless > you can provide a shared audio stream source and have the algorithm run > on a seperate > thread and given veto power over the transmitter. This is suboptimal. > > Bob > N4HY The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Dave, As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come up with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I would hope they will do this by isolating fully-automatic operation and move the narrow band "conversational modes" in a band space where they can share no QRM from data transfer modes. Time will tell, however. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Winlink discussion is timely because the ARRL directors met two > days ago to consider modifications to the ARRL's "allocation by > bandwidth" proposal. The original proposal would dramatically increase > the range of frequencies useable for semi-automatic operation, and > with it, unfortunately, QRM. > > I suspect that this topic will remain "hot" until the ARRL makes a > decision, or delays its decision for some significant interval. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough about > > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here for a > > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in ham > radio > > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red Cross > etc, > > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my opinion > > only, most likely the same way packet has. > > > > So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, can we > > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new mode > > coming out. > > > > 73 > > Kurt > > WA8VBX The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink
Good comments. For Winlink 2000, there is no protocol maarriage, and there never has been. If something better comes along, we will adopt it. We always have. We are in the process of completely re-doing the network topology and before long, we will be adding additional protocols. However, nothing lasts forever, and that includes all present protocols. As much as I hate to see it, CW is slowly disappearing and it is hard to find a good fast qso on 40 meters these days. At least, much harder than it used to be. My favorite saying, "rocks are hard, water is wet, and things change." Thanks for your comments, --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I might be the bad apple in the group, but I have read enough about > winlink. Good Bad or Ugly it is here and will probably be here for a > long time. Does it cause QRM YES, does it have it's place in ham radio > YES, is it the means to meet all the demands for ARES, Red Cross etc, > probably not and as technology changes so will it, and in my opinion > only, most likely the same way packet has. > > So since this is about digital modes other then just winlink, can we > just agree to disagree and move on to some other mode, or new mode > coming out. > > 73 > Kurt > WA8VBX The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Dave, My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to grab a few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do such things, have much better methods. Try it and see how it works. If you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the addresses. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an SCS > modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and > sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an enterprise- > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs. > > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the airwaves, > content filters might also be a good idea. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party > traffic > > Content Rules: > > > > §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of > a > > message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding > > stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate > > the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative > > communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing > such > > communications once they become aware of their presence." > > > > > > For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, > that > > is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have > been > > over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content, > or > > improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If > > there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of > the > > license is required. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's > comment > > > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling > his > > > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike > and > > > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will > not > > > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce > the > > > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could > find a > > > less intimidating way of providing a correction. > > > > > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions > here > > > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor > protocol > > in > > > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the > busy > > > detectors that would enable station automation software like > > Winlink > > > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is > > > already in use. > > > > > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been > QRM'd > > > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users > > > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop > pretending > > > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK > operators > > > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your > credibility > > > is called into question. > > > > > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink > detects > > > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent > with > > > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here! > > > > > > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we > > can > > > call > > > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. > AOL > > > and "Ma > > > > Bell" would love that. I guess we should get the U.S. Postal > >
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>AA6YQ comments below: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >snip< > >>> I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower to > implement multi-mode busy detection with a pure software upgrade, > but lets assume for a moment that this is technically feasible. SCS > would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, testing, > and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users decide to > invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a free software > solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the answer to this question, why would SCS undertake the development? >From k4cjx: Primarily because with Winlink 2000 alone, they have over 5,000 such modems in the hands of users. Secondly, SCAMP is not there to take the place of Pactor 3. Rather, it will eventually be another option, but not for several sectors of its population. Lastly, I believe that if it is at all possible, SCS, who have always responded positively to such requests for improvement, have the know- how to get this accomplished through firmware upgrades. In other words, why should they stop now? They never have. Best thing to do is ask them. Steve, k4cjx > > > > All we can do is look for or develop additional data transfer > > protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control over what > > we do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the most > > robust signal detection available to us. If you know of any > > specific algorythms that are effective for such signal detection, > > please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it the > > best way we can, presently. > > >>>I am thrilled with the incorporation of busy detectors in SCAMP, > and pleased that Winlink saw fit to make this investment; it is the > only viable solution to the hidden transmitter problem that allows > semi-automatic operation to peacefully co-exist with person-to- > person operation. My relevant expertise is in system design and user > interface design, not detection algorithms -- otherwise I would be > contributing more directly. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Digital third party traffic
Dave, What portion of the band were you operating PSK on 30 meters? What CENTER frequency? When was this. In other words, time and date? I believe that with the proper band plan, allowing a segment for automatic operations and allowing properly use semi-automated operations to exist elsewhere, but not on top of PSK or ANY other narrow band modes will come in due time. I am certainly a proponent of bandwidth separation, but not much more. I also am in agreement with what the FCC has been stating that, like CW is today, unregulated as far as its place in the HF spectrum. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did not disagree with the substance of Eric KB6YNO's comments, but > rather their tone; I'd give him a 593. > > I've been QRM'd by PMBOs while operating PSK on the 30m band, and > while operating RTTY on the 30m and 40m bands. In all cases, the > PMBOs were using Pactor-2, which is not confined to the fully- > automatic sub-bands. > > I agree that Rick KN6KB is doing excellent work on the busy detector > front. To encourage more of this, I recommended > > - allowing semi-automatic operation with station automation software > that utilizes busy detectors to operate anywhere in the ham bands, > limited only by retrictions on signal bandwidth > > - confining semi-autmatic operation with station automation software > that lacks or ignores busy detectors to a set of sub-bands whose > span is periodically reduced. > > With regard to message content, the Winlink scenario is a > challenging one because the author of a Winlink-delivered message > may not be a ham, and may not be aware that the message will be > delivered via a mechanism that imposes restrictions on content. > There is also the problem that email addresses are sent in clear- > text, and thus can easily be harvested. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Eric is well known for his tactful approach to discussion;) > However, Mike's > > opposition to third party traffic is a bit late in the game. Even > phone > > patching was done well before I was first licensed and that was > over 40 > > years ago. Same thing with the amateur radio emergency nets, not > the least > > of which is the entire ARRL NTS (National Traffic System) here in > the U.S. > > > > If we think back to the impetus for the formation of the ARRL, it > was done > > specifically to relay such traffic. So this kind of message > handling goes > > back to the very foundation of ham radio. The reason that it is > not done in > > some other countries, particularly the EU, was due to ownership of > the > > telecommunications system by the governments themselves and they > did not > > want any competition to take away revenues. In the U.S. the > > telecommunications are owned by private companies and the > government is much > > less concerned about any revenue loss. > > > > One of the things about Pactor QRM'ing that I still am not clear > on ... who > > is really doing it? Has this ever happened to anyone in the PSK31 > watering > > holes? > > > > If so, then you know they are not Winlink 2000 stations. From my > > understanding, the Winlink frequencies are fairly limited and they > further > > limit many of the smaller bandwidth transmissions (< 500 Hz) to > the fully > > automatic subbands, if my understanding is correct from recent > comments. > > > > Is there a table that shows all the spot frequencies? Each of the > published > > PMBO's does list their frequencies of course but you would have to > go > > through each one to come up with a composite. > > > > While I do support changes to the U.S. subbands, I did write to > the ARRL > > with my recommendation that they do not allow stations without a > human > > operator and without automatic detection of a busy channel to > operate > > outside the "automatic" area of the data subbands. (Perhaps those > subbands > > could be made slightly larger?). This seems like the best > solution at this > > time. > > > > The busy channel technology developed by Rick, KN6KB is impressive > and I > > fully support the use of this technology in any automatic or semi- > automatic > > stations. Maybe even for programs with human operators such as we > have now > > with the SCAMP mode in the Paclink SCD program:
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
Rick, I think that healthy discussions of how to enhance any protocol or system is a must if we are to continue to grow. The opposition to any one model is not productive if no alternatives are suggested. There is room for digital automatic operations, digital semi-automatic operations and real-time digital conversational modes. The question is where should they reside. Obviously, there is a need for improved efficiency with any existing or potential protocol. This is a good forum for such discussions as long as there is not any personal assassinations. I have seen them on other reflectors and seen them here, and they do not assist in the process for further development of anything positive for Amateur radio. "Winlink Wants your Frequencies" is a perfect example of a negative campaign spread wherever it can find a nitch in an attempt to create a mass movement against something that always has obvious value. If it did not, it would require no negative campaign to attempt to destroy it. No one plays with a system that does not work. So, improvement rather than imprisonment is a much more positive method of progressing. This is true with Automatic operations such as HF Packet, which I think will survive, as well as other methodologies, such as narrow band conversational modes and semi- automatic operations. I did not realize that you were working with Jim, KB9MMC. My understanding this group consisted of KC9JS, John; Bill Niemuth, KB9ENO; Dennis Rybicke; Gary A. Payne, N9VE; Jim Darrow, PMBO KB9MMC; John Leekley; Mack Brophy and Sam Rowe. Be that as it may, the system seems to be growing gradually. Thanks for your comments, Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve, > > In the past, I have suggested a separate discussion group. I was going to > start one, but am hesitant to do this due to some practical time limitations > with participation in a number of groups, one of which is fairly large that > I co-moderate. But it is probably a good idea to separate this out. You > would have a lot less people being turned away from WL2K. And you would also > have the more moderate people giving a more balanced perspective. > > Actually, what we really need is an amateur radio network discussion group > that looks at all possibilities for the future. But from what I can tell, > there may not be that much interest. Maybe I'm wrong? > > However, on your list, the messages and the tone of the messages do indicate > tacit approval of their "groupthink" which is no different than any other > group that has one specific agenda. Groups like this one (digitalradio) are > more of an open discussion on many related topics and is much less > threatening since you will hear both sides. Actually, sometimes there are > many sides to an issue:) > > Our Task Force has the Milwaukee ePMBO and you should see it as as > you would have had to set it up by remote control as you do with any server > on the WL2K system. > > Rick, KV9U > > > > -Original Message- > From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:58 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team > > > > > Rick, > > Yes, the WL2KEmComm group is focused on implementation issues, and is > not set up for "should we" discussions regarding deployments. As > modorator of the group, I have no particular objection to such > discussions, but I don't write all the messages, and I am not afraid > to reflect my own personal point-of-veiw. > > What is the call letters of the EmComm PMBO you describe? > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.6 - Release Date: 4/11/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
All, Actually, it is not the PSK mode. It is a wonderful way to converse in real-time. Rather, it is the few who continually stir the pot just to be "right." Hopefully, soon, we will have a band plan proposal that will eliminate this conflict by separating these conflicting issues, not by regulation, but by design. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well said John.. but the "anti any Mode" crap started with the demise of the spark gap > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America" > Website: www.ky6la.com > > > - Original Message - > From: John Becker > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:58 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Win Link > > > the packet systems too Mike? > They also handle a lot of what some here > are calling "email". Or should all "traffic" nets > that pass anything that could be sent via AOL > be shut down. > > Seem to me everything was rosy till PSK got here. > > This "anti- any mode except for" crap has got to stop soon. > > > > > > > > > > > At 01:05 PM 4/8/05, you wrote: > > > > >I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting. > >The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it via > >SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used > >only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the > >Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their > >personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial > >carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link > >traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down since > >the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier. > >73's > >Mike KL7AR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > -- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Doesn't Understand
AMEN! Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul is right ! > Remember what happen to the 220Mhz band? > When all the money showed up on the other side. > > At 08:21 AM 4/9/05, you wrote: > > >Actually, in some respects, it is the FCC who understands, > >and the amateur community that doesn't. > > > >It costs money to regulate the airwaves, and there are a > >lot of interests out there willing to provide whatever > >funds are needed in order to get "their piece" of spectrum. > > > >We amateurs have chunks allotted here-and-there, and the > >FCC"s position is that they don't want to, nor should they, > >heavily regulate it. We're supposed to be able to figure it > >out pretty much for ourselves. > > > >In that context, who's not understanding? > > > >Just something to think about... > > > >73, > > > >Paul / K9PS The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
With proper band planning by bandwidth, this issue will be mute. There is room on our bands for all digital modes, past, present and future. Wilink 2000 is a small player in the grand scheme of what is to come. Segregation by mode of operation or style of operation is long past. I do think that fully automatic "no human side" auto- forwarding should have its own space, but that is just my own point of view. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the packet systems too Mike? > They also handle a lot of what some here > are calling "email". Or should all "traffic" nets > that pass anything that could be sent via AOL > be shut down. > > Seem to me everything was rosy till PSK got here. > > This "anti- any mode except for" crap has got to stop soon. > > > > > > > > > > > At 01:05 PM 4/8/05, you wrote: > > > > >I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting. > >The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it via > >SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used > >only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the > >Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their > >personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial > >carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link > >traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down since > >the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier. > >73's > >Mike KL7AR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
Dave, again, we have no option other than to request improvements from SCS, or do our own development elsewhere with additional protocols. That is exactly what we are doing. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff Hazen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the name of their SCS robot pactor detector Maximillian or Arnold? Both were quit effective but did have design flaws. > Cliff N7HIY > > > Dave scribed>> > "Several times now, you have mentioned the busy detector in the SCS > modem, and each time, I've reminded you that it only detects Pactor > signals and is thus of no use as a general solution to the hidden > transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up? > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 0514-2, 04/08/2005 > Tested on: 4/9/2005 11:29:05 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software. > http://www.avast.com The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party traffic Content Rules: §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of a message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing such communications once they become aware of their presence." For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message, that is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have been over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content, or improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of the license is required. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's comment > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling his > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike and > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will not > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce the > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could find a > less intimidating way of providing a correction. > > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions here > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor protocol in > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the busy > detectors that would enable station automation software like Winlink > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is > already in use. > > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been QRM'd > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop pretending > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK operators > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your credibility > is called into question. > > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink detects > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent with > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike, > > > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here! > > > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we can > call > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages. AOL > and "Ma > > Bell" would love that. I guess we should get the U.S. Postal > service > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business too. We > might as > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter. > Repressive > > regimes invoke this type of communications. Try China or North > Korea. I'm > > sure they would share your opinion. > > > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode. PACTOR and SCAMP are > modes and > > part of a system. > > > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice, > SSTV/FAX image, > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal. That is > what ham > > radio is all about. > > > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band PACTOR > 3 signals > > on HF and supposed QRM between stations. I have a biased opinion > as I am a > > Winlink 2000 SysOp. Despite that, we are not contesting the > validity of > > this particular style of the personal communication, in this case > an e-mail > > (though there are those that have a different opinion). > > > > I think your opinion is about the most uninformed I've heard on > here yet. > > You really need to review Part 97 and look up the definition > of "Pecuniary > > Interest" and what it means. What you're suggesting goes beyond > Winlink and > > strikes at the core and heart of amateur radio. > > > > Eric, KB6YNO > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:05 AM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Win Link > > > > > > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues > interesting. > > The point is that 99% of QSO's
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
Rick, Yes, the WL2KEmComm group is focused on implementation issues, and is not set up for "should we" discussions regarding deployments. As modorator of the group, I have no particular objection to such discussions, but I don't write all the messages, and I am not afraid to reflect my own personal point-of-veiw. What is the call letters of the EmComm PMBO you describe? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While there are many people on the Winlink group, like most groups, only a > few people actually participate. So it is not more than a few dozens of > people talking over a span of time (not hundreds). > > If anyone takes a look at the more detailed messages on the WL2Kemcomm > yahoogroup, they will see that these comments below are directed at those > who have any disagreements with WL2K. Of the sample responses, about half > were directed at other hams. They are not taken out of context in terms of > seeing the *attitude* of the group. > > When I first joined the group, initially to get more details and a clear > understanding, I was appalled by Steve's condescension to digital keyboard > modes with his message #458: > > "Those people on the discussion groups such as EHam, etc, are lead by the > PSK > "cutesy" mode crowd,..." > > At that moment I knew clearly there was a serious attitude problem. And even > took him to task at that point. > > From what I have seen, in every single case that anyone has questioned > anything, they have take considerable heat. Most people won't put up with > that for long. And the majority takes notice of that. Anyone reading the > archives can make up their own minds as to whether the WL2K folks are > supportive of questions about the system. > > Steve is correct that intially I was mostly concerned how WL2K would work in > our local area. And we have a very different terrain issue here than other > areas. Some of their ideas would not work here at all but they insisted that > they have "the way." > > The more I looked into the WL2K system, the more I began to realize there > are some design limitations that I did not see at first. I am not saying it > is a bad system, but it is not quite as good as it looked at first blush. It > still has lots of good features but you might want to look at these > carefully before spending a lot of limited resources. > > I was then asked to serve as a member of the Wisconsin ARES/RACES Task Force > looking into Winlink 2000. We are charged at this time with coming up with a > recommendation by the fall. Asking questions that other task force members > have, and I have, seemed like a reasonable way to gather the information and > make an informed recommendation. I spent many hours looking over the > promotional information and such but you always have a few questions. > > They have made it clear that no one can possibly understand how WL2K works > unless that individual spends considerable time and expense to actually > operate the various modes and parts of the system. This is something they > have stressed over and over. > > "Regarding the Winlink system, the only opinions of value are from the > people who actually use it." > > and Message 3817 "It is a fool that criticizes the taste of a meal while > still reading the menu." > > Any thinking person knows that this is utter nonsense. People with an > inquiring mind can figure out how the system works, what the weaknesses are, > and where it can or can not fit into their specific emergency communications > needs. And it is also very helpful to talk to others using the system in > different capacities, and I and others on our task force have. > > In fact, we have used several Telpacs with Paclink AGW, we have a new ePMBO > in Milwaukee that is being tested, I have worked with SCAMP testing, our > state EOC has an SCS modem etc. etc. But we are repeatedly told that we do > not know anything about the system because we have not used it. Is this > reasonable? I don't think it is. > > When I talked to Steve on the phone, he wanted me to bypass the task force > and get to our SEC to convince him to do it ... now! I tried to explain that > we were doing our best to make a fair and impartial judgement of the WL2K > system as we were charged to do. He seemed not to comprehend this chain of > command and why we would even do this. > > Further contact on the WL2Kemcomm group became so contentious that I stopped > asking questions openly to the group (such as the problems with reliability) > and contacted Steve directly via e-mail. And what did
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
Dave, Thanks for the note. Just getting back here. You are mostly correct, and there has been efforts to attempt to request improvement for the SCS signal detection. Assuming band planning will follow the FCC's recommendations, my personal thinking is that it will need to be deployed for many non-real time applications, including Winlink 2000 where digital voice, image and data may be sent to an unattended station in order take advantage of propagation, etc. All we can do is look for or develop additional data transfer protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control over what we do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the most robust signal detection available to us. If you know of any specific algorythms that are effective for such signal detection, please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at it the best way we can, presently. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is no conflict between those statements, and no bias: > > A Winlink PMBO running Pactor is going to occasionally QRM ongoing > QSOs whether or not the PBMO operator is a "good guy". The PMBO is > running unattended, and lacks the busy detector needed to avoid QRM > generation. Transitioning the PMBO to SCAMP with busy detectors > should prevent the QRM, unless the PMBO operator is a "bad guy" who > disables the busy detector. But we're going to assume that most PMBO > operators are "good guys" who will do the right thing and keep the > busy detectors enabled at all times other than declared emergencies. > > With attended stations, we again assume that the operator is a "good > guy" who will use his or her ears to avoid QRMing ongoing QSOs; the > ARRL's operating guides are clear that this is essential to good > operating procedure. Yes, there are a few "bad guy" operators who > flaunt this policy, but they are best handled on an individual > basis. One assumes that you would handle a "bad guy" PMBO operator > in the same way. > > Several times now, you have mentioned the busy detector in the SCS > modem, and each time, I've reminded you that it only detects Pactor > signals and is thus of no use as a general solution to the hidden > transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up? > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > You did make two statements that I find in conflict: > > > > >Requiring busy detectors for attended operation makes no sense, > > >Steve. As Rick KV9U pointed out, any SSB, RTTY, CW, or PSK > operator > > > who knowingly calls over existing QSOs would simply disable the > > >busy detector. > > > > > > >I did not suggest that you "convince the world to use Winlink > 2000"; > > > I suggested that you convince the world that Winlink will be a > good > > > citizen on the amateur bands, and provided explicit advice on > how > > to do so. > > > > Seems a bit biased, but that is okay. People are people. Airmail, > the > > client program for WL2K does have an ability to deploy pretty > > effective signal detection with the SCS modem. But,the author of > > Airmail only provides a warning should a busy frequency be > detected. > > > > I guess that someone should convence him to also dis-allow > > transmission? > > > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I am dissapointed to see you revert to "the root cause of the > QRM > > is > > > PSK operators opening their receivers to 3 kHz". This is > factually > > > incorrect, as we have discussed here many times. The root cause > is > > > semi-automatic stations without busy detectors, such as Winlink > > > PMBOs running Pactor. When you so transparently attempt to shift > > the > > > blame, you create a very negative impression. Given the effort > to > > > add busy detectors to SCAMP, I do not understand why, from a > public > > > relations perspective, you continue to snatch defeat from the > jaws > > > of victory. > > > > > > Running WinLink PMBOs on SCAMP with active busy detectors > should, &g
[digitalradio] Re: Win Link
Mike, Let me remind you that Voice traffic may also be provide via telephone, even in the most remote areas on the planet. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting. > The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person be it via > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be used > only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact is the > Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their > personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a commercial > carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win Link > traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link down since > the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier. > 73's > Mike KL7AR The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
Dave, You did make two statements that I find in conflict: >Requiring busy detectors for attended operation makes no sense, >Steve. As Rick KV9U pointed out, any SSB, RTTY, CW, or PSK operator > who knowingly calls over existing QSOs would simply disable the >busy detector. >I did not suggest that you "convince the world to use Winlink 2000"; > I suggested that you convince the world that Winlink will be a good > citizen on the amateur bands, and provided explicit advice on how to do so. Seems a bit biased, but that is okay. People are people. Airmail, the client program for WL2K does have an ability to deploy pretty effective signal detection with the SCS modem. But,the author of Airmail only provides a warning should a busy frequency be detected. I guess that someone should convence him to also dis-allow transmission? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am dissapointed to see you revert to "the root cause of the QRM is > PSK operators opening their receivers to 3 kHz". This is factually > incorrect, as we have discussed here many times. The root cause is > semi-automatic stations without busy detectors, such as Winlink > PMBOs running Pactor. When you so transparently attempt to shift the > blame, you create a very negative impression. Given the effort to > add busy detectors to SCAMP, I do not understand why, from a public > relations perspective, you continue to snatch defeat from the jaws > of victory. > > Running WinLink PMBOs on SCAMP with active busy detectors should, in > my view, allow activity on any frequency available to signals of > SCAMP's bandwidth. The same should be true for any other next- > generation semi-automatic or automatic protocol. Protocols like > Pactor or Packet being used in semi-automatic or automatic operation > should be constrained to sub-bands to limit the QRM they impose on > others. This is the "win-win" you should be seeking: WinLink gains > access to the spectrum it needs, and the rest of the amateur > community is free of QRM from Winlink PMBOs, from automatic packet > stations, and from all other "hidden transmitter" scenarios. > > Requiring busy detectors for attended operation makes no sense, > Steve. As Rick KV9U pointed out, any SSB, RTTY, CW, or PSK operator > who knowingly calls over existing QSOs would simply disable the busy > detector. Most transceivers lack the CPU and DSP horsepower required > to implement busy detectors. As for digital protocols that sound > like QRN, it seems to me that the onus is on the designers of these > protocols to make them audible to other spectrum users; > transmitting "QRL" in CW every 30 seconds would be one way to do > this without sacrificing appreciable throughput. > > I did not suggest that you "convince the world to use Winlink 2000"; > I suggested that you convince the world that Winlink will be a good > citizen on the amateur bands, and provided explicit advice on how to > do so. None of what I suggested requires any more software > development or network administration than you are already > undertaking. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > The problem is not that we mind any opposition to what we are > doing. > > It gives us an opportunity to tell our story. The problem is not > the > > protocol we use, be it Amtor, Clover, Pactor, SCAMP or what comes > > next, and next after that, nor is it the fact that we stopped > using > > fully, machine driven automatic operations. (BTW, I did a search, > and > > have not found one message where the HF Packet community refers to > > their own fully-automatic operations as "robots.") The issue is > that > > those using Winlink are being given much credit for being bad > guys, > > when those opening their receivers to utilize 3 to 4 Khz spectrum > > scopes to operate a 50 Hz signal start complaining. Another > example, > > is how four to six "pro Winlink 2000" people have been targeted > for > > having some sort of hold on band planning in the US. I wish we > did, > > because we would adopt the Canadian style band plan in a minute. > > > > Howard speaks of "Winlink Haters." This is not anyone who opposes > > semi-automatic operation or wants it gone or in this space or that > > space. It is not even someone who thinks that Winlink users have > some > >
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
erns about the flaws in the > system, etc. or expect resistance from folks who may have been supportive > but who are not as robotic as some of the comments above. (In some comments > above just insert "The Borg" at the appropriate point). There are a lot of > thinking people in the ham community. And there are other issues (security, > etc.) that have not even been addressed yet. > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 10:10 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team > > > > > Dave, > > The problem is not that we mind any opposition to what we are doing. > It gives us an opportunity to tell our story. > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Numbers
The upper limit is 100,000 bytes. However, very few people use that limit. An 80Kbyte DOC, RTF, DOT file compresses 82 percent. On P3 or using 9600 baud Packet, that is not a stretch. On Packet the entire connect, transfer and disconnect takes about 50 seconds. What I posed was the monthly AVERAGE. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Ken Wilhelmi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve- > > I notice the average message size is 1635 characters. > How many kb is that? I thought I saw someting about > testing with 80KB attachments. > > Ken - N7QQU > > --- "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > I would like to verify that the numbers quoted here > > are correct. They > > reflect an average. Here are the actual numbers from > > the log files > > for the Month of March: > > > > Winlink 2000 System Traffic Summary: > > Last Month's Traffic > > > > HF Messages Received or Delivered 150356 > > HF Minutes Air Time (All Stations) 295896 > > HF Average Minutes Air Time Per Message 1.97 > > HF Average Message Size (Characters) 1635 > > Total Messages Received or Delivered 173087 > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "k4cjx" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Howard, > > > > > > This is great. One thing left. Look on QRZ.com and > > the "Winlink > > wants your > > > frequencies" on the front page. Please put this > > there, too. Then > > let's > > > disappear from QRZ! > > > > > > Thanks much! > > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dr. Howard S. White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 20:37 > > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Winlink Numbers > > > > > > > > > In response to request for numbers .. here they > > are... most can > > be found > > > with some digging at www.winlink.org > > > > > > Winlink is approximately 75% of Traffic > > > > > > Winlink transports approximately 150,000 radio > > message or 262,000 > > Minutes > > > though system, monthly, which is more than all > > branches of MARS, > > the ARRL > > > field organization and CAP combined which send > > about 47,000 > > messages per > > > month. In other words, Winlink transport > > approximately 75% of > > Traffic... > > > > > > > > > Winlink involves a significant percent of Active > > Ham Populations > > > > > > There are over 7,600 weekly users to over 85,100 > > ham and non-ham > > email > > > recipients. These numbers tend to dwarf even the > > numbers of > > active users > > > we find in contests. > > > > > > > > > Winlink PMBOs DO NOT INITIATE RF CONNECTIONS > > > > > > Worldwide, there are over 63 Participating > > locations (PMBOs) with > > 26 > > > active in the USA. NONE of these stations > > initiate RF connections, > > period. > > > > > > Approximately 15 PMBO's are not published and > > are on standby, > > mostly in > > > either government or civil agencies for emergency > > communications. > > The > > > numbers of standby EMCOMM Winlink PMBOs is > > increasing daily as > > EMCOMM > > > systems switch over to Winlink.Why is the > > switch happening?.. > > Mainly it > > > is driven by our served agencies who prefer the > > Email based system > > for > > > EMCOMM which Winlink provides them to the > > significantly less user > > friendly > > > systems we had in the past. > > > > > > > > > Winlink Uses Bandwidth Efficiently > > > Approximately 90 percent of the HF connections > > have a duration of > > less > > > than 5 minutes. > > > > > > There is an average of a 2.1 minute delivery > > time from > > origination to > > > participating station for Pickup. Winlink uses > > 262,000 minutes > > per month > > > of airtime. or 8700 minutes per day or 363 > > minutes per hour or > > > equivalent of 6 fully SSB de
[digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team
tary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor." b. Because of the hidden transmitter effect, regardless of the position of control operator, and due to the "QRN" type sounding digital signals now being deployed on the HF bands, describe how users of ALL Amateur communications will should use signal detection to inhibit transmission, especially during contests and emergencies. lastly, I will put something somewhere on the Winlink WEB site about how we are doing it in SCAMP. BTW, the SCS firmware has such signal detection, and it is can be very sensitive. We have not deployed it to date other than in the client end, which turns yellow with a warning to the initiating station user. "We all think we are thinking when we are merely re-arranging our prejudices." Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may never convince most hams to personally use Winlink, but I > believe there's a way for you to convince most hams that Winlink will > be a good citizen on the amateur bands. I suggest that you compose > a "white paper" that > > a. briefly summarizes the goals, benefits, and technical history of > WinLink > > b. outlines semi-automatic operation, and acknowledges the resulting > unintentional QRM caused by semi-automatic operation with protocols > like Pactor that lack busy detectors (the "hidden transmitter" problem) > > c. briefly describes SCAMP, its objectives, and its incorporation of > busy detectors as a means of eliminating unintentional QRM > > d. commits to transitioning the majority of WinLink traffic to SCAMP, > with the policy that a PMBO's busy detectors will only be disabled or > ignored during declared emergencies > > e. commits to confining Pactor-based Winlink traffic to an explicit > set of sub-bands, whether or not this is required by whatever plan the > FCC ultimately adopts, with a further committment to reduce the size > of these sub-bands over time as Winlink traffic shifts to SCAMP > > This white paper should be posted on all of the major reflectors and > web sites, and run as an article in QST. > > Obviously I speak only for myself, but I believe that most if not all > opposition to Winlink would dissappear in response to the > dessemination of this white paper. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Numbers
All, I would like to verify that the numbers quoted here are correct. They reflect an average. Here are the actual numbers from the log files for the Month of March: Winlink 2000 System Traffic Summary: Last Month's Traffic HF Messages Received or Delivered 150356 HF Minutes Air Time (All Stations) 295896 HF Average Minutes Air Time Per Message 1.97 HF Average Message Size (Characters) 1635 Total Messages Received or Delivered 173087 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "k4cjx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howard, > > This is great. One thing left. Look on QRZ.com and the "Winlink wants your > frequencies" on the front page. Please put this there, too. Then let's > disappear from QRZ! > > Thanks much! > > > Steve, k4cjx > > -Original Message- > From: Dr. Howard S. White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 20:37 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Winlink Numbers > > > In response to request for numbers .. here they are... most can be found > with some digging at www.winlink.org > > Winlink is approximately 75% of Traffic > > Winlink transports approximately 150,000 radio message or 262,000 Minutes > though system, monthly, which is more than all branches of MARS, the ARRL > field organization and CAP combined which send about 47,000 messages per > month. In other words, Winlink transport approximately 75% of Traffic... > > > Winlink involves a significant percent of Active Ham Populations > > There are over 7,600 weekly users to over 85,100 ham and non-ham email > recipients. These numbers tend to dwarf even the numbers of active users > we find in contests. > > > Winlink PMBOs DO NOT INITIATE RF CONNECTIONS > > Worldwide, there are over 63 Participating locations (PMBOs) with 26 > active in the USA. NONE of these stations initiate RF connections, period. > > Approximately 15 PMBO's are not published and are on standby, mostly in > either government or civil agencies for emergency communications. The > numbers of standby EMCOMM Winlink PMBOs is increasing daily as EMCOMM > systems switch over to Winlink.Why is the switch happening?.. Mainly it > is driven by our served agencies who prefer the Email based system for > EMCOMM which Winlink provides them to the significantly less user friendly > systems we had in the past. > > > Winlink Uses Bandwidth Efficiently > Approximately 90 percent of the HF connections have a duration of less > than 5 minutes. > > There is an average of a 2.1 minute delivery time from origination to > participating station for Pickup. Winlink uses 262,000 minutes per month > of airtime. or 8700 minutes per day or 363 minutes per hour or > equivalent of 6 fully SSB dedicated channels or about 18 KHz to send 3 > times more traffic in significantly less bandwidth than MARS, NTS and CAP > combined. I have not added up all the HF bandwidth available to hams but 18 > KHz is clearly a small proportion of the total available... > > > Winlink is Growing > There are over 600 active VHF/UHF Telpac nodes in operation, many in > County agencies. > > There are multiple access points to include HF radio access, VHF/UHF radio > access, Telnet Access, WEB Browser Access. > > Enhanced, more flexible & redundant network topology currently in beta > testing with even less Internet dependency. > > Why is it growing so rapidly in the ham community.. Well clearly it works, > it is simple to use and most important it clearly fills a need that was > there. > > > Winlink Works EVERY DAY in Disasters and EMCOMM > > Last year, participation in disaster communications included the > communications during and after the major hurricanes in the Bahamas, > Florida, Grenada and many other locations in the effected areas, to include > such severe weather in Chile and Peru. > > Last year, participation in disaster communications included the Tsunami > relief effort over a very wide area. Emergency participating stations were > set up in Australia and are now being deployed in India. The Tsunami > disaster relief efforts are still going on today and Winlink carries > significant traffic. > > Last year, there were communications with over 27 life critical rescues, > including several with the Boatwatch network, US Coast Guard, and other such > agencies from other governments. There were many more less than critical > health and welfare messages delivered. > > This year, emergency communications continues with the failure of INTELSAT >
[digitalradio] RE: Winlink Numbers
Howard, This is great. One thing left. Look on QRZ.com and the "Winlink wants your frequencies" on the front page. Please put this there, too. Then let's disappear from QRZ! Thanks much! Steve, k4cjx -Original Message-From: Dr. Howard S. White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 20:37To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.comCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Winlink Numbers In response to request for numbers .. here they are... most can be found with some digging at www.winlink.org Winlink is approximately 75% of Traffic Winlink transports approximately 150,000 radio message or 262,000 Minutes though system, monthly, which is more than all branches of MARS, the ARRL field organization and CAP combined which send about 47,000 messages per month. In other words, Winlink transport approximately 75% of Traffic... Winlink involves a significant percent of Active Ham Populations There are over 7,600 weekly users to over 85,100 ham and non-ham email recipients. These numbers tend to dwarf even the numbers of active users we find in contests. Winlink PMBOs DO NOT INITIATE RF CONNECTIONSWorldwide, there are over 63 Participating locations (PMBOs) with 26 active in the USA. NONE of these stations initiate RF connections, period. Approximately 15 PMBO's are not published and are on standby, mostly in either government or civil agencies for emergency communications. The numbers of standby EMCOMM Winlink PMBOs is increasing daily as EMCOMM systems switch over to Winlink. Why is the switch happening?.. Mainly it is driven by our served agencies who prefer the Email based system for EMCOMM which Winlink provides them to the significantly less user friendly systems we had in the past. Winlink Uses Bandwidth Efficiently Approximately 90 percent of the HF connections have a duration of less than 5 minutes. There is an average of a 2.1 minute delivery time from origination to participating station for Pickup. Winlink uses 262,000 minutes per month of airtime. or 8700 minutes per day or 363 minutes per hour or equivalent of 6 fully SSB dedicated channels or about 18 KHz to send 3 times more traffic in significantly less bandwidth than MARS, NTS and CAP combined. I have not added up all the HF bandwidth available to hams but 18 KHz is clearly a small proportion of the total available... Winlink is Growing There are over 600 active VHF/UHF Telpac nodes in operation, many in County agencies.There are multiple access points to include HF radio access, VHF/UHF radio access, Telnet Access, WEB Browser Access. Enhanced, more flexible & redundant network topology currently in beta testing with even less Internet dependency. Why is it growing so rapidly in the ham community.. Well clearly it works, it is simple to use and most important it clearly fills a need that was there. Winlink Works EVERY DAY in Disasters and EMCOMM Last year, participation in disaster communications included the communications during and after the major hurricanes in the Bahamas, Florida, Grenada and many other locations in the effected areas, to include such severe weather in Chile and Peru. Last year, participation in disaster communications included the Tsunami relief effort over a very wide area. Emergency participating stations were set up in Australia and are now being deployed in India. The Tsunami disaster relief efforts are still going on today and Winlink carries significant traffic.Last year, there were communications with over 27 life critical rescues, including several with the Boatwatch network, US Coast Guard, and other such agencies from other governments. There were many more less than critical health and welfare messages delivered.This year, emergency communications continues with the failure of INTELSAT 804, which still isolates all but the largest island communications systems in the Pacific. Winlink plays a major role here every day. What other Ham System gets so much EMCOMM Traffic Every Day? Winlink Haters: There are a few Winlink Haters.. ... these appear to a very tiny but rather vocal minority... who seem to have a lot of time to spend on reflectors... As one who is involved in EMCOMM, I really wish they would focus some of that energy on something positive such as improving EMCOMM systems .. instead of being negative all the time... The obvious success of Winlink with the rapidly growing numbers of Winlink users and the demand for deployment from Served Agencies for EMCOMM clearly puts the hatred in perspective. __Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA"No Good Deed Goes
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
Dave, I said "as an example," however, you are correct about signal detection. SCAMP is where we are going to deploy it, but it may also be deployed in Pactor before it is all over. It is there, just not used on the slave end. In my opinion, proper signal detection is something that should be used across the board, especailly by contesters..However, due to the nature of non-channelization in Amateur radio, I doubt if it will permeate to non-digital protocols. Can you imagine the frustration of the guy on SSB not being able to transmit because his signal detection is disabling is transmissions? Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Re: "From my perspective, as an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth > in a receiver for a 50 Hz signal, and then complaining about agacent > signal interference is not proper management, however, if the band > is segmented properly, that won't be an issue." > > Steve, you seem to be implying that QRM to PSK QSOs from semi- > automatic operation is largely the fault of PSK operators using > panoramic software. The problem I and others have experienced is a > semi-automatic station QRMing the PSK frequency I'm currently using, > not an adjacent frequency; each time this has happened to me, my SCS > modem revealed the QRMing signal to be a Winlink PMBO running Pactor. > > This is no surprise. The hidden transmitter problem is well > understood; protocols like Pactor that lack busy detectors prevent > station automation software like Winlink from inadvertenty QRMing > ongoing QSOs. Without busy detectors, semi-automatic operation will > QRM QSOs in whatever signals with which it shares spectrum. That's > why Rick KN6KB is engineering busy detectors into SCAMP. > > What's a surprise is your implying that the blame lies elsewhere, > rather than acknowledging the problem and the efforts underway to > elminate it. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Rick, > > > > I appreciate your comments, however, look at what is being said: > > > > 1. The "Winlink wants your frequencies" campaign, all whopping 45 > > stations, Worldwide? Absurd..Simply a tactic to influence the ARRL > > BOD. > > > > 2. Recently, I wrote a simple and routine message letting users > know > > that they must re-establish their email recipients in order to > keep > > the hits on the server down. No big deal. Next thing I know, the > same > > few start rumors about Winlink being infested with SPAM and > virus's. > > > > This is not honest and useful matters for conversation. It also > preys > > on those who do not know any better. It is a campaign waged > against > > a target that has been moving successfully forward, and without > > incident, until someone got their big ego bashed when they were > > outvoted on the now two year old, long forgotten digital > committee. > > > > the entire matter has been blown out of perportion. You would > think > > that we control all that takes place with respect to band > planning, > > and have more influence than others. Obviously, this is false and > > those who want whatever they favor are shooting at the wrong > target. > > Winlink prefers not to automatically forward on HF bands. This > does > > not stop others. Winlink uses the Internet, who doesn't? And, > > regardless of any reasonable conversation or discussion, the > vendetta > > continues. So why bother. It is not arrogance, it is numbness. > > > > With all that Amateur radio must contend with today, such conflict > > only weakens the fraternity. > > > > As we all know, with proper allocation, there is room for any > > protocol as long as it is managed properly. From my perspective, > as > > an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth in a receiver for a 50 Hz > > signal, and then complaining about agacent signal interference is > not > > proper management, however, if the band is segmented properly, > that > > won't be an issue. But, that is just my perspective. Others may > think > > that opening their receiving bandwidth for a 50 Mhz signal is > > appropriate. What is so, so what. No one has a hold on any of > this, > > and blame is not the answer for resolution. > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink is to be Congratulated!
Average 150,000 messages monthly or 282,000 minutes. Average time on air 2.6 minutes. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Those two numbers are apples and oranges Howard, as I'm sure you > know. To assess efficiency, one must compare Winlink's spectrum > consumption with the percentage of *all* amateur communication > conveyed by Winlink. Does Winlink handle 3.8% of all amateur > communication around the world? Highly unlikely. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Winlink now carries approaching 75% of all Ham message traffic and > yet only uses 3.8% of the spectrum. The Winlink Development Team is > to be congratulated for inventing such a popular and efficient user > of the Spectrum. > > > > With exciting new developments such as SCAMP which uses low cost > sound cards instead of expensive TNC's and the Channel Busy > Detector to prevent interference to other users, the WDT has shown > that they can not only be among the creative leaders of Ham Radio > but are also sensitive to the concerns of others > > > > __ > > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America" > > Website: www.ky6la.com > > Member of ARES Management Team for Digital Networks > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Skip Teller > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:08 AM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over? > > > > > > Steve, > > > > Abraham Lincoln wrote, "You may fool all the people some of the > time, you can even fool > > some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of > the people all the time. > > > > K4CJX wrote: > > > > "Winlink has not been invaded by any virus. The administrators > > periodically and routinely refresh the auto-acceptance list in > order > > to keep attempts down. Please do not take things out of context > in > > order to make your points. If you do not know, just ask. There is > > nothing to hide. " > > > > Really? Quoting from the March 5 bulletin posted by you on > Winlink: > > > > "IMPORTANT ALL-USER UPDATE, March 5, 2005. > > > > The Central Mail Server (CMBO) is being attacked by new virus's > from mail > > address books that contain Winlink.org addresses. These > Winlink.org > > addresses are attempting to put virus's back into the system. In > addition, > > there are approved Internet email addresses, which are also > contained in > > address books of infected computers that are making an attempt > to enter > > the Winlink system. We are catching an average of 1,500 of these > attempts > > daily. NO FUN! > > > > Effective Tuesday, March 8, at 00:00 UTC, in order to protect, > you, the > > user, as well as your email recipients, we are going to delete > ALL the > > current entries in the Acceptance list, and start a new list. > To make > > sure your favorite email recipients are contained in the > approved acceptance > > list, be certain to send them an email AFTER 00:00 UTC on March > 8 or thereafter. > > You may use multiple "TO" and "CC" addresses. It is a good way > to also > > insure that you are sending to a live and proper address." > > > > > > Steve, which Winlink lie do you want us to believe? > > > > Quoting from the ARLL letter, > http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/1029/, included in the > > Report and Order on Access BPL, ET > > Docket 04-37, the Commissioners wrote: > > > > "We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant > the > > special protection afforded frequencies reserved for > international > > aeronautical and maritime safety operations," the Commission > said. "While > > we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing > emergency > > communications," the FCC added. It described typical amateur > operations as > > "routine communications and hobby activities." > > > > The FCC view,
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
Rick, I appreciate your comments, however, look at what is being said: 1. The "Winlink wants your frequencies" campaign, all whopping 45 stations, Worldwide? Absurd..Simply a tactic to influence the ARRL BOD. 2. Recently, I wrote a simple and routine message letting users know that they must re-establish their email recipients in order to keep the hits on the server down. No big deal. Next thing I know, the same few start rumors about Winlink being infested with SPAM and virus's. This is not honest and useful matters for conversation. It also preys on those who do not know any better. It is a campaign waged against a target that has been moving successfully forward, and without incident, until someone got their big ego bashed when they were outvoted on the now two year old, long forgotten digital committee. the entire matter has been blown out of perportion. You would think that we control all that takes place with respect to band planning, and have more influence than others. Obviously, this is false and those who want whatever they favor are shooting at the wrong target. Winlink prefers not to automatically forward on HF bands. This does not stop others. Winlink uses the Internet, who doesn't? And, regardless of any reasonable conversation or discussion, the vendetta continues. So why bother. It is not arrogance, it is numbness. With all that Amateur radio must contend with today, such conflict only weakens the fraternity. As we all know, with proper allocation, there is room for any protocol as long as it is managed properly. From my perspective, as an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth in a receiver for a 50 Hz signal, and then complaining about agacent signal interference is not proper management, however, if the band is segmented properly, that won't be an issue. But, that is just my perspective. Others may think that opening their receiving bandwidth for a 50 Mhz signal is appropriate. What is so, so what. No one has a hold on any of this, and blame is not the answer for resolution. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ken had some good points but perhaps a few things to clarify. I a more > middle of road type ham, I can see pros and cons to both sides of these > issues and I know that there will be those who don't want to hear this but > bear with me if you can: > > 1. WL2K would only be a short term replacement for a served agency's e-mail > in an emergency situation where they lose their internet connection or mail > server. I can not imagine any ham operators who would be opposed to that > since this is what we are all about ... as we do the best we can for > supporting emergency communications. The amounts of traffic would need to be > throttled back to only the most important messages. And this would likely be > going through the mini e-mail server ability of a Packlink AGW connection > that can connect with an agency LAN and allow this traffic via a standard > e-mail client such as MS Outlook Express, etc., on VHF/UHF packet radio to > the next nearest working internet connection. > > 2. The WL2K system has been designed specifically to be as simple as > possible for the served agency ... so yes, in that respect, it is a no > brainer. However, the behind the scenes systems are quite complicated and, > yes, it could fail. So far they have indicated that they have only had a > few hours of downtime which seems reasonable to me. I admit that if they had > a failure right in the middle of your emergency situation, it would be very > unacceptable. But then again, even HF communications (like yesterday) can go > down as well for an extended period. I am personally not sure of whether the > current configuration is all that secure (2 mirrored stars), but they are > increasing this to a future maximum of 8 redundant world wide servers so it > will be better than a lot of other systems. If the internet portion of WL2K > goes down, we still should have a rudimentary NTS/NTSD backup system that > will kick in to continue traffic handling. However, things like attachments, > accuracy, and quick delivery won't be possible like it is with WL2K. > > 3. WiMax, while not here yet officially, is nearly here when they finalize > the protocols perhaps this summer? Actually, I use an early version of WiMax > right now as I keyboard to all of you via an Alvarion 7 mile 2.4 GHz I MBPS > link to my ISP. These links are not easy to set up however as you need > absolute line of sight with no obstructions. One of my closer paths (5 > miles) is completely blocked by my neighbor's barn about 1/4 mile away:( > Luckily, by cutting down some trees on the other side of the highway, I was > able to access th
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
No Skip, there were no virus's, just attempts. Read the message, please. Now I understand that you would like that to happen so you can spread your vendetta further. What are you concerned about Skip? We are talking about 45 stations TOTAL, Worldwide. A large number do not care what we think. They are governed by other country rulings, not yours. 45 stations, total, Skip. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud K5RUD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Skip, > > Being subject to a flood of emails containing a virus is not an infection. The > virus did not get installed on the systems. > > -- > > Rud K5RUD > ARES AEC > South Montgomery County, TX > > > > Quoting Skip Teller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Steve, > > > > Abraham Lincoln wrote, "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can > > even fool > > some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all > > the time. > > > > K4CJX wrote: > > > > "Winlink has not been invaded by any virus. The administrators > > periodically and routinely refresh the auto-acceptance list in order > > to keep attempts down. Please do not take things out of context in > > order to make your points. If you do not know, just ask. There is > > nothing to hide. " > > > > Really? Quoting from the March 5 bulletin posted by you on Winlink: > > > > "IMPORTANT ALL-USER UPDATE, March 5, 2005. > > > > The Central Mail Server (CMBO) is being attacked by new virus's from mail > > address books that contain Winlink.org addresses. These Winlink.org > > addresses are attempting to put virus's back into the system. In addition, > > there are approved Internet email addresses, which are also contained in > > address books of infected computers that are making an attempt to enter > > the Winlink system. We are catching an average of 1,500 of these attempts > > daily. NO FUN! > > > > Effective Tuesday, March 8, at 00:00 UTC, in order to protect, you, the > > user, as well as your email recipients, we are going to delete ALL the > > current entries in the Acceptance list, and start a new list. To make > > sure your favorite email recipients are contained in the approved acceptance > > list, be certain to send them an email AFTER 00:00 UTC on March 8 or > > thereafter. > > You may use multiple "TO" and "CC" addresses. It is a good way to also > > insure that you are sending to a live and proper address." > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
Skip, Winlink has not been invaded by any virus. The administrators periodically and routinely refresh the auto-acceptance list in order to keep attempts down. Please do not take things out of context in order to make your points. If you do not know, just ask. There is nothing to hide. Secondly, Jim Cornman, author of Airmail, has not allowed automatic operation in the Airmail software for over two years now. We are not in favor of automtic initiation of transmissions on the HF spectrum. Hense the move away from automatic forwarding on HF and the very reason Winlink 2000 was developed. We don't auto-forward even in the spaces that are allowed. We also do keep any signal over 500 hz within the sub-bands even when we are not required to do so. This ruling is ONLY applicable when the responding Winlink participating station is within the US. We have kept it there as as courtesy, at least where the country in question allows operations there. as an example, all of our wideband (2.1 Khz) operation, at least the ones we can control, are within the 5 Khz auto-forward segment provided on 40 meters, or the 10 MHz on 30 meters, etc. Not very optimal for any protocol. We are starting to deploy very good signal detection as we move forward. This is not a Winlink issue, but one that we all face with digital protocols when moving faster than typing speeds. I think that I'll stop here since the rest of this is bogus. However, since the FCC is being quoted, and I do not know what dates these statements were made, I do want to mention the latest NPRM by the FCC: *QUOTE FROM the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004. "4. Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor." CW is a great example. It can be used anywhere on the Amateur spectrum, but it does not make sense to use it where others dwell, regardless of the ruling to allow it everywhere. So, there is no optimal spectrum assignments there, but rather, it works well under as a voluntary agreement. How much space is provided for CW compared to other protocols? It was not out of balance when the ruling was made. Now, considering the amount of spectrum available to it that is NOT available to other protocols, it is out of balance. Likewise, any such protocol will provide the same groupings. Again, Winlink is just one method along the way. It is not a Winlink issue nor a CW issue. With proper bandwidth band planning, RTTY, PSK-31 or any other such protocol will not have any issue wide-band digital transfer protocols for voice, data or image in any context, semi-automatic, automatic or real-time control operator operation. The point is, space should be provided in proportion to its current usage, and for all. Thanks for your attention and consideration, Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Skip Teller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Message: 19 >Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:39:06 -0500 >From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Winlink take over? > > Skip, > > With all due respect, (and you have considerable), it seems that some of the > arguments may be counter productive and may in some cases affect the > survival of amateur radio. > > "We are not a hobby in the eyes of the FCC. The hobby part is only due to a > fortuitous intersection of our interests with what we are chartered by law." > > Rick, amateur radio definitely IS a hobby in the eyes of the FCC. The Commissioners just > re-affirmed that in their recent ruling on Access BPL, Report and Order (R&O) in ET Docket > 04-37: > > "We do not see a need to establish Access BPL-free zones around airports, military bases, > hospitals, police stations and fire stations, as requested by NAC/Amherst. To the extent > that these services warrant special protection, they will be afforded protection through > the excluded bands, exclusion zones and consultation areas specified by NTIA. We similarly > do not find that amateur radio frequencies warrant the special protection afforded > frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and maritime safety operations. We > note that in many instances amateur frequencies are used for routine communications and > hobby activities. While we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing > emergency communications, we believe that the general Part 15 provisions and the specif
