from:"k4cjx"

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

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: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 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

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: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 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

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

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

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

2006-01-19 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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

2005-12-31 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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 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

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

2005-12-31 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx




--- 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 allprotocols 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 theyvisualize the domestic Amateur radio spectrumshould 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 use Airmail, and that means they are all forced to provide an FEC ID of their station and the station they called. It is mandatory and embedded in the Airmail code for over three years now. Prior to this, they provided a CW ID.   My belief is that when the problem gets to be a problem, signal  detection technigues similar to those used in the Bet

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

2005-12-31 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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

2005-12-30 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

hat 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 ofdata transfergreater than real-time typing speed is likely to be under remote control. Why shouldn't it. Look at the rest of thecommunications world. There is "wired" and there is "wireless." It will integrate among many services and license types as well as many regulatory agencies with variousRules. Not all of itwill bereal-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, replacing today's regulations with a voluntary band plan. The result will be chaos. 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

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

2005-12-30 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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
 
 
 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Herein lies the dilemma.  Can we reduce regulation to allow 
 amateurs to 
  control emissions on the bands, without providing some sort of 
 enforcement 
  mechanism?  While I agree that reducing regulation can enhance 
 operation on 
  the HF bands, can it be done without reducing

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

2005-12-29 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
   Website: www.ky6la.com 
   No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
   Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911
 - Original Message - 
 From: Dave Bernstein

[digitalradio] Re: FYI: RESTRUCTURING: UK GETS NEW BANDPLANS IN 2006

2005-12-29 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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: Software for PTC II

2005-11-24 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

--- 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: Winlink vs. Winlink 2000 et al

2005-10-31 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

THERE IS NO TIMEBOMBS IN ANY WINLINK RELATED SOFTWARE.

Steve, k4cjx





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell kg6yls-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?

2005-10-23 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

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 
clear
 area, the program would not operate. I would then notice a faint 
carrier
 within the passband or other minor signal. It seemed to be able to 
ignore
 most QRN.
 
 73,
 
 Rick, KV9U
 
 
 
 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com
 
 
 
 
 SPONSORED LINKS Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Ham radio

[digitalradio] Re: ATTN: WG3G

2005-06-24 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx

--- 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: 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: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 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



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: 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 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

[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] 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: Advice to the Winlink team

2005-04-12 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx



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 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

[digitalradio] Re: Win Link

2005-04-12 Thread Steve Waterman, k4cjx



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: 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, 
  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

[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: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  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 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

[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
 FCCs 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



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: 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: 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:)
  
  As far as the U.S. FCC regulations on data content of messages 
 entering
  automated systems, with Winlink being only one example, this was 
 decided
  some years ago due to the situation that occurred on packet 
radio. 
 It was
  decided that the responsibility of the content rests primarily 
 upon the
  person placing the data into the system at the initial point of 
 entry. The
  system operator can only be held liable if they willingly allow 
 illegal
  messages to continue once they are detected. As we all know, 
 messaging on
  amateur radio is not private and can be (and should be) monitored 
 by others.
  I admit that these new digital

[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: 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: 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: Win Link