Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
This message from WA7NWP has been forwarded to the Digipol reflector http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digipol Please reply , if you wish, via that message group. Andy K3UK The ARRL proposal, as proposed, will limit data bandwidths to about 3 KHz. The real world (search on commercial HF data systems) has realized that often (usually?) wider is better and is developing hardware and systems accordingly. The ARRL proposal will lock us (U.S. amateurs) into using late 1990's technology. 73, Bill - WA7NWP 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: RM-11306 Rant
Brad, You need to educate yourself about the FCC petitions here. One of the current petitions will let hams operate SSB anywhere. If that is approved, you can bet the 7-7.1 portions will become a favorite place for US SSB stations. Do you and others want to compete with them? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > I havent seen most of the new European band plans but ill bet my > bottom dollar they do not forbid the use of SSB in the 7-7.1 portion > of 40 meters. It would only make sense to do so, since they now have > 7.1-7.2 and can easily send SSB there and clear the lower portion of > the band for the narrow mode, and also get away from the idiotic > splits.Bet it doesnt happen. You didnt do it, and they wont do it. > > > > > Danny, > They don't operate exclusive SSB above 7100 for valid reasons. Here's > one - > In January Adventist World Radio commenced a new transmission to the > Middle East, from Germany, on 7115kHz at 250kW. > > Here in Australia, that signal is S9+. > > Would you like to compete with that? No, I thought not. > > Brad VK2QQ > 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: RM-11306 Rant
Kim, I implore you and others who have the bought the ARRL's statement that mode/emission type regulation has stifled experimentation hook, line, and sinker to educate yourself about this issue! Probably 90 - 99% of the digital modes today use J2- or J3- emissions. The only thing I don't know for sure is how many RTTY stations use AFSK and how many use true FSK that is implemented with separate oscillators. I am not aware of any work being done in the digital arena at this time that requires a new emission/mode type definition, either here or in Europe! Consequently, emission/mode regulation IS NOT stifling any experimentation. I'll give you and others a challenge, name one digital mode that is in use elsewhere on HF that has been restricted in the US because of emissions/mode type regulations! Another challenge to you! Please discuss what restrictions on experimentation will bandwidth regulations provide? This type of regulation will incur its own set of restrictions. Which will be more restrictive, emissions or bandwidth? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Kim Aiken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good Post Doctor. > > Amateur radio started and will continue to be about the exploration and > experimentation with new technologies. Hams worlwide are developing new > operating modes daily. Band regulation by mode is outdated the moment > someone devises a band plan. > > RM-11306 is not the correct solution, but it appears to be the most > politically acceptable plan in the view of the ARRL. It is better than we > have now and the doctor is correct that in the world of political compromise > it is a good first step. > > Kim - AC7YY > 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: RM-11306 Rant
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I havent seen most of the new European band plans but ill bet my bottom dollar they do not forbid the use of SSB in the 7-7.1 portion of 40 meters. It would only make sense to do so, since they now have 7.1-7.2 and can easily send SSB there and clear the lower portion of the band for the narrow mode, and also get away from the idiotic splits.Bet it doesnt happen. You didnt do it, and they wont do it. > Danny, They don't operate exclusive SSB above 7100 for valid reasons. Here's one - In January Adventist World Radio commenced a new transmission to the Middle East, from Germany, on 7115kHz at 250kW. Here in Australia, that signal is S9+. Would you like to compete with that? No, I thought not. Brad VK2QQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
I for one want to start experimenting with digital voice technologies on HF... There is a lot of really cool stuff out there to try that could give us 100% voice copy with S/N in the -db ranges. It would be really cool to copy voice when my CW friends could no longer copy code like we now do with Olivia But most of these new technologies are currently screwed up with the current regulations. __Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" - Original Message - From: N6CRR To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:05 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> wrote:>> I really LOVE it when people tell me why I think what I think.> > The scenario I mentioned is *EXACTLY* what I would be doing> if it were legal. What's plain silly is having that scenario> prohibited simply because one it involves switching from voice> to digital.> > (By the way, I'm a member of MARS, and that's EXACTLY how we> handle a lot of traffic. It's efficient and effective.)PaulI'm sure that given the high volume of traffic on the MARS netshandles now day, the switching from voice to digital or other modes ofoperation works well for you and MARS, great!I however don't see a crying demand for this mode of operation onAmateur frequencies , and I am of the belief that most of the noisegenerated in support of this change is based on being able to givemore spectrum to delivery of email, and other digital data productsover scarce HF spectrum resources. I don't see the demand for it now,and frankly I don't think that Amateur Radio is about providing analternative to conventional internet services. Maybe HF frequencies allocated to MARS operations are a good place fora trial of this sort of shared MARS voice and Digital email and otherdata content delivery system? Cheers! 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
John ... Like you I have lived and worked in many countries with voluntary bandplans... THEY WORK VERY WELL... or I would not be suggesting them... But us US Hams love to keep our blinkers on and ignore the successes in the rest of the world... We hate to try anything new.. and just because it works well everywhere else, it cant work in the provincial old USA It's that kind of innovative thinking that put GM and the rest of the US Car industry in the hole it currently is in... But your wisdom is falling on deaf ears on this reflector as they are totally focused on the anti-Pactor 3 rantings and ant-Internet rantings...to listen to the postive results from the rest of the world or to even consider the harm the current regulation have done to stiffle innovation in the USA. __Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant To me as an outsider, ie not a citizen of the USA, it's both interesting and confusing as to why Hams in the US feel that they need structure and many regulations in order to make the bandplan work. There are collectively a whole whack of Europeans who are making a voluntary plan work, as well as us Cannucks it comes down to an issue of respect among members of the Ham community there is ample room for all users, including the dreaded pactor 3 stations, so I can't understand why the desire for rules and regulations in a bandplan? So far the rest of the world seems satisfied with a voluntary plancertainly worth a second look. Keep in mind that it is easier to have more regulations brought in if the need is there, rather than trying to convince the FCC that more regulations should be dropped.. the old inertia theory of government. John VE5MU 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
On Friday 27 January 2006 21:46, John Bradley wrote: > To me as an outsider, ie not a citizen of the USA, it's both interesting > and confusing as to why Hams in the US feel that they need structure and > many regulations in order to make the bandplan work. > > There are collectively a whole whack of Europeans who are making a > voluntary plan work, as well as us Cannucks it comes down to an issue > of respect among members of the Ham community there is ample room for > all users, including the dreaded pactor 3 stations, so I can't understand > why the desire for rules and regulations in a bandplan? > > So far the rest of the world seems satisfied with a voluntary > plancertainly worth a second look. Keep in mind that it is easier > to have more regulations brought in if the need is there, rather than > trying to convince the FCC that more regulations should be dropped.. > the old inertia theory of government. > > John > VE5MU Why do hams in the U.S. feel that they need structure? It comes about when we hear people say "there is ample room for all users" while comparing a country with 60,000 hams with one that has over 600,000 hams. The term "order of magnitude" comes to mind. I keep hearing about Europeans making a voluntary plan work but then I go reread the IARU Plenary documents and see things like this: from the RSGB, Improving Bandplan Compliance, paper number 138 -An increasing proportion of the Amateur Radio community is using non-CW modes and deploying beacons within the CW communication sub-bands. -national societies could do more to improve compliance with IARU bandplans. -Note: The authors believe that the degree of compliance within the CW sub-bands in particular is indicative of the respect for IARU bandplans in general. -The IARU Region 1 HF Bandplan has served the amateur community very well for many years, and has always been made available by the IARU member societies through a range of printed publications and internet resources. However, in recent years, it has been observed that a) an increasing number of Amateur Radio operators can be heard operating data and telephony modes as well as beacons that transmit position and propagation data within the CW communication sub-bands: b) non-Morse stations within the CW sub-bands are getting more aggressive and more confident, believing that they are "entitled" to do what they do. -from the Conclusions section 2) That each national society (or, initially, a small 'pilot' group of national socieites) work together to develop common and consistent methods for bandplan compliance by a) logging incidents of non-compliance within their national borders; b) producing regular reports that summarise the non-compliances. An increasing proportion of the Amateur Radio community is using non-CW modes in the CW sub-bands? Non-Morse stations in the CW sub-bands are getting more aggressive and believe they are "entitled" to do what they do? There is a need to improve compliance with IARU bandplans? This is making a voluntary bandplan work? Thank you for the offer, but I decline. tim ab0wr Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
I cant really understand why everyone except Americans thinks the present situation works. I have lived and operated from numerous countries and heard and suffered consequences of the different band plans with different countries. Lets take 40 meters, as an extreme example. Stateside stations are allowed 300 kc, wherein the rest of the world outside of region 2 was allowed only 100 KC, until the recent move to add 7.1-7.2 for regions 1 and 2. This meant right off the bat that the stateside assignment of 7-7.150 for cw,rtty and data (only) was in direct opposition to hams in 2/3 of the worlds surface area. So, when they had to stay in the upper portion of their 7-7.1 for SSB , they were intefering with our use of cw,rtty and data modes, and of course vise versa. We also could hear them calling SSB , but couldnt call them. Thus came about split operation. Useable, but still causing inteference to those here who were using other modes. Canada decided to do something different, even though right on our border, you guys were able to also use ssb down in our other mode area, and many did, causing more inteference. Same thing with South America. You and they did not have to use the lower portion of 40 meters for SSB YOU CHOSE TO DO SO. I havent seen most of the new European band plans but ill bet my bottom dollar they do not forbid the use of SSB in the 7-7.1 portion of 40 meters. It would only make sense to do so, since they now have 7.1-7.2 and can easily send SSB there and clear the lower portion of the band for the narrow mode, and also get away from the idiotic splits. Bet it doesnt happen. You didnt do it, and they wont do it. I have stated here that the only way that there is going to be separation of intefering modes is with Mandated International Rules. It appears that so many folk are so afraid of rules that this would never happen, yet is the ONLY way to really insure that everyone follows common sense operating procedures. There are always going to be those who like to push other peoples buttons, and who dont care what others think or do and think they have the right, so even though they know better they are going to do their own thing. That small but growing percentage are the ones that ruin the pleasure of ham radio for the rest of us. They will not follow anyone's volunteer bandplan, and governments will have no teeth to insure they do. Respect of band plans? Just listen to the jammers from South America, every night. They dont have a band plan, so they could care less about ours. No wonder they ae satisified with what they have. No one can remove them, because they ae legal under their own rules. Listen to the fishing boats off your own coast, or the Chinese off the west coast. The ITU says that they are licensed under their own rules, and has no way to stop it. BALONEY. Danny - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant To me as an outsider, ie not a citizen of the USA, it's both interesting and confusing as to why Hams in the US feel that they need structure and many regulations in order to make the bandplan work. There are collectively a whole whack of Europeans who are making a voluntary plan work, as well as us Cannucks it comes down to an issue of respect among members of the Ham community there is ample room for all users, including the dreaded pactor 3 stations, so I can't understand why the desire for rules and regulations in a bandplan? So far the rest of the world seems satisfied with a voluntary plancertainly worth a second look. Keep in mind that it is easier to have more regulations brought in if the need is there, rather than trying to convince the FCC that more regulations should be dropped.. the old inertia theory of government. John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006 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) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio
[digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I really LOVE it when people tell me why I think what I think. > > The scenario I mentioned is *EXACTLY* what I would be doing > if it were legal. What's plain silly is having that scenario > prohibited simply because one it involves switching from voice > to digital. > > (By the way, I'm a member of MARS, and that's EXACTLY how we > handle a lot of traffic. It's efficient and effective.) Paul I'm sure that given the high volume of traffic on the MARS nets handles now day, the switching from voice to digital or other modes of operation works well for you and MARS, great! I however don't see a crying demand for this mode of operation on Amateur frequencies , and I am of the belief that most of the noise generated in support of this change is based on being able to give more spectrum to delivery of email, and other digital data products over scarce HF spectrum resources. I don't see the demand for it now, and frankly I don't think that Amateur Radio is about providing an alternative to conventional internet services. Maybe HF frequencies allocated to MARS operations are a good place for a trial of this sort of shared MARS voice and Digital email and other data content delivery system? Cheers! Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
To me as an outsider, ie not a citizen of the USA, it's both interesting and confusing as to why Hams in the US feel that they need structure and many regulations in order to make the bandplan work. There are collectively a whole whack of Europeans who are making a voluntary plan work, as well as us Cannucks it comes down to an issue of respect among members of the Ham community there is ample room for all users, including the dreaded pactor 3 stations, so I can't understand why the desire for rules and regulations in a bandplan? So far the rest of the world seems satisfied with a voluntary plancertainly worth a second look. Keep in mind that it is easier to have more regulations brought in if the need is there, rather than trying to convince the FCC that more regulations should be dropped.. the old inertia theory of government. John VE5MU Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
> Flavio Padovani wrote:
> Saludos,
> I am really impressed with your magnificent display of ignorance.
Namecalling is something we are supposed to have
learned not to do in kindergarten.
Try responding to factual issues with factual responses
or please be silent.
The last thing we need in this world are more rhetorical
bomb throwers who spew hate so they may avoid engaging
in intelligent discussion.
We await your apology and an adult-level participation in
the discussion.
--
~~
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/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
I really LOVE it when people tell me why I think what I think. The scenario I mentioned is *EXACTLY* what I would be doing if it were legal. What's plain silly is having that scenario prohibited simply because one it involves switching from voice to digital. (By the way, I'm a member of MARS, and that's EXACTLY how we handle a lot of traffic. It's efficient and effective.) - ps N6CRR wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Maybe we're just ready to recognize that dividing the bands by the >>content type doesn't make sense? >> >>If I'm talking to someone on SSB and decide I want to send >>a short file, why shouldn't the regs be flexible enough to >>allow blasting him a few seconds of data that occupies the >>same bandwidth we were using with the voice QSO, and do it >>without changing frequency? >> >>It's permissible in most of the rest of the world... > > > Say what? > > Are you being disingenuous here, or just plain silly? > > This whole regulation by bandwidth thing is about opening up more > spectrum for connection, and transmission of data content, from the > internet over Amateur Radio Frequencies. > > I'm not saying outright that this is all bad, but let's not pretend > that it's anything but what it is. A move by folks who view moving > digital data content as the key thing and saviour of Amateur Radio in > the future, plain and simple. An honest debate over the shape of the > future should be out in the open for all to see what the agendas at > play are. > > Steve > > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Howard,
You know as well as I do that a voluntary
band plan will not work. Most all these Winlink folks are going to use what ever
frequency that want to as long as it is legal or close to it
anyway.
JoeW4JSI
Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter
- Original Message -
From:
Dr. Howard S. White
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:47
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
Tim:
You ignore the fact that PSK31 in the USA on 40M
is smack in the middle of other countries allocations for other
modes...We QRM their QSO's with PSK just like they QRM us with other modes..
its a 2 way street...
I would love to have world wide agreement on a
bandplan...which is possible if we go to Regulation by Bandwidth so that we
can be compatible with the rest of the world..
You are totally misreading the RSGB, Denmark and
Swiss Documents... No where do they suggest that they return to the bad old
days of regulation by mode... nor do they suggest that it is Chaos...in fact
they are quite pleased with the results and the RSGB has just published their
latest voluntary bandplans
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:52
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
RM-11306 Rant
Yeah, right. No chaos.Only on 40m when the
Canadian and South American SSB take out psk31 in the states at this
location.Want to see what will happen if anything goes? Listen to
3585-3590khz in the early evening when we are trying to have CW nets and
have to put up with SSB QRM.That's!!! the future if a Canadian
plan is put in place.Howard, you've been given the IARU document
references where the problems in Region 1 were laid out in the
September, 2005 Plenary. You can keep saying there "is not any chaos"
there but the published documents prove you wrong. Denmark, Switzerland,
and the RSGB all introduced documents stating otherwise. How long are
you going to keep your head in the sand along with the ARRL?tim
ab0wrOn Thursday 26 January 2006 20:28, Dr. Howard S. White
wrote:> Actually I have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth
in Canada...> and it works extremely well... NO
CHAOS>> And talking to many people in Region 1... there
definitely is not any> "chaos" that you would like to
happen..>> yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but
they are set be the amateur> community and can easily be changed by
the amateurs... to accomodate> current communications
volumes...>
__> 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"
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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Jim, It wouldn't"t matter about the sunspots cycle. Most only work and an email handler anyway and most never get off "their" frequency to find out what the rest of us are doing. Sorta like having their head stuck in the sand. JoeW4JSI Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:34 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant Perhaps you should read some of the Region 1 member's bandplans andassumptions for making those bandplans. I think you will find thatthey are very restrictive. In addition, you will find that they arehaving trouble enforcing those very bandplans and are suffering fromthe forcasted 'chaos' that many of see happening if this type ofregulatory scheme is accepted.I wish we were at a sunspot maximum while these arguments were beingmade. It would give everyone a better view of what can happen!JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason forRM-11305/6.> > There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn'tthat one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technologyjail by the current outmoded regulation by mode> > US Hams are falling further and further behind in "advancing the artof radio" because we are shackled by the archaic rules..> > And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far enough in freeing usfrom Technolgy Jail...> > Personally I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to the model that therest of the world is adopting...and which we will ultimately adoptsome time in the future... even if RM-11306 is the best we can do fornow...> > And I am constantly amazed at the provincial attitudes of US Hamswho we can ignore the rest of the world.> > If the rest of the world is or will be regulation by bandwidth...andwe share those same frequencies with the rest of the world... What isthe point of keeping us in Technology Jail?when everyone else onthose same frequencies is not?> 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Danny
Yes you cable company will say this so will the satellite
companies, because the FCC has mandated that they must provide converter. But
this will only be for a few years and then they are to go away.
I have worked in electronics and broadcast now for more years
than I want to think about.
What the FCC is doing is what they want to do. The
broadcaster's didn't want the change. The format was started in Japan and Japan
is in the process of getting rid of it.
The whole thing has been printed in trade publications. Which
goes into the different phase of the change over and what is
required.
SHERMON HALL[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:31
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
There are alwlays ways around things. Our
cable company has advised they will provide a wideband type converter to each
home which does not have HDTV so will continue to provide analogue signals for
the forseeable future. Either that, are they will quickly loose business
to the satellite companies.
- Original Message -
From:
SHERMON
HALL, JR.
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:53
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
RM-11306 Rant
I agree with what you are saying. To put it another way no
one rig will do everything. I see this "new" approach as a way to force new
radio sales on us, just as the move to HDTV will require that everyone buy's
a new TV.
SHERMON HALL[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:27
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
RM-11306 Rant
The same is true visa versa, many of the things we
dohere are neither practical or desirable elsewhere andI should
have written that as well to avoid the misperceptionthat I may have
been suggesting that what works elsewhere isbad.Even from
region to region in the USA certain solutionsdo not work well and the
FCC has some regionally specificlimits on Hams (e.g. power levels for
440 in FL).doc> Quote:> "We have too much
experience in the political realm that> teaches us that most of the
models of other countries> are either impractical or undesirable
here in the USA."> > Doc, hope you don't get any sand in
your ears> > John> VE5MU--
~~Thanks!
& 73, doc
kd4e
|_|___|_|
| | & |
|
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/ \ {|
/ @ \ {| |
|~_|| | -| |
|\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =West
Central
Florida~~~
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release
Date: 1/27/2006
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)
SPONSORED LINKS
Ham radio
Craft hobby
Hobby and craft supply
Icom ham radio
Yaesu ham radio
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
On Friday 27 January 2006 15:20, N6CRR wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe we're just ready to recognize that dividing the bands by the > > content type doesn't make sense? > > > > If I'm talking to someone on SSB and decide I want to send > > a short file, why shouldn't the regs be flexible enough to > > allow blasting him a few seconds of data that occupies the > > same bandwidth we were using with the voice QSO, and do it > > without changing frequency? > > > > It's permissible in most of the rest of the world... > > Say what? > > Are you being disingenuous here, or just plain silly? > > This whole regulation by bandwidth thing is about opening up more > spectrum for connection, and transmission of data content, from the > internet over Amateur Radio Frequencies. > > I'm not saying outright that this is all bad, but let's not pretend > that it's anything but what it is. A move by folks who view moving > digital data content as the key thing and saviour of Amateur Radio in > the future, plain and simple. An honest debate over the shape of the > future should be out in the open for all to see what the agendas at > play are. > > Steve > > > I suspect you are right. All the other reasons given are just platitudes and hoopla. The ARRL proved that by providing not one single spectrum usage study, spectrum efficiency study, or interference mitigation study. Just like Howard, they didn't provide one concrete example of what is being inhibited by regulations today that couldn't be fixed by changing one sentence in rules. I am against making the Amateur Radio Service under Part 97 into a last mile common carrier of internet content. If we have to become a common carrier to survive as a service then I'll say RIP and move on to find something else to do with my time. tim ab0wr Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
There are alwlays ways around things. Our
cable company has advised they will provide a wideband type converter to each
home which does not have HDTV so will continue to provide analogue signals for
the forseeable future. Either that, are they will quickly loose business
to the satellite companies.
- Original Message -
From:
SHERMON
HALL, JR.
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:53
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
I agree with what you are saying. To put it another way no
one rig will do everything. I see this "new" approach as a way to force new
radio sales on us, just as the move to HDTV will require that everyone buy's a
new TV.
SHERMON HALL[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:27
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
RM-11306 Rant
The same is true visa versa, many of the things we
dohere are neither practical or desirable elsewhere andI should have
written that as well to avoid the misperceptionthat I may have been
suggesting that what works elsewhere isbad.Even from region to
region in the USA certain solutionsdo not work well and the FCC has some
regionally specificlimits on Hams (e.g. power levels for 440 in
FL).doc> Quote:> "We have too much experience in
the political realm that> teaches us that most of the models of other
countries> are either impractical or undesirable here in the
USA."> > Doc, hope you don't get any sand in your ears>
> John> VE5MU--
~~Thanks!
& 73, doc
kd4e
|_|___|_|
| | & |
|
{| /\
{| / \
{| / \
{| / @ \
{| | |~_||
| -| | |\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =West
Central
Florida~~~
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date:
1/27/2006
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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Maybe we're just ready to recognize that dividing the bands by the > content type doesn't make sense? > > If I'm talking to someone on SSB and decide I want to send > a short file, why shouldn't the regs be flexible enough to > allow blasting him a few seconds of data that occupies the > same bandwidth we were using with the voice QSO, and do it > without changing frequency? > > It's permissible in most of the rest of the world... Say what? Are you being disingenuous here, or just plain silly? This whole regulation by bandwidth thing is about opening up more spectrum for connection, and transmission of data content, from the internet over Amateur Radio Frequencies. I'm not saying outright that this is all bad, but let's not pretend that it's anything but what it is. A move by folks who view moving digital data content as the key thing and saviour of Amateur Radio in the future, plain and simple. An honest debate over the shape of the future should be out in the open for all to see what the agendas at play are. Steve Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
I agree with what you are saying. To put it another way no one
rig will do everything. I see this "new" approach as a way to force new radio
sales on us, just as the move to HDTV will require that everyone buy's a new
TV.
SHERMON HALL[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:27
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
The same is true visa versa, many of the things we
dohere are neither practical or desirable elsewhere andI should have
written that as well to avoid the misperceptionthat I may have been
suggesting that what works elsewhere isbad.Even from region to
region in the USA certain solutionsdo not work well and the FCC has some
regionally specificlimits on Hams (e.g. power levels for 440 in
FL).doc> Quote:> "We have too much experience in the
political realm that> teaches us that most of the models of other
countries> are either impractical or undesirable here in the
USA."> > Doc, hope you don't get any sand in your ears>
> John> VE5MU--
~~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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Dear Dr.
Your argument doesn't hold water. The rest of the world waits
to see if it will be either a European influenced technology or a United States
influenced technology then they will align behind which ever one they tend to be
more politically related. All one has to do is to look at the farce that is
going on with HDTV in the states to see that. The question is who is going to
make the most money from it.
SHERMON HALL[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Dr. Howard S. White
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:47
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
Except we share those same bands with the rest of
the world and we will have to live with their regulation by bandwidth even if
we do not do it...
So the rest of the world will continue to advance
the art of radio and us US hams will be stuck in the 20th century
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:49
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
RM-11306 Rant
> It's permissible in most of the rest of the
world..."The rest of the world" is rarely a useful
construct(though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone elseis
doing it!")Much of the rest of the world is a socialist
politicalmess or is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts.They
have vastly different cultural norms, enforcementagencies, and other
variables.The facts necessary to establish any relevance fromthe
experience of "the rest of the world" have notyet been
presented.Specifically where in "the rest of the
world"?Communist China? Totalitarian North Korea or
Iran?Are we talking about civilized and densely packedareas such
as Japan or parts of Europe?What are the population percentages of
licensed active Hams?What power levels are they permitted to
use?What sort of gain antenna systems are in use?How active
is the enforcement wing of their regulatorybody compared to the
minimally active FCC?We may or may not wish to emulate others but we
firsthave to know what it is that we are being asked to emulateand
the probability of success here.We have too much experience in the
political realm thatteaches us that most of the models of other
countriesare either impractical or undesirable here in the
USA.--
~~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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Yeah, I know... "everybody else is doing it doesn't mean it's right". I tell my kids that all the time -- but only when it applies to situations where it's true. For example, when moral issues are at stake, and I'm trying to teach them moral values. (And, no, I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says I don't need to do that because the majority of parents seems to have stopped doing it.) I live in Indiana. A similar argument has been going on for YEARS in Indiana, but instead of being over how bands are split between modes, it's been over the observance of Daylight Saving Time. The conclusion I've come up with for that situation is that for morality-neutral questions where cooperation with other people are involved, the only thing more stupid than doing something of debatable value is NOT COOPERATING by doing something else. It seems that the major point of contention is whether or not hams are capable of cooperation. If we're too far gone for that, we might as well all sell our rigs while they're still worth something. -ps kd4e wrote: > > It's permissible in most of the rest of the world... > > "The rest of the world" is rarely a useful construct > (though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone else > is doing it!") > > Much of the rest of the world is a socialist political > mess or is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts. > They have vastly different cultural norms, enforcement > agencies, and other variables. > > The facts necessary to establish any relevance from > the experience of "the rest of the world" have not > yet been presented. > > Specifically where in "the rest of the world"? > > Communist China? Totalitarian North Korea or Iran? > > Are we talking about civilized and densely packed > areas such as Japan or parts of Europe? > > What are the population percentages of licensed active Hams? > > What power levels are they permitted to use? > > What sort of gain antenna systems are in use? > > How active is the enforcement wing of their regulatory > body compared to the minimally active FCC? > > We may or may not wish to emulate others but we first > have to know what it is that we are being asked to emulate > and the probability of success here. > > We have too much experience in the political realm that > teaches us that most of the models of other countries > are either impractical or undesirable here in the USA. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re[2]: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Saludos,
I am really impressed with your magnificent display of ignorance.
Friday, January 27, 2006, 12:49:54 PM, you wrote:
>
> It's permissible in most of the rest of the world...
"The rest of the world" is rarely a useful construct
(though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone else
is doing it!")
Much of the rest of the world is a socialist political
mess or is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts.
They have vastly different cultural norms, enforcement
agencies, and other variables.
The facts necessary to establish any relevance from
the experience of "the rest of the world" have not
yet been presented.
Specifically where in "the rest of the world"?
Communist China? Totalitarian North Korea or Iran?
Are we talking about civilized and densely packed
areas such as Japan or parts of Europe?
What are the population percentages of licensed active Hams?
What power levels are they permitted to use?
What sort of gain antenna systems are in use?
How active is the enforcement wing of their regulatory
body compared to the minimally active FCC?
We may or may not wish to emulate others but we first
have to know what it is that we are being asked to emulate
and the probability of success here.
We have too much experience in the political realm that
teaches us that most of the models of other countries
are either impractical or undesirable here in the USA.
--
~~
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)
SPONSORED LINKS
Ham radio
Craft hobby
Hobby and craft supply
Icom ham radio
Yaesu ham radio
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
73,
Flavio Padovani
KP4AWX
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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Amen
SHERMON HALL[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:49
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
> It's permissible in most of the rest of the
world..."The rest of the world" is rarely a useful
construct(though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone elseis doing
it!")Much of the rest of the world is a socialist politicalmess or
is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts.They have vastly different
cultural norms, enforcementagencies, and other variables.The facts
necessary to establish any relevance fromthe experience of "the rest of
the world" have notyet been presented.Specifically where in "the
rest of the world"?Communist China? Totalitarian North Korea or
Iran?Are we talking about civilized and densely packedareas such
as Japan or parts of Europe?What are the population percentages of
licensed active Hams?What power levels are they permitted to
use?What sort of gain antenna systems are in use?How active is
the enforcement wing of their regulatorybody compared to the minimally
active FCC?We may or may not wish to emulate others but we
firsthave to know what it is that we are being asked to emulateand the
probability of success here.We have too much experience in the
political realm thatteaches us that most of the models of other
countriesare either impractical or undesirable here in the USA.--
~~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)
SPONSORED LINKS
Ham radio
Craft hobby
Hobby and craft supply
Icom ham radio
Yaesu ham radio
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Except we share those same bands with the rest of
the world and we will have to live with their regulation by bandwidth even if we
do not do it...
So the rest of the world will continue to advance
the art of radio and us US hams will be stuck in the 20th century
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:49
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
> It's permissible in most of the rest of the
world..."The rest of the world" is rarely a useful
construct(though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone elseis doing
it!")Much of the rest of the world is a socialist politicalmess or
is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts.They have vastly different
cultural norms, enforcementagencies, and other variables.The facts
necessary to establish any relevance fromthe experience of "the rest of
the world" have notyet been presented.Specifically where in "the
rest of the world"?Communist China? Totalitarian North Korea or
Iran?Are we talking about civilized and densely packedareas such
as Japan or parts of Europe?What are the population percentages of
licensed active Hams?What power levels are they permitted to
use?What sort of gain antenna systems are in use?How active is
the enforcement wing of their regulatorybody compared to the minimally
active FCC?We may or may not wish to emulate others but we
firsthave to know what it is that we are being asked to emulateand the
probability of success here.We have too much experience in the
political realm thatteaches us that most of the models of other
countriesare either impractical or undesirable here in the USA.--
~~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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
The same is true visa versa, many of the things we do
here are neither practical or desirable elsewhere and
I should have written that as well to avoid the misperception
that I may have been suggesting that what works elsewhere is
bad.
Even from region to region in the USA certain solutions
do not work well and the FCC has some regionally specific
limits on Hams (e.g. power levels for 440 in FL).
doc
> Quote:
> "We have too much experience in the political realm that
> teaches us that most of the models of other countries
> are either impractical or undesirable here in the USA."
>
> Doc, hope you don't get any sand in your ears
>
> John
> VE5MU
--
~~
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/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Quote: "We have too much experience in the political realm thatteaches us that most of the models of other countriesare either impractical or undesirable here in the USA." Doc, hope you don't get any sand in your ears John VE5MU 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
> It's permissible in most of the rest of the world...
"The rest of the world" is rarely a useful construct
(though similar to a child's "But Mommy, eveyone else
is doing it!")
Much of the rest of the world is a socialist political
mess or is run by thugs and tyrants of various sorts.
They have vastly different cultural norms, enforcement
agencies, and other variables.
The facts necessary to establish any relevance from
the experience of "the rest of the world" have not
yet been presented.
Specifically where in "the rest of the world"?
Communist China? Totalitarian North Korea or Iran?
Are we talking about civilized and densely packed
areas such as Japan or parts of Europe?
What are the population percentages of licensed active Hams?
What power levels are they permitted to use?
What sort of gain antenna systems are in use?
How active is the enforcement wing of their regulatory
body compared to the minimally active FCC?
We may or may not wish to emulate others but we first
have to know what it is that we are being asked to emulate
and the probability of success here.
We have too much experience in the political realm that
teaches us that most of the models of other countries
are either impractical or undesirable here in the USA.
--
~~
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/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
N6CRR wrote: > I agree that there is an element of desire to experiment in Amateur > Radio, but to what end is this experimentation directed? Are we > striving for efficiency, data throughput, size of the data pipe or what? > > Are we building fat pipes to deliver data products which would more be > more appropriately provided either by a common carrier or some other > service? Are we building a "free" internet over Amateur Radio, and if > so at what level of disadvantage to existing users and types of data > delivered? Is that the future of Amateur Radio? > > 73 > Steve > Maybe we're just ready to recognize that dividing the bands by the content type doesn't make sense? If I'm talking to someone on SSB and decide I want to send a short file, why shouldn't the regs be flexible enough to allow blasting him a few seconds of data that occupies the same bandwidth we were using with the voice QSO, and do it without changing frequency? It's permissible in most of the rest of the world... -ps 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: RM-11306 Rant
Perhaps your definition of chaos and mine are different. When the members of Region 1 adopt official statements at their regional meetings that bandplans are not being followed and that wideband users (SSB) are moving into places reserved for narrowband users (CW and digi), I read CHAOS. When I see a spinning top start to wobble I know chaos has arrived. When I see these official statements I know chaos is the reason. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Actually I have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth in Canada... and it works extremely well... NO CHAOS > > And talking to many people in Region 1... there definitely is not any "chaos" that you would like to happen.. > > yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but they are set be the amateur community and can easily be changed by the amateurs... to accomodate current communications volumes... > __ > 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" Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
On Thursday 26 January 2006 23:47, Dr. Howard S. White wrote: > Tim: > > You ignore the fact that PSK31 in the USA on 40M is smack in the middle of > other countries allocations for other modes...We QRM their QSO's with PSK > just like they QRM us with other modes.. its a 2 way street... > > I would love to have world wide agreement on a bandplan...which is possible > if we go to Regulation by Bandwidth so that we can be compatible with the > rest of the world.. > > You are totally misreading the RSGB, Denmark and Swiss Documents... No > where do they suggest that they return to the bad old days of regulation by > mode... nor do they suggest that it is Chaos...in fact they are quite > pleased with the results and the RSGB has just published their latest > voluntary bandplans > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > Website: www.ky6la.com I'm not ignoring it at all. It's my whole point! Go to a plan with no regulatory segmenting and you will find EXACTLY what is happening today but multiplied by an order of magnitude because of the numbers of U.S. hams. Jeeessshhh! Such a simple concept. Right in front of your face. Yet you close your eyes and refuse to see. And I'm sure the RSGB statements of "An increasing number of Amateur Radio operators can be heard operating data and telephony modes as well as beacons that transmit position and propagation data within the CW communication sub-bands" and "non-Morse stations within the CW sub-bands are getting more aggressive and more conficent, believing that they are entitled to do what they do" is not describing chaos. They even called for national societies to develop common methods of logging these non-complicances and developing regular reports documenting them! Again, such a simple concept. Right in front of your face. Yet you close your eyes and refuse to see. tim ab0wr Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Tim: You ignore the fact that PSK31 in the USA on 40M is smack in the middle of other countries allocations for other modes...We QRM their QSO's with PSK just like they QRM us with other modes.. its a 2 way street... I would love to have world wide agreement on a bandplan...which is possible if we go to Regulation by Bandwidth so that we can be compatible with the rest of the world.. You are totally misreading the RSGB, Denmark and Swiss Documents... No where do they suggest that they return to the bad old days of regulation by mode... nor do they suggest that it is Chaos...in fact they are quite pleased with the results and the RSGB has just published their latest voluntary bandplans __Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant Yeah, right. No chaos.Only on 40m when the Canadian and South American SSB take out psk31 in the states at this location.Want to see what will happen if anything goes? Listen to 3585-3590khz in the early evening when we are trying to have CW nets and have to put up with SSB QRM.That's!!! the future if a Canadian plan is put in place.Howard, you've been given the IARU document references where the problems in Region 1 were laid out in the September, 2005 Plenary. You can keep saying there "is not any chaos" there but the published documents prove you wrong. Denmark, Switzerland, and the RSGB all introduced documents stating otherwise. How long are you going to keep your head in the sand along with the ARRL?tim ab0wrOn Thursday 26 January 2006 20:28, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> Actually I have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth in Canada...> and it works extremely well... NO CHAOS>> And talking to many people in Region 1... there definitely is not any> "chaos" that you would like to happen..>> yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but they are set be the amateur> community and can easily be changed by the amateurs... to accomodate> current communications volumes...> __> 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" Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Its time to report them to your DOT or whomever it
is up there now. Complain loudly and often. They are not allowed
those freqs, and if no one complains they will continue to cause QRM. They
might also wind up like the Japanese fleet did off Washington state back around
65. They were spot on 3 of my 5 Novice crystals and cause severe problems
to Novices. A bunch of us decided we were not going to take it anymore,
and frequented those "channels" night and day, calling CQ and chatting when we
could. Shortly after that, we saw in the news that one of their fishing
vessels had been holed, and eventaully sunk, and had been unable to use their
radios to contact help until too late, because they suffered inteference on the
channels. Well I felt bad, for about 10 seconds, until I saw no one had
died. We never heard them on our freqs
again. Tuff way to learn a lesson. And, of course had we
known they had a problem, we would have stood by, or even helped by calling the
coast guard or someone.
Danny
- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:49
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306
Rant
who knows, eh? my ear can't tell the regional
differences. think they run pretty low power, and use the freq for
ragchewing.
On a good night they yell and swear at the Olivia
signals on top of them pity!!! ...they operate USB,
too
- Original Message -
From:
John
Becker
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:33
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re:
RM-11306 Rant
Would that accent be from the south west, new Yorkor
Boston? AhAt 10:21 PM 1/26/06, John Bradley
wrote:>What you are hearing on 3580-3590 are offshore fishing
fleets, using the >frequency illegally. If you listen closely, they
have American accents>>John>VE5MU
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date:
1/25/06
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date:
1/25/2006
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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
who knows, eh? my ear can't tell the regional differences. think they run pretty low power, and use the freq for ragchewing. On a good night they yell and swear at the Olivia signals on top of them pity!!! ...they operate USB, too - Original Message - From: John Becker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant Would that accent be from the south west, new Yorkor Boston? AhAt 10:21 PM 1/26/06, John Bradley wrote:>What you are hearing on 3580-3590 are offshore fishing fleets, using the >frequency illegally. If you listen closely, they have American accents>>John>VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/06 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Would that accent be from the south west, new York or Boston? Ah At 10:21 PM 1/26/06, John Bradley wrote: >What you are hearing on 3580-3590 are offshore fishing fleets, using the >frequency illegally. If you listen closely, they have American accents > >John >VE5MU Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
give me a break!! The Canadian plan has ALWAYS been in place, there is nothing new in terms of SSB operation. this has been the plan for over 50 years What you are hearing on 3580-3590 are offshore fishing fleets, using the frequency illegally. If you listen closely, they have American accents John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant Yeah, right. No chaos.Only on 40m when the Canadian and South American SSB take out psk31 in the states at this location.Want to see what will happen if anything goes? Listen to 3585-3590khz in the early evening when we are trying to have CW nets and have to put up with SSB QRM.That's!!! the future if a Canadian plan is put in place.Howard, you've been given the IARU document references where the problems in Region 1 were laid out in the September, 2005 Plenary. You can keep saying there "is not any chaos" there but the published documents prove you wrong. Denmark, Switzerland, and the RSGB all introduced documents stating otherwise. How long are you going to keep your head in the sand along with the ARRL?tim ab0wrOn Thursday 26 January 2006 20:28, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> Actually I have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth in Canada...> and it works extremely well... NO CHAOS>> And talking to many people in Region 1... there definitely is not any> "chaos" that you would like to happen..>> yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but they are set be the amateur> community and can easily be changed by the amateurs... to accomodate> current communications volumes...> __> 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" No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/06 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Yeah, right. No chaos. Only on 40m when the Canadian and South American SSB take out psk31 in the states at this location. Want to see what will happen if anything goes? Listen to 3585-3590khz in the early evening when we are trying to have CW nets and have to put up with SSB QRM. That's!!! the future if a Canadian plan is put in place. Howard, you've been given the IARU document references where the problems in Region 1 were laid out in the September, 2005 Plenary. You can keep saying there "is not any chaos" there but the published documents prove you wrong. Denmark, Switzerland, and the RSGB all introduced documents stating otherwise. How long are you going to keep your head in the sand along with the ARRL? tim ab0wr On Thursday 26 January 2006 20:28, Dr. Howard S. White wrote: > Actually I have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth in Canada... > and it works extremely well... NO CHAOS > > And talking to many people in Region 1... there definitely is not any > "chaos" that you would like to happen.. > > yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but they are set be the amateur > community and can easily be changed by the amateurs... to accomodate > current communications volumes... > __ > 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" Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Actually I have had experience with Regulation by Bandwidth in Canada... and it works extremely well... NO CHAOS And talking to many people in Region 1... there definitely is not any "chaos" that you would like to happen.. yes the bandplans are restrictive in places but they are set be the amateur community and can easily be changed by the amateurs... to accomodate current communications volumes... __Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911" - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:34 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant Perhaps you should read some of the Region 1 member's bandplans andassumptions for making those bandplans. I think you will find thatthey are very restrictive. In addition, you will find that they arehaving trouble enforcing those very bandplans and are suffering fromthe forcasted 'chaos' that many of see happening if this type ofregulatory scheme is accepted.I wish we were at a sunspot maximum while these arguments were beingmade. It would give everyone a better view of what can happen!JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason forRM-11305/6.> > There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn'tthat one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technologyjail by the current outmoded regulation by mode> > US Hams are falling further and further behind in "advancing the artof radio" because we are shackled by the archaic rules..> > And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far enough in freeing usfrom Technolgy Jail...> > Personally I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to the model that therest of the world is adopting...and which we will ultimately adoptsome time in the future... even if RM-11306 is the best we can do fornow...> > And I am constantly amazed at the provincial attitudes of US Hamswho we can ignore the rest of the world.> > If the rest of the world is or will be regulation by bandwidth...andwe share those same frequencies with the rest of the world... What isthe point of keeping us in Technology Jail?when everyone else onthose same frequencies is not?> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
Perhaps you should read some of the Region 1 member's bandplans and assumptions for making those bandplans. I think you will find that they are very restrictive. In addition, you will find that they are having trouble enforcing those very bandplans and are suffering from the forcasted 'chaos' that many of see happening if this type of regulatory scheme is accepted. I wish we were at a sunspot maximum while these arguments were being made. It would give everyone a better view of what can happen! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason for RM-11305/6. > > There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn't that one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technology jail by the current outmoded regulation by mode > > US Hams are falling further and further behind in "advancing the art of radio" because we are shackled by the archaic rules.. > > And frankly RM-11306 does not go nearly far enough in freeing us from Technolgy Jail... > > Personally I prefer RM-11305...which is closer to the model that the rest of the world is adopting...and which we will ultimately adopt some time in the future... even if RM-11306 is the best we can do for now... > > And I am constantly amazed at the provincial attitudes of US Hams who we can ignore the rest of the world. > > If the rest of the world is or will be regulation by bandwidth...and we share those same frequencies with the rest of the world... What is the point of keeping us in Technology Jail?when everyone else on those same frequencies is not? > 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: RM-11306 Rant
There are some that like to brag about how many messages went thru their system monthly. How many of those messages was worth the time of day? Joe, Some would say that most of my QSO's are not worth the time of day either (bada bing baada boom), but the question of what amount of spectrum is allocated to what sort of data content is approprate on Amateur bands is in my view what is important. While Winlink does provide a useful service to a segment of users, should it and it's offspring be allowed to become the dominant form of Amateur communications? I for one in am very opposed to this trend. The current system mostly works, there are issues with proprietary modulation techniques such as Pactor III being used, and the general wrong headedd concept of ownership of a frequency as evidenced by Robot stations broadcasting without listing, and those issues should be addressed by both the ARRL and the FCC. 73 Steve > Ham radio is world wide and needs to be set up the same world wide. Bandwidths, frequencies, modes and bands all need to be the same for all world wide. You are right about the Pactor 3, for that matter ALL modes should be released for all to have access to. > > Joe > W4JSI > > Age is mind over matter > If you don't mind, > it does not matter > - Original Message - > From: David H. Walker > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:35 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11306 Rant > > > jivey wrote: > > There are two ways to settle all of the crap. > > 1. Just turn "ALL" the ham bands over to the e-mail jockeys and the rest > > not be allowed on the bands. > > 2. Set up frequencies for each band so all the e-mail jockeys could do > > their thing and let everyone else alone. > > > > Joe > > W4JSI > > > > Joe, I know that this subject is disturbing to many of us but the > problem lies in responsible operating practices. I have used and have > donated equipment to those that use PACTORlll. I don't find the problem > in the use of the the automatic control of stations. I find the problem > in that these stations are being used for things that are outside of the > framework of amateur radio. Certainly those that have a legitimate use > for such a system..IE HAMS ..should be able to communicate. I totally > agree that there is use of the system that is not relevant to HAM radio. > This should be abolished at once. Now how does one do this. The only > logical way at the moment is to make the PACTOR lll available to all. In > that way amateurs can see what is being sent and make good arguments > against such transmissions. Just my humble thoughts. > 73 > David > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > > > > -- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > -- > 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: RM-11306 Rant
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason for RM-11305/6. > > There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn't that one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technology jail by the current outmoded regulation by mode > > US Hams are falling further and further behind in "advancing the art of radio" because we are shackled by the archaic rules.. I agree that there is an element of desire to experiment in Amateur Radio, but to what end is this experimentation directed? Are we striving for efficiency, data throughput, size of the data pipe or what? Are we building fat pipes to deliver data products which would more be more appropriately provided either by a common carrier or some other service? Are we building a "free" internet over Amateur Radio, and if so at what level of disadvantage to existing users and types of data delivered? Is that the future of Amateur Radio? 73 Steve 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: RM-11306 Rant
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason for RM-11305/6. > > There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn't that one of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technology jail by the current outmoded regulation by mode I'll grant you that the camp that loves to experiment looks on in favor or RM 11305, but there are far far better ways to encourage experimentation that this thinly veiled attempt by those who are view "Content is King" to secure more bandwidth for their view of things. Steve 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/
