RE: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Vic Poor' Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Dave, Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. The WINMOR busy detector hasn't yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I'll talk to him about this and when we might be able to do that. >>>Rick and Vick, that would be a huge positive step. If there is any way I can help with this, please let me know. 73, Dave, AA6YQ .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Rick Muething wrote: > Dave, > > Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. > The WINMOR busy detector hasn’t yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor > Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) > has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for > the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I’ll talk to him about this and > when we might be able to do that. > 73, > > Rick Muething, KN6KB > That could be the development of the year. Andy K3UK http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and "spots" all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Dave, Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. The WINMOR busy detector hasn't yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I'll talk to him about this and when we might be able to do that. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Thanks, Rick. I have suggested in the past that your SCAMP/WINMOR "channel busy detector" could be inexpensively back-fit into WinLink PMBOs. Has anyone taken a look at this? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" All, I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might add some balance to put forth some facts and observations. 1) The majority of WL2K users are not 30 day wonder hams on expensive yachts. Marine mobile users are probably < 20% of all registered WL2K users (about 15,000 total current active users). 2) Those that are Marine Mobile have (on average) the same radio skills as the average ham.some much better. Getting digital radio to work at all on a small sailboat (most MM users are not wealthy and have "yachts" of < 35 feet) when you are sitting in a plastic boat inside the antenna near field is a challenge. I have seen and helped set up over 100 such installations. 3) Certainly there are a number of operators that fail to "listen first" or don't use the tools and procedures recommended to connect. E.g. AirMail limits the calling cycle to normally < 20 seconds for most stations. Unfortunately bad operators and procedures exist in ham radio in every mode. 4) Marinas by and large don't do or sell radio installations (I have NEVER seen even one). They sell GAS/Diesel, dockage, supplies, beer and bait. In fact most marine radio service companies have minimal experience with ham radios or HF digital modes. 5) Scanning has been used in the past to improve the utilization of HF Pactor server stations but can be an issue. Pactor has some but limited busy channel detection capability. WL2K is now looking at and testing alternatives to the conventional scanning used in Pactor. The new WINMOR protocol allows more options and experimentation. a. RMS WINMOR server stations [Beta operation started in January 2010] operate on ONE frequency which can be changed (on the hour) during the day (most use 1 - 3 frequencies over a 24 hour day). The frequency list clients use indicate which frequency is in use on which UTC hour. The client software (RMS Express) shows users ONLY those frequencies in current use along with the propagation prediction to the remote server stations. Users can refresh their server station list over the air or over the internet if available. b. WINMOR uses an effective "channel busy detector" to warn users if a channel appears busy in the bandwidth of interest. The detector isn't perfect (neither is the human ear!) but it can detect most modes even in weak conditions (SSB, CW, PSK, Pactor, Olivia, WINMOR etc). c. The RMS WINMOR stations (servers) also have a similar DSP based detector which can block a reply to a connect request. This will prevent for example answering a connect request "over" an existing session/QSO not audible to the station originating the connect request (hidden transmitter situation). We're still experimenting and refining this but it definitely helps avoid accidental interference. To summarize: Painting all Winlink users with a broad brush of "wealthy yachties with limited radio skills" is no where near the truth and is an obvious attempt distort the facts to promote some agenda. If given the flexibility to work on and experiment with these digital modes it is possible to address issues and make progress improving our hobby. If we try and legislate every detail we end up generating rules or band plans that become obsolete quickly. This discourages experimentation (I still hope that is part of our hobby.) and progress. I don't have the time to get into flame wars or extended blogging ..If you have a legitimate technical question on WINMOR or a question about WL2K I will try and answer it with accurate facts. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
All, I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might add some balance to put forth some facts and observations. 1) The majority of WL2K users are not 30 day wonder hams on expensive yachts. Marine mobile users are probably < 20% of all registered WL2K users (about 15,000 total current active users). 2) Those that are Marine Mobile have (on average) the same radio skills as the average ham.some much better. Getting digital radio to work at all on a small sailboat (most MM users are not wealthy and have "yachts" of < 35 feet) when you are sitting in a plastic boat inside the antenna near field is a challenge. I have seen and helped set up over 100 such installations. 3) Certainly there are a number of operators that fail to "listen first" or don't use the tools and procedures recommended to connect. E.g. AirMail limits the calling cycle to normally < 20 seconds for most stations. Unfortunately bad operators and procedures exist in ham radio in every mode. 4) Marinas by and large don't do or sell radio installations (I have NEVER seen even one). They sell GAS/Diesel, dockage, supplies, beer and bait. In fact most marine radio service companies have minimal experience with ham radios or HF digital modes. 5) Scanning has been used in the past to improve the utilization of HF Pactor server stations but can be an issue. Pactor has some but limited busy channel detection capability. WL2K is now looking at and testing alternatives to the conventional scanning used in Pactor. The new WINMOR protocol allows more options and experimentation. a. RMS WINMOR server stations [Beta operation started in January 2010] operate on ONE frequency which can be changed (on the hour) during the day (most use 1 - 3 frequencies over a 24 hour day). The frequency list clients use indicate which frequency is in use on which UTC hour. The client software (RMS Express) shows users ONLY those frequencies in current use along with the propagation prediction to the remote server stations. Users can refresh their server station list over the air or over the internet if available. b. WINMOR uses an effective "channel busy detector" to warn users if a channel appears busy in the bandwidth of interest. The detector isn't perfect (neither is the human ear!) but it can detect most modes even in weak conditions (SSB, CW, PSK, Pactor, Olivia, WINMOR etc). c. The RMS WINMOR stations (servers) also have a similar DSP based detector which can block a reply to a connect request. This will prevent for example answering a connect request "over" an existing session/QSO not audible to the station originating the connect request (hidden transmitter situation). We're still experimenting and refining this but it definitely helps avoid accidental interference. To summarize: Painting all Winlink users with a broad brush of "wealthy yachties with limited radio skills" is no where near the truth and is an obvious attempt distort the facts to promote some agenda. If given the flexibility to work on and experiment with these digital modes it is possible to address issues and make progress improving our hobby. If we try and legislate every detail we end up generating rules or band plans that become obsolete quickly. This discourages experimentation (I still hope that is part of our hobby.) and progress. I don't have the time to get into flame wars or extended blogging ..If you have a legitimate technical question on WINMOR or a question about WL2K I will try and answer it with accurate facts. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Ed G writes: > > Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams > who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, > should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other > service , because those communications on a regular basis could be easily > furnished through those alternative services too. > > I know, its stupid, but it also carries the same logic as the below > example . > > K7AAT Ragchews or roundtable nets with other hams could not be reasonably accomplished via another radio service, nor could the authorized purpose of improving international understanding via person-to-person contacts on the radio. (Any ham who is using 80m to work other hams within the reliable range of CB class D probably ought to consider QSY to 144 MHz or above, but that is wandering pretty far off the topic of this thread.) Daily vessel position reports, on the other hand, ARE done via the Maritime Mobile Radio Service, so obviously they CAN BE. For exchanges of email messages between yachts at sea and non-hams ashore via MM frequencies, see http://www.sailmail.com for a non-profit connection. I believe that for-profit public coast stations offer such services as well. 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW), Chris
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
I understand what you are saying Skip. But the bottom line is that most can't copy it and therefore don't understand it. I have gotten phone calls and email from my CW ID after a person to person QSO telling me what a lid I was for operating pactor. I love the ARQ modes (pactor amtor) and at this time dont think I'll be giving them up soon. It's a bit hard to even talk to someone like that after their mind is already made up. So I just gave up. Unlike some I will not burn a hole if the freq is busy and most of the time even if I can hear anything. I know that P-3 can at times get very wide. When people started complaining even if they hear a signal they can't decode with their sound card something is wrong. I just tell most what they can do with their sound card. If you can read between the lines. I no longer care or give a hoot. I guess that is why this is a non-sound card station. Thats right not a one. In fact the sack computer is an old 8088 running DOS. Does real well with pactor and amtor as well as just a few others. need I say more? John, W0JAB w0...@big-river.net 573-754-4715
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service , because those communications on a regular basis could be easily furnished through those alternative services too. I know, its stupid, but it also carries the same logic as the below example . K7AAT Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5) of the FCC rules, which states: (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies. Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is "no".
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
John, I don't know if your comments are directed to me or are in response to my comments on NTS Digital, but NTSD has nothing to do with hams at sea. If you want more information about NTS Digital operations and practices please check this web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/n_t_s_d.htm NTSD is a very very small portion of the automatic systems compared to Winlink 2000 and ALE,,,Again we are still using Winlink Classic, the version developed before Winlink 2000 and Classic does have a busy detector... NTS messages are and have been part of amateur radio for decades and continue in the tradition established early in the 20th century. Dave WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Coordinator NTSD - Original Message - From: "John Becker, WØJAB" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode? -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2801 - Release Date: 04/09/10 14:32:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > > A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated > traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less > likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the > side of many ham radio operators. ^^^ Or put them on 11 meters and make some use of that sanitorium. 73 Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5) of the FCC rules, which states: (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies. Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is "no". I don't know whether hams licensed in other countries are subject to equivalent (or even more stringent) regulations against communications which could be furnished through other radio services, but I suspect that the answer is "yes", and that the basis for 97.113(a)(5) is to be found in the International Radio Regulations, which all administrations are required by treaty to implement. A documented confirmation or contradiction of my guess would be welcome. 73 DE KW6H, ex-AE6VW, Chris
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
- Original Message - From: kc4cop To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:08 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Your comments about "Grandma's birthday" indicates that you understand very little concerning traffic handling which has been a part of amateur radio from the very begining and is where the "Relay" in "American Radio Relay League" comes from.. The pupose of the yes maybe boring everyday messages is to keep a cadre of trained message handlers for those times when ham radio is called upon to provide communications during disasters and other emergenices when other modes of communication are down or otherwise unavailable, including the World Wide Web. The National Traffic System exists and has operated for many decades in this fashion. A natural extension of this is NTS Digital which indeed does operate automatic message handling systems primarily using Pactor and operates concurrently with the traditional manual NTS at all levels. However NTS Digital for the most part still uses what has become to be called Winlink Classic where almost all of the forwarding is done via RF. Yes we do scan, but Winlink Classic also has a busy frequency detector built into its scanner function. While not perfect it does result in inhibiting many connections when the frequency is busy. Personally I have seen it work upon detecting CW, RTTY, Pactor 1, PSK31 and some other digital modes and even just plain carrier. NTS Digital operates almost exclusively in the very small existing automatical control subbands. Indeed during RTTY contests when many of the activity moves into these autocontrol subbands our traffic handling ability is severely affected due to the busy detectors in the software. How big is this operation?... For March 2010 the NTS Digital system in Eastern Area which comprises most of the East Coast and the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 callsign areas and Eastern Canada handled over 6000 messages via the digital systems. Similar traffic levels are also posted by the other two areas, Central and Pacific covering the rest of the US and Canada Dave WB2FTX Easten Area Digital Coordinator- NTS Digital ARRL --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find "happy birthday grandma" to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (12) Recent Activity: a.. New Members 4 Visit Your Group http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and "spots" all in one (resize to suit) MARKETPLACE Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more. -- Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you. -- Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO* end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor. It is important to differentiate between unattended stations and Pactor. Pactor just happens to be the mode most use, because it works well and automatically acknowledges or asks for repeats if the data is not received without error. There are three problems with Winlink in particular which harm the ham community. The first is that most of the "hams" listed were recruited by Winlink and marinas so they can use the ham bands as a FREE long distance email service (marinas make money by selling the equipment and installing it because many do not have the technical knowledge to do that). This is why you see so many position reports - they are from sailors at sea. The problem is that the vast majority of those "sailor hams" have never operated in a shared frequency environment like the ham bands. They are used to "channels", as on the marine bands, and are not adequately trained to listen first for traffic. In fact, using a digital mode, most probably never listen to anything. They just transmit for a connect with a mainland Pactor station to get email. The second problem is that one half of the communication is by an unattended, 24/7, robot station which CAN'T listen for traffic local to itself before it transmits. The third is that Winlink fixed stations scan several frequencies, or bands, and if you try to connect with a station that has stopped scanning to work someone, you may call and call in vain for a connect on an alternate frequency, and therefore needlessly tie up a frequency someone else could use. It is not feasible for a yacht far from shore to use the World Wide Web, unless they have a satellite data phone, which is not FREE, and all their money is probably tied up in their sailing yacht, so many just cannot afford a sat phone, which is now available, but it used not to be when Winlink started out. So what is the solution? The real solution would be to use SeaMail, which only costs about $250 a year, and get all that "non-ham" traffic off the ham bands. The problem again is aversion to ANY cost, no matter how small, in addition to the fact that the number of SeaMail stations is smaller than the number of Winlink fixed stations. The point here is that it is NOT Pactor that is the problem. That is only the mode used. The problem is thousands of sailor-hams that have little concern about transmitting over existing activity, and have never done any ham radio except Winlink email, since their ARQ will keep pounding away until they own the frequency or time out. Just monitor Winlink frequencies for a while. The remote station always (clients) transmits first, which triggers the mainland station. You will see the majority of interfering stations are the client stations, and the mainland stations will come on, usually stronger, and very quickly if the client is recognized. Although every ham is required to listen first, and most do ((QRL) this is obviously not the practice in the segments of the bands allocated to automatic stations, so just stay out of there and the problem will seem to be much less. No, Pactor is NOT a "junk" mode. It actually works very well for a lot of people. The real problem is the "sailor-hams", who are not hams at all in the way most of us are, but mariners using ham radio as if it were on channelized frequencies, and not listening first. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: >A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated >traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to >be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham >radio operators. Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO* end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor. Plus they are at this time in their own little (and I do mean little) part of the band. I do a lot of pactor operating and have a system waiting for traffic that I in turn get on it's way via the WWW. I scan about 12 freq's looking just for that very same type of traffic. Take a look at this map. http://www.winlink.org/userPositions did you notice that EACH and EVERY one has a ham call? Just because *some* don't use the mode does not mean it's a junk mode. And it would *really* be nice if some that did speak up a least operated the mode before bad talking it. So please let's not get this started once again. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri pactor 1,2 & 3 24/7/365 in the center of fly over country
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find "happy birthday grandma" to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP > I'll accept Dave and Skip's comments as valid points. BTW, the busy detect > does work quite well in Winmor. Simon, I did not have a particular digital > mode in mind, I was just exploring the receptivity to the overall concept of > unattended operations, if "wide" was eliminated from the discussion. > > ANdy K3UK > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote: > > > > > > > >>>AA6YQ comments below > > > > > > -Original Message- > > *From:* Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@...] > > *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM > > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > *Cc:* Dave AA6YQ > > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission > > "protection" > > > > Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is > > myth. > > > > >>>One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A > > busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it > > could continuously reconfigure. > > > > >>>And as I said, "perfect is the enemy of good" (with apologies to > > Voltaire). A busy detector that is "only" 80% effective would reduce QRM > > rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: > > > > > > > > If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop > > detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy > > frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. > > Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running > > unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by > > giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to > > obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of > > them. > > > > Appeasement never works. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > -Original Message- > > *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradi > > o...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien > > *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM > > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > *Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" > > > > > > > > Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing view... > > Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the "wide" modes > > were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a > > digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended" under automatic > > control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, > > and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an > > area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if > > we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate > > at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 > > Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that > > is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are > > only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their > > mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have > > 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in > > these segments would be secondary. > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > >> Andy obrien wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Andy K3UK > >> > >> Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I cannot think > >> of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has > >> its > >> own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can > >> reside. Neither are new or "advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which > >> is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is > >> why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I > >> have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined > >> frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The > >> prospect of wide bandwidt
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Andy, The issue for me has less to do with bandwidth than operating methodology. The same problems exist independent of bandwidth; although wider bandwidth modes certainly exasperate the situation. I agree that Winlink servers scanning multiple frequencies is a poor use of limited frequency allocations. Regardless of the mode and/or bandwidth, the issue appears to be that of transmitting on a frequency already in use. While manual operators certainly do this, at least the they have control over it; unlike bots with mode specific "busy detection" or that feature disabled. I would certainly support a narrow bandwidth area *within the existing automatic sub-bands* for automatic operations; but not if it were allocated at the expense of non-automatic users. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing view... > Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the "wide" modes > were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a > digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended" under automatic > control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, > and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an > area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if > we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate > at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 > Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that > is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are > only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their > mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have > 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in > these segments would be secondary. > > Andy K3UK > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Andy > > obrien wrote: > > > > > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I cannot think > > of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its > > own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can > > reside. Neither are new or "advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which > > is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is > > why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I > > have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined > > frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The > > prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the > > suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for > > frequency conservation. > > > > Bill N9DSJ > > > > > > > > > >
