Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
John: Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction. For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for thousands opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated stations running absolutely no busy detection at all. How long do you think the FCC will allow this to continue before they clarify the PART97 regulations in this area? The FCC gives us a good deal of freedom to experiment. Once the experiment is over though and you begin to use a new system on a regular basis, they have a lot less sense of humor about the rules being bent or broken. It is unfortunate but true that every day that kind of operation continues brings us closer to a response from the FCC that we may not like at all. The FCC gives us a good deal of freedom to experiment, and in return we are expected to act responsibly. Willful interference is not a responsible act. What we should be doing is self-policing this problem. Instead it is encouraged, not discouraged as it should be by the ARRL. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: John B. Stephensen To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone There is no bandwidth limit in the RTTY/data segments but there is a limit of no wider than a communications-quality DSB phone signal using the same modulation type in the phone/image segments from 160 to 1.25 meters. This is interpreted as anything between 6 and 10 kHz by U.S. AM users but the European governments have decided that 8 kHz is the upper limit on HF. The rules specificly reference emission designators that authorize multiple subcarriers so FDM modes are unlikely to beome illegal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 13:20 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful interference and of course the 300 baud limit. The wider HF digital modes 'get around' the 300 baud limit by transmitting multiple streams, each at less than 300 baud inividually but adding up to something significantly higher. Q15x25 for example transmits fifteen PSK streams for an effective 2.5 kb data rate. The transmitted signal is about the same width as PACTOR III, around 2.5 kHz. The legality of 'getting around' the 300 baud limit with multiple streams has not been established. So far, the FCC has not put its foot down on the matter but that is no guarantee that they will not decide to do so at some point in the future, perhaps when and if they feel that the practice has gotten out of hand. The prohibition against deliberate harmful interference is the real limiting factor. We must remember that saying I didn't listen before transmitting, so I didn't know I would interfere. is no defense whatsoever against a complaint of deliberate interference. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you transmit an ultra-wide signal on busy, crowded amateur radio spectrum without taking pains to find a clear spot of the required size, that you will most certainly end up crashing other hams QSOs. In light of this, and the fact that our spectrum is shared spectrum where nobody owns a frequency, you may wonder why we do not have a bandwidth limit on HF. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that we are expected to experiment with radio technology, to push the envelope in various ways that may require more bandwidth than usual. This is something to consider if you are wondering why the FCC has not put their foot down so far on the 300 baud rule. They are giving us leeway. Playing with ultra-wide signals on an occasional, experimental basis is not so difficult. As we all know, sometimes the HF bands are packed from one end to the other, and at other times there are great, wide stretches of unused spectrum out there. I'll mention here that the more useful and popular bits of spectrum ( 20m for example ) are going to be unoccupied a lot less often than 17 or 15m for example. So, for a careful and thoughtful experimenter, finding a stretch of open spectrum to play with a wide signal is not such a difficult thing to do. Not to mention VHF and UHF of course, the best and most reasonable place to experiment by far. Where we run into difficulties on HF is when we stop experimenting with wide modes and start attempting to use them on a regular basis
RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the regulations about how much the symbol can change. Packet and RTTY uses two tones. PKS31 uses one. By your argument Packet and RTTY should be banned because their symbol change is larger than PSK31s. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone John: Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
A simple understanding of props: Station A listens, and hearing nothing on the band, normally sends a quick QRZ?, and if no one responds, figures he can go ahead and transmit a signal/CQ or whatever. Station B hears that, and responds to station A. Now with both stations manned, they both have a chance to listen and suddenly, someone (station C) comes up and tells station B that the frequency is already in use. Station C has not been hearing station A and probably still doesn't hear him, but now station B is interfering with an ongoing QSO between stations C and D (he didn't hear D before he transmitted, but that station was already there transmitting to station D) Then station B would ask station A to QSY for their QSO on a different freq. That happens all the time, and is the way it should be. Now lets take your automatic station: E comes up on the freq, and transmits, without listening to anything first. The ops at F hears E and even though he is sitting on the freq, he hasn't heard anything else and he then transmit to F. Suddenly stations F, H, I, etc etc who are working SSB on and very close to the station now have some kind of maddening raspy interference on top of them . Who is that? Why, its probably station E, or maybe F if he just didn't hear those stations operating when he first responded to E (maybe they were silent and listening to someone else there, that F didn't hear). So how can the operator at station F be responsible for the QRM being caused by E, if he doesn't know it is QRMING anyone else? He cant, and wont. Both E and F are responsible for their own signals, and for interference caused by their station and no one can really disagree with that! That is exactly why the majority of hams are saying that automatic operation on the HF bands needs to just go away. When an operator is sitting a position, he can indeed listen, transmit,and then respond to people with whom he is interfering. Without that important person, the automatic station will not do so. It just happily tools along, continuining its interference to others who were already using the freq. Many have already asked that this operation stop, until such stations can be programmed to listen for frequency use, before its initial transmit on the freq. With that facility built in, most all the complaints would simply go away. You would then have your capability to run auto stations, within the present bandwidth parameters, and would have a legal transmission on the air. Meanwhile, without that ability, you do not. Many of us see the usefulness of such an operation and encourage it development, but only with the auto stations software being able to determine frequency use before its initial transmission , and then being able to respond positively, if someone comes up immediately on the same freq with a signal of a different mode.Once the two digital stations have initiated a QSO, they would not have to stop and QSY or worry about other signals coming in somewhat latter, and this would stop others from intentionally interfering with the digital QSOs, just to make trouble for them. I understand the capability is already developed - it just needs to be accepted and used by ALL automatic stations. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Jeff Moore To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Charles, I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below] I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with. Contrary to what your statement implies. The automated pactor stations don't initiate qso's, they respond to qso's initiated by live operators. It falls on THOSE operators to insure that they are not interfering with other qso's in progress, not the automated response stations. Unless I'm missing something here, none of the Winlink 2000 automated stations initiate transmissions, they only respond to requests. Jeff Moore KE7ACY DCARES - Deschutes County ARES Bend, Oregon - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone John: [snip] For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for thousands opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated stations running absolutely no busy
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Rud: Note that I didn't make an arguement, I asked a question. By your arguement, Packet should be allowed to operate at 600 baud - but guess what? 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the regulations about how much the symbol can change. Packet and RTTY uses two tones. PKS31 uses one. By your argument Packet and RTTY should be banned because their symbol change is larger than PSK31s. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone John: Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
No, Packet can't operate at more than 300 baud. Nothing on HF can exceed 300 baud. I didn't argue this implicitly or explicitly. You made the argument implicitly. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:51 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Rud: Note that I didn't make an arguement, I asked a question. By your arguement, Packet should be allowed to operate at 600 baud - but guess what? 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam mailto:k5...@arrl.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the regulations about how much the symbol can change. Packet and RTTY uses two tones. PKS31 uses one. By your argument Packet and RTTY should be banned because their symbol change is larger than PSK31s. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakeso http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ ftware.com/ -Original Message- From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone John: Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Jeff: I watched a WinLink station knock four stations off of the air yesterday. I have dozens of screen-captures of waterfall displays, showing WinLink stations crashing up to five QSOs at once. It happens every day, and is easy to document. You looked once, and didn't see anything. You can take it for granted that I know exactly what I am talking about and have no need to exaggerate. As a thought experiment, try going on QRZ.COM in the Talk and Opinions board and stating that you do not believe that WinLinkers ever crash other people's QSO's. Common sense should tell you that anybody transmitting ultra-wide digital hash on HF without listening first will of course end up causing interference, willful interference in WinLink's case since they refuse to run any busy-detection but if that doesn't convince you, go ahead and see what kind of reaction you get to your theory on QRZed. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Jeff Moore To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Charles, I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below] I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with. Contrary to what your statement implies. The automated pactor stations don't initiate qso's, they respond to qso's initiated by live operators. It falls on THOSE operators to insure that they are not interfering with other qso's in progress, not the automated response stations. Unless I'm missing something here, none of the Winlink 2000 automated stations initiate transmissions, they only respond to requests. Jeff Moore KE7ACY DCARES - Deschutes County ARES Bend, Oregon - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone John: [snip] For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for thousands opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated stations running absolutely no busy detection at all. How long do you think the FCC will allow this to continue before they clarify the PART97 regulations in this area? 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL .
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Danny: I think you forgot about the automated sub-bands. They've been there for close to thirty years, now. If station A operates in the regular frequencies and avoids the rather narrow slivers of automated sub-bands outlined in PART97, then the chances of station A being interfered with by a ( legally operating ) automated station are nonexistent. As you have pointed out, inteference is an issue that we all have to work to avoid. For digital stations that are automated, using busy detection is the only responsible and rational way to operate, even if it is not required as part of the protocol, as is the case with AX25. I thought you did a good job of pointing out some of the basic difficulties we face in this area. My favorite busy detection system is a pair of Mark1 eyeballs, watching a waterfall display ( I do not hear well ) or simply by listening before transmitting. This is why I have a dedicated waterfall display for the frequency that my automated station operates on, and keep an eye on it throughout most of the day. Packet's carrier detect does a pretty good job at mitigating interference so I don't see much interference from that type of signal. I do however see WinLink stations do a lot of damage from time to time, as they do not listen before transmitting at all. Since day one, hams have been outraged when somebody comes on frequency without listening to 'tune up' with a carrier that is really pretty narrow... The PACTOR III signal is 2.4-2.5 kHz wide. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone A simple understanding of props: Station A listens, and hearing nothing on the band, normally sends a quick QRZ?, and if no one responds, figures he can go ahead and transmit a signal/CQ or whatever. Station B hears that, and responds to station A. Now with both stations manned, they both have a chance to listen and suddenly, someone (station C) comes up and tells station B that the frequency is already in use. Station C has not been hearing station A and probably still doesn't hear him, but now station B is interfering with an ongoing QSO between stations C and D (he didn't hear D before he transmitted, but that station was already there transmitting to station D) Then station B would ask station A to QSY for their QSO on a different freq. That happens all the time, and is the way it should be. Now lets take your automatic station: E comes up on the freq, and transmits, without listening to anything first. The ops at F hears E and even though he is sitting on the freq, he hasn't heard anything else and he then transmit to F. Suddenly stations F, H, I, etc etc who are working SSB on and very close to the station now have some kind of maddening raspy interference on top of them . Who is that? Why, its probably station E, or maybe F if he just didn't hear those stations operating when he first responded to E (maybe they were silent and listening to someone else there, that F didn't hear). So how can the operator at station F be responsible for the QRM being caused by E, if he doesn't know it is QRMING anyone else? He cant, and wont. Both E and F are responsible for their own signals, and for interference caused by their station and no one can really disagree with that! That is exactly why the majority of hams are saying that automatic operation on the HF bands needs to just go away. When an operator is sitting a position, he can indeed listen, transmit,and then respond to people with whom he is interfering. Without that important person, the automatic station will not do so. It just happily tools along, continuining its interference to others who were already using the freq. Many have already asked that this operation stop, until such stations can be programmed to listen for frequency use, before its initial transmit on the freq. With that facility built in, most all the complaints would simply go away. You would then have your capability to run auto stations, within the present bandwidth parameters, and would have a legal transmission on the air. Meanwhile, without that ability, you do not. Many of us see the usefulness of such an operation and encourage it development, but only with the auto stations software being able to determine frequency use before its initial transmission , and then being able to respond positively, if someone comes up immediately on the same freq with a signal of a different mode.Once the two digital stations have initiated a QSO, they would not have to stop and QSY or worry about other signals coming in somewhat latter, and this would stop others from intentionally interfering
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I think one of the prtoblems is that those narrow subbands where auto stations are allowed, do not mean that other stations are NOT allowed. I know that I personnaly do not remember exactly wehre those are, since I dont work the mode. I look at the chart here and see that I am allowed sideband from 14.150 up to 14.350 and simply insure I stay within those parameters. I listen to a freq, find nothing there, ask anyone on freq, and getting no response, go ahead and transmit. I may or may not get an answer or a QSO. If I do, and am talking to someone and something wide and noise crops up, I consider it HIS fault. Not mine.Frankly, its one of the reasons I got my extra way back in the 60s. I didnt wont to have to worry about all those stupid sub bands and whether I was allowed in a particular part of the band or not. As a novice, I had to remember them. HI. So regular feqs mean not much to those who arent in the mood for a change of mode. But I believe that is much to be blamed for all the QRM . Guys hear a clear freq they are allowed to use, start working, and have an auto station fall on top of them. I was out of the country 30 years ago, and frankly do not remember a thing about those starting up, until I got back here and suddenly started hearing them. I will be the first to admit, I have not either transmitted on, or received those modes, as am simply not interest at this time. Yes- I too make it a habit of watching the waterfall here (using WinWarbler for rtty/ssb/cw operations), and wish more people would do that. Even when they do not intend to use software for the QSO, it gives a much clearer indication of what is happening on the bands, and certainly is useful when looking at ones on receive filter capability. Using it to watch what happens when using the DSP slop, of the TS570s, is a great indication of how to make your own settings - how the different ones affect the target signal, as well as nearby QRM of different types. It simply is a great tool for ham operators, and wish I had such a tool back when I was working as a professional communicator. Believe it - we hams are in much better shape for that type of thing, than the professionals of just a few years ago.Even our propagation software today would run rings around the sounders, etc. we had to use back then. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Danny: I think you forgot about the automated sub-bands. They've been there for close to thirty years, now. If station A operates in the regular frequencies and avoids the rather narrow slivers of automated sub-bands outlined in PART97, then the chances of station A being interfered with by a ( legally operating ) automated station are nonexistent. As you have pointed out, inteference is an issue that we all have to work to avoid. For digital stations that are automated, using busy detection is the only responsible and rational way to operate, even if it is not required as part of the protocol, as is the case with AX25. I thought you did a good job of pointing out some of the basic difficulties we face in this area. My favorite busy detection system is a pair of Mark1 eyeballs, watching a waterfall display ( I do not hear well ) or simply by listening before transmitting. This is why I have a dedicated waterfall display for the frequency that my automated station operates on, and keep an eye on it throughout most of the day. Packet's carrier detect does a pretty good job at mitigating interference so I don't see much interference from that type of signal. I do however see WinLink stations do a lot of damage from time to time, as they do not listen before transmitting at all. Since day one, hams have been outraged when somebody comes on frequency without listening to 'tune up' with a carrier that is really pretty narrow... The PACTOR III signal is 2.4-2.5 kHz wide. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone A simple understanding of props: Station A listens, and hearing nothing
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
The baud rate limit applies but this means 300 symbol changes per second on each subcarrier. The number of subcarriers and the number of bits per subcarrier is not limited. The ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal was a better method than the current regulation by content rules but was opposed by too many people. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone John: Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone-because we just do, and so can you
Well said, well done, and well thought out - Thank You! Ham's have been running ALE for a long time (at least a decade for me, boy does time fly!), and I am not aware of anyone running ALE who has ever received a Notice from the FCC. Our early evaluation work with ALE started out with a special letter to the FCC that included all the callsigns that were going to be running ALE. We received no restrictions about it then, and none since even after numerous communications about ALE to and from the FCC about ALE operation and its unattended nature that is inherent into its original design and intent. Appreciate this great forum, and thanks to those here that I have seen their callsigns on the ALE HFN system from time to time. We can use the participation, and encourage many more to come on board. Regards, and 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ http://hflink.net/qso/ - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be able to relieve. Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet: snip snip 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful interference and of course the 300 baud limit. The wider HF digital modes 'get around' the 300 baud limit by transmitting multiple streams, each at less than 300 baud inividually but adding up to something significantly higher. Q15x25 for example transmits fifteen PSK streams for an effective 2.5 kb data rate. The transmitted signal is about the same width as PACTOR III, around 2.5 kHz. The legality of 'getting around' the 300 baud limit with multiple streams has not been established. So far, the FCC has not put its foot down on the matter but that is no guarantee that they will not decide to do so at some point in the future, perhaps when and if they feel that the practice has gotten out of hand. The prohibition against deliberate harmful interference is the real limiting factor. We must remember that saying I didn't listen before transmitting, so I didn't know I would interfere. is no defense whatsoever against a complaint of deliberate interference. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you transmit an ultra-wide signal on busy, crowded amateur radio spectrum without taking pains to find a clear spot of the required size, that you will most certainly end up crashing other hams QSOs. In light of this, and the fact that our spectrum is shared spectrum where nobody owns a frequency, you may wonder why we do not have a bandwidth limit on HF. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that we are expected to experiment with radio technology, to push the envelope in various ways that may require more bandwidth than usual. This is something to consider if you are wondering why the FCC has not put their foot down so far on the 300 baud rule. They are giving us leeway. Playing with ultra-wide signals on an occasional, experimental basis is not so difficult. As we all know, sometimes the HF bands are packed from one end to the other, and at other times there are great, wide stretches of unused spectrum out there. I'll mention here that the more useful and popular bits of spectrum ( 20m for example ) are going to be unoccupied a lot less often than 17 or 15m for example. So, for a careful and thoughtful experimenter, finding a stretch of open spectrum to play with a wide signal is not such a difficult thing to do. Not to mention VHF and UHF of course, the best and most reasonable place to experiment by far. Where we run into difficulties on HF is when we stop experimenting with wide modes and start attempting to use them on a regular basis. This is because we simply cannot realistically expect to find that much open HF spectrum on a useful frequency, in the same spot, on a regular basis. The problem is compounded when you attempt to utilize wide signals this way with an unattended, automated server. With no human there to look for times when the required amount of spectrum is open, we must depend upon 'signal detection' software and there are limitations to signal detection that make it progressively slower and uncertain as you sample a wider area for signals. I think we can all take it for granted that WinLink's to hell with our fellow hams approach of running wide signals with no signal detection whatsoever is not acceptible, and may well bring on the crackdown upon signals above 300 baud that I mentioned the possibility of, earlier. Thumbing their noses at the amateur radio community and the PART97 regulations that way cannot be realistically expected to return a good long-term outcome. They endanger us all as they test the FCC's patience this way. I have more to say about the inherent limits to signal detection but this post is getting too long already. So, we do not have a codified limit to bandwidth, but we do have a number of practical ones that should be easy to stay out of trouble with, as long as we play well with others and follow the rules. ( PART97 and The Amateurs Code ) Otherwise - we are asking for trouble and will not like the result that follows. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I'm not sure who suggested 50-100 khz. of B/W... But if someone can take up 6 Khz of B/W just to transmit a human voice, why not something similar for digital modes? I'm not saying you SHOULD, or that it would be PRACTICAL, but if we're setting limits ... -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
There is no bandwidth limit in the RTTY/data segments but there is a limit of no wider than a communications-quality DSB phone signal using the same modulation type in the phone/image segments from 160 to 1.25 meters. This is interpreted as anything between 6 and 10 kHz by U.S. AM users but the European governments have decided that 8 kHz is the upper limit on HF. The rules specificly reference emission designators that authorize multiple subcarriers so FDM modes are unlikely to beome illegal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 13:20 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful interference and of course the 300 baud limit. The wider HF digital modes 'get around' the 300 baud limit by transmitting multiple streams, each at less than 300 baud inividually but adding up to something significantly higher. Q15x25 for example transmits fifteen PSK streams for an effective 2.5 kb data rate. The transmitted signal is about the same width as PACTOR III, around 2.5 kHz. The legality of 'getting around' the 300 baud limit with multiple streams has not been established. So far, the FCC has not put its foot down on the matter but that is no guarantee that they will not decide to do so at some point in the future, perhaps when and if they feel that the practice has gotten out of hand. The prohibition against deliberate harmful interference is the real limiting factor. We must remember that saying I didn't listen before transmitting, so I didn't know I would interfere. is no defense whatsoever against a complaint of deliberate interference. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you transmit an ultra-wide signal on busy, crowded amateur radio spectrum without taking pains to find a clear spot of the required size, that you will most certainly end up crashing other hams QSOs. In light of this, and the fact that our spectrum is shared spectrum where nobody owns a frequency, you may wonder why we do not have a bandwidth limit on HF. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that we are expected to experiment with radio technology, to push the envelope in various ways that may require more bandwidth than usual. This is something to consider if you are wondering why the FCC has not put their foot down so far on the 300 baud rule. They are giving us leeway. Playing with ultra-wide signals on an occasional, experimental basis is not so difficult. As we all know, sometimes the HF bands are packed from one end to the other, and at other times there are great, wide stretches of unused spectrum out there. I'll mention here that the more useful and popular bits of spectrum ( 20m for example ) are going to be unoccupied a lot less often than 17 or 15m for example. So, for a careful and thoughtful experimenter, finding a stretch of open spectrum to play with a wide signal is not such a difficult thing to do. Not to mention VHF and UHF of course, the best and most reasonable place to experiment by far. Where we run into difficulties on HF is when we stop experimenting with wide modes and start attempting to use them on a regular basis. This is because we simply cannot realistically expect to find that much open HF spectrum on a useful frequency, in the same spot, on a regular basis. The problem is compounded when you attempt to utilize wide signals this way with an unattended, automated server. With no human there to look for times when the required amount of spectrum is open, we must depend upon 'signal detection' software and there are limitations to signal detection that make it progressively slower and uncertain as you sample a wider area for signals. I think we can all take it for granted that WinLink's to hell with our fellow hams approach of running wide signals with no signal detection whatsoever is not acceptible, and may well bring on the crackdown upon signals above 300 baud that I mentioned the possibility of, earlier. Thumbing their noses at the amateur radio community and the PART97 regulations that way cannot be realistically expected to return a good long-term outcome. They endanger us all as they test the FCC's patience this way. I have more to say about the inherent limits to signal detection but this post is getting too long already. So, we do not have a codified limit to bandwidth, but we do have a number of practical ones that should be easy to stay out of trouble with, as long as we play well with others and follow the rules. ( PART97 and The Amateurs Code ) Otherwise - we are asking for trouble and will not like the result that follows. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
traditional wired networks. We have had a good start, a serious setback and now, a new beginning. The reason that anybody would want to operate an unattended digital ham radio station is that to do so allows you to participate in the greatest adventure ever undertaken by amateur radio operators... An adventure and an international accomplishment that only we as ham radio operators may realistically aspire to do. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: wb5aaa To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:25 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED on any ham band? just my 2cents
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Nice post and well worded, Charles! Warren - K5WGM --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org wrote: From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 8:55 AM Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be able to relieve. Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet: = Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves. We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe. To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art. = The original Packet network that the new sections of PART97 and the automated sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with existing communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by the FCC. The internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to internet services where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links ( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly opposite to the model that wired networks like the internet are built upon. That last factor, the way that the relationship between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that of existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as many amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any basis that is not identical to the internet ( wired ) model. Because of this, various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio networking fit the procrustian bed of IT. ( internet technology ) We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio pectrum, where we are expected to self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham communications resources ( internet gateways ) to route around and exclude amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' by taking te radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its place. By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts of thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the globe. Some of that has gone away in response to widespread internet access, no more ARRL hype, abortive attempts to repeal the laws of physics, and the inclusion of non-ham links which only served to retard the advancement of the art instead of bringing it forward. Still, a large part of what once
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
GM Charles, I recently noticed your signature line, then tried to look into hamradionet. When I go to the url it redirects me to the forum. When I browse the forum I find some info about what the new network IS NOT but nothing about what it IS. Can you direct me to the description of what the network is? I would like to learn more about it. Howard K5HB From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 8:55:38 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be able to relieve. Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet: = Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves. We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe. To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art. = The original Packet network that the new sections of PART97 and the automated sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with existing communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by the FCC. The internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to internet services where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links ( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly opposite to the model that wired networks like the internet are built upon. That last factor, the way that the relationship between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that of existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as many amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any basis that is not identical to the internet ( wired ) model. Because of this, various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio networking fit the procrustian bed of IT. ( internet technology ) We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio pectrum, where we are expected to self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham communications resources ( internet gateways ) to route around and exclude amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' by taking te radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its place. By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts of thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the globe. Some of that has gone away in response
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
- Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and then be legal to wipe out dozens if not hundreds o QSOs. There MUST be rules, because there is always going to be someone who will push the envelope with so called advances which ignore the rights and wishes of others. Thats why we have speed limits even the Germans have finally come around to realizing you just cant let every Hans drive his own speed.By the way, 200 mph will get you there (if it doesnt kill you and everyone else on the road), but 60 will get you there too, and a lot safer. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I'm not sure who suggested 50-100 khz. of B/W... But if someone can take up 6 Khz of B/W just to transmit a human voice, why not something similar for digital modes? I'm not saying you SHOULD, or that it would be PRACTICAL, but if we're setting limits ... -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and then be legal to wipe out dozens if not hundreds o QSOs. There MUST be rules, because there is always going to be someone who will push the envelope with so called advances which ignore the rights and wishes of others. Thats why we have speed limits even the Germans have finally come around to realizing you just cant let every Hans drive his own speed.By the way, 200 mph will get you there (if it doesnt kill you and everyone else on the road), but 60 will get you there too, and a lot safer. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
[digitalradio] Why would anyone
Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED on any ham band? just my 2cents
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I must agree, but then Im not into email via ham bands, and really think that if there is any other way, one should completely stop so called auto stations, unless that station has the capability to first insure there are no other signals on that freq, before transmitting. That should be the formost step when anticipating and planning such a station. Until that becomes possible, dont do it. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: wb5aaa To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:25 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED on any ham band? just my 2cents
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Don't leave your vox open,that's dumb On 10/26/09, wb5aaa wb5...@windstream.net wrote: Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED on any ham band? just my 2cents Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links
