Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Dave Bernstein wrote: > the hidden transmitter effect is a myth, Have you already programmed a cyberionosphere responding to your wishes? C'mon! Be realistic. Jose, CO2JA __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Using Per's Live-CD it is possible to run pskmail without affecting your MS machine and you get a chance to enjoy the one of the recent Linux Distros. Maybe after trying the disk you will think about dumping MS altogether. Darrel VE7CUS PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current protocol), low interference potential to other stations. Only runs on Linux OS which 95% of hams in the U.S. do not use or have any current interest in using so can never become popular here, but other areas may be better. Very slow transmission rate impractical for long messages. Servers can be set up by anyone and at any location. Basically free or very low cost system.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
There is a fairly significant difference between PSKmail and Winlink2000. Assuming that an individual even supports the concept of internet connections via radio, it would be nearly impossible to substitute one system for the other and have a similar outcome. PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current protocol), low interference potential to other stations. Only runs on Linux OS which 95% of hams in the U.S. do not use or have any current interest in using so can never become popular here, but other areas may be better. Very slow transmission rate impractical for long messages. Servers can be set up by anyone and at any location. Basically free or very low cost system. Winlink2000: has potential for relatively fast transmission rates (for radio link speeds) on both HF and VHF, but with extremely wide bandwidth modes. Practical system for casual users who travel, due to centralized system, making it possible to retrieve messages through different connections. HF Servers very limited in location and location decided by the controllers of the system. Extremely expensive to set up. Both systems use the internet for most of the pathway. Winlink 2000 tends to be more fragile due to the many different server configurations that it must work through, but makes it more convenient because it doesn't matter which server you use. There would have to be a MS OS system developed in order to compete with the existing Winlink 2000 system here in the U.S. Also, the system would have to use a much faster protocol than PSKmail to be practical. In practical terms, it seems that Winlink 2000 is ideal for the traveling ham who wants a commercial access point to the internet for casual e-mail and that it doesn't matter which access point is used, the addressee still gets the mail . A MS OS, higher speed version of PSKmail would likely work better for a direct link into the internet from a user who is at a fixed location or not moving too much, and can access the same server each time. It could be via VHF, but more likely it would be more successful using HF if the distance is very far. In my area, that might be 20 miles or so:( 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: > Dave, > > In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting, > there > was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was > doing. > And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink. > > So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail servers > on > line in the U.S. confronting WinLink? > > And spare me the "well its not MS" because one could just as well have > written a > PSKMail type applications for MS. Rein just felt comfortable in using Linux. > And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use WinLink or > change to Linux. > > This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when it comes > down > to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find another or > pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want. I didn't have > to > beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a parched > land. > > The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a past-time/ > hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility. We each > need > to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the best of > capabilities. In some cases it might be only a "well done" or "thanks". But > I > am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really appreciate > being told that they ARE appreciated. > > And thanks for your effort in amateur radio. > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
The root cause of the complaints can be traced to the way that Pactor III was introduced to the amateur bands. Most hams today consider the appropriate bandwidth of a signal in the RTTY/Data subbands to be 500 Hz. Wider bandwidth modes have been tolerated, but they typically are limited to one or two frequencies. MT63 is a good example. You did not find MT63 typically on more than 1 frequency per band, and you found that operators limited their bandwidth to 1000 Hz with the occasional foray to 2000 Hz. On 40 and 80 meters they limited their bandwidth to 500 Hz. m. The introduction of Pactor III into the amateur radio bands flew in the face of such tradition. It was used by a small number of users who unnecessarily spread out over the bands, and quite frankly pissed people off. Now the impression is that Pactor III users are spectrum grabbers. The main objection to the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition was the fear that Pactor III would proliferate in what is now the phone bands. If PACTOR III had been deployed with constraint, I don't think you would find the angst that we have now against the mode. Even before PACTOR III, there was a bias against automatically controlled digital stations. I can remember this in the early 90s when APLINK was around. Many hams feel that QSO's should be between two humans, not a human and a machine. This bias against unattended operation was already present when Pactor III was introduced. Had the bandwidth used, been commensurate with the number is users I don't think PACTOR would have the poor reputation that it does today. Its really not a technical issue as much as it is a public relations issue. Why is there no SCS presence at Dayton and why is there not a Winlink or PACTOR forum at Dayton? The answer can be found in the way that unattended stations using Pactor were deployed. I am not sure what it will take to correct this, but the damage has been done. >In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board >Meeting, there >was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink >was doing. >And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
At 11:42 PM 3/25/2007 Dave, AA6YQ wrote: Personally, I'd give them a 3 KHz segment on 20m, Easy, Dave your hatred is showing once again. But in truth this really would be like giving the PSK guys point three KC of the band. Either way it just ain't going to work and Ray Charles could see this.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
HUH? "So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail servers on line in the U.S. confronting WinLink" Its not that people particularly hate/dislike WINLINK. Its that the great majority of hams believe that an automatic forwarding system , with automatic stations talking to each other, (no matter what you name it) has no business on the ham bands. Why build something else that will do the same thing, when THAT, is what you HATE? Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "Walt DuBose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting > Dave,
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
At 03:23 AM 3/26/2007, you wrote in part: Sorry now I am confused by this labels. > RV internet traffic
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Dave, In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting, there was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was doing. And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink. So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail servers on line in the U.S. confronting WinLink? And spare me the "well its not MS" because one could just as well have written a PSKMail type applications for MS. Rein just felt comfortable in using Linux. And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use WinLink or change to Linux. This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when it comes down to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find another or pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want. I didn't have to beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a parched land. The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a past-time/ hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility. We each need to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the best of capabilities. In some cases it might be only a "well done" or "thanks". But I am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really appreciate being told that they ARE appreciated. And thanks for your effort in amateur radio. 73, Walt/K5YFW Dave Bernstein wrote: > The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for the > WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their > implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand on > QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate first > step than calling in the FCC as a blunt instrument. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already >> > in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is > > not > >> > malicious, but it is clearly willful. >> >>We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement. >> >> > An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not support >> > any semi-automatic system that violates §97.101 would provide the >> > incentive required for the WinLink organization to immediately >> > incorporate busy frequency detection in their PMBOs -- > > particularly > >> > if this announcement contained an appropriately supportive quote > > from > >> > the FCC's Hollingsworth. >> >>But will the ARRL and FCC agree to ban the use of any digital >>mode that does not have always-on busy frequency detection (when >>initially connecting and for at least the first two minutes -- to >>permit a "hidden transmitter" to be detected on the handover of an >>ongoing QSO) and also always-on clear-mode ID's? >> >>Ham history teaches us that the Ham fraternity unfortunately >>includes the same percentage of selfish scoff-laws as the rest of >>society. We could blindly open the floodgates but carelessly >>opening things up without proper boundaries will not create greater >>freedom but will instead create freedom-limiting anarchy. >> >>The 11 meter band is clear evidence of the failure to >>maintain and enforce necessary boundaries. >> >>If the FCC fails to enforce existing regs then adding more >>freedom for the selfish and careless to spread the problem is >>hardly a wise choice. >> >>If the FCC shows evidence of a sustainable commitment >>to the aggressive enforcement of existing regs *then* relaxing >>the boundaries would make sense. >> >>It is unfortunate to experimentation and technological >>advancement that this is necessary but blame the selfish >>scofflaws and not the ARRL or the FCC. >> >>-- >> >>Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E >>Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com >>Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: > > > There was no detection available when the rules were implemented > > (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was > > primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the > > Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system > > which continues to use the old Winlink software), and for AX.25 > > store and forward. > > There was "detection".. The automatic areas were set up for "packet" > and that's always had carrier sense or even audio presence detection. > It was the same automatic vs manual station issue then. The whole > idea was if you swim with the sharks (operate within the automatic > stations segment) then don't whine when you get a toe bit off. The packet automatic area was confined to a small, disused part of the bands under an STA, and was always understood to be a temporary thing for experimental purposes. It did not mean that we were supposed to be stuck, in perpetuity, with commercial modes like Pactor Winlink that do not listen before transmitting as a matter of policy. We are about to get a LOT more ordinary hams on the bands due to the demise of the CW testing requirements. This will mean more digital keyboard operators, as evidenced by the very large number of /AG and /AE stations that have been showing up on the bands during the past month. In turn, this will mean the need for more bandwidth for amateur radio operators, as opposed to Winlink users, whoever they are. Winlink and other automatic modes should look outside of the amateur service for its frequency needs. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: > > This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum > modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with > no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule. > > 73 Bill - WA7NWP I am confused. What is a "narrow museum mode?" PSK31? MT63? Olivia? i.e. modes used by actual hams in actual QSOs? I have thought all of these modes are a pretty dynamic part of our amateur radio hobby. PSK31 was invented by a ham, and its use has been one of ham radio's success stories. Same for Olivia and other modes. What is a "modern progressive mode?" Pactor being used by an RVer using amateur radio as a cheap way to get internet access? Is it "progressive" because it is not really amateur radio, or is it "progressive" because it does not listen before transmitting, as has been traditional (and I guess "non-progressive") for all other components of amateur radio throughout its long and storied history? I do not understand the labels here. Sorry, I am confused by these labels. If not listening before transmitting is "progressive" and if filling our bands with RV internet traffic is "modern" count me in with the non-modern non-progressives. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
> There was no detection available when the rules were implemented > (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily > intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system > (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use > the old Winlink software), and for AX.25 store and forward. There was "detection"..The automatic areas were set up for "packet" and that's always had carrier sense or even audio presence detection. It was the same automatic vs manual station issue then. The whole idea was if you swim with the sharks (operate within the automatic stations segment) then don't whine when you get a toe bit off. This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
> Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already > in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is not > malicious, but it is clearly willful. We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement. > An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not support > any semi-automatic system that violates §97.101 would provide the > incentive required for the WinLink organization to immediately > incorporate busy frequency detection in their PMBOs -- particularly > if this announcement contained an appropriately supportive quote from > the FCC's Hollingsworth. But will the ARRL and FCC agree to ban the use of any digital mode that does not have always-on busy frequency detection (when initially connecting and for at least the first two minutes -- to permit a "hidden transmitter" to be detected on the handover of an ongoing QSO) and also always-on clear-mode ID's? Ham history teaches us that the Ham fraternity unfortunately includes the same percentage of selfish scoff-laws as the rest of society. We could blindly open the floodgates but carelessly opening things up without proper boundaries will not create greater freedom but will instead create freedom-limiting anarchy. The 11 meter band is clear evidence of the failure to maintain and enforce necessary boundaries. If the FCC fails to enforce existing regs then adding more freedom for the selfish and careless to spread the problem is hardly a wise choice. If the FCC shows evidence of a sustainable commitment to the aggressive enforcement of existing regs *then* relaxing the boundaries would make sense. It is unfortunate to experimentation and technological advancement that this is necessary but blame the selfish scofflaws and not the ARRL or the FCC. -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use the old Winlink software), and for AX.25 store and forward. Winlink 2000 no longer has any fully automatic stations where both sides of the communication are done with no human monitoring. In fact, the Winlink 2000 folks recommended a prohibition against fully automatic stations, but eventually withdrew that after creating quite a firestorm with the automatic forwarding community who were using amateur radio to forward the messages. They only use semi-automatic (one side human, one side machine) and that is permitted any place in the text data sub bands as long as it is under 500 Hz. There is no rule requirement for busy frequency detection at this time. The viewpoint at the time was that hopefully there would not be too much of a problem with hidden transmitters. However, as a compromise, the wider P3 mode requires it to be placed within the automatic sub bands. Winlink 2000 then moved the traffic off of amateur radio and put it prmarily on the internet. And that includes 100% of all the autoforwarding. There is no HF autoforwarding capability in Winlink 2000 under its current design, but that may someday change. The positive outcome is that this drastically reduced the communications load of HF store and forward and drastically increased the delivery speed. This works well for casual traffic such as RV'ers sending e-mail from remote sites. It is NOT a serious emergency tool, even though they push this incessantly! It is a very fragile system that requires many things to work perfectly or it does not work at all. I could not imagine using it as a major communications method if I was using it for blue water boating or other fairly dangerous activities. I could see it used as a secondary or tertiary backup for other systems. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: > As long as cw, rtty, and data are allowed on all freqs, it would still be > illegal for them to transmit on top of a known QSO no matter what portion of > the band they are in, including the area where they are only allowed to > transmit. (NOT only they). Thus the need for detection everywhere they > transmit. > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
As long as cw, rtty, and data are allowed on all freqs, it would still be illegal for them to transmit on top of a known QSO no matter what portion of the band they are in, including the area where they are only allowed to transmit. (NOT only they). Thus the need for detection everywhere they transmit. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "kv9u" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting > Leigh, > > Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to have any > detection and would still be legal. When the rules were drawn up, the > technology had not been invented to have busy frequency detection, at > least not for amateur radio. But that all changed a couple years ago > when Rick, KN6KB invented the technique. > > When they are outside the automatic sub bands, it is my view that they > must take great care to insure that the automatic station is not > transmitting over other stations. The one good thing is that the wider > Pactor 3 mode can not be used automatically when outside the automatic > area. However, the P2 mode (500 Hz or less) can be used anywhere in the > text data portions of the bands when sending text data. > > One thing that has come to my attention is that Winlink 2000 claims to > be handling FAX transmission for weather. Does anyone know if this is > really true? It would definitely not be legal to do this with Pactor 3 > in the text data area under the current rules here in the U.S.. It only > recently became legal here on the narrow (500 Hz and less) to send > analog or digital FAX in the text data portions of the bands. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: > > Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law. > > Leigh/WA5ZNU > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote: > > > >> The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a > >> busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on > >> one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the > >> main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection > >> rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. > >> > >> > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/732 - Release Date: 3/24/2007 4:36 PM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Leigh, Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to have any detection and would still be legal. When the rules were drawn up, the technology had not been invented to have busy frequency detection, at least not for amateur radio. But that all changed a couple years ago when Rick, KN6KB invented the technique. When they are outside the automatic sub bands, it is my view that they must take great care to insure that the automatic station is not transmitting over other stations. The one good thing is that the wider Pactor 3 mode can not be used automatically when outside the automatic area. However, the P2 mode (500 Hz or less) can be used anywhere in the text data portions of the bands when sending text data. One thing that has come to my attention is that Winlink 2000 claims to be handling FAX transmission for weather. Does anyone know if this is really true? It would definitely not be legal to do this with Pactor 3 in the text data area under the current rules here in the U.S.. It only recently became legal here on the narrow (500 Hz and less) to send analog or digital FAX in the text data portions of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: > Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law. > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote: > >> The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a >> busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on >> one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the >> main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection >> rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. >> >>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
If this is true, wouldn't it be a major reversal from past FCC recommendations? My understanding was that some time back (decade or so) the FCC wanted to regulate by bandwidth, rather than mode, and the ARRL strongly opposed it at that time and the idea was dropped. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: > Erik, > > I think you hit the nail on the head... > > The FCC doesn't buy the approah of reg by BW! > > At least not for HF. Just my guess. > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Dave, Again, these are all good points, and I will forward them onto my Director. However, I don't think there are any satisfactory answers to the issues. A the bottom of all this is my suspicions that the FCC really does NOT back the idea of reg by BW. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:26:15 - >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >snip< Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid. To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error. >>>I didn't lay this all on Imlay; I simply quoted Imlay's mea culpa to demonstrate that the error and ensuing confusion were the responsibility of paid professionals, rather than unpaid volunteers as you had claimed. His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed for quite some time. >>>This is a non-sequitur. The fact that "uncontrolled 'bots" (by which I assume he means unattended servers like WinLink PMBOs) have been around for quite some time does not refute my assertion that the ARRL is trying to expand the frequencies available for their use. The ARRL's RM-11306 would allow semi-automatic operation anywhere subject only to bandwidth constraints. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max. bandwidth is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other form of data. >>>Without seeing the ARRL's newest proposed changes to §97.221 (which governs semi-automatic operation) one can't agree or disagree. Taking the author at his word, there is still the problem of unintended consequences, which have plagued recent ARRL proposals. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. >>>As we have discussed here many times, Rick KN6KB developed an effective soundcard-based busy frequency detector 2 years ago as part of SCAMP. The implementation was a first iteration proof of concept, and technology has progressed during the ensuing years; thus, I'm sure that improvements are possible, but reinventing the wheel is unnecessary. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing. >>>This is completely backwards thinking. Is it okay to keep using a transmitter with key clicks until we learn how to cure them? No. Is it okay to keep using an amplifier that splatters until we figure out how to tune it correctly? Of course not. Then neither is it okay to be running a PMBO without a busy detector until the WinLink organization gets around to correcting their shoddy implementation. His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition for VHF and above. >>>Based on the responses to RM-11306, I would say that the broad scale opposition is to the expansion of semi-automatic operation that came as a "side effect" of the ARRL's Regulation by Bandwidth proposal. Had the ARRL taken this feedback into account by retaining the current limits on semi-automatic operation, my guess is that a suitably-modified Regulation by Bandwidth proposal would have been supported by most of the amateur community for both HF and VHF operation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subjec
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Erik, I think you hit the nail on the head... The FCC doesn't buy the approah of reg by BW! At least not for HF. Just my guess. John Original Message Follows From: list email filter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:15:01 -0700 I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden transmitter issue. The sad fact is that they are probably right, there is enough bad will against the system amongst the ham community, that if 'they' did implement automatic signal detection and a qrm avoidance process, they probably would experience a drastic reduction in throughput. Of course if the system had been well behaved and less proprietary all along, the current animosity probably wouldn't have ever existed. Both the frequency in use signal detection issue and the hidden transmitter issues have already been solved, at the tax payers expense. Those who claim the problem is 'difficult' or 'unsolvable', either don't understand the problem, are intentionally misrepresenting the complexity of resolving it, or are just repeating what they've been told. Very elegant solutions are already available either in open source, or via the freedom of information act. This is a problem that was solved decades ago by radio astronomers, who resolved it in real time with computers which were dinosaurs compared with the modern junkers many of us have lining the walls of our garages. The real issue, is that 1) the "average" ham, and the "well above average bureaucrat" don't understand the problem, and 2) those who could 'fix' it believe that doing so would cripple their system to the point of making it totally unusable, in short their only incentive is to "not" fix it. I think the American ham community would actually jump at the 'opportunity' to be regulated by bandwidth, if they could also get rid of the misbehaving (semi)automated systems. The real block to progress, is that the wardens of Bonnie's Technology Jail, haven't or won't resolve the qrm problem to pave the way for bandwidth regulation change. Most of the resistance to the bandplan by bandwidth proposal(s), is in fact opposition to the continuation and proliferation of a 'bad' system, and not opposition to bandwidth based band plans at all. 73, Erik N7HMS Danny Douglas wrote: > If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a > mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I > really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people > working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is > impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem > to get around them. > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote: > The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a > busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on > one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the > main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection > rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden transmitter issue. The sad fact is that they are probably right, there is enough bad will against the system amongst the ham community, that if 'they' did implement automatic signal detection and a qrm avoidance process, they probably would experience a drastic reduction in throughput. Of course if the system had been well behaved and less proprietary all along, the current animosity probably wouldn't have ever existed. Both the frequency in use signal detection issue and the hidden transmitter issues have already been solved, at the tax payers expense. Those who claim the problem is 'difficult' or 'unsolvable', either don't understand the problem, are intentionally misrepresenting the complexity of resolving it, or are just repeating what they've been told. Very elegant solutions are already available either in open source, or via the freedom of information act. This is a problem that was solved decades ago by radio astronomers, who resolved it in real time with computers which were dinosaurs compared with the modern junkers many of us have lining the walls of our garages. The real issue, is that 1) the "average" ham, and the "well above average bureaucrat" don't understand the problem, and 2) those who could 'fix' it believe that doing so would cripple their system to the point of making it totally unusable, in short their only incentive is to "not" fix it. I think the American ham community would actually jump at the 'opportunity' to be regulated by bandwidth, if they could also get rid of the misbehaving (semi)automated systems. The real block to progress, is that the wardens of Bonnie's Technology Jail, haven't or won't resolve the qrm problem to pave the way for bandwidth regulation change. Most of the resistance to the bandplan by bandwidth proposal(s), is in fact opposition to the continuation and proliferation of a 'bad' system, and not opposition to bandwidth based band plans at all. 73, Erik N7HMS Danny Douglas wrote: > If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a > mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I > really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people > working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is > impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem > to get around them. > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem to get around them. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "kv9u" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:48 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting > The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a > busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on > one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the > main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection > rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. > > The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: > > "It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden > transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is > stepping on another QSO." > > and the response was: > > "Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward > section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all > PMBO operations." > > This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or > adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including > the release of the code coming from a GPL source. > > Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back > then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more > sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was > just casually listening if the frequency was clear. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: > > I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code > > for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If > > SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would > > show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, > > it fuels conspiracy theories. > > 73, > > Leigh/WA5ZNU > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/731 - Release Date: 3/23/2007 3:27 PM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: "It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is stepping on another QSO." and the response was: "Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations." This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including the release of the code coming from a GPL source. Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was just casually listening if the frequency was clear. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: > I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code > for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If > SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would > show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, > it fuels conspiracy theories. > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, it fuels conspiracy theories. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU > Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means > to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to > monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) > before they transmit. > As we have discussed here many times, Rick KN6KB developed an > effective soundcard-based busy frequency detector 2 years ago as part > of SCAMP. The implementation was a first iteration proof of concept, > and technology has progressed during the ensuing years; thus, I'm > sure that improvements are possible, but reinventing the wheel is > unnecessary. > > > Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to > avoid QRMing.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
PS - All you guys concerned with such need to write to your respective ARRL Director. Hamming it up on this reflector will do little good in the endUNLESS you cc your director, too. AND, I am not a spokesman for the League. I spend most of my Ham radio on the 2.4 GHz band, so what do I know anyway (HI). 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:13:31 -0400 Dave, Just FYI, here is the response I got back to your points... I don't necessary agree with the response, but Jim is closer to the situation than I am so here goes... Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid. To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error. His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed for quite some time. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max. bandwidth is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other form of data. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing. His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition for VHF and above. Interestingly, if Regulation by Bandwidth had been adopted, there would have been no reason for us to ask FCC to impose a maximum transmitted bandwidth on data transmissions. Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 - >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? >>>It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: "It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable." 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). >>>Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the "Amateur Radio News" section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. >>>The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. >>>If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. >>>Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Dave, Just FYI, here is the response I got back to your points... I don't necessary agree with the response, but Jim is closer to the situation than I am so here goes... Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid. To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error. His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed for quite some time. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max. bandwidth is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other form of data. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing. His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition for VHF and above. Interestingly, if Regulation by Bandwidth had been adopted, there would have been no reason for us to ask FCC to impose a maximum transmitted bandwidth on data transmissions. Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 - >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? >>>It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: "It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable." 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). >>>Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the "Amateur Radio News" section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. >>>The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. >>>If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. >>>Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Dave, You make several excellent points! OK...Chris isn't perfect ($%#@). Plus, the recent "alternative" ARRL proposal causes me some concern. For example, might we not want some digital mode above 3 kHz someday? How about one spot on just a few bands where up to 6 kHz is permitted? Why take away privileges we already have in the name of our own self-defense? It doesn't make any sense to me. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 - >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? >>>It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: "It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable." 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). >>>Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the "Amateur Radio News" section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. >>>The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. >>>If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. >>>Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Does the ARRL post, and seek comment, when they plan on seeking new rules? I assume that posting their proposals for a 30 day comment period would help spot heir errors. Andy K3UK On 3/23/07, John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he he continues to have my full support. See ya on MT-63? 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 - 1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave, > > Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes > once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it > takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? > > 73, > John > K8OCL -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Dave, 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he he continues to have my full support. See ya on MT-63? 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 - 1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave, > > Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes > once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it > takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? > > 73, > John > K8OCL
