RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
-Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kd4e Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:03 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms [stuff deleted] It is true when I served as ARRL SEC for the West Central FL Section there were challenges in recruiting, though some of that was the result of endless political feuding here, some the reputation of the Red Cross and EOC's for ignoring Ham volunteers. Its bad enough that the NGOs fight amoungst themselves but hams, ARES and RACES also do. My personal experience volunteering to serve various agencies was not encouraging. The Red Cross was poorly led and poorly trained in the use of Ham ops. One school located the Ham site three buildings away from the Red Cross site with no means of intercommunication! It is not uncommon for NGOs to not know how to utilize communications operators. Here is where AREA of a local ham club if doing the recuiting needs to have a standard MOU between the club/clubmembers )ARES and ARES members) and the NGO that they service. I should be perfectly clear that the radio operators are members of your organization remain members of your organization and are providing communications services to the NGC. You need to let the NGO know what kind of support you can provice, local, state wide, or nation wide, communications where the communicator(s) must/ should be located with respect to the NGOs operations/management staff. Reports from many Hams is that they show up and do nothing, other than occasional busy work, it frustrates good workers and they do not return. If that is the case, and an MOU has been signed, then the operator needs to let their orgaization know and the incident manager for your organization needs to get with the NGOs personnel and discuss the matterif you don't need our guy for communications, someone else does. I believe that the tasks and training of both Hams and the served agancies must be closely aligned and that volunteers be fully used, properly reported, and treated with respect. Yes and an MOU will help both entities understand their training needs. Before we hope to recruit more volunteers the equipment, modes, and roles need to be more clearly defined and the served agencies properly trained to leverage valuable volunteer resources. And this may have to be defined in an MOU. The DMAT organization is an example of how it is done right. Pretty muchly right. 73, Walt/K5YFW -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
> No one is selling the NGOs anything, they are NOT communications > ignorant. > But one thing for sure, even though we have a large number of amateur > radio > operators volunteering for disaster communications, the number is less > than > 15% of the number needed. Walt/K5YFW This is an interesting point, not entirely the fault of Hams. It is true when I served as ARRL SEC for the West Central FL Section there were challenges in recruiting, though some of that was the result of endless political feuding here, some the reputation of the Red Cross and EOC's for ignoring Ham volunteers. My personal experience volunteering to serve various agencies was not encouraging. The Red Cross was poorly led and poorly trained in the use of Ham ops. One school located the Ham site three buildings away from the Red Cross site with no means of intercommunication! Reports from many Hams is that they show up and do nothing, other than occasional busy work, it frustrates good workers and they do not return. I believe that the tasks and training of both Hams and the served agancies must be closely aligned and that volunteers be fully used, properly reported, and treated with respect. Before we hope to recruit more volunteers the equipment, modes, and roles need to be more clearly defined and the served agencies properly trained to leverage valuable volunteer resources. The DMAT organization is an example of how it is done right. -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Remember the old story about the lone lawyer living in a small town? He was nearly starving to death for lack of business. Then another lawyer moved to the little town, and then they both prospered (HI). JJC Original Message Follows From: "Michael Hatzakis Jr MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:33 -0800 It is an industry that creates it own demand and, thereby, supply. MH _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of list email filter Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:33 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Yes! :( Erik KI4HMS/7 John Bradley wrote: > > Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry? > > John > VE5MU >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Rick, Who's talking about just HF for digital radios?! Kids think SW is weird (gigantic antennas required, unpredicatble propagation, excessive noise, etc.). Please keep in mind they were brought up in the LOS UHF and SHF ranges: DirecTV, cell phones, BlackBerry, 802.11 WiFi, RC, etc. That is RADIO to them...not this stange stuff we do with 250 foot long wires on 160M. 73, John Original Message Follows From: KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:18:57 -0600 John and all, Multimedia on HF is just not going to ever happen other than the occasional still picture that we already do now. It is difficult enough now to even get text messages under typical keyboard speed of around 40 + wpm. Based upon my experience, digital motion images are difficult enough to do on the microwave bands such as with a laptop and WAP along with a medium resolution video camera. I think that the key here is as Danny pointed out that we do this without wires. That is the magic part. The idea that kids don't understand the technologies is a bit overstated. The fact is that most people do not understand technology all that much, but actually I would say that the average student of today may have a bit better grasp of it. They certainly realize that they have to access a cell tower to get their cell phone to work and if you are very far from a tower, you don't have communications. The amount of knowledge to understand current technology is overwhelming compared to when I grew up. As a former audiovisual/computer repair technician, I can say that due to manufacturing efficiencies of today, it is frequently less expensive to replace an entire assembly rather than repair one part of it as we used to do. Thirty years ago it was routine to replace the 1/4" phone plug on a pair of $20 headsets. That has not been economically possible to do for some years now as the repair charge would exceed the replacement cost. Same thing at the board level for moderate cost equipment. As one one of my technicians used to point out, it would be hard to imagine anything more complicated than a VCR with the merging of electronics and mechanical parts to be sold for less money. And yet the prices kept going lower and lower and eventually VCR's were pretty much non repairable item too, even for what most of us would consider a minor repair. What I would like to see the digital mode developers concentrate on is having the most robust mode possible that can get through difficult conditions with perfect copy and do it with adequate keyboarding speed. We don't have many modes that can do that except for perhaps PSKmail which only is available on Linux OS at this time and that is using PSK which has its limits under difficult conditions. Having a mode that can scale to conditions would also be very nice to have and we should always keep emergency needs in the back of our minds, even if it is not the driving force. Because of the drastically reduced bandwidth for Data/RTTY/Text on 80 meters here in the U.S. and perhaps more of that on the way for other bands, depending upon pending FCC decisions, it is my view that we need to keep our bandwidths as narrow as we can. Certainly, good radio amateur practice would lean toward 500 Hz or less. You should only exceed that when you have some unusual conditions, the bands are empty from other users, or you have emergency traffic. Based upon my recent experience with 160 meters, even MFSK16 and DominoEX have their limits, and that is under fairly good conditions in the winter period of the northern hemisphere with low QRN. Low power, modest antennas, still make digital modes a challenge at times with normal keyboard speeds. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: > >Not just for text messagesthink multimedia: pics, still and motion. >Sound - high quality. etc. >Kids don't understand a phone that doesn't take pics, and soon has an MP3 >player built-in too (HI). > >73, John - K8OCL > > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Good news Jim...this type of work IS being done. I hope that within 5 years that there will be "implants" similar to the one used for the deaf to hear will do just as you say. There are already prototypes that allow thoughts to do basic arm and hand movements such as picking up a glass, cup, fork, etc. For your and your son's sake I hope this takes place on the front end of medical technology. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms If the folks working on getting nerve responses to control artificial limbs really wanted to make some money they would be working on how to interface a cell phone keyboard via bluetooth directly to nerve connections. My son would be standing in line to have it transplanted tommorrow if he could text message just by waving his fingers. Just imagine the folks driving and waving fingers to type a text message. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thats the parents fault. hehe > I get so tired seeing adults and children in the stores, on the > sidewalks, driving etc. with a phone stuck in their ear. It seems > no one can get away from home anymore, they just pick up and up take > it with them. And I mean stuck IN their ear. Its like a science > fiction movie out there. You go to a restaurant, and there is that > joker -talk talk talk talk talk, - and not quitely either - he yells > into it to insure the other person hears ( and everyone in the > restaurant too.) I predict tht in 40 years, there will be millions > of voice box transplants, and some will get a phone stuck IN the > ear and have to have it surgically removed. > > 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. > Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Jim, I should have said that NGOs don't have funding for the current technology to give them high-speed, robust data that fits into a 3 KHz bandwidth. There is a firm in Australia that does sell this equipment but the cost of the radio and modem hardware is in access of $75 U.S. If there was a computer modem that provided high-speed, robust data, then the cost to the NGOs would only be the radio with wider bandwidths. I have talked to two U.S. manufacturers of HF LM radios that are currently in production and they said that providing a radio with 3-10 KHz bandwidths would not add much to the cost of their radios. One radio cost less than $3000 and the other less than $5000. There are obviously many solutions to the problem(s) NGOs have with communications. The FCC has a great deal of latitude in what it can do with frequency assignments and I am sure that if Congress tells them to accommodate NGOs data communications needs, they will find some way to do it. I believe that two or perhaps 3 10 KHz channels on 80/75, 40 and 20 meters and one on 30M would meet the NGO needs. In "unofficial" talks with joint communications personnel with the 5 major disaster relief NGOs in the U.S. they agreed that 3 channels would be sufficient. Of course this is just discussion...food for thought and subject to refinement and many changes or other options. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 3:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please see below... Walt/K5YFW > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:36 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > >> If the NGO's don't have the resources to use the frequencies they >> currently have assigned, where would the resources come from to allow >> them to use amateur service frequencies reassigned to the land >> fixed/mobile service? How would they convince the FCC to allocate and >> assign new frequencies when they aren't using the ones they have? > > Its not a resource problem, it is a problem that being basically in the > LMRS their assigned "channels" will not permit they type of > modulation that is/would be required for high speed, robust data > transmissions. > > Money is not really a problem, and of course if they are on NGO assigned > frequencies, no radio operator's license is needed. > Wait a minute, from message 17814 you said: "These organizations do need very high-speed throughput modes that are robust to meet their operational needs and do not have the funding to provide hardware to support the need." I was only addressing the argument you made that they didn't have the funding so must rely on amateur radio to provide their operational communications needs. > The FCC may not have a choice to assign new frequencies or even create a > new type of service...Congress may pass a Public Law establishing > it. Of the FCC might create a new type of service or sub-service > as they have done in the past. > > If 3750-4000 can be used for land services, then the FCC could > establish a sub-class or new land mobile radio class here for > disaster communications. The FCC just recently did away with a > sub-class with they effectively did away with RACES. You might > have a Radio Amateur Disaster Communications Service with > assigned frequencies in the ham bands and these frequencies might > be only used exclusively by NGOs during disasters with the modes > needed and operated by "certified" amateur radio operators or even > non-amateur radio persons who were "certified". This was done > during WWII. > They could also create a new "service" and reassign current land service frequencies and allow the use of wider bandwidths. They could do any of these things. > If you worked in a NGO Incident Command Post for the Red Cross, > Salvation Army, Baptist Disaster Relief for FEMA Incident Command > Post, you would know just how much information is needed to run > these facilities so that they can meet the collective needs of the > disaster area. Part of the problem we saw in Katrina and Rita, and > now looking back at other disaster events, we see that even in them > they could have run better, more effectively and met the collective > needs of those in the disaster area had information flow been large > and faster. > > Walt/K5YFW Just how many kilohertz on 80m do you think it would take to get one, just one 56 kb channel on 80m, i.e. one slow old dial up line? Do you think this would satisfy the needs of all the NGO's in a major disaster area like Katri
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Thats the parents fault. hehe I get so tired seeing adults and children in the stores, on the sidewalks, driving etc. with a phone stuck in their ear. It seems no one can get away from home anymore, they just pick up and up take it with them. And I mean stuck IN their ear. Its like a science fiction movie out there. You go to a restaurant, and there is that joker -talk talk talk talk talk, - and not quitely either - he yells into it to insure the other person hears ( and everyone in the restaurant too.) I predict tht in 40 years, there will be millions of voice box transplants, and some will get a phone stuck IN the ear and have to have it surgically removed. 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] - Original Message - From: "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > Danny, > > Not just for text messagesthink multimedia: pics, still and motion. > Sound - high quality. etc. > Kids don't understand a phone that doesn't take pics, and soon has an MP3 > player built-in too (HI). > > 73, John - K8OCL > > > > Original Message Follows > From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > To: > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 21:37:59 -0500 > > I still dont understand why everyone seems to think we need multi gigibit > bandwidth to allow people to talk to each other. I would almost bet there > are less than a handfull of folk on here that type over 70 words per minute. > Why do we need anything faster than that, to interested kids? Most on > here, cannot type faster than most digital circuits already run, and even if > you can - can you think of enough, fast enough, to fill up a transmission > any faster than 70 or 80 wpm? Kids in chat rooms seem to do just fine with > even slow internet connectivity. We already have voice point to point, rtty > point to point etc. What more do we really need? I havent talked to the > international space station, mainly because I havent spent the time to find > out where and when, on passes near me. > > Yes, kids are spoiled. They can go to the computer and talk to almost any > country in the world, with a touch or two of a key. THAT is NOT magic to > them - its expected. The magic is showing them how to do it without wires. > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card. > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] >----- Original Message - > From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:40 PM >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > > >Hmmm, interesting. on the question of "What would have to change to make > what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) > >interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer > hobbiest?" > > > > 1.. HF bandwidth limitations make digital HF too slow for the average > Jr Hi limited attention span > > > 2.. And. if they can't talk to all their friends > > > 3.. .and it's not cool (or whatever the current expression of being > widely socially acceptable), ie., "ohhh dad, that is so strange sitting > behind that radio with those strange sounds all by yourself" > > > 4.. . and it has a perception of something you have to do by yourself > > > 5.. .and it isn't X-Box > > >High school and Junior HS kids interested in HF will be very few. > > > >I think ARISS had it right on. Bring to mainstream. Bring it to school. > Make it cool. Get all kids & teachers talking about it. That is my > belief how we get kids interested in HF/VHF digital and other forms of > communication. I wonder if anyone tested the number of hams that came out > of schools that had an ARISS visit. > > > >My $0.02. > > > >Michael K3MH > > > > FYI: http://www.arrl.org/ARISS/ > > > > > > > -- > >From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Bill Vodall WA7NWP >Sent: S
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
John and all, Multimedia on HF is just not going to ever happen other than the occasional still picture that we already do now. It is difficult enough now to even get text messages under typical keyboard speed of around 40 + wpm. Based upon my experience, digital motion images are difficult enough to do on the microwave bands such as with a laptop and WAP along with a medium resolution video camera. I think that the key here is as Danny pointed out that we do this without wires. That is the magic part. The idea that kids don't understand the technologies is a bit overstated. The fact is that most people do not understand technology all that much, but actually I would say that the average student of today may have a bit better grasp of it. They certainly realize that they have to access a cell tower to get their cell phone to work and if you are very far from a tower, you don't have communications. The amount of knowledge to understand current technology is overwhelming compared to when I grew up. As a former audiovisual/computer repair technician, I can say that due to manufacturing efficiencies of today, it is frequently less expensive to replace an entire assembly rather than repair one part of it as we used to do. Thirty years ago it was routine to replace the 1/4" phone plug on a pair of $20 headsets. That has not been economically possible to do for some years now as the repair charge would exceed the replacement cost. Same thing at the board level for moderate cost equipment. As one one of my technicians used to point out, it would be hard to imagine anything more complicated than a VCR with the merging of electronics and mechanical parts to be sold for less money. And yet the prices kept going lower and lower and eventually VCR's were pretty much non repairable item too, even for what most of us would consider a minor repair. What I would like to see the digital mode developers concentrate on is having the most robust mode possible that can get through difficult conditions with perfect copy and do it with adequate keyboarding speed. We don't have many modes that can do that except for perhaps PSKmail which only is available on Linux OS at this time and that is using PSK which has its limits under difficult conditions. Having a mode that can scale to conditions would also be very nice to have and we should always keep emergency needs in the back of our minds, even if it is not the driving force. Because of the drastically reduced bandwidth for Data/RTTY/Text on 80 meters here in the U.S. and perhaps more of that on the way for other bands, depending upon pending FCC decisions, it is my view that we need to keep our bandwidths as narrow as we can. Certainly, good radio amateur practice would lean toward 500 Hz or less. You should only exceed that when you have some unusual conditions, the bands are empty from other users, or you have emergency traffic. Based upon my recent experience with 160 meters, even MFSK16 and DominoEX have their limits, and that is under fairly good conditions in the winter period of the northern hemisphere with low QRN. Low power, modest antennas, still make digital modes a challenge at times with normal keyboard speeds. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: > >Not just for text messagesthink multimedia: pics, still and motion. >Sound - high quality. etc. >Kids don't understand a phone that doesn't take pics, and soon has an MP3 >player built-in too (HI). > >73, John - K8OCL > > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Please see below... Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:36 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Your argument isn't logical. Right, its political. IMHO the FCC has become a political agency rather than a regulatory agency. As you may be aware, there is a big frap in the FCC now concerning voting on the AT&T Southern Bell merger. This is political NOT technical or regulatory. If the NGO's don't have the resources to use the frequencies they currently have assigned, where would the resources come from to allow them to use amateur service frequencies reassigned to the land fixed/mobile service? How would they convince the FCC to allocate and assign new frequencies when they aren't using the ones they have? Its not a resource problem, it is a problem that being basically in the LMRS their assigned "channels" will not permit they type of modulation that is/would be required for high speed, robust data transmissions. Money is not really a problem, and of course if they are on NGO assigned frequencies, no radio operator's license is needed. The FCC may not have a choice to assign new frequencies or even create a new type of service...Congress may pass a Public Law establishing it. Of the FCC might create a new type of service or sub-service as they have done in the past. The ITU controls the segments assigned to different services. For example, 3750 - 4000 kHz in Region 2 can be amateur, land, or aeronautical. The FCC just can't create a new "service" for this segment without agreement of the signatories of the ITU. Therefore, these frequencies would have to be assigned within the land fixed/mobile service and end up with the same restriction that their current assignments have. If 3750-4000 can be used for land services, then the FCC could establish a sub-class or new land mobile radio class here for disaster communications. The FCC just recently did away with a sub-class with they effectively did away with RACES. You might have a Radio Amateur Disaster Communications Service with assigned frequencies in the ham bands and these frequencies might be only used exclusively by NGOs during disasters with the modes needed and operated by "certified" amateur radio operators or even non-amateur radio persons who were "certified". This was done during WWII. Lastly, I just can't understand where so much data is going to come from in a disaster that the FCC could justify moving HF amateur allocations to land fixed/mobile. Amateur radio should not be the primary service that handles megabytes/gigabytes of data on a continuous basis for logistics, etc. for NGO's or the government. This is close to the line of using amateur radio as a full blown communications carrier. If amateurs involved with emcomms are "selling" this to NGO's and the government they are doing so without consulting with all the other amateur service licensees that share these frequencies and getting their agreement. If you worked in a NGO Incident Command Post for the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Baptist Disaster Relief for FEMA Incident Command Post, you would know just how much information is needed to run these facilities so that they can meet the collective needs of the disaster area. Part of the problem we saw in Katrina and Rita, and now looking back at other disaster events, we see that even in them they could have run better, more effectively and met the collective needs of those in the disaster area had information flow been large and faster. No one is selling the NGOs anything, they are NOT communications ignorant. But one thing for sure, even though we have a large number of amateur radio operators volunteering for disaster communications, the number is less than 15% of the number needed. Walt/K5YFW Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Red Cross, Salvation Army and the like frequencies are just commercial frequencies requiring the same bandwidth as other users of the frequencies...they have no special frequencies. > > However, I would think that DHS would approach the FCC about setting aside disaster communications frequencies that don't reside within the commercial frequencies. What is unfortunate is that the ITU really controls the bandwidth of the frequencies on HF world wide so there is not really any or many available frequencies on HF that can be used for wideband use EXCEPT the hambands. Even our military frequencies that we in the U.S. (Region II) cannot be used i
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Good read but drop the phrase "Who's going to lug around a transceiver and antenna when a simple cell phone can do it faster and better?" No one is, any more than you and I lugging around a KWM-2A, power supply, etc. as normal course today. You've got some good statements there. We're a society now that's deep into what I call "convenient mediocrity." We're more more inclined to buy and use rather than make and we don't care about quality so long as it's available NOW and works NOW we'll worry about later.later. Then, we throw it away without much of a thought. We used to replace the red lens in a tailight but not today. We replace the whole damned assembly at an incredible cost. We, in this country, don't seem all that interested in the WHY of something - owner's manuals aren't that detailed any longer it seems. - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:36 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Even if we could do multimedia at a decent speed on HF kids wouldn't be interested in doing it over ham radio. Who's going to lug around a transceiver and antenna when a simple cell phone can do it faster and better? Kids aren't stupid, they will use the device best suited for the purpose. >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Generally, WE ALL are familiar with the ease in which we can work the world on the Internet. We're all pretty familiar, more or less, with text messaging on cell phones and IM with YAHOO, AOL and the like. Teens and young adults are fairly well-versed with the new technologies and "wants 'n gimmies" available today, that's for sure, and they expect nothing less today. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather use the faster PSK or 100 wpm RTTY, etc when typing 'cause I do type around 78 wpm. I can fill up a type-ahead buffer fairly easily and it becomes a game with me to do so. The only thing that "multi-gigibit bandwidth" would provide us is the ability to transfer data in some form. I'm not sure how that would fit into daily Ham ops that do not involve data other than SSTV or DRM or one or two of the other modes. I consider SSTV and DRM simply data despite the technical definitions and hair-splitting. I know we could start a hard discussion on this involving definition of terms and I suppose anything not voice could be called "data." I differentiate between PSK, etc keyboard-to-keyboard as not being data as such; it involves slow speed with intermittant, manual information transfer. I'm just saying that high speed would be useful with large blocks of "data" or information that is not typed manually during transmission. High speed would allow it to be sent between two or more points rapidly. ARRL broadcasts could be sent high speed for example, telemetry blocks from ISS, EMCOMM information and status reports, support requests, etc. Most operators would not have a need for high speed comms in my opinion. That said, the lack of need and maybe the assumed lack of interest would not help to promote the advancement of our hobby technically speaking. Experimentation leads to innovation and subsequent use/need development. I didn't have any use for the Internet and any of its tools for Ham Radio until I started to use/experiment with it. Restrictive and ill-conceived FCC rulings or equally ill-conceived band plans serve mostly to stifle ground- breaking technological growth and development. They can also stifle the technology now in use. I'm rambling here but from my perspective, the notion of the lack of high speed isn't the issude for newbies. Your comment about the magic of doing it without wires is quite accurate. I experience it frequently with the neighbors while talking to someone abroad, DIRECT, without Internet connection. They're simply fascinated and quite interested, both YOUNG and old..even while holding their IPOD and cell cam phone. The younger ones aren't spoiled with the technology today; they simply have it available and we as olders did not when young. It doesn't make me proud to have had to "walk 20 miles through the snow to deliver a message" as it were. Sometimes, there's things about the "good ol' days" that just aren't so nifty. I'm 62 and I wish I could have been born just a little later when I think about the advances that'll be happening to the hobby and the world's technology in general. Keeping a "snail's-paced approach" overall just doesn't cut it any more. IMHO of course.... Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN ----- Original Message - From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms I still dont understand why everyone seems to think we need multi gigibit bandwidth to allow people to talk to each other. I would almost bet there are less than a handfull of folk on here that type over 70 words per minute. Why do we need anything faster than that, to interested kids? >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Danny, Not just for text messagesthink multimedia: pics, still and motion. Sound - high quality. etc. Kids don't understand a phone that doesn't take pics, and soon has an MP3 player built-in too (HI). 73, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 21:37:59 -0500 I still dont understand why everyone seems to think we need multi gigibit bandwidth to allow people to talk to each other. I would almost bet there are less than a handfull of folk on here that type over 70 words per minute. Why do we need anything faster than that, to interested kids? Most on here, cannot type faster than most digital circuits already run, and even if you can - can you think of enough, fast enough, to fill up a transmission any faster than 70 or 80 wpm? Kids in chat rooms seem to do just fine with even slow internet connectivity. We already have voice point to point, rtty point to point etc. What more do we really need? I havent talked to the international space station, mainly because I havent spent the time to find out where and when, on passes near me. Yes, kids are spoiled. They can go to the computer and talk to almost any country in the world, with a touch or two of a key. THAT is NOT magic to them - its expected. The magic is showing them how to do it without wires. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Hmmm, interesting. on the question of "What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest?" 1.. HF bandwidth limitations make digital HF too slow for the average Jr Hi limited attention span 2.. And. if they can't talk to all their friends 3.. .and it's not cool (or whatever the current expression of being widely socially acceptable), ie., "ohhh dad, that is so strange sitting behind that radio with those strange sounds all by yourself" 4.. . and it has a perception of something you have to do by yourself 5.. .and it isn't X-Box High school and Junior HS kids interested in HF will be very few. I think ARISS had it right on. Bring to mainstream. Bring it to school. Make it cool. Get all kids & teachers talking about it. That is my belief how we get kids interested in HF/VHF digital and other forms of communication. I wonder if anyone tested the number of hams that came out of schools that had an ARISS visit. My $0.02. Michael K3MH FYI: http://www.arrl.org/ARISS/ -- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Vodall WA7NWP Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > I will also ask the question again: > > If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would > we be sending to each other that we don't do now? Anything. Everything. There's no 'technical' reason we don't do everything on HF. Discussion groups like this, pictures, favorite songs, audio/video snapshots. WL2K is right in one sense that it's good to offload as much as possible to the Internet as soon as possible. On the other hand, the "Land Line Lid" folks were right that putting traffic to the Internet stifles innovation and technology. My stock question again: What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest? We can talk forever about A1C's and X0Z's but in 10 or 20 years it's going to be that Jr Hi generation that's doing what ever is being done. 73 Bill - WA7NWP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/566 - Release Date: 12/3/2006 4:36 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
I still dont understand why everyone seems to think we need multi gigibit bandwidth to allow people to talk to each other. I would almost bet there are less than a handfull of folk on here that type over 70 words per minute. Why do we need anything faster than that, to interested kids? Most on here, cannot type faster than most digital circuits already run, and even if you can - can you think of enough, fast enough, to fill up a transmission any faster than 70 or 80 wpm? Kids in chat rooms seem to do just fine with even slow internet connectivity. We already have voice point to point, rtty point to point etc. What more do we really need? I havent talked to the international space station, mainly because I havent spent the time to find out where and when, on passes near me. Yes, kids are spoiled. They can go to the computer and talk to almost any country in the world, with a touch or two of a key. THAT is NOT magic to them - its expected. The magic is showing them how to do it without wires. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Hmmm, interesting. on the question of "What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest?" 1.. HF bandwidth limitations make digital HF too slow for the average Jr Hi limited attention span 2.. And. if they can't talk to all their friends 3.. .and it's not cool (or whatever the current expression of being widely socially acceptable), ie., "ohhh dad, that is so strange sitting behind that radio with those strange sounds all by yourself" 4.. . and it has a perception of something you have to do by yourself 5.. .and it isn't X-Box High school and Junior HS kids interested in HF will be very few. I think ARISS had it right on. Bring to mainstream. Bring it to school. Make it cool. Get all kids & teachers talking about it. That is my belief how we get kids interested in HF/VHF digital and other forms of communication. I wonder if anyone tested the number of hams that came out of schools that had an ARISS visit. My $0.02. Michael K3MH FYI: http://www.arrl.org/ARISS/ -- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Vodall WA7NWP Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > I will also ask the question again: > > If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would > we be sending to each other that we don't do now? Anything. Everything. There's no 'technical' reason we don't do everything on HF. Discussion groups like this, pictures, favorite songs, audio/video snapshots. WL2K is right in one sense that it's good to offload as much as possible to the Internet as soon as possible. On the other hand, the "Land Line Lid" folks were right that putting traffic to the Internet stifles innovation and technology. My stock question again: What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest? We can talk forever about A1C's and X0Z's but in 10 or 20 years it's going to be that Jr Hi generation that's doing what ever is being done. 73 Bill - WA7NWP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/566 - Release Date: 12/3/2006 4:36 PM
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Hmmm, interesting. on the question of "What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest?" 1. HF bandwidth limitations make digital HF too slow for the average Jr Hi limited attention span 2. And. if they can't talk to all their friends 3. .and it's not cool (or whatever the current expression of being widely socially acceptable), ie., "ohhh dad, that is so strange sitting behind that radio with those strange sounds all by yourself" 4. . and it has a perception of something you have to do by yourself 5. .and it isn't X-Box High school and Junior HS kids interested in HF will be very few. I think ARISS had it right on. Bring to mainstream. Bring it to school. Make it cool. Get all kids & teachers talking about it. That is my belief how we get kids interested in HF/VHF digital and other forms of communication. I wonder if anyone tested the number of hams that came out of schools that had an ARISS visit. My $0.02. Michael K3MH FYI: http://www.arrl.org/ARISS/ _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Vodall WA7NWP Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > I will also ask the question again: > > If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would > we be sending to each other that we don't do now? Anything. Everything. There's no 'technical' reason we don't do everything on HF. Discussion groups like this, pictures, favorite songs, audio/video snapshots. WL2K is right in one sense that it's good to offload as much as possible to the Internet as soon as possible. On the other hand, the "Land Line Lid" folks were right that putting traffic to the Internet stifles innovation and technology. My stock question again: What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest? We can talk forever about A1C's and X0Z's but in 10 or 20 years it's going to be that Jr Hi generation that's doing what ever is being done. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Bill and all, The thing is that I really don't think that we would actually use high speed digital data for everyday use. Right now we can use Pactor modes for about the fastest current modes on our frequencies and it is rarely done except for connecting to an e-mail server. It is not just the cost, either, as folks like me spent plenty of money back 15 to 20 years ago before there were sound card modes. The main thing that requires high data throughput seems to me to be images and we can already do that on the image portion of the bands, but very few do this. And right now we could chat on voice (digital or analog), send images and send faxes anytime we want under current rules and yet almost no one does this. What I am basically saying is that we already have the ability to do these things and for whatever reason, there just is not that much interest except for a small subset of the digital ops. The Winlink 2000 system is intended to send via e-mail, particularly to those who are not radio amateurs, although for time shifting convenience, it can include a radio amateur's e-mail. The old Winlink system died because of lack of interest in maintaining an RF amateur radio path, not because of technology difficulties. After all, it used the fastest available technologies at the time. Because of the practical size of the "pipe," there is really not much more room for very many additional wide band modes. That is why I think we must promote narrow modes as much as we can, and certainly try and use 500 Hz or less in the data/RTTY area. This is exceptionally important on 80 meters where the NTS traffic folks already know that there simply is not going to be enough room for all the nets at the heavier useage times. I don't think that amateur radio has much to offer young people on digital HF modes compared to their expectations with cell phones and messaging. The only possible way to sell it is to point out the fact that much of HF amateur radio does not require other supporting systems such as the internet, cell towers, repeater systems, etc. The younger generation can never do what we do on HF, since they do not have those frequencies, nor would those frequencies be practical for them to use commercially. We do have the VHF and UHF frequencies which are closer to the frequencies used for cell systems. We also have a number of microwave frequencies that we rarely use, and I expect will eventually lose. I have had several calls from folks who know of my interest in computers and amateur radio and they have asked about coming up with some kind of local communications for neighbors that would work even when our normal telecommunications are inoperative and I suggest MURS for voice and WiFi for the higher throughput needs and depending upon what will be permitted in the future, some kind of WiMax system. Of course hams are licensed to have the equivalent of WiMax right now:) Interesting that the OLPC program will have a mesh network built in to the laptops that will apparently enable some rudimentary networking between students in the countries that are purchasing these units. After having experimented this summer with some video/laptops/high gain antenna/WAP, I can say it does have potential. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: >> I will also ask the question again: >> >> If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would >> we be sending to each other that we don't do now? >> >> > >Anything. Everything. There's no 'technical' reason we don't do >everything on HF. Discussion groups like this, pictures, favorite >songs, audio/video snapshots. > >WL2K is right in one sense that it's good to offload as much as >possible to the Internet as soon as possible. On the other hand, the >"Land Line Lid" folks were right that putting traffic to the Internet >stifles innovation and technology. > >My stock question again: > >What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) >interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer >hobbiest? We can talk forever about A1C's and X0Z's but in 10 or 20 >years it's going to be that Jr Hi generation that's doing what ever >is being done. > >73 >Bill - WA7NWP > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Personally, I dont trust a very small number of US or foreign hams to stick with "good" "normal" or "decent" procedures. I lived and traveled and worked overseas for over 20 years so know from what I speak. Its not so much Europe, but often S America or parts of Asia that just do what they want, when they want, and how they want, and to heck with everyone elses use of the bands. Without regulartions, you have nothing to stand on to use to stop them. I use CW a lot (90 percent or more) and certainly dont appreaciat some operator coming up 1 KC from me with SSB talking to his or her cronies just down the street, thus blocking out the majority of a DX band. Legal yes! Smart no! and there is no way to stopthem from doing so. Over here, we call it the "Not in my backyard syndrome" "There ought to be a rule that Ican do what I want - and I dont care about others." We also have the majority of the worlds hams. Turn us loose on the bands to do what WE want, and you wont like it. One or two ops can ruin the whole band for the majority. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms The question was what would we send with Highspeed that we don't now? Probably nothing, but it would be nice to do so. I have been watching this debate for some time, and readily admit that I don't understand this headlong rush into more regulations, on top of what to me would be an onerous situation already. Other countries have gone the opposite way, with fewer regulations for ham radio to the point where the regulations consist one or 2 licence classes ( and their requirements),what bands you may transmit in and the maximum power and bandwith you can use. All this has been done with the blessing of the IRU. A couple of years into this, and so far it works. As a non-US citizen, maybe someone could explain to me WHY all these rules and regulations need to be established in the US ? Does the government and/or the ham community not trust it's citizens to work cooperatively and to follow historical operating practices and segments? Why isn't the ARRL marching along the road to less and less, rather than more and more? Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry? The more I read the less I understand John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.4/563 - Release Date: 12/2/2006 9:59 AM
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
It is an industry that creates it own demand and, thereby, supply. MH _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of list email filter Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:33 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Yes! :( Erik KI4HMS/7 John Bradley wrote: > > Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry? > > John > VE5MU >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Yes! :( Erik KI4HMS/7 John Bradley wrote: > > Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry? > > John > VE5MU >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
The question was what would we send with Highspeed that we don't now? Probably nothing, but it would be nice to do so. I have been watching this debate for some time, and readily admit that I don't understand this headlong rush into more regulations, on top of what to me would be an onerous situation already. Other countries have gone the opposite way, with fewer regulations for ham radio to the point where the regulations consist one or 2 licence classes ( and their requirements),what bands you may transmit in and the maximum power and bandwith you can use. All this has been done with the blessing of the IRU. A couple of years into this, and so far it works. As a non-US citizen, maybe someone could explain to me WHY all these rules and regulations need to be established in the US ? Does the government and/or the ham community not trust it's citizens to work cooperatively and to follow historical operating practices and segments? Why isn't the ARRL marching along the road to less and less, rather than more and more? Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry? The more I read the less I understand John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
> I will also ask the question again: > > If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would > we be sending to each other that we don't do now? Anything. Everything. There's no 'technical' reason we don't do everything on HF. Discussion groups like this, pictures, favorite songs, audio/video snapshots. WL2K is right in one sense that it's good to offload as much as possible to the Internet as soon as possible. On the other hand, the "Land Line Lid" folks were right that putting traffic to the Internet stifles innovation and technology. My stock question again: What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital) interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest? We can talk forever about A1C's and X0Z's but in 10 or 20 years it's going to be that Jr Hi generation that's doing what ever is being done. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
This is somewhat, Off Topic but it is an important issue in a country that used to have respect for the Bill of Rights, but sadly they are being chipped away. The Bill of Rights were intended as limitation on government, i.e., what government could NOT do to citizens. Now one has to be very careful what you say and who you say it to as telecommunications, probably including this one, are being monitored for potential content, keywords, etc. Amateur radio is a great resource for emergency communications but I don't see the HF digital part of it all that valuable except in very rare situations. And it is difficult to allocate resources and exercise it frequently for something that will probably never happen. Having a mostly HF digital store and forward system was once a reality with the Aplink and later the Winlink and Netlink systems, but they were disbanded and there has been very little interest in reestablishing such as system. Emergencies normally require rapid tactical communication for a short time until other resources are brought in by public and private agencies and companies. The one exception might be extreme widespread situations such as hurricanes or if you lost complete telecommunications between a local EOC and state EOC, but this means no landlines, no internet fiber, no satellites, and that is not very likely to happen except in a near doomsday situation and most of us would be scrambling for our own survival. Maybe something like the current "Jericho" series on U.S. TV that apparently portrays some kind of nuclear attack and destruction of most of the U.S. I will also ask the question again: If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would we be sending to each other that we don't do now? 73, Rick, KV9U w6ids wrote: >Well, you're right IMHO, however, there's something more. Generally, in >this >country we've sacrificed personal freedoms by virtue of the DHS and the >Patriot Act, yet no one has complained yet. > >Any interest by EMCOMM folks or anyone else who would entertain the >notion of giving away something else to the DHS for any reason such as >you addressed worries me greatly. We're not a commercial service nor >should we even try to act like one. > >Digital Radio and all other forms of technology we help develop should >remain within the real scope of this HOBBY. If we help EMCOMM in >some fashion, super. If volunteering our services to the extent we have >available, kudos to us. But leave it at that and don't sacrifice anything >more of our valuable resources. We're already out of sync with the >rest of the world, again IMHO for whatever that's worth. > >Howard W6IDS >Richmond, IN > >- Original Message - >From: jgorman01 >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:35 PM >Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > >Your argument isn't logical. > >If the NGO's don't have the resources to use the frequencies they >currently have assigned, where would the resources come from to allow >them to use amateur service frequencies reassigned to the land >fixed/mobile service? > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Well, you're right IMHO, however, there's something more. Generally, in this country we've sacrificed personal freedoms by virtue of the DHS and the Patriot Act, yet no one has complained yet. Any interest by EMCOMM folks or anyone else who would entertain the notion of giving away something else to the DHS for any reason such as you addressed worries me greatly. We're not a commercial service nor should we even try to act like one. Digital Radio and all other forms of technology we help develop should remain within the real scope of this HOBBY. If we help EMCOMM in some fashion, super. If volunteering our services to the extent we have available, kudos to us. But leave it at that and don't sacrifice anything more of our valuable resources. We're already out of sync with the rest of the world, again IMHO for whatever that's worth. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: jgorman01 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Your argument isn't logical. If the NGO's don't have the resources to use the frequencies they currently have assigned, where would the resources come from to allow them to use amateur service frequencies reassigned to the land fixed/mobile service? >SNIP< >SNIP<
RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Red Cross, Salvation Army and the like frequencies are just commercial frequencies requiring the same bandwidth as other users of the frequencies...they have no special frequencies. However, I would think that DHS would approach the FCC about setting aside disaster communications frequencies that don't reside within the commercial frequencies. What is unfortunate is that the ITU really controls the bandwidth of the frequencies on HF world wide so there is not really any or many available frequencies on HF that can be used for wideband use EXCEPT the hambands. Even our military frequencies that we in the U.S. (Region II) cannot be used in other parts of the world. The clostest thing we have to a disaster frequency is the 5 MHz frequency that is used in Alaska. When you consider the actual needs of frequencies set aside for disaster communications, there just isn't enough bandwidth available...what IS available is amateur radio frequencies. I fear that if amateur radio operators in the U.S. don't accommodate NGO HF communications needs...and choose to give the NGOs their own disaster frequencies, those frequencies will come out of the hambands. It may be a case of play with the NGOs and meet their "sometime" communications needs or lose frequencies to them altogether. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Let me paraphrase N7DC's comment. The local, state, and federal governments and NGO's want our help - then they should provide the equipment and the bandwidth for its use- and that bandwidth is out there, assigned to agencies and NGO's now. I've checked and both the Red Cross and Salvation Army have HF frequencies assigned to them. I'm sorry they can't afford the equipment to use these assignments. With the recent letters to the FCC about how Homeland Security money would be wasted if the 500 Hz bandwidth restriction wasn't changed I wonder why the NGO's have not applied for and received Homeland Security money to provide their own equipment needed to use these assignments. The money is obviously available! This is where I philosophically disagree with your position. I believe you are saying since they can't afford it, then lets change the amateur bands so we can support the NGO's business needs, i.e. wide bandwidth high capacity HF links for disaster communications. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. For example, for general class licensees on 80m there would only be space for about seven 8 kHz channels. I am sure that if 8 kHz bandwidths were allowed, there would be a sufficient number of hams who would fill up the space thereby driving out all other modes and causing a lot of hams to cease operating entirely. This could easily end up having an unforeseen detremental effect, one of limiting the number of hams available for disaster support. Please ask yourself the question why, if the FCC won't let them use wide bandwidth modes on their own frequencies, should amateur radio do it for them especially when it has a detremental effect on our own service? I think the ham bands should be set up for what hams need on a day to day basis. Then, if this can help support NGO's or even governmental agencies, then fine. If they won't accept the level of service we can provide, well that is their loss. I am afraid that if we begin defining the ham band allocations, modes, and bandwidths based upon what non-ham organizations need to support their business plans (disaster services) we are on a very slippery slope that can lead to unintended consequences to the amateur service. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Most "emergency" communications is in reality disaster communications and is NOT in support of "governments" but rather non-governmental agencies, i.e. the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. These organizations do need very high-speed throughput modes that are robust to meet their operational needs and do not have the funding to provide hardware to support the need. > > Since the agencies supported are not government organizations (NGO), they cannot provide frequencies or bandwidth to support their communications needs. If the NGO has HF frequency/frequencies, they are controlled by the FCC and have strict bandwidth limits for their type of service. Even governmental agencies/organizations are controlled by a federal agency that limits their frequency use, power and bandwidth. Amateur radio is the only source that actually has a change for providing frequencies and bandwidths to meet NGO needs. > > But needing higher-speed and more robust modes is not the only need of NGOs...they also need robust chat and text modes that are robust for instant command and control ope
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
At 10:45 PM 11/29/06, cesco12342000 wrote: > > Near the equator, > > there is little frequency spread (< 4 Hz), but it is larger > > in near-polar paths and can be very large (up to 40 Hz) > > under disturbed conditions. > >A question: where does the frequency spread come from ? >Is this a doppler effect of a moving ionosphere, or are >there other causes ? Yes. It's Doppler spreading because of turbulent motions within the ionosphere. >why is the effect bigger in polar regions ? Because the most turbulent regions of the ionosphere are the Auroral zones that are located near the poles. The Auroral zones are regions in which a lot of energy gets dissipated in a relatively small volume. That leads to the same kind of instability and turbulence that one sees in a pot of boiling water. The regions closest to the poles, the polar caps, are significantly less turbulent than the Auroral zones which bound the caps on the equatorward side. The other place that significant Doppler spreading is observed to occur is in the equatorial ionosphere during so-called "spread-F" conditions. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Dopper shift increases with ionospheric disturbance and the solar geophysical reports always show that the effect is more pronounced in northern latitudes. I don't know a lot about the physics of the ionosphere but I assume that it's for the same reason the aurora always occurs near the poles. My information comes from measurements summarized in published papers. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: cesco12342000 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 03:45 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > Near the equator, > there is little frequency spread (< 4 Hz), but it is larger > in near-polar paths and can be very large (up to 40 Hz) > under disturbed conditions. A question: where does the frequency spread come from ? Is this a doppler effect of a moving ionosphere, or are there other causes ? why is the effect bigger in polar regions ?
