Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-20 Thread kv9u
You really had me going with the length of time it takes to get an STA. 
Glad to hear it is of a more reasonable time. I do wish they would allow 
longer STA testing periods, but I quite agree that since they will 
likely allow any reasonable experiment, you are fairly safe in getting 
the everything ready before the STA goes into effect.

While I don't fully agree with Bob's view on regulations, I do respect 
his amazing programming abilities.

The WiMax setup here is just a very common ISP installed RF link using 
Alvarion equipment. I use the term WiMax as a generic higher powered 
version of WiFi. Alvarion did not wait for the final IEEE specification 
and started marketing their products much earlier. I have seen these 
kinds of system other communities.

They do throttle back the throughput since you are sharing the sector 
with anyone else on that connection. It can run over 1 Mbps, but they 
have it below 500 Mbps I have heard. My understanding is that they have 
a hexagon array of antennas with each covering 60 degrees beam width to 
cover the full 360 degrees. The power level is a few watts and runs on 
2.4 GHz. It can not tolerate the slightest blockage from distant 
buildings or trees so is truly LOS. The neighbors barn just happens to 
be in line with a water tower located about 5 or 6 miles away that has 
one of their access points so there just is no useable signal at my 
location. Luckily, after cutting down some trees on the other side of 
the highway, I was able to open up a LOS link to a more distant tower 
about 7 or 8 miles.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Champa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Sorry.  Did I write "years" to get an STA?  My bad.
>
> It should only take a 1 -2 months.  Paul R. can help.
> HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is
> ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he
> applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize
> the software, hardware, etc.
>
> There have too many cases when the time on the STA
> ran out before anything actually got tested on the air!
> It happened to the HSMM Working Group with the 6M OFDM
> Modem testing.  I think John, KD6OZH, got pulled away by
> our AMSAT brothers to work on a transponder or two, so
> we had to request a renewal.  I supposed they got it as
> that is the HSMM follow-on project.
>
> Again, sorry for the confusion.
>
> If you would like to see your WiMax solution published,
> just let me know.  I am editor of the HSMM column in
> CQ VHF magazine.
>
> As to the regs, I like Dr. Bob's (N4HY) of AMSAT fame
> approach.  It definately fits for the FCC:
>
> It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to seek permission!  (HI)
>
> 73,
> John
> K8OCL
>   



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-19 Thread John Champa
Rick,

Sorry.  Did I write "years" to get an STA?  My bad.

It should only take a 1 -2 months.  Paul R. can help.
HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is
ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he
applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize
the software, hardware, etc.

There have too many cases when the time on the STA
ran out before anything actually got tested on the air!
It happened to the HSMM Working Group with the 6M OFDM
Modem testing.  I think John, KD6OZH, got pulled away by
our AMSAT brothers to work on a transponder or two, so
we had to request a renewal.  I supposed they got it as
that is the HSMM follow-on project.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

If you would like to see your WiMax solution published,
just let me know.  I am editor of the HSMM column in
CQ VHF magazine.

As to the regs, I like Dr. Bob's (N4HY) of AMSAT fame
approach.  It definately fits for the FCC:

It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to seek permission!  (HI)

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:53:35 -0500

What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting.
We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using
WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen
no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday
for a 7 mile link for high speed internet and it is a LOS system. But it
gives you a feel what can be done on the higher bands.

There are few limits to experimenting that I have seen. How about
working on a maximized throughput on HF with narrow signals, perhaps 500
Hz or less? Then you could look at a somewhat wider bandwidths at 1 or
even 2 kHz. Unless you consider the current modes to be the best that
can be done.

For HF, I just don't see enough space for extremely wide modes. I
consider wide modes to be anything more than a 2 or 3 kHz bandwidth that
a standard HF SSB transceiver does and I consider wider signals on HF to
be counterproductive and a step backward.

I did not know that it took years to get an STA. I thought the whole
point was that it could be done fairly easily. If STA's are not
practical then changing the rules is really the only alternative. Based
on the recent FCC changes, it does not seem that either ARRL or the FCC
is very supportive of what you want to do.

Whether you like it or not, that is the democratic process at work. One
could use a "civil disobedience" type of protest, as Bonnie has
suggested, but most of us probably find that a bit too risky and outside
of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the
directions that your group wanted to go.

The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be
difficult to steer the ship in a new direction.

KV9U


John Champa wrote:
 > Rick,
 >
 > Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However,
 > he did not come into the picture until the last year.
 > A lot of frustration had built up by then.
 >
 > It was also his recommendation to the Board that the
 > HSMM Working Group be founded.  That's why we
 > called him the "Father of HSMM".
 >
 > Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved
 > in what we were trying to do, and we had their support.
 >
 > The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of
 > the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
 > They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less
 > on policy and regulations.
 >
 > But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go
 > operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first
 > John KD6OZH must get it to work!  (HI).
 >
 > 73,
 > John - K8OCL
 > Former HSMM Chairman
 >
 >
 > Original Message Follows
 > From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
 > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500
 >
 > Walt,
 >
 > It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing
 > technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this
 > technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request
 > continued, if not even, expanded activity.
 >
 > Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured
 > out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any
 > information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been
 > working closely with him.
 >
 > I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty
 > substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not e

RE: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-19 Thread John Champa
Results were published in our WG report to the Board twice a year.
The Board would then publish them with their minutes in QST.

John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: 
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:25:56 -0500

  http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good
reference.  I have not maintained that page since 2005.  Much has
happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of
date.

Actually I didn't know the account still existed.  I wonder who is
paying for it?  Maybe the payments are automatically being withdrawn
from one of my bank accounts.  :-)

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of kv9u
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:53 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as:

http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html

It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not
requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results
published since the 2001 inception?

What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the
vision?

When you do a search for related information you get things like:

http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html

Which point to web pages such as:

http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html

which don't even have anything archived.

What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem"?

http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by
you on:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html

So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the
politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this
dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working
closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his
position as CTO?

I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead
the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this
project all about and what developed from the work?

What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen
with that?

73,

KV9U






John Champa wrote:
 > Rick,
 >
 > Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However, he did not come
 > into the picture until the last year.
 > A lot of frustration had built up by then.
 >
 > It was also his recommendation to the Board that the HSMM Working
 > Group be founded.  That's why we called him the "Father of HSMM".
 >
 > Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved in what we were
 > trying to do, and we had their support.
 >
 > The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of the DV, the
 > SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
 > They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less on policy and
 > regulations.
 >
 > But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go
 > operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first John KD6OZH

 > must get it to work!  (HI).
 >
 > 73,
 > John - K8OCL
 > Former HSMM Chairman
 >
 >





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




RE: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-19 Thread DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
 http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good
reference.  I have not maintained that page since 2005.  Much has
happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of
date.

Actually I didn't know the account still existed.  I wonder who is
paying for it?  Maybe the payments are automatically being withdrawn
from one of my bank accounts.  :-)

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of kv9u
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:53 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as:

http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html

It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not
requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results
published since the 2001 inception?

What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the
vision?

When you do a search for related information you get things like:

http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html

Which point to web pages such as:

http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html

which don't even have anything archived.

What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem"?

http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by
you on:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html

So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the
politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this
dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working
closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his
position as CTO?

I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead
the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this
project all about and what developed from the work?

What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen
with that?

73,

KV9U






John Champa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However, he did not come 
> into the picture until the last year.
> A lot of frustration had built up by then.
>
> It was also his recommendation to the Board that the HSMM Working 
> Group be founded.  That's why we called him the "Father of HSMM".
>
> Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved in what we were 
> trying to do, and we had their support.
>
> The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of the DV, the 
> SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
> They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less on policy and 
> regulations.
>
> But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go 
> operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first John KD6OZH

> must get it to work!  (HI).
>
> 73,
> John - K8OCL
> Former HSMM Chairman
>
>   



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 


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





Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-19 Thread kv9u
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as:

http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html

It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not 
requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results 
published since the 2001 inception?

What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision?

When you do a search for related information you get things like:

http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html

Which point to web pages such as:

http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html

which don't even have anything archived.

What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem"?

http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by 
you on:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html

So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the 
politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this 
dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working 
closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his 
position as CTO?

I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead 
the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this 
project all about and what developed from the work?

What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen 
with that?

73,

KV9U






John Champa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However,
> he did not come into the picture until the last year.
> A lot of frustration had built up by then.
>
> It was also his recommendation to the Board that the
> HSMM Working Group be founded.  That's why we
> called him the "Father of HSMM".
>
> Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved
> in what we were trying to do, and we had their support.
>
> The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of
> the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
> They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less
> on policy and regulations.
>
> But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go
> operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first
> John KD6OZH must get it to work!  (HI).
>
> 73,
> John - K8OCL
> Former HSMM Chairman
>
>   



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-19 Thread kv9u
What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting. 
We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using 
WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen 
no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday 
for a 7 mile link for high speed internet and it is a LOS system. But it 
gives you a feel what can be done on the higher bands.

There are few limits to experimenting that I have seen. How about 
working on a maximized throughput on HF with narrow signals, perhaps 500 
Hz or less? Then you could look at a somewhat wider bandwidths at 1 or 
even 2 kHz. Unless you consider the current modes to be the best that 
can be done.

For HF, I just don't see enough space for extremely wide modes. I 
consider wide modes to be anything more than a 2 or 3 kHz bandwidth that 
a standard HF SSB transceiver does and I consider wider signals on HF to 
be counterproductive and a step backward.

I did not know that it took years to get an STA. I thought the whole 
point was that it could be done fairly easily. If STA's are not 
practical then changing the rules is really the only alternative. Based 
on the recent FCC changes, it does not seem that either ARRL or the FCC 
is very supportive of what you want to do.

Whether you like it or not, that is the democratic process at work. One 
could use a "civil disobedience" type of protest, as Bonnie has 
suggested, but most of us probably find that a bit too risky and outside 
of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the 
directions that your group wanted to go.

The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be 
difficult to steer the ship in a new direction.

KV9U


John Champa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However,
> he did not come into the picture until the last year.
> A lot of frustration had built up by then.
>
> It was also his recommendation to the Board that the
> HSMM Working Group be founded.  That's why we
> called him the "Father of HSMM".
>
> Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved
> in what we were trying to do, and we had their support.
>
> The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of
> the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
> They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less
> on policy and regulations.
>
> But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go
> operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first
> John KD6OZH must get it to work!  (HI).
>
> 73,
> John - K8OCL
> Former HSMM Chairman
>
>
> Original Message Follows
> From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500
>
> Walt,
>
> It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing
> technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this
> technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request
> continued, if not even, expanded activity.
>
> Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured
> out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any
> information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been
> working closely with him.
>
> I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty
> substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either.
>
> As I recall,  the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some
> time ago?
>
> The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content.
> Otherwise you would not need encryption.
>
> I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham
> controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to
> more secure control links such as landline has been used.
>
> Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other
> countries that may truly be in a technology "jail," if they can not even
> run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct?
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
> Walt DuBose wrote:
>  > Rick,
>  >
>  > You are not in possession of all the facts.
>  >
>  > The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed 
> data and
>  > other modes on frequencies above HF.
>  >
>  > The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to 
> accomplish the
>  > task.
>  >
>  > The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 
> 2007 the
>  > board decided the WG had done its job an

Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Walt DuBose
John, et al,

Well maybe it wasn't just the HSMM but the times.

Steve Ford, WB8IMY, is a very knowledgable individual and so is Paul R. as well 
as other ARRL and QST staffers.  But they need to keep abreast of technical 
innovations just like we all do.  So if we clash and disagree at times, so 
what? 
  As long as we continue to work together for the good of Amateur Radio we can 
be friends.  At least I hope it works that way.

73 and GN,

de Walt, K5YFW

John Champa wrote:
> Walt,
> 
> I certainly hope you are right.  Joel is a progressive fellow.
> 
> Since that meeting I have certainly become  more appreciative
> of all the work that Chris Imlay did with all the FCC on behalf of
> the HSMM Working Group.  For example, look now at the new
> rules on SS on the 222 MHz band! They didn't make that change
> on there own.
> 
> I get the feeling John's code won't handle more than 100 kHz
> anyway!  (HI)  But that still is ~140 kbps.  Sure beats AX.25!
> And the ground wave range on 222 MHz is as good as on 2M too!
> 
> 73,
> John
> K8OCL
> 
> Original Message Follows
> From: Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600
> 
> Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and 
> with
> a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are
> changing.   I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the 
> OFs.
> 
> John Champa wrote:
>  > PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
>  > policy recommendations were part of the reason
>  > the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.
>  >
>  > They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
>  > Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
>  > no matter how painless we tried to make it.
>  >
>  > I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
>  > the service survives beyond my life, but I am
>  > not making taking any bets.
>  >
>  > This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)
>  >
>  > 73,
>  > John
>  > K8OCL
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Original Message Follows-
>  > From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
>  > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
>  >
>  > OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
>  > excuse me while I still have my character
>  > 73, Chuck AA5J
>  >
>  > At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
>  >
>  >  >Bruce,
>  >  >
>  >  >You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
>  >  >different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
>  >  >hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
>  >  >deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
>  >  >
>  >  >It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
>  >  >agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
>  >  >changed.
>  >  >
>  >  >But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
>  >  >extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors
>  > that:
>  >  >
>  >  >"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
>  >  >limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
>  >  >to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
>  >  >
>  >  
>  
> ><http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf>http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
>  >  >
>  >  >Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
>  >  >Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption 
> on
>  >  >amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
>  >  >
>  >  
>  
> ><http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html>http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
>  >  >
>  >  >I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
>  >  >the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the 
> U.S.
>  >  >
>  >  >73,
>  >  >
>  >  >Rick, KV9U
>  >  >
>  >  >bruce mallon wrote:
>  >  > > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
>  >  > > meters with 200 k

Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
Rick,

Paul as the CTO was our reporting person.  However,
he did not come into the picture until the last year.
A lot of frustration had built up by then.

It was also his recommendation to the Board that the
HSMM Working Group be founded.  That's why we
called him the "Father of HSMM".

Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved
in what we were trying to do, and we had their support.

The Technology Task Force still exists!  It consists of
the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects.
They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less
on policy and regulations.

But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA.  It could only go
operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course.  But first
John KD6OZH must get it to work!  (HI).

73,
John - K8OCL
Former HSMM Chairman


Original Message Follows
From: kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500

Walt,

It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing
technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this
technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request
continued, if not even, expanded activity.

Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured
out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any
information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been
working closely with him.

I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty
substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either.

As I recall,  the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some
time ago?

The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content.
Otherwise you would not need encryption.

I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham
controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to
more secure control links such as landline has been used.

Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other
countries that may truly be in a technology "jail," if they can not even
run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Walt DuBose wrote:
 > Rick,
 >
 > You are not in possession of all the facts.
 >
 > The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed 
data and
 > other modes on frequencies above HF.
 >
 > The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to 
accomplish the
 > task.
 >
 > The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 
2007 the
 > board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific 
works.
 >   The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force.
 >
 > I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed 
specific
 > needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem 
project.  WE
 > did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97.
 >
 > Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption 
as long
 > as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  I 
agree.
 > Some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM 
and
 > ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the 
purpose of
 > control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued 
any
 > citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to 
the FCC
 > telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz
 > frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not 
received
 > a citation.
 >
 > Walt/K5YFW
 >
 >
 >
 > kv9u wrote:
 >
 >> Bruce,
 >>
 >> You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
 >> different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
 >> hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
 >> deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 >>
 >> It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
 >> agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
 >> changed.
 >>
 >> But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
 >> extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
that:
 >>
 >> "If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
 >> limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
 >> to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 >>
 >> http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 >>
 >> Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the 

Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread kv9u
Walt,

It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing 
technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this 
technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request 
continued, if not even, expanded activity.

Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured 
out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any 
information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been 
working closely with him.

I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty 
substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either.

As I recall,  the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some 
time ago?

The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content. 
Otherwise you would not need encryption.

I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham 
controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to 
more secure control links such as landline has been used.

Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other 
countries that may truly be in a technology "jail," if they can not even 
run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Walt DuBose wrote:
> Rick,
>
> You are not in possession of all the facts.
>
> The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data 
> and 
> other modes on frequencies above HF.
>
> The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish 
> the 
> task.
>
> The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 
> the 
> board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific 
> works. 
>   The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force.
>
> I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed 
> specific 
> needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project.  
> WE 
> did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97.
>
> Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as 
> long 
> as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  I 
> agree. 
> Some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM and 
> ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the purpose 
> of 
> control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any 
> citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the 
> FCC 
> telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz 
> frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not 
> received 
> a citation.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
>
>
> kv9u wrote:
>   
>> Bruce,
>>
>> You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very 
>> different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented 
>> hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend 
>> deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
>>
>> It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not 
>> agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules 
>> changed.
>>
>> But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too 
>> extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:
>>
>> "If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz 
>> limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up 
>> to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
>>
>> http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
>>
>> Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working 
>> Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on 
>> amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
>>
>> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
>>
>> I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that 
>> the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Rick, KV9U
>>
>>
>> 



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
Walt,

I certainly hope you are right.  Joel is a progressive fellow.

Since that meeting I have certainly become  more appreciative
of all the work that Chris Imlay did with all the FCC on behalf of
the HSMM Working Group.  For example, look now at the new
rules on SS on the 222 MHz band! They didn't make that change
on there own.

I get the feeling John's code won't handle more than 100 kHz
anyway!  (HI)  But that still is ~140 kbps.  Sure beats AX.25!
And the ground wave range on 222 MHz is as good as on 2M too!

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:04 -0600

Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and 
with
a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are
changing.   I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the 
OFs.

John Champa wrote:
 > PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
 > policy recommendations were part of the reason
 > the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.
 >
 > They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
 > Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
 > no matter how painless we tried to make it.
 >
 > I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
 > the service survives beyond my life, but I am
 > not making taking any bets.
 >
 > This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)
 >
 > 73,
 > John
 > K8OCL
 >
 >
 >
 > Original Message Follows-
 > From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
 > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
 >
 > OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
 > excuse me while I still have my character
 > 73, Chuck AA5J
 >
 > At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
 >
 >  >Bruce,
 >  >
 >  >You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
 >  >different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
 >  >hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
 >  >deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 >  >
 >  >It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
 >  >agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
 >  >changed.
 >  >
 >  >But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
 >  >extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors
 > that:
 >  >
 >  >"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
 >  >limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
 >  >to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 >  >
 >  
 ><http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf>http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 >  >
 >  >Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
 >  >Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption 
on
 >  >amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 >  >
 >  
 ><http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html>http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 >  >
 >  >I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
 >  >the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the 
U.S.
 >  >
 >  >73,
 >  >
 >  >Rick, KV9U
 >  >
 >  >bruce mallon wrote:
 >  > > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
 >  > > meters with 200 khz wide signals?
 >  > >
 >  > > Nice very nice .
 >  > >
 >  > >
 >  > > --- John Champa <<mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
 >  > >
 >  > >
 >  > >> Rod,
 >  > >>
 >  > >> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
 >  > >> FCC
 >  > >> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
 >  > >> trouble"?
 >  > >> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
 >  > >> service was established!
 >  > >> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
 >  > >> so heavy handed?
 >  > >>
 >  > >> I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
 >  > >> barracks lawyers
 >  > >> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
 >  > >> trying to develop new
 >  > >> technology. They're alwa

Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Walt DuBose
Perhaps at the time but I think the after the Board meeting in January and with 
a new President thinking on his own, things may be changing...I think are 
changing.   I think we kicked them in the back side and woke up some of the OFs.

John Champa wrote:
> PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
> policy recommendations were part of the reason
> the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.
> 
> They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
> Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
> no matter how painless we tried to make it.
> 
> I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
> the service survives beyond my life, but I am
> not making taking any bets.
> 
> This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)
> 
> 73,
> John
> K8OCL
> 
> 
> 
> Original Message Follows-
> From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500
> 
> OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
> excuse me while I still have my character
> 73, Chuck AA5J
> 
> At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:
> 
>  >Bruce,
>  >
>  >You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
>  >different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
>  >hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
>  >deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
>  >
>  >It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
>  >agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
>  >changed.
>  >
>  >But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
>  >extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
> that:
>  >
>  >"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
>  >limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
>  >to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
>  >
>  
> ><http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf>http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
>  >
>  >Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
>  >Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
>  >amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
>  >
>  
> ><http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html>http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
>  >
>  >I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
>  >the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
>  >
>  >73,
>  >
>  >Rick, KV9U
>  >
>  >bruce mallon wrote:
>  > > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
>  > > meters with 200 khz wide signals?
>  > >
>  > > Nice very nice .
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --- John Champa <<mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >> Rod,
>  > >>
>  > >> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
>  > >> FCC
>  > >> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
>  > >> trouble"?
>  > >> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
>  > >> service was established!
>  > >> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
>  > >> so heavy handed?
>  > >>
>  > >> I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
>  > >> barracks lawyers
>  > >> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
>  > >> trying to develop new
>  > >> technology. They're always writing "That's illegal"
>  > >> while they just sit on
>  > >> their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
>  > >> find something in the
>  > >> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
>  > >> road.
>  > >>
>  > >> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
>  > >> wonderful avocation!
>  > >>
>  > >> 73,
>  > >> John
>  > >> K8OCL
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  >
>  >
>  >No virus found in this incoming message.
>  >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>  >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
>  >3/17/2007 12:33 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread bruce mallon
John 

I SUPPORT any change that allows NEW forms of radio
however anyone knows those changes need to take place
on bands and with new modes that will not displace
existent users.


"6M is a huge band, that even when it is red hot, as
we hope it is again in a few years, is very coveted by
many businesses, in addition to BPL"

What bussness wants 6 meters ?? And where do you
get this  There are thousands of users on 6 meters
and unlike some bands is NOT a unsed band.

200 kHz wide on bands below 222 MHz at this time makes
no sense and on 6 meters would raise the noise floor
as well as interfere with many nets long using the
band from 50.4-52.525.

Same goes for the 2 meter band again no space for this
kind of mode.

HOWEVER the VERY under used 222 MHz band is such a
place for this and the FCC agreed that this was a good
place to allow such modes.



 

The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php


Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
Steve,

Good points all.  The legal issues are, of course, worth
while issues when they are addressed in the manner
you describe.

However, we have all seen individuals who seemed
obsessed with the legal perspective to the detriment
of our joint efforts to technologically expand.  It's
not that they are wrong, but they are wrong minded.

Hope that helps!

Of course, if I ever do get a pink ticket in the mail or
an FCC nasty gram, no doubt I will get many "I told you
so letters"  (HI)

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: AAR2EY/AAA9DHT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:31:05 -0400


John,

I beg to differ, I do get and from time to time I will offer comments
to assist someone else who may not be sure of how to proceed with new
technology in the age of rapid software modem developments.

However with your approach, sooner or later if you have not already,
you will likely receive one or more FDS-213's or direct FCC correspondence.

All of my Amateur Radio activities are in accordance with the rules,
I would like to think that everyone who reads and understands the
rules operate likewise.

It is obvious however that some just don't care, your comments
exemplify that position.

End of story.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steve, N2CKH


At 10:17 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

 >Steve,
 >
 >You just don't get it yet, partner. As long as nobody
 >complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't
 >really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police
 >anything.
 >
 >IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out
 >your new mode experiment in the middle of their
 >net frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK.
 >
 >73,
 >John
 >K8OCL




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
PS - Rick is correct about one item.  Those
policy recommendations were part of the reason
the ARRL disbanded the HSMM Working Group.

They didn't like hearing those sorts of things.
Most Hams wouldn't like that sort of change
no matter how painless we tried to make it.

I have been a Ham since I was 15, and I hope
the service survives beyond my life, but I am
not making taking any bets.

This is the digital radio forum isn't it?  (HI)

73,
John
K8OCL



Original Message Follows-
From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500

OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:

 >Bruce,
 >
 >You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
 >different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
 >hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
 >deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 >
 >It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
 >agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
 >changed.
 >
 >But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
 >extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
that:
 >
 >"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
 >limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
 >to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 >
 ><http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf>http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 >
 >Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
 >Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
 >amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 >
 ><http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html>http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 >
 >I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
 >the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
 >
 >73,
 >
 >Rick, KV9U
 >
 >bruce mallon wrote:
 > > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
 > > meters with 200 khz wide signals?
 > >
 > > Nice very nice .
 > >
 > >
 > > --- John Champa <<mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > >> Rod,
 > >>
 > >> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
 > >> FCC
 > >> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
 > >> trouble"?
 > >> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
 > >> service was established!
 > >> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
 > >> so heavy handed?
 > >>
 > >> I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
 > >> barracks lawyers
 > >> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
 > >> trying to develop new
 > >> technology. They're always writing "That's illegal"
 > >> while they just sit on
 > >> their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
 > >> find something in the
 > >> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
 > >> road.
 > >>
 > >> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
 > >> wonderful avocation!
 > >>
 > >> 73,
 > >> John
 > >> K8OCL
 > >>
 > >>
 >
 >
 >No virus found in this incoming message.
 >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
 >3/17/2007 12:33 PM




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Walt DuBose
Rick,

You are not in possession of all the facts.

The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and 
other modes on frequencies above HF.

The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish 
the 
task.

The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 the 
board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific works. 
  The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force.

I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed specific 
needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project.  
WE 
did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97.

Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as long 
as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  I agree. 
Some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM and 
ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the purpose 
of 
control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any 
citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the FCC 
telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz 
frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not 
received 
a citation.

Walt/K5YFW



kv9u wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very 
> different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented 
> hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend 
> deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
> 
> It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not 
> agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules 
> changed.
> 
> But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too 
> extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:
> 
> "If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz 
> limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up 
> to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
> 
> http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
> 
> Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working 
> Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on 
> amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
> 
> http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
> 
> I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that 
> the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> bruce mallon wrote:
> 
>>This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
>>meters with 200 khz wide signals?
>>
>>Nice very nice .
>>
>>
>>--- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Rod,
>>>
>>>I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
>>>FCC
>>>for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
>>>trouble"?
>>>Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
>>>service was established!
>>>Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
>>>so heavy handed?
>>>
>>>I agree with LA4VNA.  We have too many punk amateur
>>>barracks lawyers
>>>trying to muck around with the few of us still left
>>>trying to develop new
>>>technology.  They're always writing "That's illegal"
>>>while they just sit on
>>>their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
>>>find something in the
>>>regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
>>>road.
>>>
>>>Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
>>>wonderful avocation!
>>>
>>>73,
>>>John
>>>K8OCL
>>>


Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
Chuck,

Yes, it is character assassination.

All I am saying is don't go crazy with the FCC rules.
The FCC publicly has stated the purpose of the
rules was NEVER intended to hamper technological
experimenting and other progress by Hams.

Nonetheless, that is the FIRST question many Hams
ask when you want to tray an experiment, when
it should be "Will we QRM any of our Ham brothers?"

All I know as a wireless pro is that if we Hams insist
on sticking with all the legacy modes while the rest
of the world goes digital, all we will have for frequencies
aare those not wanted by anybody else.  Read the
book "200 Meters and above" if a history lesson is needed.

Hope that helps.

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:25:32 -0500

OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:

 >Bruce,
 >
 >You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
 >different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
 >hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
 >deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
 >
 >It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
 >agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
 >changed.
 >
 >But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
 >extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors 
that:
 >
 >"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
 >limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
 >to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
 >
 ><http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf>http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
 >
 >Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
 >Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
 >amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
 >
 ><http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html>http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
 >
 >I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
 >the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
 >
 >73,
 >
 >Rick, KV9U
 >
 >bruce mallon wrote:
 > > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
 > > meters with 200 khz wide signals?
 > >
 > > Nice very nice .
 > >
 > >
 > > --- John Champa <<mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > >> Rod,
 > >>
 > >> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
 > >> FCC
 > >> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
 > >> trouble"?
 > >> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
 > >> service was established!
 > >> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
 > >> so heavy handed?
 > >>
 > >> I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
 > >> barracks lawyers
 > >> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
 > >> trying to develop new
 > >> technology. They're always writing "That's illegal"
 > >> while they just sit on
 > >> their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
 > >> find something in the
 > >> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
 > >> road.
 > >>
 > >> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
 > >> wonderful avocation!
 > >>
 > >> 73,
 > >> John
 > >> K8OCL
 > >>
 > >>
 >
 >
 >No virus found in this incoming message.
 >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date:
 >3/17/2007 12:33 PM




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
Thank you, Bill!  I couldn't have written it any better!

6M is a huge band, that even when it is red hot, as we
hope it is again in a few years, is very coveted by many
businesses, in addition to BPL.

The ARRL HSMM Working Group was trying to save 6M,
in addition to finding a spot to operate SS.

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:18:24 -0700

 > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
 >  meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Not destroy it - save it...

Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders.  Today its the last
bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while
the real world technologies of digital wide band modes are exploding.
  Not that having a place for museum modes is bad -- we just shouldn't
hold on to them at the expense of the future.

I'm assuming everybody here does know that 6 meters is encompassed by BPL..

73
Bill - WA7NWP




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread AAR2EY/AAA9DHT

John,

I beg to differ, I do get and from time to time I will offer comments 
to assist someone else who may not be sure of how to proceed with new 
technology in the age of rapid software modem developments.

However with your approach, sooner or later if you have not already, 
you will likely receive one or more FDS-213's or direct FCC correspondence.

All of my Amateur Radio activities are in accordance with the rules, 
I would like to think that everyone who reads and understands the 
rules operate likewise.

It is obvious however that some just don't care, your comments 
exemplify that position.

End of story.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steve, N2CKH


At 10:17 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

>Steve,
>
>You just don't get it yet, partner. As long as nobody
>complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't
>really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police
>anything.
>
>IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out
>your new mode experiment in the middle of their
>net frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK.
>
>73,
>John
>K8OCL



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Chuck Mayfield
OK this is starting to look like character assassination.  Please 
excuse me while I still have my character
73, Chuck AA5J

At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote:

>Bruce,
>
>You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very
>different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented
>hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend
>deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.
>
>It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not
>agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules
>changed.
>
>But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too
>extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:
>
>"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz
>limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up
>to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.
>
>http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf
>
>Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working
>Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on
>amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.
>
>http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
>
>I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that
>the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>bruce mallon wrote:
> > This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
> > meters with 200 khz wide signals?
> >
> > Nice very nice .
> >
> >
> > --- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Rod,
> >>
> >> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
> >> FCC
> >> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
> >> trouble"?
> >> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
> >> service was established!
> >> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
> >> so heavy handed?
> >>
> >> I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur
> >> barracks lawyers
> >> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
> >> trying to develop new
> >> technology. They're always writing "That's illegal"
> >> while they just sit on
> >> their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
> >> find something in the
> >> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
> >> road.
> >>
> >> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
> >> wonderful avocation!
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> John
> >> K8OCL
> >>
> >>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 
>3/17/2007 12:33 PM



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread Bill Vodall WA7NWP
> This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
>  meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Not destroy it - save it...

Amateur Radio used to be technology leaders.  Today its the last
bastion of otherwise obsolete 'museum modes' like AM, CW and ATV while
the real world technologies of digital wide band modes are exploding.
 Not that having a place for museum modes is bad -- we just shouldn't
hold on to them at the expense of the future.

I'm assuming everybody here does know that 6 meters is encompassed by BPL..

73
Bill - WA7NWP


Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread John Champa
Bruce, that is an extremely offensive posting.
I happen to LOVE 6M and have operated the
band for almost 50 years.  Sorry, you feel the
way you do.

You are of course, in error once again.
The excellent response from John, KD6OZH,
clarified that our OFDM testing will not be
on the AM calling frequency, but only on
portions of the band seldom utilized even
when the band is open.  That is a lot of
normally empty spectrum in a huge 4 MHz
wide band.

I hope we that we will ALWAYS be able to
enjoy the 6M band together.

73,
John
K8OCL




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread kv9u
Bruce,

You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very 
different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented 
hams.  Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend 
deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules.

It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not 
agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules 
changed.

But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too 
extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that:

"If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz 
limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz  a 45 MHz limit up 
to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz.

http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf

Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working 
Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on 
amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz.

http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html

I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that 
the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S.

73,

Rick, KV9U



bruce mallon wrote:
> This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
> meters with 200 khz wide signals?
>
> Nice very nice .
>
>
> --- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Rod,
>>
>> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
>> FCC
>> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
>> trouble"?
>> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
>> service was established!
>> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
>> so heavy handed?
>>
>> I agree with LA4VNA.  We have too many punk amateur
>> barracks lawyers
>> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
>> trying to develop new
>> technology.  They're always writing "That's illegal"
>> while they just sit on
>> their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
>> find something in the
>> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
>> road.
>>
>> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
>> wonderful avocation!
>>
>> 73,
>> John
>> K8OCL
>>
>> 



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-18 Thread bruce mallon
This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6
meters with 200 khz wide signals?

Nice very nice .


--- John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Rod,
> 
> I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the
> FCC
> for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious
> trouble"?
> Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our
> service was established!
> Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be
> so heavy handed?
> 
> I agree with LA4VNA.  We have too many punk amateur
> barracks lawyers
> trying to muck around with the few of us still left
> trying to develop new
> technology.  They're always writing "That's illegal"
> while they just sit on
> their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to
> find something in the
> regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the
> road.
> 
> Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a
> wonderful avocation!
> 
> 73,
> John
> K8OCL
> 
> 
> Original Message Follows----
> From: Rodney Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Sir,
> 
> There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person
> knows them all and 
> because crime is so prevalent here we ALL need
> reminded of them.  Not to 
> mention that there are American Amateur Radio
> Operators trying all kinds of 
> NEW ideas and some of them are NOT legal and can get
> them into some serious 
> trouble.
> 
> So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms
> and keeping spouting 
> legalities, should the need arise!  If people don't
> obey the laws that are 
> already in place, our government produces MORE laws
> and THAT, my friend, is 
> what takes AWAY freedom!
> 
> Rod
> KC7CJO
> 
> Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   My American friends, do you never get tired of
> telling each other what's
>   not legal under your  "FCC Part 97" ?
> 
>   73 de LA5VNA Steinar
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Tony,
>   >
>   > I posted a comment on this the other day but I
> did not see it debut.
>   >
>   > The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data
> modem is not legal under FCC 
> Part 97 for data.
>   >
>   > Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a
> non-disclosed Data Link Protocol 
> (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known
> to the public in other 
> forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known
> what is being used, thus 
> it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use
> until such time the DLP is 
> published.
>   >
>   > /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
>   Get your own web address.
>   Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
> 
> 
> 



 

Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/


Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread John Champa
Steve,

You just don't get it yet, partner.  As long as nobody
complains about disruptive behavior, the FCC doesn't
really care, nor do they have the manpower, to police
anything.

IMHO, be considerate of other Hams, don't try out
your new mode experiment in the middle of their
net frequency, etc. etc. and all will probably be OK.

73,
John
K8OCL

Original Message Follows
From: AAR2EY/AAA9DHT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:06:54 -0400


Hi Steiner,

It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have
to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but
unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC
will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail
protocol is legal approach, but that may be more of a dream rather than a 
hope.

P.S. - I read statements about the use of MIL-STD-188-110 and FS-1052
FTP in PC-ALE being legal for U.S. Amateurs to send image files, this
is NOT so as the FTP protocol is NOT part of FED-STD-1052 or is it
any standard FTP and it has never been published by G4GUO, if it were
to be published then it would be ok.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 10:31 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote:


 >My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's
 >not legal under your  "FCC Part 97" ?
 >
 >73 de LA5VNA Steinar




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread John Champa
Rod,

I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC
for experimenting with a new mode...so what "serious trouble"?
Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established!
Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed?

I agree with LA4VNA.  We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers
trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new
technology.  They're always writing "That's illegal" while they just sit on
their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the
regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road.

Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation!

73,
John
K8OCL


Original Message Follows
From: Rodney Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT)

Sir,

There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and 
because crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them.  Not to 
mention that there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of 
NEW ideas and some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some serious 
trouble.

So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms and keeping spouting 
legalities, should the need arise!  If people don't obey the laws that are 
already in place, our government produces MORE laws and THAT, my friend, is 
what takes AWAY freedom!

Rod
KC7CJO

Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's
  not legal under your  "FCC Part 97" ?

  73 de LA5VNA Steinar




  AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote:
  >
  >
  > Hi Tony,
  >
  > I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut.
  >
  > The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC 
Part 97 for data.
  >
  > Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol 
(DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other 
forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus 
it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is 
published.
  >
  > /s/ Steve, N2CKH






-
  Get your own web address.
  Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread Steinar Aanesland

Ok , I was only curious . Every time someone discover a new mode or
rediscover an old one like this MIL-STD-188-110 modem,  this U.S. FCC
rules initialize the same discussion .

Don't  forget the rest of the world. It is not very interesting to have
to read through a lot of text with the same old arguments before getting
to the point.

73 de LA5VNA Steinar






AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote:
>
>
> Hi Steiner,
>
> It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have
> to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but
> unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC
> will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail
> protocol is legal approach, but that may be more of a dream rather
than a hope.
>
> P.S. - I read statements about the use of MIL-STD-188-110 and FS-1052
> FTP in PC-ALE being legal for U.S. Amateurs to send image files, this
> is NOT so as the FTP protocol is NOT part of FED-STD-1052 or is it
> any standard FTP and it has never been published by G4GUO, if it were
> to be published then it would be ok.
>
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
>
> At 10:31 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote:
>
> >My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's
> >not legal under your "FCC Part 97" ?
> >
> >73 de LA5VNA Steinar



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread kv9u
I strongly recommend that any new mode specifications be placed on the 
ARRL site with all the other mode specifications. Then anyone can refer 
to them easily. You do not have to be an ARRL member to access this 
information. It is a bit hard to find under support/regulatory 
information/FCC rules and then the first item under Additional 
Resources, 97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions or:

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/

As far as the 300 baud speed or greater, just move the mode to the phone 
sections of the band where facsimile can be sent. This will allow for 
pictures, faxes, etc.

I am willing to bet that the FCC would accept the idea of an attached 
doc file with text since it is more of a FAX. Wouldn't it be a bit 
mapped image?

I don't think anyone has asked. But if we point out the enormous value 
for emergency use where you can coordinate a transmission on voice and 
also send the document, they may accept this as being reasonable.

Especially when you have a mix of pictures and text on a page.

If I understand it correctly, some Winlink 2000 users are sending 
weather maps through the Winlink 2000 system and, if so, that would seem 
to be illegal based on Part 97, since the Winlink 2000 system operates 
only in the text data part of the bands. The Winlink 2000 owner has 
promoted this as a feature of their system.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Les Keppie wrote:
> KT2Q wrote:
>   
>> All:
>>
>> The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a 
>> new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try 
>> and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be 
>> useful to have a list of guidelines to help 
>> determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not.
>>
>> It should be to the point and concise; something 
>> like...
>>
>> 1. The mode must have an open and published 
>> protocol.
>> 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in 
>> the digital subbands.
>>
>> etc...
>>
>> Tony -- KT2Q
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
> WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT
> YOU HAVE LEFT
> Les VK2DSG
>
>   



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread Rodney Kraft
Sir,

There are so many laws in America that NO ONE person knows them all and because 
crime is so prevalent here we ALL need reminded of them.  Not to mention that 
there are American Amateur Radio Operators trying all kinds of NEW ideas and 
some of them are NOT legal and can get them into some serious trouble.

So we WILL continue to guard our precious freedoms and keeping spouting 
legalities, should the need arise!  If people don't obey the laws that are 
already in place, our government produces MORE laws and THAT, my friend, is 
what takes AWAY freedom!

Rod
KC7CJO

Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
 My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's 
 not legal under your  "FCC Part 97" ?
 
 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
 
 
 
 
 AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote:
 >
 >
 > Hi Tony,
 >
 > I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut.
 >
 > The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under FCC 
 > Part 97 for data.
 >
 > Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link Protocol 
 > (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the public in other 
 > forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what is being used, thus 
 > it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use until such time the DLP is 
 > published.
 >
 > /s/ Steve, N2CKH
 
   
 
   

 
-
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread AAR2EY/AAA9DHT

Hi Steiner,

It would be nice if Part 97 was clear and simple and we did not have 
to help our fellow U.S. Radio Amateur's understand it, but 
unfortunately that is not yet the case. I am in hopes that the FCC 
will come around to any signal up to 3Khz using a published in detail 
protocol is legal approach, but that may be more of a dream rather than a hope.

P.S. - I read statements about the use of MIL-STD-188-110 and FS-1052 
FTP in PC-ALE being legal for U.S. Amateurs to send image files, this 
is NOT so as the FTP protocol is NOT part of FED-STD-1052 or is it 
any standard FTP and it has never been published by G4GUO, if it were 
to be published then it would be ok.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 10:31 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote:


>My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's
>not legal under your  "FCC Part 97" ?
>
>73 de LA5VNA Steinar



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread Steinar Aanesland

My American friends, do you never get tired of telling each other what's
not legal under your  "FCC Part 97" ?

73 de LA5VNA Steinar




AAR2EY/AAA9DHT wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut.
>
> The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under
FCC Part 97 for data.
>
> Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link
Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the
public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known what
is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for any use
until such time the DLP is published.
>
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH



Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread AAR2EY/AAA9DHT


Hi Tony,

I posted a comment on this the other day but I did not see it debut.

The use of MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone data modem is not legal under 
FCC Part 97 for data.


Also, the RFSM2400 tool makes use of a non-disclosed Data Link 
Protocol (DLP), be it proprietary or something that is known to the 
public in other forms, such as X.25 not withstanding, its not known 
what is being used, thus it is illegal under FCC Part 97 rules for 
any use until such time the DLP is published.


/s/ Steve, N2CKH


At 12:12 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote:


All:

The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a
new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try
and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be
useful to have a list of guidelines to help
determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not.

It should be to the point and concise; something
like...

1. The mode must have an open and published
protocol.
2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in
the digital subbands.

etc...

Tony -- KT2Q




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-17 Thread KT2Q
Hi Les!

Been a long time since we worked MT63 on 20m! The 
KT2Q is a vanity, old call was AB2CJ...

Good to hear from you...

Tony

PS: Would like to eliminate the 300 baud rule, but 
I don't have that kind of pull with the FCC : ).


- Original Message - 
From: "Les Keppie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" 
guidelines


> KT2Q wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up 
>> everytime a
>> new mode is introduced. Life is too short to 
>> try
>> and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would 
>> be
>> useful to have a list of guidelines to help
>> determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or 
>> not.
>>
>> It should be to the point and concise; 
>> something
>> like...
>>
>> 1. The mode must have an open and published
>> protocol.
>> 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used 
>> in
>> the digital subbands.
>>
>> etc...
>>
>> Tony -- KT2Q
>>
>>
>>
>>
> WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH 
> WHAT
> YOU HAVE LEFT
> Les VK2DSG
> 




Re: [digitalradio] "legal Mode" guidelines

2007-03-16 Thread Les Keppie
KT2Q wrote:
> All:
> 
> The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a 
> new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try 
> and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be 
> useful to have a list of guidelines to help 
> determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not.
> 
> It should be to the point and concise; something 
> like...
> 
> 1. The mode must have an open and published 
> protocol.
> 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in 
> the digital subbands.
> 
> etc...
> 
> Tony -- KT2Q
> 
> 
> 
> 
WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT
YOU HAVE LEFT
Les VK2DSG