Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I guess for the same reason that us ham's have been passing traffic going back to the very start of it. RTTY - CW - SSB - PACKET - AMTOR and PACTOR. I don't see a thing wrong with a ham that happens to be at sea (without internet or cell service) sending a message to ever how likes. Before one would pass the message from ham station to station till it got close to where is was going. They a ham could pick up the phone and call the party that is was going to. Now from sea to the first land station to email I relayed direct to you because as moderator of the list I'm about to shut down this thread. We went over the very same thing for going on 5 weeks last year. John, W0JAB Why in the world would hams want non-hams to use amateur frequencices for email? Why in the world would some hams desire to give up THEIR frequenices to email? Just a thought, Buddy WB4M 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] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Well seems that I hosed that message up. Sorry list members. John
Re: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
And I think that Rick, KN6KB, was being modest about the 80% detection. I did not find that the software would ever transmit on what I, as a human, would have considered a busy frequency. However, there were times that it did not want to transmit because of what it perceived as a busy frequency, but I would have. The one thing that may have to be improved is the ability for the software to ignore a continuous carrier caused by a local internal or external birdie as it is extremely sensitive to the slightest carrier, even ones you can barely see on the screen. Even fleeting carriers. It seems to me that if you can detect SSB, then you can pretty much detect most modulation. The software had the ability to be adjusted by the operator for the level of detected signal by x dB using an on screen slider. I hope others will suggest to Paul Rinaldo, when they submit their recommendations for an HF digital mode, (or maybe an addendum?), that this software is already invented and ideally should be used, rather than having to reinvent it. Rick seems like a very reasonable person to me and not quite as much into the politics of the Winlink 2000 systems as the main owner/administrator. And remember that that ARRL may be able to provide some input into this considering that they so strongly supported Winlink 2000 with a stacked committee that insured a particular outcome in the decision making to support this kind of activity. Based upon the overall attitudes one gets from the Winlink 2000 administrator and his supporters, I would expect that the last thing they would want is to have a competitive system, that builds upon other systems, such as PSKmail, and incorporates some of the SCAMP software components, run at a moderate to high speed, and do it on the MS OS (Microsoft Operating System) platform. And yet, that has to be what will eventually evolve if we are able to set up truly robust and decentralized systems wherever we want them and need them and not be under the control of a central group. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor, and SSB at an ~80% confidence level without enormous difficulty. SCAMP beta testers were amazed by the effectiveness of this first iteration. Pushing the confidence level from 80% to 100%, however, would take years -- if its even possible. But a busy detector that works 80% of the time would cut QRM from unattended automated stations (like WinLink PMBOs) by a factor of 5! Your comment that many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL is frankly moot; Rick demonstrated two years ago that useful busy frequency detection was implementable on a PC and soundcard. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
It sounds to me that a confidence level like that simply means it knows what signal mode it is hearing. Personally, it would appear to me that the question is :Is there another signal of ANY kind on the frequency? If there is, it should NOT attempt to use the frequency, unless it is the SAME mode it itself is using, and then, only if it recognizes it is being called - or the other end is CQing, should it then attempt a contact. It would be nice to be able to tell what mode is operating on a frequency, and have our own software switch to that mode. If I remember correctly, LanLink had similar capability back in the 80s, and was available for some TNCs, including the MFJ 1278b. But, this is not the primary reason, as I now see it, for the auto digital modes to need to insure that other signals are not on a frequency, before transmitting. ANY activity on a frequency should prohibit the auto modes from transmitting unless they recognize it is a signal for them, and that would apparently be an easier programming step, than having them recognize all the other modes. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:02 AM Subject: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info) As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor, and SSB at an ~80% confidence level without enormous difficulty. SCAMP beta testers were amazed by the effectiveness of this first iteration. Pushing the confidence level from 80% to 100%, however, would take years -- if its even possible. But a busy detector that works 80% of the time would cut QRM from unattended automated stations (like WinLink PMBOs) by a factor of 5! Your comment that many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL is frankly moot; Rick demonstrated two years ago that useful busy frequency detection was implementable on a PC and soundcard. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, we need a codesmith that does away with those inaccurate assertions. The bona fide attempts of Rick with SCAMP has opened a can of worms... I don't even think he foresaw this, as many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL. It is no kids play. Let's wait for the magic code. Jose, CO2JA Dave Bernstein wrote: AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador amador@ wrote: Seems I did not make my point. A large portion of Winlinks popping out of nowhere is because some H I D D E N (in the skip zone) user has triggered it. That's exactly right, Jose. But if WinLink properly included a busy frequency detector, then it would refrain from responding to that H I D D E N user -- as would a human operator under the same circumstances. But since WinLink doesn't include a busy frequecy detector, and since WinLink doesn't respond to an operator sending QRL, please QSY, it blasts away, QRMing the pre-existing QSO. Andy, wasn't there another list to discuss this I hate Winlink stuff? There is indeed another list for discussing policy. Addressing inaccurate technical assertions seems in-scope for this list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/716 - Release Date: 3/9/2007 6:53 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
- Original Message - From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info After looking at the winlink position report page there must be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not want them to be able to send a message back to home. Why in the world would hams want non-hams to use amateur frequencices for email? Why in the world would some hams desire to give up THEIR frequenices to email? Just a thought, Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I entirely agree with you Joe. As far as I know we don't have automatic sub bands here but we still get stomped on by Pactor 3 popping up on top of QSOs. The emergency traffic tale is just used to justify the use of these infernal automatic stations. Alan G3VLQ - Original Message - From: Joe Ivey To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: Jose A. Amador To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rich Mulvey wrote: Kurt wrote: I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are working. If others are not hidden to him by distance or propagation. Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Big IF Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. This has been said here more than enough times. Winlink response is triggered by a user who calls the station and most likely does not hear the others. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. The automatic station is triggered to answer. Or should it remain silent, as if it were deaf to the calls because others are hidden to the station calling the Winlink station ? I wonder why someone would choose the frequency of such an automatic station to park on... ignorance (of published lists, I mean) would be the most likely excuse. Both attitudes should be questionable. Because ignorance does not excuse you of obeying laws, even those you don't know. Tell that to the policemanif he is a nice guy, he will let you go...he, he... didn't you know? C'mon... It has not the same weight, but it bears resemblance, at least to me. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, I would say simplistic logic, the victims logic. but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Triggered by someone hidden to those in QSOhow would he know? Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Even when you do that, there will be always some possible hidden station around you. How an arbitrary, even mistuned signal, could be positively identified from noise? What is a signal? What is noise? How would YOU program that? Or it should be some anti vox triggering the brakes even by the hint of a cat's meow ? Hey it's an old computer but still works great. Imagine if we were to be trashed as PC's are when we get two years oldughh !!! It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands are not going away. But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? Guess this is a really novel idea, a big discovery for quite a few. I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more entertaining to work *within
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
SCAMP was developed using the RDFT protocol, which in itself is GPLand comes from Linux. The author indicated several years ago that he would release SCAMP's protocol as GPL. He has not done this. Partly, I think because of time constraints and also because of keeping things proprietary and not willing to share. I have never seen such negative thinking in amateur radio is all the years I have been involved since first licensed in 1963. It used to be that hams were more than happy to share new ideas and others would build upon those ideas and for the most part, most hams enjoyed that progression. This seems much less common with computers and software, even when they are directly associated with ham radio. My hope is that as we see more GPL and open software, and the last few years have almost been explosive with this software, we will see this happen in amateur radio as well. 73, Rick, KV9U Rein Couperus wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I believe if you check the regulations, the automatic area on 80 meters is even narrower at 3585 to 3600. Because of the poor implementation of busy frequency detection, one can expect much more QRM from automatic stations. Eventually, I expect that the regulations will be written to prohibit operation of any HF operation without human or machine automatic detection. The problem is that the narrower, 500 Hz, semi-automatic modes may operate anywhere in the text data part of the bands. On 80 meters, that would be from 3500 to 3600 here in the U.S. However, good amateur practice and the bandplans would not agree with that wide a use of the bands and a ham doing that could be cited for improper operation. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: In USA the FCC set the new auto subband at 3580-3600kHz. No one should be surprised that hams are using this subband for auto operation exactly as FCC intended it to be used. No one is forcing anyone else to operate non-auto in the auto subband. Space is available for non-auto data/texting 3500-3580kHz without the limitation. Many of us were not happy when the FCC shrunk the size of the data/texting sub-band, but we must live with it now. There is really no question that auto stations exist and will continue to exist. Live with it, and get used to it. Auto operation at various degrees will undoubtedly be a part of normal operation on the ham bands, there is no turning back the clock to the horse and buggy. We as hams should continue, and will continue, to use any and all types of communication systems we can dream of. That's what we do. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP source code through their obligations of GPL. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am, Rein Couperus wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Bonnie KQ6XA With that attitude Bonnie you have now revealed your real coordination. We WINLINK will Take what ever we want and the rest can just STFU ... That about sum it up ? Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Define needless? Whys is it needless? Were the messages being relayed across the country by amateur radio stations in 1920 needless? There was ATT and several other smaller telegraph systems that did the same thing. The idea today is to have a high level of confidence in our ability to send and receive messages via an RF link in case there is a need by the nation of in the world. By exercising our systems on a regular basis, we can learn to depend on the systems and identify their shortfalls so that in a real world situation, the systems will function properly and without failure. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Ivey Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I don't think that sending messages and relaying messages by amateur radio was ever ment to restrict the content to amateur radio only subject matter. In fact, if you look at the ARL numbers, you will find that most of them are NOT related to amateur radio subject matter. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Ivey Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI
Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
wa8vbx wrote: Jose it might sound absurd, but then again man flying to the moon, satellite communications and cellphones, they all at one time were called absurded, but they are real now. Don't know in Cuba but here, almost everyone has a cellphone. After waiting and watching what is going on with the larger picture, I see a lot of obstination and fundamentalistic thinking in this thread. The fundamendalistic, blinds on, taliban quarreling going on about POLICY is certainly out of the scope of this list to me. A fundamental fact of propagation, the hidden station in the skip zone is being disregarded repeatedly. Period. Jose, CO2JA PS: I do own a cellphone and also watched LIVE the first steps of Neil Armstrong on the moon. --- Prof. Jose A. Amador, E.E., MSc. AMSAT-NA LM 1209 Linux User 91155 __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After waiting and watching what is going on with the larger picture, I see a lot of obstination and fundamentalistic thinking in this thread. The fundamendalistic, blinds on, taliban quarreling going on about POLICY is certainly out of the scope of this list to me. A fundamental fact of propagation, the hidden station in the skip zone is being disregarded repeatedly. Period. Jose, CO2JA PS: I do own a cellphone and also watched LIVE the first steps of Neil Armstrong on the moon. --- Prof. Jose A. Amador, E.E., MSc. You are spot on Jose, Unfortunatelly all this name calling and mode bashing (you know, the mode I support is better than yours etc) does not promote digital radio at all. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
, Unfortunatelly all this name calling and mode bashing (you know, the mode I support is better than yours etc) does not promote digital radio at all. 73 de Demetre SV1UY I am not bashing any mode, as I use most of them at one time or another, and trying my hand at ALE right now. But I do not go and use a freq without listening and asking if the freq is being used before I start transmitting. This is not so much as a mode bashing as it is to try to get it even across the board. I know here if you purposely start transmitting over a on going QSO, and keep on doing it, you will get a letter from the FCC stating that, it is a no-no, and they will take your license and some money also. Seems though Winlink is exempt from the law let alone common courtesy and practice. Kurt K8YZK
Re: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
Kurt wrote: Unfortunatelly all this name calling and mode bashing (you know, the mode I support is better than yours etc) does not promote digital radio at all. 73 de Demetre SV1UY I am not bashing any mode, as I use most of them at one time or another, and trying my hand at ALE right now. But I do not go and use a freq without listening and asking if the freq is being used before I start transmitting. This is not so much as a mode bashing as it is to try to get it even across the board. I know here if you purposely start transmitting over a on going QSO, and keep on doing it, you will get a letter from the FCC stating that, it is a no-no, and they will take your license and some money also. Seems though Winlink is exempt from the law let alone common courtesy and practice. Kurt K8YZK Seems I did not make my point. A large portion of Winlinks popping out of nowhere is because some H I D D E N (in the skip zone) user has triggered it. Haven't you ever been in a situation when calling a rare DX on a pileup and he never comes back to you, because the BIG GUNS in the skip zone run over you and you never notice ? Andy, wasn't there another list to discuss this I hate Winlink stuff? Jose, CO2JA __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
What a terrible waste of intellectual resources! Sigh Rein EA/PA0R/P -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 09.03.07 18:28:28 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info The only known implementation was on Windows, Rein, and it was closed source. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein Couperus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P 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 -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems I did not make my point. A large portion of Winlinks popping out of nowhere is because some H I D D E N (in the skip zone) user has triggered it. That's exactly right, Jose. But if WinLink properly included a busy frequency detector, then it would refrain from responding to that H I D D E N user -- as would a human operator under the same circumstances. But since WinLink doesn't include a busy frequecy detector, and since WinLink doesn't respond to an operator sending QRL, please QSY, it blasts away, QRMing the pre-existing QSO. Andy, wasn't there another list to discuss this I hate Winlink stuff? There is indeed another list for discussing policy. Addressing inaccurate technical assertions seems in-scope for this list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
If a programmer is experimenting with a work that is derived in part from a program that has been GPL'd, I wonder if it has to be released? In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a finalized and released code? 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP source code through their obligations of GPL. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am, Rein Couperus wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
It depends on how they use RDFT. What you are describing is LGPL but RDFT is GPL. Mere aggregation is one thing (shipping with a linux distribution for example) but if they link C code against a GPL library (not an LGPL license) then the case is fairly clear as far as I have been told by my lawyers. On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 2:37 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote: Its complicated, Rick. If RDFT is GPL'd, and changes were made to RDFT, then those changes would have to be released under GPL. However, if RDFT was not changed, but simply used in a larger application (e.g. SCAMP), then it depends on how it was used. At one time, static linking would supposedly send you down one path, while dynamic linking would send you down another. Short of talking to the FSF folks or getting to the point where a judge decides in court, the IP lawyers would say there are few certainies. As for timing, I believe that the requirement is independent of release; if you modify GPL'd code, you must release your modifications whether or not you ever release a product. Otherwise, one could elude GPL by simply keeping one's products in permanent beta. Personally, if there's any open source code in stuff I work on, then I make that stuff open source. At some point I'll be extending PSKCORE to deal with assymetric sound cards, for example; that work will all be open source. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a programmer is experimenting with a work that is derived in part from a program that has been GPL'd, I wonder if it has to be released? In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a finalized and released code? 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP source code through their obligations of GPL. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am, Rein Couperus wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P 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] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA So the FSF says no. As Dave points out, I don't know that this has been taken to court. However, in this case among, it would be unlikely to go to court. I was serious in suggesting that perhaps Bruce Perens (who is a ham and a Linux activist) would be interested. Leigh/WA5ZNU In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a finalized and released code? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
If I understand the URL correctly, the source code of SCAMP should have been released and could have been demanded under the legal copyright of the GPL. As it was, it was deliberately set up with timers to self destruct after a few weeks or months. So even though some of us had the .exe for a while, it was no longer operable. Some of us have been waiting for several years but there has been no further work on this mode that I know of on the newsgroup we are on. I can 't say enough good things about SCAMP because it solved most of the problems that we had with providing an ARQ mode and high speed, and busy frequency detection. The only drawback was that it could only operate with good signals and had no fall back position. If their programmer could have continued working on it, I am confident that a fallback mode would have been possible. Unfortunately, with such a closed system, they needed to work on the reconstruction of the inner workings of the Winlink 2000 system with the new CMS system and now the RMS's being developed and a sound card mode to replace Pactor 3 is just not a high priority item. And when you only have one person, even if they are a spectacular programmer, you only have so many hours in a day that they can give to the cause. With the ARRL proposal, I would expect that any successful mode would be used for Winlink 2000, but more importantly, for other digital modes, both keyboarding and higher speed file transfer and for development of new e-mail systems that are more adaptable, locatable, and much less fragile than the Winlink 2000 system. Tomorrow our county AR Club will be continuing its training on packet, digital, and specifically the Winlink 2000 system. Although Winlink 2000 can be useful for casual use for traveling radio amateurs, it is not well suited for emergency communications. Even though we are primarily interested in emergency communications, I like to thing that it is helpful to understand the design of the system. Many of our local hams are newer and some have told me that they are not clear about the difference between the Winlink, NTS/D, and Winlink 2000 systems and how they evolved. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA So the FSF says no. As Dave points out, I don't know that this has been taken to court. However, in this case among, it would be unlikely to go to court. I was serious in suggesting that perhaps Bruce Perens (who is a ham and a Linux activist) would be interested. Leigh/WA5ZNU In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a finalized and released code? 73, Rick, KV9U 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: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
Then, we need a codesmith that does away with those inaccurate assertions. The bona fide attempts of Rick with SCAMP has opened a can of worms... I don't even think he foresaw this, as many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL. It is no kids play. Let's wait for the magic code. Jose, CO2JA Dave Bernstein wrote: AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems I did not make my point. A large portion of Winlinks popping out of nowhere is because some H I D D E N (in the skip zone) user has triggered it. That's exactly right, Jose. But if WinLink properly included a busy frequency detector, then it would refrain from responding to that H I D D E N user -- as would a human operator under the same circumstances. But since WinLink doesn't include a busy frequecy detector, and since WinLink doesn't respond to an operator sending QRL, please QSY, it blasts away, QRMing the pre-existing QSO. Andy, wasn't there another list to discuss this I hate Winlink stuff? There is indeed another list for discussing policy. Addressing inaccurate technical assertions seems in-scope for this list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor, and SSB at an ~80% confidence level without enormous difficulty. SCAMP beta testers were amazed by the effectiveness of this first iteration. Pushing the confidence level from 80% to 100%, however, would take years -- if its even possible. But a busy detector that works 80% of the time would cut QRM from unattended automated stations (like WinLink PMBOs) by a factor of 5! Your comment that many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL is frankly moot; Rick demonstrated two years ago that useful busy frequency detection was implementable on a PC and soundcard. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, we need a codesmith that does away with those inaccurate assertions. The bona fide attempts of Rick with SCAMP has opened a can of worms... I don't even think he foresaw this, as many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL. It is no kids play. Let's wait for the magic code. Jose, CO2JA Dave Bernstein wrote: AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador amador@ wrote: Seems I did not make my point. A large portion of Winlinks popping out of nowhere is because some H I D D E N (in the skip zone) user has triggered it. That's exactly right, Jose. But if WinLink properly included a busy frequency detector, then it would refrain from responding to that H I D D E N user -- as would a human operator under the same circumstances. But since WinLink doesn't include a busy frequecy detector, and since WinLink doesn't respond to an operator sending QRL, please QSY, it blasts away, QRMing the pre-existing QSO. Andy, wasn't there another list to discuss this I hate Winlink stuff? There is indeed another list for discussing policy. Addressing inaccurate technical assertions seems in-scope for this list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I don't know that you have seen this link, so just in case you might be able to get an idea http://www.winlink.org/Presentations/SCAMPspec.pdf I KNOW that I could not develop anything based on it, but perhaps you or someone else on this reflector can. Chuck AA5J At 02:43 PM 3/9/2007, Rein Couperus wrote: What a terrible waste of intellectual resources! Sigh Rein EA/PA0R/P -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 09.03.07 18:28:28 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info The only known implementation was on Windows, Rein, and it was closed source. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein Couperus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P 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 -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
What coordination...? the ARRL just stuck a flag into a frequency and called it theirs ! 73 Bill KA8VIT From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA _ Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FREE. http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
There is no coordination of HF frequencies that are associated with the Part 97 rules. There are bandplans that the FCC recognizes as good amateur practice. While anyone can come up with a bandplan, it would necessarily have to be from a major organization or organizations to have any weight with either the FCC or the general amateur population. For example, in the U.S. the ARRL is the only general organization that represents radio amateurs at the national level. There are specialty groups that have agendas that may conflict with other groups or individuals and they may have bandplans, but they would not be something that most amateurs would abide by. This is partly due to the rather large numbers of groups and agendas and frequencies they would like as their frequencies. This would include NTS nets, county hunters, certain emergency callup groups, etc. The ARRL has a delegate that meets with the IARU to work on mutual issues and form cooperative agreements and the IARU (at least in Region 2), has as one of its main principles in its Constitution, to promote and coordinate radio communication amongst the amateurs of the various countries and territories in Region II. But it has no direct force of law. It could maybe, possibly, depending upon bureaucratic interpretation, have indirect force of law. But if the FCC ran into many challenges, they would likely want to disengage from enforcement of the many different competing interests for the same small area of spectrum. Most of us could not possibly remember more than a few frequencies or areas for specific types of operation. I have to refer frequently to the ARRL bandplans, as imperfect as they are, to try and operate appropriately. 73, Rick, KV9U Box SisteenHundred wrote: What coordination...? the ARRL just stuck a flag into a frequency and called it theirs ! 73 Bill KA8VIT From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
See below. I just nailed down a frequency, so don't mess with it !!! - Original Message - From: Kurt To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:50 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info 3580-3600kHz N.America Freq Coordination Info CENTERCHANNEL===COORDINATED ENTITY FREQ=MODEBANDWIDTH===LOCATION=NOTES 3581.5 CW (3581.4-3581.6kHz) ARRL MORSE USA (CT) 3583.5 P2 (3582.7-3584.3kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND 3587.0 RY (3586.8-3587.2kHz) ARRL NTS USA 3587.5 RY (3587.3-3587.7kHz) ARRL NTS USA 3587.5 141A(3587.3-3590.0kHz) VE5MU ALE Canada 3589.0 P3 (3588.0-3590.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (VA) 3589.0 P3 (3588.0-3590.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TX) 3590.0 P2 (3589.2-3590.8kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 S.AFRICA 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TN) 3590.0 P3 (3589.0-3591.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (FL) 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (TN) 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (HI) 3591.0 P3 (3590.0-3592.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) 3591.9 P3 (3590.9-3592.9kHz) WLINK2000 GERMANY 3592.0 P2 (3591.2-3592.8kHz) WLINK2000 USA (WA) 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (MA) 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (FL) 3593.0 P3 (3592.0-3594.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (MT) 3593.5 P3 (3592.5-3594.5kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (AK) 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USA (LA) 3595.0 P3 (3594.0-3596.0kHz) WLINK2000 USVI 3596.0 P3 (3595.0-3597.0kHz) WLINK2000 BELGIUM 3597.5 RY (3597.2-3597.7kHz) ARRL USA(CT)6pm9pmET 3597.6 AL (3596.5-3599.0kHz) ALE IARU R2 (24/7) = NOTES: DATE: FEB-2007 MODE ABBREVIATIONS: P2=PACTOR2 P3=PACTOR3 AL=AUTOMATIC LINK ESTABLISHMENT RY=RTTY OR OTHER FSK MODES CW=MORSE PRACTICE QST Having WLINK2000 shoved down our throats is enough, but to even work it the equipment is expensive. I don't mind that the freq's listed above are the main ones used or even that the ARRL uses theirs for code pratice, but and this is a BIG BUT, they should not be automatic stations, that someone, somewhere should listen before they transmit to see if there are other stations using the freq. There will be someone who says that they might not hear the stations in QSO's and, that is possible, then again they might, and from what I have seen/heard from being in QSO's when these stations come on, they have interfered with my contacts. Remember if you can hear them, you can work them saying. Well if I can hear the wlink, they can hear me. Seem now that everybody is trying to stake out their special freq's. NTS system think they own their special freq's, work all whatever nets have their, and the frequency police will let you know if you get on their's even if they are not being used. A lot of egos involved in this. Kurt K8YZK -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/713 - Release Date: 3/7/2007 9:24 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
3591.9 P3 (3590.9-3592.9kHz) WLINK2000 GERMANY 3593.5 P3 (3592.5-3594.5kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND 3596.0 P3 (3595.0-3597.0kHz) WLINK2000 BELGIUM This illustrates the problem. These 3 Pactor 3 stations are within 100 km of each other. And it means they render 6 kHz of spectrum useless for other users (they can not hear you, even when you hear them with 20dB over 9...). So where is the coordination here? Rein -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/0It09A/bOaOAA/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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Who would coordinate the use? What if the ARRL coordinated with other countries amateur radio organizations in Region II and had a region bandplan that said where each mode should operate? Would the next thing be channelization such as we have on 60M? Perhaps we should give coordination for 5 KHz for each mode of operation? At last count I found 23 different digital modes. That's 115 KHz and includes CW and RTTY. How official are the ALE and WinLink groups? Do they have a charter and official members? What constitutes an official amateur radio group to be recognized by the IARU? Part of the solution is to have software be able to identify the various modes as you tune across them. Perhaps using a method such as Fldigi does with many of the modes. Or perhaps have the software scan each signal to determine the mode. I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are working. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of w7psk Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Scott w7psk@ wrote: The only Coodination I see is WINLINK trying to grab all the available Frequencies Hi Scott, There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. If you are part of an organized entity that is seeking coordination in this part of the band, you can freely correspond with all of the other entities to help enable coordination. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA I see two groups taking the frequencies. ARRL and Winlink. Have you thought about all the PSK31 PSK63, Olivia and all the other Modes on there. I see winlink gave the ARRL 2 frequencies while your trying a Power grab for the rest. No I dont see Coordination or Cooperation, Ive seen no announcement for a conference. I see Winlink and ARRL Grabbing whats available without coordination at all and telling the rest of us to STFU. Well I for one will operate in the band area I can and if a winlink station autos on top of me the FCC will be notified. 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] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Kurt wrote: - I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are working. Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer but still works great. It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands are not going away. But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? - Rich
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The Winlink 2000 programmer developed the SCAMP mode over two years ago. This mode did not have the weak signal operation that was hoped for, but it did have busy frequency detection. Maybe you missed the discussion on this or are new to the forum? Busy frequency detection is a reality, it is already invented and I believe that it should be MANDATORY for all automatic stations, whether semi or fully automatic. It was interesting that before Rick, KN6KB, invented this detection software, the common belief was that it could not be done. I included this in my extensive comments to Paul Rinaldo at ARRL who is gathering information on a possible new HF digital protocol. I hope you, and many others, did the same when comments were sent to Paul. In terms of ARRL NTS nets, they know, and any knowledgeable ham knows, that they do not have exclusive use of any frequency, however, they would very much appreciate it if you would allow their net to operate on their QRG, just like any other thousands of nets of all kinds. Most of us can move a little bit to help them out. Remember, that at least theoretically, these nets may be useful for traffic handling during emergencies. Without the daily practice, of these operators, the net may not perform as well when we really need it. Last year, I was able to route a Health Welfare message to Alaska, from a tornado victim in a nearby community. 73, Rick, KV9U Kurt wrote: Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer but still works great. 73 Kurt K8YZK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rich Mulvey wrote: Kurt wrote: I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are working. If others are not hidden to him by distance or propagation. Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Big IF Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. This has been said here more than enough times. Winlink response is triggered by a user who calls the station and most likely does not hear the others. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. The automatic station is triggered to answer. Or should it remain silent, as if it were deaf to the calls because others are hidden to the station calling the Winlink station ? I wonder why someone would choose the frequency of such an automatic station to park on... ignorance (of published lists, I mean) would be the most likely excuse. Both attitudes should be questionable. Because ignorance does not excuse you of obeying laws, even those you don't know. Tell that to the policemanif he is a nice guy, he will let you go...he, he... didn't you know? C'mon... It has not the same weight, but it bears resemblance, at least to me. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, I would say simplistic logic, the victims logic. but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Triggered by someone hidden to those in QSOhow would he know? Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Even when you do that, there will be always some possible hidden station around you. How an arbitrary, even mistuned signal, could be positively identified from noise? What is a signal? What is noise? How would YOU program that? Or it should be some anti vox triggering the brakes even by the hint of a cat's meow ? Hey it's an old computer but still works great. Imagine if we were to be trashed as PC's are when we get two years oldughh !!! It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands are not going away. But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? Guess this is a really novel idea, a big discovery for quite a few. I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? Looks to me as logical as sitting to read a newspaper in the middle of the empty expressway in Australia because there are no ants to bite meif by any chance a car should come my way, no problem, cars have brakes and should use'emI should not be run over Sort of reduction to the absurdbut how could we be sure absurd is always positively identified? Jose, CO2JA --- El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz. Benito Juarez __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Jose it might sound absurd, but then again man flying to the moon, satellite communications and cellphones, they all at one time were called absurded, but they are real now. Don't know in Cuba but here, almost everyone has a cellphone. Also just because a section of freq's are set aside for automatic operation doesn't mean that they can't be used, by stations other then automatic ones. Yes it might not be possible now, but then again if someone does not complain or try, we will never know if it is possible. 73 Kurt Recent Activity a.. 18New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS a.. Ham radio b.. Ham radio antenna c.. Ham radio store d.. Craft hobby e.. Hobby and craft supply Live in Style Want to be Martha? Tell us why and be a winner! Y! GeoCities Create a Blog And tell the world what you think. Biz Resources Y! Small Business Articles, tools, forms, and more. .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: Jose A. Amador To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rich Mulvey wrote: Kurt wrote: I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of the band that they are working. If others are not hidden to him by distance or propagation. Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Big IF Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. This has been said here more than enough times. Winlink response is triggered by a user who calls the station and most likely does not hear the others. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. The automatic station is triggered to answer. Or should it remain silent, as if it were deaf to the calls because others are hidden to the station calling the Winlink station ? I wonder why someone would choose the frequency of such an automatic station to park on... ignorance (of published lists, I mean) would be the most likely excuse. Both attitudes should be questionable. Because ignorance does not excuse you of obeying laws, even those you don't know. Tell that to the policemanif he is a nice guy, he will let you go...he, he... didn't you know? C'mon... It has not the same weight, but it bears resemblance, at least to me. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, I would say simplistic logic, the victims logic. but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Triggered by someone hidden to those in QSOhow would he know? Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Even when you do that, there will be always some possible hidden station around you. How an arbitrary, even mistuned signal, could be positively identified from noise? What is a signal? What is noise? How would YOU program that? Or it should be some anti vox triggering the brakes even by the hint of a cat's meow ? Hey it's an old computer but still works great. Imagine if we were to be trashed as PC's are when we get two years oldughh !!! It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands are not going away. But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? Guess this is a really novel idea, a big discovery for quite a few. I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? Looks to me as logical as sitting to read a newspaper in the middle of the empty expressway in Australia because there are no ants to bite meif by any chance a car should come my way, no problem, cars have brakes and should use'emI should not be run over Sort of reduction to the absurdbut how could we be sure absurd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow automatic portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in automatic areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a done deal here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow automatic portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in automatic areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a done deal here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I agree with Joe on this point. Amateur radio has always been self policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not even know whether the operator is even a ham. Regards, Chuck AA5J At 03:41 PM 3/8/2007, Joe Ivey wrote: I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not just so they can come up and troll the internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have spot collecting capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a QSL card I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time internet capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop by a public library to check their mail, or they can pull up in Walmarts parking lot and hit half a dozen open wireless systems around them. Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have commercial phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY connection to do what it was not designed for, or that inteferes with other peoples hobby use of the bands. I certainly would not want to depend of ham radio for my health and welfare aboard a boat, out in the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad satellite communicatiions for. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Joe Ivey To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow automatic portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in automatic areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a done deal here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
After looking at the winlink position report page there must be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not want them to be able to send a message back to home. We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride again. The horse has been beat to death many time already. Get you best shot in and put a lid on it. John, W0JAB so there !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
A list moderator graciously corrected me. Therefore, I retract the following erroneous statement: It appears that SCS modems can copy WL2k ARQ transmissions even though the listener is not an addressee.. I stand corrected. 73, Chuck AA5J At 04:49 PM 3/8/2007, Chuck Mayfield wrote: Amateur radio has always been self policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not even know whether the operator is even a ham.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Chuck ET all It's been over a year since I have tried to copy the winlink system with my SYS TNC (been fighting lung cancer) but as I recall I never did have a problem coping any of the it. I may be wrong on this and I hope not after sending Chuck a direct note that you can copy it if you are P3 equipped .. Hunting P3 traffic to make sure. John, W0JAB At 05:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: A list moderator graciously corrected me. Therefore, I retract the following erroneous statement: It appears that SCS modems can copy WL2k ARQ transmissions even though the listener is not an addressee.. I stand corrected. 73, Chuck AA5J so there !
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
That is interesting. I would have thought we were talking larger numbers. That much bandwidth for that few hams? Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info After looking at the winlink position report page there must be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not want them to be able to send a message back to home. We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride again. The horse has been beat to death many time already. Get you best shot in and put a lid on it. John, W0JAB so there ! Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe Ivey wrote: Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long range Citizen's Band or Marine Band is beyond me. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rich Mulvey wrote: But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands? I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey, if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right? - Rich The above is the best example of turning the facts on their head, 180 degrees around, that I have heard in some time. The fact is, the automated Pactor stations are the ones who have consistently refused to operate in their own subband, and have instead insisted on sharing all of the freqs generally used (first!) by the keyboard-to-keyboard modes. If the Pactor stations had been willing to stay up in the old Packet segment, no one would go up there and they would probably have it all to themselves. But no, they have always insisted on also working down around 7070 and 14070 for example, to our infinite harm. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
what about all the ARES/RACES guys that are using winlink2000 ? It like all the other modes have the right to be heard on the bands John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not just so they can come up and troll the internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have spot collecting capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a QSL card I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time internet capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop by a public library to check their mail, or they can pull up in Walmarts parking lot and hit half a dozen open wireless systems around them. Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have commercial phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY connection to do what it was not designed for, or that inteferes with other peoples hobby use of the bands. I certainly would not want to depend of ham radio for my health and welfare aboard a boat, out in the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad satellite communicatiions for. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Joe Ivey To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Rick, I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow automatic portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in automatic areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a done deal here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I dont understand why all the different winlink freqs. Are all these going to be on at the same time? Looks like state organizations so wonder why they cant share the same freqs? Particularlly when there is NO emergency. Frankly, the FCC really screwed up on this one, and I hope someone, other than automatic groups, complains enough so that we are given back some of our narrowmode only portions. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: w7psk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Scott w7psk@ wrote: The only Coodination I see is WINLINK trying to grab all the available Frequencies Hi Scott, There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. If you are part of an organized entity that is seeking coordination in this part of the band, you can freely correspond with all of the other entities to help enable coordination. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA I see two groups taking the frequencies. ARRL and Winlink. Have you thought about all the PSK31 PSK63, Olivia and all the other Modes on there. I see winlink gave the ARRL 2 frequencies while your trying a Power grab for the rest. No I dont see Coordination or Cooperation, Ive seen no announcement for a conference. I see Winlink and ARRL Grabbing whats available without coordination at all and telling the rest of us to STFU. Well I for one will operate in the band area I can and if a winlink station autos on top of me the FCC will be notified. Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/713 - Release Date: 3/7/2007 9:24 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
expeditionradio wrote: Hi Scott, There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. If you are part of an organized entity that is seeking coordination in this part of the band, you can freely correspond with all of the other entities to help enable coordination. It would appear to me that the above use of the term coordination is a misuse of what is a term of art. In the context of Part 97, coordination applies to coordination of repeater freqs, and compliance with such coordination is mandatory. ALE and Pactor freqs are not coordinated as that term is used in Part 97 to my understanding. de Roger W6VZV
