Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[KV9U]

If we are talking about Pactor III mode, (not sure about P2),  it may be 
very difficult to monitor. Not impossible, but would likely require some 
special software to decompress the B2F, etc. More than one P3 promoter 
has pointed this out to ARC I believe as a way to keep others from being 
able to read the data like we do from most other modes.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Dave Bernstein wrote:

> I said "a fraction", not "a few".
>
> I'm assuming that only a fraction of automatic station operators
> would flaunt the CW identification rule or fail to enforce the no
> commercial content rule; thus it would not be necessary to equip
> every OO with the ability to monitor every automatic protocol. To do
> otherwise would cut down on the pool of OOs (not everyone has the
> room or apetite for the equipment), and unnecessarily increase the
> cost.
>
>73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

Why not do the same for all rather then just a few?


At 08:52 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>The primary concern - that automatic stations will QRM ongoing QSOs -
>  could be monitored by anyone capable of copying CW, assuming
>compliance with the CW identification requirement.
>
>To deal with the hopefully small number of automatic stations who
>choose to ignore the CW identification and/or commercial content
>rules, some fraction of the OOs would need the ability to decode all
>commonly used automatic protocols. Total cost would be modest, and
>one would think that this would be a perfect use of ARRL funds, but
>should they initially decline, there would be alternatives.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

I am talking abour baseball   not radio
hi

- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF


De LØRD
  Yes !

Up to the day that there is a PSK-31 mail system and it bits
them in the butt

Of course the real problem is that there is those that just
HATE to wide modes and will say and do any thing to see it fail.



At 07:37 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>Lord!  Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again.  Id almost rather
>watch Cricket.  Jiminey that is.



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)


Yahoo! Groups Links








-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

De LØRD
  Yes !

Up to the day that there is a PSK-31 mail system and it bits
them in the butt

Of course the real problem is that there is those that just
HATE to wide modes and will say and do any thing to see it fail.



At 07:37 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>Lord!  Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again.  Id almost rather
>watch Cricket.  Jiminey that is.



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

Lord!  Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again.  Id almost rather
watch Cricket.  Jiminey that is.

- Original Message - 
From: "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF


> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Credible self-policing is the key; the ARRL's Official Observer
> > corps would be the obvious starting point. One or two examples -- 
> > highly publicized instances of violators losing their licenses -- 
> > would establish the appropriate degree of respect for the program.
> >
> > With regard to "No automatic station shall transmit on an already-
> > occupied frequency, or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the
> > beginning of each 5 minute interval of operation.", I suggest a
> > policy of "two strikes and your out".
> >
> > 73,
> >
> >Dave, AA6YQ
> Dave,
>
> That's the ticket, any OO's reading this board? Should we take up a
> collection for buying you and few of your fellow OO's some Pactor III
> modems? Sense most of the community suspects that Winlink is breaking
> the rules of non-commercial transmission of messages in forwarding
> email, nothing like OO's checking out the allegations, ahhh...fresh
> air and sunshine, the best disinfectant.
>
> On Two Strikes, what is this being negotiated by the Baseball Player's
> UnionLOL. Baseball season is just around the corner by the way for
> those from around the world that read the board.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

My taxes already are there to provide federal law enforcement, as well as
other essential services.  If there is not enough money, quit "loaning"
billions to "poor" countries, and then forgiving them for not paying it
back.  If there is a FCC rule, enforce it.


  It is no different than my pushing this states police forces into
enforcing the speed limits.  Hire a few more cops, give more tickets, and
the money comes in.  Many sheriffs offices in Virginia seem to heed the
call, hire more deputys, and the court fines roll in, supporting the
complete costs of the new cops, and their equipment.  Fine these jerks who
purposedly create problems, and put them in jail if they continue.

The FCC had the money, and the idiot CB organizations forced them to
discontinue collecting license fees.  They also had the necessary technical
infrastructure, and they chose to close all but one DFing station.And,
since we seem to have more hams than we do TV or commercial radio stations,
let them move some of the money those stations pay, to hire people to
enforce ALL radio station regulations.



- Original Message - 
From: "kd4e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF


> Who will enforce this using what source of funding?
>
> The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
> nor the necessary technical infrastructure.
>
> Were this to be implemented it would require a significant
> budgetary increase from Congress or a transfer of resources
> within the FCC.
>
> One probability would be greatly increased fees for Hams,
> either a digital mode user fee or a huge increase in Ham
> license fees.
>
> Failure to provide for a FCC commitment to aggresively enforce
> this proposal would cause massive conflicts on already busy
> and often conflicted bands.
>
> IMHO, YMMV ... doc
>
> >   I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We should
> >   replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:
> >
> >   "No automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied
> >   frequency, or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning of
> >   each 5 minute interval of operation."
> >
> >   Polite automatic stations can operate where they like. Control
> >   operators for rude automatic stations will lose their licenses. No
> >   sub-bands. No mercy.
> >
> >   73,
> >
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>
> -- 
> ~~
> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>
> |_|___|_|
> | | & | |
>{|
>/\  {|
>   /  \ {|
>  /\{|
> /   @  \   {|
> |   |~_||
> |   -| ||
> \ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
>   KD4E =
> West Central Florida
>
> ~~~
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[kd4e]

Who will enforce this using what source of funding?

The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
nor the necessary technical infrastructure.

Were this to be implemented it would require a significant
budgetary increase from Congress or a transfer of resources
within the FCC.

One probability would be greatly increased fees for Hams,
either a digital mode user fee or a huge increase in Ham
license fees.

Failure to provide for a FCC commitment to aggresively enforce
this proposal would cause massive conflicts on already busy
and often conflicted bands.

IMHO, YMMV ... doc

>   I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We should 
>   replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:
> 
>   "No automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied  
>   frequency, or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning of 
>   each 5 minute interval of operation."
> 
>   Polite automatic stations can operate where they like. Control 
>   operators for rude automatic stations will lose their licenses. No 
>   sub-bands. No mercy.
> 
>   73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ



-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Dave:
 
This is scary... we actually agree... 
 
I even like your wording.. which makes a Heck of a 
lot of sense...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:56 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We 
  should replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:"No 
  automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied  frequency, 
  or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning of each 5 minute 
  interval of operation."Polite automatic stations can operate where 
  they like. Control operators for rude automatic stations will lose their 
  licenses. No sub-bands. No mercy.    
  73,    Dave, 
  AA6YQ--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> why would we re-do regulations 
  which have been in effect for 50 years, or longer,  allowing SSB down 
  to 14100 and 7050 in Canada?> > Lately those regulations are no 
  longer in effect but I have yet to see anyone operating below those 
  freq's, so far respecting the > "gentleman's agreement" which is how 
  our band plan is now run.> > I can't , for the life of me, 
  understand why you guys keep getting mired in the desire for more 
  regulations, completely out of step with the rest of the globe. > 
  > > John> VE5MU>   - Original 
  Message - >   From: jgorman01 >   To: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   Sent: Monday, February 06, 
  2006 7:37 PM>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF> > >   
  As long as countries like Canada would redo their regulations 
  and>   prevent stations from simply moving lower since it is 
  legal to so.> >   Jim>   
  WA0LYK> >   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Danny Douglas"  wrote:>   
  >>   > The exact reson we need INTERNATIONAL 
  subbands.>   > >   > - Original 
  Message - >   > From: "jgorman01" 
  >   > To: 
  >   > Sent: Monday, 
  February 06, 2006 3:09 PM>   > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 
  ARRL proposal removes baud rate>   limitations 
  on>   > HF>   > >   
  > >   > > The real problem right now is not 
  expanding our SSB segments, but>   > > rather that 
  expansion forcing other countries SSB even lower.>   > 
  > Canadian, Mexican, and Central American SSB stations are already 
  far,>   > > far down in the lower parts of 80m and 
  40m.  So far in fact that>   > > sometimes it 
  is hard to have CW or PSK qso's.  How many more will 
  show>   > > up if our SSB segments expand.  
  Sometimes we forget we are not the>   > > only hams 
  in the world.>   > >>   > > 
  Regardless of what is officially said, hams in other countries 
  are>   > > allowed to operate this low for only one 
  reason, to avoid qrm from US>   > > SSB 
  stations.  They will continue to do, making it harder and 
  harder>   > > for both CW and the narrow digital 
  modes.>   > >>   > > 
  Jim>   > > WA0LYK>   > 
  >>   > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny 
  Douglas"  wrote:>   > > 
  >>   > > >>   > > > 
  - Original Message - >   > > > From: "KV9U" 
  >   > > > To: 
  >   > > > Sent: 
  Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM>   > > > Subject: 
  Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate>   
  > > limitations>   > > > on 
  HF>   > > >>   > > 
  >>   > > > > Danny,>   > 
  > > >>   > > > > Even if the CW subbands 
  shrink, it does not mean that there will>   > > be 
  any>   > > > > shortage of spectrum for CW. From 
  what I have read of the>   > > proposals, 
  any>   > > > > narrow mode can always be used in 
  a wider mode subband. Just>   like 
  you>   > > > > can today. No one loses anything. 
  In fact, it is the exact>   opposite>   
  > > > > because other hams will gain the privelege to use more 
  modes>   over a>   > > > > 
  wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are the>   
  overwelmingly>   > > > > most popular modes and 
  use the 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Jose Amador]

Maybe most countries, but certainly not all...

Jose, CO2JA

--- Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Since most, if not all Central and South American
> countries have no
> subbands, they go where they want, when they want. 
> Our SSB moving down any
> bit at all, with simply cause them to come down
> below, and into the
> CW/digital bands, to talk to each other and/or make
> DX contacts away from
> our QRM/I lived there, and I know.  It was an
> exasperating experience
> trying to work 40 CW with some idiot YL  sitting on
> 7.025 talking to her
> buddies across town.
> 
> Thats when I started preaching INTERNATIONAL
> sub-bands, but those folks will
> never let it happen.
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:54 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes
> baud rate limitations on
> HF
> 
> 
> > Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South
> Americans signals
> > down around 3590 and 7040.
> >
> > Besides that wasn't the point I attempted to make.
>  My point was that
> > if the US allows SSB down to the bottom of the
> Region 2 subband.  Then
> > all Region 2 countries need to operate with these
> same limitations,
> > not just have their SSB move further down in order
> to be below the US.
> >
> > Jim
> > WA0LYK
> >> >   > > SSB stations.  They will continue to do,
> making it harder and
> > harder
> > > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 -
> Release Date: 2/4/2006
> >
> >
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

Since most, if not all Central and South American countries have no
subbands, they go where they want, when they want.  Our SSB moving down any
bit at all, with simply cause them to come down below, and into the
CW/digital bands, to talk to each other and/or make DX contacts away from
our QRM/I lived there, and I know.  It was an exasperating experience
trying to work 40 CW with some idiot YL  sitting on 7.025 talking to her
buddies across town.

Thats when I started preaching INTERNATIONAL sub-bands, but those folks will
never let it happen.


- Original Message - 
From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF


> Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South Americans signals
> down around 3590 and 7040.
>
> Besides that wasn't the point I attempted to make.  My point was that
> if the US allows SSB down to the bottom of the Region 2 subband.  Then
> all Region 2 countries need to operate with these same limitations,
> not just have their SSB move further down in order to be below the US.
>
> Jim
> WA0LYK
>> >   > > SSB stations.  They will continue to do, making it harder and
> harder
> > -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

Yes I see this.
I could be done very easy with out bringing the
link down.


At 09:41 PM 2/6/06, you wrote:
>To facilitate self-policing.
>
>The software controlling an automatic station would have no
>difficulty "remembering" to do this, and the impact on throughput
>would be neglible.
>
>   73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

Why ID every 5 minute ?


At 08:56 PM 2/6/06, you wrote:
>I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We should
>replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:
>
>"No automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied
>frequency, or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning of
>each 5 minute interval of operation."
>
>Polite automatic stations can operate where they like. Control
>operators for rude automatic stations will lose their licenses. No
>sub-bands. No mercy.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Bradley]

why would we re-do regulations which have been in 
effect for 50 years, or longer,  allowing SSB down to 14100 and 7050 in 
Canada?
 
Lately those regulations are no longer in effect 
but I have yet to see anyone operating below those freq's, so far respecting the 

"gentleman's agreement" which is how our band 
plan is now run.
 
I can't , for the life of me, understand why you 
guys keep getting mired in the desire for more regulations, completely out of 
step with the rest of the globe. 
 
 
John
VE5MU

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jgorman01 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:37 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  As long as countries like Canada would redo their 
  regulations andprevent stations from simply moving lower since it is legal 
  to so.JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> The exact reson we 
  need INTERNATIONAL subbands.> > - Original Message - 
  > From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: 
  > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 
  3:09 PM> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud 
  ratelimitations on> HF> > > > The real 
  problem right now is not expanding our SSB segments, but> > rather 
  that expansion forcing other countries SSB even lower.> > Canadian, 
  Mexican, and Central American SSB stations are already far,> > far 
  down in the lower parts of 80m and 40m.  So far in fact that> > 
  sometimes it is hard to have CW or PSK qso's.  How many more will 
  show> > up if our SSB segments expand.  Sometimes we forget we 
  are not the> > only hams in the world.> >> > 
  Regardless of what is officially said, hams in other countries are> 
  > allowed to operate this low for only one reason, to avoid qrm from 
  US> > SSB stations.  They will continue to do, making it harder 
  and harder> > for both CW and the narrow digital modes.> 
  >> > Jim> > WA0LYK> >> > --- In 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas"  wrote:> 
  > >> > >> > > - Original Message - 
  > > > From: "KV9U" > > > To: 
  > > > Sent: Monday, February 
  06, 2006 10:08 AM> > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate> > limitations> > > on 
  HF> > >> > >> > > > Danny,> 
  > > >> > > > Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does 
  not mean that there will> > be any> > > > shortage 
  of spectrum for CW. From what I have read of the> > proposals, 
  any> > > > narrow mode can always be used in a wider mode 
  subband. Justlike you> > > > can today. No one loses 
  anything. In fact, it is the exactopposite> > > > because 
  other hams will gain the privelege to use more modesover a> > 
  > > wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are 
  theoverwelmingly> > > > most popular modes and use the 
  most bandwidth for a givenamount of> > > > communication 
  intelligence.> > > >> >> >> 
  >> >> >> > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect 
  to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org> >> > Other areas 
  of interest:> >> > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/> 
  > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policy> discussion)> >> >> > 
  Yahoo! Groups Links> >> >> >> 
  >> >> >> >> >> >> 
  > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message.> > 
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 
  267.15.2/251 - Release Date:2/4/2006> >> 
  >>
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 
  2/4/06





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Tim Gorman]

You need to also check out the ARRL product review on this unit.

While the published specs show it operating in a 2.5khz bandwidth, the ARRL 
measured bandwidth was actually almost 3.25khz for the unit itself. For some 
reason, which the ARRL did not go into, the noise from the unit above the 
last carrier from the unit is very high. It is only down 20db at 3khz and it 
is out to 3.25khz before it dissipates down to -26db. While the SSB filter in 
a typical transmitter will knock this down quite a bit, it must be considered 
when stating the actual bandwidth. I would expect, with a typical 2.8khz SSB 
filter (-6db) points, the transmitted bandwidth for the AOR unit will look 
much like that of a SSB transmission. 

Two main considerations usually apply when considering equipment purchases: 
1. Capability
2. Cost

When considering the signal to noise ratio disadvantage (almost 10db) the AOR 
DV has plus an actual transmitted bandwidth equivalent to SSB, it has little 
to offer over and above SSB alone. The operational characteristics must also 
be considered. The unit would problematic for use on traffic nets. for 
weak-signal work, or for DX pileups. 

The unit costs as much or more as an entry-level SSB transmitter, thereby 
doubling the costs to use the mode. While SSB may have been expensive for the 
initial experimenters, the cost dropped dramatically in just a few years, 
primarily because the manufacturers found SSB equipment cost less to make 
than AM equipment. More capability and less cost - it was an advantage AM 
couldn't beat.

It will be hard for DV to reach the goal of more capability and less cost, 
primarily because you must have a SSB transceiver as well as the DV codec 
equipment. Even leaving out the analog audio chain wouldn't significantly 
lower manufacturing costs in a dedicated DV transceiver.

I know the DV cheerleaders won't like this reality but I know I'm not going to 
be purchasing a DV unit any time soon. That amount of money will buy me four 
more 2m handitalkies or almost 1/2 of a new 746pro. If the units drop to $75 
in a couple of years I might consider it then. 

DV *does* have an area in which it could beat SSB - high intelligibility 
point-to-point links between fixed sites. For some reason everyone seems to 
be ignoring this area, probably because the potential sales would be rather 
low to begin with. If the transmitted audio bandwidth were to be extended out 
to 4.5khz it would provide very nice links between EOC's and NGO's (e.g. 
Salvation Army Emergency Disaster headquarter sites or Corp sites) on HF. The 
high intelligibility audio coupled with low in-band noise would provide very 
high quality communications where fixed sites would allow engineering the 
links to the required signal to noise ratio. Admittedly, the bandwidth would 
go up, but since the links would only be used during disaster responses, the 
actual spectrum efficiency impacts would be minimal. The biggest question is 
who will finance doing this at your local SA, ARC, etc... site?


tim ab0wr


On Monday 06 February 2006 12:45, Danny Douglas wrote:
> OK John.  I had looked at the ads and read up on that before, and
> immediately forgot it.  The 500 bucks would go a long way toward
> a new, shiney, taller tower, which mama wont let me buy anyway.  Hi.
> Danny
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
> discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

The exact reson we need INTERNATIONAL subbands.

- Original Message - 
From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF


> The real problem right now is not expanding our SSB segments, but
> rather that expansion forcing other countries SSB even lower.
> Canadian, Mexican, and Central American SSB stations are already far,
> far down in the lower parts of 80m and 40m.  So far in fact that
> sometimes it is hard to have CW or PSK qso's.  How many more will show
> up if our SSB segments expand.  Sometimes we forget we are not the
> only hams in the world.
>
> Regardless of what is officially said, hams in other countries are
> allowed to operate this low for only one reason, to avoid qrm from US
> SSB stations.  They will continue to do, making it harder and harder
> for both CW and the narrow digital modes.
>
> Jim
> WA0LYK
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message ----- 
> > From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
> limitations
> > on HF
> >
> >
> > > Danny,
> > >
> > > Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there will
> be any
> > > shortage of spectrum for CW. From what I have read of the
> proposals, any
> > > narrow mode can always be used in a wider mode subband. Just like you
> > > can today. No one loses anything. In fact, it is the exact opposite
> > > because other hams will gain the privelege to use more modes over a
> > > wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are the overwelmingly
> > > most popular modes and use the most bandwidth for a given amount of
> > > communication intelligence.
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

OK John.  I had looked at the ads and read up on that before, and
immediately forgot it.  The 500 bucks would go a long way toward
a new, shiney, taller tower, which mama wont let me buy anyway.  Hi.
Danny




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

Danny,
I'm using this unit :
http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html
In fact I have one mounted in my Ford F150 pick up
http://www.rfelectronics.com/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm
There is software but I don't use it since I do have the modem.
I have had my modem for going on 4 years now
But if you want to play you have to pay. Just over $500 bucks.
The software is called HamDRM.
There is a 14 second WAV file in the lists file section.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/Digital%20Voice/
It's a recording of KØPFX here in Missouri (50 miles from my QTH)
recorded at the QTH of Paul, KQ6EH on May 1st 2004 on 18,162.5Mhz

Hope this helps


Any thing else?

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri
List moderator


At 10:32 PM 2/5/06, you wrote:
>John, what are you using to do this.  Can all of us do it, with simple
>equipment/software?  Thats where we need to go.  I dont want to spend (and
>cant) hundreds or thousands of dollars to speak with a few well heeled
>individuals, but am more than willing to jump in for a few bucks (or even
>less - since I have a computer and soundcards, rigs, antennas etc. already).
>Not trying to be negative here, but if that does exist, how about letting
>the rest of us in on it.
>Danny
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:04 PM
>Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
>on HF
>
>
> > At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
> > >Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
> >
> >
> > Peter,
> > Please get your facts right.
> > I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> > the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
> >
> > Even from to mobile.
> >
> > John, W0JAB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
> >
> > Other areas of interest:
> >
> > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
>discussion)
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
> >
> >
>
>
>
>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>Other areas of interest:
>
>The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
>DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

- Original Message - 
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF


> Danny,
>
> Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there will be any
> shortage of spectrum for CW. From what I have read of the proposals, any
> narrow mode can always be used in a wider mode subband. Just like you
> can today. No one loses anything. In fact, it is the exact opposite
> because other hams will gain the privelege to use more modes over a
> wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are the overwelmingly
> most popular modes and use the most bandwidth for a given amount of
> communication intelligence.
>
XXYes, we CW ops have always pretty much had the whole band in which
to operate, but that means little since the mixing
of CW and SSB just isnt good, causes inteference to both modes.  Giving more
bandwidth to SSB takes away the width of the present sub-band we now have
for cw and digital modes, meaning the digital will wind up lower down the
band, into what is now mostly cw ops.

> And I do agree with you that we may see an influx of new HF hams if we
> do away with the CW requirement for the General class. I am not sure if
> it will have as big an effect as some suggest. For example, my wife and
> daughter, who are both Technican class hams, have no interest at all in
> operating HF even if they were grandfathered in.

   I am not so worried about NEW HF hams as I am the SSB only tyupes
that will move down into what is now set aside
for CW and digital.  In fact we need more new HF people, we just need to
insure they are well trained, and I believe they should
show their capability in CW before being allowed to operate CW.  It is a
skill set, unlike other modes that are plug and play.
>
> It is people like myself and I am sure many others on this group who did
> "work their tails off" to get their code speed up to 20 wpm to pass the
> exams at the FCC examining station. Today you only need 5 wpm of CW for
> the HF licenses and yet this still does not seem to be causing a huge
> flood of new HF operators. I think that is significant.

 I have noticed a number of very poor CW ops working down in the DX
portion (which after all- is the lower 25 kc of the bands).  They have to
get experience somehow, but the rest of us got it up in the Novice or
General sections of the CW bands.  I think most of these are the same people
we would have eventually seen there with 13 or even 20 wpm tested speed.
>
> If you read a recent ARRL editorial you know that even ARRL realizes
> that they should have kept some kind of entry level license (some kind
> of Novice) to get new entrants access to HF. It really is quite
> different to operate HF compared to the higher bands and if you don't
> get to do it, your experiences as a ham are not the same as those of us
> who operate on both.

 Right, I just wonder why it took them so long to realize that,
especially after so many of us commented against dropping the
Novice license to start with.  Its like they dont look at their own history,
and ignored the reason the Novice ticket was first offered.
I started several hundred new young hams off, over the years, with the
Novice ticket, and stopped teaching when they dropped the Novice tests.  At
the time they did that, several foreign adminstrations were adding a Novice
Like license.  It was odd to say the least.

>
> If you look at the current amateur band allocations, the only special CW
> allocations are for the Extra class hams at the bottom of some of the
> bands. The Advanced class hams have some extra area for voice modes.
> Because we are not going to be able to have many license classes (FCC
> won't support it), it is probably best to keep the allocations
> simplified with at most three classes of licenses. I suppose you can
> look at it as a loss of priveleges if other lower classes can use what
> was once considered exclusive portions of the band.

XXX   Both the General and the Advanced did have additional CW subbands for
their use, compared to Novice holders.  Personally
I dont think it should be up to the FCC to decide to support/or not.  It
should be the citizens who set the standards, and the FCC to uphold them.
They are servants to the law, not the masters.

And yes I do consider it a loss of privelege, when others are given what I
had to earn.  I earned a certifiied electonics technician
certificate by study and taking a test, just as I did my Extra license.
Both give me certain rights or priveleges, and to have the same
organizations that issued those, come back and say "well they are really not
worth much " and to give same to others with less qualifications, smacks of
politics.  The commerical organization h

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[KV9U]

Danny,

Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there will be any 
shortage of spectrum for CW. From what I have read of the proposals, any 
narrow mode can always be used in a wider mode subband. Just like you 
can today. No one loses anything. In fact, it is the exact opposite 
because other hams will gain the privelege to use more modes over a 
wider area. Particularly voice modes since they are the overwelmingly 
most popular modes and use the most bandwidth for a given amount of 
communication intelligence.

And I do agree with you that we may see an influx of new HF hams if we 
do away with the CW requirement for the General class. I am not sure if 
it will have as big an effect as some suggest. For example, my wife and 
daughter, who are both Technican class hams, have no interest at all in 
operating HF even if they were grandfathered in.

It is people like myself and I am sure many others on this group who did 
"work their tails off" to get their code speed up to 20 wpm to pass the 
exams at the FCC examining station. Today you only need 5 wpm of CW for 
the HF licenses and yet this still does not seem to be causing a huge 
flood of new HF operators. I think that is significant.

If you read a recent ARRL editorial you know that even ARRL realizes 
that they should have kept some kind of entry level license (some kind 
of Novice) to get new entrants access to HF. It really is quite 
different to operate HF compared to the higher bands and if you don't 
get to do it, your experiences as a ham are not the same as those of us 
who operate on both. 

If you look at the current amateur band allocations, the only special CW 
allocations are for the Extra class hams at the bottom of some of the 
bands. The Advanced class hams have some extra area for voice modes. 
Because we are not going to be able to have many license classes (FCC 
won't support it), it is probably best to keep the allocations 
simplified with at most three classes of licenses. I suppose you can 
look at it as a loss of priveleges if other lower classes can use what 
was once considered exclusive portions of the band.

Won't we still have some segregation by class though? Otherwise there 
would be no incentive to upgrade.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Danny Douglas wrote:

> ">>I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in
> effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive subbands (although they could be
> used for other narrow band modes such as PSK31 and maybe some others
> that have not been invented yet to fit in that size of bandwidth), a
> shrinking of the fully automatic subbands, and allowing wider modes to
> have a much larger subband area.
>
> This means that analog voice can be expected to expand downward as well
> but based upon the ARRL statements from the Executive Director,  I "
>
>
>
> This is exactly what I and many others have been saying since day one when
> this whole idea came up.  Many worked their tails off to earn the 
> subbands,
> and to be able to work in the CW bands, as part of the Incentive licensing
> procedure, and now they will take it awa by narrowing those bands.  .
>
> If  " most members are not going to be all that upset",  is correct;  the
> reason is the influx of non-code amateurs, at the expense of those  of us
> already in place before this change began.  An organization can easily
> change its own rules, by simply recruiting new members who have neve lived
> under the old rule, or have not had to earn privileges in order to obtain
> them.  It seems to be typical of the ARRLs thinking.  Novice was an
> outstanding idea, to get more involved in Amateur radio, then it fell 
> out of
> favor and its gone.  Incentive licensing was to be the savior of ham 
> radio,
> and used to encourage and award amateurs to learn more about electroncis,
> operating procedures, etc, and it worked, until it became "too hard" to
> learn a lousy 5 wpm code speed, and now that has been attacked and will
> dissappear.
>
> I have read a couple of articles that the digital operators are using the
> bands so well that they "dont need the entire sub-band they have"  so 
> these
> bands are too large and should be shrunk.  Lets give them to the Single
> Sideband operators - of ource there are more of them now.
>
> They kept saying that no one would loose anything.  Bu .  We will
> loose having the lower portion of the bands where only Extra or Advanced
> could operate,and that is not only CW but also in the SSB sub-bands.  Just
> at the time when the narrow digital modes are becoming more and more 
> popular
> and have resulted in many hams coming back on the air, they now will 
> decide
> to remove large portions of the bands to those operations, and intend to
> allow the mixing of incompatable modes in most of the band width.
>
> On top of all this , we have Winlink and other forces coming out and 
> wanting
> more and more and more.  Gentlemen, and Gentlefem, there just aint 
> that much
> ba

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[KV9U]

John,

Many of us are familiar with the AOR product since it has been around 
for some time now and is about the only one of its kind for HF. The pros 
and cons of this technology have been mentioned many times.

While it may have good voice quality and almost no background noise, the 
trade off is that it only works with very good signals. If the signals 
dip too far, you completely lose the signal making it useless for many 
HF applications where you have to expect QSB and QRN and QRM for many 
contacts. For casual HF nets I can see where it can be pleasant to use 
as long as the signals remain high enough.

At this time, there does not seem to be a compelling reason for many 
hams to move toward this technology. It is possible that someday it 
might be added to new model transceivers if the costs are low enough and 
the manufacturers are willing to take the risk of marketing such a 
product. If I understand it correctly the AOR product uses an open standard.

SSB, on the other hand, had dramatic improvements in the ability to 
communicate over much longer distances, with a given antenna and power 
level, so it did not take much convincing of hams to move toward that 
technology as they could afford it.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Becker wrote:

> At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
> >Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
>
>
> Peter,
> Please get your facts right.
> I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
>
> Even from to mobile.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

Yep, thats what I mean.  Ill wait.  I 
waited a bit for SSB, and a bit for FM too.  Digital by sound card became 
available and I jumped right in, because the sound card was already in the 
computer, and the original interface was cheap to build.  I had already had 
my fill of RTTY, at work so never tried it on the ham bands until the software 
came out.  
 
By the way, I dreamed of Colins, mostly because I 
got to use them at work, but finally could afford them, after everyone else came 
out with cheaper rigs, with no tubes.  
 
That was my message entriely,  get on the 
stick someone and have the computer do all the work.  
Danny
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dr. Howard S. White 
  
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:59 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
  
  Danny:
   
  When SSB first came out.. it was incredibly 
  expensive for us Average Hams...who could not afford let alone dream of a 
  Collins... 
   
  But with increased usage.. other manufacturers 
  came into the market with different less expensive designs ... and the rest of 
  us could afford to jump on the bandwagon...
   
  FM was equivalently too expensive ... so we used 
  Surplus commercial police and taxi radios... manufacturers took note... and 
  came out with inexpensive ham radio gear...
   
  Digital had a similar history.. early expensive 
  modems... and little usage.. then the miracle of the computer sound card and 
  it became affordable to every ham
   
  So do not discount DV at this early stage in its 
  development .. because of the price...
   
  Some ham will figure out an inexpensive 
  solution.. probably based on Sound Cards...
   
   
  __Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
  Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
  911"
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Danny Douglas 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:43 
    PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
    proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Those answer my questions.  It is NOT cheap,  
not readily available for meto use in my computer with already owned 
equipments.  Let me know when itis.Danny- 
Original Message - From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>Sent: 
Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:30 PMSubject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
proposal removes baud rate limitationson HF> At 11:13 PM 
2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:> > >> > >At 
09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:> > >> > 
>>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 
3KHz.> > >> > >Peter,> > >Please get 
your facts right.> > >I and others have been using digital 
voice on the HF bands for> > >the last 3 or 4 years in less the 
2.5Kc.> > >> > >Even from to mobile.> > 
>> >> >Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  
Obviously I need educating.> >Please say more. A pointer to a 
paper, something...> >> >de K1PGV>> <http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/digital_voice/0056x003.pdf>> 
<http://www.aorusa.com/ard9000.html>> 
<http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html>>>> 
Michael Keane K1MK> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>> 
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  
Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org>> Other areas of 
interest:>> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/> 
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
(band plan policydiscussion)>>> Yahoo! Groups 
Links>>>>>>>>>> 
-- > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - 
Release Date: 2/4/2006>>



No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 
2/4/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Danny:
 
When SSB first came out.. it was incredibly 
expensive for us Average Hams...who could not afford let alone dream of a 
Collins... 
 
But with increased usage.. other manufacturers came 
into the market with different less expensive designs ... and the rest of us 
could afford to jump on the bandwagon...
 
FM was equivalently too expensive ... so we used 
Surplus commercial police and taxi radios... manufacturers took note... and came 
out with inexpensive ham radio gear...
 
Digital had a similar history.. early expensive 
modems... and little usage.. then the miracle of the computer sound card and it 
became affordable to every ham
 
So do not discount DV at this early stage in its 
development .. because of the price...
 
Some ham will figure out an inexpensive solution.. 
probably based on Sound Cards...
 
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Danny Douglas 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:43 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
  Those answer my questions.  It is NOT cheap,  not 
  readily available for meto use in my computer with already owned 
  equipments.  Let me know when itis.Danny- 
  Original Message - From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>Sent: 
  Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:30 PMSubject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitationson HF> At 11:13 PM 
  2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:> > >> > >At 09:47 
  PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:> > >> > 
  >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 
  3KHz.> > >> > >Peter,> > >Please get 
  your facts right.> > >I and others have been using digital voice 
  on the HF bands for> > >the last 3 or 4 years in less the 
  2.5Kc.> > >> > >Even from to mobile.> > 
  >> >> >Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  
  Obviously I need educating.> >Please say more. A pointer to a paper, 
  something...> >> >de K1PGV>> <http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/digital_voice/0056x003.pdf>> 
  <http://www.aorusa.com/ard9000.html>> 
  <http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html>>>> 
  Michael Keane K1MK> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>> 
  Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  
  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org>> Other areas of 
  interest:>> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/> 
  DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policydiscussion)>>> Yahoo! Groups 
  Links>>>>>>>>>> 
  -- > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG 
  Free Edition.> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - 
  Release Date: 2/4/2006>>





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

Those answer my questions.  It is NOT cheap,  not readily available for me
to use in my computer with already owned equipments.  Let me know when it
is.
Danny


- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF


> At 11:13 PM 2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
> > >
> > >At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
> > >
> > >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
> > >
> > >Peter,
> > >Please get your facts right.
> > >I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> > >the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
> > >
> > >Even from to mobile.
> > >
> >
> >Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  Obviously I need educating.
> >Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...
> >
> >de K1PGV
>
> <http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/digital_voice/0056x003.pdf>
> <http://www.aorusa.com/ard9000.html>
> <http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html>
>
>
> Michael Keane K1MK
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

John, what are you using to do this.  Can all of us do it, with simple
equipment/software?  Thats where we need to go.  I dont want to spend (and
cant) hundreds or thousands of dollars to speak with a few well heeled
individuals, but am more than willing to jump in for a few bucks (or even
less - since I have a computer and soundcards, rigs, antennas etc. already).
Not trying to be negative here, but if that does exist, how about letting
the rest of us in on it.
Danny




- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF


> At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
> >Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
>
>
> Peter,
> Please get your facts right.
> I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
>
> Even from to mobile.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Michael Keane K1MK]

At 11:13 PM 2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
> >
> >At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
> >
> >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
> >
> >Peter,
> >Please get your facts right.
> >I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> >the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
> >
> >Even from to mobile.
> >
>
>Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  Obviously I need educating.
>Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...
>
>de K1PGV






Michael Keane K1MK
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Danny Douglas]

">>I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in
effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive subbands (although they could be
used for other narrow band modes such as PSK31 and maybe some others
that have not been invented yet to fit in that size of bandwidth), a
shrinking of the fully automatic subbands, and allowing wider modes to
have a much larger subband area.

This means that analog voice can be expected to expand downward as well
but based upon the ARRL statements from the Executive Director,  I "



This is exactly what I and many others have been saying since day one when
this whole idea came up.  Many worked their tails off to earn the subbands,
and to be able to work in the CW bands, as part of the Incentive licensing
procedure, and now they will take it awa by narrowing those bands.  .

If  " most members are not going to be all that upset",  is correct;  the
reason is the influx of non-code amateurs, at the expense of those  of us
already in place before this change began.  An organization can easily
change its own rules, by simply recruiting new members who have neve lived
under the old rule, or have not had to earn privileges in order to obtain
them.  It seems to be typical of the ARRLs thinking.  Novice was an
outstanding idea, to get more involved in Amateur radio, then it fell out of
favor and its gone.  Incentive licensing was to be the savior of ham radio,
and used to encourage and award amateurs to learn more about electroncis,
operating procedures, etc, and it worked, until it became "too hard" to
learn a lousy 5 wpm code speed, and now that has been attacked and will
dissappear.

I have read a couple of articles that the digital operators are using the
bands so well that they "dont need the entire sub-band they have"  so these
bands are too large and should be shrunk.  Lets give them to the Single
Sideband operators - of ource there are more of them now.

They kept saying that no one would loose anything.  Bu .  We will
loose having the lower portion of the bands where only Extra or Advanced
could operate,and that is not only CW but also in the SSB sub-bands.  Just
at the time when the narrow digital modes are becoming more and more popular
and have resulted in many hams coming back on the air, they now will decide
to remove large portions of the bands to those operations, and intend to
allow the mixing of incompatable modes in most of the band width.

On top of all this , we have Winlink and other forces coming out and wanting
more and more and more.  Gentlemen, and Gentlefem, there just aint that much
bandwidth in the HF bands.  If you give something to someone, you are taking
it away from someone else.  Hence Taxes.



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

At 10:13 PM 2/5/06, you wrote:

>Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  Obviously I need educating.
>Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...
>
>de K1PGV


try this page for the AOR digital modem at
that most on digital voice are using.

http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html

scroll to the bottom of the page.

Specification
Modulation method: OFDM
Band width: 300 Hz - 2500 Hz, 36 carriers
Symbol Rate: 20 mS (50 baud)
Guard interval: 4mS









Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Peter G. Viscarola]

>
>At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
>
>>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
>
>Peter,
>Please get your facts right.
>I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for 
>the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
>
>Even from to mobile.
>

Clever retort, but not very elucidating.  Obviously I need educating.
Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...

de K1PGV


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola  wrote:
>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.


Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.

Even from to mobile.

John, W0JAB







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Peter G. Viscarola]

KV9U Wrote:

>What I do see is the restricting of 
>bandwidths to ~3 or so KHz and that will make high speed digital 
>protocols much more difficult since you can not ignore the science 
>behind it.  
[...snip...]
>the new proposals do not address my 
>biggest concern of finally being able to intermix analog voice
>(and digital voice) with both data and image. Again that does
>not require huge changes either.
>

Two great points, both of which I happen to be very interested in.

Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Even the IMBE/AMBE compression format used on Project 25 Phase 2 systems
requires 6.25KHz. For amateur communication, we'd probably be willing to
accept less natural-sounding, more "communication quality", audio -- I
don't believe there's that been much work done in the area of "bad
sounding but highly intelligible" digital audio, but if we have to do
digital audio in 3KHz bandwidths I suspect that's where we're going to
have to look.

The issue of regulation of baud rate IS a pain, and it would be nice if
such restrictions were dropped.  Who cares how many phase shifts my
signal contains, so long as it stays within the prescribed bandwidth.

Also, as KV9U wrote, I think it's important to get the restriction
removed on the voice emission types. It's key to allow co-transmitted
voice and digital data, without requiring either (a) separate sidebands
for each or (b) the non-voice content to be "incidental" to the
transmission of the voice.  Though I suppose you could argue that ANY
low-speed digital data -- callsign, position, etc -- would be
"incidental" (and thus allowed even under current regs).

73,

de Peter K1PGV


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[KV9U]

I think I can answer some of your questions.

The ARRL definitely has taken the issue of having some kind of workable 
network for emergency to heart. At least the past president did. After 
doing a test to demonstrate how effective amateur radio networking is, 
we were unable to deliver messages in a reasonable time frame and could 
not handle messages with large amounts of data since NTS is primarily 
geared for 25 or so words per message. My understanding was that he was 
embarrassed over our inability to perform all that well.

The impression I have had (and someone correct me if they know 
otherwise) is that then, out of desperation, he appointed a committee of 
the two main Winlink 2000 owners along with mostly strong proponents of 
Winlink 2000 to come up with a solution. Needless to say, the solution 
was forced upon anyone on the committee who did not agree and one of the 
worlds top digital developers of amateur radio software of all time 
resigned from the committee under protest. And another major amateur 
radio software developer stayed on the committee and issued a minority 
report protesting what he felt was a railroad job.

This committee initially went so far as to recommend destruction of the 
existing digital ham networks that used HF communications. You should be 
happy with that as they wanted to stop the fully automatic "robot" 
stations and, in particular, to stop the NTS/D which has used the 
Winlink "classic" software which sends traffic primarily through amateur 
radio. They wanted to end all fully automatic operation and only allow 
semiautomatic operation.

Remember that the same people who own and control Winlink 2000 where the 
same people who at one time owned and controlled the Winlink "classic"  
system (and before that the Aplink system and the Netlink system). They 
later allowed it to be used by others (including MARS) and now deeply 
regret letting anyone else have this software and have been rather blunt 
about it.

The changing of the rules is primarily changing the bandwidths of 
signals, rather than their modes. I tend to favor that although from 
what I have read from ARRL HQ statements, they will still have bandplans 
and the bandplans may not allow for mixed modes, even though the FCC 
rules would allow for them. Most of us want to follow the bandplans as 
much as possible, at least I do, but find things hard to fathom at times.

I would have wanted a few areas on HF for wider BW subbands for high 
speed networking primarily intended for emergency use. Perhaps a few KHz 
for 6 or even wider subbands. Especially considering the grandfathering 
in of very wide band AM operation. But there is little support for this 
and so these modes will likely never be developed. The ~3 KHz BW area is 
very limiting for higher speed and/or more robust data modes even though 
there are some folks here who believe that the laws of science can be 
overcome and we can have not only a robust digital voice mode in 3 KHz, 
but can have multiple streams. Maybe hams can figure out something that 
science has not, but I really doubt it.

If the ARRL leadership chooses wrongly, there could be long term 
ramifications. This is the risk you take with a representative type of 
democratic organization. We elect the the board to set policy. Most of 
us provided a lot of recommendations to our Division Directors before 
they voted on this, so it was not done in a vacuum as some seem to suggest.

I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in 
effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive subbands (although they could be 
used for other narrow band modes such as PSK31 and maybe some others 
that have not been invented yet to fit in that size of bandwidth), a 
shrinking of the fully automatic subbands, and allowing wider modes to 
have a much larger subband area.

This means that analog voice can be expected to expand downward as well 
but based upon the ARRL statements from the Executive Director,  I 
expect that there will be bandplans that try to separate analog voice 
from digital voice or digital data. This is going to be almost 
impossible to enforce since for years the SSTV folks have had their 
image data smack in the voice area and then have been using digital 
image and from what I understand some experimental digital voice in the 
voice subbands. It would be very difficult to tell them to move down. In 
fact, you may note that it is not coincidence that the current SSTV 
frequencies were selected to fall in the Advanced Class portions of the 
bands.

No one wants to lose priveleges that they have had. This is the one 
lesson that we should have all learned from the Incentive Licensing 
disaster that was such an expensive lesson.

73,

Rick, KV9U




N6CRR wrote:

> Rick you make some good points in your post, and I think the ARRL
> should take them into consideration as they work on the question of
> Amateur support to disaster relief operations. I doubt they will howe

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

It's time to change the subject to reflect
what you are now talking about.

It has moved from the ARRL proposal to an anti
traffic.

Please remember that before email ham's
had been doing the same thing for years.

John, W0JAB




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[KV9U]

Steve,

It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W traffic, important 
informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can sometimes 
include systems such as Winlink 2000, but for the most part it will not, 
since they have two things that greatly changes the calculus compared to 
the past.

1) Most of the traffic actually will go on VHF/UHF digital via 
conventional packet and other new digital modes such as D-Star.

2) All the forwarding traffic is done via the internet, not through 
amateur radio like the older Winlink system.

Personally, I am of the group that wants both internet and amateur radio 
connections so that no matter what, our traffic can get through 
alternate paths in an emergency or similar disaster situation. That is 
the main current limitation of Winlink 2000. That is why some of us 
promote the other digital enhancements to Winlink 2000 that the ARRL 
Board of Directors has as its policy recommendation put in place last 
year about this time. In other words, to enhance whatever we have, so 
that it can become better that what we currently have.

In order to have such a system in place, it needs to be contantly 
exercised, preferably on a daily basis so that it will be there when you 
need it and the hams will know how to use it.

In our county, we have agreements between the local ARES/RACES group and 
local Emergency Management and we play a number of roles in assisting 
disasters, e.g., providing communications between incompatible systems, 
specific hospital links via amateur radio that will work even without 
normal telecommunications, etc. There is no digital component in the 
county but we do have some digital efforts at the Section level.

As far as needing any regulations changes, that is another issue. From 
what I have learned this week, it may be possible to have improved 
digital communication on HF with higher baud rates. That would be fairly 
trivial to change in the rules. What I do see is the restricting of 
bandwidths to ~3 or so KHz and that will make high speed digital 
protocols much more difficult since you can not ignore the science 
behind it.  I am very skeptical that digital voice can ever hope to 
compete with analog voice in a 3 KHz channel width and that probably has 
to be in order to use the spectrum that we have in the most efficient 
manner possible.

But I do expect non real time digital modes to improve, such as digital 
data, however the new proposals do not address my biggest concern of 
finally being able to intermix analog voice (and digital voice) with 
both data and image. Again that does not require huge changes either.

73,

Rick, KV9U

N6CRR wrote:

> . I just wonder how many of those guys ever work any other mode other
> than passing email. Most all emergency communications is going to be
> defined to a local area of the country anyway. (Emergency is defined a
> threat to life and property). I am not against the handling of
> important traffic, as a matter fact I am all for it.
>
> It's actually a bit more than that in some ways.
>
> Ask your local law enforcement folks if they have an integrated
> disaster plan that includes amateur radio operators. I think you will
> find that they do not have one that relies on Amateurs are either
> first or second responders. The reasons are varied, but mostly; how do
> you plan a disaster around people and resources that may or may not
> show up when the excrement hits the fan?
>
> The ARRL is talking about standing up a group to figure out how to
> define a roll in disaster operations for Amateurs, about time, but
> it's going to be a hard road. How Internet over HF frequencies fits
> into a bigger picture is an open question, but an important one. By
> the way, what's wrong with opening up 6 meters for this sort of HF to
> Internet thing where you can get 50 or 60 miles distance pretty easily
> which would fit the bill for getting out of the immediate disaster zone?
>
> In my view, the folks pushing the internet connection via Amateur
> frequencies are trying to come up with an answer to the role of
> Amateur radio in disasters question. Seems to me that they have the
> cart before the horse, or maybe this is a "build it and they will
> come" point of view. I don't question the intent of these folks by the
> way, it's a worthy goal IMHO, but the community is not behind them.
> Maybe the ARRL will actually do some good with it's study on this
> topic, then the dialog can be based on real requirements, real
> capabilities and have real support. RM-11306 and RM11305 rightly or
> wrongly is seen as a power grab by an elite few and hopefully will fail.
>
> 73
> Steve N6CRR
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.y

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[jivey]

N6CRR,
 
You sure did hit the nail on the head with this 
one. That is exactly what the one want that is pushing this stuff. The want to 
turn ham radio into an email forwarding service. I just wonder how many of those 
guys ever work any other mode other than passing email. Most all emergency 
communications is going to be defined to a local area of the country anyway. 
(Emergency is defined a threat to life and property). I am not against the 
handling of important traffic, as a matter fact I am all for it. What I am 
against is the automatic control stations. I believe every station operating on 
HF should have an operator present.
 
As I have said many time I don't think the ARRL 
know what is actually going on on the bands except what they want to know. They 
have no idea of what the average operator want nor do they care. PSK31 had been 
operating for well over a year before anything ever appeared in QST about 
it.
 
As for developing sound card software that will 
decode below the noise level, I don't think that will ever pan out because the 
software can only decode what it hears. This is going to have to be address in 
the radio end of things. Also if someone is in QSO with one of these modes and 
another operator can not see the signal or hear it how is he going to know that 
there is a qso going on. Yes there is some software that copies in noise better 
than others.
 
JoeW4JSI
 
Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  N6CRR 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:49 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose 
  > of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio art also includes HF. The 
  > issue is that there is little incentive to further develop digital 
  > protocols for high speed binary transfer since under Part 97.221, 
  > there is little space to use what already exists.> > 
  > Steve, k4cjxSo that's the thing in a nut shell from your 
  statement from above,incentive to further develop digital protocols for 
  high speed binarytransfer. Who thinks this is a good idea? Is this a case 
  of justbecause you can, should you do it and at what price to 
  existingoperations?From what I can tell, most of the Amateur 
  community is neither infavor of the ARRL's vision statement expressed in a 
  recent ARRL lettertowards delivery of digital content over HF and VHF 
  frequencies northe vision  would appear to provide email, weather 
  maps, positionreporting and other connectivity between the internet and 
  remoteusers. The current allocations seem to support all the users that 
  wantto use this sort of capability. Where is the traffic 
  analysispublished that shows that there is a demand for an expansion of 
  thisservice that would justify potentially impacting ordinary Joe's 
  andJane's just wanting to have a yack on the radio?  Where is the 
  datacontent analysis that shows that the data being transferred over 
  thesesorts of services are within the current regulations in terms 
  ofnon-business communications, no profanity, and not just the usual 
  spamthat flood all our email boxes? The burden of proof is not on 
  theincumbent services, it's on those who wish to change. It may be 
  technically feasible to do everything WinLink, the ARRL andothers may want 
  to do by allowing more spectrum to be allocated tothese services, but by 
  doing so is the resulting environment stillAmateur Radio? I think the 
  Amateur community is saying not only No,but HELL NO!The argument 
  for me is philosophical, I am obviously on a differentwavelength frequency 
  than those who are advocating for this 
  change.CheersN6CRR





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[F.R. Ashley]

.
>
> It may be technically feasible to do everything WinLink, the ARRL and
> others may want to do by allowing more spectrum to be allocated to
> these services, but by doing so is the resulting environment still
> Amateur Radio?

This question, to me, is what it all boils down to.


I think the Amateur community is saying not only No,
> but HELL NO!

But you must remember, the ARRL doesn't give a hoot about what the Amateur 
community thinks.

73 Buddy
WB4M 



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Artie...
 
You seem to be making my point...
 
Instead of being an engineer and concentrating on 
developing DV technology..  (BTW good luck with your 
experiments)
 
You first have to be a lawyer and attempt to 
decipher arcane regulations to see if your experimentation might even be 
legal...
 
The point of bandwidth regulation even in its 
limited form as proposed by the ARRL
 
is that you can stop with the 
lawyering
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Arthur J. 
  Lekstutis 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 8:25 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
  Hi,I've been an engineer for a long time, but I'm 
  new to ham radio. Where exactly is this limitation defined by the FCC in 
  the US? What document (and maybe section) defines the limitation of 300 
  baud regardless of the bandwidth?Also: are you saying that the FCC 
  allows us to transmit multiple 'signals' simultaneously on a single piece 
  of equipment, each within the bandwidth and bit rate limitations of a 
  single mode, even though the end effect is a higher total throughput? 
  While I'm asking that: can I transmit each 'signal' at full legal power 
  (as long as it's the minimum required for communications)? I really must 
  read the regulations closely...I'm experimenting with digital voice. 
  Right now I'm still working on the codec side to reduce the required bit 
  rate, but at some point I have to start working on a suitable modulation 
  technique and need to know the rules of the game.Later,Artie 
  LekstutisKC2MFS>1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot 
  experiment on HF unless our>regs are changed.  We currently have 
  minimal bandwidth regulations. >Someone is certainly welcome to correct 
  me, but I don't know of any HF>modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 
  baud or higher.  They all use>multiple tone modems and modulate 
  individual pairs at a substantially>lower baud rate.  Like 12 tone 
  pairs, each at a rate of 60 baud which>give an equivalent rate of 720 
  baud, substantially over the 300 baud>regulation.  
  >>  >





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Mark Miller]

Keep in mind there is no regulatory baud rate limit for digital voice or 
digital SSTV.  Any emission designators with a second symbol of 1 or 2, and 
a third symbol of E or C are considered Phone/Image respectively.  There 
are no baud limits for these emissions.  The baud limits are for emission 
designators with a second symbol of 1 or 2, and a third symbol of B or D.

PR Docket No 88-139 released in 1988 is the foundation of our current part 
97 rules.  In this docket the FCC states: "We wish to recognize and 
encourage the experimental nature of the amateur service.  It is 
appropriate to avoid, to the extent possible, placing in the rules detailed 
regulations and specifications for the configuration and operation of 
various amateur communications systems. Such regulations and specifications 
would reduce the flexibility that is a hallmark of a service free to branch 
out and follow an infinite number of paths This enables amateur 
operators to utilize their individual stations in creating and pioneering 
communication systems that are limited only by their personal interests, 
imagination and technical skills."  Then under advancing the radio art the 
FCC states: "It is our intent that amateur operators in the United States 
be allowed to experiment with the full range of modulation types."  They go 
on to state: " The principal use of emission designators in regulations for 
the amateur service is to relegate the transmission of certain inharmonious 
emission types to different segments of the frequency bands."

The only restriction that we have with the current regulations is that in 
the RTTY/Data subbands we cannot mix data and image emissions; and in the 
Phone/Image subbands we cannot mix data with Image and phone.  I think this 
is the biggest flaw in the current regulations and why I submitted my 
petition which is referenced in PR Docket 04-140 as the "Miller 
Petition".  It tries to remedy the flaw in the current regulations 
restricting mixing of data and image emissions.  When I use the term data, 
I am using it with reference to emissions designators.  It is interesting 
that you will not find a definition of data anywhere in Title 47 of the 
CFR.  You will find what emission designators define data, but now verbal 
definition.

73,

Mark N5RFX 



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Michael Keane K1MK]

At 09:33 AM 2/4/06, jgorman01 wrote:
>1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our
>regs are changed.  We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations.
>Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF
>modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or higher.  They all use
>multiple tone modems and modulate individual pairs at a substantially
>lower baud rate.  Like 12 tone pairs, each at a rate of 60 baud which
>give an equivalent rate of 720 baud, substantially over the 300 baud
>regulation.

To help avoid the confusion that seems to creep in when talking about 
"bauds," for the example given, the state of each of the twelve 
binary sub-carriers represents one bit of the symbol being 
transmitted. That's one 12-bit symbol that changes state 60 times a 
second; the symbol rate is 60 symbols per second while the data rate 
is 720 bits per seconds. The rules put a limit on symbol rate that 
can be used not the bit rate that can be achieved.

Inter-symbol interference due to delay spread from fading/multipath 
makes the restriction to a maximum symbol rate 300 baud a phantom limit at HF.

Using DV as an example, the AOR modem sends a bit stream at a rate of 
3200 bits per second using a symbol rate of 50 symbols per second; 
the various DRM modes send a comparable speeds with a maximum symbol 
rate is 37.5 symbols per seconds.

Olivia (which is m-ary FSK and not multiple sub-carriers) includes a 
two tone configuration with symbol rates of 500 or 1000 symbols per 
second; the utility  of that at HF is quite dubious.

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Arthur J. Lekstutis]

Hi,

I've been an engineer for a long time, but I'm new to ham radio. Where 
exactly is this limitation defined by the FCC in the US? What document 
(and maybe section) defines the limitation of 300 baud regardless of the 
bandwidth?

Also: are you saying that the FCC allows us to transmit multiple 
'signals' simultaneously on a single piece of equipment, each within the 
bandwidth and bit rate limitations of a single mode, even though the end 
effect is a higher total throughput? While I'm asking that: can I 
transmit each 'signal' at full legal power (as long as it's the minimum 
required for communications)? I really must read the regulations closely...

I'm experimenting with digital voice. Right now I'm still working on the 
codec side to reduce the required bit rate, but at some point I have to 
start working on a suitable modulation technique and need to know the 
rules of the game.

Later,
Artie Lekstutis
KC2MFS

>1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our
>regs are changed.  We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations. 
>Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF
>modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or higher.  They all use
>multiple tone modems and modulate individual pairs at a substantially
>lower baud rate.  Like 12 tone pairs, each at a rate of 60 baud which
>give an equivalent rate of 720 baud, substantially over the 300 baud
>regulation.  
>
>  
>




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Rick 
 
I for one do not love the ARRL plan.. but it is an 
improvement over the existing limitation on baud rates and mixing of data, voice 
and image...and it is likely the best we are going to be able to get at this 
time.
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  KV9U 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 4:56 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
  There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in 
  the U.S.For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first. 
  If it ever proved to be successful on VHF/UHF in a narrow bandwidth 
  format, then it could be adopted for HF use as well.Just wishing 
  something technical to happen or believing that you can have multiple 
  voice conversations within the ultra narrow 3 KHz or so BW is very 
  unlikely due the scientific limitations. But even if current theory was 
  shown to be false and a breakthrough ever occurred, it would be easy to 
  test on HF.The bandwidth proposals seem to me to LIMIT the future 
  possibilities for new voice and high throughput modes on HF due to the 
  very limits placed up the maximum bandwidths permitted on HF. Right now 
  the main limit is baud rate.From what the best minds in the 
  commercial world have been able to come up with, we don't see any digital 
  voice modes that are narrow (~ 3 KHz). While the reason for the required 
  move to digital was to narrow the BW's, they are still much wider than 3 
  KHz if I understand the current state of the art and while they work 
  fairly well under good signal conditions, they can be a problem under 
  difficult conditions where older analog signals may get through when the 
  digital ones do not. The move to digital seems to be more related to 
  spectrum conservation.Even though high data throughput real time modes 
  are difficult to work with narrow BW signals, we should see some 
  improvement (and we have) with data modes that do not have to be as much 
  in real time and which have a magnitude less signalling rate throughput 
  needs.I see no legal framework changes that will "free" developers to 
  do all that much on HF except for the baud rate increase. But that did not 
  need a sea change to implement. As you know you have made pronouncements 
  about this and were asked to give examples of what limitations were now 
  present with existing rules and you have not responded.The one 
  limitation that I have been most concerned about is the ability to mix 
  data/voice/(analog or digital)/ and image on one frequency. Based upon 
  ARRL statements and looking at the overall plan, I am not sure if this 
  will be allowed under new band plans.Rick, KV9UDr. 
  Howard S. White wrote:> JIm:>  > You have made a 
  very good case as to why we need to experiment and > come up with new 
  technologies...>  > Instead of concentrating on all the 
  potential and imaginary > negatives... which very much reflect the old 
  anti SSB and anti FM > arguments...you need to look at the 
  positives...>  > There are a myriad of technologies for 
  squeezing high baud rates into > tiny channels... there are a myriad of 
  new and not so new technologes > out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and 
  Spread Spectrum...>  > It's going to take some clever hams 
  to develop these into a practical > DV system for HF on Ham 
  Radio...>  > I believe that the technology is there to 
  allow multiple QRM free > multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice 
  bandwidth... some ham > needs to put it together... and some ham 
  (likely not in the USA under > current baud rate limited rules) will 
  likely do it..>  > Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will 
  likely be computer based... > maybe even sound card based as that is 
  the cheapest technology and > it is likely that you will still be 
  able to use your HF transceiver>  > New 
  Modes:    Stop being so negative.Heck... new modes is what 
  > this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new versions of 
  > DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things>  
  > I do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a 
  > better way.>  > DV... has lots of potential to 
  give us more channel capacity with less > QRM... we just need to legal 
  framework in place so that we can > experiment with it to dispell all 
  those imaginary negatives>  >





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflect

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Good question... 
 
Several Answers..
    1. The 
rest of the world can already experiment on HF.. and will do so..whether we 
change our regs or not...
    2.    HF has very 
different propagation characteristics that necessitate different DV solutions 
than those on VHF and UHF.
    3.    HF is much 
more crowded and not channelized - which will necessitate different DV solutions 
than those on VHF/UHF
    4.    HF DV has 
to be able to work in QRM and very low S/N ratios... not usual conditions on 
VHF/UHF.
 5.    
HF space is much smaller... necessitating DV solutions that fit the much smaller 
bandwidths...
 
So while you might be able to design something at 
VHF/UHF... you need to be able to test it on HF...and the best way to test it is 
for many people to become Beta testershence the need to change the 
rules
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  list email 
  filter 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:10 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL 
  proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
  Gentlemen,Like many of the members of this forum, I've 
  been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to 
  (perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the 
  propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental 
  point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new digital modes 
  on say UHF? Once the technological hurdles have been cleared on UHF by the 
  masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even allowed to experiment because 
  of the repressive government regulations they are burdened with, couldn't the 
  then proven technology be ported to HF?Our HF spectrum is extremely 
  limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over the world are happily using it all 
  now, that is to say, it's full up. Until we have a digital solution that will 
  help solve that issue, and allow for more qso's in our little playground, why 
  can't we experiment on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF 
  activities? Just because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that 
  we have to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width 
  restriction.As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to 
  know?"73,Erik KI4HMS/7PS. I'm a no-code tech who has 
  run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both 2m and 440, just because I could run 
  9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean I have to. I for one would be happy to run 
  experimental digital modes with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an 
  underutilized resource, perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start 
  using it to 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.' On Feb 
  3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
  JIm: You 
have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and come up with 
new technologies... Instead 
of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary negatives... which very 
much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM arguments...you need to look at 
the positives... There 
are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into tiny 
channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes out there 
... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread 
Spectrum... It's 
going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical DV system 
for HF on Ham Radio... I 
believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free multiple 
QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham needs to put it 
together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under current baud rate 
limited rules) will likely do it.. Equipment.. 
Anything Hams develop will likely be computer based... maybe even sound card 
based as that is the cheapest technology and it is likely that you will 
still be able to use your HF 
transceiver New 
Modes:    Stop being so negative.Heck... new 
modes is what this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new 
versions of DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things I 
do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a better 
way. DV... 
has lots of potential to give us more channel capacity with less QRM... we 
just need to legal framework in place so that we can experiment with it to 
dispell all those imaginary 
negatives __Howard 
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished"&

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[John Becker]

To fully understand this whole bandwidth thing one
must first understand that there is those that hate
the wider modes, RTTY, Packet, Amtor and even
more Pactor  and will do  * anything *  to harm them
to the point that they fail dry up and blow away in
the wind.

Last year there was some very bad talk about MT-63
for no other reason then it was 1Kc wide. With an
attitudes like that you can not reason with the person,
ever.

There is a RTTY contest this weekend so get ready.





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[KV9U]

There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in the U.S.

For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first. If it ever 
proved to be successful on VHF/UHF in a narrow bandwidth format, then it 
could be adopted for HF use as well.

Just wishing something technical to happen or believing that you can 
have multiple voice conversations within the ultra narrow 3 KHz or so BW 
is very unlikely due the scientific limitations. But even if current 
theory was shown to be false and a breakthrough ever occurred, it would 
be easy to test on HF.

The bandwidth proposals seem to me to LIMIT the future possibilities for 
new voice and high throughput modes on HF due to the very limits placed 
up the maximum bandwidths permitted on HF. Right now the main limit is 
baud rate.

 From what the best minds in the commercial world have been able to come 
up with, we don't see any digital voice modes that are narrow (~ 3 KHz). 
While the reason for the required move to digital was to narrow the 
BW's, they are still much wider than 3 KHz if I understand the current 
state of the art and while they work fairly well under good signal 
conditions, they can be a problem under difficult conditions where older 
analog signals may get through when the digital ones do not. The move to 
digital seems to be more related to spectrum conservation.

Even though high data throughput real time modes are difficult to work 
with narrow BW signals, we should see some improvement (and we have) 
with data modes that do not have to be as much in real time and which 
have a magnitude less signalling rate throughput needs.

I see no legal framework changes that will "free" developers to do all 
that much on HF except for the baud rate increase. But that did not need 
a sea change to implement. As you know you have made pronouncements 
about this and were asked to give examples of what limitations were now 
present with existing rules and you have not responded.

The one limitation that I have been most concerned about is the ability 
to mix data/voice/(analog or digital)/ and image on one frequency. Based 
upon ARRL statements and looking at the overall plan, I am not sure if 
this will be allowed under new band plans.

Rick, KV9U



Dr. Howard S. White wrote:

> JIm:
>  
> You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and 
> come up with new technologies...
>  
> Instead of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary 
> negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM 
> arguments...you need to look at the positives...
>  
> There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into 
> tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes 
> out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum...
>  
> It's going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical 
> DV system for HF on Ham Radio...
>  
> I believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free 
> multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham 
> needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under 
> current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it..
>  
> Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will likely be computer based... 
> maybe even sound card based as that is the cheapest technology and 
> it is likely that you will still be able to use your HF transceiver
>  
> New Modes:Stop being so negative.Heck... new modes is what 
> this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new versions of 
> DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things
>  
> I do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a 
> better way.
>  
> DV... has lots of potential to give us more channel capacity with less 
> QRM... we just need to legal framework in place so that we can 
> experiment with it to dispell all those imaginary negatives
>  
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> 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: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[list email filter]

Gentlemen,

Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest.  Please allow me to (perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question.  I understand the propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new digital modes on say UHF?  Once the technological hurdles have been cleared on UHF by the masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even allowed to experiment because of the repressive government regulations they are burdened with, couldn't the then proven technology be ported to HF?

Our HF spectrum is extremely limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over the world are happily using it all now, that is to say, it's full up.  Until we have a digital solution that will help solve that issue, and allow for more qso's in our little playground, why can't we experiment on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF activities?  Just because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that we have to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width restriction.

As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to know?"

73,

Erik KI4HMS/7

PS.  I'm a no-code tech who has run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both 2m and 440, just because I could run 9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean I have to.  I for one would be happy to run experimental digital modes with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an underutilized resource, perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start using it to 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.'  

On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:

JIm:
 
You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and come up with new technologies...
 
Instead of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM arguments...you need to look at the positives...
 
There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum...
 
It's going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical DV system for HF on Ham Radio...
 
I believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it..
 
Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will likely be computer based... maybe even sound card based as that is the cheapest technology and it is likely that you will still be able to use your HF transceiver
 
New Modes:    Stop being so negative.Heck... new modes is what this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new versions of DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things
 
I do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a better way.
 
DV... has lots of potential to give us more channel capacity with less QRM... we just need to legal framework in place so that we can experiment with it to dispell all those imaginary negatives
 
__
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
Website: www.ky6la.com 
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
"Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

JIm:
 
You have made a very good case as to why we need to 
experiment and come up with new technologies...
 
Instead of concentrating on all the potential and 
imaginary negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM 
arguments...you need to look at the positives...
 
There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing 
high baud rates into tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new 
technologes out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum...
 
It's going to take some clever hams to develop 
these into a practical DV system for HF on Ham Radio...
 
I believe that the technology is there to allow 
multiple QRM free multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some 
ham needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under 
current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it..
 
Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will likely be 
computer based... maybe even sound card based as that is the cheapest 
technology and it is likely that you will still be able to use your HF 
transceiver
 
New Modes:    Stop being so 
negative.Heck... new modes is what this Reflector is all about... 
Olivia, Contestia...new versions of DV...we welcome new modes as they improve 
things
 
I do not have all the answers.. I just know that 
there has to be a better way.
 
DV... has lots of potential to give us more channel 
capacity with less QRM... we just need to legal framework in place so that we 
can experiment with it to dispell all those imaginary negatives
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jgorman01 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 6:53 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  Oh boy, oh boy.Your the one that indicated 
  multiple QSO's on the same channel on HFwere possible with TDM/CDM, in 
  fact that's why they were invented.The channel bandwidth of GSM is 
  exactly relevant to this discussion. You have to know the RF bandwidth per 
  user in order to make anintelligent decision about using the technology at 
  HF.  That is unlessyou have reason to believe that you can transmit 
  more data in asmaller RF bandwidth at HF than you can at UHF.The 
  other problem with your scenario is operational.  For example,lets 
  just assume you can get 20 qso's in 100 kHz.  And you set up 
  thechannel from 14250 to 14350.  Either you have the FCC dedicate 
  thatchannel for that purpose, or you have to share.  If you share, 
  one SSBqso in that space would prevent 20 other qso's from 
  happening.The biggest problem is how to accomplish upgrading hardware 
  andsoftware when new developments come along.  You won't be able to 
  useyour handy dandy HF tranceiver for a bandwidth like this, and 
  forgetcomputer sound cards with a 100 kHz bandwidth.  Now everyone 
  spendstheir hard earned money (and expect it to cost quite a bit)to 
  getsetup and guess what, 6 months later someone comes along and 
  says,hey, I can now get 23 users into that same space and since my 
  methodis newer and better, my method wins!  But, if you want to use 
  it, youhave to buy new hardware and software!That will go over 
  real big won't it.I don't know what you think spread spectrum will buy 
  you in a"standard" HF channel.  You can only get enough data through 
  thatstandard channel for one conversation to occur.  Normally one 
  wouldestimate the total bandwidth required by multiplying the bandwidth 
  peruser by the number of users you want on that channel.  That's 
  becauseyou have to send the same amount of data per user only quicker so 
  youdon't get delays or latency.If you try to add a second 
  conversation in a bandwidth designed forone conversation, your going to 
  have long delays while the otherstation sends. And in fact, it could be 
  two other stations sending ifthere are two parties per qso.  You may 
  not mind the stuttering soundbut I sure would.  Ultimately, 
  you have to decide if the spectrum, technical, andeconomic efficiencies 
  are any greater with a system like this versusplain old SSB or DV in a SSB 
  channel!  It is not evident to me thatthis will be the 
  case.JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. 
  Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> The commercial 
  GSM numbers are not relevant to this discussion ..weare talking about Ham 
  radio which has different design parameters...> > Using spread 
  spectrum for example it should be possible havemultiple QSO's in a 
  standard HF voice channel> > More important, if we design 
  systems to maximize band utilization weshould be able to carry many more 
  QRM free QSO's on our currentbandswhich would have the benefit of no

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

The commercial GSM numbers are not relevant to this 
discussion ..we are talking about Ham radio which has different design 
parameters...
 
Using spread spectrum for example it should be 
possible have multiple QSO's in a standard HF voice 
channel
 
More important, if we design systems to maximize 
band utilization we should be able to carry many more QRM free QSO's on our 
current bandswhich would have the benefit of not only curing current 
overcrowding but also virtually eliminate annoying QRM
 
So rather than sowing seeds of fear of the 
unknown... we, especially on this digital reflector should be embracing the 
new technologies...
 
The technologies are out there just waiting for 
some clever hams to implement them..
 
The point I am making is that we need to have rules 
that allow us to be able to experiment...on HF... as well as 
VHF/UHF...
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jgorman01 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:39 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal 
  removes baud rate limitations on HF
  I am 
  assuming your comments were meant to be applicable to the HFbands since 
  there is nothing to stop hams from doing it on the higherUHF bands.  
  For educational purposes, would you share with the group the 
  RFbandwidths used for the "shared channels" you are talking about 
  andhow many conversations that channel can carry.  That way everyone 
  candecide how applicable the technology would be on the HF bands. 
  Perhaps the GSM/TDMA channel bandwidths and capacity would be 
  best.JimWA0LYK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. 
  Howard S. White"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Cingular, 
  AT&T use GSM which is a form of TDMA for their 
  CellularSystems.> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA> Website: 
  www.ky6la.com > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"> "Ham Antennas 
  Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911">   - 
  Original Message - >   From: F.R. Ashley 
  >   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >   
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:14 PM>   Subject: Re: 
  [digitalradio] ARRL proposal removes baud ratelimitations on HF> 
  > > > - Original Message 
  - > From: Dr. Howard S. White 
  > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:28 
  PM> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL proposal 
  removes baud ratelimitations on HF> > 
  > Which is why they developed Time Division 
  Multiplexing and CodeDivision Multiplexing ... so that multiple QSO's can 
  share the samechannel> 
  ^^> 
  Howard,> > Its been quite a while since 
  I've heard someone mention TimeDivision Multiplex.  Have you ever 
  heard a TDM signal?  Years ago, Itried unsuccessfully to find some 
  TDM signals and copy them.   If mymemory serves me correctly, 
  weren't TDM signals transmitted almostcontinuously, but most of the time 
  containing no data, just a carrier?  Also, I cannot remember who used 
  TDM, can you refresh my memory?> > 73 
  Buddy WB4M> > > > >   Need a 
  Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org> 
  >   Other areas of interest:> >   The 
  MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/>   
  DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  
  (band plan policydiscussion)> > > > > 
  >-->   
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a..  Visit 
  your group "digitalradio" on the 
  web.>   
  > b..  To unsubscribe from this group, 
  send an email to:>  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
  > c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is 
  subject to the Yahoo! Terms ofService. > > 
  >-->





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo!