--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's true, but how do you propose to overcome it? Prohibit outboard
> hardware? Set an upper bound on the sales price of outboard hardware?
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
The argument that onboard hardwar
That's true, but how do you propose to overcome it? Prohibit outboard
hardware? Set an upper bound on the sales price of outboard hardware?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Da
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Protocols should be published, and encryption has no place on the
> amateur bands.
Encryption is not only physical devices, it can also be economic
barriers, which is what we have in use in a proprietary such as
Protocols should be published, and encryption has no place on the
amateur bands.
Requiring automatic digital mode stations to periodically ID in CW
wouldn't be a bad idea either.
We should not, however, be limited to protocols implementable with
software running on a Windows PC with a soundcar
>
> Please feel free to add to the list of "helpful" features which should
> be incorporated into Jamtor™ at some point in the future.
How about some real world 21st century RF modes using 9 KHz or 12 KHz
data channels? None of those 1980's restrictions using mere 3 KHz.
from: http://www.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Clever, Steve, but demonization is counterproductive. If Winlink
> were to implement effective "listen before transmit", its operators
> should enjoy the same access to amateur spectrum as any other ham.
>
>
Clever, Steve, but demonization is counterproductive. If Winlink
were to implement effective "listen before transmit", its operators
should enjoy the same access to amateur spectrum as any other ham.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[E
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:42 PM 1/20/06, you wrote:
> >I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with
> >eliminating the problem.
Maybe I just don't understand the size of this problem not bein
I'm thinking about creating a new mode, let's call it Jamtor IV and
I need some help with the features of this new mode. By the way,
Jamtor is a product of "Tong in Cheek Industries".
It's intended used to experimentally provide email over Amateur Radio
HF frequencies to impoverished retired Boo
At 06:42 PM 1/20/06, you wrote:
>I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with
>eliminating the problem.
Maybe I just don't understand the size of this problem
not being on PSK
>A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a
>frequency. If I find a clear freq
The FCC missive is just that -- a missive; its not a regulation. No
requirement to prevent interference is present in 97.221.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Then I am afraid that the author of the FCC missive re. this
> spe
Then I am afraid that the author of the FCC missive re. this
specific issue must be using a different English language
dictionary than the rest of us.
This text clearly states in common English language usage
that the "control operator ... *must prevent* ... causing
interference".
What am I missi
Actually, Doc, those are expressly legal under 97.221. The FCC's
rationale (the URL for which I posted earlier) clearly acknowledges
the potential for interference. They challenged us to find ways to
mitigate this interference, but did not make interference mitigation
a prerequisite to operatio
And those are plainly illegal and always have been.
As President Bush said to terrorists cynically proposing
a "truce", "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put
them out of business."
According to the FCC and Amateur Radio tradition we don't
reward illegal ops with special band segments, we sh
I'm not concerned with finding fall guys, John, I'm concerned with
eliminating the problem.
A fundamental principle of amateur radio is that no one owns a
frequency. If I find a clear frequency, I should be able to use it
without subsequent threat of QRM from remotely-controlled automatic
stat
All that says is that the SYSOP can not be the
fall guy because a *remote* operator started that
system with a on-going QSO on the frequency.
And that is the way it should be.
There was not a problem till PSK31 hit the air waves.
What about taking it out on the guy that picked a
frequency right i
Its been that way since 1995, when 97.221 was introduced. If
adopted, the ARRL's proposal will make it much worse. I am dealing
with it by doing everything I can to convince the FCC to reject the
ARRL proposal.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker
If the amateur service is really interested in becoming telecom providers we
should investigate the use of out-of-band signaling as a method for
maximizing the use of the spectrum for data transmission.
There are two ways of doing this.
One would be to have a protocol which would use a 500hz
Yeah I agree with you 1000% Dave.
that the way it works and has for a very long long
time. Put on your big boy shorts and deal with it.
At 10:31 PM 1/19/06, you wrote:
>If you can't hear them, likely they can't hear you either, John. The
>simple case you cite is rarely a problem.
>
>With remote
How about UI-View and Rig expert. I can't get that to work ether.
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 disc
I'm new here, trying to get some knowledge before
I try some digital modes.
My PC has an onboard soundcard, but I would like to
install
a sound card. Any reccomendations, or cards I should
avoid?
Was considering a Creative Labs card ... anyone here
using either a Audigy 2 Value SB0400, or the
Soun
To answer your question Murray Rig expert doesn't support wsjt or domino ex
unfortunately. I have mine running as a virtual sound card, it works fine on
multipsk and stream, if you look into config on these two programs you get the
choice of rig expert or your computer sound card and of cou
Busy frequency detection is at the proof-of-concept stage; it has
not been deployed. The proposal to restrict automatic operation to
sub-bands until "listen-before-transmit" technology is deployed both
recognizes and encourages the desired transition, and eliminates the
need for further regulat
Sadly, the ARRL is usually behind in their suggestions to rules. They seem
to want something in concrete, and already in use, before they will fully
support it. I too think the auto detection should be required, but since
its not in general use, I dont know how many of the ARRL officers are even
With the current state of the art, as exemplified by the beta testing of
SCAMP, it is completely proven that monitoring of the channel can be
done by machine, in order to prevent transmission on a busy channel. It
doesn't even scan anything as it is able to detect any modulation in the
pass ban
Hi Graeme,
Well the RigExpert premise is a good one in that everything is
isolated outside the PC case to eliminate the ground loops, high
frequency noise, jitter etc., but that sample clock and inability to
handle CAT control with wave out always open are issues. As they
designed it for dire
26 matches
Mail list logo
