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
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
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
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
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'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
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
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
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
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 being on
PSK
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 [EMAIL
--- 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.
73,
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:
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
--- 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 PTIII.
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, Dave
--- 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 hardware is what
17 matches
Mail list logo
