The ARRL's proposal, if adopted, will allow the broad deployment of
semi-automatic operation without any requirement that semi-automatic
stations implement "listen before transmit". This is clearly a fatal
flaw. We must ensure that the FCC understands this flaw, and rejects
the ARRL proposal.
Busy detection means determining whether intelligence is being
conveyed anywhere within a specified range of frequencies --
specifically, the range of frequencies on which one intends to
transmit. Accomplishing this does not require decoding that
intelligence. It requires understanding the unde
I can work Amtor or any other linked
mode. But being a working stiff, I will be available after 5pm
Eastern time. We can set up a sked if you wish. The 30
meter band would be great.
73 Buddy
WB4M
- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogr
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 21:18, John Becker wrote:
> Most was for hams.
> ARRL teletype bulletins, for sale stuff, some 3rd party
> NTS traffic. Just by you question I take it that you
> missed out on the packet or for that fact any of the
> TNC modes.
>
I couldn't afford the equipment back in
Most of the packet runners were on 2 meters. In fact, our two meter
repeater for packet is still there, though I have no idea if anyone really
uses it.
We had a spotting network on it, plus we did send messages out to other
hams, buying, selling just advising etc. When the internet became availab
>>
>> Ten years ago, before Al Gore invented the internet I had 500 plus
>> messages (email if you will) pass my packet BBS everyday.
>> I don't recall all this type of talk back then.
Thats just it, it was not email! Besides, I do remember PLENTY of talk
about the HF packet stations.The AR
Amen to that Dave!
WB4M
> Yes, RM-11306 will definitely provide more space for semi-automatic
> operation -- to the detriment of everyone else.
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Refle
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 21:46, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> I disagree, Tim. In your scenario, Busy Channel Detection works
> perfectly: it prevents the automatic station in St. Louis from
> QRM'ing the west coast QSOs.
>
> Busy Channel Detection is not a solution to the "oversubscription"
> problem,
>I've heard comments about "The FCC is looking into this" every now
> and then, but I've never seen anyone provide an actual cite that
> indicates they've done anything more than say, in effect, "Exercise good
> amateur practice and listen, first." Can you provide a more substantial
> refe
For those who think that Ham radio spectrum is the only
way to connect radio to computer to internet to telephone
they are wrong.
DingoTel has an alternative:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007LQQUK/qid=1106972010/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/103-1998810-3875851?n=172282
Lots cheaper ($29.), doesn't m
Other than excluding commercial activities, I believe its a mistake
to exclude some forms of communication, or to place arbitrary limits
on equipment complexity or expense. The unintended consequences of
such actions are almost always negative over the long term. We
should encourage innovation
At 09:42 PM 1/24/06, you wrote:
>The only automatic signals that should be confined to specified band
>segments are those incapable of listening before transmitting. Since
>stations would be free to upgrade to listen-before-transmit
>protocols, there would be no "inflexibility" problem.
And just h
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 20:17, Rich Mulvey wrote:
> kd4e wrote:
> > > I mean, it ALWAYS ends up going like this:
> > >
> > > "I don't like P3/Winlink/Automated stations."
> > > "Why? They comply with FCC rules and the FCC has never had an
> > > issue with them."
> >
> > They actually live in so
The FCC didn't think to limit us to more than 24 hours on the air per
day, because they didn't consider automated, queued message systems.
Even so, we have several examples of amateurs (or ex-amateurs) abusing
the "band sharing" principle of amateur radio, by transmitting nearly 24
hours per d
I disagree, Tim. In your scenario, Busy Channel Detection works
perfectly: it prevents the automatic station in St. Louis from
QRM'ing the west coast QSOs.
Busy Channel Detection is not a solution to the "oversubscription"
problem, which will occur whether or not Busy Channel Detection is
in p
You mean anyone with the functional Ham equivalent of a
Enigma cipher machine.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine
;-)
> By definition, there is no other purpose to encryption other than
> obscuring meaning. . From Wikipedia,
>
> "In cryptography, encryption is the process o
The only automatic signals that should be confined to specified band
segments are those incapable of listening before transmitting. Since
stations would be free to upgrade to listen-before-transmit
protocols, there would be no "inflexibility" problem.
73,
Dave, AA6Q
--- In digitalra
Yes, RM-11306 will definitely provide more space for semi-automatic
operation -- to the detriment of everyone else.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> RM-11306 is making an attempt to rectify this s
What sort of transceiver was used for this, Walt?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Coming in a bit late here due to a near death condition (at least
I thught I
> was going to die a couple of times), the
John Becker wrote:
> Most was for hams.
> ARRL teletype bulletins, for sale stuff, some 3rd party
> NTS traffic. Just by you question I take it that you
> missed out on the packet or for that fact any of the
> TNC modes.
Packet was/is a simple and effective mode for moving
information and Hams di
By definition, there is no other purpose to encryption other than
obscuring meaning. . From Wikipedia,
"In cryptography, encryption is the process of obscuring information
to make it unreadable without special knowledge."
If you're referring to encoding or other forms of transformation
requir
Most was for hams.
ARRL teletype bulletins, for sale stuff, some 3rd party
NTS traffic. Just by you question I take it that you
missed out on the packet or for that fact any of the
TNC modes.
At 09:07 PM 1/24/06, you wrote:
>If there was no internet at the time, who was the recipient of the mess
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:45, Rich Mulvey wrote:
> Tim Gorman wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> > > Buddy,
> > >
> > > Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> > > licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system
Thank you all, some good comments on either side. Howver, the topic
is likely to drift in to another debate that addresses the automated
verses attended digital stations. Please make your final comments and
end this thread by 1200 UTC 25/1/06
Andy
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to T
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:29, John Becker wrote:
> At 10:20 AM 1/24/06, you wrote:
> >I just wish someone would explain to me why ham radio needs to be turned
> >into a free email system, especially for non-hams to use. I fear this is
> >just the foot in the door..
> >
> >Buddy,
> >WB4M
>
Can you stop sending me mail? Thanks.
On 1/15/06, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,I'm just being curious, but which digital software is it ?Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.orgOther areas of interest:The MixW Reflector : http://groups.y
kd4e wrote:
> > I mean, it ALWAYS ends up going like this:
> >
> > "I don't like P3/Winlink/Automated stations."
> > "Why? They comply with FCC rules and the FCC has never had an
> > issue with them."
>
> They actually live in some significant gray areas and the FCC
> has expressed some concerns a
At 10:20 AM 1/24/06, you wrote:
>I just wish someone would explain to me why ham radio needs to be turned
>into a free email system, especially for non-hams to use. I fear this is
>just the foot in the door..
>
>Buddy,
>WB4M
Ten years ago, before Al Gore invented the internet I had 500 plus
Tim Gorman wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> > Buddy,
> >
> > Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> > licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
> > who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd part
> Buddy,
>
> Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
> who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about
> mode of operation.
>
>
> Steve, k4cjx
You didnt answer my quest
Nice job of putting together a strawman and then beating the stuffing out of
it.
I guess if Winlink was named Yahoo, or AOL, or Netscape Mail and they were out
actively recruiting amateurs to provide access links into their mail systems
you would have exactly *zero* problems with that? The more
> I mean, it ALWAYS ends up going like this:
>
> "I don't like P3/Winlink/Automated stations."
> "Why? They comply with FCC rules and the FCC has never had an
> issue with them."
They actually live in some significant gray areas and the FCC
has expressed some concerns as to the future of the tech
I am interested in verifying that I am not over-driving PSK31. Is
there a simple signal conditioning interface to an oscilloscope input?
Thansk
Rich
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/g
I have an RV and a canoe. That doesnt make me rich either. The canoe is
plastic, and the RV is a 78. The RV runs (when it does run) with 2 meters
in it. The canoe runs with one adult and one kid, no radios as they are not
waterproof, as the adult and kid are, and are frequently dumped.
Danny
-
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dean Gibson AE7Q <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Volume of traffic is the issue.
>
Why is that an issue? The last time I checked, the FCC doesn't
limit us to the number of QSO's we have, or the time we can spend on
the air.
Now, As a general comment...
In defence of WINLINK , it is a really good
emergency comms modes especially from remote, off the grid sites. of which
we have many here
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
From:
F.R.
Ashley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:20
hey I'm still lookin for all those cable thingies
for my PK232MBX ...I'll be there, eventually
- Original Message -
From:
obrienaj
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:39
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: amtor
anyone
Any takers?St
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> Buddy,
>
> Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
> who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about
> mode of o
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:55, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> Dean,
>
> I see nothing in Part 97 about volume of traffic. Currently, there are
> a total approximately 280,000 monthly minutes. What volume would you
> suggest??
>
> Steve, k4cjx
>
>
"(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:44, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> Dave,
>
> RM-11306 is making an attempt to rectify this situation. On 40 meters
> for example, a station under "local or remote control, with a
> bandwidth of over 500 Hz, cannot move from the 5 KHz space provided,
> regardless of who
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 12:37, KV9U wrote:
>
> -- the semi-automatic stations will be able to operate anyplace on the
> bands that their BW permits. I personally oppose this and want all
> stations that operate in any kind of automatic status to stay in a
> subband unless they have adequate bus
Dean,
I see nothing in Part 97 about volume of traffic. Currently, there are
a total approximately 280,000 monthly minutes. What volume would you
suggest??
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dean Gibson AE7Q <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Volume of traffic is the issue.
>
> -
Rick,
I have no objections to protocol or operation type placement, but I
am vigorously opposed to hard coded regulated sub-bands. "Semi-
automatic (local or remote control" stations using P1 and P2 now
VOLUNTARILY operate below the RTTY VOLUNTARY portion of the bands.
They exclude the VOLUNTA
Volume of traffic is the issue.
-- Dean
On 2006-01-24 12:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> Buddy,
>
> Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
> who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party
Dave,
RM-11306 is making an attempt to rectify this situation. On 40 meters
for example, a station under "local or remote control, with a
bandwidth of over 500 Hz, cannot move from the 5 KHz space provided,
regardless of who else is there, including fully automatic stations.
With P3, the sign
Buddy,
Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party agreements about
mode of operation.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "F.R. A
Based upon the proposal by ARRL to FCC, we can expect that if it is
adopted, wider bandwidth signals will be forced to operate above 14.100.
The very place that a number of them operate right now. Your
characterization of a station squatting in any their authorized areas is
very inappropriate,
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
Dave,
Allow me to take issue with you...encryption for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of the information transmitted has no place on the amateur bands.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.
Title: RE: [digitalradio] New Mode proposal "Jamtor Iv"
Coming in a bit late here due to a near death condition (at least I thught I was going to die a couple of times), the Rockwell-Collins modem that Bill speaks of is used quite extensively by some "nations" and organizations.
Friends u
> > > I am not sure what you mean by AMTOR and Pactor being curtailed by
> > > being
> cheap modes.
I re-read my post and see that I did not make myself clear with that
sentence you refer to! What I meant was that the soundcard modes were
either free or cheap.. sorry about that. I have own
OK, John,
That explains it. Sort of like folks who like to enjoy playing with
"boatanchor" rigs.
When I was a teen, I could not afford even the average technology of the
time and had to settle for really low end hardware back in the early
1960's. For example, a Drake 2B receive was pretty much
No one owns a frequency, Steve. The sub-bands defined in 97.221 are
not defined for exclusive use by semi-automatic and automatic
stations. You use of the verb "squat" is both legally incorrect and
in complete opposition to the spirit of amateur radio.
The real issue here is lack of a band plan
My question exactly! I see no reason for any AMATEUR radio traffic to move
across the bands, without someone setting there watching it. After all we
are suppose to be communicating with each other, not broadcasting to the
rest of the world. We can watch, then relay. Im sure the FCC has some
met
I just wish someone would explain to me why ham radio needs to be turned
into a free email system, especially for non-hams to use. I fear this is
just the foot in the door..
Buddy,
WB4M
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 2
The problem is not with PSK, the problem is with OLIVIA, whose users
have incorrectly determined that because their stations use a 1000 Hz
signal, that they must squat in the auto-forward Part 97.221 sub-
bands. In these sub-bands, the normal "listen before you transmit"
criteria is a bit differ
We should do what hams have always done -- police ourselves. If you
are QRM'd during a contest and you can't engage the offender on the
air, look up his or her callsign in QRZ.com, and contact the
offender. If that doesn't produce a sheepish agreement to "do better
next time", contact the ARRL
>From k4cjx: They have been aware of electronic signal detection for
some time now. Then, they participate in contests
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Sadly, the ARRL is usually behind in their suggestions to rules.
They s
Dave,
I agree with this. My issue is that in order to obtain some
flexibility for the shrinkage and expansion of such operations, or
for that matter, ANY operations, present and future, hard coding band
planning by type or mode of operation is not the way to do it.
Rather, I am suggesting tha
Conversational QSOs don't necessarily turn around every 15 seconds,
Steve. One could call QRL? and legitimately listen while the unheard
station is transmitting, and, hearing nothing, activate the remote
station.
Yes, I have been on WinLink. In fact, you and I have exchanged email
messages via
Holly sox,
Under the conditions you propose Dave, what should we do with all
that QRM during major contests? Should we put sub-bands in for it,
also? How about an FCC ruling with the same language and make it mode
independent?
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAI
Dave,
You may also mention that that propagation moves in both directions.
If I am in one location, and here one of the two stations pulsing, I
would certainly know that there is another station on that frequency.
So, hearing only one half of the pulsing would certainly tip me off
that I may i
No, because I can.
When Peter (G3PLX)) came out with Amtor there
was a printed circuit board one could buy to get on
this new mode for (if I recall) around $500 USD.
You see Rich I and others was operating Amtor
when 99% of the hams world wide was wondering
what that chirp chirp noise was. We had a
Hi Buddy,
Although I would agree that part of the attraction of new modes is the
novelty of operating them, most of us try out the new modes is to see
how well they actually perform under real world conditions and find out
which ones we prefer for operation. Of course, this assumes there is
s
63 matches
Mail list logo
