Perhaps those who are in favor of RM-11306 took the wise advice not
to "mail bomb" the FCC with comments that all say the same thing.
There is only strength in numbers when that strength has a purpose. I
personally see no purpose in asking over 5,000 US hams who use "local
or automatic control"
Skip,
Winlink has not been invaded by any virus. The administrators
periodically and routinely refresh the auto-acceptance list in order
to keep attempts down. Please do not take things out of context in
order to make your points. If you do not know, just ask. There is
nothing to hide.
Se
No Skip, there were no virus's, just attempts. Read the message,
please. Now I understand that you would like that to happen so you
can spread your vendetta further. What are you concerned about Skip?
We are talking about 45 stations TOTAL, Worldwide. A large number do
not care what we think
Rick,
I appreciate your comments, however, look at what is being said:
1. The "Winlink wants your frequencies" campaign, all whopping 45
stations, Worldwide? Absurd..Simply a tactic to influence the ARRL
BOD.
2. Recently, I wrote a simple and routine message letting users know
that they m
Average 150,000 messages monthly or 282,000 minutes. Average time on
air 2.6 minutes.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Those two numbers are apples and oranges Howard, as I'm sure you
> know. To assess efficiency, one mus
atever signals with which it shares spectrum. That's
> why Rick KN6KB is engineering busy detectors into SCAMP.
>
> What's a surprise is your implying that the blame lies elsewhere,
> rather than acknowledging the problem and the efforts underway to
> elminate it.
>
&g
All,
I would like to verify that the numbers quoted here are correct. They
reflect an average. Here are the actual numbers from the log files
for the Month of March:
Winlink 2000 System Traffic Summary:
Last Month's Traffic
HF Messages Received or Delivered 150356
HF Minutes Air Ti
Dave,
The problem is not that we mind any opposition to what we are doing.
It gives us an opportunity to tell our story. The problem is not the
protocol we use, be it Amtor, Clover, Pactor, SCAMP or what comes
next, and next after that, nor is it the fact that we stopped using
fully, machin
AVERAGE.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Ken Wilhelmi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve-
>
> I notice the average message size is 1635 characters.
> How many kb is that? I thought I saw someting about
> testing with 80KB attachments.
>
> Ken - N7Q
ntimidation or
asking that
> these things not be discussed.
>
> Again, the WL2K team needs to make a change (probably a big change)
in the
> way they approach criticism, critiquing, concerns about the flaws
in the
> system, etc. or expect resistance from folks who may have been
sup
preciable throughput.
>
> I did not suggest that you "convince the world to use Winlink
2000";
> I suggested that you convince the world that Winlink will be a good
> citizen on the amateur bands, and provided explicit advice on how
to
> do so. None of what I suggeste
Mike,
Let me remind you that Voice traffic may also be provide via telephone,
even in the most remote areas on the planet.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues interesting.
> T
of no use as a general solution to the hidden
> transmitter problem. Why do you keep bringing it up?
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> of value are from people who use it, then how can the ARRL Board
make an
> informed decision?
>
> All they can do is make the best call they can based on the
information they
> are given.
>
> Considering that they are getting their information from a
committee that
Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party traffic
Content Rules:
§97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of a
message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding
stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate
the rul
Dave, again, we have no option other than to request improvements
from SCS, or do our own development elsewhere with additional
protocols. That is exactly what we are doing.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff Hazen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is the name of their S
With proper band planning by bandwidth, this issue will be mute.
There is room on our bands for all digital modes, past, present and
future. Wilink 2000 is a small player in the grand scheme of what is
to come. Segregation by mode of operation or style of operation is
long past. I do think
AMEN!
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul is right !
> Remember what happen to the 220Mhz band?
> When all the money showed up on the other side.
>
> At 08:21 AM 4/9/05, you wrote:
>
> >Actually, in some respects, it is the FCC
All,
Actually, it is not the PSK mode. It is a wonderful way to converse
in real-time. Rather, it is the few who continually stir the pot just
to be "right." Hopefully, soon, we will have a band plan proposal
that will eliminate this conflict by separating these conflicting
issues, not by re
Force has the Milwaukee ePMBO and you should see it as
as
> you would have had to set it up by remote control as you do with
any server
> on the WL2K system.
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave,
What portion of the band were you operating PSK on 30 meters? What
CENTER frequency? When was this. In other words, time and date?
I believe that with the proper band plan, allowing a segment for
automatic operations and allowing properly use semi-automated
operations to exist elsew
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >>>AA6YQ comments below:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >snip<
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party
> traffic
> > Content Rules:
> >
> > §97.219(c) provide
Good comments. For Winlink 2000, there is no protocol maarriage, and
there never has been. If something better comes along, we will adopt
it. We always have. We are in the process of completely re-doing the
network topology and before long, we will be adding additional
protocols.
However, n
Dave,
As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for
whatever reason or excuse, I am confident that with vision and
courage, and at the indirect advice of the FCC, they will come up
with a band plan that will carry us far into the future. I would hope
they will do this by i
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I have a million questions and the source code is required but I
can do
> the busy detection
> algorithms in short order. I have been too swamped to do anything
> about modem work but
> if I can help make this
PHone patches take place all the time and in significant numbers in
Europe. If I am mistaken, then so be it, but I believe you will find
the Europeon Maritime Mobile Service Net performing these on a daily
basis. http://www.eu-mmsn.org/pages/home.html
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yah
ow.
>
>73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> >
> > My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very s
> sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an
> enterprise-
> > scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs.
> >
> > With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the
> airwaves,
> > content filters might also be a g
;
>73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > As with the days of AM, when SSB was on the chopping block, for
> > whatever reason
ll mitigate QRM
> caused by Winlink on Pactor due to the hidden transmitter effect.
>
>73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave,
: www.ky6la.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Dave Bernstein
> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:12 PM
> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winl
Dave,
Segmenting the bands by bandwidth, where narrow band conversational
modes, who use control operators on each end is the answer to this
issue. However, I will agree that signal detection will start playing
a role in semi-automatic operations. I suspect, with more digital
activity forthc
;t agree on
is one group OR one mode getting it's own little piece of the pie all
to itself.
>
> Dave
> n4zkf
>
>
> "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> With proper band planning by bandwidth, this issue will be mute.
&g
Bob,
Of course, and with Winlink 2000, if we have repeated offenders as
users, first a warning and then they get removed. This goes for
message content as well.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob DeHaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> And if an OT may say something (lic
Rick,
One point here in a very good message. IF both control operators are
present, and IF the bandwidth of the protocol is wider than 500 Hz,
operations are NOT limited to the auto-sub-bands. Also, if an
unattended station is NOT in the United States, and a US Amateur is
present, he may tra
> Kindly address your critique to the above proposal.
>
>73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > The ONLY answer for your sa
Dave,
Even though semi-automatic operations are NOT confined to the US sub-
bands for signals over 500 Hz IF the semi-auto station is not in the
US, we have been keeping them there where possible as a courtesy.
However, obviously, it is not an optimal solution.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalr
s would work. If you cannot provide an explanation,
> then the logical conclusion is that you don't have one. Neither
does
> anyone else.
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PR
Buddy,
Daily. We get requests from the U.S. Coast Guard every other week or
so, as well as other country agencies, and we have a good track
record in finding these vessels.
During the last Hurricane episode, we were the only visible
communications from many of the islands, the most widely
Of secondary importance to this message is the following:
http://www.kyham.net/emcomm/ares/digital/systems.html and it may not
be current, but its an indication of Winlink 2000 for KY EmComm.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Mike/k1eg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can give you one examp
When Hams don't think they may add value to emergency communications,
its all over!
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Gregg Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Buddy,
>
> Great points you make there. You are absolutely correct about
technology! I mean, they now have ce
wfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist"
> "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America"
> Website: www.ky6la.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:21 PM
&
Tanks buddy,
And we all want to "stick the other mode" somewhere else. Band
planning by bandwidth will allow RTTY to sit without the problems of
Pactor wide or narrow. In fact, If they do retain the auto-sub-bands
for Packet, it will also remain free to auto-forward, machine-to-
machine.
Please note the recent actions of the ARRL Executive Committee. They
are to be applauded for their vision and courage. Please let's get
beyond the present situation, protocols, and biases, and plan for the
future. This means, let's get beyond the present perceptions of
existing operations. F
Rick,
We would LOVE to have a redundant system, but only if it wishes to
meet the criteria that we impose on our own system, This would
include the B2F format, which allows binary attachments, and the
ability to route Ham-to-ham messages or Ham<>Internet recipient
messages without the use of P
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "swl0720" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SOMEBODY WANTS TO TALK TO YOU REAL BAD ON 7071.2 PACTRASH WILL YOU
> PLEASE ANSWER THE STATION...IT DOES NOT ID AND IS CAUSING A LOT OF
QRM
> ON THE 40M BAND...PROBABLY GOT SOME HAM GRAMS FOR YOU TO PASS
ON...
WG3G
d dates. Extracts from the log are presented as an
attachment.
On Monday, 10 May 2004, a telephone conference was established with
Mr. Kay, the President, the Station Manager and Steve Waterman,
K4CJX, (the Winlink 2000 (WL2K) network coordinator) to discuss the
results of our investig
WG3G, Trinidad, is NOT on the Air. He has NOT been on the air for
weeks. An all-user message went out as well as to his own user list
making this announcement. I find it hard to believe that a call that we
have blocked since the beginning of April is on the air calling a
station that is known n
Pactor on 14080?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "RussellHltn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>> I try to stay away from where the pactrashers operate but how
> come they seem to migrate to any qso on the band? <<<
>
> Sounds like less of an issue with the mode then some operator that's
ge
Rick,
I guess you are quoting me regarding the original automatic
forwarding of Winlink Classic. The very reason we moved TO Winlink
2000 is why we moved FROM Winlink Classic. That is, to take fully
automatic forwarding OFF the HF bands once there was a more
appropriate and efficient forwardin
THERE IS NO "TIMEBOMBS" IN ANY WINLINK RELATED SOFTWARE.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell wrote:
>
> Andrew J. O'Brien writes:
> >
> > > For the record, I don't even want to
> > >use ANY software that had such potentially disabling code.
> >
> >
> > I
Winlink "Classic" or Winlink 3.0 works perfectly with the SCS driver
povided with this Package. However, the problem of identification
remains.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew J. O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My apologies, I pressed the wrong button and de
Rick,
The default 24 hour time limit is 30 minutes for most PMBOs, however,
this varies with the specific PMBO. Any PMBO will grant additional
time upon request.
Scamp is in a holding pattern since much work is being done to
eliminate the primary central server/backup central server in favor
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Hatzakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'd like to hear what programs people use with the SCS PTC-II
series of
> TNC's for PSK, RTTY, SSTV etc? I just picked one up and not
feeling like I
> am taking full advantage of it.
>
> Thanks, Michael K3M
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "palmdalesteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Anyone know if Pactor III is legal here in the US?
>
> Was on 20 meters around 14.107 or so and a booming ~2.5 KHz signal
> that could have only been Pactor III was cranking. Who knows what
the
> station was doin
Since I first started using HF in 1955, my own experience with RTTY,
CW and Winlink 2000, which uses "local and remote control" per Part
97.221, says that the current voluntary segments work for all. The
FCC publicly agrees. In addition, the ARRL also thinks that they
would work better, spur mo
Mark,
So many years ago, the ARRL ad-hoc digital committee was given a
draft of the IARU Region 1 bandplan to use as a model.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 01:24 PM 12/26/2005, you wrote:
> >Unlike the United States which is
radio service will be their with the rest of this innovation. I would think it will unless we block our opportunities. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >>>AA6YQ comments below.> > --- In digitalradio
Dave,
I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject for
the most part. However, tell me that the hidden transmitter effect
does not play a role in contests, when all reason seems to stop..and
by agreement for most.
Specifically when and where is your conflict with automat
73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject
> for
> > the most part.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > I am not as confident about predicting the demise of Amateur radio > as you a
signals).
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I would think that using signal detection techniques would solve
> that
Domestically,per Part 97.221, stations under "automatic control" and
stations OVER 500 Hz under "local or remote control" (semi-automatic)
are in these sub-bands. A station that has a live human being control
operator is allowed operation anywhere below the "phone band."
Why would anyone who is
Yes, this is the case. I don't know why anyone would pick the Part
97.221 sub-bands to operate. This is the problem with the formation
of a hard-coded sub-band. We can't move out of the way with a station
over 500 Hz, but those operating OLIVIA may.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogro
text of 97.221 is available in
>
> http://www.ncvec.org/page.php?id=136
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Domestically,per
I don't personally do not advocate or favor stations under fully
automatic control within the HF spectrum, especially when there are
other avenues for transfer. I do certainly avocate "listening before
tranmitting" under remote or local control, and I agree that signal
detection should be deplo
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
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
mentation and
> technical advancement. I would not restrict fully automatic
> operation with "listen before transmit" capability, just as I would
> not restrict remotely-controlled automatic operation with the same
> capability.
>
>73,
>
>D
>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
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
Winlink. Perhaps your database is not completely
> > accurate.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6Q
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dav
ue here is lack of a band plan. Despite an explosion of
> new digital modes over the past several years, the ARRL has made no
> effort to update its band plan. Leadership on their part could have
> gone a long way towards reducing frictions such as these.
>
> 73,
>
>
l voice becomes quite a bit better in a 3.5 KHz BW,
I am
> skeptical that digital voice will ever be all that popular on HF.
The
> quality is nice if you have a good S/N ratio, but too often would
drop
> out and frustrate users.
>
> -- Olivia is not necessarily a wide ban
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
There are different standards (e. g. STANAG 4539) achieving 9600
bit/sec within 3 kHz of BW at an SNR of only 21 dB. That is today.
The ITU is adopting further standards on HF which will exceed this
with similar bandwidths. I don't believe anyone expects to experiment
with or achieve a bandwidt
I believe that the ARRL is suggesting that "symbol rate" is not the
best way to define a protocol. The symbol rate of most any modern
protocol is going to be much less than it is currently defined. For
example, Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a speed of max
speed of 200 bps, while Pa
78 matches
Mail list logo
