AE4TM has posted a graph based on real world results using groundwave at
various distances.
It shows PI starts its dropoff at 10db S/N. It is a gradual dropoff to about a
S/N of -5db to 0db. Somewhere in that range things go down very steeply.
PII maintains its throughput from +30db S/N all th
N6CRR,
I agree with you.
tim ab0wr
On Thursday 02 March 2006 23:15, N6CRR wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This announcement should really stir up some new rantings from the
> > Anti-Everything Forces...
> >
> > http://www.arr
Mel,
I think you also get an ALC indication when the rig "folds back" the output
because of what it sees as a high SWR at the antenna output jack.
It sure sounds to me like you are getting a high SWR on these upper bands
which is causing the ALC to be cut in so as to reduce power output.
This
Doc,
I'm in Kansas. So I'm not doing much directly with SEDAN :-). I'm just using
their guidelines and operational practices to guide me in what I am designing
for use here.
Try www.fla-sedan.net to get started. There are some other sites for other
states. Try a google on "sedan amateur radio"
It is doubtful that it is your soundcard. One possibility is RF feedback
because of your antenna, feedline, and shack configuration on those bands.
Do you have a dummy load? Connect it to your rig with a long piece of coax.
One long enough that you can get the dummy load away from your operatin
Rick,
Respectfully, you might want to clue your EOC in on the SEDAN network and how
it works. Those folks have a lot of experience with tactical emcomm using
packet.
What impressed me the most is that they have known for a long time that
forwarded messages, e.g. email, are not conducive to di
w.ky6la.com
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
> - Original Message -
> From: Tim Gorman
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re:
If all else available to these EOC's failed then I hope to God I am never in
the area they are responsible for when a disaster occurs.
With the self-aligning satellite links that provide mega-bit rates up and down
that are available today for less than $2500 a year, an EOC without one is
just
On Saturday 25 February 2006 09:19, KV9U wrote:
> Jason,
>
>
> Needless to say, 300 baud does not work well on HF. At least not with
> conventional two tone packet. For their own reasons, they chose not to
> move toward a far better ARQ mode. I am supportive of the concept of a
> sort of "mesh net
I'm sorry, I had a typo.
ARQ modes are NOT conducive to net operations. Most of them are session
oriented since the terminating end has to provide ARQ messages back to the
originating station that packets are received correctly. If you have 7 people
on the net and two miss different data packet
There was a study done a couple of years ago I believe by the ARRL that showed
accuracy of relaying by SSB was not nearly what it should be, CW (if I
remember correctly) was better but still not good. I don't remember FM being
nvolved in the test.
If I can find the study somewhere I'll post a
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 01:09, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
>
>
> >>>Unless a remote operator seeking access to the automatic station
> is sitting on frequency waiting for the frequency to clear, there
> will be a signficant delay between the frequency clearing and the
> f
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 19:41, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> There are straightforward ways to successfully deal with this
> scenario a large percentage of the time. After noting the transition
> of a previously-busy frequency to not busy, an automatic station
> would wait some period of time - say 3
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 18:45, KV9U wrote:
> With the unfolding technologies we won't be needing subbands. For the
> older technology such as PK-232 equipment the stop gap is to keep the
> automatic operation areas in place for now. Ideally, they would
> eventually not be needed. At this time I
Rick,
I think the problem is more complex than this. I believe you will find that
sub-bands will ALWAYS be the answer of choice.
First, I use a pk-232mbx on pactor in the automatic sub-bands as part of the
NTS-D system. This box only listens for other pactor stations. If I were to
be told tha
On Monday 20 February 2006 08:40, KV9U wrote:
> Bonnie,
>
>
> What I would like to see are some practical bandplans that have a
> recommended spot frequency for digital modes. We do have that by default
> now on 20 meters for the .070 PSK31, and similar areas on 40 and 80
> meters. The RTTY operat
Hmmm, you have figured it out?
Do your regulations allow *you* to encrypt the content of any messages you
send over amateur radio? Do they allow you to encrypt the access protocols to
your systems?
How do you avoid the scrutiny of YOUR intelligence services when sending
encrypted messages inte
On Saturday 11 February 2006 12:24, Paul L Schmidt wrote:
>
> In general, though, it seems that there are a lot of folks out there
> who think it's best to penalize the entirety of society because a
> small segment *MIGHT* do something wrong.
Not allowing encryption of messages on amateur radio w
When you say you have no problem with "loading and tuning correctly", exactly
what process are you following? Do you have an antenna that is resonant on
all these frequencies? Are you using an autotuner between the 746 and the
antenna? It sounds like perhaps you have a problem causing a high SWR
On Friday 10 February 2006 22:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> We tried Part 15 many variations of 802.11 type solutions and they just
> do not work ... Our terrain is far too mountainous and varied for reliable
> line of sight..
Really? And you think 2m, 70cm, and higher bands are any less li
On Saturday 11 February 2006 00:35, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> EMCOMM has always been the first reason for existence of HAM Radio.
>
> Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose
>The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
> amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expres
K1MK wrote:
> At 07:36 PM 2/10/06, Tim Gorman wrote:
> >The ARIL just got roundly criticized by the Amateur Radio community
> >for its HF
> >Internet petition with the FCC. Here comes the next installation - this
> > time for VHF.
> >
> >Check out the following
because HIPAA doesn't require protection of data transmitted
> by hams or the Red Cross doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected, does it?
>
> Are we not free to do the right thing without being forced to do it?
>
> Sounds like another thread to get moved quickly over to the
Howard,
On Friday 10 February 2006 19:23, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Of course, Tim is spreading his usual anti ARRL, Anti Winlink, Anti Change,
> Anti Internet and Anti Virtually Everything Else missinformation rants to
> make his point.
ROFL! So much attributing motive, Howard. Can you read m
The ARIL just got roundly criticized by the Amateur Radio community for its HF
Internet petition with the FCC. Here comes the next installation - this time
for VHF.
Check out the following URL's:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/board.html
http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2006/january/
For thos
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
las
On Friday 03 February 2006 10:11, Nacho wrote:
> Hi,
> I´m new in this group and in general in Ham radio. I´m very
> interested in digital modes, overall PSK31, and I´m looking for a
> equipment of medium price. I would apreciate your help about your
> experience. I like FT-840 but I have seen in
On Thursday 02 February 2006 16:19, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Graeme
>
> In spite what Tim is wishing for, realistically people have been shutting
> down packet nodes here in California due to lack of traffic and if it were
> not for the need to keep the digipeaters on the air to service 2M Winl
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 19:49, list email filter wrote:
> Graeme,
>
>
> 2. You want to install a stand-alone digipeater, bbs, and / or gateway,
> i.e. doing this without a computer running. These days the only people
> interested in this are the APRS folks, and with everyone wanting to run
On Thursday 02 February 2006 01:54, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
>
> and I suspect that several spread spectrum QSO's could share the same
> bandwidth...
>
> making for much more efficient band utilization .and less QRM
> __
> Howard S.
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:36, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> I did not call the majority "stupid" - you did... I said that the majority
> usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming to embrace the new
> technologies
ROFL!!
So if they aren't stupid then what are they? Just stubborn? Not
Is anyone else on here concerned that the ARRL bandwidth regulation proposal
removes all baud rate limitations on signals in the HF bands and 2 meters?
The only limitation will be the bandwidth limitation that will cap the baud
rate.
Removal of 97.307(f) limitations means we will see 3500 baud
Not using current techniques. A SSB signal 6db above the noise level provides
a usable signal for communications.
The current digital voice techniques that are available typically require a
+10db signal to noise ratio.
tim ab0wr
On Sunday 29 January 2006 17:20, kd4e wrote:
> Question re:
> >
This was my opinion also. In order to get 5600baud, even in a 6khz bandwidth,
significant power levels will be needed to reach a signal to noise ratio
sufficient to allow the baud rate to be realized.
Even a 5600bps rate in a 2400hz ratio is going to require a HUGE signal to
noise ratio be main
On Sunday 29 January 2006 15:43, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> You quote the RSGB statement of the fact that:
>
> "-The IARU Region 1 HF Bandplan has served the amateur community very well
> for many years,"
>
> Need I say any more...
Yes, you do! As usual you leave out the operative part:
"Howeve
with its
> sidebands would be broader than 2400 Hz.
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>
> --- Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Respectfully, you are talking about compressing the
> > content. That won't help
> > with cramming a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz
> > band
nds cause?
tim ab0wr
On Sunday 29 January 2006 13:03, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> I suspect they mean 5600 bits per second.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > Most telephone
omputer modem designers
> get 56 kbps through a 3 khz telphone line? That's a C/B of more than
> 18.
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > No, the claim I am investi
from the RSGB, Improving Bandplan Compliance, paper number 138
-An increasing proportion of the Amateur Radio community is using non-CW modes
and deploying beacons within the CW communication sub-bands.
-national societies cou
No, the claim I am investigating is concerning a statement that there is a
need in amateur radio for a new mode with a symbol rate of 5600baud and a
bandwidth of 2400hz.
I'm very interested in how such a feat can be accomplished.
I'm with you. My first thought is that such a thing would be impo
ght get you there.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Question for the digital experts:
> >
> > How do you get a 5600 baud circuit to fit into a 2400hz bandw
Question for the digital experts:
How do you get a 5600 baud circuit to fit into a 2400hz bandwidth?
tim ab0wr
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.y
Q15X25
On Saturday 28 January 2006 14:37, obrienaj wrote:
>
> Anymore ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/grou
Look at it this way.
The coding used for most VOIP over the internet is about as good as it gets
today. Most of it provides toll grade quality, e.g. 300-3000hz bandwidth.
That doesn't provide high fidelity nor is it conducive to high
intelligibility (think your 2.8khz SSB is high intelligibilit
On Friday 27 January 2006 21:46, John Bradley wrote:
> To me as an outsider, ie not a citizen of the USA, it's both interesting
> and confusing as to why Hams in the US feel that they need structure and
> many regulations in order to make the bandplan work.
>
> There are collectively a whole wh
On Friday 27 January 2006 15:20, N6CRR wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe we're just ready to recognize that dividing the bands by the
> > content type doesn't make sense?
> >
> > If I'm talking to someone on SSB and decide I want to se
On Friday 27 January 2006 12:50, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> You asked for an example and I gave you a simple one...
>
> You know full well that are a myriad of examples of technologes that are
> illegal in the USA because of our outmoded regulations...
>
> On the positive side, the FCC has alread
On Thursday 26 January 2006 23:53, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> How about the time that Mixw included Video inside of MFSK...illegal in the
> USA .. but legal everywhere else..
>
> And I could give you many more examples...
>
> __
> Howard S.
On Thursday 26 January 2006 23:47, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Tim:
>
> You ignore the fact that PSK31 in the USA on 40M is smack in the middle of
> other countries allocations for other modes...We QRM their QSO's with PSK
> just like they QRM us with other modes.. its a 2 way street...
>
> I woul
On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:21, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Lost in the rhetoric against Winlinkis the real reason for
> RM-11305/6.
>
> There is a third Camp...those of us who love to experiment [isn't that one
> of the reasons for amateur radio] who are kept in technology jail by the
Yeah, right. No chaos.
Only on 40m when the Canadian and South American SSB take out psk31 in the
states at this location.
Want to see what will happen if anything goes? Listen to 3585-3590khz in the
early evening when we are trying to have CW nets and have to put up with SSB
QRM.
That's!!! t
On Thursday 26 January 2006 09:03, KV9U wrote:
>
> On my ICOM 756 Pro II, I have found that even if I have the RF power set
> to minimum, which is considered to be 5 watts, and with the sliders on
> the sound card to a fairly low 1 1/2 on the master and wave outputs, I
> will not see any power out
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 04:47, Paul L Schmidt wrote:
> How about changing "no place" to "only a limited place".
>
> For example, it's essential (*and currently legal*) for remote
> control of things like satellites.
>
> And it would be nice for emergency comms -- with the health
> privacy laws
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
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,
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
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 oper
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
>
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
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
Usually you have to have something connected to the adapter in order to
initialize everything.
Then it will start showing up with a com port address.
You typically can't just plug the cable in and get everything initialized.
Did you have a tnc or something active on the cable at the time?
tim
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
14.096Mhz and 14.098Mhz
tim ab0wr
On Sunday 15 January 2006 19:04, John Bradley wrote:
> and where might those frequencies be?
> - Original Message -
> From: David Struebel
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink Classic program with the
Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD Winlink Classic stations I connect
to stay within in the automatic sub-bands as laid out in FCC regulations,
Part 97.221(b). These are: 14095-140995khz and 14100.5-14112khz. In fa
I am concerned about the feasiblity of using FEC modes for sending record type
traffic. This has always been a problem on RTTY, I don't see why it would be
any better on newer sound card modes.
Would it be useful when specifying signal/noise ratios, as is done below, to
state what level is need
Do you have a "power out" setting for the meter on your rig? If you are
running below the ALC, your power out may only be 10-20watts maximum. Does
your rig have a "monitor" position that will let you listen to your outgoing
signal through your headphones? Just hook up the transmit side from your
Jim,
I do this all the time. I use a linux computer running in multi-user mode with
X-windows enabled as my access to the rig using software like linpsk. I then
run Hummingbird Xpress on a windows laptop as a Xwindows terminal to access
the linux pc. The only downside of this is the cost of th
I don't want to belabor this too much. I wrote a volume about it to my
Director - never heard a single word back from anyone.
Just let it be known that if an EMT ever said "I'm not going to treat anyone
if I can't treat everyone!" he would be fired on the spot.
The ARC didn't refuse to set up s
The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they negotiate
agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent
amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency shelters, what
do they expect?
The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's (N
9RN used to have a ham active on the NTS-D until he became sick in 2004. He
passed away early in 2005 and no one has picked it up since then.
At this point in time I am picking up the 9RN traffic off the NTS-D and
passing it into the 9RN via the CW NTS nets, at least as much as I can. I
general
While they may anticipate changes to phase out mode references at some point
in the future, it may be a long time before that is done.
Region 1 passed a resolution (I believe it was unanimous) at the Sept Plenary
that digital and analog signals should be separated.
The RSGB seems to be followi
On Monday 05 December 2005 09:04, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> We can help with Health and Welfare traffic which is not done
> by the official part of an Incident."
What's wrong with this? This used to be an IMPORTANT part of our service! And
it was recognized by the public. And that
On Monday 05 December 2005 09:04, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> >From an amateur radio operator who works closely with NDMS and on a DMAT
>
> (Disaster Medical Assistance Team)...
>
> "Your posting this morning was most timely and coincided with a FL3-DMAT
> team meeting I was attending.
for office and
> change it.
>
> __
> 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
Walt,
Good answers.
Couple of comments.
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 16:25, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
>
> It isn't the high-ranking government officials that drive
> policy...its the GS-12s, 13s and 14s. The are the ones
> who brief the GS-15s and SESs who if th
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 15:51, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>
> Given the credibility gained in Katrina, I'd be playing offense, not
> defense. Work with DHS and the FCC to convince the commercial
> satellite operators to "donate" a couple of transponders on
> geostationary satellites to serve as t
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 10:39, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Actually the truth is exactly opposite of what you are saying...
>
> They have a Regulation by Bandwidth and a Voluntary BandPlan
>
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/
All I can say is that if they think inter-operability and fragmented spectrum
can be solved by taking the amateur radio HF spectrum, things are really
screwy in the government.
I can just see a fireman in Joplin, MO trying to get a EMT in Dallas off the
frequency using a handheld with 6foot fl
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 14:23, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> Ok...If you can't provide or won't provide a service the public wants,
> the public may be asking for your frequencies. Remember its "our bands"
> if we fulfill our charter. If we don't, "our bands" may become "someone
>
_
> 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 -
>
To all:
For those of you who have been told the rest of the world is going with
bandwidth regulation and we are falling behind, here are some of the
recommendations approved in September, 2005 by the IARU, Region 1 Plenary. It
certainly looks to me like they are recommending regulation by mode,
Bonnie,
As was pointed out to you on qrz.com:
The second formant of the typical male speech is 20-25db below the first
formant. The second formant usually occurs around 2000-2500hz in male speech.
That will make the power levels outside 3.5khz even less than what you propose
here which is onl
Howard,
Give me a break!
They are NOT a national elected body. Their elected positions are elected by a
minority of their membership and their membership is a minority of the
amateur community. And I *am* a member. I don't consider them representative
of my views and neither do a lot of others
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 10:23, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
>
> If you can't provide or won't provide a service that your "customer"
> wants,
> they may be asking for your frequencies. Remember its "our bands"
> if we
> fulfill our charter. If we don't, "our bands"
Rick,
Just because there are no other national representative bodies, that doesn't
make the ARRL into a body representing all of amateur radio by default. I
only listed the other items to show that the ARRL does a poor job of
representation in many areas, not to say that CQ magazine is a nation
On Monday 28 November 2005 17:46, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Being that the ARRL is the Only National Organization representing Amateur
> Radio, and as it likely represents a Majority of Active Ham and Membership
> is Open to All Hams so those who are not already members can join and have
> a say
> - Original Message -
> From: Danny Douglas
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia
>
>
> May I ask just how removing the telegraphy licensing barrier will go a
> long way to reducing the bu
On Monday 28 November 2005 16:56, Williams wrote:
> The reason that the ARRL will be the primary organization that develops
> a band plan is precisely that they are the defacto U.S. National Amateur
> Radio Organization. They do represent the full gamut of competing ham
> interests. Even those who
On Monday 28 November 2005 09:49, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
>
> I believe that there is a possibibility of having 150 KHz or 300 KHz wide
> channels with many very high speed and robust "QSOs" going on all using the
> same bandwidth. Basically spread spectrum like mode within a define
On Monday 28 November 2005 10:27, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> If 4 users are sharing the channel, then each will see a quarter of
> the channel's capacity (less, actually, due to the overhead from the
> channel-sharing part of the protocol). If a single user requires all
> of the channel's bandwidth to
On Monday 28 November 2005 13:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
>
> If I have a vote.. I would vote for the minimum regulation necessary and
> leave it up to us Hams to decide how we want to use our bands with our own
> bandplans (WHICH I AM SURE THE ARRL WILL DEVELOP AFTER WE KNOW WE ARE GOING
> TO
On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:03, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Mark:
>
> Thanks for your very lucid summary...
>
> My vote is for the Canadian Model where we set the maximum bandwidth
> for each band.
>
> I might note that much of the rest of the world is going to this style
> model...
>
> Even
On Sunday 27 November 2005 01:39, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brad VK2QQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Dave, WHY do you need the FCC to apply the restrictions for you? Why
> do you not feel that USA hams can develop their own bandpla
On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:05, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Kevin:
>
>
> For Example:
>
> To develop a new Digital Communications Mechanism... one has to go through
> all sorts of regulatory hoops.. such as publishing protocols before you
> actually use it on the air... the rest of the world ca
Howard,
Point 1: The ability to send image transmissions in the current RTTY/data
sub-bands does not require changing to a bandwidth regulation paradigm. It
could be done merely by the FCC changing the modes allowed to RTTY/data/image
instead. QED You don't have to push Humpty-Dumpty clear of
On Saturday 26 November 2005 04:08, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
>
> >>>We are well beyond the point where arm-waving and pontification
>
> constitute effective argument. Take a good look at IARU region 1's
> 2006 band plan; you'll see that unattended operation is confined to
>
On Friday 25 November 2005 23:54, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> Universal QRL provides a means of resolving "changing propagation"
> conflicts among QSOs whose participants include one or more
> automatic or semi-automatic station. It must be possible to send a
> universal QRL from a basic transceiver, a
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
