winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the
proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it
will return as we move toward a digital future.
Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote:
Julian,
For example, five
Amateur population for any respectable sampling, and can
hardly be stated as overwelming either way.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open
discussion here of the impact of remotely
under Part 97.221,
there is little space to use what already exists.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes!
Finally a voice of reason that understands what I've been trying to
say. There is no reason you can't take one of the current crop
Pactor 3 has a symbol rate of 100 baud (SN8)
and an uncompress max rate of 2733 bps (uncompressed.) The ARRL
petition is simply requesting that digital rates be defined by
bandwidth rather than symbol rate. I think this is certainly a more
modern approach.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio
. But, this is not specific to local and remote controlled
stations, who do hear one of the two stations pulsing back and forth.
Ever been on Winlink 2000 to speak from experience? I don't see you
in the database. Tell me when you were QRMed, and I will look in the
log files to verify it.
Steve, k4cjx
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 seem
different since some of these stations are
unattended and under fully-automatic control. My question is, why are
OLIVIA stations there? This is just excellent verification that
those using local and remote control must have somewhere else to go.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
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
, the signal is 2.4 KHz wide (-24) and when stations who are
not bound by Part 97.221 start moving in that 5 KHz space, where is
the spirit of Amateur radio?
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No one owns a frequency, Steve. The sub-bands defined
, there is no flexibility for future
protocols and systems. I, for one, am not smart enough to second
quess the future. I suspect it will be like the rest of the telecom
universe, wired and wireless.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based upon the proposal by ARRL
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
an auto-start station
nor is it under automatic control. That being the case,
domestically, OLIVIA may operate from the phone band down to the
bottom of the band, assuming the control operator has the proper
license.
Look below:
Steve, k4cjx
-Original Message-
From: William Cross
Dave,
I would think that using signal detection techniques would solve that
issue. We have been experimenting with them lately and yes, there is
work to be done, but that is what this is all about.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
--- 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 are in your comments below.
of by those who do not.
Steve, k4cjx
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, I agree.
Such techniques already exist, as you have pointed out, but are not
exploited by today's message passing software. To encourage the
deployment
t least, that is my observation.Another observation: I am delighted with the choice of our new FCC lead. if her future in that position is anything like her past elsewhere, great innovations will come from our way. Hopefully, the Amateur radio service will be their with the rest of this innovatio
the current band plan eliminate that issue?
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set forth
in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. This
doesn't prevent mistakes
possible on HF today, with a
relatively primitive, uncoded, single-carrier DBPSK real-time
conversational system without ARQ, will mostly be eliminated with
the ARRL plan.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Joe Ivey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Gentlemen,
It is not can
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
, k4cjx
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-
Need
THERE IS NO TIMEBOMBS IN ANY WINLINK RELATED SOFTWARE.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell kg6yls-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew J. O'Brien writes:
For the record, I don't even want to
use ANY software that had such potentially disabling code
, they
are welcomed as users.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There are not that many programs that operate automatically and in
the past
I think there was a common view by many that you could not do
this in
software. Well, Rick, KN6KB proved
of Airmail or some other software is simply
intentionally causing trouble, but it makes for an effective post,
right? WG3G does not operate anywhere near the frequency listed
above, and never has.
Steve, k4cjx
Winlink network administrator
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet
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 example.
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
Imperial county (next door?) used it extensively accoring to the Red
Cross there.
This thread needs to end. It is going nowhere.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But did they use Winlink? That was the gist of my original post.
As an avid RTTY
.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your point. I have been through some hurricanes here in NC
that took
out my power for over a week at at time. I did not use WinLink,
nor did
anyone else, to contact the local power company to get my power
spectrum available, there
will ample opportunities to bring many digital methodologies forward.
Binary bits are binary bits, and there is no reason why they cannot
carry voice, data and image on the same frequencies with the same
tranmission.
Thanks,
Steve, k4cjx
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES
of the static regulation. Good idea? That
is what we have now. It does not work.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For non-realtime message delivery, you would choose a protocol that
QRMs ongoing QSOs over one that is slower but doesn't
, such as the horror show weather in Puru and Chili
immediately after the hurricanes last year, but hopefully, you get
the picture.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great overall post, Dean! Especially this part:
1. Ham radio is dying, because modern
, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is no conflict between those statements, and no bias:
A Winlink PMBO running Pactor is going to occasionally QRM ongoing
QSOs whether or not the PBMO operator is a good guy. The PMBO is
running
years, there have been
over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content, or
improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If
there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of the
license is required.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio
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 who
, not by regulation, but by design.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dr. Howard S. White
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well said John.. but the anti any Mode crap started with the
demise of the spark gap
__
Howard S. White Ph.D. P
Rybicke; Gary A. Payne, N9VE; Jim Darrow, PMBO KB9MMC;
John Leekley; Mack Brophy and Sam Rowe. Be that as it may, the system
seems to be growing gradually.
Thanks for your comments,
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Steve
.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I did not disagree with the substance of Eric KB6YNO's comments,
but
rather their tone; I'd give him a 593.
I've been QRM'd by PMBOs while operating PSK on the 30m band, and
while operating RTTY
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
AA6YQ comments below:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Waterman, k4cjx
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower to
implement multi-mode busy
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,
I will consider doing it. I am
buried in
software defined radio
work and AMSAT work but I do not believe this channel occupied
algorithm
is horrid.
If we did our own ALE, we could move around and find unoccupied
channels
and transmit
there. Why have we not?
From k4cjx: We scan now
Dave,
My point is that the motive for doing anything has to be justified
some reward.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically extract
addresses from the log, the capture
with a
warning to the initiating station user.
We all think we are thinking when we are merely re-arranging our
prejudices.
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You may never convince most hams to personally use Winlink, but I
believe
. And there are other issues
(security,
etc.) that have not even been addressed yet.
Rick, KV9U
-Original Message-
From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 10:10 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice
have an ability to deploy pretty
effective signal detection with the SCS modem. But,the author of
Airmail only provides a warning should a busy frequency be detected.
I guess that someone should convence him to also dis-allow
transmission?
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio
is transmissions?
Steve, k4cjx
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Re: From my perspective, as an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth
in a receiver for a 50 Hz signal, and then complaining about
agacent
signal interference is not proper management
Howard,
This
is great. One thing left. Look on QRZ.com and the "Winlink wants your
frequencies" on the front page. Please put this there, too. Then let's disappear
from QRZ!
Thanks
much!
Steve,
k4cjx
-Original Message-From: Dr. Howard S. White
[mailto:[EMAIL
is segmented properly, that
won't be an issue. But, that is just my perspective. Others may think
that opening their receiving bandwidth for a 50 Mhz signal is
appropriate. What is so, so what. No one has a hold on any of this,
and blame is not the answer for resolution.
Steve, k4cjx
46 matches
Mail list logo
