italradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of g4ilo
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
> 97
>
>
>
>
>
> It a
No, not by "content", except for unallowed transmission of music,
pornography, business communications, etc., there is no regulation by
"content". You can say or send whatever you wish. "Content" is the data
delivered. The actual wording in the regulations is "emission type"
instead of mode, bu
I guess I can chime in here with my 2 bits. Why not use cw as the common
communication mode. My computer, using MultiPSK, can read CW quite well. And
I understand that morse code recognition actually uses very little of the
computer's resources. It is relatively easy to add a function to a c
RTTY.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of g4ilo
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:59 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
I've hear
> KH6TY wrote:
> Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge
> numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the
> border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth.
Hi Skip,
Perhaps you may want to re-phase that?
USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content
rather than mode/bandwidth.
From: KH6TY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 2:08:20 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
Julian,
Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more
power
I've heard this argument many times, Dave, but whilst it was probably true 10
or more years ago, surely all decent modern transceivers have a dedicated data
mode that allows the use of narrow filters? Heck, even the humble FT-817 has
one.
Julian, G4ILO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dav
El 09/03/2010 02:08 p.m., KH6TY escribió:
Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get
more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving
linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure
out how to interface the computer to the rig
I assumed that people kept using FSK because paths to Europe can have 20-30 Hz
of Doppler spread.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: KH6TY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 19:08 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all
Julian,
Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get
more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving
linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure
out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK.
Many of the "big guns"
signals.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of g4ilo
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
It
groups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of KH6TY
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more
efficient
It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift
character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY.
Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason
why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist o
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY wrote:
>
> Julian,
>
> "Digital" is what the FCC calls "CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is
> included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS
> author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far
> as the
The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more
efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters
to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think,
because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall
time to co
al current study on how we are using our bands.
"Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real (true) information
available."
Astrophysicist Gregory Benford 1980
--- On Tue, 3/9/10, KH6TY wrote:
From: KH6TY
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Ty
Julian,
"Digital" is what the FCC calls "CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is
included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS
author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far
as the US is concerned, he could go higher still and avoid Olivia, but I
Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone
users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to
figure out how to share what space is left. The division is
approximately 50-50 between phone and digital "what the FCC calls
'data/RTTY'". This is a holdove
2010 2:20 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in
proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth.
Radio does n
Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band from the
bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there is really only room
for half the number of digital stations. Also, if you can really go up to x.150
why has ROS jumped on top of Olivia when there is another
I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within
the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many
simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not
hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been mu
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US
amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and
by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes
it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would
be like if ther
We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have
read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't
encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system
it would cause headaches and the situations described but if othe
I think you have hit the nail on the head. If you look at where there is not a
problem, it is where modes have established their own place on the band that
people largely adhere to. PSK31, WSPR, JT65A all have their own places on the
bands and people know what to expect there. Olivia too, until
I'm not sure the solution is a technical one at all.
For instance the ROS users (even many US ones) are still causing major
interference to the Net105 packet network. Even if RS ID was appropriate for
packet (which it isn't) I don't think it would stop the QRM. It's a complete
lack of understan
What is your solution?
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, g4ilo wrote:
From: g4ilo
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:35 AM
I'm with Skip here.
First o
I'm with Skip here.
First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so
I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact
on the problem.
Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to
this discussion, RS
27 matches
Mail list logo
