Who will enforce this using what source of funding?
The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
nor the necessary technical infrastructure.
Were this to be implemented it would require a significant
budgetary increase from Congress or a transfer of resources
within the FCC.
One
Lord! Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again. Id almost rather
watch Cricket. Jiminey that is.
- Original Message -
From: N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud
I am talking abour baseball not radio
hi
- Original Message -
From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
De LØRD
Yes !
Up
Why not do the same for all rather then just a few?
At 08:52 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
The primary concern - that automatic stations will QRM ongoing QSOs -
could be monitored by anyone capable of copying CW, assuming
compliance with the CW identification requirement.
To deal with the hopefully
If we are talking about Pactor III mode, (not sure about P2), it may be
very difficult to monitor. Not impossible, but would likely require some
special software to decompress the B2F, etc. More than one P3 promoter
has pointed this out to ARC I believe as a way to keep others from being
able
preaching INTERNATIONAL
sub-bands, but those folks will
never let it happen.
- Original Message -
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes
baud rate limitations
""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:56
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations
y, February 05, 2006 8:43
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Those answer my questions. It is NOT cheap, not
readily available for meto use in my computer with already owned
equipments. Let me know when itis.Danny-
Origina
John,
Many of us are familiar with the AOR product since it has been around
for some time now and is about the only one of its kind for HF. The pros
and cons of this technology have been mentioned many times.
While it may have good voice quality and almost no background noise, the
trade off
Danny,
Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there will be any
shortage of spectrum for CW. From what I have read of the proposals, any
narrow mode can always be used in a wider mode subband. Just like you
can today. No one loses anything. In fact, it is the exact opposite
exist, how about letting
the rest of us in on it.
Danny
- Original Message -
From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
At 09:47 PM 2/5
OK John. I had looked at the ads and read up on that before, and
immediately forgot it. The 500 bucks would go a long way toward
a new, shiney, taller tower, which mama wont let me buy anyway. Hi.
Danny
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of
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
gitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:37
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
As long as countries like Canada would redo their
regulations andprevent stations from simply moving lower since it is legal
to so
Why ID every 5 minute ?
At 08:56 PM 2/6/06, you wrote:
I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We should
replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:
No automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied
frequency, or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the beginning
Yes I see this.
I could be done very easy with out bringing the
link down.
At 09:41 PM 2/6/06, you wrote:
To facilitate self-policing.
The software controlling an automatic station would have no
difficulty remembering to do this, and the impact on throughput
would be neglible.
73,
: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF
Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South Americans signals
down around 3590 and 7040.
Besides that wasn't
.
It may be technically feasible to do everything WinLink, the ARRL and
others may want to do by allowing more spectrum to be allocated to
these services, but by doing so is the resulting environment still
Amateur Radio?
This question, to me, is what it all boils down to.
I think the
Message -
From:
N6CRR
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:49
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose
of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio
Steve,
It is not just emergency traffic, but HW traffic, important
informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can sometimes
include systems such as Winlink 2000, but for the most part it will not,
since they have two things that greatly changes the calculus compared to
the
It's time to change the subject to reflect
what you are now talking about.
It has moved from the ARRL proposal to an anti
traffic.
Please remember that before email ham's
had been doing the same thing for years.
John, W0JAB
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
I think I can answer some of your questions.
The ARRL definitely has taken the issue of having some kind of workable
network for emergency to heart. At least the past president did. After
doing a test to demonstrate how effective amateur radio networking is,
we were unable to deliver messages
KV9U Wrote:
What I do see is the restricting of
bandwidths to ~3 or so KHz and that will make high speed digital
protocols much more difficult since you can not ignore the science
behind it.
[...snip...]
the new proposals do not address my
biggest concern of finally being able to intermix
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
Even from to mobile.
John, W0JAB
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
Even from to mobile.
Clever retort,
At 10:13 PM 2/5/06, you wrote:
Clever retort, but not very elucidating. Obviously I need educating.
Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...
de K1PGV
try this page for the AOR digital modem at
that most on digital voice are using.
http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html
scroll to the
I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in
effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive subbands (although they could be
used for other narrow band modes such as PSK31 and maybe some others
that have not been invented yet to fit in that size of bandwidth), a
shrinking of the
05, 2006 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital
11:30 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
At 11:13 PM 2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts
03, 2006 4:56
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in
the U.S.For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first.
If it ever proved to be successful on VHF/UHF in a narrow
Hi,
I've been an engineer for a long time, but I'm new to ham radio. Where
exactly is this limitation defined by the FCC in the US? What document
(and maybe section) defines the limitation of 300 baud regardless of the
bandwidth?
Also: are you saying that the FCC allows us to transmit
At 09:33 AM 2/4/06, jgorman01 wrote:
1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our
regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations.
Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF
modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or
Keep in mind there is no regulatory baud rate limit for digital voice or
digital SSTV. Any emission designators with a second symbol of 1 or 2, and
a third symbol of E or C are considered Phone/Image respectively. There
are no baud limits for these emissions. The baud limits are for emission
ished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
Arthur J.
Lekstutis
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 8:25
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes b
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:39
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
I am
assuming your comments were meant to be applicable to the HFbands since
there is nothing to stop hams from doing it on
Gentlemen,
Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to (perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental point of
There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in the U.S.
For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first. If it ever
proved to be successful on VHF/UHF in a narrow bandwidth format, then it
could be adopted for HF use as well.
Just wishing something technical to happen
37 matches
Mail list logo
