Dave Bernstein wrote:
> the hidden transmitter effect is a myth,
Have you already programmed a cyberionosphere responding to your wishes?
C'mon! Be realistic.
Jose, CO2JA
__
V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educa
Using Per's Live-CD it is possible to run pskmail without affecting
your MS machine and you get a chance to enjoy the one of the recent
Linux Distros. Maybe after trying the disk you will think about
dumping MS altogether.
Darrel
VE7CUS
PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current protoc
There is a fairly significant difference between PSKmail and
Winlink2000. Assuming that an individual even supports the concept of
internet connections via radio, it would be nearly impossible to
substitute one system for the other and have a similar outcome.
PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (wi
The root cause of the complaints can be traced to the way that Pactor
III was introduced to the amateur bands. Most hams today consider
the appropriate bandwidth of a signal in the RTTY/Data subbands to be
500 Hz. Wider bandwidth modes have been tolerated, but they
typically are limited to on
At 11:42 PM 3/25/2007 Dave, AA6YQ wrote:
Personally, I'd give them a 3 KHz segment on 20m,
Easy, Dave your hatred is showing once again.
But in truth this really would be like giving the PSK guys
point three KC of the band. Either way it just ain't going
to work and Ray Charles could see
nday, March 25, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
> Dave,
At 03:23 AM 3/26/2007, you wrote in part:
Sorry now I am confused by this labels.
> RV internet traffic
Dave,
In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting,
there
was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was doing.
And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.
So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSK
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
>
> > There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
> > (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was
> > primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the
> > Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system
> > wh
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
>
> This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
> modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
> no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule.
>
> 73 Bill - WA7NWP
I am confused. What is a "narrow museum mode?"
> There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
> (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily
> intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system
> (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use
> the old Winli
> Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already
> in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is not
> malicious, but it is clearly willful.
We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
> An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will no
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily
intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system
(perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use
the old Winlink softwar
/DXandTalk
- Original Message -
From: "kv9u" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
> Leigh,
>
> Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to
Leigh,
Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to have any
detection and would still be legal. When the rules were drawn up, the
technology had not been invented to have busy frequency detection, at
least not for amateur radio. But that all changed a couple years ago
when Rick, KN6
If this is true, wouldn't it be a major reversal from past FCC
recommendations?
My understanding was that some time back (decade or so) the FCC wanted
to regulate by bandwidth, rather than mode, and the ARRL strongly
opposed it at that time and the idea was dropped.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Cha
Dave,
Again, these are all good points, and I will forward them onto my Director.
However, I don't think there are any satisfactory answers to the issues.
A the bottom of all this is my suspicions that the FCC really does NOT
back the idea of reg by BW.
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follo
com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:15:01 -0700
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working
on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of
the Winlin
Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law.
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote:
> The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a
> busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on
> one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impre
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working
on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of
the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented
frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden
transmitter issu
card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message -
From: "kv9u" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Di
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a
busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on
one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the
main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection
rules, Winlink
I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code
for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If
SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would
show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased,
it fuels con
know anyway (HI).
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Date: Sat, 24 M
Dave,
Just FYI, here is the response I got back to your points...
I don't necessary agree with the response, but Jim is closer to
the situation than I am so here goes...
Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid
employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is p
Dave,
You make several excellent points! OK...Chris isn't perfect ($%#@).
Plus, the recent "alternative" ARRL proposal causes
me some concern. For example, might we not want
some digital mode above 3 kHz someday? How about
one spot on just a few bands where up to 6 kHz is
permitted? Why take
Does the ARRL post, and seek comment, when they plan on seeking new rules?
I assume that posting their proposals for a 30 day comment period would help
spot heir errors.
Andy K3UK
On 3/23/07, John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave,
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney w
Dave,
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but
it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we
in an adult conversation here, or what?
2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek
bro
28 matches
Mail list logo
