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
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 hopeful
I am talking abour baseball not radio
hi
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
De LØRD
Yes !
Up to the day tha
De LØRD
Yes !
Up to the day that there is a PSK-31 mail system and it bits
them in the butt
Of course the real problem is that there is those that just
HATE to wide modes and will say and do any thing to see it fail.
At 07:37 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>Lord! Do we have to put up with talk a
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:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF
t;
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
> Who will enforce this using what source of funding?
>
> The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
> nor the necessary technical infrastr
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 probabi
odes.> > >> > >
Jim> > > WA0LYK> >
>> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Douglas" wrote:> > >
>> > > >> > > >
- Original Message - > > > >
Maybe most countries, but certainly not all...
Jose, CO2JA
--- Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since most, if not all Central and South American
> countries have no
> subbands, they go where they want, when they want.
> Our SSB moving down any
> bit at all, with simply cause them to
Since most, if not all Central and South American countries have no
subbands, they go where they want, when they want. Our SSB moving down any
bit at all, with simply cause them to come down below, and into the
CW/digital bands, to talk to each other and/or make DX contacts away from
our QRM/I
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,
>
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 begin
it harder
and harder> > for both CW and the narrow digital modes.>
>> > Jim> > WA0LYK> >> > --- In
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" wrote:>
> >> > >> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "KV9U" >
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
-
> > From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
> limitations
> > on HF
> >
> >
> > > Danny,
> > >
> > >
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 intere
to be negative here, but if that does exist, how about letting
>the rest of us in on it.
>Danny
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:04 PM
>Subject: RE: [digitalrad
- Original Message -
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
> Danny,
>
> Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there
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
beca
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 is
and have the computer do all the work.
Danny
- Original Message -
From:
Dr. Howard S. White
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:59
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Danny
nt: Sunday, 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-
0 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 digi
5, 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 o
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 right.
> >I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> >the last
">>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 t
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 t
>
>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.
>
Clev
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
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 inter
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 i
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
Steve,
It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W 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 pas
N6CRR,
You sure did hit the nail on the head with this
one. That is exactly what the one want that is pushing this stuff. The want to
turn ham radio into an email forwarding service. I just wonder how many of those
guys ever work any other mode other than passing email. Most all emergency
.
>
> 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
Goes
Unpunished""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
propos
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
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 h
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 multiple
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/
roups.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
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
To fully understand this whole bandwidth thing one
must first understand that there is those that hate
the wider modes, RTTY, Packet, Amtor and even
more Pactor and will do * anything * to harm them
to the point that they fail dry up and blow away in
the wind.
Last year there was some very bad
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 or
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
JIm:
You have made a very good case as to why we need to
experiment and come up with new technologies...
Instead of concentrating on all the potential and
imaginary negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM
arguments...you need to look at the positives...
There
The commercial GSM numbers are not relevant to this
discussion ..we are talking about Ham radio which has different design
parameters...
Using spread spectrum for example it should be
possible have multiple QSO's in a standard HF voice
channel
More important, if we design systems t
46 matches
Mail list logo
