RE: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Ah, I see what you guys are getting at: IRLP First, that's INTERNET, NOT Amateur Radio! Radio's should be linked via the AIR WAYS, NOT over phone lines. But that's MY opinion! You're just trying to safe guard your personal information, which really shouldn't be going over the Air Ways anyway! Rod John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, The International Regs changed last January (2006) to allow Amateurs to use encryption. However, not for international traffic. It's only permitted for internal domestic traffic; It is not permitted between Amateurs of different countries without specific authorization (ITU?)...according to the League's attorney. John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:17:20 -0700 expeditionradio writes: Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses The many administrations which don't permit amateurs to carry third party traffic at all (in many cases to protect their national government's monopoly position as a provider of secure radiocommunication within their borders) seem unlikely to agree to revise the International Radio Regulations in a way which would make it easier for their hams to conceal that they might be carrying third-party traffic. 4. To shield system passwords Logins over potentially-compromised media (including ham radio) should use technical means to cryptographically authenticate transmissions, but that does not require cryptographic concealment of the content. If I chose, I could use private-key encryption to ssh into my shell account at my ISP, while passing the text of my session in the clear. Someone who sniffed my packets would be able to see what I was doing during my session at my ISP, but would not be able to masquerade as me using the information gleaned from tapping my lines or sniffing my packets. Something similar involving, e.g., exponential key exchange, could be used over ham radio. Multiple-use passwords sent in the clear became obsolete for network use more than a decade ago: there is no reason why ham radio should adopt content encryption to make up for the weaknesses of such obsolete methods of authentication. 5. To shield station remote control Concatenate the command and a timestamp, and use a crytographically strong a hash of the combination to prove that the command comes from someone authorized to remotely control the station, and to prevent replay attacks. There is no need to cryptographically conceal the command itself, only to cryptographically sign it. Challenge-response single-use passwords are another possible solution, still not requiring cryptographic concealment. 6. To secure access to stations Same answer as number 4 or 5, depending on what exactly is meant by that. 7. To control satellites The same as number 5. (ISTR that crypto concealment for control of ham satellites is already authorized, but I assert that there is no technical need for it: crypto authentication would be sufficient.) 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham Same answer as numbers 1-3. 9. To protect medical information Now we *may* be getting somewhere, but I'm still not sure. It seems to me that, e.g., a hospital could call via ham radio for helicopter evacuation of a patient to a regional trauma center, providing sufficient information about the case to justify dispatching the helicopter, but provide the actual name of the patient to the EMTs along with the patient's file and the patient himself when the helicopter arrives, rather than by radio. Is it really necessary to transmit personally-identifiable medical information over ham radio in emergencies? 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality See reply to items 1-3. 11. To control repeaters See reply to item 5.
[digitalradio] Cross platform improvements
I had mentioned cross platform development recently and wondered if Mono could easily do the porting. It is not something that just happens, but based upon the results of some competition, it does look like this is doable: http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1022 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Hi Dave: MIN for 3.4 gig is 450 watts!! and if your going to run it hard.. 500 or more Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:43:13 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated That was my first thought. The PC has a 250 watt power supply, but it's running a hot processor (3.4 Ghz), a full gig of RAM, a big video card, a sound card, a four-port RS-232 port card, and a NIC, plus the usual hard drive and CD burner. It seems to shut itself off mostly when it's running hard. But I also thought it might be a thermal problem. The processor puts out a load of heat. N6CRR wrote: Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of via the reflector. I hate burning good bandwidth for OT stuff. Thanks in advance Dave KB3MOW Dave Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Pay attention Rod, you get it eventuallyit's called RADIO! (HI) Original Message Follows From: Rodney Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Ah, I see what you guys are getting at: IRLP First, that's INTERNET, NOT Amateur Radio! Radio's should be linked via the AIR WAYS, NOT over phone lines. But that's MY opinion! You're just trying to safe guard your personal information, which really shouldn't be going over the Air Ways anyway! Rod John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, The International Regs changed last January (2006) to allow Amateurs to use encryption. However, not for international traffic. It's only permitted for internal domestic traffic; It is not permitted between Amateurs of different countries without specific authorization (ITU?)...according to the League's attorney. John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:17:20 -0700 expeditionradio writes: Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses The many administrations which don't permit amateurs to carry third party traffic at all (in many cases to protect their national government's monopoly position as a provider of secure radiocommunication within their borders) seem unlikely to agree to revise the International Radio Regulations in a way which would make it easier for their hams to conceal that they might be carrying third-party traffic. 4. To shield system passwords Logins over potentially-compromised media (including ham radio) should use technical means to cryptographically authenticate transmissions, but that does not require cryptographic concealment of the content. If I chose, I could use private-key encryption to ssh into my shell account at my ISP, while passing the text of my session in the clear. Someone who sniffed my packets would be able to see what I was doing during my session at my ISP, but would not be able to masquerade as me using the information gleaned from tapping my lines or sniffing my packets. Something similar involving, e.g., exponential key exchange, could be used over ham radio. Multiple-use passwords sent in the clear became obsolete for network use more than a decade ago: there is no reason why ham radio should adopt content encryption to make up for the weaknesses of such obsolete methods of authentication. 5. To shield station remote control Concatenate the command and a timestamp, and use a crytographically strong a hash of the combination to prove that the command comes from someone authorized to remotely control the station, and to prevent replay attacks. There is no need to cryptographically conceal the command itself, only to cryptographically sign it. Challenge-response single-use passwords are another possible solution, still not requiring cryptographic concealment. 6. To secure access to stations Same answer as number 4 or 5, depending on what exactly is meant by that. 7. To control satellites The same as number 5. (ISTR that crypto concealment for control of ham satellites is already authorized, but I assert that there is no technical need for it: crypto authentication would be sufficient.) 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham Same answer as numbers 1-3. 9. To protect medical information Now we *may* be getting somewhere, but I'm still not sure. It seems to me that, e.g., a hospital could call via ham radio for helicopter evacuation of a patient to a regional trauma center, providing sufficient information about the case to justify dispatching the helicopter, but provide the actual name of the patient to
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
My digital Ham station on 2.4 GHz is ALWAYS encrypted and the FCC said that's OK because we share that frequency with a portion of the Part 15 allocation. Original Message Follows From: Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:54:48 -0400 NO encrhyption on ham bands please. I certainly understand encryption of messages for the emergency traffic, but then that traffic should not be sent on the regular ham bands. It would be quite easy for the FCC to assign a few kc either below or above the normal ham assignments, just for emergency use only. Emergencies take precedence over all other communications, inclulding ANY other service, except for emergency service freqs themselves. So when a real emergency happens, the hams could switch from non-encrypted mode to encrypted mode, and move down/up to those freqs. That would continue to true amateur use of our bands, let the hams still have the equipment and practice area for such service (without changing the long-standing rule against encryption on our bands), and still allow for encrtyption when necessary. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses 4. To shield system passwords 5. To shield station remote control 6. To secure access to stations 7. To control satellites 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham 9. To protect medical information 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality 11. To control repeaters 12. To shield identities of children I'm sure there are more reasons... but that's some of the things I thought of in the few minutes it took to write this. Bonnie KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Hi Dave: I have no lost love for Gateway. but even worst yet is Dell.. if you check on the computer you will find that Dell has one of the worst customer service there is.. The only good way to get around this is to build it yourself.. Check out Newegg or tigerdirect (newegg 1st choice) Tigerdirect is ok IF it doesnt' involve a rebate ( chances are poor that you would ever get it).. AND building them is not that hard!! AND its just down right FUN!! Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:34:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Actually, Gateway's customer service has been pretty good. They had the tech come to the house three or four times to do the repairs. Unfortunately, anything that NEEDS to be repaired eight times has to have started out as junk! I could understand a hard drive crash. Stuff happens. But THREE? and replacing the motherboard twice is bordering on ludicrous! Now they want me to send it in for diagnostics! I can diagnose it! It's BROKEN hi hi! Building is going to be the only way next time. Can't afford it right now, so I'm kind of stuck with this one. But will not buy an off-the-shelf computer ever again. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW AA0OI wrote: Hi Dave: I have no lost love for Gateway. but even worst yet is Dell.. if you check on the computer you will find that Dell has one of the worst customer service there is.. The only good way to get around this is to build it yourself.. Check out Newegg or tigerdirect (newegg 1st choice) Tigerdirect is ok IF it doesnt' involve a rebate ( chances are poor that you would ever get it).. AND building them is not that hard!! AND its just down right FUN!! Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:34:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
Bruce, You might want to post your rant to THE LEAGUE. You are preaching mostly to the choir here. HI HI Chuck AA5J At 11:16 PM 4/27/2007, bruce mallon wrote: OK RM-11306 is on the back burner for now what will the ARRL do next ? Here is what they SHOULD do ... ASK with a list of questions what MEMBERS want to do. //yada yada snipped// Bruce WA4GCH Life Member for 30 years on 6 since 1966
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
1) Who are you talking to ? No one by the name BRFUCE here must be a lost digital bit at 100 khz wide 2.4 ghz digi . 2) THEY are the ARRL 3)THEY are supose to do the will of the members 4)THEY don't seem intrested in doing THAT. 5) THEY should be asking for the members not the members have to ask THEM. 6) OR THEY ARE USELESS . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brfuce, __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
I dont have a problem with MICROWAVE . NOR realy on 75 meters however how do you control who gets on and uses the band . how many unlicensed persons on 75 / 80 meters would it take for the FCC to shut all digital encription down --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Encryption is a requirement in Ham Radio whenever a band is shared with another service AND there is automatic data connection capability enabled, e.g. the use of 802.11b modulation on 2.4 GHz. John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:19:58 -0700 (PDT) You forgot one To hide the fact the message is illeagal encryption in my opinion is not needed on ham radio. --- expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses 4. To shield system passwords 5. To shield station remote control 6. To secure access to stations 7. To control satellites 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham 9. To protect medical information 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality 11. To control repeaters 12. To shield identities of children I'm sure there are more reasons... but that's some of the things I thought of in the few minutes it took to write this. Bonnie KQ6XA __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Well I guess I will fight not to have encryption on ham radio but wait isn't that what SCS/Winlink folks already have. Adapt or give in, mmmhh, I guess I will not do neither but to continue to fight the commericalization of ham radio..\ Kurt - Original Message - From: John Champa To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Cans of worms all over the place, Kurt. Get used to it. It will only be getting worse. Adapt or perish. Original Message Follows From: wa8vbx [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:13:39 -0400 So if encryption is allowed/use on Ham Radio who is going to control the crpyto gear, and who is going to set the daily keys? Who says station K1XXX can have a setup up but K1XXZ can't, even though both are working encomm's. So of the reasons you give might be valid, but it is would be opening up another can of worms, just like the deal with the Red Cross is with their background checks. I say HR does not need encryption, and no it would not provide seamless capability. My 2 cents Kurt K8YZK - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses 4. To shield system passwords 5. To shield station remote control 6. To secure access to stations 7. To control satellites 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham 9. To protect medical information 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality 11. To control repeaters 12. To shield identities of children I'm sure there are more reasons... but that's some of the things I thought of in the few minutes it took to write this. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
I Bought two complete kits of comuter stuff from tiger, and got a heck of a lot more than paying the same amount of money and buying one off the shelf unit. I did have to replace one power supply, and one cd plalyer/recorder between the two, in the last 3 years. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Dave Corio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated Actually, Gateway's customer service has been pretty good. They had the tech come to the house three or four times to do the repairs. Unfortunately, anything that NEEDS to be repaired eight times has to have started out as junk! I could understand a hard drive crash. Stuff happens. But THREE? and replacing the motherboard twice is bordering on ludicrous! Now they want me to send it in for diagnostics! I can diagnose it! It's BROKEN hi hi! Building is going to be the only way next time. Can't afford it right now, so I'm kind of stuck with this one. But will not buy an off-the-shelf computer ever again. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW AA0OI wrote: Hi Dave: I have no lost love for Gateway. but even worst yet is Dell.. if you check on the computer you will find that Dell has one of the worst customer service there is.. The only good way to get around this is to build it yourself.. Check out Newegg or tigerdirect (newegg 1st choice) Tigerdirect is ok IF it doesnt' involve a rebate ( chances are poor that you would ever get it).. AND building them is not that hard!! AND its just down right FUN!! Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:34:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
You are correct and you do not have to deal with people in India to get help. There is a book out, The world is flat, that very well explains what is going on in the hi-tech companies. At 10:51 AM 4/28/2007, you wrote: Hi Dave: I have no lost love for Gateway. but even worst yet is Dell.. if you check on the computer you will find that Dell has one of the worst customer service there is.. The only good way to get around this is to build it yourself.. Check out Newegg or tigerdirect (newegg 1st choice) Tigerdirect is ok IF it doesnt' involve a rebate ( chances are poor that you would ever get it).. AND building them is not that hard!! AND its just down right FUN!! Garrett / AA0OI [] - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:34:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-new cars at Yahoo! Autos. attachment: d761f0.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Hello there, Does anybody remember Packard Bell Customer service. 73 Gary WB6BNE - Original Message - From: Les Warriner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated You are correct and you do not have to deal with people in India to get help. There is a book out, The world is flat, that very well explains what is going on in the hi-tech companies. At 10:51 AM 4/28/2007, you wrote: Hi Dave: I have no lost love for Gateway. but even worst yet is Dell.. if you check on the computer you will find that Dell has one of the worst customer service there is.. The only good way to get around this is to build it yourself.. Check out Newegg or tigerdirect (newegg 1st choice) Tigerdirect is ok IF it doesnt' involve a rebate ( chances are poor that you would ever get it).. AND building them is not that hard!! AND its just down right FUN!! Garrett / AA0OI [] - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:34:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-new cars at Yahoo! Autos. --
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
According to the latest ARRL Letter, the League has been asking people for three years now and has received many responses. Withdrawing RM-11306 now is one result of those responses. 73 Alan NV8A On 04/28/07 12:16 am bruce mallon wrote: OK RM-11306 is on the back burner for now what will the ARRL do next ? Here is what they SHOULD do ... ASK with a list of questions what MEMBERS want to do. ASK the users of bands like 10 6 and 2 meters for INPUT don't just go off half cocked with comments like the users don't care no one ASKED anyone I know ... SHOW a band plan that safeguards repeaters and non digital users already there don't just come up with large chunks of bands because the league THINKS they could be use by some new mode. Be open and IF your going to go for a rule change POST IT and PRINT what input has been sent to you. This is not a digital verse analog fight unless you make it that.. ARE YOU LISTENING LEAGUE ? MOST people I know run both PSK-31 is popular on many bands and has had no problems with other modes. I just ordered a new soundlink box so i can run the ts-2000 on at least psk-31 ( ok SPY on you ) and there are many on 6 using that mode and narrow band high speed scatter digimodes on 50.250 WITH NO PROBLEMS. THINK LEAGUE IT MIGHT BE A NEW EXPERIENCE
[digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, wa8vbx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I guess I will fight not to have encryption on ham radio but wait isn't that what SCS/Winlink folks already have. Adapt or give in, mmmhh, I guess I will not do neither but to continue to fight the commericalization of ham radio.. Kurt, It's not Ham Radio that the encryption is needed for, it's WantaBe Radio and how to get an invite to play with the big boys and girls in disaster relief operations. Never mind that there are professionals, with equipment, training, clearances, insurance and accountability who paid to do this stuff using real equipment which is bought and paid for with US Tax dollars, I wantabe a part of that, so I can bring an encrypted radio link on Amateur radio frequencies. Wantabe Radio cheerleaders, including the drones from the ARRL have been told by the professionals that real disaster teams can be counted on, but Amateurs although interesting, can't be counted on because the first thing amateurs do is take care of their own families and jobs, along with the silly fact that Amateur Radio Operators can't take time off from work to spend a month or two in a disaster zone like paid staff can. Real disaster relief plans revolve around real assets which can be counted on, Amateur radio has not come up with a way to provide real resources that can be counted on. But hey, Presto Encrypto, if the Wantabe Radio radio operators can provide a ready supply of Amateur Radio spectrum and encrypted links using automated systems requiring few operators, then maybe the Wantabe's can get invited to play in the big leagues and get a hat, a badge and a Wantabe patch or two. The long list of reasons to allow encryption spelled out before in this thread all go to supporting the vision of giving the Wantabe Radio Corps a reason to think they will be asked to the dance, if only they could provide a relevant radio centric service that the professionals want. It's not Amateur Radio, it's wantabe radio operators trying to play a simi pro role in disaster relief operations using amateur radio spectrum resources. If the wantabe radio folks really want something to do, go check out their local CERT team and get trained for that, I did. Local CERT folks are crying for any sort of communications to fill the gap in the event of a major emergency at least before the calvary can show up, and this support don't need no stink'n encryption, and the do need your help now.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Wow! One of the local head hunters...oppps, I mean Professional Recruiters!...sorry... recently wanted me to accept a job as a VP for off-shore technical resources. Wonder if this is what he was writing about? (HI, HI) Gotta buy that World if flat book! Tnx Garrett Dave! 73, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:34:27 -0400 Been there. Done that. Got the scars. WB6BNE wrote: Hello there, Does anybody remember Packard Bell Customer service. 73 Gary WB6BNE - Original Message - *From:* Les Warriner mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:21 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated You are correct and you do not have to deal with people in India to get help. There is a book out, The world is flat, that very well explains what is going on in the hi-tech companies. At 10:51 AM 4/28/2007, you wrote: Hi Dave: I have no lost love for Gateway. but even worst yet is Dell.. if you check on the computer you will find that Dell has one of the worst customer service there is.. The only good way to get around this is to build it yourself.. Check out Newegg or tigerdirect (newegg 1st choice) Tigerdirect is ok IF it doesnt' involve a rebate ( chances are poor that you would ever get it).. AND building them is not that hard!! AND its just down right FUN!! Garrett / AA0OI [] - Original Message From: Dave Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:dcorio%40zitomedia.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:34:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other brands. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-new cars at Yahoo! Autos. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/779 - Release Date: 4/28/2007 3:32 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Kurt, It is already here! We have been encrypting Amateur Radio Part 97 digital traffic 24/7 on 2.4 GHz for years! It is expanding in use in the Amateur Radio VHF UHF bands, but is not likely to be found on any HF bands as international encrypted traffic is not permitted by the ITUbut there are ways around that too (MAC filtering, etc.). John -
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Bruce, Current Amateur Radio Guidelines for the use of Encryption specify that identification always be in the clear and that the encryption KEY be recorded in the station's log book in the event an ARRL OO or the FCC which to check the contents of the traffic to ensure that it complies with Part 97 (non-commercial). So there should NOT be any problemof course, CW above 25 WPM might as well be encrypted as far as I am concerned (HI). John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) I dont have a problem with MICROWAVE . NOR realy on 75 meters however how do you control who gets on and uses the band . how many unlicensed persons on 75 / 80 meters would it take for the FCC to shut all digital encription down --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Encryption is a requirement in Ham Radio whenever a band is shared with another service AND there is automatic data connection capability enabled, e.g. the use of 802.11b modulation on 2.4 GHz. John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:19:58 -0700 (PDT) You forgot one To hide the fact the message is illeagal encryption in my opinion is not needed on ham radio. --- expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill N9DSJ wrote: Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one could provide an single example I would be interested.. Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses 4. To shield system passwords 5. To shield station remote control 6. To secure access to stations 7. To control satellites 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham 9. To protect medical information 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality 11. To control repeaters 12. To shield identities of children I'm sure there are more reasons... but that's some of the things I thought of in the few minutes it took to write this. Bonnie KQ6XA __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
Bruce, Sorry for fat-fingering you name! BTW, our HSMM signals on 2.4 GHz are 20 MHz wide, not 100 kHz!!! That's why it's called Spread Spectrum... Write the list of questions you think should be asked, and send them to me and I will ensure they get published somewhere. That's what I do. Then you won't have to wait until THEY do it. YOU can do it. OK? John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up .. Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:43:06 -0700 (PDT) 1) Who are you talking to ? No one by the name BRFUCE here must be a lost digital bit at 100 khz wide 2.4 ghz digi . 2) THEY are the ARRL 3)THEY are supose to do the will of the members 4)THEY don't seem intrested in doing THAT. 5) THEY should be asking for the members not the members have to ask THEM. 6) OR THEY ARE USELESS . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brfuce, __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
John, You might want to try PocketDigi for Windows or Windows Pocket PC. It does a great job on CW over 25WPM and is free. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 3:53 pm, John Champa wrote: So there should NOT be any problemof course, CW above 25 WPM might as well be encrypted as far as I am concerned (HI). John - K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF search text
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:18:42 - cesco12342000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone started using it, and had any success? Yes, it's useful. From user guide: Two numbers appear at the end of each line. The first number tells whether the soft-decision Reed Solomon decoder failed (0) or succeeded (1). The second number gives a relative confidence level on a 0 to 10 scale for results produced by the Deep Search decoder. 002300 2 -23 0.6 -35 3 * GM4SLV WD4KPD FM15 0 10 Looks like I've been the beneficiary of your deep search file Cesco! Full QSO with David when I thought 20m was closed for the night (01:23 local time). The power of a) your CALL3.TXT database and b) Andy's online sked machine! Cheers 73 from Shetland (IOTA EU-012) John GM4SLV
[digitalradio] Re:Announcing the Digitalradio 7th Anniversary WAC Challenge/Award
Nice idea Andy, should stir things up methinks. Any room for a SWL class in the challenge ? I think I can rustle up a couple of SWLs to take part. 73 and have a great weekend. Brian ZL2001SWL EPC 002L SWARL _ Live Search delivers results the way you like it. Try live.com now! http://www.live.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
John Champa wrote: So encryption is required to be used, and the League attorney asked the FCC if that was acceptable and they said yes. The FCC's reasoning was that it was NOT our INTENT (an important legal concept) to obscure the communications. Our intent is to PROTECT our HSMM Network (The Hinternet) from unauthorized users (Part 15 stations). There is nothing I can point to our extremely out-dated regs that covers this specific situation, but I do have a copy of the League's correspondence on the matter. Could you post a pointer to where this correspondence is available? Or if it's not up on the net somewhere, could you mail it to me directly? I'd be most grateful for your effort. -- 73 de Nick N2QZ Section Traffic Manager, Eastern New York Section Net Manager, NYS/E FISTS #11469 SKCC #1027
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
OPINION is still allowed in this country When it's not there will be no need for HAM radio. IF the ARRL feels it's members are slandering it then let us know .. --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Knock off the slander, OK? Many of use fine Ham friends who have worked for the ARRL for years, and that's not appreciated. Thanks, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up .. Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Chuck... I doubt the league has a living brain cell ... --- Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, You might want to post your rant to THE LEAGUE. You are preaching mostly to the choir here. HI HI Chuck AA5J At 11:16 PM 4/27/2007, bruce mallon wrote: OK RM-11306 is on the back burner for now what will the ARRL do next ? Here is what they SHOULD do ... ASK with a list of questions what MEMBERS want to do. //yada yada snipped// Bruce WA4GCH Life Member for 30 years on 6 since 1966 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption NOT!
I am afraid many of them don't really care what you and I think about it. In this atmosphere of fright, many think that if we DON'T do as they are planning, we will loose our freqs totally. I think if we do it, we indeed WILL loose our freqs. Thus it turns out to be a catch-as-catch-can situation. WE have just got to convince the powers that be, that this is NOT a viable path to the result they want. As a professional communicator of some 29 years service, working with encryption equipment I understand its use, why and how it is used and that once it is in service, it is NEVER going to be removed from service, except to be replaced by more advanced equipment. There will be absolutely no way that any other ham can ever read the traffic, unless he/she has the same algologrythms, and the same key. The more people that have that key, the more likely you are to have a resulting leak of the information. Thus, government, and private services normally use point-to-point keying material, where only two stations have the same key, resulting in high security, but very little capability of sending the message to someone else, without another set of keys being held by the final two stations. Who will supply the key materials? Who will insure that this material is kept under high security situations, both during storage, and under use? This opens up a whole other problem. Are all these hams going to have to have a security clearance? Who would issue that? Right now, the NSA supplies ALL government crypto key material, and does all the testing, engineering, buying of government agency crypto devices, and keying materials. Will the equipment and keying materials have to be procured the same way? Just the part of the crypto question alone is a staggering job. Frankly, if the government wants and needs (and they do) additional radio/communications personnel for emergencies, and certain hams wish to volunteer for the assignment, that is just fine. Please just leave the rest of us out of it and don't force us to change our ways, or loose our present capabilities, in order for them to do so. Go ahead step up as hams, but only because hams are the semi-trained communicators of the day. It is like WWII. Hams stepped forward and taught CW, ran circuits, etc. But they used military equpment, after they were trained by the military to do so. No different than today. Step up with your knowledge, learn their way of dong things, use their equipment, AND THEIR FREQS. Meanwhile, if we have another Madison county flood, I will again go down to the fire/rescue station and set up a radio and sit there until the Navy/Coast Guard arrives. Of course, being the only HF ham active in the county, there arent too many more to talk to. The one or two on UHF/VHF were busy trying to protect their own. The other HF ops, has passed on to other pastures, and it turned out that he and I were on the same side of the rivers, and no hams were on the other side that were flooding. I wonder how many small towns in the US, indeed how many counties have no hams? Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption NOT! Thanks for your frank discussion. As far as encryption for the items like casuality lists. Does anyone think that since at least WWII amateur radio hasn't been able to send encrypted info on CW or RTTY? Hell, the military sent plenty of it in this fashion. So what is the new driver? In every case I can find there is one justification. Our clients and customers are demanding it. Hm, clients and customers, customers and clients. What does this sound like? Oh, I know, a BUSINESS. These folks are wanting to turn amateur radio into a common carrier business that is allowed to carry encrypted third party traffic. Keep in mind that in most cases, these customers and clients don't even want a ham to do the encrypting, they simply want us to carry it over our frequencies. This isn't what amateur radio is about and should not be allowed. There has been an excellent discussion on authentication techniques in prior messages. Let it suffice to say that encrypting content is not required to authenticate a message. You can even send repeater commands, satellite commands, etc. in the clear but only have them acted upon if proper authentication techniques are used. Heck, you can even use encryption techniqes of signatures for non-repudiation. That means if you shut down a satellite by mistake, there is a verifiable trail that shows YOU were the one to do it.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Dave, is it still under warranty? If not, it would be cheaper to take it to a local shop and have them check it - of course - if this new power supply doesnt fix the problem. I suspect it is NOT under warranty, or you would have been able to ask Gateway for another supply. FYI, we had over 500 Gateway computers at the college, from where I just retired a year and a half ago. We also had a few Dells, with assorted odd and ends hanging around. I even found some Commodore Vic 20 parts in the storeroom, while cleaning it out. We, and most of the colleges in Virginia use Gateway, because they are easy to work on, have extra quick service. At first, we had to answer the same old dumb questions. Is the unit turned on? Is it plugged into the wall, and the wall circuit tested? Blah Blah Blah. Until we convinced them we were NOT users, but were professinal computer people. A call to the regional sales staff, with a threat that we were looking at other companies, got us a different phone number for reporting problems. All I had to do was call, or send an email that a power supply wasnt working, a keyboard had gone bad on a desktop, etc. and they sent one that arrived the next day. That, of course is one of the problems with dealing with large companies like that. Most of their customers qualify for the Dummies with Windows title. So - they pretty much go by-the-book, asking questions and are afraid to skip one, no matter how much you sound like you know what you are doing. They really DO want to provide customer service: so that somone like you or me, doesnt get on a group like this one, and browbeat their good name. One lousy result with a phone calls, results in dozens of tellings, while a good one hardly gets mentioned. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Dave Corio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated Thanks for the input, Jose, and nice to talk to you again! If I could, I would build one today. Unfortunately, this one is still under warranty - even after being repaired eight times! Also, the finances simply won't allow for it right now. Just ordered a 500-watt power supply for it that I think (hope!) will cure the problem. The only other alternative was to send the entire unit off to Gateway - an alternative I am unwilling to do. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW Jose A. Amador wrote: Dave, I assembled my computer out of separately bought parts. I cannot reccomend a PSU brand, mine is a tower case with a 300 W noname brand made in China. My MB is a Gigabyte 8S661. I have had it for some more than a year without a hiccup. I bought an Intel P4 CPU @ 2.4 GHz. Another good option I made of cost vs. horsepower so far. I don't believe in Celerons, and the price vs performance curve was unreasonably steep for a 3.2 vs 2.4 for P4's at the end of 2005 for my resources. I would reccomend without hesitation an ASUS motherboard. I have had a couple of Asus motherboards, and the old 486 still works after more than 12 years. Maybe others may recommend other brands. Gigabyte and ASUS are proven compatible good ones for me. ASUS has a very good working relationship with Intel and that is another plus for them. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Dave Corio wrote: The power supply has been changed once already, but that was changing a 250-watt for another 250-watt. I can't just get a generic power supply, as Gateway has a proprietary mounting system that a generic won't fit into without a lot of drilling. I'm going to order a 450-watt unit from Gateway - at $65 plus shipping. This will also be my last dealing with Gateway. This PC has been a lemon since day one, having been repaired now eight times under warranty! Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, N6CRR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spend $20 and swap out the power supply. I had a computer doing that and it turned out to be that. Power supplies are cheap. And cheap power supplies are often prodigious RF noise generators, even when the computer is off. Spend a little more and get a good quality power supply. And beware that Dell computers use the same power connector as others, but with a different pin arrangement. So you can't swap mother boards and power supplies between Dell and other
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption... NOT
If one does a web search you find a lot of comments about encryption and amateur radio. But they mostly seem to come from one source. You and your group. Just because you are doing something that may be illegal or at least very borderline sub rosa type of activity does not mean that the rest of us approve of this or support you. I follow digital radio and also emergency communications quite closely and have not found any claim of legality by anyone for amateur radio encryption. I do find your committee asking for it and specially asking the ARRL Board of Directors for their support. It seems that you did not get their support and perhaps they got a bit uncomfortable about the direction you were planning to take amateur radio and that may be why they closed down what many would consider a nascent group that is studying and applying what might be the tip of the iceberg. Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Kurt, It is already here! We have been encrypting Amateur Radio Part 97 digital traffic 24/7 on 2.4 GHz for years! It is expanding in use in the Amateur Radio VHF UHF bands, but is not likely to be found on any HF bands as international encrypted traffic is not permitted by the ITUbut there are ways around that too (MAC filtering, etc.). John -
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated
Why I threw in the towel It is still under warranty. In-home service, no less! The tech has been here so often, we exchange Christmas cards! Seriously, the reason I'm giving up on Gateway is the history with this machine. We have purchased six desktops and a laptop from them with great results. Until now. The hard drive has been replaced three times: The motherboard replaced twice: The power supply replaced once. And this power-down situation has been going on for three months. they replaced the CPU fan. That didn't fix it. They had me repair Windows. That didn't fix it. The crowning defeat was yesterday, when I sent them an email asking if it could be the power supply causing the problem. I detailed all the additional peripherals I have added, such as the video card, audio card, 4-port RS-232 card, and USB devices, as well as the 3.4 Ghz motherboard they used to replace the original 2.6 Ghz motherboard! I asked specifically to have a PC designer or engineer look at whether or not a 250-watt power supply would handle this load. Their answer? If the power supply didn't work, we wouldn't have shipped the unit. Game over. If this were the first issue with them, I wouldn't be taking this approach. This is the eighth or ninth time I have had to request service from them for this one computer! The last time I called, the tech refused to get the supervisor on the phone! After spending an unproductive half-hour on the phone, I asked to speak to the supervisor and was told it makes no difference - she'll tell you the same thing! I'll replace the power supply out of my own pocket, and simply will not do business again with the company. The only good thing about beating my head against the wall is that it feels so good when I stop hi hi! 73 Dave KB3MOW Danny Douglas wrote: Dave, is it still under warranty? If not, it would be cheaper to take it to a local shop and have them check it - of course - if this new power supply doesnt fix the problem. I suspect it is NOT under warranty, or you would have been able to ask Gateway for another supply. FYI, we had over 500 Gateway computers at the college, from where I just retired a year and a half ago. We also had a few Dells, with assorted odd and ends hanging around. I even found some Commodore Vic 20 parts in the storeroom, while cleaning it out. We, and most of the colleges in Virginia use Gateway, because they are easy to work on, have extra quick service. At first, we had to answer the same old dumb questions. Is the unit turned on? Is it plugged into the wall, and the wall circuit tested? Blah Blah Blah. Until we convinced them we were NOT users, but were professinal computer people. A call to the regional sales staff, with a threat that we were looking at other companies, got us a different phone number for reporting problems. All I had to do was call, or send an email that a power supply wasnt working, a keyboard had gone bad on a desktop, etc. and they sent one that arrived the next day. That, of course is one of the problems with dealing with large companies like that. Most of their customers qualify for the Dummies with Windows title. So - they pretty much go by-the-book, asking questions and are afraid to skip one, no matter how much you sound like you know what you are doing. They really DO want to provide customer service: so that somone like you or me, doesnt get on a group like this one, and browbeat their good name. One lousy result with a phone calls, results in dozens of tellings, while a good one hardly gets mentioned. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - *From:* Dave Corio mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:40 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Off-topic, but any help appreciated Thanks for the input, Jose, and nice to talk to you again! If I could, I would build one today. Unfortunately, this one is still under warranty - even after being repaired eight times! Also, the finances simply won't allow for it right now. Just ordered a 500-watt power supply for it that I think (hope!) will cure the problem. The only other alternative was to send the entire unit off to Gateway - an alternative I am unwilling to do. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW Jose A. Amador wrote: Dave, I assembled my computer out of separately bought parts. I cannot reccomend a PSU brand, mine is a tower case with a 300 W noname
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
Yawn. How about you move this ARRL rant somewhere else and let's stick to digital radio stuff? We've heard all this before , and still remain totally baffled over the US ham's love of rules!! John VE5MU - Original Message - From: bruce mallon To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up .. 1) Who are you talking to ? No one by the name BRFUCE here must be a lost digital bit at 100 khz wide 2.4 ghz digi . 2) THEY are the ARRL 3)THEY are supose to do the will of the members 4)THEY don't seem intrested in doing THAT. 5) THEY should be asking for the members not the members have to ask THEM. 6) OR THEY ARE USELESS . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brfuce, __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM
[digitalradio] Wideband on 6
My dream was / is an ADV 100 kHz channel up around 53 MHz where we could have ADV QSOs over 50 -100 miles without investing a fortune in antennas. There are very few 6M FM repeaters in my area and the local coordinators are happy to keep a few channels uncoordinated for our ADV use. John - K8OCL INTERESTING Ok why did your group want 50.3 - 54 ? or was this a ARRL idea Also back last year I remember posting that the only place that wideband ( 100 khz ) would even have a chance was above 53 mhz . Remember your local coordinator if he was going to do it right would have to find that UNUSED 100 khz space and see others held it open for just your AdV use or you would find repeaters SOMEPLACE when the band opened. My old 6 meter repeater WR4ANA ( 52.55 / 53.55 ) largo was on from 1976 - 1980 and we had check ins from all over north america with 40 foot high antennas and 50 watts tx to the duplexer... 30 years ago. Bruce __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [digitalradio] Wideband on 6
Bruce, Yes, frequency coordination above 53 MHz would be a problem when the band open, but I think we would have a few years to work that out as the technology evolved from self-designed kit modems, to publicly available kits, to a manufactured product such as is sold for 4 MHz ATV at present. The test frequency, and it was ONLY for testing, NOT regular operating, was selected entirely by the test station (John, KD6OZH), apparently based on his local situation. The WG (abour two dozen Hams) and the ARRL OK'd it ior the 6-month long STA application for testing purposes only, again, NOT for normal operations, if later permanently approved. NOTE: ARRL actually is NOT in the frequency coordinating business, only in suggested band plans...or at least that is what they kept telling me (HI). Part of John rationale for picking a busier section of the band may have been to see if anyone even heard his signal! Although more power was requested, I don't think he ever ran more than 50W either. Now that may sound like a lot of power from a GP @ 40 feet, but keep in mind that unlike WR4ANA, John's test HSMM signal (actually OFDM) would be SPREAD OUT over 100 kHz, so its power density in a SSB or AM receiver listening to only a few kH would be VERY VERY low. They might not even notice he was there, as he would just blend-in with the background noise!!! As the WG chairman I just passed along the requested info to the ARRL lawyer. That wasn't my call, and his arguments for using that portion (of the band for just 6-months of testing sounded logical enough to me and the other guys... John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Wideband on 6 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:53:13 -0700 (PDT) My dream was / is an ADV 100 kHz channel up around 53 MHz where we could have ADV QSOs over 50 -100 miles without investing a fortune in antennas. There are very few 6M FM repeaters in my area and the local coordinators are happy to keep a few channels uncoordinated for our ADV use. John - K8OCL INTERESTING Ok why did your group want 50.3 - 54 ? or was this a ARRL idea Also back last year I remember posting that the only place that wideband ( 100 khz ) would even have a chance was above 53 mhz . Remember your local coordinator if he was going to do it right would have to find that UNUSED 100 khz space and see others held it open for just your AdV use or you would find repeaters SOMEPLACE when the band opened. My old 6 meter repeater WR4ANA ( 52.55 / 53.55 ) largo was on from 1976 - 1980 and we had check ins from all over north america with 40 foot high antennas and 50 watts tx to the duplexer... 30 years ago. Bruce __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption... NOT
Yepyou're are right. They didn't like policy recommendations. They wanted on technical recommendations. But the WG got so frustrated with the Board's flip flops on the issue (sound familiar?), that they all just resigned ... in TOTAL... after one conference call in November 2006. I still submitted our WG year-end closing summary report to the Board for their January 2007 meeting, but by then I was about the only Ham left on the team. My HSMM node kept going with WEP encryption with a published key as everyone we talked to thought that was legal, but the WG network protection gurus did not think it was either enough protection nor even encryption. Howeverit worked! And I had no Part 15 traffic on my HSMM node, ever! John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption... NOT Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:35:55 -0500 If one does a web search you find a lot of comments about encryption and amateur radio. But they mostly seem to come from one source. You and your group. Just because you are doing something that may be illegal or at least very borderline sub rosa type of activity does not mean that the rest of us approve of this or support you. I follow digital radio and also emergency communications quite closely and have not found any claim of legality by anyone for amateur radio encryption. I do find your committee asking for it and specially asking the ARRL Board of Directors for their support. It seems that you did not get their support and perhaps they got a bit uncomfortable about the direction you were planning to take amateur radio and that may be why they closed down what many would consider a nascent group that is studying and applying what might be the tip of the iceberg. Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Kurt, It is already here! We have been encrypting Amateur Radio Part 97 digital traffic 24/7 on 2.4 GHz for years! It is expanding in use in the Amateur Radio VHF UHF bands, but is not likely to be found on any HF bands as international encrypted traffic is not permitted by the ITUbut there are ways around that too (MAC filtering, etc.). John -
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
Plato: S--- slinging accomplishes nothing in a rational argument. Or I think he wrote SOMETHING like that(HI) John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up .. Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:39:14 -0700 (PDT) OPINION is still allowed in this country When it's not there will be no need for HAM radio. IF the ARRL feels it's members are slandering it then let us know .. --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Knock off the slander, OK? Many of use fine Ham friends who have worked for the ARRL for years, and that's not appreciated. Thanks, John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up .. Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Chuck... I doubt the league has a living brain cell ... --- Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, You might want to post your rant to THE LEAGUE. You are preaching mostly to the choir here. HI HI Chuck AA5J At 11:16 PM 4/27/2007, bruce mallon wrote: OK RM-11306 is on the back burner for now what will the ARRL do next ? Here is what they SHOULD do ... ASK with a list of questions what MEMBERS want to do. //yada yada snipped// Bruce WA4GCH Life Member for 30 years on 6 since 1966 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Nick, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Somebody finally figured out to ask the key question! Nick gets an A+. The League's attorney would not let us publish his FCC communications and discussions on this encryption matter outside the WG (a couple dozen Hams). He couldn't even review and approved our Guidelines for Proper Use of Encryption by Radio Amateurs that we derived from his FCC communications because he was so highly involved in BPL issues. That was yet another straw for the WG! They thought that our dealing with sharing the 2.4 GHz band with Part 15 (WiFi) stations was just another form of BPL and we deserved equal time. Also, they wanted an actual RULES CHANGE, as the ARRL Board originally agreed to have him pursue, not just many pages of FCC-ARRL memos! Wellthere are a lot more ARRL members on HF than have even HEARD of a Radio Amateur 2.4 GHz band, HSMM, etc. so I he didn't buy that argument (HI). John - K8OCL Original Message Follows From: n2qz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:25:47 -0400 John Champa wrote: So encryption is required to be used, and the League attorney asked the FCC if that was acceptable and they said yes. The FCC's reasoning was that it was NOT our INTENT (an important legal concept) to obscure the communications. Our intent is to PROTECT our HSMM Network (The Hinternet) from unauthorized users (Part 15 stations). There is nothing I can point to our extremely out-dated regs that covers this specific situation, but I do have a copy of the League's correspondence on the matter. Could you post a pointer to where this correspondence is available? Or if it's not up on the net somewhere, could you mail it to me directly? I'd be most grateful for your effort. -- 73 de Nick N2QZ Section Traffic Manager, Eastern New York Section Net Manager, NYS/E FISTS #11469 SKCC #1027
