Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters.
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it in PMBOs would be like banning automobiles because some people drive drunk. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201 73, Dave, AA6YQ Dear Dave Please let me know in which way do the PROPNET, ALE, HF packet BBSes, HF APRS DIGIS, W1AW Broadcasts and the rest of the unattended systems operating on the HF bands understand that there is a voice, cw, digital QSO taking place on the frequency and if they stop their transmission? As far as I know they all understand ONLY if there is another station operating in the mode they USE and NO OTHER MODE. So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM. There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming about. Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for free to the Radio Amateur community? I know why. If you did that you would not have anything to whine about!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM. There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming about. My station does. A human operator. Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for free to the Radio Amateur community? I know why. If you did that you would not have anything to whine about!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY OK, a couple of points. 1. No one is defending W1AW or the other practices that involve transmitting without listening. I happen to think that all such practices are morally wrong and legally questionable. Regrettably, the FCC has already said that W1AW can get away with its broadcasts. A bad call, but there you are. 2. Pactor is far more ubiquitous in its transmit-without-listening practices than anything else on the air. The Pactor community flatly refuses to change its practices, and they routinely QRM innocent QSOs with impunity and indifference. Mark's superb petition will help curb this. 3. I sold my SCS modem because Pactor as a Keyboard-to-Keyboard mode is as dead as Julius Caesar. No matter what a few outliers may say, Pactor is dead as far as ordinary ham radio goes. It is now solely a mailbox mode, used mainly to provide cheap, inefficient internet service to those who are not able to hook up to the usual internet grid. Doesn't sound much like ham radio to me. Other commercial services are a better provider of this capability--it is not appropriate for amateur radio. 4. I am a yachtsman myself. I can attest that very few yachtsman use amateur radio, let alone Pactor, for even a tertiary communications system when at sea. 5. Winlink is largely irrelevant to emergency communications, propaganda to the contrary. Having operated emergency communications in numerous fires and earthquakes, I can attest that Winlink was never a resource. The simplest modes, i.e. FM and SSB, provided the bulk of amateur-supplied communications. Simpler is better. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Steve, We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the majority of operators. If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide. Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of intentional interference. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, a couple of points. 1. No one is defending W1AW or the other practices that involve transmitting without listening. I happen to think that all such practices are morally wrong and legally questionable. Regrettably, the FCC has already said that W1AW can get away with its broadcasts. A bad call, but there you are. 2. Pactor is far more ubiquitous in its transmit-without-listening practices than anything else on the air. The Pactor community flatly refuses to change its practices, and they routinely QRM innocent QSOs with impunity and indifference. Mark's superb petition will help curb this. 3. I sold my SCS modem because Pactor as a Keyboard-to-Keyboard mode is as dead as Julius Caesar. No matter what a few outliers may say, Pactor is dead as far as ordinary ham radio goes. It is now solely a mailbox mode, used mainly to provide cheap, inefficient internet service to those who are not able to hook up to the usual internet grid. Doesn't sound much like ham radio to me. Other commercial services are a better provider of this capability--it is not appropriate for amateur radio. 4. I am a yachtsman myself. I can attest that very few yachtsman use amateur radio, let alone Pactor, for even a tertiary communications system when at sea. 5. Winlink is largely irrelevant to emergency communications, propaganda to the contrary. Having operated emergency communications in numerous fires and earthquakes, I can attest that Winlink was never a resource. The simplest modes, i.e. FM and SSB, provided the bulk of amateur-supplied communications. Simpler is better. de Roger W6VZV Fine Roger, You have your opinion and I have mine. Now if you can't be bothered to look for PACTOR keyboard to keyboard QSOS this is your problem not mine. When I look I can always find some. As for Winlink not been an emergency resource, I have read and still read otherwise in the radio amateur literature around the world. It has help in numerous cases in your country and in the tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean a few years ago at Christmas and if this humanitarian reason for Winlink's existance is not enough for you then I do not know what more to tell you. But it does not stop there, it can also provide free Internet e-mail for the Radio ham on the move globally (from the open seas to the bush of Australia, to the jungles of Africa, in Asia, in South and Central America and in many other parts of the civilized world, as we all like to call our western world today) and at the moment it is the only system that has a global network on HF and this is a great help for places with no communications infrastructure. So Winlink is not only for emergency communications, although it can be a big help in emergencies where FM/SSB and all bla bla modes cannot really help, except perhaps when you want to coordinate the fire fighters or other cases where accurate contain transfer is not necessary. If you just want to spoil a Great Radio Amateur Global Communication System just because sometimes af few ,ignorant perhaps, of it's users spoil your SSB QSO then go ahead and do it. This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world we should always be a bit more tolerant, don't you think? 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. as for automatic operations, don't forget that it is not only Winlink2000 and W1AW who do that. There are also PACKET BBSes (the real Robots where both ends have no human operator, the have Martians, there are Propnet stations, Beacons of all sorts, APRS DIGIS and many SSTV repeaters, PSKMAIL Mboxes, just to name a few, so if you tolerate their operation PLEASE do not complain about Winlink2000. Winlink2000 follows the bandplans just like all these systems do.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition
is dead.
The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and
handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they
have not cited the interfering stations?
Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham
community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules
changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I
believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to
deal with it formally and they probably will.
73,
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Steve,
We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you
have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest
groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets
as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the
majority of operators.
If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not
have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until
the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in
the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a
50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is
that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many,
many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may
improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide.
Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the
petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000
proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become
ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have
more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to
stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this
increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of
intentional interference.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Rick,
RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion.
As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted.
Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and
RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my
oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily
work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations
have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB
pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+
I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view.
73
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Hi Again, Steve,
I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you
don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes
from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for
them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that
way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the
SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB
operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but
even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and
similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters.
Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensw eb.com/drsked/ drsked.php
View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad
io/database
Yahoo! Groups Links
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
The question I have in all this is: Was this interference problem an issue BEFORE the reduction in the Amateur Licensing requirements, OR did this start occurring AFTER it??? Either way, the FCC must make a decision that we ALL have to live with, whether we agree with it or not! This subject is now beating a dead horse! IF you have a complaint, aim it at the FCC, NOT each other on this forum! All too often I've seen threads go on and on without accomplishing ANYTHING good! It usually causes people to leave a perfectly good forum needlessly, but they get hurt feelings and it accomplishes NOTHING! Again, IF you have a complaint or compliment about RM-11392, the information is at the URL given at the beginning of this thread! Write the FCC about it. It would be more effective if you would WRITE a letter to the FCC (you know the old fashioned way, paper and pen)! I'm personally tired of seeing this thread, or any other COMPLAINT thread, continue on and on and on. This Group, Forum, whatever you want to call it, is to help out our fellow Hams interested in DIGITAL RADIO! What it is NOT for is to complain incessantly about a subject! Give out the information needed to address the issue to the proper agency ie.; The FCC, ARRL... then complain to THEM and STOP bashing each other! Moderator, can we PLEASE move on??? Rod KC7CJO Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392 Steve, We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the majority of operators. If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide. Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of intentional interference. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Rick, RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. As Andrew stated, The proposal has no chance of being adopted. Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Hi Again, Steve, I think that you are also supporting protectionism as I am, only you don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB operators may have multiple notch
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Howard, You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the sheer number of opposed to favoring it has to be at least 80% opposed, if not even 90%. That is overwhelming. It is true that almost all of the hams who claim they oppose the petition have not really read and understood the petition, but instead pasted Bonnie, KQ6XA's, technically incorrect information as a response. Will the FCC see through this and take this into consideration? Probably only to some degree. I am not sure how hams can handle the interference. To my knowledge the ARRL Official Observers are not sending notifications to any of these stations. Same thing with any of the types of operations that appear to be scofflaws or at the very least borderline kinds of activities such as PropNet, APRS, ALE automatic sounding with unattended operation (when they operate in this manner with no control operator). The FCC Enforcement Division will hopefully respond to my multi issue query for clarification on how hams should be expected to behave on each side of the equation. This includes those who operate such stations and those who are affected by such stations. It may be that they will interpret the rules to say that these kinds of operations are appropriate and we will have to continue to live with that or later on ask for specific changes in the rules. The text data bandwidth issue may go away, at least on some bands, because wide modes ( 500 Hz) are specifically not to be operated under the new Region 2 band plans in many areas that they currently operate. While it does not directly have the force of law, it may be a tempering influence. If the ARRL had been able to get its request approved by the FCC to make band plans the force of law, there would be no more wide modes in the U.S. in the text data portion of the bands on 80 meters and nothing below 14.101 on 20 meters. Many of those opposed to the petition are intentionally misrepresenting that this is an anti-wide bandwidth issue. It is not. They should direct their ire at the Region 2 Bandplan, not at a petition that is a reasonable compromise and would allow three times that bandwidth to as much as 1500 Hz in the text data portions of the bands. Voice and image with reasonable quality, and perhaps larger file size mixed documents/data have larger throughput requirements and must have adequate bandwidth to be practical. While any bandwidths in excess of voice communications bandwidth would be inappropriate, due to the shared nature of HF amateur bands. Part 97.307 Emission standards. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. Now this is currently being stretched a bit beyond the Region 2 band plan recommendation of 2700 Hz with eSSB, but the rules do not exactly specify a bandwidth and unless the FCC issues an interpretation on what that really means, or accepts the band plan, there is some leeway since DSB phone is considered acceptable in some areas of the bandplan. 73, Rick, KV9U Howard Brown wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB
[digitalradio] ALE400 on 3.590
Hi all I am calling on 3.590 in ale400 now 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
[digitalradio] ALE400 on 3.590 QRT
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
[digitalradio] ALE400/FAE400 modes
Is anyone using the HFLink ALE 400 frequencies? I have not had any luck in contacting anyone on these frequencies using the narrow ALE and FAE modes. Also, if you are using these modes, when do you find it best to use ALE400 vis a vis FAE400? My personal preference is to call CQ with FAE400 since it sends out a series of calls every few seconds, rather than long transmission as you find in ALE modes. If it turns out that the frequency is in use, (digital modes don't tend to have a method to QRL), you can immediately stop transmissions. Examples of frequencies I call on here in Region 2: 3589 7065 10136.5 10141.5 (this frequency seems to compete with Pactor in my area so maybe 10136.5 is better?) 14094 (this frequency is very close to an FBB packet activity but may be far enough to be OK) 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Petition to Re-Establish Narrowbnad RTTY/Data Subband Comment Period Open
Hi Mark, How would this kill various digital modes with a bandwidth of 1500 hertz or less? I operate Oliva mostly at 500 hertz wide and sometimes and 1000 hertz wide. 73, tom n4zpt Mark Miller wrote: The FCC has released http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519820340 Public Notice report 2828-Correction establishing a new comment period for http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574 RM-11392. RM11392 asks the FCC to re-establish the narrowband nature of the RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Emissions have crept into the narrowband RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands that are not appropriate for the RTTY/Data subbands. Stations under automatic control have taken advantage of loopholes created by terminology in the commission's rules that is not applicable to new operating modes. Please read RM-11392 . and make comments to the FCC. Here are the steps. 1. Read http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. 2. Look at the other comments filed. To do this go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi FCC EFCS Search for Filed Commentsand enter RM-11392 in box 1 labeled proceeding. 3. Enter your own comments by going to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi FCC Electronic Comment File Submission page. 73, Mark N5RFX Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hmmm. The silent majority methinks maybe. - Original Message From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:31:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392 Hi Howard, You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the sheer number of opposed to favoring it has to be at least 80% opposed, if not even 90%. That is overwhelming. It is true that almost all of the hams who claim they oppose the petition have not really read and understood the petition, but instead pasted Bonnie, KQ6XA's, technically incorrect information as a response. Will the FCC see through this and take this into consideration? Probably only to some degree. I am not sure how hams can handle the interference. To my knowledge the ARRL Official Observers are not sending notifications to any of these stations. Same thing with any of the types of operations that appear to be scofflaws or at the very least borderline kinds of activities such as PropNet, APRS, ALE automatic sounding with unattended operation (when they operate in this manner with no control operator). The FCC Enforcement Division will hopefully respond to my multi issue query for clarification on how hams should be expected to behave on each side of the equation. This includes those who operate such stations and those who are affected by such stations. It may be that they will interpret the rules to say that these kinds of operations are appropriate and we will have to continue to live with that or later on ask for specific changes in the rules. The text data bandwidth issue may go away, at least on some bands, because wide modes ( 500 Hz) are specifically not to be operated under the new Region 2 band plans in many areas that they currently operate. While it does not directly have the force of law, it may be a tempering influence. If the ARRL had been able to get its request approved by the FCC to make band plans the force of law, there would be no more wide modes in the U.S. in the text data portion of the bands on 80 meters and nothing below 14.101 on 20 meters. Many of those opposed to the petition are intentionally misrepresenting that this is an anti-wide bandwidth issue. It is not. They should direct their ire at the Region 2 Bandplan, not at a petition that is a reasonable compromise and would allow three times that bandwidth to as much as 1500 Hz in the text data portions of the bands. Voice and image with reasonable quality, and perhaps larger file size mixed documents/data have larger throughput requirements and must have adequate bandwidth to be practical. While any bandwidths in excess of voice communications bandwidth would be inappropriate, due to the shared nature of HF amateur bands. Part 97.307 Emission standards. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. Now this is currently being stretched a bit beyond the Region 2 band plan recommendation of 2700 Hz with eSSB, but the rules do not exactly specify a bandwidth and unless the FCC issues an interpretation on what that really means, or accepts the band plan, there is some leeway since DSB phone is considered acceptable in some areas of the bandplan. 73, Rick, KV9U Howard Brown wrote: Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition is dead. The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and handle this interference problem. Can you suggest any other reason that they have not cited the interfering stations? Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules changes. The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I believe they will. We may not like the solution but they have been asked to deal with it formally and they probably will. 73, Howard K5HB Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it in PMBOs would be like banning automobiles because some people drive drunk. Dear Dave Please let me know in which way do the PROPNET, ALE, HF packet BBSes, HF APRS DIGIS, W1AW Broadcasts and the rest of the unattended systems operating on the HF bands understand that there is a voice, cw, digital QSO taking place on the frequency and if they stop their transmission? As far as I know they all understand ONLY if there is another station operating in the mode they USE and NO OTHER MODE. So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM. Nowhere have I said that Pactor 3 is the only protocol being used in unattended stations without busy detectors, Demetre. I have said the exact converse, that such stations are unacceptable no matter what protocol they are using. The point of the paragraphy you quoted above is that we should NOT single out Pactor 3. The protocol is not the issue, its unattended stations without busy detectors IN ANY MODE. There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming about. That's not true. Rich KN6KB -- a member of the WinLink team -- developed a very effective soundcard-based busy detector as part of the SCAMP project. This was a first attempt, and yet it exceeded everyone's expectations. Were the WinLink team interested in seriously reducing the QRM their PMBOs generate, they could add a soundcard to each PMBO and integrate Rick's busy detector; technically, this would be a very straightforward task and the cost of a soundcard these days is minimal. Winlink has had this busy detector in their possession for several years, and yet they have done nothing. Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for free to the Radio Amateur community? I would gladly do that, except 1. Internally, the SCS modem is a closed and undocumented system. There is no way for anyone but an employee of SCS to replace its embedded software with an extended implementation that includes busy detection. 2. The SCS modem is purpose built for its advertised functionality. It may not have sufficient CPU horsepower or available program and data memory to support busy frequency detection. 3. If I were to somehow overcome #1 and #2, the Winlink organization would likely refuse to deploy the modified modem. If they were serious about reducing QRM, they could easily have deployed KN6KB's busy detector years ago. Why spend precious time working on something that would be ignored? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] JT65 - work in team
TKS for the info Simon, don't have the spare time for digital mode software. Yes that's the key, to have a bit of spare time. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Simon Brown To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65 - work in team Patrick, Also look at the WSJT group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsjtgroup/ - Joe also has an inactive developer group. It would appear that much less than 1% of digital mode users actively develop software, I know many excellent software guys who are also Hams but they just don't have the spare time for digital mode software. As you know writing a program is easy - the support takes up so much time it's just not true! Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker TKS for info.
[digitalradio] Is it worth it????
Hi Everyone, I have just signed up for this group and have to wonder WHAT grief I am in for? Years ago I gave Packet away due to Packet Wars, I boxed all my gear up and had a 10 year holiday, from Ham radio:-) Sorecently I decide to unbox my gear, buy some new stuff and away I go! Being a past Packet freek, I was going to setup a HF PBBS with my new Kam XL on 18MHz and beacon out, looking for some connects. Since all this FCC petition discussion about automated stations etc, I am wondering what abuse I am in for, from those who will think I am a robot operator. Gee, I only want to try and see what propagation exists on 18MHz and see IF there is much digital activity there. I dare not tread on 14MHz or I will be executed by the diehards there :- ) maybe 24MHz may be a worthwhile try? So I have to askis anyone in the group active on HF Packet? 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] FCC Petition -
Reviewing the numerous posts on this issue it looks for me - and might be I don't fully understand because of language problems - that obviously - the main target of that petition is to limit the operation of PMBO's - we seem to forget that collateral damage like the limitation of the bandwidth to 1500 hz instead of the present 2700 hz will have a significant negative impact on the future development of digital modes (I am surprised that in relation to all others only few comments are referring to this problem) - the author of that petition is considering digital modes mainly as modes for text transfer (which is in my view short sighted). I am very much convinced of such a negative impact for digital modes on the long run of a successful petition we will have because - new modes for improved DV and image transfer will require a bandwith wider than 1500 hz - better propagation in the next couple of years will increase the congestion of the SSB portion of the band and will make it quite difficult to use digital modes, which require up to 2700 hz bandwith, among all the SSB operators we will see. Last not least: Do we really believe that in times of internet at high data rates, mobil phones with access to places all over the world new young people will join the amateur radio community just because they would like to talk to somebody at the other end of the world? For sure not, it will require many efforts to get them interested in new technologies, something which is not available on the market very easily. Here the digital modes can be a great help and we should prevent to bite the hand that feeds us by a blunt - excuse me for this wording - action against Pactor III and PMBO's. I strongly recommend to find another solution for this issue. If a similar petition would show up in Region I I would try to do whatever possible to prevent this to be accepted. 73 Juergen, DL8LE
Re: [digitalradio] Your GPS signal just got stronger
Rick wrote: Now I know that when the LF GWEN system (Ground Wave Emergency Network) was discontinued, instead of liquidating the sites, at least some of them were converted to special correction beacons. The surveyor was not familiar with these and I am not clear how or when they are used with GPS. Maybe some of you know about this? Does anyone know about something newer that will impact GPS? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi, Rick: I believe he was referring to the DGPS stations, some of which were installed at old GWEN sites. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/ndgps/NDGPS-ESC/GPS%20World%20Article%20April%202002.pdf 73, Mike, N5UKZ
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
It is amazing that the developists in highly developed places forgets that the world is far from being equally developed and connected, with high speed digital repeater networks, easily accessible Internet, etc, etc... Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa or anywhere in the Third World to find it the same case... Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened recently in the US west coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in my country several times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 hurricane, only HF works...who is going to keep a satellite dish properly aimed in such a situation? Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in no more than 10 years periods. How many times has the ionosphere been substituted since 1900 ? None, that I remember. Jose, CO2JA --- John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to remember that painfully slow HF link may be the *only* link that we have that is working. John, W0JAB - At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Is it worth it????
Hi Jack, Not sure about any grief. These are discussions about different viewpoints on what is the right direction to move toward with advancing technology. It is a bit complicated perhaps and some will intentionally obfuscate by misrepresenting the facts. That is very disappointing to at least some of us, but human nature has its flaws:( Like you, I discontinued packet about 15 years ago when I realized the networks were going to die since they were not going to be able to compete with the internet. All our trunk lines are mostly all gone here in my Section and this is true in many areas here in the U.S. Some Sections are trying to reestablish packet switches primarily for emergency use, however our Sections ARRL leadership decided that Winlink 2000 would be the digital solution. This can use packet switches in some cases to reach distant VHF nodes. 300 baud packet is a narrow mode ( 500 Hz) so should not be much of a problem on HF, however it was also never was very successful on HF since the mode is not a good match for HF bands, even though the protocol has some positive attributes for sharing a given frequency. An attempt was made to create a wide bandwidth sound card mode to replace packet, called Q15X25 and I have never understood why it did not work adequately but appears to be an abandoned mode. The 18 and 24 MHz bands have not been very active although I do hear some SSB on 18 MHz and even some CW. Have you considered operating a PSKmail server? The main limitation is that is native mode only on Linux at this time. There is another approach currently available only on Linux that combines a multimode digital program (fldigi) with an ARQ (error free) program (flarq) and an open source e-mail program (Slypheed) that manually allows operators to handle traffic using PSK modes. We have heard that an interoperable system will be designed for cross platform use on MS Windows and will soon be in beta! I know that I am looking foward to this. 73, Rick, KV9U vk4jrc wrote: Hi Everyone, I have just signed up for this group and have to wonder WHAT grief I am in for? Years ago I gave Packet away due to Packet Wars, I boxed all my gear up and had a 10 year holiday, from Ham radio:-) Sorecently I decide to unbox my gear, buy some new stuff and away I go! Being a past Packet freek, I was going to setup a HF PBBS with my new Kam XL on 18MHz and beacon out, looking for some connects. Since all this FCC petition discussion about automated stations etc, I am wondering what abuse I am in for, from those who will think I am a robot operator. Gee, I only want to try and see what propagation exists on 18MHz and see IF there is much digital activity there. I dare not tread on 14MHz or I will be executed by the diehards there :- ) maybe 24MHz may be a worthwhile try? So I have to askis anyone in the group active on HF Packet? 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
I'm not sure what HF Packet BBS's you're talking about but all my packet tnc's had a carrier detect feature and would not transmit if one was detected. Was it perfect, heck no! But it was available AND it was turned on. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington barrister54@ wrote: OK, a couple of points. 1. No one is defending W1AW or the other practices that involve transmitting without listening. I happen to think that all such practices are morally wrong and legally questionable. Regrettably, the FCC has already said that W1AW can get away with its broadcasts. A bad call, but there you are. 2. Pactor is far more ubiquitous in its transmit-without-listening practices than anything else on the air. The Pactor community flatly refuses to change its practices, and they routinely QRM innocent QSOs with impunity and indifference. Mark's superb petition will help curb this. 3. I sold my SCS modem because Pactor as a Keyboard-to-Keyboard mode is as dead as Julius Caesar. No matter what a few outliers may say, Pactor is dead as far as ordinary ham radio goes. It is now solely a mailbox mode, used mainly to provide cheap, inefficient internet service to those who are not able to hook up to the usual internet grid. Doesn't sound much like ham radio to me. Other commercial services are a better provider of this capability--it is not appropriate for amateur radio. 4. I am a yachtsman myself. I can attest that very few yachtsman use amateur radio, let alone Pactor, for even a tertiary communications system when at sea. 5. Winlink is largely irrelevant to emergency communications, propaganda to the contrary. Having operated emergency communications in numerous fires and earthquakes, I can attest that Winlink was never a resource. The simplest modes, i.e. FM and SSB, provided the bulk of amateur-supplied communications. Simpler is better. de Roger W6VZV Fine Roger, You have your opinion and I have mine. Now if you can't be bothered to look for PACTOR keyboard to keyboard QSOS this is your problem not mine. When I look I can always find some. As for Winlink not been an emergency resource, I have read and still read otherwise in the radio amateur literature around the world. It has help in numerous cases in your country and in the tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean a few years ago at Christmas and if this humanitarian reason for Winlink's existance is not enough for you then I do not know what more to tell you. But it does not stop there, it can also provide free Internet e-mail for the Radio ham on the move globally (from the open seas to the bush of Australia, to the jungles of Africa, in Asia, in South and Central America and in many other parts of the civilized world, as we all like to call our western world today) and at the moment it is the only system that has a global network on HF and this is a great help for places with no communications infrastructure. So Winlink is not only for emergency communications, although it can be a big help in emergencies where FM/SSB and all bla bla modes cannot really help, except perhaps when you want to coordinate the fire fighters or other cases where accurate contain transfer is not necessary. If you just want to spoil a Great Radio Amateur Global Communication System just because sometimes af few ,ignorant perhaps, of it's users spoil your SSB QSO then go ahead and do it. This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world we should always be a bit more tolerant, don't you think? 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. as for automatic operations, don't forget that it is not only Winlink2000 and W1AW who do that. There are also PACKET BBSes (the real Robots where both ends have no human operator, the have Martians, there are Propnet stations, Beacons of all sorts, APRS DIGIS and many SSTV repeaters, PSKMAIL Mboxes, just to name a few, so if you tolerate their operation PLEASE do not complain about Winlink2000. Winlink2000 follows the bandplans just like all these systems do.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Jim as far as I know all the hardware for pactor has the same thing. But only for other pactor signals just like what you posted about the packet system. John At 09:34 PM 12/28/2007, you wrote: I'm not sure what HF Packet BBS's you're talking about but all my packet tnc's had a carrier detect feature and would not transmit if one was detected. Was it perfect, heck no! But it was available AND it was turned on. Jim WA0LYK
[digitalradio] Re: Is it worth it????
Hi Rick, I just hope this FCC thing does not make people turn sour on the hobby, hobbies are meant to be fun! I guess the reason for my Packet interest is the stand alone mailbox aspect of it, no Internet connection needed. The PBBS is a repository of messages sent by anyone and retreived by the addressees or anyone who wants to read a general bulletin etc. Whilst HF 300 baud is slow etc, I am not sending pictures etc, only text. The beacon also acts as a method of determining propagation too. I have a KAM XL fo my TNC which has good features. My SCS PTC TNCs also have Packet, but the mail box setup is not as good, however they do have robust packet mode, which is more reliable than ordinary HF packet. Don't mention pactornot interested :-( Its a T/R relay destroying mode which by operation, is hungry on my portable power budget :-) PSKMail? Many hours spent for not a lot of resultsvideo card wars with Linux! I would like to get it working, but I am not sure IF its really suitable for my portable ops, from a motorcycle :-) My station needs to be compact with a reasnable power budget. Right now I have an ICOM 703, KAM XL and Psion 3MX palmtop PC and Buddipole antenna, for field use. I sure would like a physically smaller TNC with the same features, but the KAM will have to do right now. In the meantime, I will setup the Packet gear on my Icom 718 and MA5- V antenna at home and give 18MHz a go with some packet beacons, for a few days and see what happens. 73s Jack VK4JRC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jack, Not sure about any grief. These are discussions about different viewpoints on what is the right direction to move toward with advancing technology. It is a bit complicated perhaps and some will intentionally obfuscate by misrepresenting the facts. That is very disappointing to at least some of us, but human nature has its flaws:( Like you, I discontinued packet about 15 years ago when I realized the networks were going to die since they were not going to be able to compete with the internet. All our trunk lines are mostly all gone here in my Section and this is true in many areas here in the U.S. Some Sections are trying to reestablish packet switches primarily for emergency use, however our Sections ARRL leadership decided that Winlink 2000 would be the digital solution. This can use packet switches in some cases to reach distant VHF nodes. 300 baud packet is a narrow mode ( 500 Hz) so should not be much of a problem on HF, however it was also never was very successful on HF since the mode is not a good match for HF bands, even though the protocol has some positive attributes for sharing a given frequency. An attempt was made to create a wide bandwidth sound card mode to replace packet, called Q15X25 and I have never understood why it did not work adequately but appears to be an abandoned mode. The 18 and 24 MHz bands have not been very active although I do hear some SSB on 18 MHz and even some CW. Have you considered operating a PSKmail server? The main limitation is that is native mode only on Linux at this time. There is another approach currently available only on Linux that combines a multimode digital program (fldigi) with an ARQ (error free) program (flarq) and an open source e-mail program (Slypheed) that manually allows operators to handle traffic using PSK modes. We have heard that an interoperable system will be designed for cross platform use on MS Windows and will soon be in beta! I know that I am looking foward to this. 73, Rick, KV9U vk4jrc wrote: Hi Everyone, I have just signed up for this group and have to wonder WHAT grief I am in for? Years ago I gave Packet away due to Packet Wars, I boxed all my gear up and had a 10 year holiday, from Ham radio:-) Sorecently I decide to unbox my gear, buy some new stuff and away I go! Being a past Packet freek, I was going to setup a HF PBBS with my new Kam XL on 18MHz and beacon out, looking for some connects. Since all this FCC petition discussion about automated stations etc, I am wondering what abuse I am in for, from those who will think I am a robot operator. Gee, I only want to try and see what propagation exists on 18MHz and see IF there is much digital activity there. I dare not tread on 14MHz or I will be executed by the diehards there :- ) maybe 24MHz may be a worthwhile try? So I have to askis anyone in the group active on HF Packet? 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Yep you shure had that right ! --- Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is amazing that the developists in highly developed places forgets that the world is far from being equally developed and connected, with high speed digital repeater networks, easily accessible Internet, etc, etc... Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa or anywhere in the Third World to find it the same case... Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened recently in the US west coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in my country several times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 hurricane, only HF works...who is going to keep a satellite dish properly aimed in such a situation? Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in no more than 10 years periods. How many times has the ionosphere been substituted since 1900 ? None, that I remember. Jose, CO2JA --- John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to remember that painfully slow HF link may be the *only* link that we have that is working. John, W0JAB - At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[digitalradio] Ham Radio BrowserToolbar and PocketDigi Mobile Log forWindows Mobile/PocketPC PDAs by N0HR
N0HR Software Resources N0HR's ham radio website, http://www.n0hr.com has many free resources for ham radio: The Ham Radio Toolbar for Internet Explorer Firefox: http://www.n0hr.com/Ham_Radio_Toolbar.htm HamLinks is a free ham radio toolbar that extends your (Internet Explorer or Firefox) web browser to give ham radio operators quick access to great ham radio content. It's completely free, easy to install (and uninstall) and can be configured by the user. No registrations, spyware, spam or other hooks. No spyware, security holes, email scams or hijacked searches. See the privacy policy. Features of the HamLinks ham radio toolbar Here are a few of the features of the HamLinks ham radio toolbar. Powerful search box. Simply enter some text in the box or select it in your browser, then use the search menu to quickly search any of the following: QRZ.com (great for callsign searches from the toolbar) DXwatch (spot searches from the toolbar) QSL Manager (lookup dx callsigns from the toolbar) FindU.com (APRS location information with a call search from the hamlinks toolbar) Ham Radio Links (search the links directory) Product reviews (select a ham radio product and instantly find reviews for it!) Ham Radio Classifieds at eHam and QTH.com (select a product and see if there are any for sale). Of course, you can also find ham radio products at eBay as well further down the menu. Links to popular ham radio websites. Access to the DXpedition Map. Ham Radio Blog Feeds Customizable email notifier and weather icon UTC Time WWV gadget to show propagation bulletins Podcast player with ham radio related podcasts Propagation Data from WWV - similar to Propfire PocketDigi for Windows Mobile and PocketPC PDAs: http://www.n0hr.com/PocketDigi/PocketDigi_intro.htm What is PocketDigi? PocketDigi is an open source utility developed by OK1IAK to provide ham radio operators with PocketPC PDAs with the ability to use (encode and decode) digital modes such as RTTY (teletype), PSK (phase shift keying), and CW (Morse Code). Want to take your PocketPC PDA to go backpack mobile and work PSK31 QRP? Then, PocketDigi is the app for you! Since the advent of mobile computing, radio amateurs have been exploring creative ways to utilize laptop computers and PDAs for portable ham radio operations and mini-DXpeditions. PocketDigi was created by Vojtech OK1IAK who built the utility using Microsoft's Embedded Visual C. He used (and improved) portions of a Linux GNU open source application called gMFSK to do encoding and decoding. MobileLog PocketPC PDA Logbook Application: http://www.n0hr.com/MobileLog/MobileLog_2_Tour.htm Your PocketPC / Windows Mobile PDA keeps you organized on the go. But have you considered using it to manage your ham radio activities? With MobileLog, you can log your ham radio contacts while on-the-go.. MobileLog 2 offers significant improvements over earlier versions of MobileLog including: Major performance improvements (speed and size) Integration with PocketDigi, the PocketPC digitial mode application WAS reports Save reports as CSV, Tab delimited or HTML files Landscape mode User-defined fields Easy to update prefixes and DXCC entities Advanced reports which allow you to create a filtered listing of worked or confirmed QSOs Logbook view Compatibility with Windows Mobile 5 and PocketPC 2003 without the need for the Microsoft VBRuntime Built-in on-line help system An improved / simplified installation process Automatically uses GMT and much more Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)
The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed. HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world. All HF bands. All day. All night. see map: http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data Station HF Sub Bands... see chart: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone texting, and short text e-messaging. The primary purpose of HFN is to provide Emergency / Disaster Relief Communications. When the system is not being used for the primary purpose, it provides normal daily routine text messaging services, propagation services, and many other types of features for hams. HFN ALE stations use a common frequency per band, sharing the same channel on a time-domain multiplexed basis, with a combination of automatic busy detection and/or collision detection systems. The transmissions are normally sent in quick bursts. The system is free and open for all ham radio operators... for more information about using HFN, click here: http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network does not require the internet to function, but it uses the internet when it is available. It is the only ham radio system of its kind that is truly interoperable on HF for selective calling, voice, and text, with other non-amateur services and agencies. For more information about this, see Interoperable HF Communications: http://www.hflink.com/interoperation/ Who among the anti-automatic and anti-everything-that-is-not-PSK31 hams are going to volunteer to replace the HFN if it were to be killed by this petition? Please show us your alternative 24/7/365 manually operated system on HF. Show us how you will monitor all HF ham bands simultaneously and respond instantly. When will you sleep? How many hams will work 8 hour shifts every day? How will we alert you on HF to run emergency traffic? Will you answer the call? It is time for those who seek to put us back to the digital stone age to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is. Happy New Year! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] ARRL RTTY/Digital Mode Round-Up , 1/5/2008
ARRL RTTY/Digital Mode Round-Up Date: Saturday January 5-6, 2008 Location: Baudot RTTY, ASCII, AMTOR, PSK31, and Packet—attended operation only on 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meter bands Notes: 2008 ARRL RTTY Round-Up Rules General Rules Object: Amateurs worldwide contact and exchange QSO information with other amateurs using digital modes (Baudot RTTY, ASCII, AMTOR, PSK31, and Packet—attended operation only) on 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meter bands. Any station may work any other station. Date and Contest Period: First full weekend of January, but never on January 1. Begins 1800 UTC Saturday, ends 2400 UTC Sunday (January 5-6, 2008). 2.1. Operate no more than 24 hours. 2.2. The six hours of off time must be taken in no more than two blocks. Entry Categories: 3.1. Single Operator: 3.1.1. Low Power. 3.1.2. High Power. 3.2. Multioperator, Single Transmitter: 3.2.1 Power. 3.2.1.1. Low Power 3.2.1.2. High Power 3.2.2. Stations are allowed only one transmitted signal at any given time. 3.2.3. Includes those single operators that use any form of spotting assistance such as from nets or packet. 3.2.4. Includes those that receive assistance with logging or relief operators, etc. 3.2.5. Limited to 6 band changes (maximum) in any clock hour. 3.2.6. The clock hour is from zero through 59 minutes. 3.2.7. Band changes are defined so that, for example, a change from 20 meters 15 meters and then back to 20 meters constitutes two band changes. Exchange: 4.1. United States: Signal report and State. 4.2. Canada: Signal report and Province. 4.3. DX: Signal report and consecutive serial number, starting with 001. Scoring: 5.1. QSO Points: Count one point for each completed QSO. 5.2. Multipliers: Each US state (except KH6 and KL7) plus the District of Columbia (DC), Canadian provinces/territories: NB (VE1, 9), NS (VE1), QC (VE2), ON (VE3), MB (VE4), SK (VE5), AB (VE6), BC (VE7), NWT (VE8), NF (VO1), LB (VO2), NU (VYØ), YT (VY1), PEI (VY2) and each DXCC country. KH6 and KL7 count only as separate DXCC entities. 5.2.1. Count only once (not once per band). 5.2.2. The US and Canada do not count as DXCC entities. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
