I guess for the same reason that us ham's have been passing traffic
going back to the very start of it. RTTY - CW - SSB - PACKET -
AMTOR and PACTOR. I don't see a thing wrong with a ham that
happens to be at sea (without internet or cell service) sending a
message to ever how likes.
Before one
Well seems that I hosed that message up.
Sorry list members.
John
And I think that Rick, KN6KB, was being modest about the 80% detection.
I did not find that the software would ever transmit on what I, as a
human, would have considered a busy frequency. However, there were times
that it did not want to transmit because of what it perceived as a busy
: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:02 AM
Subject: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq
Coordination Info)
As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of
good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy
detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor
- Original Message -
From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
After looking at the winlink position report page there must
be 50 or so hams at sea
-
From: Joe Ivey
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham
bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio
SCAMP was developed using the RDFT protocol, which in itself is GPLand
comes from Linux. The author indicated several years ago that he would
release SCAMP's protocol as GPL. He has not done this. Partly, I think
because of time constraints and also because of keeping things
proprietary and
I believe if you check the regulations, the automatic area on 80 meters
is even narrower at 3585 to 3600.
Because of the poor implementation of busy frequency detection, one can
expect much more QRM from automatic stations. Eventually, I expect that
the regulations will be written to prohibit
Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens
interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP source
code through their obligations of GPL.
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am, Rein Couperus wrote:
The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several
Bonnie KQ6XA
With that attitude Bonnie you have now revealed your
real coordination.
We WINLINK will Take what ever we want and the rest
can just STFU ...
That about sum it up ?
Looking for
: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rick,
I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what
would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that most of the
traffic that goes through the system right now is needless. With all the
communications out
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe if you check the regulations, the automatic area on 80 meters
is even narrower at 3585 to 3600.
Thanks for the correction Rick.
Bonnie
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Ivey
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:42 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that sending messages and relaying messages by amateur
radio was ever ment to restrict the content to amateur radio only
subject matter. In fact, if you look at the ARL numbers, you
The only known implementation was on Windows, Rein, and it was closed
source.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein Couperus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years.
Is this available for Linux? Source code?
wa8vbx wrote:
Jose it might sound absurd, but then again man flying to the moon,
satellite communications and cellphones, they all at one time were
called absurded, but they are real now. Don't know in Cuba but here,
almost everyone has a cellphone.
After waiting and watching what is
See http://gpl-violations.org/
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens
interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP
source
code
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Ivey
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination
Info
Rick,
I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really
realized what would happen when
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
After waiting and watching what is going on with the larger picture,
I see a lot of obstination and fundamentalistic thinking in this
thread.
The fundamendalistic, blinds on, taliban quarreling going on
about
,
Unfortunatelly all this name calling and mode bashing (you know, the
mode I support is better than yours etc) does not promote digital
radio at all.
73 de Demetre SV1UY
I am not bashing any mode, as I use most of them at one time or
another, and trying my hand at ALE right now. But I
Kurt wrote:
Unfortunatelly all this name calling and mode bashing (you know,
the mode I support is better than yours etc) does not promote
digital radio at all.
73 de Demetre SV1UY
I am not bashing any mode, as I use most of them at one time or
another, and trying my hand at ALE
What a terrible waste of intellectual resources!
Sigh
Rein EA/PA0R/P
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 09.03.07 18:28:28
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The only known
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Seems I did not make my point. A large portion of Winlinks
popping out of nowhere is because some H I D D E N (in the skip
zone) user has triggered it.
That's exactly right, Jose. But if
If a programmer is experimenting with a work that is derived in part
from a program that has been GPL'd, I wonder if it has to be released?
In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to
provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a
finalized and released
It depends on how they use RDFT. What you are describing is LGPL but
RDFT is GPL. Mere aggregation is one thing (shipping with a linux
distribution for example) but if they link C code against a GPL library
(not an LGPL license) then the case is fairly clear as far as I have
been told by my
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA
So the FSF says no. As Dave points out, I don't know that this has been
taken to court. However, in this case among, it would be unlikely to go
to court. I was serious in suggesting that perhaps Bruce Perens (who is a
ham and a
If I understand the URL correctly, the source code of SCAMP should have
been released and could have been demanded under the legal copyright of
the GPL.
As it was, it was deliberately set up with timers to self destruct after
a few weeks or months. So even though some of us had the .exe for a
Then, we need a codesmith that does away with those inaccurate assertions.
The bona fide attempts of Rick with SCAMP has opened a can of worms...
I don't even think he foresaw this, as many think it is simpler than it
really is to do it WELL. It is no kids play.
Let's wait for the magic code.
As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of
good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy
detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor, and SSB at an ~80%
confidence level without enormous difficulty. SCAMP beta testers were
amazed by the
, Rein Couperus wrote:
What a terrible waste of intellectual resources!
Sigh
Rein EA/PA0R/P
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 09.03.07 18:28:28
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination
What coordination...? the ARRL just stuck a flag into
a frequency and called it theirs !
73
Bill KA8VIT
From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this
small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only
coordination
There is no coordination of HF frequencies that are associated with
the Part 97 rules. There are bandplans that the FCC recognizes as good
amateur practice. While anyone can come up with a bandplan, it would
necessarily have to be from a major organization or organizations to
have any weight
3580-3600kHz N.America Freq Coordination Info
CENTERCHANNEL===COORDINATED ENTITY
FREQ=MODEBANDWIDTH===LOCATION=NOTES
See below. I just nailed down a frequency, so don't mess with it !!!
- Original Message -
From: Kurt
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I think you have to start at 3587.7 since one of
the many ARRL SW Broadcasts seizes control of
3587.3 - 3587.7 at-will and without consideration
of existing activity.
Is *your* Broadcast planned for 24/7 or at-will or
might you consider time-sharing your frequency
fiefdom with others? ;-)
3591.9 P3 (3590.9-3592.9kHz) WLINK2000 GERMANY
3593.5 P3 (3592.5-3594.5kHz) WLINK2000 NEDERLAND
3596.0 P3 (3595.0-3597.0kHz) WLINK2000 BELGIUM
This illustrates the problem. These 3 Pactor 3 stations are within 100 km of
each other. And it means they render 6 kHz of spectrum useless for other
Of w7psk
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:42 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Scott w7psk@ wrote
-
I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who
is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to
try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the
band that they are working.
Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check
Kurt wrote:
-
I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who
is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to
try as best possoble not to QRM another signal on the portion of the
band that they are working.
Walt and others this is the problem. We are
The Winlink 2000 programmer developed the SCAMP mode over two years ago.
This mode did not have the weak signal operation that was hoped for, but
it did have busy frequency detection. Maybe you missed the discussion on
this or are new to the forum?
Busy frequency detection is a reality, it is
Rich Mulvey wrote:
Kurt wrote:
I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who
is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to
try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of
the band that they are working.
If others are not hidden
Jose it might sound absurd, but then again man flying to the moon, satellite
communications and cellphones, they all at one time were called absurded, but
they are real now. Don't know in Cuba but here, almost everyone has a cellphone.
Also just because a section of freq's are set aside for
.
My 2 cents worth.
Joe
W4JSI
- Original Message -
From: Jose A. Amador
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rich Mulvey wrote:
Kurt wrote:
I'm afraid
Joe,
I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first
came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily
to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was
influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very
it should not be
allowed on the ham bands.
Joe
W4JSI
- Original Message -
From: kv9u
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe,
I think it is fair to say that the primary
I agree with Joe on this point. Amateur radio has always been self
policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or
manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a
pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not
even know whether the
The WinLink folks could easily use the SCAMP busy detector to augment
their PMBOs, eliminating their current propensity to transmit on
already-busy frequencies. This would require
1. adding a soundcard to each PMBO PC, and connecting its audio input
to the PMBO transceiver's audio output
2.
-
From: Joe Ivey
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Rick,
I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized what
would happen when the FCC allowed
After looking at the winlink position report page there must
be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not
want them to be able to send a message back to home.
We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years
on this list. We ain't going to take that bumpy ride
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The WinLink folks could easily use the SCAMP busy detector to augment
their PMBOs, eliminating their current propensity to transmit on
already-busy frequencies. This would require
1. adding a soundcard to each
A list moderator graciously corrected me. Therefore, I retract the
following erroneous statement:
It appears that SCS modems can copy WL2k ARQ transmissions even
though the listener is not an addressee..
I stand corrected.
73,
Chuck AA5J
At 04:49 PM 3/8/2007, Chuck Mayfield wrote:
Amateur
Chuck ET all
It's been over a year since I have tried to copy the winlink
system with my SYS TNC (been fighting lung cancer) but as I recall
I never did have a problem coping any of the it. I may be wrong
on this and I hope not after sending Chuck a direct note that you
can copy it if you are P3
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, mulveyraa2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Sounds like a good idea. Where does one download the SCAMP
software so it can be put to use?
SCAMP is no longer available
And yes, I know that the answer to the question is You can't,
because it
-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
After looking at the winlink position report page there must
be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not
want them to be able to send a message back to home.
We have been down this road many many time in the last 2 years
on this list. We ain't
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After looking at the winlink position report page there must
be 50 or so hams at sea. Now why in the world would anyone not
want them to be able to send a message back to home.
As long as they do so
Hi,
Not sure I see that anyone is trying to keep the 50 or so hams
from getting a message back to home. I really thought the number to
be much, much larger given it is the argument used for alot of
Winlink2000.
Is this the real crux of the discussion? If so, that is alot of RF
bandwidth per
The assertion has been made multiple times by Hams who
own the required proprietary hardware and software
that maritime and other ops are using the functional-
encryption of a proprietary mode to misuse Ham bands
for non-Ham purposes.
Illegal and/or improper uses cited include:
Business, maritime
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snipped...shows I had a bad day at work when I cannot type my call
correctly and then fail to proof-read]
73
Bill M9DSJ
Actually my ticket reads n9dsj
Joe Ivey wrote:
Rick,
I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really realized
what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say that
most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is
needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell
Rich Mulvey wrote:
But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for it,
this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations
operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands?
I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically
unused
: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as full time
RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on the road). and
sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and emergencies but definitely not
just so
The pimary objection is not to automatic stations, but rather to
automatic stations running poorly-implemented protocols that QRM
other amateurs.
WinLink is the digital equivalent of a poorly tuned amplifier that
splatters the band. Like the cranky owner of that amplifier, the
WinLink
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only Coodination I see is WINLINK trying to grab
all the available Frequencies
Hi Scott,
There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this
small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new,
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick Scott w7psk@ wrote:
The only Coodination I see is WINLINK trying to grab
all the available Frequencies
Hi Scott,
There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate
to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message -
From: w7psk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:42 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination
expeditionradio wrote:
Hi Scott,
There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this
small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only
coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones
like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and
66 matches
Mail list logo
