Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule.
73 Bill - WA7NWP
I am confused. What is a narrow museum mode? PSK31?
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was
primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the
Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system
which
Dave,
In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting,
there
was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was doing.
And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.
So if everyone hates WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Dave,
At 11:42 PM 3/25/2007 Dave, AA6YQ wrote:
Personally, I'd give them a 3 KHz segment on 20m,
Easy, Dave your hatred is showing once again.
But in truth this really would be like giving the PSK guys
point three KC of the band. Either way it just ain't going
to work and Ray Charles could see
The root cause of the complaints can be traced to the way that Pactor
III was introduced to the amateur bands. Most hams today consider
the appropriate bandwidth of a signal in the RTTY/Data subbands to be
500 Hz. Wider bandwidth modes have been tolerated, but they
typically are limited to
There is a fairly significant difference between PSKmail and
Winlink2000. Assuming that an individual even supports the concept of
internet connections via radio, it would be nearly impossible to
substitute one system for the other and have a similar outcome.
PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth
Using Per's Live-CD it is possible to run pskmail without affecting
your MS machine and you get a chance to enjoy the one of the recent
Linux Distros. Maybe after trying the disk you will think about
dumping MS altogether.
Darrel
VE7CUS
PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current
That's not a competent defense, Walt. The fact that WinLink's
functionality is unique does not diminish the QRM that WinLink
generates. Rather than confront this head on -- perhaps by confining
WinLink PMBOs to a small number of narrow band segments until busy
frequency detection was
My disdain is for a shoddy implementation that transmits on
frequencies without first verifying that they are clear, John.
Compared with the alternative, which is to shut them down until they
comply with 97.101 like everyone else, 3 KHz on 14 MHz is pretty
generous.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Dave Bernstein wrote:
the hidden transmitter effect is a myth,
Have you already programmed a cyberionosphere responding to your wishes?
C'mon! Be realistic.
Jose, CO2JA
__
V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y
I don't understand your response at all, Jose. I was citing examples
from WinLink's disinformation campaign. Their claim that the hidden
transmitter effect is a myth was made on this very reflector; we can
find it if its important to you.
No, I don't have code that controls ionospheric
: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:15:01 -0700
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working
on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of
the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease
Follows
From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee
Dissenting
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:26:15 -
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio
If this is true, wouldn't it be a major reversal from past FCC
recommendations?
My understanding was that some time back (decade or so) the FCC wanted
to regulate by bandwidth, rather than mode, and the ARRL strongly
opposed it at that time and the idea was dropped.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John
Leigh,
Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to have any
detection and would still be legal. When the rules were drawn up, the
technology had not been invented to have busy frequency detection, at
least not for amateur radio. But that all changed a couple years ago
when Rick,
/DXandTalk
- Original Message -
From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Leigh,
Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily
intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system
(perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use
the old Winlink
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
Again, these are all good points, and I will forward them onto my
Director. However, I don't think there are any satisfactory answers
to the issues.
Please explain why enforcing §97.101
Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already
in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is not
malicious, but it is clearly willful.
We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not
The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for the
WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their
implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand on
QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate first
step than calling in the FCC
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented
(1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily
intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system
(perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use
the old Winlink
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Vodall WA7NWP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum
modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with
no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology
of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee
Dissenting Recommendation
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 -
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action
know anyway (HI).
73,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee Dissenting
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:13:31
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid
employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid.
To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people
I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code
for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If
SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would
show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased,
it fuels
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a
busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on
one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the
main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection
rules,
card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message -
From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital
Committee
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working
on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of
the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented
frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden
transmitter
Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law.
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote:
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a
busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on
one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the
I am not privy to the PMBO code, but I would be extremely surprised
if Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. All that
is required is for a PMBO in its idle state to not respond to an
incoming user request if the busy detector output was positive
anytime during the last X
The only other known use for voice-bandwidth data modes is for image
transfers,
which can send an SSTV-size picture, with a very
low error rate, in 30 seconds, using a bandwidth of 2400 Hz.
the same image, at the
same low error rate, can be sent in less than 2 minutes, using a
bandwidth
1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay Tepper are unpaid volunteers?
2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review
beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner
than later.
The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate
accolades.
of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee
Dissenting Recommendation
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 -
1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay Tepper are unpaid volunteers?
2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review
beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct
: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee
Dissenting Recommendation
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 -
1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay Tepper are unpaid volunteers?
2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review
beforehand; defects are less expensive (time
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but
it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we
in an adult
37 matches
Mail list logo
