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
WALT ... THINK THINK ... 100 khz wide signals
are going to KILL any band you put them on and do you
think anyone will look for OTHERS before fireing up a
digital radio .. GEESE go on 75 and lissen to SSB
they can't even handle THAT mode ..
--- Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
440 MHz has had a authorized bandwidth of 100 kHz for nearly 20
years. The repeaters and other operations there seem to work just
fine. Just because the authorized bandwidth is 100 KHz doesn't mean
that the whole band will be filled with 100 Khz signals.
73,
Mark N5RFX
WALT ... THINK
440 ALSO has NO SKIP and 8 TIMES the space
NOW how are you going to work it out when 6 is OPEN
world wide ?
ANYONE with a half a brain knows 6 is not the place
for this ..
also how are you not going to interfere with repeaters
on 2 meters they cover 3 out of 4 mhz of that
band ?
Bruce,
I will work it out when 6 is OPEN world wide and not interfere
with repeaters on 2 meters because I will continue to follow the
clause that says no amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal . How does
The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .
When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
between 50.7 and 51.5 above that are
Bruce,
It is uncertain that a typical OFDM 5W signal spread over 100 kHz
would have enough power density to break the squelch
on an FM receiver.
In other words, FM rigs may not even hear the 100 kHz signal.
If they bother to open their squelch, they may note a slight
increase in background noise
The ARRL has no clue . and do not care .
I respect your opinion.
When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5
with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31
between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but
it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is
between
I use the numbers that the ARRL and W5YI have used.
I have NO idea what the true numbers are.
However, I do know that if 5,000 or 10,000 thoughful responses were sent
to the ARRL Division Directors with a Cc to the ARRL President, then I
believe that you would see a change.
If 10% of a
I think this is true in the part 90 world, but not in part 97. There
really is no FCC mandate with respect to the ARS for spectral efficiency.
73,
Mark N5RFX
In a time period shorter than most of us realize, most of the VHF and
UHF bands will be all digital. The FCC is moving all other users
This number is really quite large. I would not concur that there are
500K active hams though. Not even half of the licensed hams are really
very active. And the great majority of hams are Technician class and not
as concerned about anything that might affect HF, so they would not even
We have had PSK and RTTY and APRS users for DECADES
and because they take up similar space they do not
cause a problem AND they have place themselves AWAY
from most other users . however you know unlike
the 5 watt comments What we see on 6 is the HIGH power
boys crawl out of the woodwork at
Walt,
These numbers are completely unrealistic. Even as someone who is
politically active with ham issues, I rarely send any comments to my
division director and never the president. And not even the FCC. So
someone is sending these messages, but they are doing it to the FCC
because that is
Bruce,
We have had PSK and RTTY and APRS users for DECADES
and because they take up similar space they do not
cause a problem AND they have place themselves AWAY
from most other users .
This is what bandplanning, gentlemen's agreements, and cooperation
give us. Your example shows how a 32
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
HUH?
So if everyone hates WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail
servers on
line in the U.S. confronting WinLink
Its not that people particularly hate/dislike WINLINK. Its that the great
majority of hams believe that an automatic forwarding system , with
automatic stations talking to each
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
OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics,
including; ARRL and FCC.
Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And body contains (ARRL OR
FCC) then delete_message.
Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to
digitalradio.
73, Chuck AA5J
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
On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide digital signal
that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but only S-5 now. Can
anyone tell me what this noise is about? It sounds almost at bad as the old
Russian jamming signals from years gone by.
73 de Bob - KØRC in
Bob,
Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station
operating under DRM.
OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very
similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC
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
For those of you who are still interested in the original purpose of this
group, maybe we should take that private and avoid the QRM
being generated on this reflector by the US amateur community. personally, I'm
tired of wading through literally hundreds of emails on the same topic.
please
Bob,
Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station
operating under DRM.
OK, I turned on the rig here and I can still hear it. Very similar to
ham DRM, except, of course, much wider.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there
Wasn't me. Ididn't hear anything on 4147 before I left for work this morning.
Our groups test signal stopped at 07:00 CST and was centered around 7.2 MHz and
covered 100 kHz and running 10 watts or so peak power for the signal. Four
transmitters all at one location and trasnmitting a single
Excellent !! This is the logical answer to most of the Emcomm
spectrum preemption and interference problems! Thanks.
At 07:56 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote:
Proposal: Non-Disaster Automatic Ops on 60M Only
Let's petition the FCC to restrict all automatic
mode ops to 60M except when specifically
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
and maybe I, as moderator, should pay more attention to the issue.
Andy K3Uk
On 3/26/07, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics,
including; ARRL and FCC.
Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And body contains (ARRL OR
i would rather stay where I am , but this is getting 'way out of hand. There
is a forum where the politics of all this can be discussed, rather than on here
Why don't you use the three strikes rule? If people insist on carrying on
political discussions on here, particularly dealing with
one
Walt,
I think Rick has some good points here. The FCC has their own
agenda, and contrary to times past does NOT follow ARRL recommendations.
Again, I don't think the FCC is really all that much in favor of reg by BW.
We can send Bruce to DC. He'll talk some smarts into 'em. (HI)
73,
John
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
Agree. Having my own opinion, I have refrained to participate lately on
the ongoing threads because
what I see in the bottomline is hate, and my way or no way on mails. It
is a waste of time.
It is a pity all the space wasted here with another list available for
such discussions.
I am not
Guys,
Here is my guess...the ARRL would NOW love to do reg by BW,
but the FCC isn't buying it. They don't want to get into that
level of detail in any enforcement actions.
The agency may go along with it for VHF and UHF because the
impact is more local, but on HF their ability to enforce (or
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
sounds like a plan John - count me in -- the political stuff is driving me
NUTS
Tim Holmes
W8TAH
On 3/26/07, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who are still interested in the original purpose of this
group, maybe we should take that private and avoid the QRM
being
This, and ALL the other discussions slamming the ARRL FCC NEED to go to THIS
GROUP!!! The group below was specially started for JUST SUCH discussions!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE
This is NOT what this group is all about! PLEASE take it ELSE WHERE!
Rod
KC7CJO
I believe we had enough of that, and that discussion should move to
where it is welcome. I am totally agree with you Jose.
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Jose A. Amador wrote:
Agree. Having my own opinion, I have refrained to participate lately on
the ongoing threads because
what I see in the
At 03:14 PM 3/26/2007, Dave, AA6YQ wrote in part:
The reason we don't seen hundreds of PSKMail servers confronting
WinLink is that there isn't much interest in sending email over HF.
Just when does a piece of ARRL type traffic becomes email?
Once upon a time between 068 and 075 the band was
BACKGROUND
There has recently been a lot of bloated theoretical talk about
Automatic Busy Detection. My observation is that most of the operators
who glorify it and exalt its virtues, have nearly zero experience
using it on the air! The same guys who have no experience with it,
want to make auto
Let's get back the D-R
John, W0JAB
list moderator
Its Radio NZ DRM operating from Taupo 59+++ here and wipe out fair
chunk of band !! De Pete ZL2AUB
Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station
operating under DRM.
OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very
similar to ham DRM, except, of
Somehow it seems that the spirit of amateur radio that is supposed to
advance the radio art, has left the ham shack, and been replaced by a
fear of anything that might challenge the status quo.
Digital radio is exciting, because in the world of surface mount
technology, its one of the last
AA6YQ comments below
--- In
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio[EMAIL PROTECTED]
te:
BACKGROUND
There has recently been a lot of bloated theoretical talk about
Automatic Busy Detection. My observation is that most of the operators
who glorify it and exalt its virtues, have nearly zero
46 matches
Mail list logo
