I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it. Some are
using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign, CQ CQ and just 73's. It
is pretty effective. I have started using both RSID TX and Video ID. I have
seen many that will use video ID but do not use or refuse to use RSID.
The issue I see on many post is negative. "That will never work because..."
I guess negative posts are easier than suggesting a possible solution. Maybe
guys are not suggesting solutions because they think someone will shoot it down
anyway so why try?
It is better to try and fail than not try at all. I had a boss one time a long
time ago tell me that it is easy to tell when a man is not working, he never
makes any mistakes.
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 1:40 PM
Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not
easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds.
FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using
MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ
using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known
he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at
the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia
stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable,
but not who it is.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
"something
simple like “QRL”
in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)"
At least this is an idea.
Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first
might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think
in an entirely new way.
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft. com>
wrote:
From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft. com>
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM
(unless the
“Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL”
in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf
Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all
Emission Types from
Part 97
Unless you can
convince the transceiver
manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating
without
a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will
be
unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf
Of Warren Moxley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all
Emission Types from
Part 97
Skip,
"since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual
interference. "
This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for
over 35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to
come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on
my team.
It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by
using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a
defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID
protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode
we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet,
for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY.
Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and
many other codes that can be expanded for this use.
Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem
solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with
a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of
the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain
storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my
RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion
on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my
simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get
bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode
and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM
Trevor,
The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a
common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an
interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and
accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the
mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to
communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists
between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago
when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required
to know CW.
I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the
problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution,
especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to
cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL
"regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn after
already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that
bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less
ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is
why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all
costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining,
and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use,
but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone.
Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum
inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a
future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need
and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to
restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a
"common language" for frequency use mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Following the recent discussions about the US
license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at
www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page
June 1976) says
"Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission
said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners'
requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific
emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the
Commission continued, "to replace the present provisions with
limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may
occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised
limitations any emission would be permitted."
It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly
what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be
asked to re-introduce Docket 20777
Trevor
