Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 07:26 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
>I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.

Like I said Dave my winlink station does it all the time.
Either in P1 or CW.

Now if I'm in a KB2KB QSO it will not I will force the SCS 
modem to do it. But under computer control it will.

It's in use right now. and I will let you know what it does.
Nice really nice - some lid with a PSK signal is tuning up 
and down the band to make sure he get's us.

P1 ID when the link was dropped.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Howard Brown]

Dave, you said earlier that you were running Winlink Classic, not Winlink 2000. 
 That would make your station a BBS instead of a PMBO, wouldn't it?

Dave (the other one) was commenting about PMBOs.  Maybe the WL2K code is 
different? 

73, Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:36:45 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR 
PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats










  







Listen to mineIt IDs in CW 
at the end of an unsucessful connect attempt and at the end of a completed 
connect... The rules allow for ID via Pactor exchanges in the interim showing 
the callsigns of both stations.

 

Dave WB2FTX


  - Original Message - 

  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 

  To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
  

  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:26 
  PM

  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on 
  digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

  


  
  I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.

73,

Dave, 
  AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, 
  "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> At 04:37 PM 
  12/27/2007, you wrote:
> >>>>Unless you're willing to 
  purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be 
able 
> >to know who or what 
  QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended 
> >stations identify in 
  CW at least once within each 5-minute period of 
> >activity would 
  eliminate this problem.
> 
> Dave I'm not to sure about 
  this.
> My pactor station *WILL* ID in either CW or P1 my call
> 
  no matter what pactor mode I'm running at the time.
> 
> John, 
  W0JAB
>




  
  


  
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 
  12/27/2007 1:34 PM



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Bernstein wrote:
>
>  I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.
>
>  73,
>
>  Dave, AA6YQ

That is because they never do.  The SCS TNCs can be set to ID in CW, but 
in practice no one ever does.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[David Struebel]

Listen to mineIt IDs in CW at the end of an unsucessful connect attempt 
and at the end of a completed connect... The rules allow for ID via Pactor 
exchanges in the interim showing the callsigns of both stations.

Dave WB2FTX
  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:26 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR 
PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats


  I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  >
  > At 04:37 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
  > Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be 
  able 
  > >to know who or what QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended 
  > >stations identify in CW at least once within each 5-minute period of 
  > >activity would eliminate this problem.
  > 
  > Dave I'm not to sure about this.
  > My pactor station *WILL* ID in either CW or P1 my call
  > no matter what pactor mode I'm running at the time.
  > 
  > John, W0JAB
  >



   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 12/27/2007 
1:34 PM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:37 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be able 
>to know who or what QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended 
>stations identify in CW at least once within each 5-minute period of 
>activity would eliminate this problem.

Dave I'm not to sure about this.
My pactor station  *WILL*  ID in either CW or P1 my call
no matter what pactor mode I'm running at the time.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:23 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:

>Again in MO, any station operating unattended and generating RF interfering 
>signals should NEVER be allowed on Amateur frequencies. 

It's not ! under FCC rules

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Dave AA6YQ]

You caught me, Demetre. I did rent an F-16 last weekend and got all the way
to Winlink Planetary Headquarters before realizing that the HARMs Hertz gave
me were tuned to 7.105 GHz instead of 7.105 MHz as requested. So I buzzed
the tower and flew home to beat the commuter congestion at Hanscom.

What's your grid square?

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:42 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR
PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +++ more AA6YQ comments below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" 
> wrote:
>
> >>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of
> amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are
> willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating
> QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot
> of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*".
>
> You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that
> detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility
> of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism
> and the PMBOs would be rendered useless.
>
> This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and
> hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just
> admitted yourself.
>
> +++Demetre, an anti-radiation missile is a weapon typically used to
> destroy air-defense radars by locking onto their transmitter
> frequency. "Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on
> a lot of Christmas lists" was a humorous way of pointing out that
> PMBO QRM has generated widespread and massive frustration. Nowhere in
> this message -- or any other message I have posted -- do I advocate
> QRMing PMBOs. This sort of action would be as irreponsible as using
> or operating a PMBO, and I have made that point here on several
> occasions.
>
> +++I have heard the argument that WinLink can't now apply busy-
> frequency detectors because the amateur radio community is so angry
> at them for years of QRM that operators would camp on PMBO
> frequencies just to prevent them functioning. This argument is
> completely bogus - just another rationalization for continuing to
> generate QRM. While a few operators might QRM a few PMBOs for a few
> days, the effect would be minimal. Even the most perverse human
> operator won't sit at a station continuously just to QRM an automated
> station. He or she will get bored and go bother someone more likely
> to provide a reaction.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>

Exactly Dave,

This is because of people like you. You just admitted it, so don't cry
now. You know all the techniques of war it seems.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Les Warriner]

IMNSHO malicious interference, interference that prevents or 
interrupts a QSO on a frequency from any source is ILLEGAL by the 
existing rules. The fact that this rule is not being enforced should 
generate information to the FCC  on these interferences and requests 
to the same agency to clean it up. If I were operating on a frequency 
and one of these stations climbed on MY frequency (yes, I own it 
while operating on it legally) a report would go to the FCC the same 
day with time, frequency, and any identifying information on the 
interfering station. The squeaky wheel concept.


Again in MO, any station operating unattended and generating RF 
interfering signals should NEVER be allowed on Amateur 
frequencies.  If any persons/organizations wishes to operate in this 
fashion they should apply for licenses and frequency assignments that 
allow this type of operation. It certainly is more commercial than hobby.


73

Les

 At 01:36 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:


+++ more AA6YQ comments below

--- In 
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
"Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

wrote:

>>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of
amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are
willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating
QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot
of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*".

You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that
detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility
of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism
and the PMBOs would be rendered useless.

This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and
hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just
admitted yourself.

+++Demetre, an anti-radiation missile is a weapon typically used to
destroy air-defense radars by locking onto their transmitter
frequency. "Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on
a lot of Christmas lists" was a humorous way of pointing out that
PMBO QRM has generated widespread and massive frustration. Nowhere in
this message -- or any other message I have posted -- do I advocate
QRMing PMBOs. This sort of action would be as irreponsible as using
or operating a PMBO, and I have made that point here on several
occasions.

+++I have heard the argument that WinLink can't now apply busy-
frequency detectors because the amateur radio community is so angry
at them for years of QRM that operators would camp on PMBO
frequencies just to prevent them functioning. This argument is
completely bogus - just another rationalization for continuing to
generate QRM. While a few operators might QRM a few PMBOs for a few
days, the effect would be minimal. Even the most perverse human
operator won't sit at a station continuously just to QRM an automated
station. He or she will get bored and go bother someone more likely
to provide a reaction.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 
12/27/2007 1:34 PM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

> First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not
> amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more
> expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury
> of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a viable
> role in their communications. This is where PACTOR 3 comes and solves
> their problem. Also when everything has gone down in an emergency,
> PACTOR 3 can give you reliable communications using a PACTOR mailbox
> that resides in a neighbouring country. Sometimes through the night
> when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
> decent 80 meters antenna

It looks like your Internet connection to this list is working fine. Are 
you using PACTOR?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Sometimes through the night
> when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
> decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on
> 30 or 40 meters. How about that?

If it uses more than 500 hertz bandwidth it is not something I want on 
30 meters period.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:35 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
>It's worse...
>I think Pmbo's may be triggered by by non-pactor qso's on "their" 
>frequency. I did sometimes notice a pmbo qrm'ing a drm-sstv or Digi-Voice 
>qso when no winlink-client was present. Did someone else notice this too?

Last time I had a digital voice QSO it was up in the phone part
of the band. There are no PMBO's in that part of any type.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[kh6ty]

Demetre, I think you did not read carefully what Dave wrote and you quoted.

He said, "Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether 
or not the frequency is *LOCALLY* clear." This means that if a PMBO is next 
door to me ( i.e. locally) and I am in a QSO that the client cannot hear, 
the PMBO will transmit anyway on top of me because the PMBO cannot detect 
signals in any mode except Pactor, even it busy channel detection is not 
turned off. Even though I may be strong at the PMBO location, but weak, or 
even not detectable at all at the client location, the PMBO will transmit 
anyway in response to a client station that cannot hear me.

This is the problem with unattended stations. When stations on both ends are 
attended, each can hear a station local to itself, so the chances of 
inadvertant QRM to a local station are probably cut in half.

73, Skip KH6TY


- Original Message - 
From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether
> or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect
> Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode.
>
>73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>

You said that, but the clients always listen OM. After all we do not
live in a perfect world and if there is a little QRM, you can always
blame the client if this is what you are after. You can report the
client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, if it makes you happy!!!

73 de SV1UY







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 
8:04 PM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

> What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg
> Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection?
> What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones
> that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who travel in
> places where not even a mobile phone can operate? Are these not Radio
> Hams? 


Well I do travel in remote portions of our South West. I carry an IC 
7000 and a VX-7. But I also have a satellite phone and an emergency 
locater in addition to my normal cell phone. It is important to separate 
business from a hobby. In such a situation there are not that many 
scenarios where ham radio would be a better emergency solution than 
those systems designed for the task. The reason I say this is that VHF 
and UHF are only occasionally viable. If there is a situation where one 
has a personal emergency, accident or injury, it is not really practical 
  to set up an HF rig. There is also the question will there be the 
appropriate band conditions for the necessary communications. On a ship 
there HF gear would already be installed and would be great as a last 
resort, but I for one would start out with a system where I knew there 
was 24 hour monitoring.

  For those who do not have an Internet connection, I have two comments 
- 1 - They would be better served with a UHF link that offers decent 
band width. 2- I would question the legality of such a data link in the 
first place.

> 
> Not to mention emergency situations where these "Extremely Wide" HF
> Networking Digital Modes like PACTOR 3 might assist. (2.2 KHZ wide,
> less than a voice channel, hmm some width, don't you think?) .

'Might assist' is the operative word. I don't know about you, but I have 
lived through a few emergencies both here in New York and elsewhere. On 
9-11 we lost virtually all communications in the city. The digital 
radios failed our fire fighters and cost lives. Repeater systems 
Amateur, Public safety, cell phone and ENG were all lost when the towers 
fell. Regular telephone and cell phone systems were jammed. The city's 
emergency management office was destroyed. Things that worked then were 
the basic things. Same goes for the black outs we have had. We learned 
not to depend on any installed infrastructure.  Our club is in the 
process of building a repeater that should remain functional under all 
but the very worst of situations.



> 
> Helping in Emergencies is number ONE PRIORITY in every Amateur Service
> all around the World!!! From what I have read it is also number ONE in
> USA. 

Very true, but the modes should be reliable and usable under primitive 
conditions


> 
> QSL card collection (although I do not dislike it) is not number ONE.
> It is number TWO in Amateur Radio.

Actually experimentation is my number two and it includes a number of 
digital  modes.
> 
> Are you trying to tell us that number ONE priority is worthless???

No, I am telling you that the number one priority should be given more 
serious consideration. Anyone can use almost any situation as a straw 
man  and claim that it supports emergency communications.

> 
> Everyone has the right to exercise their hobby in the Ham Radio Bands
> OM. And don't tell me that PACTOR 3 operators do not listen before
> they transmit. They always listen because they want their transmitters
> to stay cool, especially if this HF radio they are using is their only
> means of communication. Makes sense doesn't it? At least I hope it
> does to you!!!

That is not what other PACTOR operators have stated as recently as today 
in this thread. PACTOR stations listen for other PACTOR stations but not 
stations operating in other modes.