Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

Hi Rick, At 08:26 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >Hi Steve, > >I agree that it is a type of protectionism. Which in my opinion is a worst case issue for the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) than the technical challenges being presented. > I did not view it that way >as much until we really started see

Re: [digitalradio] STOP THE BITCHING AND MOANING!!!!

The problem with PACTOR III is that it is downward compatible with narrower modes PACTOR AND PACTOR II. The 500 kHz mode is compatible with narrow modes in the CW sections. The wide mode is only compatible with SSB. If you look at the SCS website, they promote PACTOR III as a commercial mode m

[digitalradio] Re: Help a packet newbie

Hi Craig, http://www.elcom.gr/sv2agw/ will get you to a new AGW Packet Engine version.. The non pro version is not being upgraded from what I hear, and the pro suppose to be more stable. Winpac is a good Windows program for an upstart and experts alike. "Free" too, the only ask for a donation

[digitalradio] Re: Packet Radio Frequencies

Ahhh, the old days300 baud HF packet. I remember when it was all the rage in the early 1990s. Now, VHF packet (1200 baud) was much more interesting and I even had a packet BBS. That was in eastern PA. Now I live in Pittsburgh and can find no VHF packet activity whatsoever. To the O.P. - look fo

[digitalradio] Re: DM780 : SSTV teaser

Andy, I love DM780 and think Simon can go ahead and release the analog SSTV now from what I saw on his site! I've given up on MixW, which I have had a registered copy of for about 5 years. MixW just released a new beta the past day or so but it appears to be minor changes. DM780 however beats MixW

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

Sounds a bit like a “survivalist” touting the end of the world…more emotion than substantiation. QRM is QRM. BPL, Pactor, bad volkswagon ignition systems, et.al. William A. Collister N7MOG _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednes

RE: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Thank you Rick. William A. Collister N7MOG _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:56 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio T

[digitalradio] STOP THE BITCHING AND MOANING!!!!

I know there are problems with the automatic winlink systems i've run into them myself but when I do I just move to another frequency and move on. There are plenty channels to use out there!!. The thing I fear the most from all this is one day the FCC is going to say to heck with ham radio all the

[digitalradio] Bozo's guide to RM-11392

OK, I am coming to this issue rather late but did give the proposal a quick read. For those who do not have time to read all the email or the lengthy pdf document, here is is my Bozo's guide. I am sure I will have some things wrong, after all...I am a bozo. If I have some things wrong, correct

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in

Re: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

David wrote: > Hi All..as this petition only has to do with Hams in the USA i would > suggest that argument from both sides be taken to a group especially for > the subject and not be put on the other many Hams outside the > USA.this petition has already engendered some very bad slanging >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

At 06:49 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital >frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters. >Bob, AA8X Yeah right. Let's do away with contesting. Ham radio would be like watching paint dry. I don't understand just what you mean by "dig

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

Hi Steve, I agree that it is a type of protectionism. I did not view it that way as much until we really started seeing a lot of new modes and how poorly they cooperated with each other. Especially with the main change over the years which is ... inability to intercommunicate. The best we can d

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

NO STEVE You and the digi boys need to get it You have entire bands on UHF to use and they sit EMPTY .. Your disrespect for all of those who are happy with analog shows how little you care about the hobby. ONLY YOUR SELF .. IF IT Ain't DIGITAL it ain't radio When you can show th

Re: [digitalradio] Changes in ham populations/operating

What did you just say? You really need to run for some office.

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

There is the DSTAR network that is Internet linked as well as IRLP and Echolink. All the above more portable than an NVIS set up. Don't get me wrong NVIS is a good use of frequencies and well proven but if data is being passed, the other solutions are more efficient. As always different situa

[digitalradio] Changes in ham populations/operating

The data on ham numbers/classes is accurate, but one has to be careful with the interpretation. (Glass half full/half empty, etc.). When I was first licensed in 1963, only a few potential candidates would go through all the necessary CW and theory testing, even if available by mail with a local

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

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 v

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

Hi Bruce, From your reply I can see that my statement really it home, sorry if the the hurts! /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:07 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the >entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort >at protectionism ( its an old story th

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is just the oppos

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

At 05:17 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a >rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are >many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that >this thread started with discussion of autom

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

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

RE: [digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater

I AGREE!!! Dave Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, A very well thought out comment that I agree with 100%. TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent:

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that transmit wit

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

> 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. Guess your not region 1. Those band parts do overlap here.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

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 voi

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +++additional AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" > wrote: > > >>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether > or not the frequency is locally

RE: [digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater

Dave, A very well thought out comment that I agree with 100%. TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalr

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

> 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. It's worse... I think Pmbo's may be triggered by by non-pactor qso's on "their" freq

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

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 canno

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

+++additional AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[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 detec

[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. >

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Th

RE: [digitalradio] RE: RM11392

Exactly. They wrap themselves in the flag of innovation, but refuse to employ existing technology already in their possession to prevent PMBOs from QRMing other stations. The cost per PMBO to do this? Around $25. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogrou

RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

If I need something to go from Houston to Austin I need to use HF NVIS. The higher bands are not usable. Although, having said that, I do believe the higher bands could be used for longer distance communications than is done presently. The requires getting towers, beams, and perhaps SSB in place.

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the *o

[digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater

I strongly oppose the operation of unattended stations that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is locally clear. The problem isn't simply that these stations are unattended, its that they are both unattended and deaf to the presence of other signals. The fact that such stations

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

Hi Rud: CW or Voice?? I think you might want to checkout EasyPal,, digital sstv pics..sends exact picture of doc in just a few seconds (60) just like a fax but cleaner.. can go from your scanner to on the air, can be printed. MARS and many of the other services are using it... try it, you'll li

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to b

Re: [digitalradio] RE: RM11392

But the "client", unless co-located with the PMBO, cannot hear what the PMBO hears and the PMBO does not "listen" for non-Pactor transmissions before it transmits. That is the problem. Seems to me that this would be a relatively easy fix for the "technologically superior" Pactor advocates, but

RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email a

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

It's all about how much of the band you are using. But you know how they like to pick on poor Pactor. Read page 11 line 4,5 and 6 of the PDF file * * * * * page 11 of RM11392.PDF 8. Two bandwidths are appropriate for what is now the RTTY/Data subband, 1.5 KHz and 2.4 kHz. The selection of these t

RE: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

Thank you, Rick and others, for helping to clarify my impression of this petition. Yes, I agree that Winlink 2000 should not be the only form of emergency backup communication, but that said, it is very useful and fun to use when no other communication form is available and, when combined wit

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

Hi Rick, You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old story that dates back ages ) of obsolete technology and practices by an attempt to limit the advancement of new technologies and practices, this is

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

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 tra

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

Hi Mark, It is interesting that the opposition to your petition is overwhelming. I would have expected it the other way, based upon the discussions we all have on groups such as digitalradio. As they say, those who show up for the meeting get to decide the outcome, even if they are in the extr

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

<<< The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this? In response to this question, there is data to suggest HF usage will continue to decline. This is taken from: http://www.hamradio-online.com/1999/aug/growth.html. I cannot authenticate the source of this data, but it

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

Michael, There is an incredible amount of FUD going on with Bonnie's posting and it has been repeated over and over by many posting to the FCC web site. The major part of Mark's petition *IS* to correct the Winlink 2000 automatic stations from transmitting anyplace in what is becoming narrower

Re: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

Michael, I was initially licensed in 1963. There were many fewer hams here in the U.S. back then I can assure you. Many fewer. I would not take the position that we are going to have fewer hams worldwide either. So your claim may be misplaced. You are correct that CW has declined as a casual m

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

At 10:53 AM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would >many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is >a major issue with the digital amateur community. Hi Rick, I did submit a news article to QRZ.com, but it appears t

Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Almost everything said by Bonnie, KQ6XA, is misrepresenting the facts. She is correct that we may only have a few days to respond and save the future of digital radio. That would best be done by reasonable and thoughtful hams by supporting this petition. Mark Miller, N5RFX's petition does not e

[digitalradio] Re: FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

[I submitted the following comments.] I oppose this proposal: 1) It places undo restrictions on experimental digital systems. 2) Technology is moving too rapidly to regulate by modulation designators, regulation should be by bandwidth/emission mask, with varying bandwidth for each band and segme

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

Hi all, seems like there are tons of ham keeping Art, KB2KB, very busy these days! :) Merry Christmas, Happy 2008, Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on

[digitalradio] Re: RM-11392

Hello Rick, There are at least two threads in the "talk" section of qrz.com that relate to this... 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would > many hams who might comment pro or c

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email > via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the > computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too > organiz

[digitalradio] Primary communcation systems

I am not a sailor nor do I have any experience "at sea". So as a layman, it is unfathomable to me that anyone would risk their life venturing out of port and rely on amateur radio for their communication needs. Amateur radio for recreational use, certainly... a backup communication system, cert

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is a major issue with the digital amateur community. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Veldhuis wrote: > I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmation #200712267391

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

There are plenty of digital modes that do not interfere. At the end of the day everything boils down to signal to noise and bandwidth. If a signal is really weak, it will have to be received in a narrow bandwidth. The narrower the bandwidth, the slower the transfer of information. At HF, digita

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

Mike NONE of us wants to stop any mode just see it does not distroy things for others. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

I agree; a little unnecessary drama. I think we can stay rational and have an educational discussion. I’ve learned from this debate and this is the most useful purpose for sharing opinions, even if I disagree with some. Even still, let’s use the FCC web site and exercise what democracy remains on

RE: [Bulk] Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastru

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

With the current band conditions, almost all I hear is CW. There are good digital modes such as PSK31 but we do not need bandwidth hogging autonomous robots jumping on any QSO that happens to get in it's way. Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote: > I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

A little over the top? expeditionradio wrote: > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PACTOR operator. > > Then FCC came for RTTY, > and I did not speak out > because I was not an RTTY op. > > Then FCC came for the PSK, > and I did not speak out > be

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

your comment "There have always been naysayers to innovation in Ham Radio. I started many decades ago when everyone was on AM, and SSB was just getting started. The AMers called it "Silly Side Band" and many claimed "They ought to outlaw those guys who sound like ducks". answer . I canno

[digitalradio] RE: RM11392

After reading all of the comments posted regarding this topic, it appears that it is a mini version of "regulation by bandwidth". It appears to me that it effectively would ban digital modes wider than 1.5kHz from the lower 100kHz of HF bands. I agree that automatic operation is a problem, and thi

[digitalradio] Re: FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

Hmm.. I have spent the morning reading the FCC proposal found at the link below. I AM a lawyer, and cannot understand it very well unless I spend perhaps a few weeks reading and correlating the document to the underlying regulations. It is not an easy task, so I cannot support something I cannot

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

I do a lot of KB2KB QSO on all 3 pactor modes. I have never been QRM'ed by another pactor station to the point that I could not go on with the QSO. But I have been QRM'ed by other modes. reason, I think is the other guy thinks it's a robot and not a KB2KB QSO. And for what it's worth, a pactor s

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

--- Rud Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. QUESTION Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? ANSWER . ANY MODE THAT INTERFERE

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

Rud Merriam wrote: > > This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for > those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. > > Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its > bandwidth? > > Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated

[digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expan

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmation #20071226739154. If we want it to pass, we need to make a little more noise where it counts... http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Specify RM-11392 in the first box. Won't take but a minute, and WILL make a difference! -Joe, N8FQ

Re: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

I too, agree with the petition! There NEEDS to be some reining back of some, if not A LOT of the HF, as well as VHF & UHF band operators! I'm NOT a fan of Internet Radio (IRLP or Echolink). Internet is NOT Radio! A LOT of these IRLP and Echo link nodes are oblivious to the fact that ther

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

W2XJ wrote: > > Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the > unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I > participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be > a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just > playing p

[digitalradio] RM-11392

To hams who are not in the USA: Your comments are important. I just left my comment, and did not see any qualifier that required that you be in the USA. They may place more importance on your opinions since we are currently being a 'bad neighbor' to you. I browsed through the 73 comments that we

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

expeditionradio wrote: > > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was > not a PACTOR operator. The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on the part of the Winlink com

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

> It will prevent present digital data technologies > for time-division sharing of frequencies. Time-division the winlink way means winlink will grab the frequency when it feels like it and the rest of modes may share what's left. I do NOT want that. Automatic stations should be operated i

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

Bonnie, There's no need to worry, Dame Julie Andrews is available via the William Morris Agency. http://www.wma.com/julie_andrews/summary/ Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 06:20:09 am expeditionradio wrote: > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PACTOR operator. Because it caused interference by operating automatically and interfering with ongoing QSO's all over the world. The FCC never came

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

Bonnie .. You forgot one . They they wanted to put digital wide band below 219 Mhz ... --- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PACTOR operator. > > Then FCC came for RTTY, > and I did not speak

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Well, the petition is out there now. Don't waste time making your arguments here... they mean nothing. Post your responses and feeling to the FCC's site. 73 - Bill KA8VIT > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:04:08 -0500 > Subject: Re: [d

RE: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more use of this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the licensing requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the bottom ends of the band will re

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35 years. I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire emergency? CW? How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10 years? And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to

[digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator. Then FCC came for RTTY, and I did not speak out because I was not an RTTY op. Then FCC came for the PSK, and I did not speak out because I was not a PSKer. Then they came for me, and there was no one l

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Hum . I dont see any move to kill digital. Digital stiil can do what they want above 219 mhz and thats where it BELONGS ... When 219 and up is full worry about HF . --- W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more than 500 hertz bandwidth sh

[digitalradio] Re: MixW Update

Downloaded several times. The file is corrupted !!!

Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

- Original Message - From: "Stuart Baynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has > some > form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 > modems. > As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make

[digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Dear All, Having read the petition it would seem to me that the Author maybe has some form of commercial connection to the Manufactures of the Pactor 2/3 modems. As these are commercial systems which we can not copy or make ourselves let alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban thes

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics. expeditionra

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? > > Good question. Bonnie? > The primary objective of the petition is to attack Winlink2000 on HF. The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000. There is tremendou

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

The Cw segments should not be subverted for questionable digital modes that are really last century's news. Phil Barnett wrote: > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote: > > >>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band >>modes, there must be an investigati

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band >>modes, there mus

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:09:28 am Roger J. Buffington wrote: > OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? Good question. Bonnie?

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band > modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa?

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

Spark was a transmitter not a modulation scheme. The spark operators sent "Morse code" using spark transmitters. Marconi used spark transmitters in his telegraphy service. Hams used spark transmitters. They generated a broad signal and were eventually legislated off the air by international treaty

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote: > I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band > modes, there must be an investigation. That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference by some specific mode.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. Phil Barnett wrote: > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote: > >>>an attempt to prevent the >>>destruction of ham radio as we know it. >> >>The same thing was said

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

expeditionradio wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > , "Barry Garratt" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > HUH! > > > > They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running > > then ? > > Spark. > > Bonnie KQ6XA Yes, CW replac

  1   2   >