[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Dave Bernstein]

I responded to most of this in my previous post.

The ARRL proposal will allow remotely-controlled automatic operation 
everywhere. If its adopted, I assume that message passing services 
will rush to escape the current automatic sub-bands; you confirmed 
this in your previous post. I agree that most will use wider digital 
modes, which may indeed reduce QRM to PSK and RTTY operations. But 
the potential for conflict between attended and remotely-controlled 
automatic stations will greatly increase.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave, 
> 
> I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject 
for 
> the most part. However, tell me that the hidden transmitter effect 
> does not play a role in contests, when all reason seems to 
stop..and 
> by agreement for most. 
> 
> Specifically when and where is your conflict with automatic 
> controlled stations, currently. I mean not in concept, but on the 
> bands?  Where is your conflict with stations under local and 
remote 
> control?  I note that you are talking about FEC(maybe) narrow band 
> protocols at typing speeds being interfered with by high speed 
data 
> transfer. Won't the current band plan eliminate that issue?
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set 
forth 
> > in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. 
This 
> > doesn't prevent mistakes -- which I agree occur every day -- but 
> > does an excellent job of discouraging longterm, willful 
violation.
> > 
> > There is also a voluntary component to HF operation. CW, RTTY, 
PSK, 
> > MFSK, and other digital mode operators have evolved defacto sub-
> > bands, and co-exist effectively even where subbands are shared 
> > between modes. A critical ingredient to this cooperation is the 
> fact 
> > that most QSOs are between attended stations. If I'm looking to 
> call 
> > CQ PSK63 on 14073.5, I'll make sure that frequency is clear 
before 
> > calling; if there's an MFSK QSO already in progress there, I 
won't 
> > call.
> > 
> > In contrast, voluntary cooperation has not resolved the conflict 
> > between attended stations and automatic stations controlled by a 
> > remote station. As has been discussed here frequently, the 
hidden 
> > transmitter effect allows an automatic station to QRM an ongoing 
> QSO 
> > whose signals aren't being heard by its controlling station. It 
is 
> > important to note that, despite the FCC's explicit expectation 
when 
> > it approved HF automatic operation in 1995, available techniques 
> > that would reduce hidden transmitter QRM have not been deployed.
> > 
> > At present, the use of remotely controlled automatic stations is 
> > constrained by 97.221: if the bandwidth is greater than 500 hz, 
> > operation is confined to specified subbands. The ARRL's proposal 
> > eliminates the 97.221 limits on remotely controlled automatic 
> > stations. Pactor III, for example, would be legal in any part of 
> any 
> > 3 kHz segment -- whether attended, or remotely controlled. If 
the 
> > ARRL proposal is adopted, the currently unresolved conflict 
between 
> > attended and remotely controlled automatic stations will 
escalate 
> as 
> > message-passing networks expand to meet the growing demand for 
> their 
> > services.
> > 
> > To address this conflict and others, the ARRL's proposal 
includes a 
> > stipulation that the League "will promptly undertake a procedure 
to 
> > establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband 
> > allocation petition, and, until such time as that band plan is 
in 
> > place, the existing band plan will be in force." This quote is 
> taken 
> > from http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2005-arlb017.html .
> > 
> > The ARRL's existing band plan has been obsolete for years. 
Besides 
> > ignoring not-so-recent developments like PSK, it makes no 
attempt 
> to 
> > resolve the conflict between attended and remotely controlled 
> > automatic operation.  Despite the widespread concern expressed 
over 
> > its proposed elimination of constraints on remotely controlled 
> > automatic operation, the ARRL has not seen fit to provide a 
> > prototype band plan that would illustrate how this conflict 
might 
> be 
> > resolved, or to describe the process by which such a band plan 
> would 
> > developed and evolved, or to describe how longterm, willful 
> > violations of the band plan would be addressed.
> > 
> > We can have our cake and eat it too. Allocating frequencies 
based 
> on 
> > bandwidth rather than content would be a step forward, and 
> automatic 
> > operation is fully consistent with the principles of amateur 
radio. 
> > Where the ARRL proposal falls fatally short is in eliminating 
the 
> > current constraints on remotely controlled automatic operation 
> > without provi

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Dave Bernstein]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I am not as confident about predicting the demise of Amateur radio 
as you are in your comments below. 

>>>I have not predicted the demise of amateur radio. I have 
predicted that approval of the ARRL proposal will increase the 
conflict between attended and remotely-controlled automatic 
stations. If left unchecked, this will certainly increase 
frustration levels, and probably lead to increased sales of 
amplifiers and beams.

First of all, the 1995 FCC comments are 1995 FCC comments, although, 
I do agree that stations under automatic control should be in a 
specific place, but I do not agree that it should be hardcoded in 
formal regulation. 

>>>My point is that in 1995, the FCC made clear its expectation that 
amateurs would resolve the conflicts between attended and automatic 
operation. The technology has been developed, but it has not been 
deployed: hardly a testimonial to our readiness to expand the co-
existence between attended and remote-controlled automatic operation.

I was partially responsible through the Amateur Radio Digital 
Society for making the sub-bands happen. That was great until it 
wasn't. Look how long it has taken to get around to making some 
adjustments to our bands. Not good. 

>>>The regulation I have suggested would only confine automatic 
operation to subbands when the protocols used were incapable of 
detecting busy frequencies, and incapable of detecting a universal 
QRL. The both incentivizes protocol improvement, and eliminates any 
need for future regulatory changes. "Polite" protocols would not be 
confined.

> You asked for my specific FCC quotes. I did not post their more 
recent comments since I had posted them on several occasions in the 
past, but here they are:

>snip<

>>>Nothing in those quotes can be construed as "the current 
voluntary segments work for all", as you claimed in your post.

Dave, exactly, when in the recent past, were you QRMed by a Winlink 
station under Local or remote control?  Please provide your times 
and dates and frequencies so I can provide my information.

>>>Over the years, I have been QRM'd on many occasions by Pactor 
signals, primarily on the 40m band. Until obtaining an SCS modem 
last year, however, I was incapable of decoding a callsign, or 
attempting to convey that the frequency was already in use. Since 
then, I have been QRM'd on two occasions, but in both cases took  
minutes to switch from soundcard RTTY to the SCS modem; by the time 
I was QRV Pactor, the offender was gone. I have been extending 
WinWarbler and Commander to reduce the switchover time.

My belief is that when the problem gets to be a problem, signal 
detection technigues similar to those used in the Beta SCAMP 
software, will assist with this process.  Such information is 
available in the SCS modem, and is in Airmail, but may be overridden 
by the control operator.  

>>>Its a problem now, Steve, as any number of digital mode operators 
have reported. Why would a Winlink control operator overide a busy 
frequency detector in anything other than emergency conditions? Is 
your non-emergency traffic more important than my QSO?

Of course, while you are at it, you may also provide 
exactinformation the last time you were QRMed by a station with the 
control operator present during any contest using any mode.  And, 
with or without any "hidden transmitter effect." But, of course, 
that seems acceptable today, and we don't even discuss it. MUCH more 
contriversial to discuss the 24 Winlink 2000 stations who spend 
about 8 percent of their time outside the auto sub-bands.

>>>Yes, I have been QRM'd by contest stations. But in these 
situations, both I and my QSO partner could successfully 
convey "frequency in use" to the offending operator, and regain our 
use of the frequency. That's not possible when the QRM is caused by 
an automatic station in a mode I can't decode or encode, and whose 
remote operator apparently can't hear me. The issue is unique to 
remotely controlled automatic operation, Steve.
 
Will the 24 Winlink stations under local and remote control now 
using P3, a 2.4 KHz wide signal, continue to operate and share with 
fully-automatic operations of others?  As an example, will they 
continue to use the five KHz that they now use for P3 operation on 
40 meters?  Probably not.  But, that is not a concern, nor is it a 
concern for any growth beyond what is perceived by others regarding 
local and remote control, or even fully-automatic operations.

>>>Of course its a concern that you and others will expand remotely-
controlled automatic operation. This is the root of my opposition to 
the ARRL proposal, the other aspects of which I favor.

I cannot speak for others, but Winlink 2000 will yield to any 
reasonable band segment alotted to it as it shrinks or expands.

>>>Who will decide whether the alotted band segment is "reasonable"?

I would expect thi

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave, 

I did reply to another message you posted. It covers this subject for 
the most part. However, tell me that the hidden transmitter effect 
does not play a role in contests, when all reason seems to stop..and 
by agreement for most. 

Specifically when and where is your conflict with automatic 
controlled stations, currently. I mean not in concept, but on the 
bands?  Where is your conflict with stations under local and remote 
control?  I note that you are talking about FEC(maybe) narrow band 
protocols at typing speeds being interfered with by high speed data 
transfer. Won't the current band plan eliminate that issue?



Steve, k4cjx



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set forth 
> in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. This 
> doesn't prevent mistakes -- which I agree occur every day -- but 
> does an excellent job of discouraging longterm, willful violation.
> 
> There is also a voluntary component to HF operation. CW, RTTY, PSK, 
> MFSK, and other digital mode operators have evolved defacto sub-
> bands, and co-exist effectively even where subbands are shared 
> between modes. A critical ingredient to this cooperation is the 
fact 
> that most QSOs are between attended stations. If I'm looking to 
call 
> CQ PSK63 on 14073.5, I'll make sure that frequency is clear before 
> calling; if there's an MFSK QSO already in progress there, I won't 
> call.
> 
> In contrast, voluntary cooperation has not resolved the conflict 
> between attended stations and automatic stations controlled by a 
> remote station. As has been discussed here frequently, the hidden 
> transmitter effect allows an automatic station to QRM an ongoing 
QSO 
> whose signals aren't being heard by its controlling station. It is 
> important to note that, despite the FCC's explicit expectation when 
> it approved HF automatic operation in 1995, available techniques 
> that would reduce hidden transmitter QRM have not been deployed.
> 
> At present, the use of remotely controlled automatic stations is 
> constrained by 97.221: if the bandwidth is greater than 500 hz, 
> operation is confined to specified subbands. The ARRL's proposal 
> eliminates the 97.221 limits on remotely controlled automatic 
> stations. Pactor III, for example, would be legal in any part of 
any 
> 3 kHz segment -- whether attended, or remotely controlled. If the 
> ARRL proposal is adopted, the currently unresolved conflict between 
> attended and remotely controlled automatic stations will escalate 
as 
> message-passing networks expand to meet the growing demand for 
their 
> services.
> 
> To address this conflict and others, the ARRL's proposal includes a 
> stipulation that the League "will promptly undertake a procedure to 
> establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband 
> allocation petition, and, until such time as that band plan is in 
> place, the existing band plan will be in force." This quote is 
taken 
> from http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2005-arlb017.html .
> 
> The ARRL's existing band plan has been obsolete for years. Besides 
> ignoring not-so-recent developments like PSK, it makes no attempt 
to 
> resolve the conflict between attended and remotely controlled 
> automatic operation.  Despite the widespread concern expressed over 
> its proposed elimination of constraints on remotely controlled 
> automatic operation, the ARRL has not seen fit to provide a 
> prototype band plan that would illustrate how this conflict might 
be 
> resolved, or to describe the process by which such a band plan 
would 
> developed and evolved, or to describe how longterm, willful 
> violations of the band plan would be addressed.
> 
> We can have our cake and eat it too. Allocating frequencies based 
on 
> bandwidth rather than content would be a step forward, and 
automatic 
> operation is fully consistent with the principles of amateur radio. 
> Where the ARRL proposal falls fatally short is in eliminating the 
> current constraints on remotely controlled automatic operation 
> without providing a credible means of eliminating its conflict with 
> attended operation. 
> 
> Restricting remotely controlled automatic operation to subbands 
> until the effects of hidden transmitter QRM are reduced to levels 
> experienced with attended operation would correct this fatal flaw 
in 
> the ARRL proposal. Techniques for accomplishing this reduction -- 
> busy detectors, universal QRL -- are available. History has shown 
> that they will not be deployed unless incentivized by regulation.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Herein lies the dilemma.  Can we reduce regulation to allow 
> amateurs to 
> > control emissions on the bands, without providing some sort of 
> enforcement 
> > mechanism?  While I agree that reducing regulat

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Dean Gibson AE7Q]

Huh? That will be news to many PSK and packet operations that I know of.

-- Dean

On 2005-12-30 20:07, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> ... /any/ digital transmission of data transfer greater than real-time 
> typing speed is likely to be under remote control.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Steve Waterman, k4cjx]

Dave,I am not as confident about predicting the demise of Amateur radio as you are in your comments below. First of all, the 1995 FCC comments are 1995 FCC comments, although, I do agree that stations under automatic control should be in a specific place, but I do not agree that it should be hardcoded in formal regulation. I was partially responsible through the Amateur Radio Digital Society for making the sub-bands happen. That was great until it wasn't. Look how long it has taken to get around to making some adjustments to our bands. Not good. You asked for my specific FCC quotes. I did not post their more recent comments since I had posted them on several occasions in the past, but here they are:FCC QUOTE from the "Order" to RM-10740, 11/2004."Discussion. As an initial matter, we note that one of the purposes of the amateur service is to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.[1] We believe that amateur radio operators using amateur service spectrum to develop new communications systems are using the service in a manner that is consistent with the basis and purpose of the amateur service. We also believe that our Rules should not be an impediment to amateur radio operator's development of new or improved communication systems. In this regard, we note that the reason amateur radio operators currently may not transmit communications that combine image emission types and data emission types on HF frequency segments where data emissions are authorized is not a technical reason, but rather is because our Rules do not authorize stations to transmit both image and data emission types on any HF frequency segments.[2] We also note that amateur radio operators apparently have developed communication systems and technologies that transmit both image and data emission types, and that they are using these systems for communicating. For this reason, we are persuaded that our Rules are not in harmony with current emission and operating practices and that our Rules may be impeding amateur radio operators in advancing the radio art."Again, in the above FCC Order for RM-10740, 11/2004, they also describe how they expect the domestic Amateur radio spectrum to be regulated:"Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor."Then there is the quote from the former FCC Chief of Engineering and technology stating:"headroom for increases in data rates to more closely match those available on wireline networks and, in the future, on commercial wireless networks as well." and he goes on to quote: "as the rest of the telecommunications world makes the transition to digital techniques - and there are very few exceptions to that trend - the amateur service will look antiquated if it is not making progress in that direction as well."Dave, exactly, when in the recent past, were you QRMed by a Winlink station under Local or remote control?  Please provide your times and dates and frequencies so I can provide my information. My belief is that when the problem gets to be a problem, signal detection technigues similar to those used in the Beta SCAMP software, will assist with this process.  Such information is available in the SCS modem, and is in Airmail, but may be overridden by the control operator.  Of course, while you are at it, you may also provide exact information the last time you were QRMed by a station with the control operator present during any contest using any mode.  And, with or without any "hidden transmitter effect." But, of course, that seems acceptable today, and we don't even discuss it. MUCH more contriversial to discuss the 24 Winlink 2000 stations who spend about 8 percent of their time outside the auto sub-bands. Will the 24 Winlink stations under local and remote control now using P3, a 2.4 KHz wide signal, continue to operate and share with fully-automatic operations of others?  As an example, will they continue to use the five KHz that they now use for P3 operation on 40 meters?  Probably not.  But, that is not a concern, nor is it a concern for any growth beyond what is perceived by others regarding local and remote control, or even fully-automatic operations. I cannot speak for others, but Winlink 2000 will yield to any reasonable band segment alotted to it as it shrinks or expands. I would expect this of any system using any mode of operation.  But, my observation is that you had better be more concerned about what the zillion SSB stations will do when they have full range of the wideband segment under the new band plan. After all, I would think that they might have a dendency to clobber any digital signal

[digitalradio] MixW used on AO-51 or GO-32

[sopbpsid]

Has anyone worked the AO-51 or GO-32 birds with MixW?
I have been able to receive the packets –  but I cannot "connect".  
Are there some special parameter settings I need to be aware of?
I realize there could also be a host of RF type issues in my uplink 
path as well .. 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] EA PSK31 CONTEST 2006 - EA4ZB CONTEST MANAGER

[GUSANO GARCIA, JOAQUIN]

Hey for all:
 
I'm Joaquin, EA4ZB, contest manager to the EA PSK31 CONTEST 2006.
 
I have the pleasure to invite to participate to the FIRST EA PSK31 CONTEST 
2006, with the follows rules:
 
EA PSK31 CONTEST 2006 
Sponsored by Unión de Radioaficionados Españoles (URE), the worldwide EA PSK31 
Contest is intended to encourage the digital communications on PSK31 mode. The 
manager of the contest is EA4ZB.
?
Date: From 16:00 UTC March 11th to 16:00 UTC March 12th, 2006.
Participants: Any licensed amateur station.
Bands: 10, 15, 20, 40 and 80 meters, according IARU Region 1 band plan.
Mode: BPSK31.
Classes:
1) Single operator all band EA.
2) Single operator single band EA.
3) Single operator all band non-EA.
4) Single operator single band non-EA. 
5) Multioperator EA, only all bands. 
6) Multioperator non EA, only all bands. 
Contest call: "CQ EA TEST".
Valid contacts: Any station can be contacted during the contest. Every station 
can be contacted once per band.
Exchange: Spanish stations: RST + Province code (see below).
DX stations: RST + QSO number starting with 001. Multi-operator stations, if 
used multi TX, shall report separate serials per band starting with 001. 
Scoring: 
On 10, 15 and 20 meters, one (1) point for QSO within own continent, and two 
(2) points for QSO outside own continent.
On 40 and 80 m, three (3) points for QSO within own continent, and six (6) 
points for QSO outside own continent.
Multipliers: 
- EADX100 entities.
- Spanish Provinces.
- USA, Canada, Japan and Australia call areas (VE3, VE6, W5, JA1...).
NOTES:
1) Each multiplier counts once per band. 
2) The first QSO with W, VE, JA and VK stations, on each band, counts for two 
multipliers (EADX100 entity + call area)
3) The first QSO with EA, EA6, EA8 and EA9 stations, on each band, counts for 
two multipliers (EADX100 entity + Province).
4) The use of cluster is allowed for all classes, but it is not allowed 
self-spotting.
5) Stations working the contest as portable ("/p") will be considered as 
multipliers working in the area where the station is located as portable (for 
example, EA8/EA3XX counts as  EA8, EA3XX/8 counts as EA8, K4XXX/5 counts as K5, 
VE1/VE5XXX counts as VE1, and so on).
Final score: Total QSO points by total multipliers in all bands.
Logs: All logs should be submitted in Cabrillo format via Internet to the 
following E-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Logs should be sent as an e-mail attachment, not in the text of the e-mail, and 
the filename for the log should be yourcall.log. (EA4ZB.LOG)
A Cabrillo converter software is available free at 
http://www.ure.es/ftp/plantilla.zip
Deadline: All entries must be e-mailed by April 12th, 2006.
Prizes: Trophy to the winner in each class and certificate for the second and 
third places in each class, if the valid QSO number is higher than 50.
SPANISH PROVINCE CODE
A - Alicante  AB - Albacete  AL - Almería  AV - Ávila  B - Barcelona
BA - Badajoz  BI - Vizcaya BU - Burgos  C - Coruña  CA - Cádiz
CC - Cáceres  CE - Ceuta  CO - Córdoba  CR - Ciudad Real  CS - Castellón
CU - Cuenca  GC - Las Palmas  GI - Girona  GR - Granada  GU - Guadalajara
H - Huelva  HU - Huesca  IB - I. Baleares  J - Jaén  L - Lleida
LE - León  LO - La Rioja  LU - Lugo  M - Madrid  MA - Málaga
ML - Melilla  MU - Murcia  NA - Navarra  O - Asturias  OU - Ourense 
P - Palencia  PO - Pontevedra  S - Cantabria  SA - Salamanca  SE - Sevilla 
SG - Segovia  SO - Soria  SS - Guipúzcoa T - Tarragona  TE - Teruel 
TF - SC Tenerife  TO - Toledo  V - Valencia  VA - Valladolid  VI - Álava 
Z - Zaragoza  ZA - Zamora
 
 
More info at the official website to URE: 
http://www.ure.es/hf/concursos/eapsk31/baseseapsk31ingles.pdf 
 
joaquin, EA4ZB # 405
EA PSK31 CONTEST MANAGER
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ea4zb.com
(casi todo en psk - psk31 para principiantes - concursos en español)
 
joaquin, EA4ZB
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ea4zb.com
(casi todo en psk - psk31 para principiantes - concursos en español)


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice and QRM

[John Becker]

No I have not Mark.
It's like 2M fm 1/2 mile apart.



At 03:57 AM 12/30/05 -0600, you wrote:
>John,
>
>Thanks.  Have you noticed how far away from the DV the QRM must be for the
>signal to survive?  What do you feel is the greatest advantage of DV over
>analog?
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] MT63

[Mark Miller]

SSB Carrier Freq.  The MT63 center freq is 14110.5

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 03:23 PM 12/30/2005, you wrote:
>SSB carrier freq or center of MT63 signal =  14109.5   ?
>   Les K1YCM/3
>
>-Original Message-
>From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark Miller
>Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 6:24 AM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MT63
>
>Dave,
>
>I would call CQ on 14109.5 kHz.  The normal operating mode is 1 KHz
>bandwidth and long interleave.  I will hang out there today and listen for
>you.
>
>73,
>
>
>
>
>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
>Other areas of interest:
>The MixW Reflector : 
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
>
>Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
>
>
>
>
>--
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>*  Visit your group 
> "digitalradio" on the web.
>*
>*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>* 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>*
>*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>--




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Why is Mix W so popular ?

[Mel]

I have been noting those who use Mix W, and its popularity in Europe 
is quite astonishing. I have now attained a sort of expertise in 
guessing who is using the software by the similarity of the text 
content transmitted by its users.

If my wife could see me constantly being referred to as "My dear 
friend O M Mel" she would begin to wonder about my activities in the 
shack !

Its a great pity, but fully understandable, that most foreign 
operators use the various digital systems as they would if 
transmitting using Morse code. There are many radio amateurs who are 
unable to converse confidently in English, and I, of course would be 
unable to converse in Bulgarian or Swedish. For those who are quite 
able to speak  and write English I cannot see why the stilted form of 
communication, which is applied using Morse code, is used when using 
PSK 31.

The complexity of writing macro's in simple English seems to have 
defeated many operators with  signs like = and < and > 
and * and + and  } appearing all over the monitor 
screen with monotonous regularity !  

If people regularly sent mail to these pages such as TNX FER YR TX FB 
CPY U R 5NN I'm sure there would be some comment and that included 
with the keyboard flotsam and jetsam !

Plain English as it is spoken, with less = and   would be 
appreciated. To those unable,  Hpy Nw Yr fer 06. SK

Kind regards   Mel  G0GQK






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] MT63

[Lester Veenstra]

SSB carrier freq or center of MT63 signal =  14109.5   ?
  Les K1YCM/3

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Miller
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 6:24 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MT63

Dave,

I would call CQ on 14109.5 kHz.  The normal operating mode is 1 KHz 
bandwidth and long interleave.  I will hang out there today and listen for
you.

73,




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Dave Bernstein]

Today, US amateurs must comply with the allocation scheme set forth 
in part 97, and there are meaningful penalties for violation. This 
doesn't prevent mistakes -- which I agree occur every day -- but 
does an excellent job of discouraging longterm, willful violation.

There is also a voluntary component to HF operation. CW, RTTY, PSK, 
MFSK, and other digital mode operators have evolved defacto sub-
bands, and co-exist effectively even where subbands are shared 
between modes. A critical ingredient to this cooperation is the fact 
that most QSOs are between attended stations. If I'm looking to call 
CQ PSK63 on 14073.5, I'll make sure that frequency is clear before 
calling; if there's an MFSK QSO already in progress there, I won't 
call.

In contrast, voluntary cooperation has not resolved the conflict 
between attended stations and automatic stations controlled by a 
remote station. As has been discussed here frequently, the hidden 
transmitter effect allows an automatic station to QRM an ongoing QSO 
whose signals aren't being heard by its controlling station. It is 
important to note that, despite the FCC's explicit expectation when 
it approved HF automatic operation in 1995, available techniques 
that would reduce hidden transmitter QRM have not been deployed.

At present, the use of remotely controlled automatic stations is 
constrained by 97.221: if the bandwidth is greater than 500 hz, 
operation is confined to specified subbands. The ARRL's proposal 
eliminates the 97.221 limits on remotely controlled automatic 
stations. Pactor III, for example, would be legal in any part of any 
3 kHz segment -- whether attended, or remotely controlled. If the 
ARRL proposal is adopted, the currently unresolved conflict between 
attended and remotely controlled automatic stations will escalate as 
message-passing networks expand to meet the growing demand for their 
services.

To address this conflict and others, the ARRL's proposal includes a 
stipulation that the League "will promptly undertake a procedure to 
establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband 
allocation petition, and, until such time as that band plan is in 
place, the existing band plan will be in force." This quote is taken 
from http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2005-arlb017.html .

The ARRL's existing band plan has been obsolete for years. Besides 
ignoring not-so-recent developments like PSK, it makes no attempt to 
resolve the conflict between attended and remotely controlled 
automatic operation.  Despite the widespread concern expressed over 
its proposed elimination of constraints on remotely controlled 
automatic operation, the ARRL has not seen fit to provide a 
prototype band plan that would illustrate how this conflict might be 
resolved, or to describe the process by which such a band plan would 
developed and evolved, or to describe how longterm, willful 
violations of the band plan would be addressed.

We can have our cake and eat it too. Allocating frequencies based on 
bandwidth rather than content would be a step forward, and automatic 
operation is fully consistent with the principles of amateur radio. 
Where the ARRL proposal falls fatally short is in eliminating the 
current constraints on remotely controlled automatic operation 
without providing a credible means of eliminating its conflict with 
attended operation. 

Restricting remotely controlled automatic operation to subbands 
until the effects of hidden transmitter QRM are reduced to levels 
experienced with attended operation would correct this fatal flaw in 
the ARRL proposal. Techniques for accomplishing this reduction -- 
busy detectors, universal QRL -- are available. History has shown 
that they will not be deployed unless incentivized by regulation.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Herein lies the dilemma.  Can we reduce regulation to allow 
amateurs to 
> control emissions on the bands, without providing some sort of 
enforcement 
> mechanism?  While I agree that reducing regulation can enhance 
operation on 
> the HF bands, can it be done without reducing the capacity of a 
finite 
> resource due to increased QRM possibilities?  Today, can we really 
rely on 
> the FCC with their limited resources to enforce the regulations 
already on 
> the books?  We have strong interference regulations, and those 
regulations 
> would remain in place under the ARRL petition and the 
Communications Think 
> Tank petition.  The question then must be asked, what regulations 
are today 
> enforced by the FCC, and how would that change under the ARRL 
petition and 
> the Communications Think Tank petition?  Are U.S. amateurs 
disciplined 
> enough to work in a deregulated environment?
> 
> Today, the Part 97 rules dealing with the 80 though 10 meter bands 
> segregate emissions by their content and control.  Within the 
control 
> regulations automatically controlled stations are limited 

Re: [digitalradio] MT63

[Mark Miller]

Dave,

I would call CQ on 14109.5 kHz.  The normal operating mode is 1 KHz 
bandwidth and long interleave.  I will hang out there today and listen for you.

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 01:04 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>I am looking for some folks that work MT63.  What are the popular
>frequencies (I have a General ticket) and times of day?  Are there any
>nets?
>
>Thanks
>Dave, K7PDW
>
>
>
>
>
>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
>Other areas of interest:
>The MixW Reflector : 
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
>
>Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
>
>
>
>
>--
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>*  Visit your group 
> "digitalradio" on the web.
>*
>*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>* 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>*
>*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>--




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwith-Based Bandplans in our future (NOT RESTRUCTURING: UK RSGB bandplan 2006

[Mark Miller]

Herein lies the dilemma.  Can we reduce regulation to allow amateurs to 
control emissions on the bands, without providing some sort of enforcement 
mechanism?  While I agree that reducing regulation can enhance operation on 
the HF bands, can it be done without reducing the capacity of a finite 
resource due to increased QRM possibilities?  Today, can we really rely on 
the FCC with their limited resources to enforce the regulations already on 
the books?  We have strong interference regulations, and those regulations 
would remain in place under the ARRL petition and the Communications Think 
Tank petition.  The question then must be asked, what regulations are today 
enforced by the FCC, and how would that change under the ARRL petition and 
the Communications Think Tank petition?  Are U.S. amateurs disciplined 
enough to work in a deregulated environment?

Today, the Part 97 rules dealing with the 80 though 10 meter bands 
segregate emissions by their content and control.  Within the control 
regulations automatically controlled stations are limited to certain 
subbands when their  emissions are greater than 500 Hz. RTTY/Data emissions 
are segregated from Phone/Image emissions.  Digital emissions are 
authorized in 100% of the 80 through 10 meter bands.  The segregation of 
digital emissions, rtty/data/phone/image is based on the content of the 
emission.  I do not recall any FCC warning or citation based on content 
violations. Content violations have occurred and do occur every 
day.  Either the amateur community is not concerned with this type of 
violation and have not informed the FCC, or the FCC is not interested in 
enforcing these regulations.  It really does not matter what is the cause, 
the fact is that these regulations are not enforced, so why have them on 
the books?  QRM occurs every day too, and amateurs seem willing to report 
such violations, and the FCC seems willing to enforce them.  Realistically, 
QRM is the issue and the enforcement of interference regulations by the FCC 
will not change when content restrictions are dropped.

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 08:45 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>The issue is the expanded use of
>remotely-controlled automatic stations without the means to prevent
>hidden-transmitter QRM, and the elimination of any incentives for
>operators to comply with the band plan (e.g. losing operating
>priveleges). We can have separation by bandwidth, increased
>flexibility, and polite automatic operation without turning the
>bands into a free-for-all, which will be the outcome if the
>ARRL's "voluntary band plan" proposal is accepted.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpTY2A/lzNLAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice and QRM

[Mark Miller]

John,

Thanks.  Have you noticed how far away from the DV the QRM must be for the 
signal to survive?  What do you feel is the greatest advantage of DV over 
analog?

73,

Mark N5RFX

At 08:26 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>Mark,
>for about the last 3 years I have been using the 9800.
>I also have one in the pickup that has been working
>really well. Photo of the pick up can been seen at
>http://www.rfelectronics.com/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm
>
>But any QRM will destroy a DV signal.
>
>
>
>At 08:15 PM 12/29/05 -0600, you wrote:
> >John,
> >
> >Which modem are you using?  I have WinDRM, but have not sprung for the
> >AOR9800.  I was wondering how well either of those tolerate QRM, especially
> >dead on like you describe?  I know that the DRM that the digital SSTV guys
> >use does not like QRM.
> >
> >73,
> >
> >Mark N5RFX
>
>
>
>
>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
>Other areas of interest:
>The MixW Reflector : 
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
>
>Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
>
>
>
>
>SPONSORED LINKS
>Ham
> 
>radio 
>Craft
> 
>hobby 
>Hobby
> 
>and craft supply
>
>
>--
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>*  Visit your group 
> "digitalradio" on the web.
>*
>*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>* 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>*
>*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>--




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/