[digitalradio] Re: FCC's Riley & Cross Clarify
> kd4e wrote: > It is now a closed issue at the FCC - *every* station > *must* prevent QRM of other stations. Period. No exceptions. I guess that's the end of DX contesting in USA? Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] FCC's Riley & Cross Clarify
The statements of Riley Hollingsworth and Bill Cross at Dayton should finally un-muddle the automatic operations debate. It is now a closed issue at the FCC - *every* station *must* prevent QRM of other stations. Period. No exceptions. We can now report documented patterns of interference from *inadequately controlled* stations and anticipate aggressive FCC enforcement. Meanwhile we can also expect our fellow Hams to make such FCC enforcement unnecessary - by following the rules and ceasing from QRM-prone operations which make *no reasonable effort* to check for a busy frequency. WDYT? -- "We can enforce our rules, but we can't enforce kindness and courtesy or common sense," Hollingsworth concluded. "And a very wise person, who happens to be standing to my left [FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staffer Bill Cross, W3TN -- Ed] once told me: 'You can't regulate stupid.' If we could, we'd be working for the United Nations instead of the FCC." In his comments, Cross singled out the controversy that erupted recently over fears that automatically controlled digital stations would overwhelm the amateur bands, eclipsing most other modes. Cross cited ยง97.7 of the rules, which requires each amateur station to have a control operator and, in essence, to employ a "listen-before-transmit" protocol." When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the transmission mode, Cross explained, the control operator *need not* be at the control point, *but must* employ station control devices and procedures while transmitting that *ensure* compliance with the FCC rules and does not cause harmful interference to ongoing communications of other stations. The operational rule, Cross said, is: *"Your call sign, your responsibility."* -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html Ham QTH: http://bibleseven.com/steel/cjb-steelhouse-index.html
[digitalradio] QRM using My Call
Hi Group: I'm am advising all my groups that a QRM'er is using my call sign on several different modes and many different freq's.., This has been reported to the FCC, ARRL, and homeland security,, but he continues.. I have heard him on MFSK, PSK31, SSTV and Digital SSTV and he is probley using other.. MY Call: AA0OI If you think you know who this is please e-mail me and let me know who it is ( I have a pretty good idea ) and I am closing in.. Thanks All: Garrett / AA0OI
[digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is also a significant improvement in using horizontal > polarization compared to vertical polarization (RCA established this > years ago for TV and that is why TV signals are horizontally > polarized). Good Morning: Conventional wisdom has it that the horizontal polarization of television signals was established to prevent having a "net" on top of every house that would trap and injure birds. 73, Sherm KB9Q
[digitalradio] Re: HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
I'm still a bit confused by this whole process. Accepting that the League's query wasn't an RFP, does anyone know with any certainty what it IS? Is some sort of standard-setting envisioned here? Or something else? - Art KD6O
Re: [digitalradio] HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
They say it's not an RFP, and I have no reason to doubt that, but that still leaves me wondering what the League's query actually IS. Has there been any articulation of what the League's purpose might be in soliciting these comments? Is this a foray into standards- setting? Product development? Or what? 73, - Art KD6O On Jun 1, 2007, at 6/1/07 5:56 PM, Walt DuBose wrote: > ave been hesitant to comment on the ARRL seeking comments on a new > HF digital > protocol...but let's look again at what they ask... > > I. Comments from amateurs concerning development of an open-source > (non-proprietary) data communications protocol suitable for use by > radio > amateurs over high-frequency (HF) fading paths. This is not a > Request for > Proposals (RFP). > > II. Access Method: Is Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing > (OFDM) the > best candidate technology, or should other competitive technologies > be considered? > > III. Data Rate and Bandwidth: What data rates/throughputs are > achievable at > various bandwidths up to 3 kHz bandwidth? > > IV. Adaptivity: What adaptive features should be considered, such > as automatic > adjustment of transmitter power, modulation waveform and coding, in > order to > maximize throughput and efficiency in two-way contacts? > > V. Robustness: What is achievable for reliable operation at power > levels > typical in the Amateur Radio Service and low signal/noise and > interference ratios? > > VI. Error control: What are the appropriate applications of error > control > suitable for HF channels? For example, how should Repeat reQuest > (ARQ) and > Forward Error Control (FEC) be applied to two-way contacts and one- > to-many > (roundtable and bulletin) transmissions? > > VII. Activity Detection: What is an effective method of determining > whether a > frequency is busy prior to transmission? > > VIII. Operating System: What operating systems (such as Windows or > Linux) are > appropriate for Amateur Radio use with this protocol? > > IX. Hardware: What practical and affordable hardware platforms are > suitable for > amateur stations? Consider the use of personal computers with or > without sound > cards. Provide any information about the need for an additional > "box" if needed. > > Did Bonnie's response answer these questions? Some of the response > did and did > very well. However, the first paragraph of the ARRL's message > was..."This is > not a Request for Proposals (RFP)." The recommendation of a > specific protocol > or set of protocols was not what was requested. > > As the college professor told his student during a test..."just > answer the > question." > > We get to the point where we want to design what the airplane > should look like > and then determine what it can do and many times it doesn't meet > our real needs. > > I would appear that a set of design goals or specification goals > need to be > defined meet the needs of amateur radio..."an open-source (non- > proprietary) data > communications protocol suitable for use by radio amateurs over > high-frequency > (HF) fading paths." > > A desired format would be to specifically re-state the ARRL's > "question", > provide current data/capabilities and then based on an assessment > of current and > future preceived capabilities, determine what future capabilities > might be > possible and if they might meet the needs of the amateur radio > communnity. > > Too ofter those who deal consistantly with businesses/industry and > governments > are asked for request for proposals (RFP) and the government > federal government > is guilty of this...ask or seems to ask for an RFP when in > realitity they are > looking for a request for information (RFI). I believe that the > ARRL is > actually asking for the latter. > > The question may be do we want to go with what is currently > available with its > benefits and drawbacks (positive/negative attributes) or start with > a clean > slate? Since there is no need for adoption of a specific mode(s) > to meet an > ungent need, then we might well be advised to determine what our > (amateur > radio's) real needs are and start afresh...design from the bottom > up...not the > top down. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > bruce mallon wrote: >> OK so what we have here is a failure to communicate ? >> >> >> >> --- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Please click here to read the HFLINK recommendation >>> comments: >>> http://www.hflink.com/arrl/ >>> >>> Background >>> On 22 Feb 2007, the ARRL announced that it seeks >>> comments from >>> amateurs concerning development of an open-source, >>> non-proprietary, >>> data communications protocol suitable for use by >>> radio amateurs over >>> HF fading paths. >>> >>> ARRL's announcement was discussed at length in the >>> HFLINK Forum >>> and via private correspondence. >>> >>> On 15 May 2007, HFLINK respectfully submitted >>>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
I was wondering what the center frequency was and the band width THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF IT WAS USABLE ON SSB. I had 7 over 7 skeleton-slot beams made in England in the late 1960 and I'm WELL aware of that array. As for BIG WHEELS had them too a stacked pair and have given thought to building another pair IF I don't stack 2 more KU4AB's the ones i have now show a fairly even pattern maby that's from stacking them. It's interesting you went with the skeleton-slot antenna we have a guy on our Tampa bay SSB net using one with VERY good results. Thanks Skip i'll be looking to see how you are using the very good skeketon-slot antenna ! Bruce --- Skip KH6TY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First, let me say thanks to all who were > interested enough in the protocol issue to offer > suggestions > > >Usable on SSB ... ?? I have worked New York > state from tampabay on USB with stacked ku4ab > squailos. > > I am not sure I understand Bruce's puzzlement. The > subject antenna is derived from the > horizontally-polarized "skeketon-slot" antenna of > the early 50's, and is usable for SSB because it is > horizontally polarized, which is the convention for > CW and SSB weak signal activity on 2m. > > Even a simple dipole can work long distances > during E-skip or tropo conditions, but our task is > to provide sufficient antenna gain for reliable > flatland communications over 100 miles without > having to rely on propagation as an assist. I also > have stacked KU4AB square loops, which I started out > with on 2m, but this antenna outperforms those by a > significant margin of almost 5 db. In actual tests > over 150 miles between my 13B2 to a single KU4AB > loop mounted on a mobile truck compared to the > skeleton-slot antenna mounted on the same truck, SSB > signals that were not understandable on the KU4AB > loop were 100% copiable on the skeleton-slot antenna > on the same vehicle at the same height (no > enhancement present). > > In addition, if you make careful tests of the > KU4AB loop, you will probably find that the pattern > is not very omnidirectional, but has deep nulls and > one of the nulls on mine measured almost 6 dB. > Therefore, a bi-directional antenna like the > skeleton-slot is statistically almost as > "omnidirectional" as the KU4AB square loop. The "big > wheel" would probably be a better choice than > stacked KU4AB loops, and is used on many > horizontally polarized beacons, but I have not > actually tested one. My tests are made using a 2m > beacon located at 30 feet, 8 airmiles away. My > antenna design is just a simpler, and cheaper ($25), > way to make a "skeleton-slot" antenna. > > If you are interested, check out this excellent > article on the skeleton-slot antenna: > http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennexarticles/qloop.htm > Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
Re: [digitalradio] ALE How to do
Hi, Nice suggestion re: SuperBrowser, I'll have to work out the logic, but not tonight :-) Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ALE How to do Hello to all, There are 3 softwares for ALE (PCAle, MarsAle and Multipsk). The more exhaustive are PCAle and MarsAle when Multipsk uses a subset of ALE features (the standard ones) + some other original features (as ARQ FAE for mail or APRS, for example). Sometimes ago Bonnie issues the following interesting mail which shows how to do with Multipsk (which does not prevent to use PC Ale or Mars Ale also...). For more details, click on the right button of the mouse over the button "141A" to have the contextual help. 73 Patrick Here is a view of the Multipsk options set up screens that enable it to be used to send and respond to ALE calls using the common standards for international amateur radio ALE. http://www.hflink.com/multipsk/MultipskALEoptionsSetup.jpg After you have set up all the options accordingly, your station can automatically get ALE calls and messages. CALL CQ ALE with AUTO-ANSWER: 1. Tune radio to an ALE frequency. http://hflink.com/channels 2. Select HFL in the lower right pulldown box (Destination or net address selection - button). 3. Next to the pulldown box, press the red CALL button. 4. Wait 45 seconds for all stations' automatic responses. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] ALE How to do
Sorry, Muppet here, replied to the wrong message. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Simon Brown Hi, Nice suggestion re: SuperBrowser, I'll have to work out the logic, but not tonight :-)
[digitalradio] ALE How to do
Hello to all, There are 3 softwares for ALE (PCAle, MarsAle and Multipsk). The more exhaustive are PCAle and MarsAle when Multipsk uses a subset of ALE features (the standard ones) + some other original features (as ARQ FAE for mail or APRS, for example). Sometimes ago Bonnie issues the following interesting mail which shows how to do with Multipsk (which does not prevent to use PC Ale or Mars Ale also...). For more details, click on the right button of the mouse over the button "141A" to have the contextual help. 73 Patrick Here is a view of the Multipsk options set up screens that enable it to be used to send and respond to ALE calls using the common standards for international amateur radio ALE. http://www.hflink.com/multipsk/MultipskALEoptionsSetup.jpg After you have set up all the options accordingly, your station can automatically get ALE calls and messages. CALL CQ ALE with AUTO-ANSWER: 1. Tune radio to an ALE frequency. http://hflink.com/channels 2. Select HFL in the lower right pulldown box (Destination or net address selection - button). 3. Next to the pulldown box, press the red CALL button. 4. Wait 45 seconds for all stations' automatic responses. Bonnie KQ6XA - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ALE Re: other "demonstration" modes for field day Joe, Bonnie, et al. I have been invited to conduct three digital demo modes on Field Day for the Union City Wireless Association. I plan on using ALE, Olivia, and JT65A, using the call sign W3CG. Andy K3UK On 6/1/07, expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, Field Day is fast approaching, and I'm sure many of us > are going to be running, at the very least, some keyboard > digital modes during the event. Perhaps now would be a > good time to plan the use of some "demonstration" modes, > each worth 302 points > -Joe, N8FQ > Hi Joe, Feel free to connect with my ALE station on field day. You can probably link with it on 14109.5 kHz USB or one of the other ALE channels. Send me an AMD message. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
First, let me say thanks to all who were interested enough in the protocol issue to offer suggestions >Usable on SSB ... ?? I have worked New York state from tampabay on USB with stacked ku4ab squailos. I am not sure I understand Bruce's puzzlement. The subject antenna is derived from the horizontally-polarized "skeketon-slot" antenna of the early 50's, and is usable for SSB because it is horizontally polarized, which is the convention for CW and SSB weak signal activity on 2m. Even a simple dipole can work long distances during E-skip or tropo conditions, but our task is to provide sufficient antenna gain for reliable flatland communications over 100 miles without having to rely on propagation as an assist. I also have stacked KU4AB square loops, which I started out with on 2m, but this antenna outperforms those by a significant margin of almost 5 db. In actual tests over 150 miles between my 13B2 to a single KU4AB loop mounted on a mobile truck compared to the skeleton-slot antenna mounted on the same truck, SSB signals that were not understandable on the KU4AB loop were 100% copiable on the skeleton-slot antenna on the same vehicle at the same height (no enhancement present). In addition, if you make careful tests of the KU4AB loop, you will probably find that the pattern is not very omnidirectional, but has deep nulls and one of the nulls on mine measured almost 6 dB. Therefore, a bi-directional antenna like the skeleton-slot is statistically almost as "omnidirectional" as the KU4AB square loop. The "big wheel" would probably be a better choice than stacked KU4AB loops, and is used on many horizontally polarized beacons, but I have not actually tested one. My tests are made using a 2m beacon located at 30 feet, 8 airmiles away. My antenna design is just a simpler, and cheaper ($25), way to make a "skeleton-slot" antenna. If you are interested, check out this excellent article on the skeleton-slot antenna: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennexarticles/qloop.htm Yes, Visual studio 2005 is the free compiler I just got from Microsoft but have not tried it yet. I am not shooting for a cross-platform application, but only for an equivalent Windows application to the Linux version that is already close to completion. Only the function needs to be the same, which is basically DigiPan 2.0 or PocketDigi plus ARQ and simultaneous multichannel decoding and display. The PocketDigi C++ code is a good start and works very well (slightly better than DigiPan!), so Visual Studio seems to be the fastest way for me to incorporate that proven code as I have not used RealBasic. I wrote my DigiTalk program in Visual Basic 5.0 using PSKCORE.DLL. I wrote QuikPSK using Delphi, also using PSKCORE.DLL, and there is a Kylix version of Delphi for Linux. I have never programmed in C++ before. :-( My own programming experience is very limited, so if anyone has C++ experience that would like to help, you are more than welcome to join the effort! The reward is coming up with a narrowband ARQ program for Windows for ARRL to use nationally for Emcomm in place of Winlink so they do not try again to give the Winlink Email robots more space where the rest of us are just trying to enjoy our hobby. Using PSK63, or even PSK125, there is more than enough space in 10 kHz of spectrum to handle all the Emcomm communications ARRL will ever need. We just need to show it can be done. This is why I am working on this. 73, Skip KH6TY
