Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Steve Hajducek]

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 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 do
>is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far
>better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as
>much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared
>resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place
>to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without
>stepping on someone else.

As I have stated before what is needed within the ARS is segregation 
of narrow vs. wide digital modes. The approach taken should be to 
split in half the digital sub bands so that the bottom half is used 
for emissions below 500hz and the 2nd half for emissions greater than 
500hz, regardless of automated operations or not.

I agree that we have too little frequency allocation on most bands, 
period, not just when it comes to digital sub bands, personally I 
would like to see a 500Khz wide band for each segment below 10 
meters, but that's a dream, we come close to that on 15m, a bit less 
so on 20m ( and about the same for 40m in North America ) and we hit 
the mark on 80/75m but elsewhere we are no where near being close. 
With or without 500Khz bands I see no reason why each band allocated 
to the ARS could not be split 50/50 between Digital and Voice, I 
actually see no reason why that should not be the case with the 
allocations already in place personally. I would also like to see the 
availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency 
Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode 
Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency.


>Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes
>really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a
>large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the
>historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes.

Well the problem with a large segment of AM/SSB stations is that they 
are over driven and splatter, those driving QRO level amplifiers make 
the situation even worst during their on-the-air pursuits. Its not 
like AFSK digital mode stations are immune from this either, I see a 
number of PSK-x stations and others over driven as well.

>Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same,
>(OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g.,
>voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we
>intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of
>intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement
>of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind
>of segregation is needed.

Again, I am all for segregation of narrow vs. wide digital modes on a 
normal basis.


>There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but
>usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB
>voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the
>ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very
>unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete.

Don't take your Amateur Radio Digital Voice experience to heart and 
tell Government and Military users that, they will laugh at you. We 
Radio Amateurs are slapping together various equipments for digital 
voice operations that are either firmware/hardware digital voice 
modems or Software/PC OS based modems with common Amateur Radio SSB 
transceivers, change that paradigm to the use of full up 3Khz radios 
and Vocoder modems designed for the task and the results are quite different.


>I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that
>were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted
>because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also
>technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits.

You have to be kidding?


>For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is
>not being held back at all by the rules.

Rick I have NO agenda as you state, I am NOT promoting anything, do 
you really think that? All my software development which I am 
involved that has to do with digital waveforms and data link 
protocols are in support of the MARS program. I am directly 
associated with G4GUO as my efforts with MARS-ALE is based on his 
efforts with PC-ALE and he asked that I update aspects of PC-ALE that 
have to do with Radio Control and interfacing, but I do not do any 
development of that tool with respect

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

[W2XJ]

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 mostly for maritime operation. The rules in the US seem 
to prohibit PACTOR III if it is downward compatible. I still believe 
that if you can afford a sea going yacht you can afford the appropriate 
non amateur communications systems that are much more reliable.




jeffnjr484 wrote:
> 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 they do is cause us grief lets sell all those
> frequencies to the highest bidder and make some money and shut them
> up!!. Or they will decide that the bands we love for personal
> communications need to stop and only get used during emergencies . All
> this complaining about digital stuff but nothing is said about all the
> radio jerks on voice who hog channels or make delibrate qrm to chase
> people off the air (keying up or blowing in the mike or switching on
> high power anything to disturb an ongoing qso) no complaints filed
> with the FCC on these things but anything that could eventually hurt
> our hobby and our advancement in our art of communications is attacked
> . It's time to work together folks most of the problems with automatic
> stations are caused by the operators of those stations not the mode
> they are using if someone is not where they supposed to be then report
> them don't kill the mode or make it harder on everybody else who
> enjoys the many modes of ham radio . With the conditions and the
> propergation these days no one can really know if they are
> interferring with another station if they can't hear them on there in
> it occurs a whole lot in radio not just on digital all modes can be
> quite locally and cause interference distances away and only the
> person receiving the qrm will know about it. An how about the hams
> with the big amps running 1000 watts and coming through on five
> channels in the qso is with someone 10 miles away!!! There are many
> problems in our hobby but 90% of them are the operators who feel they
> own the bands for themselves only so how come a letter has not been
> sent to the FCC on these problems . Im off my soap box now and if I
> 've stepped on toes im sorry but its just getting way to out of hand
> these days with the grumbling!!
> Jeff kd4qit
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: Help a packet newbie

[Lee]

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 to a cancer charity.
http://www.apritch.myby.co.uk/mainpage.htm and 
http://f5vag.eu/software.html, found a download for 6.8 on these.

You may find good links here 
http://www.rmham.org/files/packet/index.html

Dick Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> may be able to give you some info on 
local node and bbs resources.

I know there are Winlink Telac Gateways ( soon to be RMS Gateways).

Good luck and if I can be of ay help you got my email :-)
73,
Lee

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Craig M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> HELP!!!
> 
> I got my 857D all hooked up and found a local freq that I can copy
> traffic. I can even connect to another node. Not that I know what to
> do after I connect.
> 
> Maybe its me or maybe its just how it is but the only thing I can find
> to connect is a old version Hamscope and what seems to be a very flaky
> version of AGW to act as the TNC. This seems to be the newest of
> anything that I can find ...Most are pure DOS...
> 
> Is there a better way?
> 
> Thanks Craig KC0TPL
>

[digitalradio] Re: Packet Radio Frequencies

[Scott L.]

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 for some packet in your area around 145.01, 145.03,
145.05, 145.07, 145.09 - that might have changed over the years too
but thats where it used to be!

73-Scott
KN3A

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI, here is some traffic I just copied on 14095
> 
> 
> [FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$]
> FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084
> F> 55
> [FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$]
> FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084
> F> 55
> FBB-7.00g-ABFHM$]
> FA B G8MNY WW TECH 40474_GB7CIP 6084
> F> 55
> 
> It looks like BBS forwarding using the FBB software.
> Andy K3UK
> 
> On Dec 25, 2007 2:32 PM, Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Packet can be easily found on 30M, the APRS stations on 10151 use
> > packet.  .  Try also 14095 for packet BBS traffic .  on HF it is 300
> > baud packet (below 10M)
> >
> >
> > Andy K3UK
> >
> >
> > On Dec 25, 2007 1:31 PM, kaboona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all and Merry Christmas.
> > >
> > >  I just recently discovered packet radio. The fact that it
exists in VHF
> > > makes it interesting to
> > >  me. Now, I understand that it also exists in HF. I use two of
the Kenwood
> > > radios that have a
> > >  TNC built in for this purpose and a signalink interface for the
HF rig at
> > > home. The difficulty I
> > >  am having now is the finding of frequencies commonly used for
packet. Where
> > > can I find such
> > >  a list if one exists? Can anyone point me in the right direction?
> > >
> > >  thanks in advance
> > >
> > >  Jim
> > >
> > >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy K3UK
> > www.obriensweb.com
> > (QSL via N2RJ)
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
> www.obriensweb.com
> (QSL via N2RJ)
>

[digitalradio] Re: DM780 : SSTV teaser

[Scott L.]

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 by leaps and bounds...and its only in beta!

73--Scott
KN3A

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Check http://forums.ham-radio.ch/showthread.php?t=9592  for some
> screen shots of the upcoming SSTV inclusion in DM780.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
> www.obriensweb.com
> (QSL via N2RJ)
>

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Bill]

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: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:24 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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
> because I was not a PSKer.
> 
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left
> to speak out for me.
> 
> [Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
> by Martin Niemöller]
> 
> They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> ===
> Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
> http://hflink. 
com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
> http://fjallfoss. 
fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> .
> 
> 

 

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

[Bill]

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 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 eliminate any of the modes that 
Bonnie claims it does. For example:

MT-63 - most of the modes (especially the ones that work a bit better 
into the noise) are fine. It is only the widest 2000 Hz mode that would 
not be permitted in the text digital area

Olivia, most of the modes that any of us use would continue to be 
allowed except for the widest which is rarely if ever used by hams who 
want to play fair with very limited spectrum. How many of you run 2000 
Hz Olivia?

Fast PSK? The fastest that I have seen is PSK250 for a single tone. This 
is roughly about 500 Hz bandwidth. The petition has no effect whatsoever 
on this and even much faster PSK modes if they were developed.

Wide bandwidth ALE, which is 2000 Hz or more, would continue to be 
allowed as a signaling mode in the voice/fax/image portions of the 
bands. This is a much better match because the wide ALE does not work 
all that well with weaker signals (same with voice modes). But ALE 400 
or any other ALE modes under the maximum bandwidth proposal would have 
no effect from this petition.

Pactor, and Pactor 2 would have no effect on their operation at all. 
Even P3 would be allowed up to the maximum bandwidth and that includes 
most of the more robust speeds of P3. What would not be allowed is the 
use of robots spread across the digital sub bands as we now have.

MFSK in most forms is a narrow mode. It is only the wide ALE mode that 
would slightly exceed the recommended maximum bandwidth under Mark's 
petition.

Now, the final point is that most of these modes can be used in the 
voice/fax/image portions of the bands for the needed high speeds when 
you have large image files. This means that the experimentation of these 
modes is NOT being prevented and anyone who claims that it does is not 
being truthful.

73,

Rick, KV9U

expeditionradio wrote:
> A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate
> all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia,
> MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others.
>
> We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it.
>
> Only you can save the future of digital radio, by 
> your comments to FCC.
> It only takes a few minutes on the web.
>
> Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments:
> http://fjallfoss. 
fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
>
> Fill in the appropriate parts of the form,
> then write your comments in the lower part
> "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)"
>
> Here are suggested examples of comments, below.
> Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio.
> Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world.
>
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> ===
> Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments.
>
> 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller
> seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically
> controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF.
>
> 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur
> Radio Service.
>
> 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century
> digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio
> Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data
> to the 20th century.
>
> 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth
> limit on data emission is too narrow for established
> international standard transmissions and equipment
> bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service.
>
> 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, 
> technology advancement, and emergency data communications 
> in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen.
>
> 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled 
> data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume 
> of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth 
> is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur 
> radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently 
> through rapid data time division methods.
>
> 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, 
> and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands 
> of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems 
> with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by 
> FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless 
> if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted.
>
> 8. Se

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

[jeffnjr484]

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 they do is cause us grief lets sell all those
frequencies to the highest bidder and make some money and shut them
up!!. Or they will decide that the bands we love for personal
communications need to stop and only get used during emergencies . All
this complaining about digital stuff but nothing is said about all the
radio jerks on voice who hog channels or make delibrate qrm to chase
people off the air (keying up or blowing in the mike or switching on
high power anything to disturb an ongoing qso) no complaints filed
with the FCC on these things but anything that could eventually hurt
our hobby and our advancement in our art of communications is attacked
. It's time to work together folks most of the problems with automatic
stations are caused by the operators of those stations not the mode
they are using if someone is not where they supposed to be then report
them don't kill the mode or make it harder on everybody else who
enjoys the many modes of ham radio . With the conditions and the
propergation these days no one can really know if they are
interferring with another station if they can't hear them on there in
it occurs a whole lot in radio not just on digital all modes can be
quite locally and cause interference distances away and only the
person receiving the qrm will know about it. An how about the hams
with the big amps running 1000 watts and coming through on five
channels in the qso is with someone 10 miles away!!! There are many
problems in our hobby but 90% of them are the operators who feel they
own the bands for themselves only so how come a letter has not been
sent to the FCC on these problems . Im off my soap box now and if I
've stepped on toes im sorry but its just getting way to out of hand
these days with the grumbling!!
Jeff kd4qit

[digitalradio] Bozo's guide to RM-11392

[Andrew O'Brien]

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 me.

Bottom line : The proposal has no chance of being adopted,  The Kyoto
protocol will be easier to implement than this.  The FCC will see all
the chaotic comments  and ignore the issue.

What  N5RFX wants:  Nothing wider than 1500 Hz below 10M and automatic
stations will be sent to Soweto and live under an apartheid system .


What are automatic controlled stations?  

While PACTOR is the primary "culprit", ALE, Packet, CW, RTTY and PSK
operations occasionally operate in an unattended way .  This means a
station leaps in to action with a transmission while the licensee is
in the kitchen making a bologna sandwich, is busy "taking a slash in
the bog "(look it up) or  perhaps driving 200 miles from his house. 
This is good if you want to get things done without always having to
be close to that damn radio.  Some folks get upset at this because ,
while you are making that sandwich , you missed the fact that AA6YQ
was working North Korea on 80M QRP.  Your automatic station just
drowned the North Korean giving Dave an RST of 339.

Aside from Pactor, I suspect that many ALE operations are not always
under full manual control.  Neither are some Propnet stations that use
300 baud packet or PSK31.  Many DXpeditions act like they can transmit
any place they want,  and then there are also the folks at W1AW who
send old news automatically at predetermined times via RTTY and CW.

Is  this N5RFX geezer  mean/nasty and  does he want to get rid of all
digital modes ?  

I doubt it.  He seems more like a bloke that has all his socks neatly
arranged in a drawer, tagged with the day of the week he plans to wear
 them.  He wants unattended operations confined to certain parts of
the dial, in their own section of the "drawer".  In fact, rather than
mean, he may be actually a nice guy since he gives many frequencies to
the unattended folks.  Far more than is really needed .  If there was
a national or International emergency, a well coordinated event would
need just two or three bands.  This  N5RFX dude has auto folks all
over the bands.


But will I be able to work K3UK with 3000/128 Olivia?  What about all
those other "fun" digital modes"?  

N5RFX seems to want to "kill" some wide modes  .  Does this really
matter to the average ham ?  Remember the average ham can't spell
"shortwave".  Many average hams think a "shortwave" is one of those
$29.95 small microwave ovens that Wal-Mart has on sale. They could
care less about those funny noises on the airwaves.  However, there
are some hams that are as geeky as those JT65A guys warbling their way
through narrow spectrum for five minutes just to exchange a grid
square and call sign . The wide mode freaks are just as geeky but they
like "wide modes" to send the Magna Carta in full , with pictures and
social commentary,  all in on 3 second data burst that is 25 mHz wide
!   Actually, they are usually not that wide, most are within 2.4 kHz.
The modes appear like the QEII sailing down your waterfall, and
"steal" that spot you were about to use to endlessly call CQ.  These
"wide" modes can be very useful and can contain a lot of information
that some people thing is valuable(data, pictures, station ID, even
your voice).  Many experimenters try "wide" modes and feel like they
are advancing the state of the art.  While some think "girth"  has
pleasurable advantages,  N5RFX thinks we should be happy with 1500 Hz.
 He argues that 1500 Hz can still achieve satisfaction and those who
are obsessed with size can go try 10 meters.  10 meters is the "Nevada
of the amateur radio world", the "Amsterdam" of the spectrum.  You can
hang out on 10 meters and be as "dirty" as you want with your wider
than 1500 Hz signals .  No one will really care,  because 60% of the
time 10M is only open to North Carolina! When it is open to the world,
you can get lost because your dial twirling fingers will get tired
long before you reach the end of the band (just try manually tuning
from 28.001 to 29Mhz !)

So, while the tech folks debate Gaussian White Noise (did they open
for AC-DC once ?)  , rest assured that most amateur radio will
continue unaffected by N5RFX's OCD.  If he gets his way, you may not
get stomped on as much and you may get frustrated  that you can't send
3000/128 Olivia on 80M to work that rare South Dakota station when the
propagation gods have made PSK31 unusable.  Oh, and if you run a
PACTOR or ALE station, you may feel yourself to be a bit like Martha
Stewart did when she was under house arrest. Frustrated that you can't
party all over the place.  


That's all, 

Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>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 Canada or 
the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time 
you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about 
that?

I have done this only a few times just for a test, to see what can be
done in an emergency. I know it is a bad idea to do it regularly, so I
do it for test purposes and only when I want to convince someone
(including myself) how good PACTOR 3 can be in an emergency. 

>>>So you acknowledge that its a bad idea to remotely activate a 
PMBO. You clearly accept the fact that PMBOs QRM other hams, but yet 
you still use WinLink. That can only mean that you consider your use 
of WinLink to be so important that its okay to QRM other hams. This 
is the pinnacle of arrogance, and about as far from the spirit of 
amateur radio as one can get.


When the communications infrastructure of a whole country has gone
down, this is the only way to pass digital traffic accurately and
effectively. There is no other accurate way OM. If you only had a
PACTOR 3 MODEM and an open mind you would understand what am I 
talking about.

>>>I have a Pactor 3 modem (PTC-IIe), a very open mind, and fully 
understand that you will do or say anything to rationalize your 
continued use of a system that QRMs your fellow amateurs. 

And if you ever get a little interference from another station, if 
there is no other way for the traffic to be passed, please be patient.

>>>Unless an emergency is in progress, there is always another way 
for the traffic to be passed that doesn't involve QRMing others.

The transfer will soon finish because it is a fast mode, it will not
last all day just like many ragchew QSOs do. After all what is going
to happen to you? 
 
Is the PACTOR QRM going to spoil your toys?

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

>>>By the way, your posts are greatly appreciated. They make it very 
easy to expose the truth behind WinLink. Can we go have this 
conversation on the QRZ reflector too?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

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

[Kevin O'Rorke]

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 
> between the 2 opposing sides that other Hams not involved should not 
> have to put up with
>
> 73 Davdi VK4BDJ
>
>   
Very much Hear Hear, David, I agree that there is an enormous anount of 
A.R outside of the "States"  but to read all the "Guff" lately on 
"Digital Radio" one would not think so.
Kevin VK5OA

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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
"digital frequency"

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Rick]

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 do 
is to try not to interfere with each other. The narrow modes do a far 
better job of this because of a practical reason. They do not need as 
much real estate to operate in what is often a VERY limited shared 
resource. I noticed this time and again when I tried to pick out a place 
to operate 2K MT-63 or wide Olivia. It is very hard to do without 
stepping on someone else.

Another thing that I have noticed is that the digital and analog modes 
really do not work well in the same area. SSB voice just tears up such a 
large part of the band and you can not filter it out. This is the 
historical reason that CW and RTTY were kept separate from voice modes.

Now that we have digital modes that may even sound somewhat the same, 
(OFDM for example), but may carry totally different payloads, e.g., 
voice, text data, image data, etc. we have to be very careful how we 
intermix them (the modes, not the content). They have no way of 
intercommunication unless you do what used to be a mandatory requirement 
of providing at least some kind of CW ID. So absent that idea, some kind 
of segregation is needed.

There are some new technologies that may have some advantages, but 
usually there is a tradeoff. Digital voice is not competitive with SSB 
voice since it is technologically inferior on a shared resource like the 
ham bands. Can it ever overcome these limits? Maybe some day, but very 
unlikely. Just because something is older does not mean it is obsolete.

I used to think that we were maybe being held back by old rules that 
were not necessary, but that kind of thinking can be shortsighted 
because after serious discussion with other active hams who are also 
technologically knowledgeable, we don't really have many limits.

For example, your agenda, promoting ALE and high speed modems on HF is 
not being held back at all by the rules. As you know, I have submitted 
questions to the FCC on this very subject and am waiting on a return 
response. Your fellow promoter of ALE, Bonnie, KQ6XA, was livid that I 
even dared ask these questions and yet the amateur community has a right 
to know how the rules should be properly interpreted.

And a major one is whether we can operate certain kinds of modes on the 
high speed portions of the HF bands, otherwise known as the voice/image 
portions. Maybe they will stretch the rules to allow use of mixed image 
and text, maybe they won't, but I want to know what we can and can not 
do. I am convinced that the FCC will support the use of ALE modes, 
including the very modes you mention below providing that that content 
is  image/fax. I personally have sent many faxes over the years that 
don't even have one picture in them and were all "text." Even if they 
say we can not send a pdf, or a doc or an xls, we can still send jpg and 
jp2 files as the WinDRM folks actively do ever day for real world 
testing. And we can coordinate this with SSB voice too. Something we can 
not do in the text data portions of the bands.

Although I did ask the FCC about the single tone MILSTD/FEDSTD/STANAG 
modem use in the text data portions of the bands, they would have to 
make changes to the rules to allow such use. My preference is to keep 
the narrow modes in the text digital area, and rename this the narrow 
areas and then allow us to use the wide modes in the voice/image areas.

But here is the rub. We can do that any time we want now ... right? All 
you have to do is make it an image and you have no limits on the baud 
rate, even 2400 baud ... right?

And I have asked this question many times on these groups. No one even 
wants to try it? Why is that? Is it possible that you have tried it or 
others have tried it with poor results? The professional contacts I have 
in the business of emergency/military communication tell me that these 
modes don't work all that well, even on dedicated channels. Something we 
don't have in the amateur shared frequency bands.

When I asked the ARRL, Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, he felt that the reason we 
don't use the single tone modems may be due to the need for increased 
computing power to make it work. Either way, why is no one working on 
this now? It does not add up.

Why do we need wider modes? The reality is that HF is a terribly 
difficult place to get high speeds with weak signals. The wider modes 
tend to work less well than the narrow modes in most cases. Even Pactor 
3 drops to way under 1,000 Hz and only 2 tones when conditions get 
really difficult. The wide 8FSK125 ALE mode at around 2000 Hz wide 
compares very poorly with the narrow 8FSK50 mode at only 400 Hz when it 
comes to sensitivity. It is very difficult to find 2000 Hz of clear 
frequency to even ope

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

[Bob John]

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 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 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 make a contact or
  > log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how
  > effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be? I can tell you,
  > useless. 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail
  > systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams. How many
  > hams do we think will be left in 50 years? Less or more than today? A
  > friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and
  > used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch. He
  > had no other communication modes available. 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the
  > HF spectrum. How about further band segment segregation? 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > My $0.02
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Michael
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > _ 
  > 
  > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  > Behalf Of W2XJ
  > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM
  > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: 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 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?
  >>Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
  >>interferes with a wider mode?
  >>
  >>The petition is not about interference.
  >>It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
  >>Manual or auto. End of story. 
  >>
  >>Bonnie KQ6XA
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 



   


--


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

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[bruce mallon]

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 that you have enough people who care
about digital to show usage of UHF come back and talk
to the 99% of us who don't care about you or your
modes  we really don't CARE as long as you don't
deprive all of us of OUR rights to use the bands
..






--- Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 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 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
> opposite
> >of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in
> my
> >opinion
> >
> >HERE WE GO AGAIN " obsolete technology and
> practices "
> >
> >If it an't digital it an't radio ..
> >
> >BUNK JUST BUNK .
> >How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ?
> >How come you want it on HF?
> >When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its
> >"protecting " obsolete technology and practices "
> >UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to
> use
> >GO USE IT 
> 
> 



  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

Re: [digitalradio] Changes in ham populations/operating

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 situations require different solutions.




Rud Merriam wrote:
> 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.
> 
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of W2XJ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: 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 be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
> slow HF link.
> 
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam wrote:
> 
>>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 and other 
>>document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in 
>>EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. 
>>Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed 
>>but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in 
>>situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. 
>>There are also situations where transferring documents is more 
>>accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW.
>>
>> 
>>Rud Merriam K5RUD
>>ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
>>http://TheHamNetwork.net
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM
>>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: 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 infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
>>form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
>>should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
>>it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
>>that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
>>primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
>>accomplish the most with the least.
>>
>>
>>
>>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 in a
>>>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
>>>conditions?

[digitalradio] Changes in ham populations/operating

[Rick]

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 ham administering the tests. But many of those who did 
this tended to have a very serious interest in ham radio, particularly 
the technical part, because it was so difficult.

Things changed over the years due to the increasing ease of obtaining a 
license here in the U.S. The exam information was much easier to pass 
with the publishing of the actual questions and the actual answers, even 
to the point of including the distractors! The tests no longer required 
the candidate to draw circuits from memory. Now I think even the 
diagrams have been removed.

But we have many times more hams today than just a few decades ago. Many 
of those hams are Technician class. In fact, when the no code licenses 
became available, you started seeing entire families being licensed. My 
wife and daughter both had Tech licenses after morse code was dropped. 
Many of these hams had minimal interest in HF and we could not get many 
of them interested in learning morse code to upgrade to General.  I have 
watched this closely since running VE test sessions since the early 1980's.

The information you referenced is from 1999 and even further changes 
have occurred. Now with the total elimination of the CW requirement, 
more hams are upgrading to the General class and some even to Extra 
class, who would not have done this with even a minimal 5 wpm CW 
requirement, much less the more difficult requirements of the past.

The percentage increase this year in General class licensees is quite 
large. If you are an ARRL member, note Jan 2007 QST, p. 92.  and compare 
the number of new Generals for 2007. There are nearly as many Generals 
(mostly upgrades) as new Technician class licensees coming in to ham 
radio. In 2006 it was barely 20% of new Techs. The numbers of new Techs 
is still holding its own too.

Many older operators will continue for decades before they become SK's, 
so we should see some HF growth. Another factor is the low cost of 
equipment, which is a fraction of what it was in the past and has 
tremendous capability such as digital readout, minimal drift, multimode, 
multiband, etc.

So I am fairly optimistic that we will do fairly well with new HF hams 
here in the U.S. In other parts of the world we may see increased 
numbers as the standard of living improves in developing countries.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
> <<< 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 is a trend I have read
> about from many other sources, but do not have those other references handy.
>
> << The U.S. Amateur Radio Service just made a switch from being HF-centric
> (for nearly 100 years) to being VHF/UHF-centric. This change will accelerate
> as many HF-capable Amateur Radio operators reach the end of their life span.
>
>
> HF operation will continue to be important to Amateur Radio - but is no
> longer the defining characteristic of ham radio nor the lure for attracting
> new members. >>>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

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

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

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Steve Hajducek]

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 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 opposite
>of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my
>opinion
>
>HERE WE GO AGAIN " obsolete technology and practices "
>
>If it an't digital it an't radio ..
>
>BUNK JUST BUNK .
>How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ?
>How come you want it on HF?
>When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its
>"protecting " obsolete technology and practices "
>UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use
>GO USE IT 

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[bruce mallon]

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 opposite
of what the Amateur Radio Service is all about in my
opinion

HERE WE GO AGAIN " obsolete technology and practices "

If it an't digital it an't radio ..

BUNK JUST BUNK .
How come you dont see all of this on 1 1/4 meters ?
How come you want it on HF?
When you fill up 219 mhz and above THEN say its
"protecting " obsolete technology and practices "
UNTILL THEN You have more than 20 mhz already to use
GO USE IT 


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 automated robotic systems that 
>transmit without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would 
>not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc.

Give me another mode Steve.
Yes I know it started about automated stations.
but under this RM pactor 3 would killed and maybe
other modes as well..

John, W0JAB
DRCC #2

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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

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

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

[Rodney]

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: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:27 PM
 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [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 are "activated" by a remote operator is 
 of no help, since that remote operator cannot reliably ensure that 
 the frequency is clear at the unattended station's location.
 
 The protocol/mode employed by such "deaf robots" is irrelevant; they 
 are as unacceptable in CW as as they are in Pactor III. Banning a 
 particular mode because some irresponsible operators happen to employ 
 that mode in their deaf robots would be like banning cars because 
 some people drive drunk. The proper solution is to keep the drunks 
 off the road, not prevent everyone else from driving. 
 
 For the same reason, we ought not ban unattended operation; only 
 incompetent/rude automatic operation should be prohibited (e.g. 
 unattended stations without busy frequency detectors).
 
 Modes like Pactor III that can dynamically expand their bandwidth do 
 impose a responsibility on their users to ensure that the full range 
 of frequencies they might use remains clear throughout the QSO. So if 
 you're using Pactor III in keyboard-to-keyboard mode, make sure that 
 all 3 Khz is clear before you call CQ, and if your modem starts at a 
 lower bandwidth and then expands, listen to make sure that the 
 expansion won't QRM a neighbor. If you consider this requirement to 
 be inconvenient, then configure your modem to remain in a narrower 
 sub-mode.
 
 Banning modes because their current implementation is expensive would 
 be a very bad idea. Peter G3PLX originally developed PSK31 to run on 
 dedicated out-board hardware because at the time, PCs and soundcards 
 did not yet provide the needed horsepower and development 
 environment. I'm sure that the hardware he used cost more than most 
 hams would have been willing to spend at the time. Should Peter have 
 been prevented from putting this equipment on the air? Preventing 
 this sort of development on the assumption that anything worth doing 
 can be done now with a PC and soundcard would be extremely short-
 sighted. If a company chooses to implement an advanced protocol with 
 an expensive hardware device, then the market should decide whether 
 or not their approach is sensible; they should not be subject to some 
 arbitrary and hard-to-change price ceiling established by government 
 regulation.
 
 In order for amateur radio operators to police themselves, however, 
 all protocols must be openly defined and unencrypted. Compression is 
 fine, so long as anyone can decompress and decode to plain text. If 
 Pactor III does not currently comply with these requirements, then 
 its use should be curtailed until compliance is achieved.
 
 I also believe that its wrong-headed to ban email or any other form 
 of message transfer. While I'm not the least bit interested in 
 sending email mesages or images over HF, my personal preferences 
 should not be imposed on other operators -- and neither should yours! 
 As long as the content remains consistent with local restrictions on 
 commercial and indecent content, there's no reason to legislate 
 content.
 
 It's a testament to the arrogance of those who operate, use, and 
 defend deaf robots that they have managed to stir up so broad an 
 upwelling of negative emotion in the amateur community. But making 
 policy decisions while you're angry is never a good idea. By focusing 
 on the real issue -- unattended stations without busy frequency 
 detectors -- we can preserve our shared spectrum without imposing 
 unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions.
 
 I plan to read the proposed RM in detail and file a comment 
 consistent with the above position. In the mean time, I have a 
 release to get out the door...
 
 73,
 
 Dave, AA6YQ
  
 
 
 
   

   
-
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would 
not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc.


John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> 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 *only*
> link that we have that is working.
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
> 
>>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 be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
>>slow HF link.
> 
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[cesco12342000]

> 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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

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

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- 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 clear. They may be configured to 
> detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other 
> mode.
>  
> You said that, but the clients always listen OM. 
> 
> +++In your earlier post, Demetre, you said "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?"
> 
> +++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 Canada or 
> the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time 
> you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about 
> that?
> 
> After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little 
> QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. 
> You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, 
> if it makes you happy!!!
> 
> +++The client is indeed behaving arrogantly and irresponsibly, but it 
> is not the client that is generating the QRM. Its the PMBO.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
>

Dear David,

I have done this only a few times just for a test, to see what can be
done in an emergency. I know it is a bad idea to do it regularly, so I
do it for test purposes and only when I want to convince someone
(including myself) how good PACTOR 3 can be in an emergency. 

When the communications infrastructure of a whole country has gone
down, this is the only way to pass digital traffic accurately and
effectively. There is no other accurate way OM. If you only had a
PACTOR 3 MODEM and an open mind you would understand what am I talking
about.

And if you ever get a little interference from another station, if
there is no other way for the traffic to be passed, please be patient.
The transfer will soon finish because it is a fast mode, it will not
last all day just like many ragchew QSOs do. After all what is going
to happen to you? 

Is the PACTOR QRM going to spoil your toys?

Santa is here so you might get new toys OM. Not to worry. Life is too
short to complain about PACTOR QRM all day. Get a life. Have a drink
and you might feel much better! hi hi hi!!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

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

[Dave Sloan]

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: [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 are "activated" by a remote operator is 
of no help, since that remote operator cannot reliably ensure that 
the frequency is clear at the unattended station's location.

The protocol/mode employed by such "deaf robots" is irrelevant; they 
are as unacceptable in CW as as they are in Pactor III. Banning a 
particular mode because some irresponsible operators happen to employ 
that mode in their deaf robots would be like banning cars because 
some people drive drunk. The proper solution is to keep the drunks 
off the road, not prevent everyone else from driving. 

For the same reason, we ought not ban unattended operation; only 
incompetent/rude automatic operation should be prohibited (e.g. 
unattended stations without busy frequency detectors).

Modes like Pactor III that can dynamically expand their bandwidth do 
impose a responsibility on their users to ensure that the full range 
of frequencies they might use remains clear throughout the QSO. So if 
you're using Pactor III in keyboard-to-keyboard mode, make sure that 
all 3 Khz is clear before you call CQ, and if your modem starts at a 
lower bandwidth and then expands, listen to make sure that the 
expansion won't QRM a neighbor. If you consider this requirement to 
be inconvenient, then configure your modem to remain in a narrower 
sub-mode.

Banning modes because their current implementation is expensive would 
be a very bad idea. Peter G3PLX originally developed PSK31 to run on 
dedicated out-board hardware because at the time, PCs and soundcards 
did not yet provide the needed horsepower and development 
environment. I'm sure that the hardware he used cost more than most 
hams would have been willing to spend at the time. Should Peter have 
been prevented from putting this equipment on the air? Preventing 
this sort of development on the assumption that anything worth doing 
can be done now with a PC and soundcard would be extremely short-
sighted. If a company chooses to implement an advanced protocol with 
an expensive hardware device, then the market should decide whether 
or not their approach is sensible; they should not be subject to some 
arbitrary and hard-to-change price ceiling established by government 
regulation.

In order for amateur radio operators to police themselves, however, 
all protocols must be openly defined and unencrypted. Compression is 
fine, so long as anyone can decompress and decode to plain text. If 
Pactor III does not currently comply with these requirements, then 
its use should be curtailed until compliance is achieved.

I also believe that its wrong-headed to ban email or any other form 
of message transfer. While I'm not the least bit interested in 
sending email mesages or images over HF, my personal preferences 
should not be imposed on other operators -- and neither should yours! 
As long as the content remains consistent with local restrictions on 
commercial and indecent content, there's no reason to legislate 
content.

It's a testament to the arrogance of those who operate, use, and 
defend deaf robots that they have managed to stir up so broad an 
upwelling of negative emotion in the amateur community. But making 
policy decisions while you're angry is never a good idea. By focusing 
on the real issue -- unattended stations without busy frequency 
detectors -- we can preserve our shared spectrum without imposing 
unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions.

I plan to read the proposed RM in detail and file a comment 
consistent with the above position. In the mean time, I have a 
release to get out the door...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
 

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[cesco12342000]

> 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" 
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?

Despite what winlink intrest groups are endlessly repeating, pmbo's are 
fully automatic stations with no operator input. I think it's important to 
clarify this fact.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[kh6ty]

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

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

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

73, Skip KH6TY


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


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

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

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

73 de SV1UY







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

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Dave Bernstein]

+++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 detect signals in any other 
mode.
 
You said that, but the clients always listen OM. 

+++In your earlier post, Demetre, you said "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?"

+++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 Canada or 
the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time 
you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about 
that?

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

+++The client is indeed behaving arrogantly and irresponsibly, but it 
is not the client that is generating the QRM. Its the PMBO.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Demetre SV1UY]

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

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

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

73 de SV1UY

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>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.
 
They have stated this many times but you were not listening. You were
listening to what you wanted to hear.
 
>>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether 
or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect 
Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: [digitalradio] RE: RM11392

[Dave AA6YQ]

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@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Les Zavadil
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:03 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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
haven't seen any evidence of any effort to do so, just over the top alarmism
about stifling innovation.  --  73  --  Les, W4FRA

  - Original Message -
  From: radionut
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 16:26
  Subject: [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 this can only start
  from a PMBO or PMBO like system, however, a PMBO system does not
  transmit until it had been queried by a "client". This takes a PMBO
  out of the realm of unattended operation, even though it is automatic
  operation.

  I don't favor any petition whose effect would be to stifle innovation,
  and frankly, the digital modes are where amateur innovation is
  occurring. Not to say I don't support CW or Voice, but never to the
  exclusion of newer modes because of their signal characteristics.

  I have submitted a comment in opposition to this petition.

  Thanks for the time,
  Phil ..

RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[Rud Merriam]

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.

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:15 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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 be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
slow HF link.



Rud Merriam wrote:
> 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 and other 
> document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in 
> EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. 
> Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed 
> but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in 
> situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. 
> There are also situations where transferring documents is more 
> accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW.
> 
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: 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 infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
> form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
> should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
> it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
> that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
> primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
> accomplish the most with the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 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 in a
>>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
>>conditions?


Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php


View the DRCC numbers database at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- 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 from a hobby. In such a situation there are not that many 
> scenarios where ham radio would be a better emergency solution than 
> those systems designed for the task. The reason I say this is that VHF 
> and UHF are only occasionally viable. If there is a situation where one 
> has a personal emergency, accident or injury, it is not really
practical 
>   to set up an HF rig. There is also the question will there be the 
> appropriate band conditions for the necessary communications. On a ship 
> there HF gear would already be installed and would be great as a last 
> resort, but I for one would start out with a system where I knew there 
> was 24 hour monitoring.
> 
>   For those who do not have an Internet connection, I have two 
> comments 
> - 1 - They would be better served with a UHF link that offers decent 
> band width. 2- I would question the legality of such a data link in 
> the 
> first place.
> 

Hi again OM,

First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not
amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more
expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury
of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a viable
role in their communications. This is where PACTOR 3 comes and solves
their problem. Also when everything has gone down in an emergency,
PACTOR 3 can give you reliable communications using a PACTOR mailbox
that resides in a neighbouring country. Sometimes through the night
when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on
30 or 40 meters. How about that?

> 
> 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.
>

They have stated this many times but you were not listening. You were
listening to what you wanted to hear.

73 de SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 *only*
link that we have that is working.

John, W0JAB




At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
>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 be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
>slow HF link.

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

[Dave Bernstein]

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 are "activated" by a remote operator is 
of no help, since that remote operator cannot reliably ensure that 
the frequency is clear at the unattended station's location.

The protocol/mode employed by such "deaf robots" is irrelevant; they 
are as unacceptable in CW as as they are in Pactor III. Banning a 
particular mode because some irresponsible operators happen to employ 
that mode in their deaf robots would be like banning cars because 
some people drive drunk. The proper solution is to keep the drunks 
off the road, not prevent everyone else from driving. 

For the same reason, we ought not ban unattended operation; only 
incompetent/rude automatic operation should be prohibited (e.g. 
unattended stations without busy frequency detectors).

Modes like Pactor III that can dynamically expand their bandwidth do 
impose a responsibility on their users to ensure that the full range 
of frequencies they might use remains clear throughout the QSO. So if 
you're using Pactor III in keyboard-to-keyboard mode, make sure that 
all 3 Khz is clear before you call CQ, and if your modem starts at a 
lower bandwidth and then expands, listen to make sure that the 
expansion won't QRM a neighbor. If you consider this requirement to 
be inconvenient, then configure your modem to remain in a narrower 
sub-mode.

Banning modes because their current implementation is expensive would 
be a very bad idea. Peter G3PLX originally developed PSK31 to run on 
dedicated out-board hardware because at the time, PCs and soundcards 
did not yet provide the needed horsepower and development 
environment. I'm sure that the hardware he used cost more than most 
hams would have been willing to spend at the time. Should Peter have 
been prevented from putting this equipment on the air? Preventing 
this sort of development on the assumption that anything worth doing 
can be done now with a PC and soundcard would be extremely short-
sighted. If a company chooses to implement an advanced protocol with 
an expensive hardware device, then the market should decide whether 
or not their approach is sensible; they should not be subject to some 
arbitrary and hard-to-change price ceiling established by government 
regulation.

In order for amateur radio operators to police themselves, however, 
all protocols must be openly defined and unencrypted. Compression is 
fine, so long as anyone can decompress and decode to plain text. If 
Pactor III does not currently comply with these requirements, then 
its use should be curtailed until compliance is achieved.

I also believe that its wrong-headed to ban email or any other form 
of message transfer. While I'm not the least bit interested in 
sending email mesages or images over HF, my personal preferences 
should not be imposed on other operators -- and neither should yours! 
As long as the content remains consistent with local restrictions on 
commercial and indecent content, there's no reason to legislate 
content.

It's a testament to the arrogance of those who operate, use, and 
defend deaf robots that they have managed to stir up so broad an 
upwelling of negative emotion in the amateur community. But making 
policy decisions while you're angry is never a good idea. By focusing 
on the real issue -- unattended stations without busy frequency 
detectors -- we can preserve our shared spectrum without imposing 
unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions.

I plan to read the proposed RM in detail and file a comment 
consistent with the above position. In the mean time, I have a 
release to get out the door...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[AA0OI]

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 like it  !!  (if you 
haven't)

http://www.kc1cs.com/digi.htm

Garrett / AA0OI



- Original Message 
From: Rud Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:02:28 PM
Subject: 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 and other document handling
capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my
preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not
occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure
is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita
evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring
documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice
or CW. 

Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwor k.net

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: 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 infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
accomplish the most with the least.

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 in a 
> fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
> conditions?
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwor k.net
> 
> 

Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensw eb.com/drsked/ drsked.php

View the DRCC numbers database at
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/database

Yahoo! Groups Links





  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
slow HF link.



Rud Merriam wrote:
> 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 and other document handling
> capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my
> preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not
> occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure
> is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita
> evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring
> documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice
> or CW. 
> 
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of W2XJ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: 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 infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
> form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
> should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
> it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
> that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
> primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
> accomplish the most with the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 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 in a 
>>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
>>conditions?

Re: [digitalradio] RE: RM11392

[Les Zavadil]

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 haven't seen 
any evidence of any effort to do so, just over the top alarmism about stifling 
innovation.  --  73  --  Les, W4FRA

  - Original Message - 
  From: radionut 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 16:26
  Subject: [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 this can only start
  from a PMBO or PMBO like system, however, a PMBO system does not
  transmit until it had been queried by a "client". This takes a PMBO
  out of the realm of unattended operation, even though it is automatic
  operation.

  I don't favor any petition whose effect would be to stifle innovation,
  and frankly, the digital modes are where amateur innovation is
  occurring. Not to say I don't support CW or Voice, but never to the
  exclusion of newer modes because of their signal characteristics.

  I have submitted a comment in opposition to this petition.

  Thanks for the time,
  Phil ..



   

RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[Rud Merriam]

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 and other document handling
capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my
preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not
occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure
is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita
evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring
documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice
or CW. 

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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 infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
accomplish the most with the least.



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 in a 
> fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
> conditions?
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php


View the DRCC numbers database at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 two bandwidths
should accommodate current modes and not prohibit any emissions
currently found in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Pactor III would
continue to be authorized, as long as speed levels 1 and 2 are used.
1.5 kHz is appropriate because of the bandwidth guidance for the
RTTY/Data subbands in 97.307(f)(3). As stated above when employing the
formulae of Part 2.202 for amplitude or frequency modulation, with a
signal with quantized or digital information, and telegraphy without
error-correction, the necessary bandwidth derived is 1.5 kHz. 1.5 kHz
will accommodate emissions in the RTTY/Data subbands where appropriate
and is consistent with the intention of97.307(f)(3). 2.4 kHz is also
appropriate because of the bandwidth guidance for the RTTY/Data
subbands in 97.307(t)(4). 1.5 kHz bandwidth is appropriate for the 80
through 12 meter bands and 2.4 kHz is appropriate for the 10-meter
band. This action will restore the separation of emissions by
bandwidth, which has been lost due to changes in technology. The
definitions of data in 97.3(c)(2) can return to the definition of data
prior to FCC 06-149 since bandwidths for the current RTTY/Data band
will be enumerated. Continuing to enumerate emissions by lTV emissions
designator in the Phone/Image subbands will continue to prevent other
data emissions from 


John, W0JAB

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

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

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 with other forms
of backup communication, can augment an emergency situation.  I.e., routine
posts of GPS coordinates can assist in determining last known location.
Especially when they are highly noise and low-signal tolerant and are among
other forms of backup communications available.  

 

But I can say that I did not appreciate that the proposal sought only to
make limitations on only the highest bandwidth forms of PACTOR 3 and some
forms of automatic, unattended use.  This is my fault for not fishing this
out of the proposal and it appears from the posts I have read that many
others seem to have this misinterpretation.

 

I am not taking away from how well thought out and useful the petition is.
And I'll need to go back and re-read it, but it should not take several
translations of a proposal via e-mail for the vast majority of hams to get
the gist.  The abstract or foreword of this petition needs to be worded in
such a way so non-technical individuals can come away with an accurate
representation and be able to vote on it with good knowledge of what it
means.  

 

Overall, I agree that we should tighten the noose a little so that these
operations can be done responsibly, and to "encourage" more innovation, ie.,
software that can detect when a freq is in use.  But if I am reading between
the lines correctly, there is so much anger about these operations that the
intention may be to try to chase them off the HF bands by making the
restrictions overly untenable.  For this, I am very opposed as being not in
the spirit of ham radio.

 

Michael

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:13 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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 mode since almost no 
new hams will ever learn it. But some do and we can expect substantial 
use during contests (like most other modes other than ragchewing, DX, 
etc.) for decades to come because there are some new hams who want to do 
this and it only takes a few to pack the bands at those times. In some 
desperate emergencies, or special cases (backpackers, low powered rigs) 
may only have CW available. You can almost always make a CW contact on 
some band anytime from any location. This can not be said for digital 
modes which require far more specialized equipment and power 
requirements. Making an HF Winlink 2000 connection is also not always 
that easy. As a user of the now discontinued Aplink and Winlink systems, 
you had to work very hard, even from a fixed location with reasonably 
good antennas to acquire these systems. They might be out of propagation 
or busy with someone else.

It is not Pactor modes that are necessarily invaluable for nautical 
hams, it is having access to a system that permits e-mail. There is 
extremely low cost SailMail, which operates on Marine frequencies and 
would be a much better lower QRM fit in an emergency. Realistically, 
Winlink 2000 is primarily a system for casual use. Only a fool (and I 
don't deny there are some) would build their security or emergency 
communications around Winlink 2000. But it is something you might 
consider as a back up in some limited cases. The problem is you can not 
design for everything so most of us want something that will actually 
work when we desperately need it. This nearly happened to us this summer 
during our area disaster and Winlink 2000 would have had minimal value.

Based upon some of your comments, you seem to suggest that Mark, N5RFX's 
outstanding and well thought out petition is somehow prohibiting Winlink 
2000. This is untrue and you may need to come to a truer understanding 
of what the petition really means. It only would prevent the widest 
Pactor 3 modes from operating. Pactor and Pactor 2 are not affected at 
all for human to human operation and can still be used for automatic 
operation within the limited areas that we should always have had.

Remember that it was Aplink/Winlink who were able to get the FCC to 
change the rules to allow automatic operation many years ago. These are 
the same few (very few) hams who were able to get the nose of the camel 
under the tent.

Some of us, myself included, supported this at the time as we thought 
that these operators would develop technology to prevent intentional 
interference. Ironically, the

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Steve Hajducek]

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 just the opposite of what the Amateur Radio 
Service is all about in my opinion. The outcome of what takes place 
within the Amateur Radio Service as to what is and what is not 
accepted as technology and practices needs to be driven by the 
development of technologies and the choices made by the Amateur Radio 
community where the rules governing the Amateur Radio Service allow 
for the needed experimentation and development of new technology and 
practices rather than tightening of the rules to limit such.

I have no love for proprietary PACTOR x or any proprietary protocols 
or for automation systems based stations that just sit parked on one 
frequency rather than frequency multiplexing. I believe the future of 
the Amateur Radio Service will be based on open standards, the best 
of which currently are U.S. Federal, Military and NATO standards 
which the ARS can adopt as they exist of use as the basis of derived 
protocols adapted to the exacting needs of the ARS. However we need 
to be moving in the opposite direction of RM-11392, we need 3Khz 
bandwidth and relaxation of a number of existing rules here in the 
U.S. to keep pace with the world Amateur Radio community.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 03:21 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
>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 extreme minority.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
>Mark Miller wrote:
> > 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 that there is
> > a queue, so I used the Ham Radio Announcements forum.  Some other
> > threads have popped up too.
> >
> > I checked around 1800z and a little more than 80% of the comments
> > were in opposition to the petition.
> >
> > 73,
> > Mark N5RFX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
> >
> >
> > View the DRCC numbers database at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>
>View the DRCC numbers database at 
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

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


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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Rick]

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 extreme minority.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Mark Miller wrote:
> 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 that there is 
> a queue, so I used the Ham Radio Announcements forum.  Some other 
> threads have popped up too.
>
> I checked around 1800z and a little more than 80% of the comments 
> were in opposition to the petition.
>
> 73,
> Mark N5RFX 
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>
> View the DRCC numbers database at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

<<< 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 is a trend I have read
about from many other sources, but do not have those other references handy.

<< The U.S. Amateur Radio Service just made a switch from being HF-centric
(for nearly 100 years) to being VHF/UHF-centric. This change will accelerate
as many HF-capable Amateur Radio operators reach the end of their life span.


HF operation will continue to be important to Amateur Radio - but is no
longer the defining characteristic of ham radio nor the lure for attracting
new members. >>>

Michael

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:11 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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 text data portions of the bands. Here in the U.S. we just lost 
over 50% of the 80 meter band for text digital and 25 kHz of 40 meters 
as well. The intent of the petition is to reduce the extremely wide 
modes from operating in what used to be the narrow mode areas of the 
band. And to keep them in a narrower area, not throughout the band as 
they now operate. But it is still a compromise.

A more realistic solution would have been be 500 Hz maximum bandwidth, 
and then wider modes up higher, but the FCC has made that more difficult 
with their recent ruling that took away some of these privileges from 
all hams on 80 and 40 and gave them to Extra class hams (some to 
Advanced class yet you can no longer get a license for that class) for 
voice/image. It is true that those of us who are Extra class, can 
transmit digital data in the voice/image areas just above the text 
digital areas, but we would have to use such modes as ALE signaling, or 
image, and of course, digital voice, which is permitted throughout any 
voice portions of the bands.

The text digital modes that work well with weaker signals tend to be the 
under 500 Hz modes. Examples are MFSK16 and MFSK8, PSK modes if the 
conditions are stable, Olivia modes, and ini the past few weeks, the ALE 
400/FAE 400 modes which are truly amazing and only require around a 400 
Hz bandwidth, yet work deep into the noise, far, far, better than MT-63, 
standard wide mode ALE, and can compete for the first time with Pactor. 
And that is using an old technology that is tweaked down to operate at a 
slower 50 baud rate that works when 125 baud does not work at all.

Note that even Pactor 3, defaults to much narrower mode when it drops 
down to Speed Level 1, well below 1500 Hz, when it can not operate in 
the wide, higher speed modes, due to deteriorating band conditions.

The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this? 
We have low sun spots right now, but the will change in a few years and 
you will hear a lot more activity on the higher bands. Probably more 
than you might want at times. Look what happens when a contest occurs on 
the weekends. Suddenly an explosive number of operators on whatever 
modes are promoted by that contest.

Digital is useful in some cases, but in other cases, particularly 
complex systems using digital, it may not work very well. Just because 
something is new, does not always make it better than the existing 
technology.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
>
> 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 the use of the airwaves and register our opinions.
>
> I am hearing the major objection to PMBO's is their inability to 
> listen to other stations, not just other PMBO's, before they occupy a 
> frequency. So why isn't the proposed rulemaking oriented towards 
> solving THESE SPECIFIC problems rather than abolishing them? Seems 
> this would be consistent with FCC intended rules and would be a 
> no-brainer to get passed. I agree, this community may not have played 
> fair, so regulate the activity that is a problem.
>
> HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are 
> very useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished. I 
> agree, their use needs to be fine tuned, but abolishing them seems 
> draconian. With all our innovation, why not spend our energy on their 
> fair and

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Rick]

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 text data portions of the bands. Here in the U.S. we just lost 
over 50% of the 80 meter band for text digital and 25 kHz of 40 meters 
as well. The intent of the petition is to reduce the extremely wide 
modes from operating in what used to be the narrow mode areas of the 
band. And to keep them in a narrower area, not throughout the band as 
they now operate. But it is still a compromise.

A more realistic solution would have been be 500 Hz maximum bandwidth, 
and then wider modes up higher, but the FCC has made that more difficult 
with their recent ruling that took away some of these privileges from 
all hams on 80 and 40 and gave them to Extra class hams (some to 
Advanced class yet you can no longer get a license for that class) for 
voice/image. It is true that those of us who are Extra class, can 
transmit digital data in the voice/image areas just above the text 
digital areas, but we would have to use such modes as ALE signaling, or 
image, and of course, digital voice, which is permitted throughout any 
voice portions of the bands.

The text digital modes that work well with weaker signals tend to be the 
under 500 Hz modes. Examples are MFSK16 and MFSK8, PSK modes if the 
conditions are stable, Olivia modes, and ini the past few weeks, the ALE 
400/FAE 400 modes which are truly amazing and only require around a 400 
Hz bandwidth, yet work deep into the noise, far, far, better than MT-63, 
standard wide mode ALE, and can compete for the first time with Pactor. 
And that is using an old technology that is tweaked down to operate at a 
slower 50 baud rate that works when 125 baud does not work at all.

Note that even Pactor 3, defaults to much narrower mode when it drops 
down to Speed Level 1, well below 1500 Hz, when it can not operate in 
the wide, higher speed modes, due to deteriorating band conditions.

The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this? 
We have low sun spots right now, but the will change in a few years and 
you will hear a lot more activity on the higher bands. Probably more 
than you might want at times. Look what happens when a contest occurs on 
the weekends. Suddenly an explosive number of operators on whatever 
modes are promoted by that contest.

Digital is useful in some cases, but in other cases, particularly 
complex systems using digital, it may not work very well. Just because 
something is new, does not always make it better than the existing 
technology.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
>
> 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 the use of the airwaves and register our opinions.
>
> I am hearing the major objection to PMBO’s is their inability to 
> listen to other stations, not just other PMBO’s, before they occupy a 
> frequency. So why isn’t the proposed rulemaking oriented towards 
> solving THESE SPECIFIC problems rather than abolishing them? Seems 
> this would be consistent with FCC intended rules and would be a 
> no-brainer to get passed. I agree, this community may not have played 
> fair, so regulate the activity that is a problem.
>
> HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are 
> very useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished. I 
> agree, their use needs to be fine tuned, but abolishing them seems 
> draconian. With all our innovation, why not spend our energy on their 
> fair and more efficient use rather than chasing them away.
>
> My fear is that if we chase away modes we don’t like, when HF bands 
> become really quiet because people no longer use CW and the number of 
> hams declines because the hobby becomes uninteresting, the allocation 
> gets sold to the highest commercial bidder. We need to promote 
> diversity to survive. The world is going digital and wireless and this 
> is what many new hams enjoy, like myself.
>
> Michael
>
> 



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php


View the DRCC numbers database at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change 

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

[Rick]

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 mode since almost no 
new hams will ever learn it. But some do and we can expect substantial 
use during contests (like most other modes other than ragchewing, DX, 
etc.) for decades to come because there are some new hams who want to do 
this and it only takes a few to pack the bands at those times. In some 
desperate emergencies, or special cases (backpackers, low powered rigs) 
may only have CW available. You can almost always make a CW contact on 
some band anytime from any location. This can not be said for digital 
modes which require far more specialized equipment and power 
requirements. Making an HF Winlink 2000 connection is also not always 
that easy. As a user of the now discontinued Aplink and Winlink systems, 
you had to work very hard, even from a fixed location with reasonably 
good antennas to acquire these systems. They might be out of propagation 
or busy with someone else.

It is not Pactor modes that are necessarily invaluable for nautical 
hams, it is having access to a system that permits e-mail. There is 
extremely low cost SailMail, which operates on Marine frequencies and 
would be a much better lower QRM fit in an emergency. Realistically, 
Winlink 2000 is primarily a system for casual use. Only a fool (and I 
don't deny there are some) would build their security or emergency 
communications around Winlink 2000. But it is something you might 
consider as a back up in some limited cases. The problem is you can not 
design for everything so most of us want something that will actually 
work when we desperately need it. This nearly happened to us this summer 
during our area disaster and Winlink 2000 would have had minimal value.

Based upon some of your comments, you seem to suggest that Mark, N5RFX's 
outstanding and well thought out petition is somehow prohibiting Winlink 
2000. This is untrue and you may need to come to a truer understanding 
of what the petition really means.  It only would prevent the widest 
Pactor 3 modes from operating. Pactor and Pactor 2 are not affected at 
all for human to human operation and can still be used for automatic 
operation within the limited areas that we should always have had.

Remember that it was Aplink/Winlink who were able to get the FCC to 
change the rules to allow automatic operation many years ago. These are 
the same few (very few) hams who were able to get the nose of the camel 
under the tent.

Some of us, myself included, supported this at the time as we thought 
that these operators would develop technology to prevent intentional 
interference. Ironically, they did! And I helped test this with the 
SCAMP mode three years ago for Winlink 2000's sound card mode. This was 
not only completely abandoned, but the busy frequency detection software 
was not used for Winlink 2000 either. The HFLink/HFLinkNet group (made 
up of just a very few hams even though they claim huge numbers), has 
also said that they do not support busy frequency detection. These 
groups are anathema to what amateur radio is all about. It is time for 
thoughtful and reasonable balance for a change.

My hope is that those who are clearly in the super majority view, will 
write their comments to Mark's superbly correct proposal which can fix 
the harm that these modes have done without hurting technological 
advancements. Remember that the wide modes still operate in the 
voice/fax/image portions of the bands and can be quite wide unless the 
FCC forces us to move to to the 2700 Hz bandwidth band plan of IARU in 
Region 2 and other parts of the world.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
>
> 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 really be in 50 years with CW operators?
>
>  
>
> I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for
>
> ham radio.
>
> I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on
>
> the HF bands.
>
> I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for
>
> the following reason:
>
> 1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use
>
> of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding
>
> in this spectrum.
>
> 2.) The automatic PACTOR II & III modes are an invaluable service
>
> to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication
>
> may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators.
>
> This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical
>
> operators.
>
> 3.) If limit

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Mark Miller]

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 that there is 
a queue, so I used the Ham Radio Announcements forum.  Some other 
threads have popped up too.

I checked around 1800z and a little more than 80% of the comments 
were in opposition to the petition.

73,
Mark N5RFX 

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

[Rick]

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 eliminate any of the modes that 
Bonnie claims it does. For example:

MT-63 - most of the modes (especially the ones that work a bit better 
into the noise) are fine. It is only the widest 2000 Hz mode that would 
not be permitted in the text digital area

Olivia, most of the modes that any of us use would continue to be 
allowed except for the widest which is rarely if ever used by hams who 
want to play fair with very limited spectrum. How many of you run 2000 
Hz Olivia?

Fast PSK? The fastest that I have seen is PSK250 for a single tone. This 
is roughly about 500 Hz bandwidth. The petition has no effect whatsoever 
on this and even much faster PSK modes if they were developed.

Wide bandwidth ALE, which is 2000 Hz or more, would continue to be 
allowed as a signaling mode in the voice/fax/image portions of the 
bands. This is a much better match because the wide ALE does not work 
all that well with weaker signals (same with voice modes). But ALE 400 
or any other ALE modes under the maximum bandwidth proposal would have 
no effect from this petition.

Pactor, and Pactor 2 would have no effect on their operation at all. 
Even P3 would be allowed up to the maximum bandwidth and that includes 
most of the more robust speeds of P3. What would not be allowed is the 
use of robots spread across the digital sub bands as we now have.

MFSK in most forms is a narrow mode. It is only the wide ALE mode that 
would slightly exceed the recommended maximum bandwidth under Mark's 
petition.

Now, the final point is that most of these modes can be used in the 
voice/fax/image portions of the bands for the needed high speeds when 
you have large image files. This means that the experimentation of these 
modes is NOT being prevented and anyone who claims that it does is not 
being truthful.

73,

Rick, KV9U


expeditionradio wrote:
> A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate
> all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia,
> MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others.
>
> We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it.
>
> Only you can save the future of digital radio, by 
> your comments to FCC.
> It only takes a few minutes on the web.
>
> Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
>
> Fill in the appropriate parts of the form,
> then write your comments in the lower part
> "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)"
>
> Here are suggested examples of comments, below.
> Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio.
> Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world.
>
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> ===
> Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments.
>
> 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller
> seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically
> controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF.
>
> 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur
> Radio Service.
>
> 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century
> digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio
> Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data
> to the 20th century.
>
> 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth
> limit on data emission is too narrow for established
> international standard transmissions and equipment
> bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service.
>
> 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation, 
> technology advancement, and emergency data communications 
> in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen.
>
> 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled 
> data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume 
> of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth 
> is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur 
> radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently 
> through rapid data time division methods.
>
> 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment, 
> and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands 
> of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems 
> with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by 
> FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless 
> if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted.
>
> 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency 
> communications networks currently in service and utilized 
> by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators in USA would be 
> totally eliminated or hobbled if the objectives of the 
> RM-11392 petition were to be adopted.
>
> 9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international 
> communications standards. Many of the 

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

[k7ve]

[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 segments for automatic vs. manual
transmissions.

3) Deal with automated transmission by limiting permitted segments 
for automatic stations (as is done now). Set expectation for
non-automatic stations in those segments, that automated stations
may not recognize their presence.

More clearly define intentional vs. incidental interference for both
automated and non-automated stations, especially in light of the 
vagaries of propagation on HF. Remind operators that incidental
interference is to be expected, intentional interference is not.

4) Remove the artificial limits between data, image, and voice for
digital transmissions. (e.g. voice can now be sent in 1100 hz via 
FDMDV -- there should be allowances for up to 8 kHz. in the
traditionally 'voice' portions of the bands below 29 mHz., more
bandwidth above 29 mHz.) Digital transmissions are all 'data'
regardless of the content, whether voice, image, or text/data.

5) 160 meter band does not have the same regulatory segregation as
other bands and the amateurs have worked out a workable bandplan.

6) Clarify encoding vs. encryptions. Especially as relates to 
authentication and control vs. obscuring the meaning of the
message(s) in the transmission.

Sincerely,

John D. Hays, K7VE

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[F.R. Ashley]

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 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 station *WILL* listen
> to the frequency but only for other pactor station.
>
> Key word being "only"..
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>
> View the DRCC numbers database at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 

[digitalradio] Re: RM-11392

[Bill McLaughlin]

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 con and the FCC would realize
this is 
> a major issue with the digital amateur community.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- 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 
> organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a
lot 
> of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with
some 
> form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
> should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
> it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
> that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
> primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
> accomplish the most with the least.
> 
> 

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

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

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

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

Are you trying to tell us that number ONE priority is worthless???

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

73 de Demetre SV1UY

[digitalradio] Primary communcation systems

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

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, 
certainly... but IMO, it would be foolhardy to not have a primary safety system 
that reports location and status. The whole idea strikes me as penny wise, 
pound foolish.

The USCG requires safety equipment. Isn't a primary communication system on 
that list?

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


  - Original Message - 
  From: Michael Hatzakis Jr MD 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:02 PM
  Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [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 expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
  > 
  > 
  > Rud Merriam K5RUD 
  > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
  > http://TheHamNetwork.net
  > 
  > 



   

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Rick]

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 #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
>
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:22:02 -
> "Howard Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time.
>> Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of
>> the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the
>> petition.
>> 

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[W2XJ]

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, digital transmission is limited to some fairly basic 
modulation schemes if it is to work under poor conditions. There is only 
so much that can be accomplished. Look at the commercial digital systems 
used by various public safety organizations that operate on more stable 
UHF channels. When they are needed most, they often fail and authorities 
revert back to the old analog systems.

Don't get me wrong, I like experimenting with digital modes. It is just 
that at this point I would never use the excuse of emergency service to 
justify it. I certainly think that stations that transmit without 
listening are more of a hazard in an emergency than an asset.

It is interesting to note that homeland security is investing in analog 
SSB systems for last resort backup.



Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:

> HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are very
> useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished.  I agree, their
> use needs to be fine tuned, but abolishing them seems draconian.  With all
> our innovation, why not spend our energy on their fair and more efficient
> use rather than chasing them away.  
> 
>  
> 
> My fear is that if we chase away modes we don’t like, when HF bands become
> really quiet because people no longer use CW and the number of hams declines
> because the hobby becomes uninteresting, the allocation gets sold to the
> highest commercial bidder.  We need to promote diversity to survive.  The
> world is going digital and wireless and this is what many new hams enjoy,
> like myself.  


Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php


View the DRCC numbers database at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[bruce mallon]

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

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

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 the use of the airwaves and register our opinions.

 

I am hearing the major objection to PMBO’s is their inability to listen to
other stations, not just other PMBO’s, before they occupy a frequency.  So
why isn’t the proposed rulemaking oriented towards solving THESE SPECIFIC
problems rather than abolishing them?  Seems this would be consistent with
FCC intended rules and would be a no-brainer to get passed.  I agree, this
community may not have played fair, so regulate the activity that is a
problem.

 

HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are very
useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished.  I agree, their
use needs to be fine tuned, but abolishing them seems draconian.  With all
our innovation, why not spend our energy on their fair and more efficient
use rather than chasing them away.  

 

My fear is that if we chase away modes we don’t like, when HF bands become
really quiet because people no longer use CW and the number of hams declines
because the hobby becomes uninteresting, the allocation gets sold to the
highest commercial bidder.  We need to promote diversity to survive.  The
world is going digital and wireless and this is what many new hams enjoy,
like myself.  

 

Michael

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:24 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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
> because I was not a PSKer.
> 
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left
> to speak out for me.
> 
> [Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
> by Martin Niemöller]
> 
> They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> ===
> Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
> http://hflink. 
com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
> http://fjallfoss. 
fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> .
> 
> 

 

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

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

 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 expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwor  k.net
> 
> 

 

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
accomplish the most with the least.



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 in a fixed
> bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 

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

[W2XJ]

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 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 make a contact or
> log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how
> effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be?  I can tell you,
> useless. 
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail
> systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams.  How many
> hams do we think will be left in 50 years?  Less or more than today?  A
> friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and
> used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch.  He
> had no other communication modes available.  
> 
>  
> 
> Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the
> HF spectrum.  How about further band segment segregation? 
> 
>  
> 
> My $0.02
> 
>  
> 
> Michael
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of W2XJ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: 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 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?
>>Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
>>interferes with a wider mode?
>>
>>The petition is not about interference.
>>It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
>>Manual or auto. End of story. 
>>
>>Bonnie KQ6XA
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[W2XJ]

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
> because I was not a PSKer.
> 
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left
> to speak out for me.
>  
> [Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
> by Martin Niemöller]
>  
> They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> ===
> Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
> http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> .
> 
> 

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

[bruce mallon]

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 cannot remember except for a select few anyone
wanting to outlaw SSB. EVEN in the late 50s on 75
meters during the heyday of AM most only did not like
the SOUND of it. This was less of a problem on 6 and 2
meters in later years 

your comment 
Today there are naysayers that want to outlaw IRLP,
Echolink and I guess Winlink. Despite the naysayer
fringe, things inevitably progress in one form or
another.

answer 
Progress does not mean displacing others or
interfering to the point that they are forced to move.
NO ONE is talking about outlawing Internet or echolink
only not allowing uncontrolled stations or ones so
wide that they obliterate whole bands.
Many of us realy dont care what others run if they are
not causing problems for the rest of us.

Bruce
on 6 since 66 


  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

[digitalradio] RE: RM11392

[radionut8888]

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 this can only start
from a PMBO or PMBO like system, however, a PMBO system does not
transmit until it had been queried by a "client". This takes a PMBO
out of the realm of unattended operation, even though it is automatic
operation.

I don't favor any petition whose effect would be to stifle innovation,
and frankly, the digital modes are where amateur innovation is
occurring. Not to say I don't support CW or Voice, but never to the
exclusion of newer modes because of their signal characteristics.

I have submitted a comment in opposition to this petition.

Thanks for the time,
Phil ..

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

[Rene Thomas Folse]

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 readily understand. It may be a well
intentioned proposal, but the actual impact and significance to all
sides of the controversy is hard to visualize. In addition to being a
lawyer, I would need to be an engineer, and also knowledgeable about
disaster communication modalities as well to get my arms around what
this proposal might effect.  A crystal ball would also help.

I did not know what Winlink 2000 was, and spent some time learning
about it.  It seems marvelous.  But, I do not know enough to oppose
the Proposed Rule either. 

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". Today
there are naysayers that want to outlaw IRLP, Echolink and I guess
Winlink. Despite the naysayer fringe, things inevitably progress in
one form or another.

I trust the FCC and the ARRL to sort all this out. Both of those
organizations have knowledgeable people who can understand this
proposal and sort out what is best for the Amateur Radio Service, and
the national needs that justify our existence.  Both organizations
have critics who do not trust them, yet both organizations have to
answer for their survival to a political process that will vigorously
argue both sides of this issue, and in the end a political compromise
will take place where both sides walk away equally satisfied or
dissatisfied. That fine balance seems to work well all things
considered.

Thanks to this group for plugging me into this technology.  I have
been QRT for about 20 years, and just got back into Amateur Radio last
summer. I have a huge learning curve just to catch up with all of you.
 I am amazed at how much Ham Radio has changed over these years. I
will now spend a week or two just learning what Winlink is and does so
I am not so ignorant. 

Rene - WA6MJE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Read the "Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements" 
> click here:
> http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" 
> click here: 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 station *WILL* listen
to the frequency but only for other pactor station.

Key word being "only"..

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[bruce mallon]

--- 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 INTERFERES WITH OTHERS AND DISREGARDS
THOSE ON THE FREQUENCIES has to be RESTRICTED from all
bands below 219 MHz.

QUESTION ...
Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all
operated in a fixed  bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or
contracting due to  band conditions?

ANSWER please DEFINE WIDE BAND ?

1)What got many of us fired up was a idea that 100 kHz
wide digital would be useful on 6 and 2 meters. All
that would do is raise the noise floor and destroy the
bands for weak signal users.
2)Many of us oppose any digital mode wider than
current FM on any band below 219 MHz since many of
those using these modes feel they have the right to
interfere with analog users AND HAVE SAID SO. in
the name of progress analog needs to go.

The bands are not broke and don't need digital fixing
. Now if you can come up with a plan that does not
cause a problem I'm willing to listen.

Bruce
on 6 since 66


> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 



  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[Roger J. Buffington]

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 in a
>  fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band
>  conditions?

I think the issues are these:

1.  The Pactor stations do not listen before transmitting.  Thus, they 
habitually QRM other forms of digital communications.

2.  Pactor 3 is WIDE.  But this could be tolerated to an extent if the 
operators listened before transmitting.  The Pactor community 
categorically refuses to do this.

3.  Pactor will almost always push a live operator off of a frequency 
because its mechanical nature will just keep transmitting more or less 
indefinitely until the frequency clears up, i.e. the live operator gets 
discouraged and goes elsewhere, often with a good QSO having been 
ruined.  I have experienced this countless times.  This is what the 
Pactor community calls "co-existence."

I do not think that fixed versus variable bandwidth is a major issue, 
although bandwidth obviously is.  Not listening before transmitting at 
any bandwidth is unacceptable, nor is it accepted by most of the amateur 
community, although up to now non-enforcement by the FCC has allowed this.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[Rud Merriam]

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 expanding or contracting due to band conditions?


Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Joe Veldhuis]

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

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:22:02 -
"Howard Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time.
> Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of
> the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the
> petition.

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

[Rodney]

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 there 
ARE other people using that particular frequency and jump in over the top of 
them.  This can be life threatening in an emergency!
   
  I'm FOR "some" regulation or regrouping!
   
  Rod
  KC7CJO

Simon Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
  - Original Message - 
From: "W2XJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these
> digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do
> believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real
> advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology.
> In a real national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's
> ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes.

I agree with this petition, the author has given much thought to it.

I also don't think that digital modes will be of much use in an emergency - 
I have often thought that this is just an excuse to promote the technology.

Simon HB9DRV 



 

   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

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

[Roger J. Buffington]

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 politics.

The Pactor community has its own agenda which mainly involves squeezing 
the rest of the digital hams into a tiny sliver of the bands, operating 
on sufferance of powerful, non-listening Pactor/Winlink stations.  These 
stations reserve the right to seize a frequency from others by sheer 
mechanical force and robot perseverance.  This agenda will make someone 
a lot of money selling proprietary Pactor hardware, and allow a few 
people to control a LOT of spectrum.  As best I can determine the 
petition in question would put an end to this.  What good can come of 
1.5Khz wide, high-powered stations transmitting without listening?  None 
at all, is the obvious answer.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] RM-11392

[Howard Brown]

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 were in place at that time.
Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of
the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the
petition.

Some of the opposition was clearly mistaken. A couple said the
Rule-making would hurt the MARS services. Of course the FCC has
nothing to do with MARS, other than issuing the ham license that
allows a ham to qualify as a MARS member.  In fact, this could enhance
MARS operation if some of the hams with this equipment became active
MARS members.  By the way, the wide modes work much better on MARS
since there are 'channels' and assigned frequencies there.

A few of the comments were embarrassing. How much weight can your
opinion carry if you are not able to spell the word amateur?

My opinion:  Thank you Mark, for bringing this interference problem to
focus.  Maybe it will be resolved now

Howard K5HB

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Roger J. Buffington]

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 community that they refuse to listen to 
determine if a frequency is clear before they transmit.  This dangerous 
practice must stop.  We have all tried "gentlemen's agreements" and 
ordinary "spirit of ham radio" approach but the Pactor community is 
intransigent, and appears to have its own agenda which is contrary to 
the interests of amateur radio as a whole.  Any petition that will 
eliminate this kind of operations will be a good thing.

de Roger W6VZV

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

[cesco12342000]

> 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 in the "auto" fraction of the bands, 
and nowhere else. Winlink pmbo's ARE automatic stations.

Actual bandplan for HB with "auto" subbands:
http://www.uska.ch/hfvhf/bandplan-hf_2006.pdf

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Simon Brown]

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
> because I was not a PACTOR operator. 

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Phil Barnett]

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 for the rest because they are not automatic operations.

> 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 left
> to speak out for me.

This is a classic Non Sequitor. The reason Pactor is being targeted is because 
it is a nuisance. RTTY and PSK are not. The last one is up for grabs. If the 
FCC comes for you, it will be  because they have considerable evidence of 
your operating illegally. They are not the gestapo and making such a 
reference is in truly poor taste, particularly when it is we the people who 
are the ones clamoring for a solution. Blaming the FCC for this is like 
blaming the trash collectors for coming to take the trash you left out in 
front of your house.

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[bruce mallon]

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 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 left
> to speak out for me.
>  
> [Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
> by Martin Niemöller]
>  
> They may be coming for you and your favorite mode
> next.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> ===
> Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio
> Technology" here:
> http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392"
> here:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> .
> 
> 



  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

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

[Box SisteenHundred]

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: [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.


_
i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a 
difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect

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

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

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 really be in 50 years with CW operators?

 

I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for

ham radio.

I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on

the HF bands.

I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for

the following reason:

1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use 

of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding

in this spectrum.

2.) The automatic PACTOR II & III modes are an invaluable service

to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication

may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators.

This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical

operators.

3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really

necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than 

completely ban them.  

4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase

the number of available operating modes to encourage further

hams use of HF spectrum.  

 

Michael

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of expeditionradio
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

 

Read the "Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements" 
click here:
http://hflink. 
com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf

File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" 
click here: 
http://fjallfoss. 
fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
Please do your part.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA

 

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

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

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 make a contact or
log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how
effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be?  I can tell you,
useless. 

 

Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail
systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams.  How many
hams do we think will be left in 50 years?  Less or more than today?  A
friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and
used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch.  He
had no other communication modes available.  

 

Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the
HF spectrum.  How about further band segment segregation? 

 

My $0.02

 

Michael

 

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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 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?
> Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
> interferes with a wider mode?
> 
> The petition is not about interference.
> It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
> Manual or auto. End of story. 
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> 
> 

 

[digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[expeditionradio]

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 left
to speak out for me.
 
[Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
by Martin Niemöller]
 
They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA

===
Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf

File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
Please do your part.

.

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

[bruce mallon]

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 should be allowed. Any kind
of automatic transmission should  be prohibited below
28 MHz. The petition is an attempt to prevent the 
destruction of ham radio as we know it.


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[digitalradio] Re: MixW Update

[Juan Carlos]

Downloaded several times. The file is corrupted !!!

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

[Simon Brown]

- 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 ourselves 
> let
> alone normally afford to purchase maybe we should ban these types of 
> digital
> transmission system from the ham bands.  At least all the other types of
> digital systems are open source and can be openly experimented with and
> improved/dropped without any commercial gain or loss to the users or
> creators.


I agree - this is an abuse of Ham Radio except maybe where used to provide 
essential services to the yachting community in the oceans.

I would only allow Pactor when we are allowed to write our own compatible 
software.

I have raised this with my IARU rep - not my support for ditching Pactor I 
am afraid.

Simon HB9DRV 

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

[Stuart Baynes]

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 these types of digital 
transmission system from the ham bands.  At least all the other types of 
digital systems are open source and can be openly experimented with and 
improved/dropped without any commercial gain or loss to the users or 
creators.

As a radio ham from outside the USA I dont believe I can object through the 
FCC website so good luck with your objections.

Cheers

Stuart ZS6OUN




 

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

[W2XJ]

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.




expeditionradio wrote:
> --- 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 tremendous "collateral damage" ...you the ham!
> 
> It is a blast that obliterates all digital HF innovation.
> 
> It will kill every ham's ability to explore digital data 
> time-sharing techniques on HF into the future.
> 
> It will kill the only 24/7 HF emergency data ham radio 
> service that can be accessed without an external computer.
> 
> The petition is a fight by 20th Century "frequency-division" 
> to try to eliminate new 21st Century "time-division" techniques.
> 
> Let us hope that the FCC can see through the petitioner's ruse.
> Do your part, tell them to stop it.
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA 
> 
> 
> 

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

[expeditionradio]

--- 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 tremendous "collateral damage" ...you the ham!

It is a blast that obliterates all digital HF innovation.

It will kill every ham's ability to explore digital data 
time-sharing techniques on HF into the future.

It will kill the only 24/7 HF emergency data ham radio 
service that can be accessed without an external computer.

The petition is a fight by 20th Century "frequency-division" 
to try to eliminate new 21st Century "time-division" techniques.

Let us hope that the FCC can see through the petitioner's ruse.
Do your part, tell them to stop it.

Bonnie KQ6XA 

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

[W2XJ]

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 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?

[W2XJ]

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 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?
> Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
> interferes with a wider mode?
> 
> The petition is not about interference.
> It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
> Manual or auto. End of story. 
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[Phil Barnett]

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?

[expeditionradio]

--- 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?
Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
interferes with a wider mode?

The petition is not about interference.
It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
Manual or auto. End of story. 

Bonnie KQ6XA

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

[Barry Garratt]

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
when more efficient and narrower bandwidth transmitters were developed.

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of expeditionradio
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:19 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?



--- 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



 

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

[Phil Barnett]

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?

[W2XJ]

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 by spark gap operators
>>when they didn't want CW.
> 
> 
> Yeah, but with some major differences.
> 
> Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move was to stop the mode that was 
> interfering.
> 
> Hmm...
> 

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

[Roger J. Buffington]

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 replaced spark gap in much the same way that PSK31 and later 
sound card modes replaced Pactor as primary digital communications 
modes.  The innovation of the sound card modes made digital modes 
economical for most hams, and the digital modes have become far more 
ubiquitous than in the days when everyone needed a TNC to do digital 
modes.  It freed hams from monopolists with proprietary modes aimed at 
forcing people to buy their hardware.

Pactor is now pretty much dead as a QSO mode because there is no need to 
buy an expensive proprietary TNC to do advanced digital work.  Which is 
why very few hams own TNCs these days.

de Roger W6VZV