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

[Charles Brabham]

- Original Message - 
From: "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"


>I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why
> feelings against Pactor 3 run so high.
>
> The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th 
> Dec)
> and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am
> calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's
> not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with
> us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes
> everyone out for at least 5 minutes.
>
> How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the
> bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running
> PSK31 and all got QRM'ed.
>snip<

This sounds like a job for WinLink-Watch! 
http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm

Stop by and see how to catch Pactor Lids red-handed and display their bad 
behavior for all to see. - They get away with a lot of it because most hams 
have no idea just how severe the problem is.

A screen-shot of four or five QSO's being wiped out by a WinLid will go a 
long way toward getting this problem resolved so that it will no longer be 
an issue.

Nobody has to stand by and put up with this kind of behavior, and once it is 
documented and put on display, it is then impossible to deny.

We have over 5 GB of image storeage at ARWatch... - There's plenty of room, 
so don't be shy... Send us your screenshots of Pactor interference.

(  For other interference/bad operating  issues, stop by at ARWatch. 
http://www.arwatch.com/  )

73 DE Charles, N5PVL

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

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hello Sholto

Sad to say , but I have had the same experience many times.

73 de LA5VNA Steinar



Sholto Fisher skrev:
>
> I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why
> feelings against Pactor 3 run so high.
>
> The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today 
> (29th Dec)
> and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am
> calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's
> not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with
> us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes
> everyone out for at least 5 minutes.
>
> How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the
> bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running
> PSK31 and all got QRM'ed.
>
> I know your feelings on Pactor-3 Demetre and I am sure you are a courteous
> operator but until either the Winlink crowd adopt a proper "listen first"
> attitude or Pactor-3 is gone this argument is not going to go away.
>
> 73 & Happy New Year to all,
> Sholto
> KE7HPV
>
>  

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

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

Were you able to get an ID from the P3 station?
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:53 am, Sholto KE7HPV wrote:
> us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes
> everyone out for at least 5 minutes.

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

[Sholto Fisher]

I probably should not get involved but here's a classic example of why
feelings against Pactor 3 run so high.

The frequency is 10.140, the mode is PSK31, it is 19:39 UTC today (29th Dec)
and VE1CDD is in QSO with PJ2MI, N0MNO and KJ7A are on frequency and I am
calling CQ. A Pactor-1 call up can be heard a little down the band, that's
not too bad, he is right on the Propnet guys but he's not interfering with
us. But then the transmission changes straight to Pactor-3 and wipes
everyone out for at least 5 minutes.

How can anyone justify running Pactor-3 in a narrow mode segment of the
bands? there were at least 5 other guys minding their own business running
PSK31 and all got QRM'ed.

I know your feelings on Pactor-3 Demetre and I am sure you are a courteous
operator but until either the Winlink crowd adopt a proper "listen first"
attitude or Pactor-3 is gone this argument is not going to go away.

73 & Happy New Year to all,
Sholto
KE7HPV

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

[kh6ty]

Demetre,

It might help to visualize the interference problem caused by unattended 
PMBO stations like this analogy:

"A Winlink client, triggering a WinlinkPMBO to transmit, is like remotely 
triggering a bomb blast without any way to guarantee that the area around 
the bomb is clear."

Winlink 2000 is a very useful resource, but unless confined to a small 
section of each band, where there are only other Winlink 2000 stations, it 
has no place on shared amateur bands, because it cannot play by the rules of 
sharing, unless the PMBO is manned 24/7 with someone at the PMBO location 
always listening to the band for existing activity before allowing the PMBO 
to transmit. The lack of this operator presence is responsible for all the 
QRM complaints directed at Pactor stations.

Shortly after the first of the year, we will announce, on this reflector, 
the first Windows beta version of our NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System 
software suite primarily for Emcomm use, reliably spanning disaster zones up 
to 100 miles - not for sailors far at sea - Winlink is better for that, and 
which achieves roughly the same average throughput as posted daily on the 
Winlink site (95% Pactor-III), but in a bandwidth of only around 300 Hz.

No email robots are used, as the system design *requires* that there be an 
operator at both ends to check for activity before using the frequency. The 
soundcard is the modem, and no other TNC is required. I am hoping that the 
members of this list will like to serve as beta testers, try the system with 
each other, and send feedback to us so that we may improve the system as 
much as possible. Please reserve comments until after you have used the 
system.

We wish you and everyone else a happy and prosperous New Year!

73,

Skip KH6TY 

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

[Phil Barnett]

On Thursday 27 December 2007 01:34:56 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> If folks would utilize the time they spend complaining learning to be
> better operators, 

Interpretation: Learn to get out of the way of automated stations when they 
come on frequency without checking to see if the frequency is in use.

> learning to work through interference, 

Interpretation: Learn to recognize when an automated station just knocked you 
out of an ongoing qso.

> learning to master the features of the equipment they operate, 

Interpretation: Grab that tuning knob and get off my frequency, you clod.

> learning to operate alternative modes, 

Interpretation: On some other frequency.

> and most of all, learning to communicate... 

Oh, I understand what you've got to say. However, I'm convinced that you don't 
recognize rude behavior even when it is happening right under your nose.

It isn't the mode that I'm complaining about. It isn't the frequency I'm 
complaining about. It isn't the bandwidth that I'm complaining about. It's 
the rude behavior that exists in the form of unattended stations smashing 
into ongoing qso's without looking to see where they are going. Y'all stop 
doing that, I'll stop complaining. If I went into your home and started 
smashing into things without looking where I was going, you'd soon want me to 
stop in just the same way.

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Yes I did.
No matter what happens if you read starting at line 4
of page 11 of the PDF file you can see that this is no more
then more damn noise from the anti-wide people.

And I'll say it again here that under FCC rules there is no such
thing as a "unattended station"  what there is (for the clueless)
"automatically controlled data station". Got it?

At 08:54 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
>Have you taken time to actually read the pro RM-11392 comments? Most
>all of them are individual thoughts. It is the winlink camp that is
>posting the boiler plate comments hoping that numbers not content will
>kill the petition. 
>
>Greg
>KC7GNM

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

[bruce mallon]

"But, it won't happen; the FCC Will take spectrum
back, long before we ever evolve to the point of
becoming better operators and having constructive
discussion for the common good."

Ham radio an't broke if the digicrats would wake up
and smell the interferance coffie and work to be just
another mode we would look at them in a whole new way ...


  

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

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

[dalite01]

We won't have to "give" the bands back; we won't have that option here in
the US.  A few more Petitions, more tradition fueled Proposed Rulemaking
Laments from the ARRL and the continued bickering of folks who have the sole
purpose in life of stoking their own ego.And the FCC will relieve us of
the burden of giving the HF bands back.
 
The amount of money distributed within the D700 bill put more government
agency ownership of amateur radio stations than has ever been witnessed
before.  The perks dangled in front of government and ESF employees to
procure an Amateur Radio license puts the individual operator who uses his
equipment in the "optional" category of folks to be invited to an official
emergency event.
 
The Katrina AAR once again gave FEMA a black eye.  They are very
accomplished in being a national embarrassment, and decided to vote with
funding to further distribute the blame in the coming disasters.  Amateur
Radio scored high marks in the aftermath of Katrina.  FEMA/DHS made sure
that enough money was thrown at Amateur Radio to have a properly registered
scape goat prior to the next helping of humble pie.
 
We are performing exactly the way we are expected to in our entirely
rational, knowledgeable, non-opinionated appraisal of the expansion of
digital modes.  NOT!
 
There is nothing new here.  We are doing exactly what we do best; resisting
change and living in the past.  The real tragedy is that we are the only
ones that don't see this.  Others not only see this, they count on it, take
it to the bank and use it to grow crops.  We produce some of the best fossil
fuel available, and do it profusely.
 
The average age of the Amateur Radio operator is somewhat north of 60
decades in existence.  Attrition is also likely to prevent our having to
worry about giving the HF spectrum back to the Government.  It will shrink
in proportion to the among of resources (Operators) available to use it.  
 
If folks would utilize the time they spend complaining learning to be better
operators, learning to work through interference, learning to master the
features of the equipment they operate, learning to operate alternative
modes, and most of all, learning to communicate... then, and only then would
we be able to take tropics such as the one before us and turn the discussion
from the long honored tradition of exercising our inflated egos by slinging
opinions around and actually entering into a discussion that could have
positive results.
 
But, it won't happen; the FCC Will take spectrum back, long before we ever
evolve to the point of becoming better operators and having constructive
discussion for the common good.
 
I think your Crystal Ball is receiving just fine
 
David
KD4NUE
 
 
 
 

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of b_totten
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:41 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"



Why don't we just simply give the bands back to the FCC and then let
the government run emergency comm. That would solve the whole mess. (LOL)

More Government, More Regulations, More Law Suits

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



 

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

[Peter G. Viscarola]

Anyone notice that the vast majority of the negative comments about the
petition are (nearly) identical. Sort of reminds me of the "Send the
following letter to your Congressman!" like the NUMBERS count and not
the content.

I sure wish that petitioners -- both pro and con -- would think for
themselves and file thoughtful, personal, comments to help the FCC...
instead of merely submitting what amounts to a "form letter" that
expresses somebody ELSE's views.

de Peter K1PGV

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