RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
Sounds a bit like a survivalist touting the end of the world more emotion than substantiation. QRM is QRM. BPL, Pactor, bad volkswagon ignition systems, et.al. William A. Collister N7MOG _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: 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. <http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf> com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf > > File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here: > http://fjallfoss. <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi> fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi > > Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? > Please do your part. > > . > >
RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
<<< The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this? In response to this question, there is data to suggest HF usage will continue to decline. This is taken from: http://www.hamradio-online.com/1999/aug/growth.html. I cannot authenticate the source of this data, but it 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
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 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] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
There are plenty of digital modes that do not interfere. At the end of the day everything boils down to signal to noise and bandwidth. If a signal is really weak, it will have to be received in a narrow bandwidth. The narrower the bandwidth, the slower the transfer of information. At HF, 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
Mike NONE of us wants to stop any mode just see it does not distroy things for others. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
I agree; a little unnecessary drama. I think we can stay rational and have an educational discussion. Ive learned from this debate and this is the most useful purpose for sharing opinions, even if I disagree with some. Even still, lets 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 PMBOs is their inability to listen to other stations, not just other PMBOs, before they occupy a frequency. So why isnt 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 dont 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. <http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf> com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf > > File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here: > http://fjallfoss. <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi> fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi > > Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? > Please do your part. > > . > >
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] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
expeditionradio wrote: > > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was > not a PACTOR operator. The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on the part of the Winlink 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
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
Bonnie, There's no need to worry, Dame Julie Andrews is available via the William Morris Agency. http://www.wma.com/julie_andrews/summary/ Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PACTOR operator.
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 06:20:09 am expeditionradio wrote: > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PACTOR operator. Because it caused interference by operating automatically and interfering with ongoing QSO's all over the world. The FCC never came 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
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
