SCS gives away the modems at cost or for free? News to me.
Can I use a soundcard program to detect it and monitor it, as I should be
able to do as a licensed amateur? No, it is not open to the public.
Will West Mountain Radio, MFJ, or some other company start selling a more
reasonably priced modem?
I have an SCS PTC-IIe that can operate both Pactor-2 and Pactor-3. I
can find no evidence of a busy frequency detector in its
documentation or schematic.
For keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor operation, there is no need of busy
frequency detection; the operators at each end can assure a clear
freque
The Vertex VX-1700 is currently available in Hong Kong.
HK$6500 = US$837 for the complete VX-1700 transceiver with ALE.
For the mathematically impaired, let's crunch the currency
conversion numbers from Hong Kong dollars to US dollars:
VX-1700 Transceiver is HK$4100 = US$528
ALE-1 Option is HK$
Craig,
Where exactly is the money exchanging hands? I have heard this type of
comment a number of times and found the exact opposite from what you are
saying.
The Winlink 2000 system is completely free to use and the four hams or
so who developed, own, and control this system have donated thei
At 10:23 PM 6/21/2006, you wrote:
>What does the ALE "option" cost beyond the US$837 ?
I ask the vertex dealer that I once worked for about this rig
and was told that they have no info on it since it's not
sold in the USA
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
>If QRM-Tor III modems did listen
Since it cost over 900 bucks to get a SCS Pactor III controller I think it's
a pretty good guess that most have never copied any pactor III traffic.
That makes the above statement bold or just repeating what someone
else has said.
I do have a pactor III
What does the ALE "option" cost beyond the US$837 ?
On 6/21/06, expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I priced the new Vertex VX-1700 HF-ALE transceiver yesterday at
> a radio store in Hong Kong. This transceiver has a built-in ALE
> option, so it does not need an external PC or contro
14,109.5 Khz - MT63
On 6/21/06, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with Risto iin that bandplans.com are based on input, and not
> someone's favorite rant.
>
> In terms of missing entries, I'd llike to point out the following :
>
> 3725 -3750 Canada Provincial and Regional SSB n
I agree with Risto iin that bandplans.com are based on input, and not someone's
favorite rant.
In terms of missing entries, I'd llike to point out the following :
3725 -3750 Canada Provincial and Regional SSB nets, and emergency nets as
required.
7055mhz40M Canada calling frequency, and na
I priced the new Vertex VX-1700 HF-ALE transceiver yesterday at
a radio store in Hong Kong. This transceiver has a built-in ALE
option, so it does not need an external PC or controller. It
also has built-in CCIR 493 SELCALL (100baud FSK) that is
compatible with VX-1210. The total cost (converted t
> I do know that no automatic
>station control software currently uses busy frequency detection to
>refrain from transmitting when the frequency is in use.
Packet for one.
Sorry you are right that's the hardware doing it.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --
If QRM-Tor III modems did listen for a busy channel, much less traffic would
get through. Thurston Howell won't be able to send free email from his
luxury yacht, possibly hurting sales of modems. Don't count on it ever
happening. PactorIII/WinLink is a commercial for profit enterprise that
happens
Yes. This was well-demonstrated in SCAMP, a soundcard-base protocol
that was beta-tested but never operationally deployed. For protocols
like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 whose implementation evidently requires
an outboard modem, busy detection could be implemented either with
additional hardware, wit
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 07:30 AM 6/21/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>the automatic station control software
>immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is
>locally clear or not.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
Couldn't this be cured by software? The automatic station s
Thanks, Ed.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "ebills42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> A technicality or two on your response.
>
> 1. FCC Part 97 is not a statue but a regulation. Statutes are
> legislated and result in regulations, such as Part 97, t
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15196
Although it may be a no-no, you could use steganography to embed
non-image data within an image.
Now let's here some word on this as long as the "specification" is
published, and there is not intent to obscure data from view, then I
Dave,
A technicality or two on your response.
1. FCC Part 97 is not a statue but a regulation. Statutes are
legislated and result in regulations, such as Part 97, to implement
the law or the statute.
2. When the Regulation is posted in the Federal Register the complete
release includes a "Pre
Then perhaps you should relocate your site from
www.bandplans.com
to
www.ProposedBandPlans.com
so that no one is confused about the unmoderated and unofficial
nature of its contents. At minimum, your site should contain a
prominent disclaimer to this effect.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
---
Date:Jun 21, 2006 3:40 PM
This is not correct.
bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has
inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site
itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aside from what's been said recently, once upon a time there
> was a lot of Clover operation in the range 14064.5-14066.5
> and such. Since there is hardly any Clover anymore, why don't
> we operate other digita
Kevin,
RTTY is data, but they often will use the term "data" to mean any other
digital mode including packet.
Data modes are not permitted on most HF SSB voice frequencies ... unless
the data is "image." The one exception is on 160 meters where it is
theoretically possible to do this although
This is not correct.
bandplans.com entries are all based on user's input. While Bonnie has
inputted a lot of those, everyone else is welcome to submit, too. Site
itself is not taking sides either way. The purpose is to provide a
snapshot of what you can find on the bands. I'm looking forward t
If I call CQ on a clear frequency and you respond from the other
side of the country -- QRMing over a local QSO in the process -- it
is you, not I, who is violating 97.101(d): "No amateur operator
shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference
to any radio communication or
Aside from what's been said recently, once upon a time there
was a lot of Clover operation in the range 14064.5-14066.5
and such. Since there is hardly any Clover anymore, why don't
we operate other digital modes down there?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
And as wee all know, well most of us that in most cases it's
the remote station that can't hear a ongoing QSO.
Why not pull their license as well?
And maybe pull the license of the guy that moved into
that part of the band with all the semi-automatic stations.
But I think we pretty well beat this
Be kind... sometimes I make the simplest things complicated. There are two
questions here...
I was working on bands.ini for MixW using the US Amateur Bands sheet from
the ARRL. I have never noticed this before... are data (digital) modes not
permitted in the SSB sub bands?
For instance:
7000 - 71
In the case of semi-automatic operation, there is generally no
operator present at the station generating the QRM. Even when an
operator is present, the automatic station control software
immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is
locally clear or not.
If you and I li
> Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>> will be intolerable unless
>>> operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if
>>> their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to
>>> remote requests.
>
> but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC?
> I'm ta
>will be intolerable unless
> >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if
> >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to
> >remote requests.
>
but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC?
I'm talking about any time a station sta
If the ARRL proposal is accepted, then the main change would be that the
wide data modes would have to all move up above 14.100 at first. The
impression that I got from reading Dave Sumner's comments was that they
would like to see a bandplan where the digital voice would be segregated
from ana
30 matches
Mail list logo
