On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote:
> > How will this RM will KILL digital radio?
>
> It will prevent present digital data technologies that
> now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing
> of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast
> digit
> Mark WD4ELG wrote:
> Hey Bonnie
> You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you
> could educate me. ...
> Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make
> an educated comment to the FCC:
Hi Mark,
I will attempt to answer your questions, one by one, below:
> How will
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
Actually this is a "Petition For Rule Making" and it is for an AMENDMENT of
PART 97.
Nowhere does it state it is a "Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital
Advancements"
It's a good petition that a lot of thought has been put into and should be
supported by all amateurs.
Barry VE3CDX/W7
_
- 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. Emai
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 n
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.
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 11:47:13 pm expeditionradio wrote:
> Read the petition:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume
>nt=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume
>nt=6519008575 RM-113
Hey Bonnie
You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate
me. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to digital modes.
I hear a lot of increased-bandwidth transmissions in the RTTY subbands
(7070 area, 14080 area). I understand that many of these are unattended.
I have issues wi
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 FC
You were having a Pactor QSO and someone called CQ nearby in another
mode. You were able to identify the CQing operator. From your after-
the-fact email conversation with this person, its clear that he heard
your signal. If he assumed that your Pactor signal was coming from
a "robot" and that it
Dave I agree with you but how about a new twist to this.
Not too long ago I was having a real nice keyboard to
keyboard QSO with K2MO - Tony on dial freq 7,077.4
Pactor when a member of this list starting calling CQ
on another mode. I did get a call and email him asking if
he did hear the pactor
w6ids wrote:
? I do not like an automobile to be moved down the
> highway without a driver controlling it with his/her hands on the
> wheel.
>
> What am I saying to you? That I do not like automobiles or that I do
> not like illegal and/or improper use of automobiles?
>
> Tell me which?
Meani
My objective is not win an argument with Demetre or any other proponent of
operating practices that QRM other operators, but rather to illuminate the
flaws and obfuscations in their arguments to the readers of this reflector.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: digitalra
- Original Message -
From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The core issue i
- Original Message -
From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
>
> OK Dave,
>
> You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
> of networking on HF.
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> OK Roger,
Whether you like it or not all the
> above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away
> because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them!
Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a
few years fr
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
of networking on HF.
>>>Wrong. My "problem" is with unattended stations that transmit
without first listening to see th
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>
> We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it",
> you just won't admit it.
>
> The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital
> mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended
> stations (PMBOs) transmit without fir
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" wrote:
Can you admit that there are people with different points of view
Dave? I'm afraid you can't.
>>>I absolutely can, Demetre. I freely admit that there are hams who
are perfectly happy to use systems that they know
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get
it", you
> just won't admit it.
>
> The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode
> protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get
it", you
> just won't admit it.
>
> The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode
> protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it", you
just won't admit it.
The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode
protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs)
transmit without first listening to ensure that the freq
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 d
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
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
Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings to all
73 de Andy K3UK
On Dec 25, 2007 6:55 AM, Omar Shabsigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SEASON's GREETINGS
> to all the nice people in this group
>
> Omar YK1AO
>
>
>
>
--
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)
<>
This is a very well thought out solution to a on-going vexing problem on
the HF RTTY/data bands. I have submitted my comments to the FCC in
concurrence with Mark's petition and I strongly suggest that those who
agree or those who disagree with the petition, submit your comments.
If the petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> > Well,
> >
> > Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw
> > qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual
> > wants to do! Your mil
I have not tried VHF packet for many years, but there is some HF packet
on occasion and I wanted to decode them out of curiosity. I do this with
Multipsk/DXLab Commander rig control. That seems the easiest and best
way to have the most digital modes available in one program and once you
connec
New release of FDMDV - Amateur Radio Digital Voice
A new version (10a-Dec-07) of the Digital Voice mode FDMDV is now available
from the N1SU.com website.
This mode is remarkable in that it occupies a bandwidth of only 1.1 kHz as
against the 2.4 kHz needed for an SSB signal.
The new version a
I filed my comments today on Mark's petition, which is very well written and
logical, and encourage everyone else who values space to work without
interference from email robots also to do so.
Merry Christmas to all!
Skip KH6TY
Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
SEASON's GREETINGS
to all the nice people in this group
Omar YK1AO
The FCC has released
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519820340
Public Notice report 2828-Correction establishing a new comment
period for
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574
RM-11392.
RM11392
34 matches
Mail list logo
