Pactor I wasn't added until 1993. You don't need anything special on
the computer to run it, even a dumb terminal will work fine.
Since the latest version of rom (7.2 I think) is still selling along
with an upgrade to the venerable pk232mbx to add dsp filtering and
psk31 capability, I doubt if
I agree that traffic need only be sampled. Further, OOs would
typically be pointed at alleged offenders by amateurs now able
provide a callsign. Such allegations would result in more focused
monitoring. OOs would forward recordings and logs of actual
violations to the FCC for prompt action -- j
Dave,
A hole in one!
You don't have to monitor 100 percent of the traffic, I suspect that
you will only have to monitor a small bit of it to find commercial
traffic. If I am wrong, good thing. OO's should not be setting WinLink
up to fail, just monitoring them like every one else should be, by
pe
Exceptions would be a slippery slope. Lets see if we can directly
address the CW identification problem.
I have a PK-232MBX, but the manual (version H 1/90) makes no mention
of Pactor operation. When you operate an automatic Pactor I station,
is the intelligence entirely provided by the PK-232M
The biggest problem I see with this is that every pk-232mbx owner
using it with an automatic Pactor I station (me for instance!) would
have to throw it away. The pk-232mbx just isn't capable of doing this
in Pactor mode although it will in Packet mode - go figure.
With the cost of an SCS modem,
Decoding the B2F shouldn't be impossible. The specs are all out
there. You might not be able to do it on fly, however.
tim ab0wr
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If we are talking about Pactor III mode, (not sure about P2), it
may be
> very difficult to
Purchasing an SCS modem provides the ability to monitor Pactor III.
If an automatic station software employs a higher-level protocol
atop Pactor III, that protocol must by rule be publicly documented.
If the automatic station software provides a monitoring function,
then that software could be
If we are talking about Pactor III mode, (not sure about P2), it may be
very difficult to monitor. Not impossible, but would likely require some
special software to decompress the B2F, etc. More than one P3 promoter
has pointed this out to ARC I believe as a way to keep others from being
able
I said "a fraction", not "a few".
I'm assuming that only a fraction of automatic station operators
would flaunt the CW identification rule or fail to enforce the no
commercial content rule; thus it would not be necessary to equip
every OO with the ability to monitor every automatic protocol. To
Why not do the same for all rather then just a few?
At 08:52 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>The primary concern - that automatic stations will QRM ongoing QSOs -
> could be monitored by anyone capable of copying CW, assuming
>compliance with the CW identification requirement.
>
>To deal with the hopeful
The primary concern - that automatic stations will QRM ongoing QSOs -
could be monitored by anyone capable of copying CW, assuming
compliance with the CW identification requirement.
To deal with the hopefully small number of automatic stations who
choose to ignore the CW identification and/or c
I am talking abour baseball not radio
hi
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
De LØRD
Yes !
Up to the day tha
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Lord! Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again. Id almost
rather
> watch Cricket. Jiminey that is.
Hey Dickey Bird has not raised that single finger, matter of fact,
seems to have waving his arm four time
De LØRD
Yes !
Up to the day that there is a PSK-31 mail system and it bits
them in the butt
Of course the real problem is that there is those that just
HATE to wide modes and will say and do any thing to see it fail.
At 07:37 PM 2/8/06, you wrote:
>Lord! Do we have to put up with talk a
Lord! Do we have to put up with talk about THAT again. Id almost rather
watch Cricket. Jiminey that is.
- Original Message -
From: "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate l
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Credible self-policing is the key; the ARRL's Official Observer
> corps would be the obvious starting point. One or two examples --
> highly publicized instances of violators losing their licenses --
> would est
Credible self-policing is the key; the ARRL's Official Observer
corps would be the obvious starting point. One or two examples --
highly publicized instances of violators losing their licenses --
would establish the appropriate degree of respect for the program.
With regard to "No automatic sta
t;
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
> Who will enforce this using what source of funding?
>
> The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
> nor the necessary technical infrastr
Who will enforce this using what source of funding?
The FCC has no such resources in their current budget
nor the necessary technical infrastructure.
Were this to be implemented it would require a significant
budgetary increase from Congress or a transfer of resources
within the FCC.
One probabi
Original Message -
> From: Dave Bernstein
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:56 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on HF
>
>
> I have come to agree with you and Howard on thi
""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:56
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limita
g to her
> buddies across town.
>
> Thats when I started preaching INTERNATIONAL
> sub-bands, but those folks will
> never let it happen.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 0
: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF
> Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South Americans signals
> down around 3590 and 7040.
>
> Besides that was
Yes I see this.
I could be done very easy with out bringing the
link down.
At 09:41 PM 2/6/06, you wrote:
>To facilitate self-policing.
>
>The software controlling an automatic station would have no
>difficulty "remembering" to do this, and the impact on throughput
>would be neglible.
>
> 73,
>
To facilitate self-policing.
The software controlling an automatic station would have no
difficulty "remembering" to do this, and the impact on throughput
would be neglible.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why ID every 5
Why ID every 5 minute ?
At 08:56 PM 2/6/06, you wrote:
>I have come to agree with you and Howard on this, John. We should
>replace all of 97.221 with the following 27 words:
>
>"No automatic station shall transmit on an already-occupied
>frequency, or without identifying in 15 wpm CW at the begin
rom: jgorman01
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:37 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on HF
>
>
> As long as countries like Canada would redo their regulations and
> prevent station
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" wrote:
> >
> > The exact reson we need INTERNATIONAL subbands.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "jgorman01"
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:
man01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:37
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
As long as countries like Canada would redo their
regulations andprevent stations from simply moving lower since it is legal
s.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:09 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on
> HF
>
>
> > The real problem right now i
You need to also check out the ARRL product review on this unit.
While the published specs show it operating in a 2.5khz bandwidth, the ARRL
measured bandwidth was actually almost 3.25khz for the unit itself. For some
reason, which the ARRL did not go into, the noise from the unit above the
las
The exact reson we need INTERNATIONAL subbands.
- Original Message -
From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on
HF
> The real problem right now is no
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations
> on HF
>
>
> > Danny,
> >
> > Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there will
be any
> > shortage of spectrum for CW
OK John. I had looked at the ads and read up on that before, and
immediately forgot it. The 500 bucks would go a long way toward
a new, shiney, taller tower, which mama wont let me buy anyway. Hi.
Danny
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of intere
to be negative here, but if that does exist, how about letting
>the rest of us in on it.
>Danny
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:04 PM
>Subject: RE: [digitalrad
- Original Message -
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
> Danny,
>
> Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there
Danny,
Even if the CW subbands shrink, it does not mean that there will be any
shortage of spectrum for CW. From what I have read of the proposals, any
narrow mode can always be used in a wider mode subband. Just like you
can today. No one loses anything. In fact, it is the exact opposite
beca
John,
Many of us are familiar with the AOR product since it has been around
for some time now and is about the only one of its kind for HF. The pros
and cons of this technology have been mentioned many times.
While it may have good voice quality and almost no background noise, the
trade off is
and have the computer do all the work.
Danny
- Original Message -
From:
Dr. Howard S. White
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:59
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Danny
K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
> Website: www.ky6la.com
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
> ----- Original Message -
> From: Danny Douglas
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, Fe
nt: Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:43
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Those answer my questions. It is NOT cheap, not
readily available for meto use in my computer with already owned
equipments. Let me know when itis.Danny-
ere is some software that copies in noise better than others.
>
> Joe
> W4JSI
>
> Age is mind over matter
> If you don't mind,
> it does not matter
> - Original Message -
> From: N6CRR
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday,
0 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
> At 11:13 PM 2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
> > >
> > >At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
> > >
> > >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digi
5, 2006 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations
on HF
> At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
> >Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
>
>
> Peter,
> Please get your facts right.
> I and o
At 11:13 PM 2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
> >
> >At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
> >
> >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
> >
> >Peter,
> >Please get your facts right.
> >I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> >the last
">>I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in
effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive subbands (although they could be
used for other narrow band modes such as PSK31 and maybe some others
that have not been invented yet to fit in that size of bandwidth), a
shrinking of t
At 10:13 PM 2/5/06, you wrote:
>Clever retort, but not very elucidating. Obviously I need educating.
>Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...
>
>de K1PGV
try this page for the AOR digital modem at
that most on digital voice are using.
http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html
scroll to t
>
>At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
>
>>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
>
>Peter,
>Please get your facts right.
>I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
>the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
>
>Even from to mobile.
>
Clev
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
Even from to mobile.
John, W0JAB
KV9U Wrote:
>What I do see is the restricting of
>bandwidths to ~3 or so KHz and that will make high speed digital
>protocols much more difficult since you can not ignore the science
>behind it.
[...snip...]
>the new proposals do not address my
>biggest concern of finally being able to inter
I think I can answer some of your questions.
The ARRL definitely has taken the issue of having some kind of workable
network for emergency to heart. At least the past president did. After
doing a test to demonstrate how effective amateur radio networking is,
we were unable to deliver messages i
It's time to change the subject to reflect
what you are now talking about.
It has moved from the ARRL proposal to an anti
traffic.
Please remember that before email ham's
had been doing the same thing for years.
John, W0JAB
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
__
> > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
> > Website: www.ky6la.com
> > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> > "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
> > -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W traffic, important
> informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can
sometimes
Rick you make some good points in your post, and I think the ARRL
should t
Steve,
It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W traffic, important
informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can sometimes
include systems such as Winlink 2000, but for the most part it will not,
since they have two things that greatly changes the calculus compared to
the pas
. I just wonder how many of those guys ever work any other mode other
than passing email. Most all emergency communications is going to be
defined to a local area of the country anyway. (Emergency is defined a
threat to life and property). I am not against the handling of
important traffic, as a ma
- Original Message -
From:
N6CRR
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:49
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose
> of Amateur radio,
.
>
> It may be technically feasible to do everything WinLink, the ARRL and
> others may want to do by allowing more spectrum to be allocated to
> these services, but by doing so is the resulting environment still
> Amateur Radio?
This question, to me, is what it all boils down to.
I think the
However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose
> of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio art also includes HF. The
> issue is that there is little incentive to further develop digital
> protocols for high speed binary transfer since under Part 97.221,
> there is little space to use
;Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
> - Original Message -
> From: list email filter
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
l
There are different standards (e. g. STANAG 4539) achieving 9600
bit/sec within 3 kHz of BW at an SNR of only 21 dB. That is today.
The ITU is adopting further standards on HF which will exceed this
with similar bandwidths. I don't believe anyone expects to experiment
with or achieve a bandwidt
Michael,
Thank you for the elucidation. I am certainly no expert in all this!
Not uneducated, but not expert and easy to get confused between baud
and bit rate when trying to explain it.
Your consise explanation is appreciated.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Keane K1M
Goes
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
Arthur J.
Lekstutis
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 8:25
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
propos
Keep in mind there is no regulatory baud rate limit for digital voice or
digital SSTV. Any emission designators with a second symbol of 1 or 2, and
a third symbol of E or C are considered Phone/Image respectively. There
are no baud limits for these emissions. The baud limits are for emission
At 09:33 AM 2/4/06, jgorman01 wrote:
>1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our
>regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations.
>Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF
>modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or h
Hi,
I've been an engineer for a long time, but I'm new to ham radio. Where
exactly is this limitation defined by the FCC in the US? What document
(and maybe section) defines the limitation of 300 baud regardless of the
bandwidth?
Also: are you saying that the FCC allows us to transmit multiple
1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our
regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations.
Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF
modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or higher. They all use
multiple tone modem
03, 2006 4:56
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in
the U.S.For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first.
If it ever proved to be successful on VHF/
roups.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL
proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Gentlemen,Like many of the members of this forum, I've
been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to
(perhaps
To fully understand this whole bandwidth thing one
must first understand that there is those that hate
the wider modes, RTTY, Packet, Amtor and even
more Pactor and will do * anything * to harm them
to the point that they fail dry up and blow away in
the wind.
Last year there was some very bad
Rick,
I thought maybe I was just talking to the moon. Thank you for your
very pertinent and rational reasoning.
I have already pointed out that there are too many cheerleaders that
don't have a clue. The danger is that if you keeping repeating a
falsehood people come to believe it.
Jim
WA0LY
Yes!
Finally a voice of reason that understands what I've been trying to
say. There is no reason you can't take one of the current crop of HF
transcievers that also include 2m and experiment to your hearts
content on something that will work at HF also.
The ridiculous assertion about FCC regulat
There is nothing holding back such experimentation here in the U.S.
For one thing, you don't even need to test this on HF first. If it ever
proved to be successful on VHF/UHF in a narrow bandwidth format, then it
could be adopted for HF use as well.
Just wishing something technical to happen or
Gentlemen,
Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to (perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental point of
003 San Diego Fires,
911"
- Original Message -
From:
jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 6:53
AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
Oh boy, oh boy.Your the one that indicated
multipl
g., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
> Website: www.ky6la.com
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
> ----- Original Message -
> From: jgorman01
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thurs
jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:39
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal
removes baud rate limitations on HF
I am
assuming your comments were meant to be applicable to the HFbands since
there is nothing to stop hams
I am assuming your comments were meant to be applicable to the HF
bands since there is nothing to stop hams from doing it on the higher
UHF bands.
For educational purposes, would you share with the group the RF
bandwidths used for the "shared channels" you are talking about and
how many conversa
At 2400 baud, how much RF bandwidth would be required Chip64?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Nino Porcino \(IZ8BLY\)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick KV9U wrote:
>
> > Although you could theoretically go to much higher baud rates, [...]
> > would it be practical to do so?
>
79 matches
Mail list logo
