| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:25l 202 Lines 7533 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_72D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/72D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0FSG<IN3TRX<OE7XBB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SIF<
DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<
PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/1016Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55989 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31388 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 10:05:38 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018361 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:32:46 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:26:21 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_72D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/72D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> with ssb and cw including all the Extra setasides plus 2m FM plus I've
> done plenty of 2m packet plus I've glomed "thingeys" like 300 or so
> dxcc countries confirmed phone/cw plus WAZ plus a CP35 certificate
> plus a very early 5BDXCC and and ummm . . actually who could possibly
> give a rat's ass what you "think". As if.
Oooooh! You ARE a real Ham! And you are All about HF. You used 2M
packet for the DX Cluster. Oooooh!
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:26:28 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:49:59 -0600, Brian <burke1@icss.net> wrote:
>
>
>Oooooh! You ARE a real Ham! And you are All about HF. You used 2M
>packet for the DX Cluster. Oooooh!
>
Brian 'ole bean I got into ham radio to work dx and later I discovered
HF contesting. You don't do those above 30Mhz except for a bit of
dxing on 6m. That's the way it was all those years ago and ham radio
hasn't changed a bit for me. I have no interest at all in VHF/UHF ops
beyond the utilities it provides for neighborhood comms like the
machines and packet. I don't knock the hi-freq guys with their
soldering irons and computers at all, it's just not my thing and I
think I'm allowed to have my preferences, yes?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:25:48 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:51:27 -0800, Mark VandeWettering
<markv@pixar.com> wrote:
>
>You know Brian, you could at least follow the link and actually READ the
>article.
>
I posted before the link was published which I then read from top to
bottom.
>
>when operating near it's limits, but overall the quality was pretty good.
Obviously
>on HF the noise environment is rather severe, so it remains to be seen how
truly
>practical this works out to be, but it is interesting work.
>
I'm not out here pounding anything digital just because it's digital.
There have been a lot of posts supporting wide bandwith modes on HF
and I'm very strongly opposed to those based on the obvious potential
for qrm to users of other modes.
>
If this guy has something going which might prove worthwhile and which
won't louse up the band for others I think it should go on the air and
get a fair shot at debugging it and competing in the real world.
>
>73, Mark, KF6KYI
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:57:15 -0500
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:01:46 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>> This is irrelevant to the current issue anyway, because we aren't talking
>> about a data emission, we're talking about a phone emission. It may,
>> however, be a source of confusion at the ARRL.
>
>Perhaps they are concerned about the requirement that complete technical
>details be made available to the public and the FCC. Does the FCC have
>to be able to monitor an HF mode before they will allow it to be used?
There's nothing in Part 97 requiring that for a voice emission. But the
method is publicly documented, same as with PSK31, Clover, or PACTOR II,
so the point is actually moot. If the FCC will allow one, then logically it
must
allow the other.
I'd add as a sidebar that the HF RTTY/data regulations actually forbid in
clear
plain English the use of things like PSK31 , because it doesn't use one of the
3 permissible telegraphic alphabets. But the ARRL was able to wrangle a
convoluted opinion out of the FCC to allow it anyway. [1]
Another case, the Hellschreiber modes are a form of FAX, which belongs in the
phone/image segments according to the rules, but the ARRL has again somehow
twisted interpretation of the regulations to push those modes into the
RTTY/data
segments. [2]
It seems that when the ARRL *wants* something to be legal, they have no
trouble getting it declared legal, even in the face of plain English wording
of
the regulations which forbid it. But if they don't want something to be legal,
for example the Kenwood Sky Command system, they'll do their best to twist
the regulations to prevent it.
I'm suspicious that the ARRL is acting with ulterior motives with respect to
digital voice on HF. I'm suspicious that they don't want it mixing in with
their
SSB Dxer constituency, and are trying to twist the rules to prevent it, or at
least to make it as difficult as possible by claiming a STA would be required
to use it. I hope I'm wrong about that. I hope it is a simple misreading of
the
rules on the part of someone at the ARRL (certainly not Jon Bloom). But
I'm dubious.
Gary
[1] Note I'm a proponent of PSK31, but I think that the ARRL should have
petitioned to have 97.307(f)(3) stricken to permit PSK31 and similar modes
rather than attempting to use a dubious line of reasoning to circumvent the
plain clear English wording of the regulation.
[2] I don't disagree that this is where the Hell modes belong, but again it
flies in the face of clearly stated regulations. If the ARRL wants to alter
the way HF bands are divided up, I'm all for it. What we have now is certainly
a mess. But I'm not for this sort of devious back door twisting of existing
regulations.
If we want a new sort of formal legal band plan, we need to hammer it out in
public, and publicly petition to have it cast into the form of regulation.
Personally
I favor regulation of the form which says, "These are the band edges, stay
inside
of them, and have a nice day." instead of the by mode and by class
balkanization
we currently have. I don't think such micro management is good policy.
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:28:10 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:53:25 -0600, Brian <burke1@icss.net> wrote:
>> >
>
>Hordes of QEX reading CBers invading Amateur Radio? Oh, how awful!
>
If they're anything like this Samson clod you can bet I won't be
anywhere near them. As in pray hard for ham radio and God bless
bandswitches.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:11:37 -0600
From: Brian <burke1@icss.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:49:59 -0600, Brian <burke1@icss.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Oooooh! You ARE a real Ham! And you are All about HF. You used 2M
> >packet for the DX Cluster. Oooooh!
>
> Brian 'ole bean I got into ham radio to work dx and later I discovered
> HF contesting. You don't do those above 30Mhz except for a bit of
> dxing on 6m. That's the way it was all those years ago and ham radio
> hasn't changed a bit for me. I have no interest at all in VHF/UHF ops
> beyond the utilities it provides for neighborhood comms like the
> machines and packet. I don't knock the hi-freq guys with their
> soldering irons and computers at all, it's just not my thing and I
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_72E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
