| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 17.03.00 20:30l 207 Lines 6975 Bytes #-9544 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_74C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/74C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0FSG<IN3TRX<OE7XBB<OE2XUM<OE2XOM<OE5XBL<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<
OK0POK<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000317/1603Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:57699 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31556 ; Fri, 17 Mar 00 15:19:15 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018399 ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:11:31 MET
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 00 18:07:29 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_74C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/74C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Running data in the phone bands is illegal. Data transmissions are
limited to the data band segments of our HF bands. But digital voice
is not a data transmission. It is a phone transmission permitted under
97.3, and thus is subject to the phone band segment regulations, not
the data band segment regulations.
Gary
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 15:44:02 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"Brian Kelly" wrote
> If they're anything like this Samson clod you can bet I won't be
> anywhere near them.
Not to worry, I don't own any "CQ Contest!" and "You're 59"
button robots... And, I don't attend Confederate flag raising
events. Our paths will never cross.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:52:44 GMT
From: n2ey@aol.com
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
In article <scnjcs83a5n151@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
> > I don't have the time or inclination to tinker just for the sake of
tinkering,
> > I don't have much respect for aimless techo diddling, For better or
worse
> > that's a pretty typical engineer's values.
>
> If you don't have enough time to tinker, fine, you and the majority
of most
> Hams are operators, and want to know as much about your radio as you
> do about your microwave oven.
What about those of us who are both builders and operators? Who use
homebrewed gear on the air all the time, for serious operating?
>But it's the experimenters who are
> producing your appliance.
Nah. Most of them are designed and produced by Japanese professionals.
There are exceptions like Ten Tec and Elecraft, but look in most US
hams' shacks and you see lots of Yaecomwood stuff.
The average modern day radio amateur does not want to, or simply
cannot, invest the time, effort or resources needed to design and build
radio gear from scratch. There are some of us who do build our
stations, but we are the exception, not the rule. From what I've seen,
the most popular HF construction projects are QRP CW transceivers.
Look at most of the digital experimentation, and it's NOT about
building radios. Rather, it's about building devices to hook onto a
manufactured rig in order to use a new mode. That's why amateur packet
is stuck at such low data rates - you need a purpose-built dataradio to
go significantly faster than 9600. That's why Pactor and PSK31 are hits
- because you can hook a box to the audio lines of a conventional rig
and make it warble. Ingenious, yes, but also performance- and
creativity-limiting.
What rigs do YOU use, Steve? ;-)
> Do you think the DSP gadgets in your shiny
> new rig were designed by Japanese engineers?
Well, I don't have any of those JA rigs, but yes, that's where most of
them come from. You think dropping the code tests is going to change
that one iota?
> No, they were designed
> by Hams, and then incorporated, after being tested by many Hams who
> do like to experiment, and are excellent beta testers.
The manufacturers saw some hams using audio DSP, figgered it was a new
thing to put in their rigs, and did so. As it has been since spark days.
But most of the current DSP rigs use IF DSP. How many hams built rigs
with IF DSP before the JAs started doing it?
>
> > Nor do I have a problem with HF digital tinkering vs. serious
> > development work as long as it doesn't screw up the band.
>
> That's pretty much the ARRL attitude: status quo, autopilot on, damn
the
> icebergs.
Not by their actions. If they think that way, WHY publish the digital
voice article in QEX? WHY publish QEX at all?
> The iceberg in this case is the WARC.
Umm, Steve, they call them "WRC" now. Last WARC that affected hams
seriously was 21 years ago.
> Americans are sitting
> on their hands as the "new world order" is about to take the Monroe
> Doctrine and shove it up your ass.
How? The most credible threat to the amateur spectrum status quo is
loss of VHF/UHF to other services who are overcrowded. There are other
threats, of course. How will digital voice on amateur HF make any
difference to any of them?
73 de Jim, N2EY
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:00:03 +0000
From: h.moss@cableinet.co.uk
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
I was always lead to believe that the basic idea behind all the ham
radio frequencies/bands was FOR experimentation, ax25 BBS's, contests
etc are bi-products are they not ?
WiffyPip
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:11:13 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Gary Coffman wrote:
> Running data in the phone bands is illegal. Data transmissions are
> limited to the data band segments of our HF bands. But digital voice
> is not a data transmission. It is a phone transmission permitted under
> 97.3, and thus is subject to the phone band segment regulations, not
> the data band segment regulations.
Wonder what the FCC will do when hams want to use a multi-function
mode that supports both voice and data? - like commercial GSM does.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:22:39 -0800
From: Mark VandeWettering <markv@pixar.com>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Gary Coffman wrote:
> Nobody ever said that the FCC regulations make sense.
Agreed.
> Though in a way
> they do. The intent of the baud limitation for HF data transmissions is to
> keep the occupied bandwidth small in order to be compatible with the other
> users of those band segments (mostly CW operators). But that rationale
> doesn't apply to phone transmissions. They're wide anyway. The FCC
> has sensibly crafted 97.307(f)(1) to say that any phone emission must
> not occupy a greater spectrum than A3A (6 kHz). Mention of baud in
> that context would be irrelevant.
>
> Besides, no one would really want to use a baud above about 50 on HF.
> Otherwise skywave multipath kills you. That's why the high rate systems
> operated on HF use multiple low baud carriers.
>
> Running data in the phone bands is illegal. Data transmissions are
> limited to the data band segments of our HF bands. But digital voice
> is not a data transmission. It is a phone transmission permitted under
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_74D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
