| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.03.00 18:19l 187 Lines 6566 Bytes #-9543 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_76B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/76B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<OK0PHL<OK0PBB<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000318/1327Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:57869 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31589 ; Sat, 18 Mar 00 11:45:34 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018414 ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:12:19 MET
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 00 18:07:54 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_76B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/76B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>> 97.3, and thus is subject to the phone band segment regulations, not
>> the data band segment regulations.
>
>The distinction between phone and data in digital phone is completely
>arbitrary however. You could be passing voice on that data channel, or
>just as easily could be passing (say) control information, or even
transferring
>data messages. It matters not at all to the modem. The occupied bandwidth,
power
>etc... are all identical in both cases. It seems nonsensical to make any
>distinction in legality in this case.
But the FCC does. They classify modes by what sort of information they
carry as well as by how it is carried. They are only following standard ITU
practice when they do this, of course, but the micromanagement by band
segment is totally their own idea, and one that I find a bit dumb with today's
technologies.
>What does this have to say about the legality of MT63, a wide (1khz or 2khz)
data
>mode? It uses the phone band for data communications, at a fairly wide swath
of spectrum
>space. Just curious...
Under current rules, MT63 is illegal on our data segments and illegal on our
phone
segments of HF. The only place we can use it legally is above 50 MHz, where it
isn't
needed. Dumb.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
>.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:47:54 GMT
From: z005381b@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly (kelly@dvol.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:09:38 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
: Cecil fer chrissake get off it willya? How many times do I have to
: post that I fully intend to run PSK31
Hmmmmm, sounds like those guys that say/said, " I intend to [learn] CW". :)
But they were called (put down names) ;(
: I don't have a problem with any of it wrt to modes, the problem is the
: bucketmouth content, no clue wrt to what HF ham radio is all about via
: any mode. Few if any of these goobers have ever operated on HF. They
: were hatched on and essentially raised on channelized vhf/uhf and they
: seem to figger that's gonna cut it on HF. Heeee! As if they know what
: HF QRM, QRN, propagation and QSB is and how those impact modes.
How did -you- figure out what to do when you first got on HF? I have an
idea that they will -also- figure it out. :) 6m has all the same QRM (well
maybe not the QRM, since most "real VHF 6m" operators [used to] be a
little friendlier), QRN, etc that the higher HF bands have, (and even more
sometimes) so give those VHF guys some credit. They'll figure out that QSB
on 15 has sort of the same result as on 6m.
: w3rv
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
>.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Mar 2000 15:54:07 -0800
From: brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
>"Brian Kelly" wrote
>> And don't even think about anybody giving up space just so that the
>> few who are into hi-fi digital 20m phone can glom excessive bandwidth
>> for their own amusement.
Did you know that you nearly can telephone every country in the world for
less money than it would cost to set up a DX-contest grade ham station?
How many DXpeditions carry INMARSAT or GlobalStar phones with them for
when they seriously need to communicate?
With the possible exception of 20 meters, the argument can be made
that we don't use enough of our ham bands to justify keeping them.
High-bandwidth NEEDS are one of the few ways we can justify all the
spectrum we have.
Making an emission so narrow that lots of them fit in a little space
is an extremely good way of ensuring that soon all we will have is a
little space.
I think we should experiment with bandwidth-sucking high-speed data
radio, digital voice radio, spread spectrum, complex modulations,
multicarrier, images, video, file sharing, all kinds of stuff.
Look forward, not back. Jet cars, not buggywhips.
- Brian
>.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Mar 2000 14:26:28 GMT
From: Brian Mullaney <mullaneb@tecoma.mccc.edu>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com> wrote:
> 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
Can't do DX above 30mhz? I guess you have never heard of EME.
Brian
>.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Mar 2000 16:01:08 -0800
From: brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>Does the FCC have
>to be able to monitor an HF mode before they will allow it to be used?
I suspect they'd like to, but then, they can always ask the NSA to do
it for them. They're the government's signal intercepts experts.
It is my belief that a lot of that 'monitorability' is a leftover from
wartime, when (obviously) anyone who owned a radio transmitter could
easily be passing secrets to the enemy. Complex technical specifications,
in Morse code. And monkeys will fly out of...
- Brian
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:31:11 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:39:21 -0600, Brian <burke1@icss.net> wrote:
>
>Wow, what an open mind you have. Seems you cleaned off your glasses just a
little.They'll
>probably know about as much HF as you did when you 1st got started.
>
I got "started on HF" long before I got a ham ticket and I've been
doing VHF with a license for around 35 years, the VHF side starting
with regen rcvrs and AM phone. It ain't like I never been on the high
bands but these Techs-to-Become Generals ain't done the HF/VHF whole
nine yards thus comes some jaundice.
>
>As far as when they
>"beep" you, perhaps they'll try beeping you 40 years after they have a
license, much like
>you will try digital 40 years after you were licensed.
>
I didn't have much of an option 40 years ago did I? I diddled 2m
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_76C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
