| |
VE2HAR > MT63 11.03.05 00:04l 209 Lines 7220 Bytes #-7495 (0) @ WW
BID : 42001SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: [MT63] Re: 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<ON0AR<VA2HAR<VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/2146z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41118 $:42001sentto
Brian:
Hmmm.... well, that didn't last long. Appears you are reading my e-
mails again.
In any case, Brian, if you can't see the value of either highly
robust digitial modes on HF and/or higher speeds, I'm not going to be
able to convince you otherwise.
Also, for the record, I am not an advocate of the 20khz bandwidth by
regulation. I don't think there should be >ANY< regulation on
bandwidth, other then good amateur practice! Let hams self regulate
HF with bandplans, as they do so well on VHF, but for god sake, keep
the goverment out of it!! The role of goverment here should be to
say, "here hams, here are the HF bands, do what you think is best
with it". Right now, effectively, in the U.S. we have no hard HF
bandwidth limits (the "through the mike loophole") yet I don't see
the sky falling. 8khz digital bandwidths are legal in Finland, and
I'm not aware of a problem there.
BTW, I don't think it is any coincedence that most of the innovative
digital modes have come from Europe, where the amateurs (apparently)
recoginize the value of experimentation... it is only the U.S. and
the ARRL that are so wrapped up in emergency communications.
And the point I want to make the clearest, is I do respect your right
to enjoy your CW QSO. If I am running a wide digital mode, it is >my<
legal responsbility to make my best effort to make sure I do not
interfere with you, as it is your responsbility to do the same. The
fact I can run 3khz, 8khz, 20khz or 500khz wide signal on HF, does
not relieve me from my other responsibilities.
Looking at your posts on the list, I think your beef is with
automated WinLink stations. That is something I can totally
understand, and believe it or not, I agree with you. But your
confusing technology with personal responsibility. I just as easily
could hose your CW QSO with my automated PSK31 stations as my
automated Winlink station. WinLink, and the lack of a proper channel
activity sense in Pactor 3 modems, is the causation of the problem,
yet that does not absolve the individial from the responsibility.
73
Jeff King wb8wka
--- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Carling" <bcarling@c...> wrote:
> Mostly bad reasoning but let's try this again...
>
> I note that it was Walt, and not you to whom I addressed my
> questions. But that's OK - have a shot!
>
> On 10 Mar 2005 at 5:07, wb8wka wrote:
>
> > Brian
> > I'll address some of your specific questions. My
> > response to that message, which didn't make it to this list, you
do
> > with it as you will.
> >
> > --- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Carling" <bcarling@c...>
wrote: >
> > OK fascinating Walt, but do explain to me WHY it is that we need
> to
> > send so much high speed data on HF?
> >
> > Just like your income, more is better, which is not to say, you
> > shouldn't economize. Are you still happy with your 2400 bps phone
> > modem? Believe it or not (and I am dating myself here) my amateur
> > radio connection to the internet, was faster then my phone dialup
at
> > one point. Amateur radio CAN be that shining star on that hill,
if we
> > just let it. Yes, it is a quaint old hobby for old men, it always
will
> > be, but it can push the limits. We just have to let it. We can
have
> > our cake and eat it too.
>
> You have NOT answered the question.
> You have not even said WHAT IT IS you want to send at 56 KBPS
> over HF.
>
> Going on and on about cake and dollars is only symbolic.WHAT do
> you want to send so fast? Since you couldn't answer then I guess
> you have no idea.
>
> > > Wouldn't VHF and satellites do a lot better without ruining
things
> > for
> > > the regular CW and phone operators who need their space?
> >
> > Or we could all get on the internet, and that way the SWL's would
have
> > a nice quiet band. The point is to utilize the bands, to gain
> > experince with them, to advance the state of the art, and
ultimately
> > to have a useful service in times of need.
>
> In times of need? WHY is 20 kHz so "useful" - so you can send
> pictures and audio in times of emergency?
>
> > > By the way the MT63 signals are 1 kHz wide.
>
> > Last time I looked, they also had a 500hz and 2khz mode.
>
> YOUR statement was that MT63 is 2 kHz wide, period.
> OK then please tell us the callsign of even ONE station
> that you can spot today using 2 kHz width on the air with
> MT63 at 2 kHz - you will not be able to.
>
> > > We don't need to keep making wider and wider digital signals
> > > and if the digital audio needs to be 20 kHz wide, what is the
point?
>
> > Mostly for coding gain. That is why when the Pactor PBBS fires up
on
> > 14.109.5, I often could continue to copy MT63 signals even though
the
> > pactor 3 station was much stronger.
>
> Try it when the Pactor robot is 40 dB over S-9 - happens in a lot
of
> areas.
>
> > Also, as you earlier alluded to,
> > it is not a all or nothing arrangement. With TDMA, multiple
stations
> > can share the same channel, and with different chip codes (wider
modes
> > begin to look like spread spectrum) users can actually
simulatanously
> > share the channel (CDMA overlay).
>
> You are not proving anything by touting these acronyms.
> WINLINK looks NOTHING like spread spectrum.
>
> > > Why do hams need to transmit multiple channels of audio all at
once?
> > > For an English and Spanish simulcast? :- )
>
> > And what good is a baby? Point being, we are in a world that is
in a
> > digital convergence, and amateur radio should follow suite.
>
> Suit.
>
> > I can't
> > say there wouldn't be conflict (there sure is now with the P3
> > stations) but the proper means to address it is not to throw the
baby
> > out, but teach the baby how to properly co-exist. We will all be
> > better off for it.
>
> Fine - fine. Just don't dump a 20 kHz signal in our HF bands and
> screw them up worse.
>
> > I don't see the problem with the proposal, and am really suprised
it
> > is getting the negative play on the MT63 reflector.
>
> Maybe you will figure out whey eventually.
> Some of us still like to play on CW, SSB and AM as well as
> digital and most of us feel like we don't need no stinkin' 20 kHz
> digital lawn mower coming down the pike!
>
> The WINLINK disaster has been a learning experience for all of us.
>
> If you can convince me that we need HF bands full of 20 kHz digital
> signals maybe I will come around.
> For now, how about putting them all above 29.5 MHz?
>
> de AF4K, Brian
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Over 1 billion served! The most music videos on the web.
Click to Watch now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xmKGzA/IARHAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
<< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
- The MT63 Reflector -
MT63@egroups.com
(To unsubscribe. send email to
MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MT63/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
