Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

Expand Messages
  • Charles Brabham
    The reason we have those restrictions known as the autoforwarding sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all over our shared
    Message 1 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise exist.
       
      The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a good reason to abandon reason.
       
      The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet, something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again, widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high speed.
       
      Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true today, more than ever.
       
      Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs have a problem understanding these issues.
       
      Thus endeth the lesson.
       

      73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
       
      Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
      Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

       

      All,

      Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and Packet.  I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.

      Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules…the auto forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980’s and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of restrictions.

      Rick KN6KB


      From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of abertheaume
      Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
      To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
      Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

       

      Just a heads up for USA stations..
      If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
      73
      Art, N9ZZK

      --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, kt4wo67@... wrote:
      >
      > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
      > use for Winmor and BPQ????
      >
      > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
      > So I can leave it running unattended.
      >
      > Whats the word guys..?
      >
      > Trip - KT4WO
      > kt4wo67@...
      >

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

    • K.O. Higgs
      Very well said, Charles.. thank you. K.O. N0KFQ On 2/18/2010 9:23 AM, Charles Brabham wrote: The reason we have those restrictions known as the
      Message 2 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Very well said, Charles.. thank you.

        K.O. N0KFQ

        On 2/18/2010 9:23 AM, Charles Brabham wrote:
         

        The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise exist.
         
        The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a good reason to abandon reason.
         
        The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet, something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again, widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high speed.
         
        Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true today, more than ever.
         
        Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs have a problem understanding these issues.
         
        Thus endeth the lesson.
         

        73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
         
        Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
        Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

         

        All,

        Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and Packet.  I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.

        Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules…the auto forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980’s and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of restrictions.

        Rick KN6KB


        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of abertheaume
        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
        Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

         

        Just a heads up for USA stations..
        If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
        73
        Art, N9ZZK

        --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, kt4wo67@... wrote:
        >
        > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
        > use for Winmor and BPQ????
        >
        > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
        > So I can leave it running unattended.
        >
        > Whats the word guys..?
        >
        > Trip - KT4WO
        > kt4wo67@...
        >

        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00


        -- 
        
        K.O. Higgs 
        n0kfq@...
        
        
      • Rick Muething
        Charles, Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980 s was relaying
        Message 3 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment

          Charles,

           

          Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980’s was relaying messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF packet’s effective RF “footprint” (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia etc.

           

          The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g. Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems) which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other countries and services.

           

          Rick KN6KB

           

           


          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

           

           

          The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise exist.

           

          The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a good reason to abandon reason.

           

          The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet, something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again, widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high speed.

           

          Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true today, more than ever.

           

          Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs have a problem understanding these issues.

           

          Thus endeth the lesson.

           


          73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

           

          Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

           

           

          ----- Original Message -----

          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM

          Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

           

           

          All,

          Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and Packet.  I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.

          Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules…the auto forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980’s and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of restrictions.

          Rick KN6KB


          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of abertheaume
          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
          Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

           

          Just a heads up for USA stations..
          If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
          73
          Art, N9ZZK

          --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, kt4wo67@... wrote:
          >
          > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
          > use for Winmor and BPQ????
          >
          > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
          > So I can leave it running unattended.
          >
          > Whats the word guys..?
          >
          > Trip - KT4WO
          > kt4wo67@...
          >

          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

        • Sergej
          Hello, Charles. ... Of cource, automatic sub-band should be present, to separate auto stations and man-operated. ... Charles, I think you re as old operator of
          Message 4 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello, Charles.
            > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
            > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked
            > all over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
            > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise exist.

            Of cource, automatic sub-band should be present, to separate auto
            stations and man-operated.


            > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
            > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum
            > in a rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the
            > internet, something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur
            > radio.

            Charles, I think you're as old operator of HF packet should understand that
            simultaneously two AX.25 300 baud stations in the same SSB channel (2,4...
            2,7kHz) is difficult to place them. So why not give bandwidth of one
            SSB channel to a fast digital signal and get maximum possible speed,
            and thereby get faster access to information?


            > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and
            > who have no regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs
            > have a problem understanding these issues.

            Not see any bad in HF e-mail, if it used by true ham operator.

            Very bad that until now we had not any BBS program that allow of radio
            e-mail + traditional bbs bulls and bbs p-mails "in same package"!

            Now with helps of BPQ-BBS and pactor/packet/winmor its a way
            to solve that problem...


            73, Sergej
            uz2hz
          • WA4ZKO
            I think as long as the users connecting to you are attended I don t think you have to be in the automatic sub-bands. If both ends are fully automatic (no one
            Message 5 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I think as long as the users connecting to you are "attended" I don't think you have to be in the automatic sub-bands. If both ends are fully automatic (no one around) then you have to use the automatic sub bands.

              I could be wrong...kind of new to the HF digital world.

              I used 10.149 LSB (dial) for some packet/pactor tests a couple months ago. Seemed to be a fairly sane spot on the dial between the HF APRS folks at 10.151 LSB (dial) and the packet forwarding network down on 10.1467 LSB (dial). Good 30m test freq or not?

              Doubt you can find a consistently clear spot on 80m/40m anymore. On RTTY contest weekends you can pretty much kiss both bands goodbye ;-)

              73
              Jeff
              WA4ZKO

              --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, kt4wo67@... wrote:
              >
              > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
              > use for Winmor and BPQ????
              >
              > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
              > So I can leave it running unattended.
              >
              > Whats the word guys..?
              >
              > Trip - KT4WO
              > kt4wo67@...
              >
            • WA4ZKO
              Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved gentlemen s agreement on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access
              Message 6 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                Just a thought..or two.


                73
                Jeff
                WA4ZKO



                --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Muething" <rmuething@...> wrote:
                >
                > Charles,
                >
                >
                >
                > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                > etc.
                >
                >
                >
                > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                > countries and services.
                >
                >
                >
                > Rick KN6KB
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > _____
                >
                > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                > Charles Brabham
                > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                > exist.
                >
                >
                >
                > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                > good reason to abandon reason.
                >
                >
                >
                > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                > speed.
                >
                >
                >
                > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                > today, more than ever.
                >
                >
                >
                > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                > regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                > understanding these issues.
                >
                >
                >
                > Thus endeth the lesson.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                >
                >
                >
                > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                > HamRadioNet.Org !
                >
                >
                >
                > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradionet.org> net.org
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                >
                > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@...>
                >
                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com> com
                >
                > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                >
                > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > All,
                >
                > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                > forward sub bands in the US. These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                >
                > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                > restrictions.
                >
                > Rick KN6KB
                >
                >
                >
                > _____
                >
                >
                > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                > abertheaume
                > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                >
                >
                >
                > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor.cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                > 73
                > Art, N9ZZK
                >
                > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com, kt4wo67@
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                > >
                > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                > >
                > > Whats the word guys..?
                > >
                > > Trip - KT4WO
                > > kt4wo67@
                > >
                >
                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                > 02:34:00
                >
                >
                >
                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                > 02:34:00
                >
              • Jim WU3V
                Makes sense maybe at Hamcom or Dayton? Jim ... From: WA4ZKO To: Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 18:14 Subject:
                Message 7 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Makes sense maybe at Hamcom or Dayton?

                  Jim
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "WA4ZKO" <wa4zko@...>
                  To: <BPQ32@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 18:14
                  Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters


                  > Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an
                  > improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we
                  > have access to.
                  >
                  > These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good
                  > so far...from what I see.
                  >
                  > Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital
                  > modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?
                  >
                  > Just a thought..or two.
                  >
                  >
                  > 73
                  > Jeff
                  > WA4ZKO
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Muething" <rmuething@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> Charles,
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                  >> placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                  >> messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                  >> least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                  >> packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                  >> considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                  >> etc.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                  >> Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                  >> use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing
                  >> modems)
                  >> which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                  >> countries and services.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Rick KN6KB
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> _____
                  >>
                  >> From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  >> Charles Brabham
                  >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                  >> To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                  >> Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                  >> sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                  >> over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                  >> eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                  >> exist.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other
                  >> countries
                  >> with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not
                  >> a
                  >> good reason to abandon reason.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                  >> operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                  >> rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                  >> something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                  >> widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                  >> unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                  >> individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that
                  >> they
                  >> can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                  >> speed.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold
                  >> true
                  >> today, more than ever.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have
                  >> no
                  >> regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                  >> understanding these issues.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Thus endeth the lesson.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                  >> HamRadioNet.Org !
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradionet.org> net.org
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> ----- Original Message -----
                  >>
                  >> From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@...>
                  >>
                  >> To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com> com
                  >>
                  >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                  >>
                  >> Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> All,
                  >>
                  >> Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                  >> forward sub bands in the US. These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                  >> Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                  >> the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                  >>
                  >> Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the
                  >> auto
                  >> forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the
                  >> 1980's
                  >> and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                  >> restrictions.
                  >>
                  >> Rick KN6KB
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> _____
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  >> abertheaume
                  >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                  >> To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                  >> Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Just a heads up for USA stations..
                  >> If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing
                  >> the
                  >> default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor.cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                  >> 73
                  >> Art, N9ZZK
                  >>
                  >> --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com, kt4wo67@
                  >> wrote:
                  >> >
                  >> > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                  >> > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                  >> >
                  >> > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                  >> > So I can leave it running unattended.
                  >> >
                  >> > Whats the word guys..?
                  >> >
                  >> > Trip - KT4WO
                  >> > kt4wo67@
                  >> >
                  >>
                  >> No virus found in this incoming message.
                  >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  >> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                  >> 02:34:00
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> No virus found in this incoming message.
                  >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  >> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                  >> 02:34:00
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Bill V WA7NWP
                  ... My stock proposal... I believe the attended paradigm is flawed to start with -- since the assumption is that the attended user will be able to listen to
                  Message 8 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I think as long as the users connecting to you are "attended"

                    My stock proposal...

                    I believe the "attended" paradigm is flawed to start with -- since the
                    assumption is that the attended user will be able to listen to what
                    the unattended station hears.

                    I believe we should rather differentiate between the human manual
                    users that generate little data and the sometimes aggressive yet
                    totally patient when it comes to retries computer systems that are big
                    data generators.

                    I believe we should double (at least) the computer segments (was
                    unattended segments) and then move all the computers out of the human
                    segments... Voice ops have gained considerable bandwidth over the
                    past few years so it wouldn't be a big loss to lose 10 or 20 KHz.

                    While we're at it, let's open up the bandwidth of signals in the
                    computer segments to be limited to the entire segment... I believe
                    the professors in the group would be able to argue that wide-weak-fast
                    data is more efficient in bytes per KHz per time then the current
                    narrow-slow systems we currently use.

                    73,
                    Bill - WA7NWP
                  • Rick Muething
                    Jeff, Yes of course we can and should do better. One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of modes from the regulations. For example our current out
                    Message 9 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Jeff,

                       

                      Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                       

                      One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                       

                      A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                       

                      Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                       

                      My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                       

                      Rick KN6KB

                       


                      From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                      Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                      To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                       

                       

                      Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                      These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                      Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                      Just a thought..or two.

                      73
                      Jeff
                      WA4ZKO

                      --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:

                      >
                      > Charles,
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                      > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                      > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                      > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                      > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of
                      bandwidth) is
                      > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                      > etc.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                      > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                      > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing
                      modems)
                      > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                      > countries and services.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Rick KN6KB
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                      > Charles Brabham
                      > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                      > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the
                      autoforwarding
                      > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                      > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                      > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                      > exist.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The USA
                      leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                      > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not
                      a
                      > good reason to abandon reason.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                      > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                      > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the
                      internet,
                      > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                      > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                      > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                      > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that
                      they
                      > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                      > speed.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                      > today, more than ever.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with
                      "progress" and who have no
                      > regard or respect for PART97 and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                      > understanding these issues.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thus endeth the lesson.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                      > HamRadioNet. Org !
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > http://www.hamradio <
                      href="http://www.hamradionet.org">http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      >
                      > From: Rick Muething
                      <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                      >
                      > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com>
                      com
                      >
                      > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                      >
                      > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > All,
                      >
                      > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                      > forward sub bands in the US .
                      These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                      > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the
                      w:st="on"> US try and use only
                      > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                      >
                      > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                      > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                      > and the US
                      is one of the few countries which has those types of
                      > restrictions.
                      >
                      > Rick KN6KB
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      >
                      > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                      > abertheaume
                      > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                      > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                      > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Just a heads up for USA
                      stations..
                      > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing
                      the
                      > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                      > 73
                      > Art, N9ZZK
                      >
                      > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com>
                      com, kt4wo67@
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                      > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                      > >
                      > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                      > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                      > >
                      > > Whats the word guys..?
                      > >
                      > > Trip - KT4WO
                      > > kt4wo67@
                      > >
                      >
                      > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                      > 02:34:00
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                      > 02:34:00
                      >

                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                    • Charles Brabham
                      Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as those protecting pet modes , those
                      Message 10 of 24 , Feb 18, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...
                         
                        Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.
                         
                        Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.
                         
                        I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?
                         

                        73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                         
                        Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM
                        Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                         

                        Jeff,

                        Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                        One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                        A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                        Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                        My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                        Rick KN6KB


                        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                         

                        Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                        These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                        Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                        Just a thought..or two.

                        73
                        Jeff
                        WA4ZKO

                        --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                        >
                        > Charles,
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                        > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                        > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                        > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                        > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                        > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                        > etc.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                        > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                        > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                        > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                        > countries and services.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Rick KN6KB
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > _____
                        >
                        > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                        > Charles Brabham
                        > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                        > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                        > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                        > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                        > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                        > exist.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                        > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                        > good reason to abandon reason.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                        > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                        > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                        > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                        > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                        > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                        > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                        > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                        > speed.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                        > today, more than ever.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                        > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                        > understanding these issues.for PART97
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Thus endeth the lesson.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                        > HamRadioNet. Org !
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        >
                        > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                        >
                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                        >
                        > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                        >
                        > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > All,
                        >
                        > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                        > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                        > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                        > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                        >
                        > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                        > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                        > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                        > restrictions.
                        >
                        > Rick KN6KB
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > _____
                        >
                        >
                        > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                        > abertheaume
                        > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                        > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                        > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                        > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                        > 73
                        > Art, N9ZZK
                        >
                        > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                        > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                        > >
                        > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                        > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                        > >
                        > > Whats the word guys..?
                        > >
                        > > Trip - KT4WO
                        > > kt4wo67@
                        > >
                        >
                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                        > 02:34:00
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                        > 02:34:00
                        >

                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                      • Rick Muething
                        Sorry Charles, I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you? Rick KN6KB _____ From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                        Message 11 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Sorry Charles,

                           

                          I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you?

                           

                          Rick KN6KB

                           

                           


                          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
                          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                           

                           

                          Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...

                           

                          Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.

                           

                          Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.

                           

                          I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?

                           


                          73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

                           

                          Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

                           

                           

                          ----- Original Message -----

                          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM

                          Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                           

                           

                          Jeff,

                          Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                          One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                          A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                          Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                          My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                          Rick KN6KB


                          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                          Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                           

                          Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                          These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                          Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                          Just a thought..or two.

                          73
                          Jeff
                          WA4ZKO

                          --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                          >
                          > Charles,
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                          > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                          > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                          > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                          > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                          > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                          > etc.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                          > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                          > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                          > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                          > countries and services.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Rick KN6KB
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                          > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                          > Charles Brabham
                          > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                          > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                          > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                          > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                          > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                          > exist.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                          > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                          > good reason to abandon reason.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                          > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                          > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                          > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                          > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                          > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                          > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                          > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                          > speed.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                          > today, more than ever.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                          > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                          > understanding these issues.for PART97
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Thus endeth the lesson.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                          > HamRadioNet. Org !
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          >
                          > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                          >
                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                          >
                          > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                          >
                          > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > All,
                          >
                          > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                          > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                          > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                          > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                          >
                          > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                          > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                          > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                          > restrictions.
                          >
                          > Rick KN6KB
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                          >
                          > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                          > abertheaume
                          > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                          > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                          > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                          > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                          > 73
                          > Art, N9ZZK
                          >
                          > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                          > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                          > >
                          > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                          > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                          > >
                          > > Whats the word guys..?
                          > >
                          > > Trip - KT4WO
                          > > kt4wo67@
                          > >
                          >
                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                          > 02:34:00
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                          > 02:34:00
                          >

                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                        • abertheaume
                          Good morning Group, I would like apologize for stirring up a hornets nest with my post alerting USA based folks regarding the bandwidth setting. Certainly
                          Message 12 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Good morning Group,
                            I would like apologize for stirring up a hornets nest with my post alerting USA based folks regarding the bandwidth setting. Certainly didn't intend it to become a debate.

                            I will go on record that I applaud people like Rick and John who are striving to improve our methods and take the fullest advantage of what little we have.

                            No matter what mode you are using, there will always be some lid that will operate in total disrgard of common operating practices and mutual agreements that might be in place.

                            73
                            Art, N9ZZK

                            --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Muething" <rmuething@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Sorry Charles,
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it.
                            > How about you?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Rick KN6KB
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > _____
                            >
                            > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                            > Charles Brabham
                            > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the
                            > amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet
                            > "modes", those enemies of other "modes", or those simply wanting to be a
                            > barnacle on the hull of progress"...
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter"
                            > robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with
                            > 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs." -
                            > If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump
                            > right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority
                            > of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some
                            > long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into
                            > another try, why don't you Rick?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                            > HamRadioNet.Org !
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradionet.org> net.org
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            >
                            > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@...>
                            >
                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com> com
                            >
                            > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM
                            >
                            > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Jeff,
                            >
                            > Yes of course we can and should do better.
                            >
                            > One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of "modes" from the
                            > regulations. For example our current out of date regulations try and
                            > specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW,
                            > RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds
                            > of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are
                            > even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing
                            > interference, attended vs unattended etc) but eliminate from the
                            > restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc. If you
                            > want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular
                            > spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc. Why
                            > should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6
                            > KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?
                            >
                            > A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan
                            > by bandwidth proposal..It wasn't perfect but it was a start. It was shot
                            > down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet "modes", those
                            > enemies of other "modes", or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the
                            > hull of progress. The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the
                            > boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980's regulations
                            > while other countries move forward.
                            >
                            > Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the
                            > technology and those that don't but enjoy using it anyway. That's OK, there
                            > should be room for all.
                            >
                            > My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our
                            > airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.
                            >
                            > Rick KN6KB
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > _____
                            >
                            >
                            > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                            > WA4ZKO
                            > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an
                            > improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have
                            > access to.
                            >
                            > These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good
                            > so far...from what I see.
                            >
                            > Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital
                            > modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?
                            >
                            > Just a thought..or two.
                            >
                            > 73
                            > Jeff
                            > WA4ZKO
                            >
                            > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Rick
                            > Muething" <rmuething@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Charles,
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                            > > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                            > > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                            > > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                            > > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                            > > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                            > > etc.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                            > > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                            > > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing
                            > modems)
                            > > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                            > > countries and services.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Rick KN6KB
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > _____
                            > >
                            > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                            > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
                            > Of
                            > > Charles Brabham
                            > > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                            > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                            > > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                            > > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                            > > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                            > > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                            > > exist.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other
                            > countries
                            > > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not
                            > a
                            > > good reason to abandon reason.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                            > > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                            > > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                            > > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                            > > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                            > > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                            > > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that
                            > they
                            > > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                            > > speed.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                            > > today, more than ever.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have
                            > no
                            > > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                            > > understanding these issues.for PART97
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Thus endeth the lesson.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                            > > HamRadioNet.Org !
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradionet.org>
                            > net.org> net.org
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ----- Original Message -----
                            > >
                            > > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@>
                            > >
                            > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.
                            > <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com> com
                            > >
                            > > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                            > >
                            > > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > All,
                            > >
                            > > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                            > > forward sub bands in the US. These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                            > > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                            > > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                            > >
                            > > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                            > > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                            > > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                            > > restrictions.
                            > >
                            > > Rick KN6KB
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > _____
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                            > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
                            > Of
                            > > abertheaume
                            > > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                            > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                            > > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                            > > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing
                            > the
                            > > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor.cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                            > > 73
                            > > Art, N9ZZK
                            > >
                            > > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com, kt4wo67@
                            > > wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                            > > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                            > > >
                            > > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                            > > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                            > > >
                            > > > Whats the word guys..?
                            > > >
                            > > > Trip - KT4WO
                            > > > kt4wo67@
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                            > > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                            > > 02:34:00
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                            > > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                            > > 02:34:00
                            > >
                            >
                            > No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                            > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                            > 02:34:00
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                            > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                            > 02:34:00
                            >
                          • D.Calder
                            You are correct.. Like the one who throws a solid carrier on 14.098 a lot of times? It goes away, someone tries to start forwarding, they can sometimes.
                            Message 13 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment

                              You are correct….

                               

                              Like the one who throws a solid carrier on 14.098 a lot of times? It goes away, someone tries to start forwarding, they can sometimes. Sometimes

                              they get about 5 minutes worth and here it comes back. Coincidence? No.

                               

                              When it doesn’t happen, I can still get 100 + bulls a day thru on (300) baud packet with my (DRSI) that I have been doing since the 80’s. It still works. Is it the fastest? NO, can a commercial

                              millionaire on his yacht with a $2k TNC get in to it with a commercial email program and send his 10k in for the year. NO.

                               

                              73 Dave

                              n4zkf

                               

                               

                              From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of abertheaume
                              Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:07 AM
                              To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                               

                               

                              Good morning Group,
                              I would like apologize for stirring up a hornets nest with my post alerting USA based folks regarding the bandwidth setting. Certainly didn't intend it to become a debate.

                              I will go on record that I applaud people like Rick and John who are striving to improve our methods and take the fullest advantage of what little we have.

                              No matter what mode you are using, there will always be some lid that will operate in total disrgard of common operating practices and mutual agreements that might be in place.

                              73
                              Art, N9ZZK

                              --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Muething" <rmuething@...> wrote:

                              >
                              > Sorry Charles,
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it.
                              > How about you?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Rick KN6KB
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > _____
                              >
                              > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                              > Charles Brabham
                              > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                              > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the
                              > amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting
                              pet
                              > "modes", those enemies of other "modes", or those
                              simply wanting to be a
                              > barnacle on the hull of progress"...
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the
                              "cookie-cutter"
                              > robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate'
                              with
                              > 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow
                              amateurs." -
                              > If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump
                              > right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority
                              > of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some
                              > long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into
                              > another try, why don't you Rick?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                              > HamRadioNet.Org !
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > http://www.hamradio <
                              href="http://www.hamradionet.org">http://www.hamradionet.org> net.org
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              >
                              > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@...>
                              >
                              > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com>
                              com
                              >
                              > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM
                              >
                              > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Jeff,
                              >
                              > Yes of course we can and should do better.
                              >
                              > One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of "modes" from
                              the
                              > regulations. For example our current out of date regulations try and
                              > specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW,
                              > RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those
                              kinds
                              > of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they
                              are
                              > even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing
                              > interference, attended vs unattended etc) but eliminate from the
                              > restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc. If you
                              > want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular
                              > spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc. Why
                              > should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6
                              > KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?
                              >
                              > A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan
                              > by bandwidth proposal..It wasn't perfect but it was a start. It was shot
                              > down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet "modes",
                              those
                              > enemies of other "modes", or those simply wanting to be a
                              barnacle on the
                              > hull of progress. The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the
                              > boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980's regulations
                              > while other countries move forward.
                              >
                              > Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the
                              > technology and those that don't but enjoy using it anyway. That's OK,
                              there
                              > should be room for all.
                              >
                              > My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our
                              > airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.
                              >
                              > Rick KN6KB
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > _____
                              >
                              >
                              > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                              > WA4ZKO
                              > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                              > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an
                              > improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF
                              spectrum we have
                              > access to.
                              >
                              > These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good
                              > so far...from what I see.
                              >
                              > Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital
                              > modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?
                              >
                              > Just a thought..or two.
                              >
                              > 73
                              > Jeff
                              > WA4ZKO
                              >
                              > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com,
                              "Rick
                              > Muething" <rmuething@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Charles,
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit
                              the
                              > > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was
                              relaying
                              > > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient
                              and
                              > > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF
                              channels HF
                              > > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of
                              bandwidth) is
                              > > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31,
                              Olivia
                              > > etc.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used
                              (e.g.
                              > > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws
                              the
                              > > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing
                              > modems)
                              > > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                              > > countries and services.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Rick KN6KB
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > _____
                              > >
                              > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                              > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com] On
                              Behalf
                              > Of
                              > > Charles Brabham
                              > > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                              > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                              > > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the
                              autoforwarding
                              > > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked
                              all
                              > > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding
                              sub-bands
                              > > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would
                              otherwise
                              > > exist.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other
                              > countries
                              > > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is
                              not
                              > a
                              > > good reason to abandon reason.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                              > > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum
                              in a
                              > > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with
                              the internet,
                              > > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio.
                              Again,
                              > > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                              > > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                              > > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so
                              that
                              > they
                              > > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at
                              high
                              > > speed.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold
                              true
                              > > today, more than ever.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with
                              "progress" and who have
                              > no
                              > > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                              > > understanding these issues.for PART97
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Thus endeth the lesson.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by
                              at
                              > > HamRadioNet.Org !
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > http://www.hamradio <
                              href="http://www.hamradio">http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradionet.org>
                              > net.org> net.org
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ----- Original Message -----
                              > >
                              > > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@>
                              > >
                              > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.
                              > <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com> com
                              > >
                              > > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                              > >
                              > > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > All,
                              > >
                              > > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded
                              auto
                              > > forward sub bands in the US. These are already heavily used by Pactor
                              and
                              > > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use
                              only
                              > > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                              > >
                              > > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the
                              auto
                              > > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the
                              1980's
                              > > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                              > > restrictions.
                              > >
                              > > Rick KN6KB
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > _____
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                              > [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com] On
                              Behalf
                              > Of
                              > > abertheaume
                              > > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                              > > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com
                              > > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                              > > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend
                              changing
                              > the
                              > > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor.cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                              > > 73
                              > > Art, N9ZZK
                              > >
                              > > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32%40yahoogroups.com> com,
                              kt4wo67@
                              > > wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                              > > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                              > > >
                              > > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would
                              think??...
                              > > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                              > > >
                              > > > Whats the word guys..?
                              > > >
                              > > > Trip - KT4WO
                              > > > kt4wo67@
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                              > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                              > > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date:
                              02/18/10
                              > > 02:34:00
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                              > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                              > > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date:
                              02/18/10
                              > > 02:34:00
                              > >
                              >
                              > No virus found in this incoming message.
                              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                              > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                              > 02:34:00
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > No virus found in this incoming message.
                              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                              > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                              > 02:34:00
                              >

                            • K.O. Higgs
                              pride cometh before the fall..... K.O. On 2/19/2010 6:58 AM, Rick Muething wrote: Sorry Charles, I am just too busy actually doing something instead of
                              Message 14 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "pride cometh before the fall....."

                                K.O.

                                On 2/19/2010 6:58 AM, Rick Muething wrote:
                                 

                                Sorry Charles,

                                 

                                I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you?

                                 

                                Rick KN6KB

                                 

                                 


                                From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
                                Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                                To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                 

                                 

                                Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...

                                 

                                Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.

                                 

                                Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.

                                 

                                I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?

                                 


                                73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

                                 

                                Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

                                 

                                 

                                ----- Original Message -----

                                Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM

                                Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                 

                                 

                                Jeff,

                                Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                                One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                                A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                                Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                                My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                                Rick KN6KB


                                From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                                Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                                To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                 

                                Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                                These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                                Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                                Just a thought..or two.

                                73
                                Jeff
                                WA4ZKO

                                --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                                >
                                > Charles,
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                                > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                                > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                                > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                                > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                                > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                                > etc.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                                > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                                > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                                > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                                > countries and services.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Rick KN6KB
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > _____
                                >
                                > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                > Charles Brabham
                                > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                                > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                                > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                                > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                                > exist.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                                > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                                > good reason to abandon reason.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                                > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                                > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                                > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                                > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                                > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                                > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                                > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                                > speed.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                                > today, more than ever.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                                > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                                > understanding these issues.for PART97
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Thus endeth the lesson.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                                > HamRadioNet. Org !
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                >
                                > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                                >
                                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                                >
                                > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                                >
                                > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > All,
                                >
                                > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                                > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                                > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                                > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                                >
                                > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                                > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                                > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                                > restrictions.
                                >
                                > Rick KN6KB
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > _____
                                >
                                >
                                > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                > abertheaume
                                > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                                > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                                > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                                > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                                > 73
                                > Art, N9ZZK
                                >
                                > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                                > wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                                > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                                > >
                                > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                                > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                                > >
                                > > Whats the word guys..?
                                > >
                                > > Trip - KT4WO
                                > > kt4wo67@
                                > >
                                >
                                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                > 02:34:00
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                > 02:34:00
                                >

                                No virus found in this incoming message.
                                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                                No virus found in this incoming message.
                                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00


                                -- 
                                
                                K.O. Higgs 
                                n0kfq@...
                                
                                
                              • Sergej
                                ... Dave, is that carrier on 14.098 LSB dial with audio tone near 1000Hz? (~14.097 RF tone) If yes, I am too hear it, its WSPR beacons net: http://wsprnet.org/
                                Message 15 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >
                                  > Like the one who throws a solid carrier on 14.098 a lot of times?

                                  Dave, is that carrier on 14.098 LSB dial with audio tone near 1000Hz?
                                  (~14.097 RF tone)
                                  If yes, I am too hear it, its WSPR beacons net:
                                  http://wsprnet.org/

                                  Their dial QRG 14.095,6 USB +1500Hz audio = ~14.097 RF tone too!


                                  Sorry for group message, but my e-mail don't go to you directly.


                                  73, Sergej
                                  uz2hz
                                • John Wiseman
                                  Ok, That s enough. This forum is meant to be for the discussion of BPQ32 software, not a place to attack those you don t agree with. John G8BPQ ... From:
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Message
                                    Ok, That's enough.
                                     
                                    This forum is meant to be for the discussion of BPQ32 software, not a place to attack those you don't agree with.
                                     
                                     
                                    John G8BPQ
                                     
                                     
                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of K.O. Higgs
                                    Sent: 19 February 2010 14:41
                                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                     

                                    "pride cometh before the fall....."

                                    K.O.

                                    On 2/19/2010 6:58 AM, Rick Muething wrote:

                                     

                                    Sorry Charles,

                                    I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you?

                                    Rick KN6KB


                                    From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
                                    Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                    Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                     

                                    Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...

                                    Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.

                                    Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.

                                    I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?


                                    73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

                                    Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM

                                    Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                     

                                    Jeff,

                                    Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                                    One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                                    A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                                    Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                                    My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                                    Rick KN6KB


                                    From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                                    Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                    Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                     

                                    Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                                    These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                                    Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                                    Just a thought..or two.

                                    73
                                    Jeff
                                    WA4ZKO

                                    --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Charles,
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                                    > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                                    > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                                    > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                                    > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                                    > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                                    > etc.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                                    > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                                    > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                                    > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                                    > countries and services.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Rick KN6KB
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > _____
                                    >
                                    > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                    > Charles Brabham
                                    > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                                    > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                    > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                                    > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                                    > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                                    > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                                    > exist.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                                    > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                                    > good reason to abandon reason.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                                    > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                                    > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                                    > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                                    > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                                    > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                                    > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                                    > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                                    > speed.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                                    > today, more than ever.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                                    > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                                    > understanding these issues.for PART97
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Thus endeth the lesson.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                                    > HamRadioNet. Org !
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    >
                                    > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                                    >
                                    > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                                    >
                                    > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                                    >
                                    > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > All,
                                    >
                                    > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                                    > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                                    > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                                    > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                                    >
                                    > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                                    > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                                    > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                                    > restrictions.
                                    >
                                    > Rick KN6KB
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > _____
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                    > abertheaume
                                    > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                                    > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                    > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                                    > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                                    > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                                    > 73
                                    > Art, N9ZZK
                                    >
                                    > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                                    > wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                                    > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                                    > >
                                    > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                                    > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                                    > >
                                    > > Whats the word guys..?
                                    > >
                                    > > Trip - KT4WO
                                    > > kt4wo67@
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                    > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                    > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                    > 02:34:00
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                    > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                    > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                    > 02:34:00
                                    >

                                    No virus found in this incoming message.
                                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                    Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                                    No virus found in this incoming message.
                                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                    Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00


                                    -- 
                                    
                                    K.O. Higgs 
                                    n0kfq@centurytel. net
                                    
                                    

                                  • D.Calder
                                    Yes and it s all but made 14.098 useless to me. Weak signal? I have an solid S7 on it most of the time. From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Yes and it’s all but made 14.098 useless to me. Weak signal? I have an solid S7 on it most of the time.

                                       

                                       

                                      From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sergej
                                      Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 10:35 AM
                                      To: D.Calder
                                      Subject: Re[2]: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                       

                                       

                                      >
                                      > Like the one who throws a solid carrier on 14.098 a lot of times?

                                      Dave, is that carrier on 14.098 LSB dial with audio tone near 1000Hz?
                                      (~14.097 RF tone)
                                      If yes, I am too hear it, its WSPR beacons net:
                                      http://wsprnet.org/

                                      Their dial QRG 14.095,6 USB +1500Hz audio = ~14.097 RF tone too!

                                      Sorry for group message, but my e-mail don't go to you directly.

                                      73, Sergej
                                      uz2hz

                                    • Dave
                                      Thank you John ... From: John Wiseman To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Thank you John
                                         
                                         
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM
                                        Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                         

                                        Ok, That's enough.
                                         
                                        This forum is meant to be for the discussion of BPQ32 software, not a place to attack those you don't agree with.
                                         
                                         
                                        John G8BPQ
                                         
                                         
                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of K.O. Higgs
                                        Sent: 19 February 2010 14:41
                                        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                         

                                        "pride cometh before the fall....."

                                        K.O.

                                        On 2/19/2010 6:58 AM, Rick Muething wrote:

                                         

                                        Sorry Charles,

                                        I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you?

                                        Rick KN6KB


                                        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
                                        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                                        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                         

                                        Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...

                                        Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.

                                        Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.

                                        I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?


                                        73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

                                        Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

                                        ----- Original Message -----

                                        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM

                                        Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                         

                                        Jeff,

                                        Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                                        One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                                        A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                                        Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                                        My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                                        Rick KN6KB


                                        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                                        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                                        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                         

                                        Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                                        These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                                        Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                                        Just a thought..or two.

                                        73
                                        Jeff
                                        WA4ZKO

                                        --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Charles,
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                                        > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                                        > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                                        > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                                        > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                                        > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                                        > etc.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                                        > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                                        > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                                        > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                                        > countries and services.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Rick KN6KB
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                        > Charles Brabham
                                        > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                        > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                                        > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                                        > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                                        > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                                        > exist.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                                        > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                                        > good reason to abandon reason.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                                        > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                                        > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                                        > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                                        > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                                        > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                                        > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                                        > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                                        > speed.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                                        > today, more than ever.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                                        > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                                        > understanding these issues.for PART97
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Thus endeth the lesson.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                                        > HamRadioNet. Org !
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                        >
                                        > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                                        >
                                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                                        >
                                        > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                                        >
                                        > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > All,
                                        >
                                        > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                                        > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                                        > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                                        > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                                        >
                                        > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                                        > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                                        > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                                        > restrictions.
                                        >
                                        > Rick KN6KB
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                        > abertheaume
                                        > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                                        > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                        > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                                        > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                                        > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                                        > 73
                                        > Art, N9ZZK
                                        >
                                        > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                                        > wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                                        > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                                        > >
                                        > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                                        > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                                        > >
                                        > > Whats the word guys..?
                                        > >
                                        > > Trip - KT4WO
                                        > > kt4wo67@
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                        > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                        > 02:34:00
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                        > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                        > 02:34:00
                                        >

                                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                        Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                        Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00


                                        -- 
                                        
                                        K.O. Higgs 
                                        n0kfq@centurytel. net
                                        
                                        

                                      • Dave
                                        Thank you John Dave WA2DXQ ... From: John Wiseman To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Thank you John
                                           
                                          Dave
                                           
                                          WA2DXQ
                                           
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM
                                          Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                           

                                          Ok, That's enough.
                                           
                                          This forum is meant to be for the discussion of BPQ32 software, not a place to attack those you don't agree with.
                                           
                                           
                                          John G8BPQ
                                           
                                           
                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of K.O. Higgs
                                          Sent: 19 February 2010 14:41
                                          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                          Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                           

                                          "pride cometh before the fall....."

                                          K.O.

                                          On 2/19/2010 6:58 AM, Rick Muething wrote:

                                           

                                          Sorry Charles,

                                          I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you?

                                          Rick KN6KB


                                          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
                                          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                                          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                          Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                           

                                          Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...

                                          Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.

                                          Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.

                                          I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?


                                          73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

                                          Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

                                          ----- Original Message -----

                                          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM

                                          Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                           

                                          Jeff,

                                          Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                                          One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                                          A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                                          Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                                          My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                                          Rick KN6KB


                                          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                                          Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                                          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                          Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                           

                                          Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                                          These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                                          Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                                          Just a thought..or two.

                                          73
                                          Jeff
                                          WA4ZKO

                                          --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Charles,
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                                          > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                                          > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                                          > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                                          > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                                          > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                                          > etc.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                                          > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                                          > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                                          > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                                          > countries and services.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Rick KN6KB
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > _____
                                          >
                                          > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                          > Charles Brabham
                                          > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                          > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                                          > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                                          > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                                          > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                                          > exist.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                                          > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                                          > good reason to abandon reason.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                                          > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                                          > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                                          > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                                          > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                                          > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                                          > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                                          > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                                          > speed.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                                          > today, more than ever.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                                          > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                                          > understanding these issues.for PART97
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Thus endeth the lesson.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                                          > HamRadioNet. Org !
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----- Original Message -----
                                          >
                                          > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                                          >
                                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                                          >
                                          > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                                          >
                                          > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > All,
                                          >
                                          > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                                          > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                                          > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                                          > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                                          >
                                          > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                                          > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                                          > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                                          > restrictions.
                                          >
                                          > Rick KN6KB
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > _____
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                          > abertheaume
                                          > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                                          > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                          > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                                          > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                                          > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                                          > 73
                                          > Art, N9ZZK
                                          >
                                          > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                                          > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                                          > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                                          > >
                                          > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                                          > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                                          > >
                                          > > Whats the word guys..?
                                          > >
                                          > > Trip - KT4WO
                                          > > kt4wo67@
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                          > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                          > 02:34:00
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                          > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                          > 02:34:00
                                          >

                                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                          Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                          Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00


                                          -- 
                                          
                                          K.O. Higgs 
                                          n0kfq@centurytel. net
                                          
                                          

                                        • Dave
                                          ... From: John Wiseman To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters Ok, That s
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Feb 19, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                             
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM
                                            Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                             

                                            Ok, That's enough.
                                             
                                            This forum is meant to be for the discussion of BPQ32 software, not a place to attack those you don't agree with.
                                             
                                             
                                            John G8BPQ
                                             
                                             
                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of K.O. Higgs
                                            Sent: 19 February 2010 14:41
                                            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                            Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                             

                                            "pride cometh before the fall....."

                                            K.O.

                                            On 2/19/2010 6:58 AM, Rick Muething wrote:

                                             

                                            Sorry Charles,

                                            I am just too busy actually doing something instead of blogging about it. How about you?

                                            Rick KN6KB


                                            From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Charles Brabham
                                            Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06 PM
                                            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                            Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                             

                                            Thanks for the moment of levity Rick, where you characteized 85%+ of the amateurs who commented on RM-11306 at the FCC as" those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress"...

                                            Over 85% said "no" to bandwidth segmentation, even after the "cookie-cutter" robot comments generated by the WinLink folks were counted up.

                                            Like I said, it is only a tiny minority that "confuse 'data rate' with 'progress' and who have no regard or respect and their fellow amateurs."  - If the ARRL wants to get spanked in public again, I'm sure they will jump right up and have another stab at thwarting the will of the great majority of amateur radio operators with another bandwidth segmentation proposal.

                                            I think one more go-round of that might be just what it takes to get some long-overdue personel changes at ARRL HQ... See if you can talk them into another try, why don't you Rick?


                                            73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

                                            Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org !

                                            ----- Original Message -----

                                            Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:22 PM

                                            Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                             

                                            Jeff,

                                            Yes of course we can and should do better. 

                                            One way would be to eliminate the entire concept of “modes” from the regulations.  For example our current out of date regulations try and specify things differently when the information being sent is voice, CW, RTTY, Pictures, data, FAX etc. It is all information and putting those kinds of details in the regulation just insures they are obsolete before they are even passed. We should of course use regulations where necessary (causing interference,  attended vs unattended etc)  but eliminate from the restrictions things like modes, baud rates, modulation types etc.  If you want to limit bandwidth then specify the max bandwidth for a particular spectrum and forget about baud rate, modes, information type etc.  Why should a 2.6 KHz digital voice signal be regulated differently than a 2.6 KHz SSB voice signal or 2.6 KHz image signal?

                                            A few years ago the ARRL tried promoting that concept with their band plan by bandwidth proposal….It wasn’t perfect but it was a start. It was shot down mostly by scare tactics from those protecting pet “modes”, those enemies of other “modes”, or those simply wanting to be a barnacle on the hull of progress.  The ARRL found it easier to do nothing than to rock the boat so today some 6 years later we still have the same 1980’s regulations while other countries move forward. 

                                            Ham radio is a strange blend of old and new, those that understand the technology and those that don’t but enjoy using it anyway. That’s OK, there should be room for all.

                                            My point is our regulations should be a better balance of protecting our airwaves from abuse and needlessly restricting innovation.

                                            Rick KN6KB


                                            From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of WA4ZKO
                                            Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:14 PM
                                            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                            Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters

                                             

                                            Maybe one of these days we could all set down and work together towards an improved "gentlemen's agreement" on sharing what little HF spectrum we have access to.

                                            These My Mode versus Your Mode arguments haven't exactly done us much good so far...from what I see.

                                            Maybe some rep's from each of the more heavily active digital modes/communities could all come together on a better band plan approach?

                                            Just a thought..or two.

                                            73
                                            Jeff
                                            WA4ZKO

                                            --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. com, " Rick Muething " <rmuething@. ..> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Charles,
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Those original restrictions were put in there SPECIFICALLY to limit the
                                            > placement of HF Packet auto forwarding which in the 1980's was relaying
                                            > messages by HF. HF packet at 300 baud is one of the least efficient and
                                            > least robust of any HF mode in use today. Over typical ham HF channels HF
                                            > packet's effective RF "footprint" (net bits/sec/ Hz of bandwidth) is
                                            > considerably worse than other modes such as Pactor, WINMOR, PSK31, Olivia
                                            > etc.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > The 300 baud limit (per carrier) does not reduce the bandwidth used (e.g.
                                            > Multi carrier modes like Pactor 3, WINMOR, MT63 etc). It only outlaws the
                                            > use of other efficient modem technologies (e.g. adaptive equalizing modems)
                                            > which prevents US hams from using those technologies like many other
                                            > countries and services.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Rick KN6KB
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > _____
                                            >
                                            > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                            > Charles Brabham
                                            > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:24 AM
                                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                            > Subject: Re: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > The reason we have "those restrictions" known as the autoforwarding
                                            > sub-bands is so that we will not have autoforwarding stations parked all
                                            > over our shared spectrum. Placing them in the autoforwarding sub-bands
                                            > eliminates a good deal of the interference issues that would otherwise
                                            > exist.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > The USA leads in this area, as in many others. The fact that other countries
                                            > with significantly smaller ham populations do not follow that lead is not a
                                            > good reason to abandon reason.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > The 300 baud limit is all that keeps irresponsible individuals from
                                            > operating ultra-wide digital modes on our bit of shared HF spectrum in a
                                            > rather foolish and self-absorbed attempt to "compete" with the internet,
                                            > something that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio. Again,
                                            > widespread interference issues are averted by this ruling that is
                                            > unfortunately flauted in both its letter and spirit by irresponsible
                                            > individuals who would deny a dozen other hams a bit of spectrum so that they
                                            > can do something trivial like passing email over the ham bands at high
                                            > speed.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Those regulations were put there for good reason. - Reasons that hold true
                                            > today, more than ever.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Only a tiny minority who confuse "data rate" with "progress" and who have no
                                            > regard or respect and their fellow amateurs have a problem
                                            > understanding these issues.for PART97
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Thus endeth the lesson.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
                                            > HamRadioNet. Org !
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > http://www.hamradio <http://www.hamradio net.org> net.org
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ----- Original Message -----
                                            >
                                            > From: Rick Muething <mailto:rmuething@ ...>
                                            >
                                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com> com
                                            >
                                            > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
                                            >
                                            > Subject: RE: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > All,
                                            >
                                            > Unattended forwarding over 500 Hz MUST be in the small and crowded auto
                                            > forward sub bands in the US . These are already heavily used by Pactor and
                                            > Packet. I would suggest any WINMOR forwarding in the US try and use only
                                            > the 500 Hz mode and stay away from the auto forward sub bands.
                                            >
                                            > Perhaps some year we may get a modernization of our digital rules.the auto
                                            > forward sub bands and 300 baud limitation has been around since the 1980's
                                            > and the US is one of the few countries which has those types of
                                            > restrictions.
                                            >
                                            > Rick KN6KB
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > _____
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > From: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
                                            > abertheaume
                                            > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 AM
                                            > To: BPQ32@yahoogroups. com
                                            > Subject: [BPQ32] Re: Also,,? on Winmor on 30 meters
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Just a heads up for USA stations..
                                            > If unattended BBS forwarding is established, I would recommend changing the
                                            > default bandwidth mode in your BPQtoWinmor. cfg file from 1600 to 500.
                                            > 73
                                            > Art, N9ZZK
                                            >
                                            > --- In BPQ32@yahoogroups. <mailto:BPQ32% 40yahoogroups. com> com, kt4wo67@
                                            > wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Is there a fixed freq on 30 meters that we are gona
                                            > > use for Winmor and BPQ????
                                            > >
                                            > > It needs to be in the "auto" subband I would think??...
                                            > > So I can leave it running unattended.
                                            > >
                                            > > Whats the word guys..?
                                            > >
                                            > > Trip - KT4WO
                                            > > kt4wo67@
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                            > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                            > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                            > 02:34:00
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                            > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                            > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10
                                            > 02:34:00
                                            >

                                            No virus found in this incoming message.
                                            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                            Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00

                                            No virus found in this incoming message.
                                            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                            Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: 02/18/10 02:34:00


                                            -- 
                                            
                                            K.O. Higgs 
                                            n0kfq@centurytel. net
                                            
                                            

                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.