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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.