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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      
      

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