SSB and FM were not considered encrypted becasue you could either turn on
your BFO for SSB or
use slope demodulation for FM and at least copy the signal to get an ID.
Remember all the ham receivers then
had BFO's since CW was required to get a license and CW only was the mode for
just about all beginners.
Today, you can't report someone using an obscure digital mode, that is one
that you can't just copy with
computer sound card, for QRM because you don't have an ID.
73
Bill wa4lav
________________________________________
From: A. W. [ky4sp@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:25 PM
To: Fuqua, Bill L
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
I'll probably agree with a lot of those concerns. When P25 hit the ham bands, a
lot of people called it "encypted" and thereby illegal. Of course, the view of
those using it was that as long as a standard P25 rx would work, then it is in
the clear and legal, whether or not your standard FM rx could decode it, after
all using that logic, SSB is "encypted". Once we found out that plain old FM
performs as well or better than P25, at a fraction of the cost most of us went
back to FM.
Richard Marshall replied to me off list saying that WINLINK should be banned
completely for ham use. My reply was why not ban all digital modes (except CW),
then we can get down to the real radio part of things, talking to one another
rather than just throwing digital spam back and forth.
I kind of miss actually talking on the radio, as opposed to just brief times on
2m or 440 on the way to work. I used to hang around 75M quite a bit, and 160
when my 100w was enough, but haven't been on in years. Never did finish my pair
of 803's on 160, maybe that will be a good winter project.
AW
--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Fuqua, Bill L <wlfuqu00@uky.edu> wrote:
From: Fuqua, Bill L <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
To: "A. W." <ky4sp@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 12:03 PM
I had a long email to send but figured things should cool down a bit before I
broadcast anything else.
I have many concerns about systems used on ham bands that are not compatible
with the one on one
character of ham radio, that allows secure messages and is not compatible with
the any of the primary modes
of amateur communications. Most systems, to date allow hams to either monitor
signals directly, voice or cw, or
by using the computer's sound card.
If a D-link signal appears somewhere on the ham bands, how do I determine who
it is if I don't have a D-link
system? While with just about any other mode I can simply set my computer next
to the speaker and decode it.
At one time all amateur transmissions required ID's to be sent either by
normal analog voce or by CW.
TTY ATV Slowscan TV all were required to send CW ID.
Another issue is some digital systems don't check before sending to see if
the frequency is in use.
They don't recoginize other modes. And many hams now days don't bother to
listen.
Oh, I can buy $6 or more per gallon gasoline but my current engine does not
require it.
It is only 160 hp.
________________________________________
From: A. W.
[ky4sp@yahoo.com<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ky4sp@yahoo.com>]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Fuqua, Bill L
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
I well aware of the relative bandwidth of SSB vs whatever other mode. When I
referred to SSB as a potential bandwidth hog I was alluding only to the point
that many people might think SSB voice a waste compared to using that space for
WINLINK (or whatever your favorite mode). To me, if "such and such" a mode is
legal, it should be allowed to be used without waiting for an emergency. That
would be kind of like telling you not to drive your Beetle unless gas is over
$6 a gallon.
AW
--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Fuqua, Bill L
<wlfuqu00@uky.edu<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wlfuqu00@uky.edu>>
wrote:
From: Fuqua, Bill L
<wlfuqu00@uky.edu<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wlfuqu00@uky.edu>>
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
To: "A. W."
<ky4sp@yahoo.com<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ky4sp@yahoo.com>>
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 11:11 AM
I have not seen a Digital voice system that uses less bandwidth than SSB. An
interesting thing about digital systems bandwidth and bandwidth are
not the same. One definition of bandwidth is the spectra used by a system
another is the data transfer rate. You can send 1200 bits per second over
1200 Hz RF channel, That would be the minimum bandwidth when sending one bit at
a time. You could double that data rate over the same
RF bandwidth. However, you don't get something for nothing, you then will have
to use 4 times the power to get the same range. If you double it again,
say sending 4 bits at a time, guess what? You have to go to 16 times more
power. An intersting example of wasted bandwidth is cell phone texting. Cell
phone bandwidth
is wasted in texting. You need only 20 or 30 Hz bandwidth to text.
An interesting, but failed, attempt to introduce a wideband system for
"Homeland Security" applications was
Ultra Wide Band systems. This would have hundreds of MHz of bandwidth spread
over the UHF and microwave
bands for voice. The idea was that since it was so the energy was spread out it
would not interfere with present systems.
It would only increase the background noise. They made claims that if lots of
these UWB cell phone systems were in use
the police and other agencies could have passive radars ( receive only) could
track and locate people within buildings.
Naturally that was only theory at the time. The processing power needed was not
available at the time but some simple experiments
were successful.
We got lucky and the FCC did not allow it as proposed.
One down side was the "background noise" depended on your proximity to a UWB
radio. If it was next to you it could
be so high that you could not use your normal radio.
73
Bill wa4lav
________________________________________
From: A. W.
[ky4sp@yahoo.com<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ky4sp@yahoo.com><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ky4sp@yahoo.com>]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:09 AM
To:
kyham@kyham.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kyham@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kyham@kyham.net>
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
It borders on ridiculous to say that it is OK for a ham to have WINLINK (or any
other mode), but that it should be outlawed or heavily restricted except during
an emergency. Few people are going to pay $1K plus for a Pactor III modem, more
than that for an HF radio, then just use it when someone else says its OK.
There is nothing unusual about a popular new mode causing concern about
"interference" and who gets to use what part of our bands. Go to 75 meters and
listen to the AM and SSB guys rant and rave at each other, or to the lower part
of 10 and hear the freebanders and etc. When 2 meter packet came out in the
80's there was much the same going on as well.
One could just as easily argue that AM (or even SSB) phone, SSTV etc.is a "too
much of a bandwidth hog" and "disagree with it’s use on the ham bands during
non-emergencies". There have always been arguments about "interference" on the
bands, and always will be. We might as well get used to it.
AW
--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Richard Marshall
<rkm@marshall.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rkm@marshall.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rkm@marshall.net>>
wrote:
From: Richard Marshall
<rkm@marshall.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rkm@marshall.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rkm@marshall.net>>
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
To: "'Kenny Garrett'"
<sec@kyham.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net>>,
"'Ron Dodson'"
<meadeema@bbtel.com<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=meadeema@bbtel.com><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=meadeema@bbtel.com>>,
kyham@kyham.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kyham@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kyham@kyham.net>
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 9:31 AM
While I agree that WL2K is excellent for EMCOMM I disagree with it’s use on the
ham bands during non-emergencies. The FCC should allow licensed amateurs to use
some dedicated space for winlink, or perhaps use MARS frequencies for WL2K
testing and experimentation. It’s just too much of a bandwidth hog and is
starting to be a real problem with the interference it causes to other
modes/users. When digital came into play and the rules were set nobody
envisioned an unattended, dedicated 24x7 system that had such an impact.
With the advent of WINMOR there has been an explosion in the number of WL2K
stations. All using an incredible amount of our precious bands, and few having
anything of importance to say. I’m all for practicing and getting familiar, but
to experiment in a way that hinders others should be STRONGLY discouraged.
It’s unusual in the history of HAM radio as far as I can tell that one mode
could have such a widespread negative impact on the entirety of the hobby, and
I suggest that anyone experiencing interference from WL2K stations email their
legislators and the ARRL to propose a change of some sort to stop the kudzu of
EMCOMM before it’s impact causes operators to abandon the hobby, thereby
weakening our EMCOMM infrastructure in unfathomable ways.
WR4U
________________________________
From: Kenny Garrett
[mailto:sec@kyham.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net>]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:42 AM
To: 'Ron Dodson';
kyham@kyham.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kyham@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kyham@kyham.net>
Subject: RE: [kyham] D-STAR One EMA Director's View
Well Said Ron!
Now is the time for all good Amateurs to stay close to their public safety
officials 123456789 times. – Sorry, couldn’t resist (Old Navy Radioman here) ☺
73, de N4KLG, Ken Garrett
Section Emergency Coordinator
Amateur Radio Emergency Services
ARRL Kentucky Section
(270) 860-0520
sec@kyham.net<http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net><http://us.mc1115.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sec@kyham.net>
MESSAGE TRUNCATED
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|