Ok, I think we've gotten to the issues with the experiment. I'm sure our
ever-patient list admin is probably sweating a little and we can give him a
little rest. This little really isn't about the experiment or the people
involved. We'll get to that in a moment.
Kai wrote me privately, and I'm going to summarize my thoughts here as there's
nothing secret in what I'm going to say. God willing, it will be
constructive. Before I do that I want to take a second and single out Bob,
K0RC, for saying something that I think gets to the crux of the matter, at
least as I see things:
"Why take things off the list? Nobody learns anything that way."
...a paraphrase because I hate my new webmail interface, and I like this
wording better, Bob :-)
That is fundamentally the issue with unpublished codes.
As many of you know, Kai and I are pretty much in agreement for the whole
symbol rate limit is concerned, per se (at least the way I see it--Kai may feel
differently). The issue I have is that the ARRL refused address "documented
codes" in light of the technology it is requesting, as I think this is a
long-term issue that goes far beyond Pactor IV. They had an opportunity to
address this in their reply comments and they chose not to. They have their
reasons. We currently have prominent people designing HF networks with the
express purpose of providing some amount of privacy to the communications (I
can provide examples). To avoid this discussion will rend us apart as you are
seeing. You and I want to avoid that. I believe transparency in the
communication will give us a chance to stay together, not to mention provide
some wonderful insurance against future spectrum threats. Part of that simply
must start with the encoding of the
information. This may require active work on all parties to understand what
really is at stake here and to perhaps make some changes. Thus, RM-11708 isn't
a technology issue in my view, nor is it really about "bandwidth". (There is
collateral damage from this that you are now seeing to get some attention now
that people are trying to plan for it, but I'm not addressing that right now).
So what does N4II's experiment have to do with all this?
As for Ed's actual experiment, I think this sort of thing in principle is great
so I'm glad to hear it was in good faith. (It would have bothered me much more
if it were not.) It is really unfortunate in the way it came out, and frankly,
you can understand why it looks downright specious. I was kinda hoping nobody
would put the microscope on it, but here we are. Sometimes we put our foots in
our mouths, but that is the risk we all take when speaking in public. God
teaches us humility that way...and this isn't about Ed or Kai or me.
It's been pointed out in a matter of hours by independent people that the
symbol rate really wasn't an impediment to the goal of the experiment.
Frankly, something like Ed's project would probably get must more press with a
STA and lots of press to get people listening. Perhaps this would be easier if
the transmitter were placed on the other side of the world or wherever and the
receivers are in the US where the population density allows more sample
density. Then you don't even have to worry about the transmitter and this
whole thing is a nonissue as far as part 97 is concerned. But, it's not my
experiment and I'm not going to tell designer what to do. It is unfortunate
that nobody pointed out that the symbol rate is not an issue--he might have
learned something he didn't expect; always a good outcome! As you can see this
information is readily available in the a ham community, but you can't get it
through private conversations ("off list"
if you will) very easily. (I can understand just wanting to struggle through
things by oneself...I'm slowly trying to unlearn that tendency myself!)
Now, should the symbol rate limit prevent even a first experiment where faster
symbol rates are erroneously thought to be required? I don't think so,
provided things are documented and you are being a good neighbor. But this
little experiment or any like it is not an excuse for putting the blinders on
and not addressing the elephants in the room.
I want to return to Bob's statement about going "off list":
Right now you have a whole host of (mostly) hams who have gotten Part 5
licenses to transmit at VLF, but I bet there are hundreds of people or more
learning from that *because they can see what is going on.* It's very
interesting. Even though they aren't transmitting there are people listening
and learning from that. Stop for a moment and think about what your operating
would be like if you could only understand 10% of the communication on the ham
bands, and most of that was by design. How many of you would have become hams
in the first place? I think we really need to look at this seriously....just
as we don't learn anything "off list" we are also not going to learn anything
if radio conversations become private. Right now, it appears that the primary
(though not all) interests in RM-11708 are essentially promoting "off list"
communication as part of the driving philosophy. Honestly, I don't think I
would have become a ham all
those years ago in an environment like that. I also don't think my son and
daughters would find it very interesting either, but we might find out. We
aren't to that point now, but avoiding that path, if that is our desire, may
take conscious effort and it needs to start now.
The events around RM-11708 take great pains to avoid this very real issue, and
it's going to rend us into pieces the longer we don't seriously address it.
Hopefully that is helpful to you....even if you disagree you'll understand the
concerns and can address them.
Andy K0SM/2
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:38 PM, "rtty-request@contesting.com"
<rtty-request@contesting.com> wrote:
Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
rtty-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RM-11708 Vision of the future (Joe Subich, W4TV)
2. RM ... (etc) (Edwin Karl)
3. Re: RM ... (etc) (john)
4. About N4II's experiment... (aflowers@frontiernet.net)
5. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Kok Chen)
6. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Joe Subich, W4TV)
7. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Andrew Flowers)
8. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Joe Subich, W4TV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:37:44 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future
Message-ID: <53235A88.2010705@subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I'm sick and tired of those who claim it is necessary to kill the
patient in order to save it. If ARRL truly wanted to prevent digital
modes greater than 2800 Hz in the Cw/RTTY bands and still allow for
"fast" data, all they needed to to was ask the FCC to allow RTTY and
Data where other wideband modes (phone and data) are already permitted
and where those modes are effectively limited to 3 KHz for a single
channel or 6 KHz for multiplexed modes and traditional AM. That
coupled with a 500 Hz limit in the narrow band segments (traditional
CW and RTTY) would have *completely solved the problem* without any
chance of increased interference to the 99%+ of operators who use
traditional narrow band modes.
Anyone who claims 2.8 KHz data is a "necessary update" has their head
stuck so far up a dark and smelly orifice that they have no hope of
ever seeing sunlight.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/14/2014 12:53 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> I'm pretty sick of this doom and gloom crap about necessary updates to
> our massively outdated regulations.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Its currently the year 2020.
>>
>>
>>
>> In mid year 2014 the FCC approved RM-11708 which de-regulated the CW/RTTY
>> bands allowing unspecified digital wide bandwidth codes in the current
>> CW/RTTY band segments. For a while the old rules were adhered to more or
>> less on a gentleman's agreement but more and more questionable signals came
>> up taking over the ham bands.
>>
>>
>>
>> In 2016, a radio manufacture out of China came out with a $100 dollar all
>> digital radio that features built in digital voice, CW and data. This
>> radio operates on the de-regulated RM-11708 (old CW/RTTY) amateur band
>> segments. The digital encoding algorithms in the radio can be setup in
>> software effectively making it a encrypted radio. The radio has a built in
>> modem allowing a "fast" 9600 baud connection to the Internet. The few
>> remaining digital hams call the 9600 modem feature PACTOR 8. Originally the
>> sail boat crowd latched onto the new radios but once the word got out that
>> they are undetectable, non-hams are purchasing them like wildfire.
>>
>>
>>
>> The RM-11708 de-regulated parts of the bands are total chaos and the FCC has
>> given up on any enforcement. The last CW and RTTY contests were in 2018.
>> The ARRL has a small staff of 8 people which only serves the SSB operators
>> and has just declared bankruptcy.
>>
>>
>>
>> David Sumner retired from the ARRL one month after the release of RM-11708
>> and now lives on a sailboat in Aruba. He used to send beautiful pictures
>> of the Aruba sunset with a drink in his hand enjoying the tropical paradise
>> but with the chaos on the digital portions of the ham bands nothing gets
>> through.
>>
>>
>>
>> I sure miss those pictures.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone have a good contest and enjoy it while we can
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 73 Terry AB5K
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:42:17 -0500
From: Edwin Karl <edk0kl@centurytel.net>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] RM ... (etc)
Message-ID: <532369A9.3020100@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
It seems to me the whole problem is the League should first
sell these ideas to the membership, THEN do the FCC proposal.
Not surprise (sand bag) us first.
Especially after previous attempts have backfired.
For supposed professionals, this is the worst "sell job" ever!
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
ed K0KL
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:44:39 +0000
From: john <w8wej@citynet.net>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM ... (etc)
Message-ID: <53237847.3020100@citynet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
you are not wrong--
in my opinion that the arrl has lost,(if they ever had it),, and
abandoned the wishes of the membership for the leaderships own self
serving interests... it is time to vote em out..
Ive read some of the arrls condescending responses -"-we are right,
set down and shut up" serfs
my(I hope , former director ), never bothered to respond to my email
concerns..
vote em out
73 john w8wej
On 3/14/2014 20:42, Edwin Karl wrote:
> It seems to me the whole problem is the League should first
> sell these ideas to the membership, THEN do the FCC proposal.
> Not surprise (sand bag) us first.
>
> Especially after previous attempts have backfired.
>
> For supposed professionals, this is the worst "sell job" ever!
>
> That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
>
> ed K0KL
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4336 / Virus Database: 3722/7197 - Release Date: 03/14/14
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "aflowers@frontiernet.net" <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
To: RTTY Mailing List <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID:
<1394836180.1050.YahooMailNeo@web120903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
This will be fun, I promise.
Kai brought up a comments by Dr. Edgar Callaway, N4II,?that saying that an
actual real experiment was cut short because of the outdated symbol rate rule.?
I've been through the comments, and it looks like this is the only real
experiment by a commenter that seems to have been tragically and unfairly
hampered by that outdated symbol rate...there may be others, but my crack legal
staff hasn't had time to read everything.
So, the actual comments are here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520962607
Have a look.??Work through it.? Is there anything in there that makes you this
experiment was, say, less than serious??
(Honestly Kai, your baloney detector should have gone off instantly in even a
cursory reading.? You did read it, didn't you?)
I decided not to reference this in my reply comments since these comments may
have been done in ignorance (I have no idea who N4II is), but since Kai wants
to hold it up as an example we ought to at least look closely.
If this goes well maybe we can have a bonus round....
Andy K0SM/2
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:20:09 -0700
From: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
To: RTTY Mailing List <rtty@contesting.com>
Cc: Andrew Flowers <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <C975CF31-D482-499A-9033-518ED1F8D000@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
When I first read it, back when it was first posted on the FCC site, my
immediate reaction was, why would the FCC take what was suggested seriously?
You never, ever use baud rate to measure timing.
In the digital world, you'd oversample the bits at a couple of hundred kilo
samples/second if needed, and do a cross-correlation to get much higher
temporal resolution. In fact, if you use a Barker code or a long PN code
(arguably illegal for amateurs), you can get better SNR from a sequence and get
a very nice sharp peak. If you can't use a Barker code or a PN sequence, even
a series of RYRYRY can be cross correlated.
For goodness sakes, you don't decimate it to the baud rate and *then* take a
cross-correlation -- *that* would give the poor resolution as reported. All of
us have sound cards that can sample to 48,000 samples/second or better, right?
For doing the measurements he was attempting, it does not take a higher baud
rate. It just takes good engineering practice.
By the way, the exercise may be futile anyway when there is strong multipath
(or even when one path splits into two rays). A rectangular pulse sent to the
ionosphere goes through both Doppler spreading and multi-path -- what you
receive back is no longer a nicely shape rectangular pulse. And the
propagation velocity through a dispersive media may not be the speed of light
either.
73
Chen, W7AY
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:20:38 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com, Andrew Flowers <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <53238EC6.8020703@subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Your BS detector should have certainly gone off - Wikipedia: "In
telecommunication and electronics, baud (/?b??d/, unit symbol "Bd") is
synonymous to symbols per second or pulses per second." As long as the
alleged 1 ms pulses don't happen more than 150 times per second they
would have met the 300 baud test. Baud does not define the duration
(or duty cycle) of the pulse only the frequency (or repetition rate)
of the pulse.
Further, the duration of the pulse should be immaterial in measuring
the propagation delay if one is measuring arrival of the leading edge
of the pulse. Finally, since the pseudo random nature of the pulse
train is known one can also compare the elapsed time between leading
edges with the actual transmission data just as easily as one can
measure the absolute length of the pulse. Measuring the time between
pulses is probably more accurate (if the experiment requires knowledge
of changes in propagation delay) than measuring the pulse length as
any measurement error would be a smaller fraction of the larger
interval.
Even a BA in Communications can distinguish when PhD means piled higher
and deeper ...
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/14/2014 6:29 PM, aflowers@frontiernet.net wrote:
>
>
> This will be fun, I promise.
>
> Kai brought up a comments by Dr. Edgar Callaway, N4II, that saying that an
> actual real experiment was cut short because of the outdated symbol rate
> rule. I've been through the comments, and it looks like this is the only
> real experiment by a commenter that seems to have been tragically and
> unfairly hampered by that outdated symbol rate...there may be others, but my
> crack legal staff hasn't had time to read everything.
>
> So, the actual comments are here:
>
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520962607
>
> Have a look. Work through it. Is there anything in there that makes you
> this experiment was, say, less than serious?
>
> (Honestly Kai, your baloney detector should have gone off instantly in even a
> cursory reading. You did read it, didn't you?)
>
> I decided not to reference this in my reply comments since these comments may
> have been done in ignorance (I have no idea who N4II is), but since Kai wants
> to hold it up as an example we ought to at least look closely.
>
> If this goes well maybe we can have a bonus round....
>
> Andy K0SM/2
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:49:58 -0400
From: Andrew Flowers <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Cc: "rtty@contesting.com" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <92DEDA4C-DBB1-42D3-AFBD-746802F8EE62@frontiernet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Joe and Chen have skipped ahead to the *double-secret* bonus round that I
wasn't even going to tell you guys about....but yes, rectangular pulses are
really poor way of going about this. Given the number of radar junkies around
I'm sure any discussion could have found a better way to do this experiment.
The interested parties can look up "pulse compression" in radar-speak, and it
is not to hard to grasp in concept even if you glaze over at scary math.
BUT...for this first round I am looking for something a little more fundamental
and well within the grasp of everyone on the list....
(And no offense taken, Joe)
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:07:43 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: Andrew Flowers <aflowers@frontiernet.net>
Cc: "rtty@contesting.com" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <532399CF.2010405@subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> BUT...for this first round I am looking for something a little more
> fundamental
Let's see ... grayline propagation is not more predominant on 160/80
than on other bands. It's resent and can be demonstrated all the way
through 30 MHz.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s - at 1,609.34 meters per mile
that's 186,282 miles per second or 186.3 miles per ms not 282.3 miles
per ms as claimed multiple times in the comments.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/14/2014 7:49 PM, Andrew Flowers wrote:
>
> Joe and Chen have skipped ahead to the *double-secret* bonus round that I
> wasn't even going to tell you guys about....but yes, rectangular pulses are
> really poor way of going about this. Given the number of radar junkies
> around I'm sure any discussion could have found a better way to do this
> experiment. The interested parties can look up "pulse compression" in
> radar-speak, and it is not to hard to grasp in concept even if you glaze over
> at scary math.
>
> BUT...for this first round I am looking for something a little more
> fundamental and well within the grasp of everyone on the list....
>
> (And no offense taken, Joe)
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
------------------------------
End of RTTY Digest, Vol 135, Issue 20
*************************************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|