[arrl-odv:28620] Fwd: Re: Remarkable improvement in WINLINK operators' regulatory compliance
I am sure all of you have received and read Gordon's very detailed e-mail sent out a couple of days ago. He has a couple of specific questions that he would like answered listed below. I'm not an expert in JS8, other than knowing it's experimental, and apparently another mutation of FT8, specifically designed for sending keyboard-to-keyboard text messages, and could be useful in Emcomm applications. Can somebody answer as to what our position is on these questions? 73; Mike W7VO -------- Original Message ---------- From: Gordon Gibby <docvacuumtubes@gmail.com> To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Date: August 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Remarkable improvement in WINLINK operators' regulatory compliance Thank you for the information! Can you explain what was the reason to recommend doing away with 97.221C capabilities, in light of the facts A) this will damage JS8call, which had done nothing to harm anyone B) statistical analysis of United States WINLINK 97.221C station showed maximum possible interference only reaches hundredths of a percent timebandwidth, clearly negligible. — but providing are useful safety valve in the event of emergencies that overload the 97.221b servers? I just didn’t see what was gained by this recommendation and if you could explain it, I would be appreciative. Sincerely Gordon L Gibby MD KX4z Sent from my iPhone On Aug 23, 2019, at 12:58, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto:w7vo@comcast.net > wrote:
> >
>
Hi Mike, As far as I know our rationale was a two part resolution. One was putting everyone who is automated into ACDS only segments. Two was to then expand ACDS segments but make that expansion away from other modes like CW or JT/FT. With this came the removal of the 300 Band limit. Part one is what we passed at the meeting. Part two is going to be worked on. In my opinion this is a good compromise. Regarding JS8Call it is primarily a keyboard mode but also has message forwarding capabilities. Ria N2RJ On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
I am sure all of you have received and read Gordon's very detailed e-mail sent out a couple of days ago. He has a couple of specific questions that he would like answered listed below. I'm not an expert in JS8, other than knowing it's experimental, and apparently another mutation of FT8, specifically designed for sending keyboard-to-keyboard text messages, and could be useful in Emcomm applications.
Can somebody answer as to what our position is on these questions?
73;
Mike
W7VO
---------- Original Message ---------- From: Gordon Gibby <docvacuumtubes@gmail.com> To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Date: August 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Remarkable improvement in WINLINK operators' regulatory compliance
Thank you for the information!
Can you explain what was the reason to recommend doing away with 97.221C capabilities, in light of the facts
A) this will damage JS8call, which had done nothing to harm anyone B) statistical analysis of United States WINLINK 97.221C station showed maximum possible interference only reaches hundredths of a percent timebandwidth, clearly negligible. — but providing are useful safety valve in the event of emergencies that overload the 97.221b servers?
I just didn’t see what was gained by this recommendation and if you could explain it, I would be appreciative.
Sincerely
Gordon L Gibby MD KX4z
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 23, 2019, at 12:58, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
300 BAUD limit On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:42 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mike,
As far as I know our rationale was a two part resolution.
One was putting everyone who is automated into ACDS only segments.
Two was to then expand ACDS segments but make that expansion away from other modes like CW or JT/FT.
With this came the removal of the 300 Band limit.
Part one is what we passed at the meeting. Part two is going to be worked on.
In my opinion this is a good compromise.
Regarding JS8Call it is primarily a keyboard mode but also has message forwarding capabilities.
Ria N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
I am sure all of you have received and read Gordon's very detailed e-mail sent out a couple of days ago. He has a couple of specific questions that he would like answered listed below. I'm not an expert in JS8, other than knowing it's experimental, and apparently another mutation of FT8, specifically designed for sending keyboard-to-keyboard text messages, and could be useful in Emcomm applications.
Can somebody answer as to what our position is on these questions?
73;
Mike
W7VO
---------- Original Message ---------- From: Gordon Gibby <docvacuumtubes@gmail.com> To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Date: August 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Remarkable improvement in WINLINK operators' regulatory compliance
Thank you for the information!
Can you explain what was the reason to recommend doing away with 97.221C capabilities, in light of the facts
A) this will damage JS8call, which had done nothing to harm anyone B) statistical analysis of United States WINLINK 97.221C station showed maximum possible interference only reaches hundredths of a percent timebandwidth, clearly negligible. — but providing are useful safety valve in the event of emergencies that overload the 97.221b servers?
I just didn’t see what was gained by this recommendation and if you could explain it, I would be appreciative.
Sincerely
Gordon L Gibby MD KX4z
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 23, 2019, at 12:58, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Thanks, Ria. It figures that at least one experimental protocol would get caught under the "broad brush". I think idea is to have new protocols developed that will fit within the rules, before the Pandora's box of wideband digital signals opens further. I don't think that JS8 is used much at all at present. 73; Mike W7VO
On August 23, 2019 at 10:53 AM "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
300 BAUD limit
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:42 PM rjairam@gmail.com mailto:rjairam@gmail.com < rjairam@gmail.com mailto:rjairam@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
As far as I know our rationale was a two part resolution.
One was putting everyone who is automated into ACDS only segments.
Two was to then expand ACDS segments but make that expansion away from other modes like CW or JT/FT.
With this came the removal of the 300 Band limit.
Part one is what we passed at the meeting. Part two is going to be worked on.
In my opinion this is a good compromise.
Regarding JS8Call it is primarily a keyboard mode but also has message forwarding capabilities.
Ria N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto:w7vo@comcast.net > wrote:
> > >
I am sure all of you have received and read Gordon's very detailed e-mail sent out a couple of days ago. He has a couple of specific questions that he would like answered listed below. I'm not an expert in JS8, other than knowing it's experimental, and apparently another mutation of FT8, specifically designed for sending keyboard-to-keyboard text messages, and could be useful in Emcomm applications.
Can somebody answer as to what our position is on these questions?
73;
Mike
W7VO
> > -------- Original Message ----------
From: Gordon Gibby < docvacuumtubes@gmail.com mailto:docvacuumtubes@gmail.com > To: Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto:w7vo@comcast.net > Date: August 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Remarkable improvement in WINLINK operators' regulatory compliance
Thank you for the information!
Can you explain what was the reason to recommend doing away with 97.221C capabilities, in light of the facts
A) this will damage JS8call, which had done nothing to harm anyone B) statistical analysis of United States WINLINK 97.221C station showed maximum possible interference only reaches hundredths of a percent timebandwidth, clearly negligible. — but providing are useful safety valve in the event of emergencies that overload the 97.221b servers?
I just didn’t see what was gained by this recommendation and if you could explain it, I would be appreciative.
Sincerely
Gordon L Gibby MD KX4z
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 23, 2019, at 12:58, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto:w7vo@comcast.net > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (2)
-
Michael Ritz -
rjairam＠gmail.com