"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the
amateur bands.

Period.


No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency
activations?

No code practice sessions?

No remote control of satellites?

No remote control of model airplanes?

No remote control of repeaters?

No telemetry from satellites?

No propagation beacons?

No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system?

No................

"Period"

Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch!

73, de Hans, K0HB

don't forget, you have to call cq until someone answers you, otherwise it
would be a one-way transmission! so you better be darn sure there is
someone that is going to answer you before you call cq.

KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur
bands.

Period.



No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations?

Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently
part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox
News or CNN.

No code practice sessions?

No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self
taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow.

No remote control of satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications

No remote control of model airplanes?

Is that us?

No remote control of repeaters?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications.

No telemetry from satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications.

No propagation beacons?

No. Try calling CQ! ;^)

No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

That is part of a two way system. (balloons)

I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based APRS to make
an informed judgment.

No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system?

Still part of two way comms.

No................

"Period"

There is a big difference between what happens when a repeater or
satellite is used, and when someone starts yappin or beepin with no
intention of getting a reply.

The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the
signals are used in two way transmissions or not.

Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch!


Hehe, yes, sometimes I am!.....


- mike KB3EIA -

Dave wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the
amateur bands.

Period.


No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency
activations?

No code practice sessions?

No remote control of satellites?

No remote control of model airplanes?

No remote control of repeaters?

No telemetry from satellites?

No propagation beacons?

No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system?

No................

"Period"

Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch!

73, de Hans, K0HB


don't forget, you have to call cq until someone answers you, otherwise it
would be a one-way transmission! so you better be darn sure there is
someone that is going to answer you before you call cq.

Negative.

Unless a person is some kind of nut case where they just sit and call
CQ without any intention of establishing a QSO, they are trying to
engage in a two-way conversation.

Is K1MAN trying to engage in a QSO?

Is ARRL trying to engage in a QSO?

Is someone calling CQ trying to engage in a QSO?

Someone using a repeater?


Presumably, the answers are no, no, yes, yes.

See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as
consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to
justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins!

Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote
KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur
bands.

Period.



No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency
activations?

Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of
two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN.

In other words, information bulletins from W1AW (or whoever) announcing FCC
invoked communications emergencies should not be allowed?

No code practice sessions?

No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get
on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow.

Until you learn to COPY Morse code, it'll be kinda hard to "get on the air and
find someone".

No remote control of satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications

It's still a one-way transmission. Period.


No remote control of model airplanes?

Is that us?

Says so in paragraph 97.215


No remote control of repeaters?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications.

It's still a one-way transmission. Period.



No telemetry from satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications.

It's still a one-way transmission. Period.


No propagation beacons?

No. Try calling CQ! ;^)

CQ is a one way transmission. Period.



No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

That is part of a two way system. (balloons)

It's still a one-way transmission. Period.


I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based APRS to make
an informed judgment.

It's still a one-way transmission. Period.


No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system?

Still part of two way comms.

It's still a one-way transmission. Period.

The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the signals are
used in two way transmissions or not.

None of the examples I gave "listen for a return signal", so by definition they
are "one way".

73, de Hans, K0HB

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

snip

I'm certainly all for keeping those accursed robot
stations in their
own section of the bands (actually, I am not in
favor of their existance
- I think they violate the spirit if not the law).

Repeaters, satellites and beacons are robots of a sort.
Should we ban those too?

Of course, the repeater is supposed to have an active control
OP.

True, but all that really means is that there needs to be somebody who
can shut the repeater down in case of trouble.

If a repeater is operating normally and the hams using it
follow the rules, its operation can be completely
automatic.

The
frequencies are also agreed upon. IOW, anyone operating simplex on say
the portions of 2 meters designated as repeater frequencies
might expect
some problems. Sats are also pretty well defined too.

And that's the whole point - let there be a place for the robots, not a
ban on them.

The nature of PSK31 is to use what is essentially the BW
that 1 SSB
signal would use.

Not really. That's just current practice. It was driven in part by rigs
like the Warbler, and in part by the desire to avoid manually tuning
your rig.

We pack a lot of signals in that small space. Due to
the nature of the signal and modulation, we tend to congregate in just that one area.

I think the congregating is due more to the nature of the
hardware/software implementations.

The Warbler is/was the ultimate example of that implementation - no
tuning at all! It takes in a couple-of-kHz slice of the band
and lets the soundcard and audio do the heavy demodulation and
modulation. Makes for a simple but highly inflexible radio.

When the pactor station opens up beside us, we can't tell
each other to
QSY, we are done for the day. Turn off the rig,
or maybe change the band.

Or switch modes to tell the others the new QRG. Gee, what mode
could do that job......?

I suppose that we could agree on a predefined frequency
to change to in
the event of interference, since there is no way to
let the robot
station know that it is interfering with us.

Perhaps the robot's design should be such to detect what is going on..

But you raise a question - does the robot open up on top of the PSK31
watering hole, or adjacent to it?

But it seems to me that we are allowing unattended operation to
interfere with what is a popular, BW conserving mode, populated
by
Amateurs who are at least (moreso IMHO) as gentlemanly and
ladylike as
CW to be QRM'ed in the interest of getting the spam through.

Which is why coordination is needed. The robots need their place
and the PSKers *their* place.

You might be interested to research what used to go on around 3579
before PSK31 made that QRG popular for the mode...

Yeah - progress.....


How is a robot
station that wipes out sometimes dozens of QSO's any
different from
certain Amateurs who have been known to broadcast "bulletins
right over top of ongoing QSOs?

Several important measures:

1) Does the bulletin station operate on a published
schedule of
times and frequencies?

2) Does the bulletin station transmit only information of
clear and special interest to radio amateurs? (IOW, not
general news and such?)

3) Is the bulletin station using an approved method of
control?

First, let me state my position:

I do not believe that one way transmissions
should be legal on the amateur bands.

Period.

As has been demonstrated in other posts, that's not a very
tenable position. Banning "one way" transmissions of all
types from amateur radio would seriously impede many
important aspects of the Amateur Radio Service, without
much in the way of benefits.

All of the "qualifications as to published schedules,
frequencies,
interests, and controls is bafflegab, designed to
justify the ARRL transmissions.

Not bafflegab at all, but rules designed to permit
important activities while still banning out-and-out
broadcasting.

There are people like K1MAN in the world, ready to
rub peoples noses in
the mud any chance they get. and this is a big fat chance here!

IIRC, 'MAN violated several of the above requirements. For example,
there were times when there was no control operator
apparent.

Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like
PSK31 and
RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham
bands
amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If
such
protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code?

I have to smile at the concept of SSB and AM being
protected from my wimpy little PSK31 signal.


But they are! You can legally transmit PSK31 anywhere on the HF ham
bands where voice modes are *not* allowed. Why does SSB need
protection from PSK31 but not Morse Code?

Dunno. Nothing like pertectin killerwatt signals from QRP!

That's a situation which "regulation by bandwidth" can fix *if* it's
done with some sense!

This sort of thing has some odd ramifiactions. Imagine if you wanted to
use a combined text/voice mode. Such a mode might
use SSB *with carrier* for the voice part, with the carrier
phase-shifted to send the text. Such a mode is not allowed
on amateur HF.

One can even imagine a mode consisting of SSB on one sideband,
SSTV-type images (digitally encoded) on the other, and text
on the phase-shifted carrier. Something neat to try out, huh?
Except it's not allowed on the amateur HF bands either.

Butfull-carrier double-sideband AM voice is allowed.

In both cases the prohibition is not due to the bandwidth used
but because of the content (voice/image vs. text)

Now those are all things that can be worked on.

Only if the rules change.

Did you hear about the proposed PSK31 text/voice mode?

Not yet. As I understand the present rules, it's not allowed
on amateur HF in the USA. If you use it in the 'phone/image
subbands it's not allowed because of the text part, and if
you use it in the Morse Code/data subbands it's not allowed because of
the voice part.

It actually
would probably work better as BPSK64, but it is both
interesting and
goofy at the same time.

So what? I say, let those who are interested try it out!

I understand your analogy, but I don't think it quite hits the
fundamental divide point. Certainly RTTY and SSTV and ATV
and HELL mode
have been around for quite a while.

Sure - but they've been of limited use until recently because of
the difficulty of implementation. With the drastic reduction
in the cost of a computer, the increased computing power, and
the wide selection of easy-to-use freeware, the game is very
different than even 10 years ago.

Of course none of this prevents someone from having "happy
fingers"....

hehe.

Which shows the real problem: Short-circuit between the head-phones.

The robot problem has nothing to do with one-way transmissions.
It's a completely different situation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote


Which is why coordination is needed. The robots need their place
and the PSKers *their* place.


Coordination is the key word. Not inflexible regulation, not government
mandated "indian reservations". As football fans are wont to plead against
overly zealous referees ---- "Let 'em play!"

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| No remote control of model airplanes?
|
| Is that us?

Some of it is, yes.

The 72 mHz band is the `main' R/C plane band, and not ham radio, but
there's frequencies in the six meter band allocated to R/C control.

Several of my R/C planes are on channel 5, 50.900 MHz. Ham band.
According to the FCC regulations, I don't have to ID myself for model
control like this, but I do have to put my call sign on the
transmitter. And so there's a little sticker on the module that says
AD5RH and has my name and number.

I'm not sure how anybody could claim that model control is not a one
way transmission -- the plane doesn't have any sort of transmitter at
all.

--
Doug McLaren,
Why is it considered necessary to nail down the lid of a coffin?

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Which is why coordination is needed. The robots need their
place and the PSKers *their* place.

Coordination is the key word. Not inflexible regulation,
not government mandated "indian reservations".

Coordination can take many forms.

At one extreme is the pure
"gentleman's agreement", which is not even formally codified
but is widely observed. For example, you don't hear routine
Morse Code operation in the 'phone/image subbands, even though
it's perfectly legal there. You may occasionally hear some
Morse Code used when conditions go bad enough to make SSB or AM
voice unusable, (such as KT4ST's experiences in a hurricane situation)
but not so bad as to keep Morse Code from getting
through. But that's the exception which proves the rule.

At the other extreme is absolute FCC regulation, like the
prohibition of "data" modes from the 'phone/image subbands.

In between are what is considered "good amateur practice" which,
while not formally part of FCC rules, needs to be followed to
avoid FCC enforcement action. For example, Part 97 does not
formally spell out repeater input and output frequencies nor
coordination rules. But if someone sets up an uncoordinated
repeater, and causes harmful interference to a coordinated
repeater, FCC can force the uncoordinated machine to move or
leave the air.
air.

As football fans are wont to plead against
overly zealous referees ---- "Let 'em play!"

Easy to say when one's team is winning....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Michael Coslo wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote

I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amat=
eur
bands.

Period.

No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications
emergency activations?

Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore
inherently
part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox N=
ews or CNN.

Fox News and CNN don't seem to cover the situation in the detail
needed by those in the affected area.

No code practice sessions?

No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can
now be self taught.

??

It's always been possible for code to be self-taught.
That's how I learned - listening to hams on 80 meters.
With a homebrew two-tube regenerative receiver and a wire
out to the crab apple tree.

Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no
anyhow.

If someone wants to learn Morse Code in order to actually
*use* the mode, rather than just to pass the test, being
able to listen to real live ham stations is the best way
to learn. Code practice like W1AW is predictable, dependable,
high quality and of known speed.

Is there no room on the bands for a few hours of Morse Code
practice?

No remote control of satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way
communications

The first amateur radio satellite, launched more than 40
years ago, only carried a transmitter. It sent some basic
telemetry. Under your rules it would not have been allowed.

No remote control of model airplanes?

Is that us?

Yes.

No remote control of repeaters?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way
communications.

Sounds like bafflegab to me. If the repeater sticks on and I
send a shutdown command, and the repeater goes dead, that's
one way.

No telemetry from satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way
communications.

Only if the satellite is capable of two way. See Oscar 1,
above.

No propagation beacons?

No. Try calling CQ! ;^)

The beacons are useful because they are a known quantity.

No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

That is part of a two way system. (balloons)

Not necessarily.

I must confess that I don't know enough about ground based
APRS to make
an informed judgment.

No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater
system?

Still part of two way comms.

Bafflegab.

No................

"Period"

There is a big difference between what happens when
a repeater or
satellite is used, and when someone starts yappin
or beepin with no
intention of getting a reply.

So it's really all about *intent*, not about two-way
or one-way communications.

That much I can agree with!

The determination is made by the litmus test of whether or not the sign=
als are used in two way transmissions or not.

Why?

What's wrong with beacons? Radio control? Code practice?
Telecommand and telemetry?

Seems the "no one way" stuff would really cut out a lot
of good things from the ARS, for no good reason.

btw, the pactor robots are not one-way devices - they are trying to
carry out two-way comms, right?=20

73 de Jim N2EY

wrote


Easy to say when one's team is winning....


And here I thought hams were all on the same team.

Silly me!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB