Jack VK2CJC wrote:

If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or
a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the
Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time
consuming and unnecessary exercise )

Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to
handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be
connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the
equipment. For example, it's common to program local repeaters (and
not-so-local repeaters) into the memory of VHF/UHF rigs using the
software on the owner's PC then downloading the information into the rig.

It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for
HF. Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and
modify it based on license class and/or personal preference.
Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band
plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired.

Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a
manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it.

No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit
outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo
given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting.

For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I
don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from
doing something stupid.

"
The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the
receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to
do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate
using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended
consequences".

Dee, N8UZE


Indeed, it is also a problem if you use the HF set as the driver for a
transverter to a band where the bandplan is entirely different.

73
Jeff

On Nov 1, 12:51?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
So it makes
sense to require us to know the regs rather than
expecting our rigs to
prevent our mistakes.

I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind.

The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that
have quite a bit
of computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
sub-bands?

I don't know of any that do, in terms of subbands-by-mode or subbands-
by-license-class.

But I don't think it would be a big feat of software engineering to
have a lookup table that compared the mode selection with the
transmit frequency, and allowed transmission only if the selection was
in the lookup table.

Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
"know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to
transmit
completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step
and not allow SSB in the CW band?

As N8UZE points out, this would limit flexibility, because all sorts
of "soundcard data modes" are often implemented by putting the rig in
SSB mode and feeding audio into it. This may become less of a problem
as more rigs incorporate data modes internally. (The Elecraft K3 can
send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or
keyboard).

I don't think that most folks who find themselves doing something
stupid
like using SSB outside of the US sub-bands do so because they don't know
the regulations. They get caught up in the excitement of a contest or
chasing DX or their mind slips out of gear, and when they realize what
they've just done they feel about two inches tall.

With all due respect, if someone forgets the regs by being caught up
in the excitement, they really don't know them in a practical sense.

I would like to see
the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
bucks for to keep me from doing this, while at the same time
giving me
the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license
class
or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are
different.

The second problem is that, for flexibility, you'd have to include the
ability to defeat/disable the feature. Which means it could be left in
the off position unintentionally, and provide no protection.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message


[snip]

: : For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance
: : operator", I don't see anything wrong with using
: : available technology to keep me from doing something
: : stupid.

Your brain is available technology and has been around for a lot longer
than computers ;-)

Seriously, I know what you're saying and I sort of agree, but I wouldn't
want to see anything forced on us. If you feel you may "do something
stupid" without assistance, fine, for my part I prefer the flexibility of
using my equipment how I want to, not how a computer tells me I should.

73 Ivor G6URP

On Nov 2, 12:27?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jack VK2CJC wrote:

Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing
capacity to be able to
handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans.
These rigs can be
connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the
equipment.

It would be an easy programming effort to do the same
kind of thing for
HF.

I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic
'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work?

Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and
modify it based on license class and/or personal preference.
Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of
band
plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired.

Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When
the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and
Elecraft, do this already.

Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature
would be part of the user interface.

Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively
programmed in a
manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it.

No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit
outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could
undo
given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting.

Ultimately you'd want the ability to defeat the feature, in case the
rig were sold or loaned to someone with a higher license class, or the
rules changed, or you traveled somewhere with different rules.

For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance
operator", I
don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid.

I think it depends on the intent.

It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For
example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since
1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage
cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have
had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating.
That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it
has probably saved me from a few problems along the way.

It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the
intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to
know things, like the subband edges.

IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, wrote:

(The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or
keyboard).

Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor
but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a keyboard of
sorts?

Then again, what do I know? I'm just as lowly K2 "appliance operator"
ggg
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In . com writes:

On Nov 2, 12:27?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jack VK2CJC wrote:

Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing
capacity to be able to
handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans.
These rigs can be
connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the
equipment.

It would be an easy programming effort to do the same
kind of thing for
HF.

I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic
'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work?

Another angle on the same challenge would be who would be motivated to
develop a vendor-independent standard, that would actually be widely
adopted by vendors, to implement this? Witness the various permutations
of DC power connectors (with amateur radio emergency groups driven to
distraction trying to establish at least local standards). Witness the
inability to develop working, vendor-independent, interoperable
standards for high-speed radio modems (9600 baud and above) that could
be found in commonly-available commercial amateur radio gear. Amateur
radio equipment manufacturers appear to prefer to differentiate their
products by unique, and unfortunately incompatible, means of interfacing
and control, with few economic incentives to standardize with other
brands.

Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and
modify it based on license class and/or personal preference.
Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of
band
plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired.

Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When
the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and
Elecraft, do this already.

Will your amateur radio that is programmed to recognize band edges and
allowed modes be able to be modified via reasonably available tools and
techniques for the indefinite future? Examples that may cause me to
think otherwise include:

- Most amateur radio equipment in the past couple of decades, for
economic reasons, tends to use custom bit-masked EEPROM's to
implement their internal programming, something that would not be
economical to duplicate by third-party manufacturers. Though amateur
radio equipment would seem to be covered by the Magnuson Moss Act
(i.e., availability of parts on the open market for some period of
time after the end of manufacture, preservation of warranty even if
third party parts and service are used, etc.), I also recall letters
to QST complaining about repair depots simply being unable to fix
amateur radio equipment, some of which was less than 10 years old.

- I recall a legal dust-up from some years ago, discussed on the
newsgroups, where Motorola was cracking down on efforts to
reverse-engineer radio interfaces and the software that is used to
modify the configurations of their radios. Regardless of whether
Motorola was taking a legally defensible position, if the software is
proprietary, or unable to run on current computers, or otherwise
unavailable or unusable in some way, you may be left holding the bag.

Consider the problem with VCR's and the recent change in the start of
Daylight Savings Time in the U.S., and no way to modify them.

Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature
would be part of the user interface.

This would appear to offer more promise of future compatibility and
programmability, though might still run afoul of legal problems with
regard to reverse engineering or otherwise developing openly-published
specifications and third-party software tools. Whether or not these
positions would be legally defensible might not prevent manufacturers
from attempting to chill the open market for these tools via
intimidation tactics. Also, how long would it take for software-defined
radios to propagate out to the amateur radio community in significant
enough numbers to make a meaningful impact?

Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively
programmed in a
manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it.

No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit
outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could
undo
given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting.

Ultimately you'd want the ability to defeat the feature, in case the
rig were sold or loaned to someone with a higher license class, or the
rules changed, or you traveled somewhere with different rules.

For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance
operator", I
don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid.

I think it depends on the intent.

It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For
example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since
1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage
cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have
had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating.
That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it
has probably saved me from a few problems along the way.

It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the
intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to
know things, like the subband edges.

IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think that's the important distinction. It's also related to a
classic conundrum in developing safety systems in other fields. I would
welcome an amateur radio that had fault protection to keep me from
blowing the finals if I accidentally transmitted into no load or an
infinite load. I'm not so sure about an amateur radio that would keep
me from transmitting out of band or in an unauthorized mode if
assumptions about what constituted "out of band" or "authorized mode"
changes, or if I find myself in a true, bona-fide, communications
emergency.

The Usenet newsgroup comp.risks (aka, "Risks Digest") has touched on
many of these types of issues. For example, while a rev-limiter on a
motor would increase safety by preventing a blown engine, putting speed
limiters on automobiles to keep them within speed limits may increase
accidents by denying the necessary amount of power to get you out of a
reasonably unanticipated emergency situation while passing or merging.
An airplane whose controls would keep you from overstressing the
airframe, or flying into restricted airspace, might also keep you from
making appropriate emergency maneuvers, where landing alive with your
crew and passengers, but with an airframe you have just end-of-lifed, or
under fighter escort to be whisked off to a friendly interview with the
authorities, might be far preferable to the alternatives.

- - --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFHK5SL6Pj0az779o4RAqO+AJ9xxoDtAggjbx5/2VFmBJSHqmiibgCgxP/K
RCO/Au67cS5M2dwZJsV0TUg=
=Fvin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Nov 2, 2:04?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, wrote:
(The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31
without a computer, monitor, or
keyboard).

Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online
now:

www.elecraft.com

Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor
but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a
keyboard of sorts?

You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse
into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device.

Built in, not an add-on device. The decoder is reputedly very good
too, its only limitation being the limited display space.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just as lowly K2 "appliance
operator"
ggg

bwaahaahaaa....

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Nov 1, 1:09?pm, AF6AY wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote:

Remember that the exam is built by choosing
a given number of questions
from each subelement. For example, there are
four questions on the Tech
exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station
license
responsibilities.

Yet it is possible to get all four of those questions wrong and still
pass the test. The result is a licensed amateur with big 'holes' in
his/her knowledge of certain areas.

I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool.
No matter what
they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it.
A fine example of
a thankless job.

The big question is whether the criticism is constructive, or just a
form of complaining. IOW, does the critic offer a way to make the
process better?

The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to
use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their
lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended
to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in
a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an
amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia.

Who are these people, making such claims, Len?

It seems to me that one main purpose of license testing is to
insure that the licensee knows enough about the thing being
licensed for so that s/he can reasonably do what the license
allows. For an amateur license, that means knowing the basics
of amateur radio, in the form of technology, rules & regs, and
operating practices.

Most important is that the tests focus on what *amateurs* are
allowed to do on the air, and how they typically do it. Experience
and knowledge of other radio services may or may not be relevant.
A Ph.D. in EE with multiple patents is not necessarily qualified
to be a radio amateur if s/he doesn't know the amateur radio
regulations.

Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was
proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my
contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist.

From my personal experience, and from that of many of *my*
contemporaries, that reality certainly did exist. Not that the tests
for an amateur or commercial radio license were equivalent to
what I later encountered in EE school, but they were real tests
of what the licensee knew with regards to amateur radio.

There was no way
one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone
'expert.'

Agreed - but that wasn't the purpose. The tests were to see if
the licensee had met a certain minimum level of knowledge and
skill, not that the person was an expert.

Anyone knowledgeable about Morse Code will tell you that even
the old 1 minute solid copy 20 wpm Morse Code test wasn't
"expert" level.....;-)

When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include
privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many
PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a
'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the
questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came
about through other political work, not the fact of privatization.

The question-and-answer pools became public knowledge in two steps.

The first was the publication of the "Bash books" in the 1970s, whose
information was gathered by means that, IMHO, clearly violated the
law. But the top folks at FCC decided not to prosecute Dick Bash nor
those who helped him, so the books made it possible for those willing
to spend the money to see a pretty close replica of the actual exams.

The second step was the creation of the Question Pool Committee
and the VEC system in the early 1980s. This replaced the work of
paid Federal government employees with that of unpaid amateur
volunteers.

I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator
system is so 'bad.'

I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but
rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact
questions and answers that will be on the test.

In the pre-Bash-book days, a prospective licensee did not have
access to the exact Q&A. There were study guides which
indicated the general areas of information that would be on the test,
and in some cases the test followed the study guide closely, but
that was not the same thing as seeing the exact questions and
answers.

For example, the study guide showed some Ohm's Law problems in essay
format. The actual test would show some Ohm's Law problems in multiple-
choice format, but the prospective amateur did not know much else
about the Ohm's Law problems on the test. The logical response in most
cases was to learn enough Ohm's Law theory to be able to solve all
sorts of problems in that subject.

With the actual test questions available, it becomes possible to
"study the test" rather than actually learning the material. In
another thread in this NG, there have been discussions about
using a class to teach the test rather than an understanding of the
material.

Which is better - learning and understanding the material, even at a
basic level, or simply learning the test questions by rote memory, to
be forgotten?

It is composed of active fellow amateur
radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be
considered dummies. That's better than having questions
and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones
whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur
radio nor trying to get more licensees.

Again, the perceived problem is not the VEC system itself, but
the fact of public Q&A.

Note too that the Question Pool Committee is, in practice, almost as
much of a "faceless few" as the FCC was.

VECs do not make up the questions and answers directly. Nor do they
make any decisions on the process other than selecting specific
questions for each exam, to insure randomness. They only proctor the
exams.

All in all, I think the
VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on
what to ask in every test element.

I agree that within their limitations they are doing a good job. The
problem is the limitations they have to work under. Those limitations
are not of their doing.

There have also been a few *documented* instances of irregularities in
the administration of exams by specific VEC groups. (See FCC
Enforcement Letters).

It is even better when one considers the first word in their
description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have
guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes
thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all
five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two
decades (give or take).

It's good to see you saluting and thanking them, Len. Particularly
considering your criticism of certain VECs in the past. What changed
your mind?

Volunteer examiners go back a lot longer than the 1980s.
They date back at least to the 1930s, when the Class C license
was created for those who lived too far from an FCC exam point, or who
were disabled. Later (1954), all routine exams for Novice and
Technician licenses, as well as the Conditional, were done by
volunteer examiners.

My first amateur radio license exams were given by a volunteer
examiner, K3NYT, when I was a little past my 13th birthday. I realize
now that it took him some time and effort to make the exam
sessions possible for me. That Novice license of 1967 opened up the
world of amateur radio to me, and led to a career in electrical
engineering.

And yes, I thanked him.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
[...]
I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but
rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact
questions and answers that will be on the test.
[...]


If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your
objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many
questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's
knowledge. I have a number of the old Ameco Q&A books from the days
before question pools (for the commercial tests). If you compare the
Ameco questions, that is, the questions that the author MADE UP, with
the later FCC questions, you don't find a great deal of difference.
I have always found that a decently written test preparation guide,
in Q&A format, for a test like a New York State Regents exam, an SAT, a
GRE or a GMAT is just about as good as a published test pool, especially
if the pool is large. That is particularly true when the questions tend
to be similar from one year to the next (For example, one year, they ask
you to solve for x when 3x=6. The next year, the question is changed to
4x=8. The test prep guide has a sample question of 5x=10.)

--
Klystron