Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 4th 07, 04:48 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default Sorry, but this is an actual policy issue posting...

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/22/102/?nc=1

ARRL Seeks Comments on New HF Digital Protocol
NEWINGTON, CT, Feb 22, 2007 -- The ARRL is seeking comments from
amateurs concerning development of an open-source (non-proprietary)
data communications protocol suitable for use by radio amateurs over
high-frequency (HF) fading paths. This is not a Request for Proposals
(RFP). An RFP may or not be forthcoming depending on evaluation of the
information received.

Specifically, the League is asking for comments and information on the
following issues:

Access Method: Is Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
the best candidate technology, or should other competitive
technologies be considered?

Data Rate and Bandwidth: What data rates/throughputs are achievable at
various bandwidths up to 3 kHz bandwidth?

Adaptivity: What adaptive features should be considered, such as
automatic adjustment of transmitter power, modulation waveform and
coding, in order to maximize throughput and efficiency in two-way
contacts?

Robustness: What is achievable for reliable operation at power levels
typical in the Amateur Radio Service and low signal/noise and
interference ratios?

Error control: What are the appropriate applications of error control
suitable for HF channels? For example, how should Repeat reQuest (ARQ)
and Forward Error Control (FEC) be applied to two-way contacts and one-
to-many (roundtable and bulletin) transmissions?

Activity Detection: What is an effective method of determining whether
a frequency is busy prior to transmission?

Operating System: What operating systems (such as Windows or Linux)
are appropriate for Amateur Radio use with this protocol?

Hardwa What practical and affordable hardware platforms are
suitable for amateur stations? Consider the use of personal computers
with or without sound cards. Provide any information about the need
for an additional "box" if needed.

Please provide the following with your response: (1) name of
respondent, (2) respondent's contact information, (3) related
experience, and (4) type of respondent: (individual, partnership,
corporation or group). Do not include proprietary information as part
of your response.

Post, fax or e-mail your response by 1900 UTC, May 15, 2007, to ARRL
Chief Technology Officer Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, 3545 Chain Bridge Rd --
Suite 209, Fairfax, VA 22030; Fax: 703-934-2079.


  #3   Report Post  
Old March 4th 07, 06:52 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Sorry, but this is an actual policy issue posting...

John Smith I wrote:

...


Probably the most important aspect of all, the source code should be
open and download-able right along with the compiled
application--allowing personal "tweaking" by individuals.

Also, it should be easily compilable by some free compiler available for
download on the net. And, should probably use a sound card with line
out or mic outputs. This way anyone can pull a computer out of a
dumpster and run it ...

This would guarantee that rich or poor alike have equal access to the
new developments.

The free borland command line tools is one excellent example of a free
32 bit compiler, and uses the C\C++ language. This would guarantee the
ease of making it available on both windows and linux platforms (as long
as the source is NOT heavily based on win dll's, scripting, dot net,
com, etc.)

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 4th 07, 07:55 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Sorry, but this is an actual policy issue posting...

On Mar 4, 9:52�am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

* ...

Probably the most important aspect of all, the source code should be
open and download-able right along with the compiled
application--allowing personal "tweaking" by individuals.

Also, it should be easily compilable by some free compiler available for
download on the net. *And, should probably use a sound card with line
out or mic outputs. *This way anyone can pull a computer out of a
dumpster and run it ...

This would guarantee that rich or poor alike have equal access to the
new developments.


JS, you've overlooked some of the regulatory-political aspects.
This isn't about the ARRL "jockeying for position in leader-
ship" but a potential REGULATION CHANGE of Part 97.

This isn't about "freedom" (or neo-anarchy as you seem to
want) but a very real pumping for MODE CHANGE (going
for higher rates) in REGULATIONS. There's the real
POLITICAL issue of allowing radio amateurs too much
freedom and possibly "using means to obscure the content
of communications" (more or less) as given in ITU radio
regulation S25. The USA is a signatory to the ITU and
takes that seriously. It should.

LIke it or not, the ARRL does have some POLITICAL
clout. It has a DC law firm on retainer plus a lobbyist
business. While we both have expressed misgivings
about the ARRL they still have an effect on Regulation
Changes. The League is a NAME even though it is
small compared to hundreds of other, bigger special-
interest groups in the DC area. That's where the law
of the land is run.

If you want to pump up Linux and Freeware, fine, go
ahead. I can't agree with you despite your longer
experience with software. I can't agree with academic
types who put "freedom" ahead of commercial interests
because they think they are "better" than crass
capitalists. shrug That's just the usual lot of hooey
which is disguised self-defined, self-centered "better-
than-othersism."

One BIG proposal by a Name group that has both
researchable technical smarts and proper Legalese
language is going to do more and has a better chance
of passing the FCC's scrutiny on mode advancement
than any retreaded 60s-style rhetoric. The FCC has
more smarts there than all the "me-firsters" think and
they have a LARGE task in managing ALL civil radio
in the USA. FCC R&Os show that they DO think
about things from their lawful regulation role. It may
not be what YOU like in their decisions but it IS a
decision coupled with all the reasons of that decision.

The ARRL hasn't submitted that proposal yet. That's
why they put that notice out...they are gathering
material to put into a Petition for Consideration. I
will side with the ARRL's effort on improving the
technical side of US amateur radio regulations. It is
a good sign of their (finally) leaving the old 1930s
style of hamming behind. Don't knock it.

73, LA

  #6   Report Post  
Old March 4th 07, 11:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Sorry, but this is an actual policy issue posting...

On Mar 4, 12:04�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

* ...

* *technical side of US amateur radio regulations. *It is
* *a good sign of their (finally) leaving the old 1930s
* *style of hamming behind. *Don't knock it.


* *73, LA


Don't kid yourself Len. *They are there and right up front because they
are PROFESSIONAL politicians, they are magicians-extraordinaire, their
sleight of hand will make yer head spin and leave ya a wonderin' how
that happened???


Sorry, JS, they are good with the usual marketing tricks
and wordsmithing, but I know exactly how they do it.

In order to SURVIVE in the getting-more-competitive with
fewer amateur radio buyers, they MUST keep that big
publishing house going. To do that they have to resort
to actually (gasp!) "walk on the wild side" with the
majority opinions...not the minority of the code-tested
olde-tymers. The ARRL isn't stupid OR despotic.
Signs of tyranical conduct once in a while, though...

It is all about control ... and like any "arrl product", it ain't worth
havin' if their hand has been involved!


Obviously the "control" part has been there for decades.

But on the "product" I disagree with you. However,
everyone's "mileage may vary."

73, LA




JS
--http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com



  #8   Report Post  
Old March 8th 07, 08:25 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default just another stalking thread

On Mar 4, 6:00�pm, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:54:45 -0800, John Smith I

wrote:
wrote:


...
* *Sorry, JS, they are good with the usual marketing tricks
* *and wordsmithing, but I know exactly how they do it.


...


Well, I think what you are looking at is their "escape" into the
software publishing arena, only they want others to do the hard work
(coding) for 'em, then they steal the stuff and sell it.


I agree and frankly it is the promising sign of of life I have seen
from the ARRL to date

But, we'll see, we'll see ...


JS


http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


just another stalking thread
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com





  #9   Report Post  
Old March 9th 07, 09:21 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 302
Default More Morkie Mularkie

On Mar 8, 1:25?pm, "nobodys old friend" wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:00?pm, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:54:45 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:
wrote:


? ?Sorry, JS, they are good with the usual marketing tricks
? ?and wordsmithing, but I know exactly how they do it.


...


Well, I think what you are looking at is their "escape" into the
software publishing arena, only they want others to do the hard work
(coding) for 'em, then they steal the stuff and sell it.


I agree and frankly it is the promising sign of of life I have seen
from the ARRL to date


But, we'll see, we'll see ...


JS


http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


just another stalking thread.


Complete lack of any stalking issues noted.

Just More Morkie Mularkie.

Steve, K4YZ



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moderator Policy for proposed rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated [email protected] Policy 0 June 10th 06 03:25 PM
Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz [email protected] Policy 46 January 30th 06 06:25 PM
how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning an_old_friend Policy 71 October 21st 05 02:23 AM
Actual Shortwave Question Beloved Leader Shortwave 23 October 4th 04 09:48 PM
ACTUAL FOR SALES!! TS 140 , TS450Sat and MORE!! radioranch Swap 0 December 20th 03 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017