Mike:

What the heck are you referring to as DRM? DRM or "Digital Rights
Management" is a form of copyright protection and should be avoided at
ALL costs.

DRM has nothing to do with amateurs running webcams via radio. Unless
you are afraid someone is going to steal your video!

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am


Even worse, it is the stubborn, hidebound, refusal to break
out of the antiquated standards and practices of pre-WW2
times to meld with the rest of the world of modern times.


That's surely no worse than your stubborn, hidebound efforts to
change regulations in something in which you are not remotely
involved. Try a mind meld on that, old timer

The only "code" allowed by these dino-denizens of the past
is MORSE code. Anything else, such as (horrors) "source code"
is nothing but a bunch of NOPs with an occasional HCF. Those
that have bought into it and passed the morse test will do
more flaunting of their morsemanship than a convention of
actors in Hollywood bragging of their credits. [they have
no Variety]


What is any of this to you? You aren't a part of amateur radio.
You've made no effort to become a radio amateur. You're simply
some geezer sitting on the sidelines and shouting, "You're doing it
all wrong".
You've become a regular Rodney Dangerfield--except that you aren't
intentionally funny.

Using "examples" of half-GigaByte files "expected to be sent
over little teeny narrowbanded enclaves of spectrum is itself
an example of their non-thinking, non-research, non-educated
attempts to stall any sort of progress. They can't do the
numbers (despite flaunting of non-amateur titles), won't
bother with looking up things, everything-is-just-fine-as-
when-they-first-joined-long-ago-thankyouverymuch.

Case in point: DRM (Digital Radio Mondial). Digitized audio
on HF, now being transmitted (over two dozen programs now
listed), capable of overcoming the selective fading common
to the "wow" heard so many times on analog BC, tested for over
four years on HF. High-quality audio fitting within a 12 KHz
bandwidth, an occupancy no greater than present-day audio on
broadcast. DRM may not be the technical best, but it IS a
WORKING system. It works on LF, MF, HF, VHF. By test.


It sure does. Ten-Tec's has marketed a pretty nice general
coverage receiver which incorporates Radio Mondial capability for
several years.
It requires a PC to work. That pretty well eliminates portability.
Radio Mondial isn't going to be something which catches on in the
third world where price, battery power and portability are prime
requirements.
I think it is likely to be accepted in the U.S. about as much as AM
stereo and 8-track tapes.

How'd we get to DRM for voice? Weren't we talking about images and
video? A bit of difference there maybe?


A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker
olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!"
They did? Name them.

Probably because someone made some claim that was a bit beyond
capabilities, and then clever people shifted the argument, just like
what is going on here. So now we have some of us being Luddites
regarding digital image transmission on HF because of DRM FM-like
audio.

Which would be scaled down to that 2.5 KHz bandwidth.

How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5
KHz?


The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio
bandwidths is eminently possible on HF.

Of course.


Sure it is. The problem is, what works well for many people tuning
into a broadcast just falls apart when a number of people call one
station or when a group of stations desires to converse
roundtable-style.

Yes. The entire nature of HF operations would change drastically.


Effects of selective
fading on HF will be less than the wider bandwidth of broadcast
audio. Further, since it already IS in digital form, it is
applicable to direct-sequence spreading and the ability to put
many signals on a given band without any mutual interference.
The narrowband, narrowthink amateurs will have none of that.
They will yank out the "12 KHz bandwidth" of DRM and shout it
is way too broad for amateur use...while they totally ignore
the scaling that can (and sometimes is) done for narrower band
audio.


The scaling isn't the problem, wizened one.

For video and images it is.




The narrowband, narrowthink status quo-ists will demand
"already-
done, tested, approved, on-the-market" products to
"demonstrate"
that it will work. [they have in the past in here] :-) In
other words, "don't bother me until I see the ads in QST" kind
of mentality which seems to have become standard on the USA
amateur scene. The narrowband, narrowthink hams are content
with their narrow slices of spectrum, the bands appropriately
sliced up into "bandplan" segments like separator boards in a
sandbox. They have achieved Titles in their federal authority
and haughtily parade that to play in the "nicer" parts of the
sandbox.


You can worry about the nicer parts of the sandbox when you've come
up with a pass to enter the park.

Okay, so it looks like someone is now trying to shift the argument
into something like we have to fight to get more spectrum so that we
can use methods that use more bandwidth.

I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and
digital images on HF?

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper
interfaces.

Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and
we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use.

IOW, it can't be done (practically) under the present circumstances.

Some of the other folks who would have to give up their spectrum
might have something to say about it also! 8^)


Analog-ONLY is the cry of the narrowband narrowthink group.
Keep it SIMPLE so that the most theory they need is just
Ohm's Law of Resistance. The have resistance to anything more
complex. Stay with the gamesmanship, enter the contests for
"radiosport" and win nice certificates (suitable for framing).
Forget the exploring of the new, trying out something
different.
Too HARD to think. Follow preset rules and fill in the blanks.
Big Brother in the NE will protect them.


Does complex and newer equal better?

Is analog simpler than digital?

Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a
digital expert?

I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Appears to be what there
is to offer.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY:

"They" are the all important youngsters in high schools and colleges
across this nation.

"They" are the ones I am working with and ask directly, "How about
getting an amateur license?"

"They" are all the women who take one look at the code and go away
laughing. "They" are the only ones who matter...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Len:

I finally figured out why they truly hate you here!

You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested
by never
getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or
even
hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--
they refuse to get a license because of the code...

... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my
friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority
today.

Who is "they", John?

I don't hate anybody on rrap. I like some more than others but
"hate" is too strong a word.

The problem you, Len and a few others share is simple:

You have confused the destination with the journey.

KXHB:

Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they
do not obtain amateur licenses.

I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time.
However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not
true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and
have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the
students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you
like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not
being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying...

John

"KXHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"John Smith" wrote


You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by
never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands
or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them
everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code...

... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my
friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority
today.


Literally billions and billions of people worldwide have joined Len
in protest by never applying for an amateur license --- untold
billions!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have CB
sets!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have FRS
sets!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have GMRS
sets!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have MURS
sets!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have
marine VHF sets!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have
cordless phones!
Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have any
sort of "wireless" communications!

What an impressive protest, people before their time!

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

"John Smith" wrote

However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true.
Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with
an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you
will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a
ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur
radio is dying...

John,

You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long time member
of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse test, so spare your
jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for someone else.

Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his time" is the
most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John Wayne play the part of a
queer hairdessser in a movie about the old west.

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

KXHB:

I support NCI myself.

Now, that part about John Wayne as a gay hairdresser in a western, I
damn near died laughing from the visual image your words inspired in
my mind, when I read your words.

That certainly would have been a great comedy and would have stood out
in the annals of movie history, too bad you were not a movie director
back then! grin

They just don't know how to make movies like they used too...

John

"KXHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Smith" wrote

However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is
not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college
and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and
the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking
at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about
code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is
dying...

John,

You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long
time member of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse
test, so spare your jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for
someone else.

Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his
time" is the most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John
Wayne play the part of a queer hairdessser in a movie about the old
west.

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz?

Two steps:

1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital
formats for transmission.

2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols

Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through
very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio.
Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're
used to.

For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal
noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an
advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a
telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent
bandwidth.


I thought that we were going to be able to send live video
and digital images on HF?

You can do that now - just need enough S/N.

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.

And software.

Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use
DRM, and we're
going to need to get more spectrum in which to use.

There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of
difference between people talking theory and actual
application.

Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination.

Does complex and newer equal better?

Sometimes. Not always.

Is analog simpler than digital?

Sometimes!

Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet
make a person a digital expert?

Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't
mean someone knows much about radio.

I ask for enlightenment, I get invective.

Are you surprised?

Appears to be what there is to offer.

Now consider how effective such a person would
be trying to sell amateur radio - with or
without a code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

Most of that is incorrect.

First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and
have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being
"transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on.

Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for
transmission of understandable communication (however, this is
required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc)

Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio
bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, except with the
possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and
transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO
changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in
a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily
offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just
like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error
checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances
and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to
make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this,
just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software.

Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE
forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and
suitable to ones needs, an example:
Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3
--in video--
Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5

However, any of this requires a sound and current education and
knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously
lacking here.

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5
KHz?

Two steps:

1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital
formats for transmission.

2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols

Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates
through
very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio.
Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're
used to.

For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal
noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an
advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on
a
telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent
bandwidth.


I thought that we were going to be able to send live video
and digital images on HF?

You can do that now - just need enough S/N.

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.

And software.

Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use
DRM, and we're
going to need to get more spectrum in which to use.

There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of
difference between people talking theory and actual
application.

Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination.

Does complex and newer equal better?

Sometimes. Not always.

Is analog simpler than digital?

Sometimes!

Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet
make a person a digital expert?

Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't
mean someone knows much about radio.

I ask for enlightenment, I get invective.

Are you surprised?

Appears to be what there is to offer.

Now consider how effective such a person would
be trying to sell amateur radio - with or
without a code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

John Smith wrote:
Len:

Keep a stiff upper lip man, only poor breeding reduces one to name
calling and personal attacks--they seek to include you among their
ill-bred lot.

Says one who engages in name calling.

John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

Most of that is incorrect.

Most of what?

First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data
compaction" and
have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being
"transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going
on.

That's what

"Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital
formats for transmission." means, John. Whether it's done in "real
time" is just a detail.

Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for
transmission of understandable communication (however, this is
required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc)

Signal-to-noise is an integral part of Shannon's thereom. It cannot
simply be "forgotten".

Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio
bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth,

No, that's not correct.

The discussion is about transmitting pictures and video on the amateur
HF/MF bands. RF bandwidth is a very important thing there.

except
with the
possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression
and
transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO
changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS
result in
a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can
easily
offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be
treated just
like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and
error
checking of the data is just more intense under these
circumstances
and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be
able to
make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid
this, just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software.

And the simplest way for hams to do that at HF/MF is to use an SSB
transceiver and a computer with a sound card.

But that's not the only issue.

Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there
are FREE
forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and
suitable to ones needs, an example:
Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3
--in video--
Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5

And make sure the folks at the other end are similarly equipped.

However, any of this requires a sound and current education and
knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is
obviously lacking here.

Yes, John, your lack of a sound and current education about amateur
HF/MF communications is quite evident. Good to see
you admitting it.

There's also the issue of FCC regulations. Of course those regulations
can be changed, and there are several proposals in development or
before the FCC to change them. But until they are changed, amateurs
will be constrained by the current rules, such as the 300 baud
limitation on HF. The vast majority of hams are not going to break
those rules, regardless of the available technology or their education.


The question raised by KB3EIA and N8UZE remains: How can video
be sent in a 2.5 kHz RF bandwidth on the amateur HF bands? I've
answered that question in a theoretical way. I don't think you
even understand the question and all its implications, John.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5
KHz?

Two steps:

1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital
formats for transmission.

2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols

Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates
through
very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio.
Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're
used to.

For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal
noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an
advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on
a
telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent
bandwidth.


I thought that we were going to be able to send live video
and digital images on HF?

You can do that now - just need enough S/N.

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.

And software.

Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use
DRM, and we're
going to need to get more spectrum in which to use.

There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of
difference between people talking theory and actual
application.

Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination.

Does complex and newer equal better?

Sometimes. Not always.

Is analog simpler than digital?

Sometimes!

Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet
make a person a digital expert?

Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't
mean someone knows much about radio.

I ask for enlightenment, I get invective.

Are you surprised?

Appears to be what there is to offer.

Now consider how effective such a person would
be trying to sell amateur radio - with or
without a code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
KXHB:

Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do
not obtain amateur licenses.

I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time.
However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not
true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a
chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then
perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed
manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and
the real reason amateur radio is dying...

John


Since all the "new action" is VHF and higher and that doesn't require a code
license, code should be no detriment. Or is some one fibbing to them either
directly or by omission so that they do not know about the codeless
Technician license.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE