I wrote

Shortwave DX'ers have always had to struggle agains QRN from the
USSR's "woodpecker", the RTTY news services etc. DRM is no better
and no worse than any of these noises.


Frank replied:
DRM noise may be no worse than other sources of interference were, but there
is no longer any justification for such interference. There's plenty of
open spectrum now. -

I reply to Frank:
No the case is absolutely the opposite. Spectrum space is much more
costly and less available than it was. The DRM'ers are using
absolutely legal, internationally allocated frequencies for their
transmissions. There is no legal or technical reason for them to
change their frequencies.

Frank wrote:

Satellite radio is an even better solution from the reliability and real
estate point of view.

DRM is an attempt to compete with satellite radio. -snip-

I reply:

Granted that satellite radio is a much better form of shortwave
broadcast transmission -- that's what I said in my last post! Read it
again: "It is questionable as to whether DRM will ever become viable
due to shortwave's unpredictablility and the high cost of real estate
necessary for broadcast of shortwave signals". I will also add that
the environmental impact from a 200 kW shortwave broadcast transmitter
is much greater than that of a satellite uplinker.

As to your argument that SWL'ers enjoy the unpredictability of
shortwave, I've been at it for many years and have logged and verified
thousands of commercial, utility, and ham contacts. DRM DX'ing is
another interesting challenge to the hobbyist.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:

DRM noise may be no worse than other sources of interference were, but
there
is no longer any justification for such interference. There's plenty of
open spectrum now. The DRMers ought to arrange their tests outside the
ham
and SW broadcast bands.

What? First of all, they are operating outside of the ham bands. It's not
DW's fault that hams are allowed to operate over it's allocated
frequencies
and don't bother to move.

I'll quote myself:

"The DRMers ought to arrange their tests outside the ham
and SW broadcast bands."

3995 kHz is in a SW broadcast band outside the Americas. And, to continue
with the obvious, there's no reason for DRM interference to be in either SW
broadcast bands or ham bands.


As for being outside of the SW broadcast bands, where should they go?
3995kHz is exactly where they should be.

Geoff.

Several AM stations manage OK with out of band operation. They found open
frequencies. It sure sounds like there's plenty more to go around.

Frank Dresser

dxAce wrote:
BS. 3995 would certainly be OK if it didn't propagate over here!

Based upon your logic, you should stop your digital ham transmissions
in the class B (general) allocation on 40m (7050-7100).

How about those SSTV transmissions that kill 14.220-14.230 and beyond?
They may have "enhanced the radio art" in the mid '60s but now they
are just anoying and take up a lot of bandwidth that could be used by
other people if one or two hams wouldn't transmit on it 24/7 without
listening to see if someone else is there.

So take your DRM and stick it where the sun don't shine.

You should come over here and try to operate on 80 and 40m. It would
give you some appreciation for how bad things are due to people who
don't care about others on the air.

BTW, do you actually have a name and a ham license?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
The trouble with being a futurist is that when people get around to believing
you, it's too late. We lost. Google 2,000,000:Hams 0.

"Byung Myung Sying" wrote in message
...
I wrote

Shortwave DX'ers have always had to struggle agains QRN from the
USSR's "woodpecker", the RTTY news services etc. DRM is no better
and no worse than any of these noises.


Frank replied:
DRM noise may be no worse than other sources of interference were, but
there
is no longer any justification for such interference. There's plenty of
open spectrum now. -

I reply to Frank:
No the case is absolutely the opposite. Spectrum space is much more
costly and less available than it was.


Absolutely the opposite? Please tell me which of these points are wrong:

1) The great transmitting stations with huge antenna farms which moved
thousands of messages across continents and oceans are now almost entirely
gone.

2) The news services are largely off shortwave.

3)Most military and diplomatic traffic is now carried off shortwave.

4) Shortwave broadcasters are reducing the number of hours they broadcast.

5) Several international broadcasters have dropped shortwave entirely.

I hear much less activity on shortwave than I did back in the 70s,
especially outside the SW broadcast and amateur bands. I'll admit I don't
keep detailed records of such things, but I really do think I'm correct.

Please detail just how SW spectrum has become less available and more costly
than it was.

The DRM'ers are using
absolutely legal, internationally allocated frequencies for their
transmissions. There is no legal or technical reason for them to
change their frequencies.


I never suggested the DRMers were lawbreakers. Not that that would much of
a point, because SW law isn't often enforced on an international level.

There is a good technical reason why DRM broadcasts should be segregated.
DRM does cause more interference, despite using the same channel width as
what's allocated to a standard broadcaster. DRM sounds like it has an even
distribution of energy across it's bandwidth, which means it has much more
energy 1 kHz or so off the carrier than a standard AM signal.



Frank wrote:

Satellite radio is an even better solution from the reliability and real
estate point of view.

DRM is an attempt to compete with satellite radio. -snip-

I reply:

Granted that satellite radio is a much better form of shortwave
broadcast transmission -- that's what I said in my last post! Read it
again: "It is questionable as to whether DRM will ever become viable
due to shortwave's unpredictablility and the high cost of real estate
necessary for broadcast of shortwave signals". I will also add that
the environmental impact from a 200 kW shortwave broadcast transmitter
is much greater than that of a satellite uplinker.

As to your argument that SWL'ers enjoy the unpredictability of
shortwave, I've been at it for many years and have logged and verified
thousands of commercial, utility, and ham contacts. DRM DX'ing is
another interesting challenge to the hobbyist.

Great. Let the DRM broadcasters play with of the frequencies RCA and AT&T
aren't using anymore.

Frank Dresser

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

dxAce wrote:
DRM = QRM

No, bad operating practice is QRM, If DW broadcasts DRM on a frequency that
is legal for them to broadcast on, then hams trying to operate over it
are at fault. The 80m ham band ends at 3850kHz in most of the world.

But not here and their signal propagates VERY well here. I'd almost say that they
are in violation of the rules in that regard.

At any rate, a stupid method of transmission that renders 10 kHz unusable is not
a very good idea!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

dxAce wrote:
BS. 3995 would certainly be OK if it didn't propagate over here!

Based upon your logic, you should stop your digital ham transmissions
in the class B (general) allocation on 40m (7050-7100).

How about those SSTV transmissions that kill 14.220-14.230 and beyond?
They may have "enhanced the radio art" in the mid '60s but now they
are just anoying and take up a lot of bandwidth that could be used by
other people if one or two hams wouldn't transmit on it 24/7 without
listening to see if someone else is there.

So take your DRM and stick it where the sun don't shine.

You should come over here and try to operate on 80 and 40m. It would
give you some appreciation for how bad things are due to people who
don't care about others on the air.

BTW, do you actually have a name and a ham license?

Yes, I do.

But that actually has nothing what so ever to do with DRM = QRM, now does it,
'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

GSM,

While, I would agree with most of what you have said.

I do take exception to this one statement.

BTW, do you actually have a name and a ham license?

1. This a SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/

AS IT IS WRITTEN - SO SHALL IT BE :
" Welcome to Rec.Radio.Shortwave (Shortwave) "
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/monit...shortwave-faq/
NOTE - Hams (Who Have Their Own NewsGroups, Rec.Radio.Amateur.*)

2. It is NOT part of the AMATEUR : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroups
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...09768&expand=1
USENET :
rec.radio.amateur
rec.radio.amateur.antenna
rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors.* (1)
rec.radio.amateur.digital.* (2)
rec.radio.amateur.dx
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
rec.radio.amateur.misc.* (1)
rec.radio.amateur.packet
rec.radio.amateur.policy
rec.radio.amateur.space
rec.radio.amateur.swap

3. SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup
Is Equal To -and- Independent From the "Amateur" Groups
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/

4. Point-of-Fact - The Amateur Radio License and Call Sign or
Amateur Level of Technical Expertise is NOT a Requirement for
participation in the "Shortwave" Radio Recreation News Group.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/

5. The Topic Is - All Things "Shortwave" along with a-little-of-this
and a-little-of-that from the rest of the Radio Frequency Spectrum.

Conclusion :
While much respect is given to the Members of the Amateur
Radio Community (HAMs) by Shortwave Listeners (SWLs) :
The SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup is
after all simply a Shortwave Listener's (SWL) Forum for those
who are interested in the general topic of Shortwave Radio.
[ An Amateur Radio License Is Not Required. ]

All Are Welcome :
Shortwave Listener's (SWL) and Amateur Radio (HAMs)
to the SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup
and All have Equal Standing as USENET Members.


just setting here listening to the radio ~ RHF

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,

dxAce schreef:
But not here and their signal propagates VERY well here. I'd almost say that they
are in violation of the rules in that regard.
Interesting. What rules are that and in what sence does DW violate them?

At any rate, a stupid method of transmission that renders 10 kHz unusable is not
a very good idea!
If the provides good content and attracks more listeners to SW, what's
so bad about it?

Just what don't you understand about the fact that it renders 10 kHz unusable?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

KB Asks - " Would XM or Sirius be allowed to sell a channel to (say)
CRI? "

"IF" - In a Nation-to-Nation Agreement - The US Government was
allowed to have full access to a Chinese Satellite to Broadcast
VOA 24/7 directly to the Chinese People inside China (PRC).

we can only dream ~ RHF

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...
Gegroet,

Frank Dresser schreef:
Satellite radio is an even better solution from the reliability and real
estate point of view.

But it's not a good solution from "independance" point of view. It's not
very hard to image what would happen if IRIB (the Iranian
state-broadcaster) would ask worldspace for a place on their system?
(to take just a random example). Would XM or Sirius be allowed to sell a
channel to (say) CRI?


I don't think there'd be any problem if XM or Sirius wanted to make a
broadcast deal with the Chinese. Radio Moscow tried to get some US stations
to broadcast their programming back about 25 years ago and at least one
station accecpted the deal.

Radio Havana might be different. The US State Department probably wouldn't
care, except the anti-Castro exiles have both a knee-jerk reaction to
anything Castro wants and a good deal of political power.



Shortwave allows a country to broadcast to almost the whole world,
directly from its own soil, without the "agreement" of the
satellite-operator and the gouvernement or the country that provides
their licence.



That's a very good point. However, such propaganda radio will be broadcast
in AM until nearly everyone in the target country has a DRM radio. Also,
it's entirely possible that direct satellite broadcast will become much
easier and more common in the future. Direct satellite propaganda
broadcasts would become a good choice if nearly everyone in a target country
has a satellite receiver. Or they might even be able to put up a satellite
which could directly broadcast on the existing FM or TV bands.

Frank Dresser