March QST editorial mentions Codec2 - copies a sentence from our FCC filing

[Bruce Perens]

[Copied from the Codec2 developer list]

Codec2 got a very interesting recognition from ARRL this month. The David Sumner (ARRL CEO) editorial in the front of QST includes a paragraph on Codec2, containing a sentence copied directly from our FCC filing.

... At this stage an amateur who is interested in digital voice is at risk of having no one to talk to unless he or she finds out what is in use locally before acquiring a rig, and would still face the same risk when traveling.

The opportunity for digital voice to progress more along the lines of digital data is offered by the Codec2 Project, an unincorporated international Open Source project to produce a low-bandwidth digital voice codec. In awarding the 2012 ARRL Technical Innovation Award to David Rowe, VK5DGR, one of the principal developers engaged in the Codec2 Project, the ARRL Board of Directors observed that "the open-source nature of this work is a major step forward in the development of digital voice communications."

Further advancements in Amateur Radio digital communications are as welcome as they are inevitable. They are deserving of our continued support. But, let's make sure we will still be able to talk to one another.

If you note our recent FCC filing, it uses the same language in Paragraph 9: The Codec2 Project is an unincorporated international Open Source project to produce a low-bandwidth digital voice codec for use in Amateur Radio communication.

I brought our filing to the attention of ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, and Imlay promised to pass it on the the appropriate people. At least Sumner, and probably others in ARRL, have read the at least part of it.

Unfortunately, ARRL didn't write a supporting comment but we'll see what they do in the future. ARRL was badly flamed by their own membership after they requested that FCC go to bandwidth-based regulation in 2004, and they withdrew their request - the first time in history they'd done that. It's unclear how much support they could lend us in the face of this previous incident, but this editorial indicates they're getting the message.

    Thanks

    Bruce

[Matthew Pitts]

Bruce,

It's kind of amusing that so many people that are members of the ARRL recoil in fright from us joining the rest of the world in bandwidth based regulation in one breath and condemn the ARRL the next for not doing more to advance the technological side of Ham Radio. It doesn't help that a lot of people that aren't members complain that the current ARRL Handbook looks similar to ones published 50 years ago and that QST is similar in the antiquity of its content. Look at the HSMM-Mesh project; years ago, the ARRL was trying to get hams interested in that, but their working group mysteriously folded, and nothing seemingly came of it.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

---

From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
To: digita...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:58 PM
Subject: [digitalvoice] March QST editorial mentions Codec2 - copies a sentence from our FCC filing

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "digitalvoice" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to digitalvoice...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to digita...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[jdow]

That last part says something ugly about about the struldbrugian ham
community in the US, doesn't it? They all sit in rigid round tables
griping about their lumbago or spend endless hours awake chasing DX
and contests. Innovation is, sadly, no longer part of the imagination
in US amateurs. Let them have a 50 kHz chunk all their own on every
ham band. Then let the rest of us be innovative elsewhere. They'll die
off, eventually. (Sadly, I'll probably go with them. I'm no spring
chicken.)

IMAO the award to David Rowe was right on the mark. He is what should
be the model for the future of ham radio and a model for ham radio
licensees for some time to come.

{^_^} Joanne, W6MKU

On 2013/02/16 18:58, Bruce Perens wrote:
> [Copied from the Codec2 developer list]
>
> Codec2 got a very interesting recognition from ARRL this month. The David Sumner
> (ARRL CEO) editorial in the front of QST includes a paragraph on Codec2,
> containing a sentence copied directly from our FCC filing.
>
> ... At this stage an amateur who is interested in digital voice is at risk
> of having no one to talk to unless he or she finds out what is in use
> locally before acquiring a rig, and would still face the same risk when
> traveling.
>
> The opportunity for digital voice to progress more along the lines of
> digital data is offered by the Codec2 Project, an unincorporated
> international Open Source project to produce a low-bandwidth digital voice
> codec. In awarding the 2012 ARRL Technical Innovation Award to David Rowe,
> VK5DGR, one of the principal developers engaged in the Codec2 Project, the
> ARRL Board of Directors observed that "the open-source nature of this work
> is a major step forward in the development of digital voice communications."
>
> Further advancements in Amateur Radio digital communications are as welcome
> as they are inevitable. They are deserving of our continued support. But,
> let's make sure we will still be able to talk to one another.
>
> If you note our recent FCC filing

> <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022090358>, it uses the same
> language in Paragraph 9: /The Codec2 Project is an unincorporated international
> Open Source project to produce a low-//bandwidth digital voice codec for use in
> Amateur Radio communication./

>
> I brought our filing to the attention of ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, and
> Imlay promised to pass it on the the appropriate people. At least Sumner, and
> probably others in ARRL, have read the at least part of it.
>
> Unfortunately, ARRL didn't write a supporting comment but we'll see what they do
> in the future. ARRL was badly flamed by their own membership after they
> requested that FCC go to bandwidth-based regulation in 2004, and they withdrew
> their request - the first time in history they'd done that. It's unclear how
> much support they could lend us in the face of this previous incident, but this
> editorial indicates they're getting the message.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>

[Dick_n0ce]

I'm curious; as long as it is technically SSB mode, does it matter if we operate digital voice on any frequency as long as it is in the phone portion?

Also, I'd like to ask if there is any ruling about the need to ID in analog? 

Rich, n0ce

[Bruce Perens]

Hi Matthew,

ARRL is unfortunately handicapped by the conservativeness of their membership, and this isn't news to anyone in ARRL leadership. Back when I was working on the No-Code issue, ARRL's First Vice President, Steve Mendelsohn (SK), told me "you're right and you'll win" around the same time that ARRL had sent Rod Stafford to IARU with the mission of preserving code requirements in international regulation.

We're making progress with Codec2 and FreeDV because although it still has problems, it already works for 1000-mile QSOs. HSMM-Mesh suffered from the problem of having about 1/4 mile range using omnidirectional antennas and obstructed paths. I have worked on 900 MHz ham networking and suffered the same sort of issues, and David has seen something similar with his Mesh Potato project. We need someone to work on mode with about 10 miles range from omni antennas in obstructed paths before we can make Amateur mesh networking work.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On 02/16/2013 07:11 PM, Matthew Pitts wrote:

[jdow]

Well, Dick, that depends on what you read into rules that are marvelously
unspecific. I keep hearing about hams trying to limit bandwidths to 2.7 kHz
or 3 kHz because of some words the FCC has supposedly written.

I challenge any US ham to trace back to Part 97 and cite chapter and verse
regarding ANY specific limitation for any mode other than RTTY and "data".
Note along the way that digital voice would gain an SSB designation because
it uses SSB to convert it's frequency up to the transmission frequency.
Finally look at the definition of "Phone". It mentions speech and sounds.
Erm, sound card output IS sounds. So full up DRM should be perfectly legal
for hams if they could find a transmitter and receiver that were stable
enough to use and had the necessary bandwidth.

So I figure if we ask for regulation by bandwidth we do so as a percentage
of the total band, say 90%. That is close to the situation that exists
today, as long as we don't get egregious about it and render whole bands
useless during contests or during ragchew times. I'd also be very careful
not to even think about regulating how long we must stay on a given
frequency during a QSO. Let's not poison potentials for Hedy Lamar radios.

{^_^} Joanne, W6MKU

[Jasmine Strong]

If you'd like to be incorporated, I can recommend a lawyer…

-J.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "digitalvoice" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to digitalvoice...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to digita...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

<bruce.vcf>

[Bruce Perens]

On 02/16/2013 07:22 PM, Dick_n0ce wrote:

I'm curious; as long as it is technically SSB mode, does it matter if we operate digital voice on any frequency as long as it is in the phone portion? Also, I'd like to ask if there is any ruling about the need to ID in analog? 

We're currently operating as if digital voice is legally phone rather than digital data. This is being allowed to go on for the past decade or so but in my opinion it's legally ambiguous. My proposed changes to part 97 would clean up the ambiguities.

IMO it would be polite to ID in a way that people could read by ear off of an SSB radio at the beginning and end of your communication and every 10 minutes. This means SSB phone or CW. If we are legally phone, then an ID on our voice channel is OK. But again I think there's a legal ambiguity. Adding a CWID feature into FreeDV is probably appropriate. Here are the FCC rules.

    Thanks

    Bruce

(a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not authorized to the station.

(b) The call sign must be transmitted with an emission authorized for the transmitting channel in one of the following ways:

(1) By a CW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute;

(2) By a phone emission in the English language. Use of a phonetic alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged;

(3) By a RTTY emission using a specified digital code when all or part of the communications are transmitted by a RTTY or data emission;

(4) By an image emission conforming to the applicable transmission standards, either color or monochrome, of §73.682(a) of the FCC Rules when all or part of the communications are transmitted in the same image emission (

(c) One or more indicators may be included with the call sign. Each indicator must be separated from the call sign by the slant mark (/) or by any suitable word that denotes the slant mark. If an indicator is self-assigned, it must be included before, after, or both before and after, the call sign. No self-assigned indicator may conflict with any other indicator specified by the FCC Rules or with any prefix assigned to another country.

(d) When transmitting in conjunction with an event of special significance, a station may substitute for its assigned call sign a special event call sign as shown for that station for that period of time on the common data base coordinated, maintained and disseminated by the special event call sign data base coordinators. Additionally, the station must transmit its assigned call sign at least once per hour during such transmissions.

(e) When the operator license class held by the control operator exceeds that of the station licensee, an indicator consisting of the call sign assigned to the control operator's station must be included after the call sign.

(f) When the control operator is a person who is exercising the rights and privileges authorized by §97.9(b) of this part, an indicator must be included after the call sign as follows:

(1) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from Novice Class to Technical Class: KT;

(2) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from Novice or Technician to General Class: AG;

(3) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from Novice, Technician, General, or Advanced Class to Amateur Extra Class: AE.

(g) When the station is transmitting under the authority of §97.107 of this part, an indicator consisting of the appropriate letter-numeral designating the station location must be included before the call sign that was issued to the station by the country granting the license. For an amateur service license granted by the Government of Canada, however, the indicator must be included after the call sign. At least once during each intercommunication, the identification announcement must include the geographical location as nearly as possible by city and state, commonwealth or possession.

[Bruce Perens]

On 02/16/2013 07:36 PM, Jasmine Strong wrote:

If you'd like to be incorporated, I can recommend a lawyer…

We intend to become a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is incorporated and has the appropriate administrative and legal capabilities.

    Thanks

    Bruce

[Steve]

There's always two kinds of people in any endeavor. The best you can do is steer clear of each other.  The best way to deal with the FCC is to have your sister run for the Senate.

[John D. Hays]

Please don't add CW or SSB ID to the protocol (if individual stations want to do it, they can) --- see Part 97.119 (b)(3) -- this is a data emission containing voice.

Encourage stations that want to monitor to get a copy of FreeDV :)

---

John D. Hays
K7VE

PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 

  

-

[jdow]

While you may be technically correct, the FCC declares it is SSB "Phone".
When convenient take the FCC at their word rather than win the
technicality and lose the greater argument.

And in rag chews an automatic 10 minute timer with CW ID can be a good
thing. If the CW ID is put outside the tone frequencies it can happen
while speaking. Make it lower level than any of the carriers but still
perceptible to listeners.

{^_^} Joanne, W6MKU

On 2013/02/17 00:08, John D. Hays wrote:
> Please don't add CW or SSB ID to the protocol (if individual stations want to do
> it, they can) --- see Part 97.119 (b)(3) -- this is a data emission containing
> voice.
>
> Encourage stations that want to monitor to get a copy of FreeDV :)
>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223

> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>

>
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com
> <mailto:br...@perens.com>> wrote:
>
> On 02/16/2013 07:22 PM, Dick_n0ce wrote:
>> I'm curious; as long as it is technically SSB mode, does it matter if we
>> operate digital voice on any frequency as long as it is in the phone
>> portion? Also, I'd like to ask if there is any ruling about the need to ID
>> in analog?
> We're currently operating as if digital voice is legally phone rather than
> digital data. This is being allowed to go on for the past decade or so but
> in my opinion it's legally ambiguous. My proposed changes to part 97 would
> clean up the ambiguities.
>

> IMO it would be /polite /to ID in a way that people could read by ear off of

[Tony Langdon]

The "embedded CW" idea sounds good.  It's a non issue here, IDing in DV, or even the ID sent by the software is perfectly acceptable in Australia.  The CW ID would allow other people to know there is some sort of transmission on the frequency.

[jdow]

Hm, it could even send the call letters and FDMDV CODEC2 as an identifier.

{^_^}

On 2013/02/17 01:37, Tony Langdon wrote:
> The "embedded CW" idea sounds good. It's a non issue here, IDing in DV, or even
> the ID sent by the software is perfectly acceptable in Australia. The CW ID
> would allow other people to know there is some sort of transmission on the
> frequency.
>
> On Sunday, February 17, 2013, jdow wrote:
>
> While you may be technically correct, the FCC declares it is SSB "Phone".
> When convenient take the FCC at their word rather than win the
> technicality and lose the greater argument.
>
> And in rag chews an automatic 10 minute timer with CW ID can be a good
> thing. If the CW ID is put outside the tone frequencies it can happen
> while speaking. Make it lower level than any of the carriers but still
> perceptible to listeners.
>
> {^_^} Joanne, W6MKU
>
> On 2013/02/17 00:08, John D. Hays wrote:
>
> Please don't add CW or SSB ID to the protocol (if individual stations
> want to do
> it, they can) --- see Part 97.119 (b)(3) -- this is a data emission
> containing
> voice.
>
> Encourage stations that want to monitor to get a copy of FreeDV :)
>

> ------------------------------__------------------------------__--------------------

> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223

> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john___hays
> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.__d.hays

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/__group/digitalvoice?hl=en
> <http://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/__groups/opt_out
> <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.

>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "digitalvoice" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to digitalvoice...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to digita...@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/__group/digitalvoice?hl=en
> <http://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/__groups/opt_out
> <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.

[Richard Fjeld]

Good advice!

 

The best boss I ever worked for told me that he never asked his boss to approve anything because it gave him the opportunity to say 'no'. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes hams make is getting into arguments over interpreting the rules, and using the FCC as a referee.  We can take care of most things on our own.  I like the suggestion of having a CW ID.  I don't care to ask where I can have permission to operate digital voice.  It may not be a problem. 

 

Rich, n0ce

[Nige G7CNF]

With the greatest of respect CW id's are somewhat arcane and furthermore their use would place British hams in breach of their license conditions, if used. If implemented there needs to be an opt-in in 'settings'.

Best wishes,

Nige. G7CNF

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2013 18 Feb 00:50 -0600, Richard Fjeld wrote:
> Good advice!
>
> The best boss I ever worked for told me that he never asked his boss
> to approve anything because it gave him the opportunity to say 'no'.

Indeed, "Always better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission."

> One of the biggest mistakes hams make is getting into arguments over
> interpreting the rules, and using the FCC as a referee.

I think some in our service just want the FCC to say, "No!" :-(

> We can take care of most things on our own. I like the suggestion of
> having a CW ID. I don't care to ask where I can have permission to
> operate digital voice. It may not be a problem.

Last week a couple of QRZ.com threads were started about OOs generating
reports regarding JT65. Some in the thread seemed deathly afraid of FCC
enforcement action as a result of OO reports or otherwise. While the
FCC is to be respected and the rules followed, of course, I think the
FCC is glad to see innovation and until I see otherwise, I think they'd
encourage projects such as this.

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us

[Daniel Ankers]

Hi Nige,

On 18 February 2013 12:47, Nige G7CNF <g7cnf...@gmail.com> wrote:

With the greatest of respect CW id's are somewhat arcane and furthermore their use would place British hams in breach of their license conditions, if used. 

I don't see anything in the license conditions which would mean that.  Section 13 (d) and (e) says that identification take place in the same type of transmission which is being used and on the same frequency which is being used, but I don't read that as meaning that it cannot also be done in a different mode and a few Hz up or down.

For anyone who is interested, the British license terms and conditions are available from here: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/radiocommunication-licences/amateur-radio/guidance-for-licensees/lifetime-amateur-radio-licence/

Dan MD1CLV  

[Nige G7CNF]

How do you come to the conclusion that CW is the same type of transmission as DV?

[Daniel Ankers]

I don't.  I just read that section to mean that as long as I identify in DV, I can also identify in CW or any other mode which is within the rules.

[Nige G7CNF]

(d)    by the same type of transmission that is being used for the communication;
(e)    on the same frequency that is being used for the communication.

CW is not being used for the communication when operating DV. I see no ambiguity.

Nige.

On 18/02/2013 13:01, Daniel Ankers wrote:

[Gary - K7EK]

In the US, the requirement for CWID's on digital modes was done away with years ago. That is because the majority of digital modes have embedded ID's of one sort or another and literally self-ID.  I feel that CWID on digital modes is un-necessary overhead that should be avoided wherever possible. I always turn CWID off in all programs I use, as a matter of personal choice. Since FreeDV is self-identifying, why add extra ID's that aren't legally required... And, don't forget, analog SSB is still used in tandem, so the curious or inquisitive non-DV user will still be able to identify you in case they don't happen to have FreeDV installed and running. And, that would be occasion to indoctrinate those that may be interested in joining our ranks as new DV users.  If CWID is added to FreeDV, I hope the option to disable it is included.  My two cents worth :-)

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK

Sent from my Verizon Droid-X

[Bruce Perens]

On 02/18/2013 05:12 AM, Daniel Ankers wrote:

I just read that section to mean that as long as I identify in DV, I can also identify in CW or any other mode which is within the rules.

I don't presume to be an authority in another country's regulation. But I also read the rule as requiring identification in one mode but not prohibiting an additional identification in another mode.

And to re-purpose the discussion somewhat, I suggested the CW ID as a means of being polite to other operators.

As to what is required of us in the United States, if Digital Voice is "phone", then identification in digital voice satisfies the requirement in 97.119(b). If on the other hand we are data, we must use one of NTSC video; RTTY using Baudot, 7-bit ASCII, AMTOR; or CW. We also have this interesting statement:

An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique
whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating
communications.

It is ambiguous whether the publicly documented methods mentioned in the above paragraph can be used for station identification. I can discuss how marvelously oblique this particular section of the rules is if anyone believes otherwise.

The changes recommended in our recent FCC filing would fix this.

    Thanks

    Bruce

[Steve]

As long as the CW ID is at 50 baud I don't have a problem with it being added.

[Patrick Strasser]

schrieb Nige G7CNF on 2013-02-18 14:19:
> (d) by the same type of transmission */that is being used for the
> communication/*;

> (e) on the same frequency that is being used for the communication.
>
> CW is not being used for the communication when operating DV. I see no
> ambiguity.

I read ITU regulations, which should be a good hint to get to something
as a common denominator for areas which are not governed by FCC rules.

For ID, I'd suggest doing it in PSK31. This is already used in the
pilote tone, is part of the modulation scheme and easy to identify for
others. How about some sync pattern that is valid but senseless in
PSK31, followed by something that can be decoded to the mode name and
details, including the call sign? This could maybe used even to detect
weak FreeDV signals via correlation...

Just my 2 �-cents.

Patrick
--
Engineers motto: cheap, good, fast: choose any two
Patrick Strasser <patrick at wirklich priv at>

[John D. Hays]

Each station is responsible for IDing according to the rules of their own country.

Can we not make this into a 5000 message thread?

---

John D. Hays
K7VE

PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 

  

[Richard Fjeld]

Yes, of course.  I should have said 'optional is assumed'.  Here is the states, CW ID has always been accepted, and the solution to a lot of problems in the past.  I am wondering how the 'no code' rule will effect that in the future. 

[Steve]

I wouldn't know what was being sent. I have a 5 wpm general class, and forgot the code about a week after the test.

If you want to waste time, maybe put some contest buttons on the GUI: CQ Contest! , DE, UR 59! , QRZ

yawn...

[Patrick Strasser]

schrieb John D. Hays on 2013-02-18 18:26:
> Each station is responsible for IDing according to the rules of their
> own country.

For certain rules you will maybe need some support of the software to do
so. Nevertheless the software should be flexible enough to support
different ways for IDing.
Besides compulsory IDing, some courtesy/legacy IDing was suggested to
let users of other/analog modes have a hint that this digital gibberish
is not just a random jamming noise but something sensible. Here again
the software could support this.

Besides that, FreeDV should be usable for all hams worldwide, not only
in the US, Australia an GB. I just want to point out that other rules
besides that of these countries exist. The smallest common factor should
be ITU regulations. Band plans exist, differing for the three Regions,
but nevertheless they give some reference points in good radio practice.
Maybe this can be settled to something with a worldwide scope and usability.

> Can we not make this into a 5000 message thread?

Suggestions how to do so?
This topic seems to move writers more than others. Just declaring a
topic closed will not just blow away questions and emotions.

Regards

[John D. Hays]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Strasser <pat...@wirklich.priv.at> wrote:

schrieb John D. Hays on 2013-02-18 18:26:

> Each station is responsible for IDing according to the rules of their
> own country.

For certain rules you will maybe need some support of the software to do
so. Nevertheless the software should be flexible enough to support
different ways for IDing.

It's Open Source, if there are special requirements for a given country, then an "in country" developer can undertake the enhancements.   There are, IMHO, more important issues for the core team to work on, like a fixed point implementation, modem refinement, UI, cross platform support, and so forth.

[Patrick Strasser]

schrieb John D. Hays on 2013-02-18 20:00:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Strasser
> <pat...@wirklich.priv.at <mailto:pat...@wirklich.priv.at>> wrote:
>
> schrieb John D. Hays on 2013-02-18 18:26:
> > Each station is responsible for IDing according to the rules of their
> > own country.
>
> For certain rules you will maybe need some support of the software to do
> so. Nevertheless the software should be flexible enough to support
> different ways for IDing.
>
>
> It's Open Source, if there are special requirements for a given country,
> then an "in country" developer can undertake the enhancements. There
> are, IMHO, more important issues for the core team to work on, like a
> fixed point implementation, modem refinement, UI, cross platform
> support, and so forth.

Well, it's Open Source, let the core team decide how to prioritize things.

In between, let the users think about how to use the software. What's
wrong about some thoughts how to use FreeDV conforming to different
regulations?

[John D. Hays]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Patrick Strasser <pat...@wirklich.priv.at> wrote:

>
> It's Open Source, if there are special requirements for a given country,
> then an "in country" developer can undertake the enhancements.   There
> are, IMHO, more important issues for the core team to work on, like a
> fixed point implementation, modem refinement, UI, cross platform
> support, and so forth.

Well, it's Open Source, let the core team decide how to prioritize things.

In between, let the users think about how to use the software. What's
wrong about some thoughts how to use FreeDV conforming to different
regulations?

Regards

Patrick

That's what will happen -- but the regulations vary from country to country.  We have some weird implementation stuff (e.g. user registration) in the Icom D-STAR software to satisfy Japanese regulators.  I'd prefer not to see that replicated in Codec-2

[Patrick Strasser]

schrieb John D. Hays on 2013-02-18 20:40:
> [T]he regulations vary from country to

> country. We have some weird implementation stuff (e.g. user
> registration) in the Icom D-STAR software to satisfy Japanese
> regulators. I'd prefer not to see that replicated in Codec-2

I understand that. But I do not even know about some strange
regulations, I'd be very interested in these. Some people would like to
see certain features in FreeDV and say so. I think that's just ok. If
someone wants to implement it, she/he is free to do so. Others are free
to make that things optional. Just talking about this does no harm to
anyone.

If you do not want to take part in the discussion, just ignore it.
Nobody forces you to participate, but please do not tell other people
what they should or should not talk about.

[jdow]

As long as you ID in the mode you are using an auxiliary ID in CW might
not be illegal.

{^_^} Joanne (unkeys, program automatically "speed talks" my call
letters then unkeys the TX) W6MKU
(i.e. There is a LOT of room for innovation....)

On 2013/02/18 05:06, Nige G7CNF wrote:
>
>
> How do you come to the conclusion that CW is the same type of transmission as DV?
>
> On 18/02/2013 13:01, Daniel Ankers wrote:
>> Hi Nige,
>>
>> On 18 February 2013 12:47, Nige G7CNF <g7cnf...@gmail.com

[jdow]

Define the CW ID and (slow) miscellaneous information as part of the
communications mode. Bob's your uncle. (Misc info might be grid square,
operating mode, and so forth - technical info not "hand typed data.")

{^_^} Joanne/W6MKU

On 2013/02/18 05:19, Nige G7CNF wrote:
> (d) by the same type of transmission */that is being used for the
> communication/*;

> (e) on the same frequency that is being used for the communication.
>
> CW is not being used for the communication when operating DV. I see no ambiguity.
>
> Nige.
>
> On 18/02/2013 13:01, Daniel Ankers wrote:
>> Hi Nige,
>>
>> On 18 February 2013 12:47, Nige G7CNF <g7cnf...@gmail.com

[Richard Fjeld]

How does one get a 5 wpm general class?

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve

To: digita...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 12:24 PM

Subject: Re: [digitalvoice] Re: March QST editorial mentions Codec2 - copies a sentence from our FCC filing

I wouldn't know what was being sent. I have a 5 wpm general class, and forgot the code about a week after the test.

If you want to waste time, maybe put some contest buttons on the GUI: CQ Contest! , DE, UR 59! , QRZ

yawn...

--

[Bruce Perens]

On 02/18/2013 01:48 PM, Richard Fjeld wrote:

How does one get a 5 wpm general class?

In the interim before we got S25.5 removed from the ITU treaty regarding Amateur Radio and after FCC decided that a Morse exam wasn't important any longer, this was available.

[Steve]

Back when I got a technician you had to know cw at 5 wpm. Then the general code was reduced to 5 wpm and I was grandfathered, so I just had to take a written part to upgrade.

 So I haven't done any cw since 1989 :-)  I wouldn't understand any such ID.  Film at 11...

[Richard Fjeld]

Good timing for you.  Well, you illustrate my point about wondering if CW ID will be effected by the no code rules. Time will tell.

 

Let's not get polarized by this discussion.  I think all would agree that a voluntary option would be the way to go.  As I recall, this all started by a suggestion to have a just-in-case way to ID until a ruling is established. That's all.

 

Rich, n0ce

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve

To: digita...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:27 PM

Subject: Re: [digitalvoice] Re: March QST editorial mentions Codec2 - copies a sentence from our FCC filing

--

[Robert Garland]

Paper upgrade from Technician to General after the 13 wpm code requirement was eliminated.

[WA8EJH]

Back in the early 1960s when I took the test for Technician, the only difference from General was the code speed.  I had passed the 5 WPM test for my Novice license, so I only needed to take the General test then to get the Technician license.  Later, when the General requirement was lowered to 5, I was grandfathered into the General class since, at that point I had passed both the necessary elements for General.

Now, however, I find myself interested in improving my CW.  The mode has become more appealing to me over time.  It's the original digital mode, since it is sent using my digits.

Larry, WA8EJH

[Patrick Strasser]

schrieb John D. Hays on 2013-02-18 20:40:

> That's what will happen -- but the regulations vary from country to
> country. We have some weird implementation stuff (e.g. user
> registration) in the Icom D-STAR software to satisfy Japanese
> regulators. I'd prefer not to see that replicated in Codec-2

Thinking about this for some hours (well, that helps ;-) ), I agree with
you completely. I'm no fan of D-STAR just for that reason: Someone built
that system, put in some features for known or unknown reasons, and we
have to live with it or leave it.

The Free in FreeDV makes the difference: We have the source, we can make
the decissions and change the system/mode/features to fit our needs. If
it is done in a clever way, it could fit several different user
profiles. If someone needs CW ID ever 0.00547 forthights, be it so.
Whatever you can think of, someone can try to implement it.

I just think care should be taken not to implement things in the
"standard" version that makes it overly difficult or complicated, and
not to hinder other extensions.