On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Brian Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Mike Stansberry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 11/8/2010 15:32, Brian Lloyd wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Dave Kleber wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >> But, frankly, we are past that now. It is possible to preserve the >>> message as a unit using standard alphabets, 8-bit, 16-bit, and above. >>> Why is it still being handled as if it were going to be transported >>> humans using CW, RTTY, or phone? >>> >> >> Because it may be. I regularly handle traffic via CW that came in >> to me via the NTS Digital system. And some of that traffic is sent >> via packet radio to a station in the Denver, CO, area that is >> then handled via a VHF net. >> > > Why would it go via CW? Why not preserve the message and its wrapper > end-to-end? A wrapped message may be sent using a more robust and error-free > mechanism that will operate with a lower carrier-to-noise ratio than CW. In > addition CW introduces a much greater chance for error. > I guess the real question in my mind is whether this is a holdover of the ARRL system or if it is something that the emergency agencies require? -- Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL 3191 Western Dr. Cameron Park, CA 95682 [email protected] +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica) +1.931.492.6776 (USA) (+1.931.4.WB6RQN)
_______________________________________________ fldigi-alpha mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
