On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Harry Bloomberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Brian Lloyd wrote: > > >> 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. >> >> Brian, you're preaching to the converted here. I am hoping that is the case. :-) > But the problem is that we are dealing with an NTS community that is very > set in their ways, and these are their rules. If we wish to keep full > interoperability with NTS, this is the way it will have to be. We will have > to work through their processes if this to ever change. > My question is whether this is a ham-radio requirement or an agency requirement. If it is strictly a ham-radio requirement then I am wondering about the efficacy of just going around it. Just thinking aloud here. -- 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
