On 11/8/2010 15:54, Brian Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Mike Stansberry <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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.
On 11/8/2010 15:32, Brian Lloyd wrote: > Why would it go via CW? Because that's what the nets are that gives me *some* chance of actually getting the message close to where it's going. I have maybe 6 stations in the entire state of Colorado that I can get messages to and I'm the only one that is interested in the digital modes of the ones that will take traffic. We do have a pretty active state ARES group that regularly practices digital modes but they are not the least interested in taking routine messages in the ARRL format. Additionally, the mode of choice is Pactor - 1, 2 and 3. End delivery has always been the hardest part of message handling. It does no good to have a modern, fast and error free method of moving traffic across the country if there is no one on the end to deliver the message. Just the way it is. 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.
73, Mike, K0TER _______________________________________________ fldigi-alpha mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
