Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
OK, Bruce. Rereading my post, maybe I forgot to emphasize that "one size does not fit all". I am not against development at all, actually, I try to follow it as closely as affordable, but discarding what works in favor of newer, more "fashionable" is somehow singing in the same tune of the marketing hype, allowing it to suck money from your pockets at its pace. It is clear to me that not everybody can follow that trend, or cannot do that simultaneously. And the newer stuff has new risks of its own, that must be acknowledged. For one case, the military in more than one country have already reevaluated the role of HF communications, that, while not achieving perfection, are far simpler to mantain than satellites or wired links, which have also their own weaknesses. Paraphrasing the final line of an old movie, "Some like it hot", NOTHING is perfect. It is actually better to have a variety of solutions available, and being capable of selecting the most appropiate or convenient in each scenario. It is just not safe or fair to extrapolate that my best solution is everybody's else best solution. It is something that we should be able to accept. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- bruce mallon wrote: > Yep you sure had that right ! > > --- "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> It is amazing that the "developists" in highly >> developed places forgets >> that the world is far from being equally developed >> and connected, with >> high speed digital repeater networks, easily >> accessible Internet, etc, >> etc... >> >> Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa >> or anywhere in the >> Third World to find it the same case... >> >> Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened >> recently in the US west >> coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in >> my country several >> times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 >> hurricane, only HF >> works...who is going to keep a satellite dish >> properly aimed in such a >> situation? >> >> Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in >> no more than 10 years >> periods. >> >> How many times has the ionosphere been substituted >> since 1900 ? None, >> that I remember. >> >> Jose, CO2JA >> >> --- >> >> John Becker, WØJAB wrote: >> >>> Sure it would but what are you going to do away >> from the >>> big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other >> then satellite >>> is useless. I have one portable radio this is used >> for Emergency >>> Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You >> got to >>> remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the >> *only* >>> link that we have that is working. >>> >>> John, W0JAB >> - >> >>> At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: I see the point about document transfer, but >> wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For >> situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well >> planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable >> radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful >> tool than a painfully slow HF link. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Yep you shure had that right ! --- "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is amazing that the "developists" in highly > developed places forgets > that the world is far from being equally developed > and connected, with > high speed digital repeater networks, easily > accessible Internet, etc, > etc... > > Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa > or anywhere in the > Third World to find it the same case... > > Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened > recently in the US west > coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in > my country several > times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 > hurricane, only HF > works...who is going to keep a satellite dish > properly aimed in such a > situation? > > Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in > no more than 10 years > periods. > > How many times has the ionosphere been substituted > since 1900 ? None, > that I remember. > > Jose, CO2JA > > --- > > John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > > > Sure it would but what are you going to do away > from the > > big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other > then satellite > > is useless. I have one portable radio this is used > for Emergency > > Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You > got to > > remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the > *only* > > link that we have that is working. > > > > John, W0JAB > > - > > > At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: > >> I see the point about document transfer, but > wouldn't higher speed modes > >> at higher frequencies be more efficient? For > situations where > >> infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well > planned DSTAR network be > >> much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable > radio located almost > >> anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful > tool than a painfully > >> slow HF link. > > > > > __ > > Participe en Universidad 2008. > 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. > Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, > Cuba > http://www.universidad2008.cu > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
It is amazing that the "developists" in highly developed places forgets that the world is far from being equally developed and connected, with high speed digital repeater networks, easily accessible Internet, etc, etc... Even more, that you don't have to go to Asia, Africa or anywhere in the Third World to find it the same case... Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened recently in the US west coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in my country several times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 hurricane, only HF works...who is going to keep a satellite dish properly aimed in such a situation? Satellites have to be substituted periodically, in no more than 10 years periods. How many times has the ionosphere been substituted since 1900 ? None, that I remember. Jose, CO2JA --- John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the > big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite > is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency > Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to > remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the *only* > link that we have that is working. > > John, W0JAB - > At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >> I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes >> at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where >> infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be >> much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost >> anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully >> slow HF link. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
There is the DSTAR network that is Internet linked as well as IRLP and Echolink. All the above more portable than an NVIS set up. Don't get me wrong NVIS is a good use of frequencies and well proven but if data is being passed, the other solutions are more efficient. As always different situations require different solutions. Rud Merriam wrote: > If I need something to go from Houston to Austin I need to use HF NVIS. The > higher bands are not usable. > > Although, having said that, I do believe the higher bands could be used for > longer distance communications than is done presently. The requires getting > towers, beams, and perhaps SSB in place. > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of W2XJ > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:15 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition > > > I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes > at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where > infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be > much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost > anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully > slow HF link. > > > > Rud Merriam wrote: > >>You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital >>communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim >>my ability to work in that mode. >> >>As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do >>see a role for digital communications including email and other >>document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in >>EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. >>Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed >>but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in >>situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. >>There are also situations where transferring documents is more >>accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. >> >> >>Rud Merriam K5RUD >>ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX >>http://TheHamNetwork.net >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ >>Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM >>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition >> >> >>I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send >>email >>via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the >>computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too >>organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot >>of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some >>form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes >>should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if >>it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now >>that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a >>primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to >>accomplish the most with the least. >> >> >> >>Rud Merriam wrote: >> >> >>>This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for >>>those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. >>> >>>Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its >>>bandwidth? >>> >>>Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a >>>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band >>>conditions?
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
At 05:17 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a >rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are >many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that >this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that >transmit without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would >not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc. Give me another mode Steve. Yes I know it started about automated stations. but under this RM pactor 3 would killed and maybe other modes as well.. John, W0JAB DRCC #2
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that transmit without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc. John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the > big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite > is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency > Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to > remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the *only* > link that we have that is working. > > John, W0JAB > > > > > At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: > >>I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes >>at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where >>infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be >>much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost >>anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully >>slow HF link. > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
If I need something to go from Houston to Austin I need to use HF NVIS. The higher bands are not usable. Although, having said that, I do believe the higher bands could be used for longer distance communications than is done presently. The requires getting towers, beams, and perhaps SSB in place. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. Rud Merriam wrote: > You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital > communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim > my ability to work in that mode. > > As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do > see a role for digital communications including email and other > document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in > EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. > Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed > but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in > situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. > There are also situations where transferring documents is more > accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition > > > I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send > email > via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the > computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too > organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot > of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some > form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes > should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if > it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now > that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a > primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to > accomplish the most with the least. > > > > Rud Merriam wrote: > >>This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for >>those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. >> >>Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its >>bandwidth? >> >>Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a >>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band >>conditions? Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the *only* link that we have that is working. John, W0JAB At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote: >I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes >at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where >infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be >much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost >anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully >slow HF link.
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Hi Rud: CW or Voice?? I think you might want to checkout EasyPal,, digital sstv pics..sends exact picture of doc in just a few seconds (60) just like a fax but cleaner.. can go from your scanner to on the air, can be printed. MARS and many of the other services are using it... try it, you'll like it !! (if you haven't) http://www.kc1cs.com/digi.htm Garrett / AA0OI - Original Message From: Rud Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:02:28 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email and other document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwor k.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: > This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for > those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. > > Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its > bandwidth? > > Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a > fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band > conditions? > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwor k.net > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/drsked/ drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/database Yahoo! Groups Links Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully slow HF link. Rud Merriam wrote: > You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital > communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my > ability to work in that mode. > > As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a > role for digital communications including email and other document handling > capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my > preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not > occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure > is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita > evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring > documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice > or CW. > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of W2XJ > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition > > > I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email > via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the > computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too > organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot > of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some > form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes > should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if > it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now > that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a > primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to > accomplish the most with the least. > > > > Rud Merriam wrote: > >>This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for >>those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. >> >>Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its >>bandwidth? >> >>Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a >>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band >>conditions?
RE: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my ability to work in that mode. As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a role for digital communications including email and other document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: > This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for > those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. > > Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its > bandwidth? > > Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a > fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band > conditions? > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Hi all, seems like there are tons of ham keeping Art, KB2KB, very busy these days! :) Merry Christmas, Happy 2008, Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition >I do a lot of KB2KB QSO on all 3 pactor modes. > I have never been QRM'ed by another pactor station > to the point that I could not go on with the QSO. > > But I have been QRM'ed by other modes. reason, I think > is the other guy thinks it's a robot and not a KB2KB QSO. > > And for what it's worth, a pactor station *WILL* listen > to the frequency but only for other pactor station. > > Key word being "only".. > > John, W0JAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
RE: [Bulk] Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Bulk] Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: > This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those > who express strong displeasure with Pactor. > > Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its > bandwidth? > > Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed > bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions? > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwor <http://TheHamNetwork.net> k.net > >
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to accomplish the most with the least. Rud Merriam wrote: > This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those > who express strong displeasure with Pactor. > > Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its > bandwidth? > > Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed > bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions? > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > >
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
I do a lot of KB2KB QSO on all 3 pactor modes. I have never been QRM'ed by another pactor station to the point that I could not go on with the QSO. But I have been QRM'ed by other modes. reason, I think is the other guy thinks it's a robot and not a KB2KB QSO. And for what it's worth, a pactor station *WILL* listen to the frequency but only for other pactor station. Key word being "only".. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
--- Rud Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. QUESTION Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its bandwidth? ANSWER . ANY MODE THAT INTERFERES WITH OTHERS AND DISREGARDS THOSE ON THE FREQUENCIES has to be RESTRICTED from all bands below 219 MHz. QUESTION ... Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions? ANSWER please DEFINE WIDE BAND ? 1)What got many of us fired up was a idea that 100 kHz wide digital would be useful on 6 and 2 meters. All that would do is raise the noise floor and destroy the bands for weak signal users. 2)Many of us oppose any digital mode wider than current FM on any band below 219 MHz since many of those using these modes feel they have the right to interfere with analog users AND HAVE SAID SO. in the name of progress analog needs to go. The bands are not broke and don't need digital fixing . Now if you can come up with a plan that does not cause a problem I'm willing to listen. Bruce on 6 since 66 > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
Rud Merriam wrote: > > This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for > those who express strong displeasure with Pactor. > > Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its > bandwidth? > > Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a > fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band > conditions? I think the issues are these: 1. The Pactor stations do not listen before transmitting. Thus, they habitually QRM other forms of digital communications. 2. Pactor 3 is WIDE. But this could be tolerated to an extent if the operators listened before transmitting. The Pactor community categorically refuses to do this. 3. Pactor will almost always push a live operator off of a frequency because its mechanical nature will just keep transmitting more or less indefinitely until the frequency clears up, i.e. the live operator gets discouraged and goes elsewhere, often with a good QSO having been ruined. I have experienced this countless times. This is what the Pactor community calls "co-existence." I do not think that fixed versus variable bandwidth is a major issue, although bandwidth obviously is. Not listening before transmitting at any bandwidth is unacceptable, nor is it accepted by most of the amateur community, although up to now non-enforcement by the FCC has allowed this. de Roger W6VZV
