[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Very, very, few hams have the slightest interest in e-mail over ham
> radio. The great majority do not even want it!
You got that right. Right now Pactor is merely a low-budget way for
RVers and boaters to send email over the ham bands. I see no benefit
whatever
>
> Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one
> could provide an single example I would be interested..
You're right. Not needed at all. We can do anything with Part 15
equipment and rules all using unlimited encryption such as streaming
music, downloading "highly ar
Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one
could provide an single example I would be interested..
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If it was really child's play, it would have been done several
years
> ago. I too use
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If it was really child's play, it would have been done several years
> ago. I too used to think that this could be done
Not if the makers of Pactor III don't release information about the
coding scheme.
As to encryption or not, w
Easy answer$$$
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
> wrote:
> >
> > > ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth" Petition
>
> Good why don't they resubmit with a new regulatory standard that no
> pr
If it was really child's play, it would have been done several years
ago. I too used to think that this could be done, even if current OS's
were not adequate for ARQ modes with that kind of timing. My
understanding is that some have tried to do it but not succeeded.
The Winlink 2000 folks (Winl
Danny is right on target on this. Loss of hard earned privileges is not
going to be well received, especially those of us who worked hard to
pass our exams, including 20 wpm at an FCC testing site. I am not very
pleased with the "gain" of voice on 80 meters, but the loss of a huge
segment of te
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick
>
> Pactor II and especially III are claimed to be difficult to nearly
> impossible to decode with software. Even if you have a P3 modem and
> monitor some of these transmissions, it is no guarantee that you can
> decode the
The ARRL promoted the use of digital modes and that includes Pactor
modes which have been with us for two decades now. The Winlink 2000
system, and the earlier systems, such as Winlink and Netlink (somewhat
with Aplink), all used proprietary systems of Pactor and Clover II.
Clover II support wa
Message -
From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:57 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth"
Petition, Plans to Refile
> > ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth" Petition
>
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth" Petition
Good why don't they resubmit with a new regulatory standard that no
proprietary waveforms will be allowed to operate on any Amateur radio
frequency?
If you wa
> ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth" Petition
Although this might delay USA hams' release from Technology Jail,
perhaps it will lead to the development of a better bandwidth-based
spectrum management plan, without the need for "AM phone loophole
contortions", ridiculously narrow 200Hz bandw
12 matches
Mail list logo
