>>>AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Rick Muething
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:11 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Vic Poor'
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Una
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Rick Muething wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea.
> The WINMOR busy detector hasn’t yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor
> Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC)
>
Dave,
Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea.
The WINMOR busy detector hasn't yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor
Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC)
has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor
:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Rick Muething
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:30 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
All,
I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might
add
All,
I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might
add some balance to put forth some facts and observations.
1) The majority of WL2K users are not 30 day wonder hams on expensive
yachts. Marine mobile users are probably < 20% of all registered WL2K users
Ed G writes:
>
> Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams
> who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc,
> should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other
> service , because those communications on a reg
I understand what you are saying Skip.
But the bottom line is that most can't copy it
and therefore don't understand it.
I have gotten phone calls and email from my CW ID after
a person to person QSO telling me what a lid I was
for operating pactor. I love the ARQ modes (pactor
amtor) and at this
Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who
partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take
their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service ,
because those communications on a regular basis could be easily
Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission
"protection"
Dave
right now I dont have the time to plug the holes
in your comments.
But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see.
Would there be a problem if they onl
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote:
>
>
> A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated
> traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less
> likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the
> side of
Dave
right now I dont have the time to plug the holes
in your comments.
But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see.
Would there be a problem if they only used SSB
and not data mode?
Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an
indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5)
of the FCC rules, which states:
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
...
(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be
furn
- Original Message -
From: kc4cop
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:08 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Your comments about "Grandma's birthday" indicates that yo
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever
you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO*
end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor.
It is important to differentiate between unattended sta
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:
>A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated
>traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to
>be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham
>radio operators.
Most of w
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote:
A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated
traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to
be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham
rad
Andy,
The issue for me has less to do with bandwidth than operating methodology. The
same problems exist independent of bandwidth; although wider bandwidth modes
certainly exasperate the situation. I agree that Winlink servers scanning
multiple frequencies is a poor use of limited frequency a
17 matches
Mail list logo
