Steve, If MT-63 is robust relative to MIL-STD-188-110, then the latter may not be all that robust! I do not find MT-63 to be all that robust, and it is not as sensitive as other modes since it does not work well into the noise.
Do you have any real world amateur tests yet on the MIL-STD-188-110 modems using the PC-ALE software approach? I have tested this out on 6 meters and it seems to transmit OK. I don't have anyone close by with the capability to run the program who can also operate digital modes. Also, have you found anyone who has run this software on HF here in the U.S. in the voice/image portions of the bands? It has been several weeks and I have not received any response back from ARRL yet on my tentative submission to the FCC for an interpretation of these regulations. Perhaps some are holding back because they consider the modes not legal in the voice/image areas? My reading of the rules says that it should be proper to use this software. Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts as to why these modes are not being at least tested on HF? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: > Hi Tony, > > Too bad you did not also run MT-63 at all three > modes for comparison. I can tell you that next to > the various 75bps Robust mode on the > MIL-STD-188-110/STANAG modem, its very robust. > However under such conditions nothing but an ARQ protocol will really suffice. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH >
