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?
