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?
