Dave, Thanks for your comments... We do make substantial use of 30 meters on a regular basis... However, within Eastern area we also rely heavily on 80 and 40 hence my comments.... By the way NTS has been around for over 50 years. Are your suggesting that we discontinue operations, especially during a contest?
Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Bernstein To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Fw: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? I'm glad to hear that you are using a busy frequency detector, Dave. The detectors in PK232 and SCS modems are certainly better than nothing, but are quite limited. Neither detects PSK31 transmissions, for example. As part of the SCAMP project, Rick KN6KB (a member of the Winlink team) developed a soundcard-based busy detector that was reported here to be very effective at detecting most modes found on the ham bands today. I have repeatedly suggested that Rick's detector be incorporated in WinLink PMBOs -- a straightforward and inexpensive process -- but there has inexpicably been no progress on this front for several years. Our HF amateur bands are a shared resource; no one can stake a claim of ownership of any frequency or set of frequencies unless an emergency has been declared. If contests draw more amateurs to the HF bands -- as intended! -- then yes, there will be more congestion and it will be harder to find a clear frequency on which to exchange messages. Using HF amateur bands to offer a message passing service with guaranteed quick delivery times is simply incompatible with the defined usage model for these bands. There are techniques you could use to optimize performance -- like QSYing to the WARC bands during contests -- but nothing short of exclusively-assigned frequencies would enable you to achieve a guaranteed Quality-Of-Service. I personally don't think the assignment of exclusive frequencies to specific sub-groups is consistent with amateur radio -- except during a declared emergency. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Struebel > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? > > > Hi Everyone, > > I've been following this debate for the past several days and finally have to add my two cents. > > I'm part of NTSD, that's the National Traffic System Digital...We mostly use the old version of Winlink (before Winlink 2000) also reffered to as "Winlink Classic" running > Pactor I II and sometimes III... We used to use AMTOR and Clover but have all changed over to Pactor... Many of us are still using PK- 232MBX's for Pactor I, others are using SCS TNC's All our connects occur in the automatic band segments... Winlink Classic has a very good "busy detector" in it... I've seen it work on not only Pactor, AMTOR, and Clover signals but other including RTTY, dead carriers etc... > Winlink classic when it hears another signal, postpones the connect and then tries 15 minutes later for a total of three attempts at a clear frequency. > I can tell you that with an active busy detector, our systems are almost helpless against RTTY signals that come into the automatic band segments especially during contests... Traffic thru put declines severely during these contests. > > We're happy with staying within the automatic band segments with our 500 Hz Pactor I and Pactor II signals... It would be nice if others realized that the automatic segments do contain stations with "busy detector" armed and ready and please refrain from casual operation there, especially during a contest. > > I know I'm going to get a lot of flack from those of you that don't like automatic stations, but like I said Winlink 2000 is not the only Pactor operation around running automatically... We prefer to stay in the automatic band segments... Please have the common courtesy to respect our operations. > > Dave WB2FTX > Eastern Area Digital Coordinator- NTS Digital > Section Traffic Manager- Northern NJ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rick > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:10 PM > Subject: Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? > > > Packet? > > This does not have much to do with the subject though. > > John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > > Rick you of all people should know that one of the older systems > > had a " auto-detect " or " busy detection " that worked very good. > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 12/27/2007 1:34 PM > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 12/27/2007 1:34 PM
