Please allow me to make one comment on Skip's response. I have been the "operator on duty" in a number situations with the Air Force (especially during Desert Sheild) where where we were handling Priority and Classified message traffic. Also, I have been in the same situation working in NDMS communications and on amatuer radio frequencies where emergency/priority message traffic that was TIME SENSITIVE was being handled.
I do not ever want to submit my traffic emergency/priority/time sensitive traffic on an unattended/automatic network. I want the "Human Factor" to be in immediate control. And it the system is automatic, I want a human monitoring the traffic to make sure it is handled correctly and in a timely manner. NBEMS and ECM are just the kind of programs/applications I would want to see used. Thanks Skip and Dave. 73, Walt/K5YFW kh6ty wrote: > John, the outrage over Pactor is not about Pactor, but about unattended, > automatic transmissions on HF that routinely, and unnecessarily, disrupt all > other communications on the frequency. It has nothing to do with the Pactor > mode itself. > > NBEMS will often make final delivery of emergency messages over the radio by > Internet email, but NEVER automatically. > > On page 80, third paragraph, it says, "NBEMS requires human beings at > *both* ends of the path - there are *no* automated or semiautomated > operations. Given its narrow bandwidth and the ability of operators to > easily detect other signals and *avoid* causing interference, NBEMS is well > suited for HF use." > > NBEMS is also sometimes email over ham radio as well as just text messages > to be delivered by phone or SMS, but it is *not* a gateway to the Internet. > There is *no* automated access to the Internet. There are *no* NBEMS > stations that will automatically transmit at the command of a remote > operator who cannot check for other activity local to the station. Every > transmission, and every handling of an emergency message, has to be done be > a licensed ham operator, physically present at the station controls, who > may chose either to use the Internet to forward the message or deliver it by > any other means. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > NBEMS Development Team > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:26 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] April QST page 35 > > > >>That screen shot sure looks like email over ham radio to me. >>In fact the traffic looks just like what I see on the pactor systems. >> >>I'm waiting for the outrage that some had about the pactor so call >>email systems. > >
