Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
Hi John, No outrage at all from me unless the mode suddenly switches to cover several KHz and wipes our my QSOs. Issue for me is not email over radio but the modem and how it is used. If a person is at the radio on both ends even less outrage. 73, Tom n4zpt. John Becker, WØJAB wrote: 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.
[digitalradio] April QST page 35 Questions
Let's see existing tnc. Free software. Once setup and configured almost any ham can use it. What is the catch? Other than it is slower than the Internet or Winlink on HF. TNX 73, Dave N0EOP
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
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.
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
Sorry Skip I have not gotten to page 80 yet.
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
Speaking of page 35, Is anyone using Outpost with soundcard? Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
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.
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
That's OK, John. I only used NBEMS as an example that all the anger against Pactor is misunderstood, because it just happens that unattended stations use Pactor (because it is very good), and it is the unattended stations and their clients that justly deserve the anger of the rest of us who work hard to fairly share our bands with other users. The NBEMS system is designed, from the start, not to emulate unattended email services, but to provide the most efficient emergency communications when called upon, and keep it under control of hams that respect the right of other hams to use the bands also. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35 Sorry Skip I have not gotten to page 80 yet. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 10:26 AM
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
ECM is the Linux, FlDigi/FLARQ/Syspeed suite. Walt/K5YFW Jeff Moore wrote: Walt, What's ECM ??? Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY Deschutes County ARES Bend, Oregon CN94ic - Original Message - From: Walt DuBose [snip] NBEMS and ECM are just the kind of programs/applications I would want to see used. Walt/K5YFW .
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
wow! so, what is the Mac OS-X version called ??? STILL looking for MT-63 for the Mac. chas K5DAM Walt DuBose wrote: ECM is the Linux, FlDigi/FLARQ/Syspeed suite. Walt/K5YFW Jeff Moore wrote: Walt, What's ECM ??? Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY Deschutes County ARES Bend, Oregon CN94ic
[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.
