[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Andy, Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for frequency sharing. I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. A dual receiver would make that much easier. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:10 PM, g4ilo wrote: > > > To be honest I think the basic problem is just that there isn't enough > > space on the busy bands for all the people who want to use a 2.2kHz wide > > digital mode to use it. Because of all the QRM you just end up making the > > same contacts you could make with PSK31 but using 20 times the bandwidth > > > > Julian, G4ILO > > > This is a key point, one that I am sometimes guilty of forgetting. I > STILL think ALE is best method of establishing a QSO/contact. > Establish the contact and switch to a mode that suits the conditions. > ALE , of course, has its own problems, a wide mode, and some people > dislike the unattended operations. > > Perhaps we can invent a new digital QSO calling method , essentially > establishing just one or two modes that are used to initiate a QSO. , > Using a mode that is "average" in terms of bandwidth and also in > terms of throughput/robustness? This would be in "zone 1" of the band > . "Zone 2" would be the area of a band suited for wider digital modes > but again, you would only CQ in one well known and easy to use wider- > mode (Olivia ?) > > In Zone 1 the initial CQ and response would exchange signal report and > callsigns only, then based on generally approved concepts , would > switch to one of perhaps 4 other modes with significantly varying > throughput and bandwidth. Of course, there are modes that do this > automatically (PACTOR and Winmor), but they are not widely used. I > doubt we could get digital mode operators to change habits (we can't > even persuade most RTTY ops to even TRY some non-RTTY modes), but > rather than change thousands of PSK31 users, maybe we can change the > non-PSK31/RTTY digital mode users (us ?) . Regardless of where you > are operating , call CQ in PSK31 , when someone answers choices would > be > > Zone 1 > 2-way signals are 339 or below switch to Olivia or ROS > 2-way-singals are 449 to 549 stay with PSK31 (or perhaps MFSK16) > 2-way-signals are 559-599 switch to PSK125/250, RTTY > > Zone 2 > Initial CQ in Olivia 1000/16 > > 2-way signals are 339 or below switch to Olivia 1000/32 or ROS16 > 2-way-singals are 449 to 549 stay with Olivia 1000/16 > 2-way-signals are 559-599 switch to a NARROWER mode PSK250-63 , RTTY > > Where a band has no clear "wide mode" allocation, , or very little > bandwidth at all , Zone 2 type communication would never be expected. > > This may be too radical to be well received and adopted by the average > digital ham. Instead of everyone having varying patches of territory > and calling plaintively looking for that rare ham that actually uses > the same obscure mode, the digital portions of a band would have PSK31 > (or MFSK16) calling CQ over a much wider range of frequencies then > switching as conditions dictate. A CQ might start with PSK31 and > result in a QSO that ends in PSK250. The only dilemma then would be, > do you revert to calling CQ in PSK31 after the QSO or "QRZ?" in the > mode that ended the QSO. That might just have to be up to the > individual ham to decide. > > Example bandplan > 14070-080 "narrow mode QSO zone " CQ in PSK31 > 14081-14099 RTTY, > 14101 Packet , > 14102-14110 Wide mode QSO fzone . CQ in ROS 16 or Olivia 1000/16 > > No need to list any individual modes except RTTY and packet. > Andy K3UK > > > > > R = READABILITY > 1 -- Unreadable > 2 -- Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable > 3 -- Readable with considerable difficulty > 4 -- Readable with practically no difficulty > 5 -- Perfectly readable > > S = SIGNAL STRENGTH > 1 -- Faint signals, barely perceptible > 2 -- Very weak signals > 3 -- Weak signals > 4 -- Fair signals > 5 -- Fairly good signals > 6 -- Good signals > 7 --
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Howard, With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS" wrote: > > > Hello Ed! > > How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? > > Howard W6IDS > Richmond, IN Em79NV > > - Original Message - > From: "ed_hekman" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- > reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon > > > > > > > > Andy, > > > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea > > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that > > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that > > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. > > > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the > > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the > > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be > > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I > > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for > > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. > > > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal > > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, > > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple > > access features for frequency sharing. > > > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to > > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. > > A dual receiver would make that much easier. > > > > Ed > > WB6YTE > > >
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Hi Andy, I made mention of years ago via this forum that AQC-ALE is the the solution to your desires in these areas and that is still true and the neew features I have coded into PC-ALE and those that I am currntly working on will aid you in your pursuits. AQC-ALE ( which is only found in PC-ALE, MARS-ALE and Military ALE transceivers ) makes use of the same standard tones as standard ALE, however the data transmissions for all things involving Soundings if used and linking calls are very much shorter. The scan rate in PC-ALE for AQC-ALE is fixed at 5 ch/sec which means radios must typically be operated at 9600 baud or greater serial rates and FAST AGC is an absolute must. AQC-ALE has a "Meet Me" feature that will steer the linked station(s) to another channel in the current band or any other band as programmed in a common scan group between the users, the channel numbers for all channels in the scan group being used MUST match for all users in a group else the "Meet Me" feature will not work properly in getting all sttions to the same new channel. The setup for your purposes would be that your channels planned for "Meet Me" using no ALE for follow-on would be setup up in your scan groups as non-sounding channels if you are going to do any sounding at all, which is not at all required. As long as there is an organized group all scanning the same channels and all using a scan group that matches for all users than you can just make a single station or any multiple station linking call in AQC-ALE to establish the link, then change to one or more of the channels that you have pre-programmed as a "Meet Me" channel to see if its free, then go back to the channel you linked on and sen the "Meet Me" for the free channel. Then one you are on the new channel you can assume that the stations you are inlink with are there as well, if ALE is permitted and is to be used you can them use AMD, DBM or DTM or another follow on protocol as you choose. I have done all this on the air in the past and it works great. New features in the last PC-ALE release such as releasing RESOURCES make it easier than ever to use other PC software for follow-on after an ALE link and newer features that I have coded and some being worked on add even more 3rd party interfacing, coming soon will be emulation of KENWOOD and ICOM radio command sets where program such as VCOM will allow for any 3rd party program to control whhich ever of the over 200 make/models radios supported by PC-ALE after the ALE link, which also opens to door to any program that supports either or those two brands to control radios not normally found in HAM applications, you will be able to have PC-ALE just sit there with all but the emulation serial port released and use it as a radio control server if your non-ham rig is not supported. Please not that I only see messages to this forum when I log in via Yahoo so replies to any questions may not be fast coming here, however I do get direct e-mails via the MultiPSK and HFlink forums. /s/ Steve, N2CKH www.n2ckh.com/PC_ALE_FORUM/ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the > standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is > quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting > we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the > general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received > data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or > "link" ) .
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I think it's fair to discuss, which is to say question, whether military standard ALE is the best thing to use on amateur frequencies. It's good to make use of existing standards when they fit the situation, but military radio is not amateur radio. With our crowded bands, and with amateur radios that are stingy on the bandwidth, maybe we would be better off using something like Patrick's ALE-400. Jim W6JVE
[digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Hi Andy, Dropped in to see if I needed to reply to anything from yesterday and I see that you really have a number of members on this forum that seem to have a lot of personal gripes and also make a lot of negative comments about BW and what is and is not appropropriate for use on Amateur Radio and I just have to say that it really amuses me a lot. Those forum members that are really interested in the coming wave of Amateur Radio Digital Operating Methods don't just stop at learning about Software Defined Radios, start reading up on Cognitive Defined Radios and don't for a second think that Automatic Link Establishment is not going to be part of the SDR and CDR future of Amateur Radio, it is going to very much be a big part of what is coming into being as I can't think of anything else up to the task. The HF Spectrum will be radpidly scanned to indentify the stations of interest to link with and find the optimal frequency for propagation to establish the automatic link and exchange data at high speeds, you will see the ability to decode and display all the activity on a given chunk of spectrum during RX sweeps, get prepared as its coming sooner than you may think and I gather from comments made here, sooner than some my even want. Anyhow, off my soap box and back to my C++ hole. Sincerely, /s/ Steve, N2CKH www.n2ckh.com/PC_ALE_FORUM/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Hello Ed! How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: "ed_hekman" To: Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon > > > Andy, > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple > access features for frequency sharing. > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. > A dual receiver would make that much easier. > > Ed > WB6YTE >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or "link" ) . The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and "narrow" band segments. The world is also split in to "favourite" modes where people try to find a niche within a band for these modes. The result is competing debates about which mode should park where. PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes. That leaves Olivia, Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR, Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 and PSK variants, as the remainder. . While I would love to change the habits of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it. I think there is enough room to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good segment of each band for the rest. The plan would be that "the rest" all agree to use one mode for a CQ/ Andy K3UK On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman wrote: > > > > > Howard, > > With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band > that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that > segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be > tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. > > I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common > mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received > the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the > QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. > > I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being > able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - > 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of > operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ > anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency > so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. > > Ed > WB6YTE > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > "W6IDS" wrote: > > > > > > Hello Ed! > > > > How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? > > > > Howard W6IDS > > Richmond, IN Em79NV > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: "ed_hekman" > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- > > reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy, > > > > > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the > idea > > > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID > that > > > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that > > > > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. > > > > > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the > > > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is > the > > > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be > > > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I > > > > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for > > > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. > > > > > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal > > > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, > images, > > > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple > > > access features for frequency sharing. > > > > > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to > > > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the > QSO. > > > A dual receiver would make that much easier. > > > > > > Ed > > > WB6YTE > > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I hope no one is deleting this thread. It's something to chew on slowly.
Thanks, Guys. Interesting reads, both.
Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN EM79NV
- Original Message -
From: Andy obrien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band
plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the
standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is
quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting we
use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general
concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to
establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or "link" ) .
The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it
is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is
such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and "narrow" band segments.
The world is also split in to "favourite" modes where people try to find a
niche within a band for these modes. The result is competing debates about
which mode should park where. PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant
modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes. That leaves Olivia,
Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR, Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400
and PSK variants, as the remainder. . While I would love to change the habits
of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it. I think there is enough room
to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good
segment of each band for the rest. The plan would be that "the rest" all agree
to use one mode for a CQ/
Andy K3UK
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman wrote:
Howard,
With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band
that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment
there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning
there, hear the CQ and respond.
I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common
mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the
two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This
is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link.
I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being
able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth -
48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation.
If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that
bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software
would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls.
Ed
WB6YTE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS" wrote:
>
>
> Hello Ed!
>
> How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?
>
> Howard W6IDS
> Richmond, IN Em79NV
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "ed_hekman"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-
> reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
>
> > Andy,
> >
> > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the
idea
> > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID
that
> > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that
> > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
> >
> > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the
> > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is
the
> > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be
> > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I
> > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for
> > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
> >
> > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal
> > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email,
images,
> > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple
> > access features for frequency sharing.
> >
> > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to
> > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the
QSO.
> > A dual receiver would make that much easier.
> >
> > Ed
> > WB6YTE
> >
>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I fully agree Steve, it sounds like the way to go. I only have 1.062H, will have to check to see if I have the new features. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:07 PM, N2CKH wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > I made mention of years ago via this forum that AQC-ALE is the the solution > to your desires in these areas and that is still true and the neew features > I have coded into PC-ALE and those that I am currntly working on will aid > you in your pursuits. > > AQC-ALE ( which is only found in PC-ALE, MARS-ALE and Military ALE > transceivers ) makes use of the same standard tones as standard ALE, however > the data transmissions for all things involving Soundings if used and > linking calls are very much shorter. The scan rate in PC-ALE for AQC-ALE is > fixed at 5 ch/sec which means radios must typically be operated at 9600 baud > or greater serial rates and FAST AGC is an absolute must. > > AQC-ALE has a "Meet Me" feature that will steer the linked station(s) to > another channel in the current band or any other band as programmed in a > common scan group between the users, the channel numbers for all channels in > the scan group being used MUST match for all users in a group else the "Meet > Me" feature will not work properly in getting all sttions to the same new > channel. The setup for your purposes would be that your channels planned for > "Meet Me" using no ALE for follow-on would be setup up in your scan groups > as non-sounding channels if you are going to do any sounding at all, which > is not at all required. As long as there is an organized group all scanning > the same channels and all using a scan group that matches for all users than > you can just make a single station or any multiple station linking call in > AQC-ALE to establish the link, then change to one or more of the channels > that you have pre-programmed as a "Meet Me" channel to see if its free, then > go back to the channel you linked on and sen the "Meet Me" for the free > channel. Then one you are on the new channel you can assume that the > stations you are inlink with are there as well, if ALE is permitted and is > to be used you can them use AMD, DBM or DTM or another follow on protocol as > you choose. I have done all this on the air in the past and it works great. > > New features in the last PC-ALE release such as releasing RESOURCES make it > easier than ever to use other PC software for follow-on after an ALE link > and newer features that I have coded and some being worked on add even more > 3rd party interfacing, coming soon will be emulation of KENWOOD and ICOM > radio command sets where program such as VCOM will allow for any 3rd party > program to control whhich ever of the over 200 make/models radios supported > by PC-ALE after the ALE link, which also opens to door to any program that > supports either or those two brands to control radios not normally found in > HAM applications, you will be able to have PC-ALE just sit there with all > but the emulation serial port released and use it as a radio control server > if your non-ham rig is not supported. > > Please not that I only see messages to this forum when I log in via Yahoo > so replies to any questions may not be fast coming here, however I do get > direct e-mails via the MultiPSK and HFlink forums. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > www.n2ckh.com/PC_ALE_FORUM/ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Andy > obrien wrote: > > > > Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the > > standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is > > quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not > suggesting > > we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the > > general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of > received > > data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or > > "link" ) . > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I agree Jim, ALE400 would make sense. In general, the current failing of standard ALE to take off are , I think, linked to attempts to popularize ALE for emcomm use. While ALE concepts do lend themselves to emergency communication nets, the gist of this thread is related to plain old ham radio, having a normal QSO. Having a standard calling digital mode , and a way to then switch modes to suit conditions . This would eliminate the endless CQ calling in odd-ball modes and increase the chances of actually getting a reply. To regular ALE users my idea is like reinventing the wheel, because what I propose is what ALE can do already. However, getting people to actually deploy ALE and also eliminate unattended operations, is an impossible task. Andy K3Uk On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:41 PM, jhaynesatalumni wrote: > > > I think it's fair to discuss, which is to say question, whether > military standard ALE is the best thing to use on amateur > frequencies. It's good to make use of existing standards when > they fit the situation, but military radio is not amateur radio. > With our crowded bands, and with amateur radios that are stingy > on the bandwidth, maybe we would be better off using something > like Patrick's ALE-400. > > Jim W6JVE > > >
