RE: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
I too do have PACTOR and AMTOR qso's on occasion as well, only time I do use the mode, not into the pactor mailbox thing too much yet.. Might be me as well. Fred CIW649/VE3FAL CFARS Member SATERN Member SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer DEC Amethyst District ARES Remember guys, not every pactor signal on the air is a "robot" station. It could very well be Tony and I having a nice QSO. John, W0JAB -snow is melting- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
Actually Andy What we are using right now are a few WinLink frequencies. Why you ask? because every time we set camp anyplace someone will copy the CW ID and them the hate email starts. Not to mention the fact that AEL ran off a large bunch of people that had been using everything from RTTY to PACKET. Bottom line is there are very few places that we can park and still have somewhat of a world wide network. I for one don't like the protected idea at all. Since we *must* stay in a very small part of the band as it is already. But that's not stopping other from coming in and trashing us. This "anti" pactor thing can work both ways. Many many times I have sat back watching 2 pactor stations going at it. Having a nice QSO just to see them getting QRM'ed. I think the main reason is because "most" can't copy pactor with their sound card. I really don't care what their problem is. But I'll tell you this right off, when we are having a nice QSO or dropping a note to someone and some LID "yeah I said LID" jumps right in on top of it the only thing that happens is that the system will try harder and harder to keep the link going. And when it switches to P3 it get's wider and wider. I have a friend that lives about 2 miles away. He is a no-coder. Every time he stops by and I'm in a CW QSO he get all glassy eyed about it and always ask what is being talked about. I wonder if the non-pactor guys do the same. -or- is there *really* a reason some just love to trash every pactor or Amtor QSO they run across. Remember guys, not every pactor signal on the air is a "robot" station. It could very well be Tony and I having a nice QSO. John, W0JAB -snow is melting-
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: >> Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in >> "protecting" some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, >> PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of >> spectrum. > > > And for the attended stations? > Given the 2.7kHz definition, attended stations would use the same area. I think the band plans only mention 'unattended' to indicate where 'unattended' stations, if allowed, would be found. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: >Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in >"protecting" some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, >PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of >spectrum. And for the attended stations?
RE: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
[I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other bands.] ditto, Norway es I think Bangladesh are not cursed to 60M channelized purgatory. Wakeup FCC. rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: obrienaj [mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:51 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in "protecting" some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. They would help in the event of emergencies , and keep the rest of band free of "QRM" from them. There perhaps could be some threshold to meet in terms of usage and in determining which method is worthy of "protecting". I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other bands. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" wrote: > > At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: > > > >Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF > >bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use. > > Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done? > > I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to > set aside a small part of the band just for their mode. > > Of course I passed it off as " PURE B-S " but would not put it passed her to > try it. > > John, W0JAB > Louisiana, Missouri > Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in "protecting" some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. They would help in the event of emergencies , and keep the rest of band free of "QRM" from them. There perhaps could be some threshold to meet in terms of usage and in determining which method is worthy of "protecting". I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other bands. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" wrote: > > At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: > > > >Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF > >bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use. > > Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done? > > I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside > a small part of the band just for their mode. > > Of course I passed it off as " PURE B-S " but would not put it passed her to > try it. > > John, W0JAB > Louisiana, Missouri >
