A couple of comments. The FCC must consider more than just how fast
data can be sent. It must also consider how to maximize the numbers
of users that can access a finite spectrum without waiting.
Your point assumes there is queuing system of some sort for that 3 kHz
of spectrum and that
Quoting expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's another way to look at spectrum use. It is better to use a
3kHz bandwith for 10 minutes than to use a 500Hz bandwidth for 1 hour
to pass the same traffic. On HF, with short propagation openings, it
is better to be able to quickly send the
Pactor 3 has disadvantages, not the least being that it will make a
connection in 500 Hz, which may be clear, but then abruptly expands to
2.5 kHz regardless of whether adjacent frequencies are occupied or
not. And worse, it does this when signals are good. Normally, hams
are supposed to use the
There is a grain of truth in the concept of the wider BW protocol
working more efficiently than a narrower one. But this is primarily for
a special case where it is a many to one situation such as between
users of an e-mail system, examples being Winlink 2000, PSKmail, JNOS2,
etc., or BBS
Tony KT2Q and I just completed some 40M tests of a beta version of
DRMDV that we agreed to test for Cesco HB9TLK. Cesco forewarned us that it
is a rough beta with a codec that has poor audio.
We were in QSO for about 30 minutes on 40M at around 1530 local time 1930
UTC. We were able to
Thanks again, Bonnie. I just submitted a request to join the hflink
group. I have a few more questions about basic operation using
PCALE that I couldn't find answers for on the hflink web site.
Thanks,
Ed
Hi Ed,
It's probably better to cover all your questions on the HFLINK group.
Jim WA0LYK wrote:
I'll bet I'm not the only ham who would chose wait time for an open
frequency as being more important than length of qso. Perhaps the FCC
is encouraging hams to develop a method of queuing for frequencies
and qso times thereby maximizing spectrum use. I suspect a system
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web,
You guys are going to have to do the math for me. I do understand
that faster throughputs mean that I will be occupying a certain amount of
spectrum for a shorter period of time, but the cost is bandwidth.
Unless the increase in throughput is greater than the increase in
bandwidth, I don't
OK I'm missing something did they OUTLAW CW or just
EXTEND phone? CW IS STILL LEAGAL just it has to shair
some of the band. ALSO I'm still looking to find who
was contacted in the 6 meter users groups about the
proposals involving 6 Meters and wide band digital
. So far I've found no 6 meter
I'm afraid that keyboard to keyboard, mike to mike and keys have EVERYTHING
TO DO WITH IT. Ham radio is here for amateur use, not professional. I am
here to enjoy QSOs with friends and acquaintances, and to-be friends around
the world. Not to send tons of official traffic. Each of us needs to
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ed,
You can find much more info on set up of PCALE, and general ALE
operation on the HFLINK group.
http://hflink.com
73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Thanks again, Bonnie. I just submitted a request to join the hflink
I don't think keyboard to keyboard has anything to do with it.
At 05:03 PM 10/22/2006, Mark, N5RFX wrote:
You guys are going to have to do the math for me. I do understand that faster
throughputs mean that I will be occupying a certain amount of spectrum for a
shorter period of time, but the
If the protocol can send the info faster than I can type, then I
think it does make a difference.
73,
Mark N5RFX
I don't think keyboard to keyboard has anything to do with it.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector :
No Danny - maybe I did not make myself clear on this .
Mark said
I do understand trading bandwidth for accuracy
and that can be added to the equation too, but that really
only applies to forwarding messages, not keyboard to
keyboard QSOs.
This is not true. It *applies* to all...
All my
Bruce,
Yes, the FCC has now taken away many kilohertz of CW/Data/RTTY
priveleges from Advanced and General Class hams. The most egregious
issue is the loss of the NTS CW frequencies that have been around nearly
forever in ham radio time.
It is simply not possible to run CW traffic nets with
You guys was directed at all the people yelling that they want umpteen kc
of bandwidth to pass traffic that 99 percent of us dont touch, will never
touch, and dont care about. If it comes down to us keeping our freqs/bands,
only if we make them of no value to the majority of us, the majority of
Anyone know what all the low freq multitone signals are and how to
decode them? I suspect they are commercial and have proprietary
encoding. I have one up on the screen now on 289.1 kHz - very strong
with perhaps 32 different tones in a 120Hz spectrum. The 100kHz to
500kHz band is loaded with
After some off the list discussion, I retract the statement
below. For an emission to be J2B it must be narrowband direct
printing telegraphy. Narrowband is the key word and has been defined
for us as 500Hz. The remaining question is did the FCC intend to
include J2D in the list of 500Hz
Hate to be the one to tell you this - but there
is a lot of the you guys running RTTY, Packet,
Amtor and Pactor that do nothing but KB to KB
QSO's on the bands... And enjoy it very much.
What would you do about them using umpteen KC
of the band?
At 07:35 PM 10/22/2006, you wrote:
You guys was
I also am one that runs RTTY on the bands, as well as PSK, but neither of
them take up multi KC of space to do so. I used to run packet on 2 meter
too. But neither one of them is there to pass large amounts of official
traffic, and both are good DX modes, and neither one needs more bandwidth
Danny you make some very good points. Just the other
evening I was tuning to 40 meter band around 7,071 and
could hear 5 QSO's within 3 KC. That is not good band use.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW
OK at least someone answered this I AGREE ( and i'm
not a code guy ) that this dosn't look well thought
out and that any changes in the phone bands should
have been discussed with ALL INVOLVED.
BUT TRUE TO THE ARRL's new way of doing things they
gave away the CW bands with little thought as to
What was the mode John? If that were 3 SSB signals, they are too close
together. Right now I see 3 PSK signals on 7071.5 to 7071.8,Am printing out
: WQ9ZH- DL4JS on one of those freqs, but dont forget that there are
probably hundreds of European SSB signals from 7.040 to 7.100 at this time.,
I
Jim,
The old telephone party line is a poor analogy. Think more along the lines
of IM when it comes to high-speed data users all sharing the same frequency
at the same time.
73, John - K8OCL
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
25 matches
Mail list logo
