Hi John,
Until recently, I did not even think of going much above 14.095 or so. I
have heard a number of Olivia stations above 14.100 this weekend. It may
be where I live (north midwest U.S.), but there really are not that many
digital signals on the bands (compared to phone and CW anyway).
, but don't want to make a bad situation worse
. Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't want to be any part of more
QRM
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
Subject:
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many
Message -
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list.
However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with
an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery
and where might those frequencies be?
- Original Message -
From:
David
Struebel
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:58
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
John,You are grossly misinformed
: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink Classic
program with the Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD Winlink
Classic stations I connect to stay within in the automatic sub-bands as
laid out in FCC regulations, Part 97.221(b
At 08:44 PM 1/15/06, you wrote:
If you use 14105 - 14110 your going to be bucking heads with rtty
ops. You might read Olivia thru that, but the rtty ops wont enjoy it.
Most if not all RTTY operations is going to be between
14,080 - 85 to about 14,098. Of course we all should
know that 14,100
and digital
never hear RTTY there, always just pactor...
and usually P3
- Original Message -
From:
Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:44
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling
There is an active digital system in NTS called NTSD employing Winlink
software and coverage from area to area.
Many NTS operators keyboard into these NTSD stations but the main
problem as always is getting the trafic delivered
locally. It makes no sense to be able to relay trafic via HF
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list.
However in all cases until the computer calls
and delivers the message with an automated voice it still requires
trained operator at the delivery end.
There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing
nope.. i use it to call CQ every 6 months hi
hi
- Original Message -
From:
Chuck Mayfield
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:33
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
John,Wanna sell
Title: RE: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Currently (according to my source(s)...U.S. and foreign contractors working for the DoD), Russia is using high-speed, robust digital modes on HF in addition to satellite communications. They are running at least 19.2 Kbps user
It is a pet peeve that our defense establishment is so
dependent on satellites.
The communist-fascist regime that has mainland China
enslaved and is building a massive military machine with
WalMart (etc) dollars has been building satellite-killer
technology for years.
Were comets, heavy smoke,
very
- Original Message -
From:
LELAND
ZANTESON
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:58
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Correct on the vulnerability of satellites. The Soviet military
Satellite internet is not mission-critical reliable.
It could be disasterously foolish to design a solitary
dependency on such a non-redundant system, same as the
prior foolishness of we have cell phones, we don't
need Ham radio.
This is not to say that ill-informed decisionmakers
brainwashed by
Historically, most the NTS traffic was done via CW. It took more than a
generation to get acceptance of BPL (Brass Pounder's League) for non CW
voice modes. RTTY digital was used some, but I would have to say that it
was always a niche area.
For those of us who used to be NCS (Net Control
The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they negotiate
agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent
amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency shelters, what
do they expect?
The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's
-
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved at
all then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messages
would likely
mind, it does not matter
- Original Message -
From:
Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:52
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
I really wonder if we are thinking in the same terms
Tim,
While I agree with much of what you say, I did not get the same
impression from the QST comments about not providing HW traffic.
My understanding was that this was a ARC decision so that it would be
more fair for everyone since not all shelters had equivalent radio
communications
I don't want to belabor this too much. I wrote a volume about it to my
Director - never heard a single word back from anyone.
Just let it be known that if an EMT ever said I'm not going to treat anyone
if I can't treat everyone! he would be fired on the spot.
The ARC didn't refuse to set up
There should not be any difficulty getting messages into the NTS in most
areas. This fall we had several nearby tornadoes. One about 4 miles from
our QTH and the other about 20 miles. My wife (also a ham) passed on a
message to me that one of the victims wanted sent to Alaska. It went out
a
21 matches
Mail list logo
