, October 18, 2007 10:53 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Rud Merriam wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
> technical challenge of working on a system t
Rud Merriam wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
> technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is
> to explore the digital technologies.
>
> Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there
> is tha
OK, last comment before cooling off: No more space until automatics
listen before transmitting.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:59:3:6 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expa
lf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:14 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery. This is
At 09:54 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
>Wrong, John. I own a PTC-II modem. I have copied Pactor, done Pactor
>QSOs (practically until I was the last ham in North America trying to
>use Pactor for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs ... it is as dead as Julius
>Caesar now, by the way.) Do you? Do you even
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
> At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
> > Well John,
> >
> > Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
> >
> > Patrick vk2pn
>
> And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?
>
> Just trying to understand why so many "HATE" the mode of
At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
>Well John,
>
>Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
>
>Patrick
>vk2pn
And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?
Just trying to understand why so many "HATE" the mode
of pactor.
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
> At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
> > "Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
> > third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"
>
> And just why do you think every message passed is email?
>
> It seems to me you have never copied the tra
--- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Please detail all the HF frequencies and modes
your people will be manually monitoring 24/7.
(This will make big news in the ham community)"
27.185 AM here in Tampabay ...
This is the only active non SSB frequency here ..
_
At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
>"Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
>third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"
And just why do you think every message passed is email?
It seems to me you have never copied the traffic. Right?
John, W0JAB
"Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"
AMEN! This is what I've been saying/asking all along. Add to that,
non-hams using ham frequencies for email.
73 Buddy WB4M
Dan KA3CTQ wrote:
> I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1%
> asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a
> "land grab". Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any
> examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change.
Exactl
- Original Message -
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
> expeditionradio wrote:
>
>> Automatic operation is essential to HF
ECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:00 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Now, the question that I have is when did this 24/7 operation first come
about? The first I ever heard was from someone cla
Different countries have different reasons for the amateur service. Some
consider it a public health issue to have hobbies for their citizens to
participate in and keep them out of trouble. Since HF signals can easily
cross political boundaries, one countries rules may not apply for such
world
What planet do you live on? The CB'ers started a plan called REACT
which proved to be an excellent program, is very much in use today,
and to read their plan and the ARRL EMCOM course, it is difficult to
tell the difference. Best that you should line your ducks up before
starting to shoot.
Are you telling me that if US Amateurs didn't setup an "amateur
emmcom" then no-one would get a licence ? When was that introduced ? I
worked US amateurs long before this was thought of.
Anyway, even if it is the case, why should it be inflicted on the rest
of the amateur community?
This remin
OK, John. The first compressed BBS software I knew was it. I have not
read otherwise in my old books. But it is possible to have been existsed
and not gotten popular.
About what goes first and second, the first loss is already enough...he,
he...
73,
Jose, CO2JA
---
John Becker, WØJAB wrote
: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Tindal
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:09 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
The point is that it is "24/7 emergency comms" is not required or pa
The point is that it is "24/7 emergency comms" is not required or part
of the amateur service. We over here have RAYNET which is not a
un-attended automatic operation.
>You are welcome to your opinion, but the reality is, that we already
> have 24/7 access communications being provided on HF by
At 11:47 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>> ***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
>> from one BBS to the other.
>
>As far as I remember, compression started with FBB 5.13 around 1990.
>MSYS (1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.
Not real
expeditionradio wrote:
>
> > Alan G3VLQ wrote: In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic
> > operation should be banned world wide. Automatic operation might be
> > essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm essential, I think not.
>
> Alan,
>
> Are you ready, along with all your friends, to pers
I entirely agree with you Roger, the "emergency service" is only an
attempt to justify the automatic operations.
In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic operation should be
banned world wide. The rest of the world's amateurs shouldn't have to
suffer this sort of behaviour just for a few.
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> ***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
> from one BBS to the other.
As far as I remember, compression started with FBB 5.13 around 1990.
MSYS (1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.
> ***So where do you stand on Packet. It's about
As Jean Paul Roubelat explains in the FBB docs, the design of FBB B1
compression had to comply with a requisite from the french authorities,
by which message headers must be sent in clear text.
But compression gives a measure of efficiency and allow to double the
traffic or reduce the channel
I discontinued VHF packet about 15 years ago when it became obsolete in
our area. A few people still used it for a while but now the trunk lines
are gone and while some sites were converted over to APRS, long haul
traffic is not possible. In the last week I did help a ham a little bit
in trying
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
> At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>
> > One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do
> > not, for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages
> > that pass on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that
> > some are. I will
At 09:23 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>Of course traffic going through your station has to be read or it would
>not have a purpose, but one of the "selling points" that the Winlink
>2000 folks claimed in the past, was that because of the compression it
>made it virtually impossible to anyone to mon
Of course traffic going through your station has to be read or it would
not have a purpose, but one of the "selling points" that the Winlink
2000 folks claimed in the past, was that because of the compression it
made it virtually impossible to anyone to monitor the traffic. One other
ham claime
in and out of this station yes.
Off the air traffic, some but not all.
As you may know it's compressed.
John, W0JAB
At 08:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>John,
>
>Are you saying that you are able to monitor the traffic on Pactor modes
>going to the Winlink 2000 system?
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
John,
Are you saying that you are able to monitor the traffic on Pactor modes
going to the Winlink 2000 system?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
> Show us some of this "business-related" traffic.
> I have never seen any at all pass my screen. Not any.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
>
>
*** comments in line.
At 07:59 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>No one is saying you don't have a right to get on the air. What this
>thread is about is expanding a sub-band that does not need to be
>expanded.
*** You do know that you slow and wide retry after retry mode of packet
will be in the same 3
At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do not,
>for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages that pass
>on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that some are. I
>will therefore withdraw my comment to that
expeditionradio wrote:
> Roger, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
>
> If you can provide such 24/7 access on HF with manually operated
> stations, they do so now. Show us your volunteer operator army on
> duty. Otherwise, your continued protests ammount to little more than
> li
expeditionradio wrote:
>
> Roger W6VZV wrote:
>
> > Where is the 24/7 volunteer force? Red Cross, RACES, and other
> > "minuteman" style ham volunteer groups.
>
> Roger,
>
> Respectfully, those are all wonderful groups. But none of them
> provide 24/7 access for emergency traffic on HF. At best
Take a look at this map
http://winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx
I don't ZL3LL about 2000 miles south east of the big island of Hilo
had any internet connection to post this location update. nor did
any most of the hams all around Australia.
Yeah that's right, each and every one of them gr
expeditionradio wrote:
> Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm. It is certainly not
> asking too much that 10% of each ham band be devoted to one of the
> primary purposes for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service.
>
> Greg, where is your volunteer force of non-automatic operators
37 matches
Mail list logo
