To: | "Jan Babinec" <om2xw@hotmail.com>, <topband@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres |
From: | "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com> |
Reply-to: | Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com> |
Date: | Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:42:27 -0400 |
List-post: | <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
Just to underline Tom's comments, see the following paper http://www.sm2cew.com/Digital%20communications%20using%20minimal%20transfer.pdf Jan,That report is amazing and disturbing at the same time. It appears we now have a system that pre-establishes the callsigns and QSO information, cannot actually decode the information without the data being pre-established, and we now have stooped to a level where we claim this allows valid contacts. Why would the ARRL or anyone else want or accept QSO's via that mode, when minimal information was not actually being transferred? 73 Tom _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK |
Previous by Date: | Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres, GeorgeWallner |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres, Eddy Swynar |
Previous by Thread: | Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres, Mike Armstrong |
Next by Thread: | Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres, Eddy Swynar |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |