Maybe it's my paranoia or imagination, but it seems to me that guys
supporting 11708 are generally very careful to avoid saying "it would be a
huge boom for email-via-HF!"
The fact is the R&D for weak signal or low power work is all narrow band.
The drivers for something wider outside of the voice segment seems only to
be Pactor-4 and it's hand-in-hand use as a higher speed enabler to more
email-via-HF on the bands.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Kolarik
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:21 AM
To: RTTY@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
A fine example of FUD, since neither the ARRL or FCC are changing 97.221 in
any way, nor is it likely that any significant increase in interference will
result with "new" technologies already having a means to prevent
interference as part of their design.
Matthew Pitts
N8OHU
FUD?? No one said anything about 97.221, the olny thing being spread by
proponents isn't FUD but rather
something more easily shoveled. How would Winlink react if I dumped a 10kHz
wide OFDM signal on
the auto sub bands.
How's the ARDOP development coming? If this passes you'll be able to utilize
all those wider versions,
got the LBT working on it yet?
Ron K0IDT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|