[RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives

[Phil Sussman]

Not to beat a dead horse, however there are two unrelated factors at
work.

First, there supposed limits on message content. Who reviews messages
handled by third party forwarding? How are violations of content
handled -- message deleted? Sender advised of content violations?
Is there any policing of message content at all? Is the protocol open
and available for anyone listening on the ham bands to screen them?

Second,(pre-transmit monitoring aside) the operating bandwidth is very
important. Emissions should be segregated by bandwidth. When we have a
data emission that borders between narrow and image, it really doesn't
belong in the CW portion of a band. Perhaps there is some middle ground
allocation available for transmissions that occupy 2.8Khz as opposed to
500Hz.

Just my opinion .. thanks for reading.

de Phil - N8PS

--------

Quoting John Becker <w0jab at big-river.net>:

> On 7/26/2013 9:40 AM, Peter Laws wrote:
>> Come on, Joe. Call a spade a spade - they are quasi-commercial  
>> internet email gateways for sailors with no 97.113 filtering or  
>> ability for anyone else to do same.
>
> Oh come on Peter.
>
> Are you going to make a ham who happens at the time to be at sea use  
> a commercial service
> just to let friends and family know where he is at?
>
> He's a ham got God's shakes. Dont put a burden on him just because  
> of his location.
>
> I see not a thing with a winlink post of latitude and longitude,  
> heading and speed.
> Besides I see it all the time from people working on a commercial  
> shipping boat.
>
> John, W0JAB
> P4 equipment
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>