[RTTY] RTTY Digest, Vol 135, Issue 33

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 3/19/2014 9:35 AM, Michael Adams wrote:
 > It doesn't take much of a message for a narrow sub-300bps signal to
 > become painfully slow, and potentially problematic if conditions
 > aren't the best.

If conditions aren't good enough for 300 symbols per second, they will
certainly not be any better for faster signals.  PACTOR N is simply
trying to force a camel through an eye of the needle.  300 baud is
enough for *amateur* purposes at HF - if there is a requirement for
faster communications, take it to commercial internet either maritime
service or satellite based service.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 3/19/2014 9:35 AM, Michael Adams wrote:
> Peter N5UWY wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, John Becker <w0jab at big-river.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Most of what I see is a "position report"
>>> see    http://www.winlink.org/userPositions
>>> date, time deg's north/south by east/west.
>>> Or something like tell mom I will be in PORT NAMED tomorrow.
>>
>> So why do the sailors insist that they need huge swathes of bandwidth to
>> transmit a few bytes of data?
>
> Most of them...at least the clueful ones... know they don't need much bandwidth for position reports (although the need for ARQ does add to the overhead).
>
> The need for bandwidth/speed arises when there's a message waiting from someone who doesn't realize brevity is a virtue.
>
> It doesn't take much of a message for a narrow sub-300bps signal to become painfully slow, and potentially problematic if conditions aren't the best.
>
> (This isn't to say, however, that more couldn't be done to more efficiently use the automated subbands.)
>