[RTTY] FW: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence

[Ron Kolarik]

Sorry forgot to add this

"And, for what it's worth, where else are hams using peer to peer digital (Pactor 3 and Winmor 1600) supposed to operate?"

How much p2p P3 or Winmor 1600 is actually used for conversation? It's file transfer and email, no one I know types at those speeds.
I see P3 mailboxes operating outside the auto sub band and the usual excuse is remote base or prove it's a mailbox. Please
don't tell me to file a complaint, it's useless when no one listens or takes any action. I have seen some, very little, P1 conversations
recently but it's horribly slow watching all the ARQ on marginal bands.

Ron K0IDT



On 8/16/2016 3:45 PM, Matthew Pitts via RTTY wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Ted has mentioned wide bandwidth voice modes, and so did you in a message to another list, which is why I asked the question I did. The point I am trying to to make is that these things would already be happening if folks wanted to do them in the RTTY/data bands. The same is true if people wanted to "fill up the RTTY/Data bands with wideband digital", as I believe he said; we wouldn't be able to use any of the digital modes we like if there really were that many people that could afford to build a station that they could not use for anything else. And, for what it's worth, where else are hams using peer to peer digital (Pactor 3 and Winmor 1600) supposed to operate?
>
> Matthew Pitts
> N8OHU
>
> On August 16, 2016 12:28:28 PM EDT, Ron Kolarik <rkolarik at neb.rr.com> wrote:
>> Matthew, try to stick to the subject. Stations operating under
>> 97.221(c)
>> regularly blast anything in their way
>> and if the P3 stations would stay where they belong it would help. No
>> one said anything about current
>> stations running 6kHz wide modes.....where the hell did that come
>> from??
>>
>> Ron K0IDT
>>
>>