RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

To: "RTTY@contesting.com" <RTTY@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
From: N4BE_Jim <N4BE_Jim@Yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:09:50 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Not sure what ARRLs motivation is.  Maybe get more boat owners to become hams 
so they can use the mail boxes, maybe sell more ads for special modem equipment 
or software,... But ham radio is (or at least was) intended to be for public 
service such as emergency communications, message traffic, education, etc.  
many of the contests, such as FD, are intended to stress people and equipment 
to test readiness in emergencies.  The various contests do the same but use 
very short exchanges which may or may not be realistic in an emergency when 
local entities need to pass larger messages or files.  The MARS emphasis on 
modes such as WINMOR (WL2K) and interoperability are for local agency support 
in emergencies.  Mailbox stations exist for that purpose on dedicated 
frequencies.  The gov't is pushing for interoperability between MARS services 
as well as amateur, and using both internet and RF. The objective is to provide 
some level of comms if the internet should go down.  So the FCC wou
 ld probably be leaning toward this objective. Collecting RTTY contest 
certificates helps ensure equipment, but can old school RTTY serve local 
agencies sending volumes of traffic larger than typical RST and number?  

So with that as an objective, I could see defining a handful of specific 
frequency channels in the ham bands for wider bandwidth comms, much like MARS 
uses fixed frequencies.  You couldn't deviate from those specific frequencies 
much.  Mailbox stations would be assigned to these channels based on geographic 
location for example.  Propagation prediction software would select bands and 
channels based on time and solar conditions (WINMOR already does this).  And to 
make things more convenient, the frequencies chosen could be those that are 
accessible by entry level licensees, which might move them further up the 
bands.  So there wouldn't necessarily be point to point "chat" QSOs on 3khz 
modes at any arbitrary frequency.  Enforcing frequency usage to only allocated 
channels could be a challenge however, but it is doable.

My 2 cents worth.

Jim N4BE. NNN0PIJ

Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>