[hfsig] Re: Call for comments on open protocols
lgadallah at gmail.com
Mon Feb 26 13:20:17 CST 2007
On 2/26/07, linlink-request at wetnet.net <linlink-request at wetnet.net> wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:06:04 -0800
> From: "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <wa7nwp at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Call for comments on open protocols
> To: linlink at wetnet.net
> <5abd436b0702260906j2d36a20dg96c02af2c17a1915 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> On 2/26/07, Gregg Wonderly <w5ggw at cox.net> wrote:
> > Tim Gorman wrote:
> Lots of good discussion but the key issue is that the ARRL is fielding
> a proposal that makes a Political decision to not even consider modern
> (or potential future) wideband data modes and that's a critical flaw
> in the proposal. Let's get that roadblock out of the way and then
> see what can be done technically.
> Bill - WA7NWP
I'm wondering if we can ask the ARRL for clarification. I don't think the 3
Khz mentioned in the request is sigificant, since I think that a workable
standard should be scalable and flexible enough to make use of the available
bandwidth whether it is 300 Hz or 3 Khz.
What I'm concerned about is whether the ARRL is interested in technically
sophisticated and efficient protocols, or if they have a more pragmatic
interest in protocols that are likely to be widely available and in common
use (e.g. PSK31). There is probably a middle ground out there, but I can't
discern the goal from the request from ARRL.
Larry Gadallah, VE6VQ/W7 lgadallah AT gmail DOT com
PGP Sig: 616D 4E52 CF1F 3FEC FFFB F11B 7DB9 C79A EA7E B25B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hfsig