Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: HF APRS and Q15X25 ?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Brabham
    ... If you are not operating within the automated sub-bands, then you are most definately QRM ing other hams with your PACTOR signals. The one and only place
    Message 1 of 17 , Oct 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > > Were the stations you connected to all running 600
      > > watts too? - Or
      > > were they running 50-70 watts, as all the SYSOPs I
      > > know have found to
      > > be work out best? ( I know a lot of SYSOPs, by the
      > > way. )
      >
      > It might fit in your frame if we used, as you do, a
      > BBS only frequency. We did not, anyone could connect
      > freely.

      If you are not operating within the automated sub-bands, then you are
      most definately QRM'ing other hams with your PACTOR signals.

      The one and only place where you can operate PACTOR ( or Packet ) for
      BBS operation without regularly crashing people's QSO's are the
      automated sub-bands.

      That's why they exist.

      Packet BBS operation as a 'loner' who does not play by the rules
      other SYSOPs operate by is a pointless endeavor. Competent
      autoforwarding's first requirement is an ability to play well with
      others, in a cooperative way and friendly way.

      > With pactor, or whatever replaces 300 baud
      > FSK modems, it is not necessary to run high power to
      > run a reliable link.

      You are the one and only amateur who has ever suggested to me that
      Packet is unreliable except when using high power.

      From my location at the southern tip of Texas, I forward regularly
      with stations in Canada, California, Indiana, Florida and ( Here's an
      easy one ) Missouri. - All with 50 watts on HF Packet.

      > > Your story doesn't make a lot of sense... I have
      > > operated both modes
      > > and though PACTOR does give better throughput, it
      > > does not do so for
      > > all of the BBS software currently in use.
      >
      > So, what makes sense is to use the BEST BBS software.

      http://www.uspacket.org/l_protowars.htm

      What makes sense is to work with protocols/modes that are usable by
      all BBS software, including the new BBS software that is coming up.

      > > Then there is the difficulty in trying to operate
      > > multiple PACTOR
      > > QSO's on a single frequency. Packet handles this
      > > just fine, PACTOR
      > > does not.
      >
      > Pactor is not meant to do that. If you operated it,
      > and read the manual, you know that it does not make
      > sense to make that comparison.

      Looks like you are picking and choosing what is or is not 'relevant'
      according to how well it matches up with your personal views.

      As manager of an ARRL Skipnet, I can assure you that the ability to
      operate half a dozen or more stations on one frequency is highly
      relevant, unless and until somebody comes along and finds a way to
      greatly expand the autoforwarding sub-bands.

      If we can only have two stations per frequency, and those stations
      must be five or six times wider, that means that the network can only
      have a few participating stations, and so it would have very little
      coverage or capability, worldwide.

      We are trying to get more BBS stations to participate, not to shut
      them out by using inappropriate modes/protocols that do not 'play
      well with others' and so reduce our capability in this area.

      It should never be forgotten that participation in a network is a
      cooperative venture. Your value to that network in large part hinges
      upon your ability to work cooperatively with many other hams around
      the world.

      >
      > I respect your point of view, you are entitled to it.
      >
      > But I also feel I have the right to disagree. As I
      > disagree to go into a name calling fight that solves
      > nothing.
      >
      > And period. End of the thread, at least for me, it is
      > not relevant to Q15X25.
      >

      Right now I am manager of the NET117 ARRL SkipNet, experimenting with
      utilizing Q15x25 mode for autoforwarding. In my case at any rate,
      these questions and discussions are highly relevant to what I do.

      I have to think about stuff like bandwidth, signal strength, the
      ability to share a frequency, bitrate, compatability with all ( not
      just my personal favorite ) BBS software and ease of operation, along
      with a number of other factors.

      Personally I would like to see Q15x25 mode go into regular use for
      autoforwarding - but it is not my job to promote Q15x25. What I am
      doing is evaluating the mode instead, doing my best to give it a fair
      chance to show it's stuff. - Both good and bad.

      I'm beginning to wonder if 17 meters is the best place to do this
      evaluation, but that's the spot the ARRL folks gave me so that's what
      I have to work with right now. - I sure wish 15 meters was open more
      often!

      Charles, N5PVL
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.