Re: [linuxham] Off-topic: ROS developers and users not following the gentleman's agreement for bandplans?
On 28/Nov/10 16:31, David A. Ranch wrote:
> I thought this was an interesting read.
I agree, it is an interesting read.
> This comes from the WinMor
> Soft-TNC email list ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WINMOR/ ) . They
> working on a free PACTOR-like HF digital mode initially targeted for
> Winlink 2000 email services:
Actually it doesn't come from the WINMOR beta testing group/list, nor
does it have anything to do with Winlink2000.
It comes from the blog with the referenced URI. The blog entry is made
by someone I consider quite level headed, inquisitive technically &
operationally and well written (he, in general, and the blog entry as well).
Reading only Juilian's entry, as all may (at the URI below) I too am
somewhat concerned that such a wide signal as ROS may be now configured
for what so far seems like hardened use. How it is applied is dependent
on how human operators use it. I will need to read more about what ROS
is, how it is used and allowed, and lastly how it's use is perceived,
before I make any personal judgment.
Quoting Juilian's entry in the general amateur radio blog
> ". . .
> Perhaps an inkling of what may be going to happen can be drawn from some
> of the comments relating to the performance of the anti-jam switch, for
> * "The New ROS/2000 passed the test successfully during the CW
> Contest last weekend."
> * "More test with the New ROS/2000 in other hostile environment.
> This time during a PSK63 Contest on Sunday."
> . . ."
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.