[GreenKeys] On nets and frequencies and stuff

[Bob Camp]

Hi,

I still am strongly in favor of a series of frequencies and some method 
of deciding which one to use when. We have the multiple bands to do it. 
With one channel on 80, 40, 30, 20, and 15 we should pretty much have 
things covered. If we use adaptive signaling the net result would be a 
modern data network that was as robust as anything in operation 
anywhere in the world.  Even if we use a forecast based algorithm we 
would have a network that would be about 3X as effective as any single 
band net.

That said we have to start somewhere. One channel / one net frequency 
to start up is a lot easier than doing the job on four or five bands 
all at the same time. I don't see any reason why we should stop at one 
band once we have it running ....

	Take Care

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ



On May 3, 2004, at 8:23 PM, John Burch wrote:

> I have been reading all the comments and I think
> that *any* activity that we might generate is great.
> It'll also be nice to qso with somebody in addition
> to the 'soundcard' people!
>
> Let me throw this into the mix for your consideration -
> if 10 megs ends up winning the vote for the better
> choice for less noise and SWB and all of that I can
> easily support that direction.
>
> But - can we also think about occasionally ganging
> up and boring a hole into some frequency on 80/40/
> 20 et al for the benefit of the older non-WARC gear
> that some of us still have and cherish?
>
> I can get on 10.130 <->10.140, but it would be a
> kick to fire up the Challenger and make noise on one
> of  the non-WARC bands, and have to explain what
> a "model 28" or an "ST-6" and "FSK" are!
>
> Thanks for the listen de John
> 464646...  uh, er... RYRYRY!
> ..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GreenKeys mailing list
> GreenKeys@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys
>