<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Guarding One-Six</title>
	<atom:link href="http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archives/6198/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archives/6198</link>
	<description>Three Sheets Northwest Boating News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:29:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Wilson</title>
		<link>http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archives/6198/comment-page-1#comment-451</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threesheetsnw.com/?p=6198#comment-451</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a good point about DSC.  We haven&#039;t seen a huge benefit to upgrading to a DSC-capable set yet, for many of the reasons you mention.

You&#039;re also correct about the receiving capabilities of VHF, of course; that was what I was getting at but looking back it&#039;s quite poorly worded.  Thanks for helping to clear that up for people!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a good point about DSC.  We haven&#8217;t seen a huge benefit to upgrading to a DSC-capable set yet, for many of the reasons you mention.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re also correct about the receiving capabilities of VHF, of course; that was what I was getting at but looking back it&#8217;s quite poorly worded.  Thanks for helping to clear that up for people!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve hulsizer</title>
		<link>http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archives/6198/comment-page-1#comment-448</link>
		<dc:creator>steve hulsizer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threesheetsnw.com/?p=6198#comment-448</guid>
		<description>As more and more boats get DSC capable radios, hopefully we will begin using it to call boat to boat and avoid cluttering up 16.   DSC is not easy, unfortunately.  Making a call involves several steps, and knowing the other boat&#039;s MMSI, for which there is no directory.  Given the architecture of most VHF&#039;s and the difficulty of inputting the MMSI and connecting to a GPS, we are probably years from universal application.

Comment: just because 16 is a simplex channel is not the reason that it won&#039;t carry multiple calls, it is that the receiver can&#039;t sort out the calls and will only deliver the strongest signal.  A duplex channel, such as the old marine operator channels, uses different frequencies for calling and receiving, and still has the same problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As more and more boats get DSC capable radios, hopefully we will begin using it to call boat to boat and avoid cluttering up 16.   DSC is not easy, unfortunately.  Making a call involves several steps, and knowing the other boat&#8217;s MMSI, for which there is no directory.  Given the architecture of most VHF&#8217;s and the difficulty of inputting the MMSI and connecting to a GPS, we are probably years from universal application.</p>
<p>Comment: just because 16 is a simplex channel is not the reason that it won&#8217;t carry multiple calls, it is that the receiver can&#8217;t sort out the calls and will only deliver the strongest signal.  A duplex channel, such as the old marine operator channels, uses different frequencies for calling and receiving, and still has the same problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
