Kevin Willoughby wrote:

In article , derekl1963
says...

Given the great deal of bandwidth unused, it was easy to send such
messages to the boat.

How much bandwidth was really required?

A message of "uh-oh, attack the *******s according to plan CRM114"
requires few bits, and if that message is delayed for 60 or 120 seconds,
it doesn't make much difference.

In reality? Not very much. The problem however was twofold: We
still needed a higher bandwidth channel to receive routine operational
traffic, the frequencies available were limited by physics and
international treaty, and we needed to hide exactly what was being
communicated and when. (As I said in an earlier message, knowing who
is talking to who, and when, and how much, is almost as valuable as
knowing exactly what is being said.)

The answer was to combine all possible uses onto one higher bandwith
circuit.

*Reliability* constraints are quite extreme, but I don't see high bandwidth
as necessary.

Indeed, high reliability and high connectivity are the twin
principles that drive the design of the entire communications system.
Not only are there multiple transmission sites for the main broadcast,
there are backup methods of conveying the important stuff as well.

However, as I point out above, the need for and availability of higher
bandwith was driven both other issues than immediate tactical need.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.