Amateurs Responsible for Rule Compliance

[N5PVL]

In a recent news release (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/06/01/100/?nc=twiardotorg) from the Daytom hamvention, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staffer Bill Cross, W3TN talked specifically about WinLink2000:

Quote[/b] ]
Amateur Radio Licensees Responsible for Rule Compliance

In his comments, Cross singled out the controversy that erupted recently over fears that automatically controlled digital stations would overwhelm the amateur bands, eclipsing most other modes. Cross cited §97.7 of the rules, which requires each amateur station to have a control operator and, in essence, to employ a "listen-before-transmit" protocol."

When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the transmission mode, Cross explained, the control operator need not be at the control point, but must employ station control devices and procedures while transmitting that ensure compliance with the FCC rules and does not cause harmful interference to ongoing communications of other stations.

The operational rule, Cross said, is: "Your call sign, your responsibility."

WinLinkers and ARRL shills take note that amateurs associated with WinLink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) will be monitoring WinLink transmissions from both the servers and customers, specifically looking for incidents of harmful interference brought on by WinLinkers who have adopted the LidOp practice of transmitting without bothering to listen first as part of thier standard operating procedure.

Perhaps the ARRL should have chosen to 'embrace' proper and legal operating practice instead of crawling into bed with the scofflaw WinLink2000 group. - Many amateurs still remember when the ARRL stood up for the idea of obeying the law, being considerate of your fellow hams, and doing things right.

Stop by at WinLink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) today and learn how we as amateurs can put a stop to this embarassment to the fine amateur radio hobby.

Send a message to the degenerate ARRL and thier WinLinker bedmates that enough is enough!

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the transmission mode, Cross explained, the control operator need not be at the control point, but must employ station control devices and procedures while transmitting that ensure compliance with the FCC rules and does not cause harmful interference to ongoing communications of other stations.
It seems that their (Winlink Network) SOP of turning off signal detection in their SCS modems isn't such a great idea in light of the preceding statement by Mr. Cross.

[KA8NCR]

Charles, long time since I've read any of your posts. It's nice to see that you're still out of the domain of kg4kww.

With that said, I want to make a few points. First, I don't think the entire ARRL is degenerate. It is simply unfair to lump the entire crew in Newington into that, and certainly beyond reasonable for most of the field organization to fall under that. I hope that you see it as a select few or a select group.

Second, and this may shock you considering our acrimonious past, I have come to conclude that your extreme views on Winlink are pretty much the truth. There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.

I don't think it's going to result in the mayhem on the bands or groups of sailboat owners occupying amateur radio, but there is no excuse for the way these people are conducting themselves; politically and in the operation of their stations. It's worse than the RTTY robot fiasco in the early 80's, if simply because technology allows it to be better and people should know better.

[ky5u]

Behind you 100% here Charles.

[KA4DPO]

There needs to be a re-structuring of the rules that limit such automatic stations to a segment of each band commensurate with activity. #

I too am concerned about the politics that were displayed by ARRL on this issue. #NCR summed it up pretty well that it's loosely tied to public service giving some the notion that they have some sort of precidence over other modes. #

This, and the obvious issues that come with automatic stations have got to be addressed by the entire amateur community and not just a handful of self appointed delegates at ARRL.

[N2RJ]

Charles, bravo. Keep up the good work.

As a CW/PSK user I am 100% behind you as well!

[n2nh]

Totally agree here too. No station should be allowed to interfere with an existing transmission unless it is an Emergency Transmission regarding someones life being endangered. Maybe, they should move this to the General phone region. I'll bet we'd be hearing a lot more complaints.

[K8MHZ]

I am with you guys too but we need a rule change.

The rules state that no amateur station can willfully interfere with another. #Those rules were written before the days of the robot. #The rules need to be changed to address non-human transmissions in a better light. #I suggest that a sliver of each band be given to the robots only so if they interfere it will be only with each other. #They certainly have the patience to keep re-sending until the message get out. #Humans do not. #To that effect, why not put the robots on their own band, the IRS, or Inanimate Radio Service? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[kc7gnm]

Keep up the good work Charles. I will keep monitoring these winlink lids for interference. Their days are numbered.

[WA9SVD]

I'm just amazed that the FCC has to clarify and emphasize that interference is a violation of their rules, whether it's by a WinStinker, a know-coder, a Rag chewer, a contester, a DXer, or anyone else...

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. They just happen to have amateur licenses.

Again, they're NOT hams. So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,16:49)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. They just happen to have amateur licenses.

Again, they're NOT hams. So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.
Correctamundo, Chris.

Some will even go further and demand that the ham frequencies be given over to sailors. Their attitude is "It's not for having fun, it's for ships at sea."

[N5PVL]

Here is some info on monitoring, recording and reporting harmful WinLink inteference.

If you are using MixW ( Highly recommended ) then it is possible to monitor the same frequency in PACTOR I mode - as you QSO in your mode of choice. Here we will assume that you are operating in Packet mode, but this system works just as well for PSK31, MFSK, etc..

To do this, get MixW set up for operating Packet, then right-click the waterfall display on top of your Packet cursor. When the little menu pops up, choose "New RX Window" and a new window will pop up that is also in Packet mode.

At this point, you should be copying Packets in both windows, but you can only QSO from the program's main text window.

Now, right click inside the new RX(1) text window and hover the cursor over "Mode" to see the mode list. Choose PACTOR.

Now you can QSO in Packet while continuously monitoring on the same frequency for PACTOR transmissions with the RX(1) window.

When you get tromped on by a WinLink2000 station:

* Press the computer's "PRINTSCREEN" key to capture the screen to the computer's clipboard.

* Go to the "FILE" menu, hover the cursor over "Sound", and choose "Save last 20 seconds of audio".

Now, after your QSO is finished and you have time on your hands, you can open up a paint program and paste your screenshot in there, where you can save it as a JPEG or whatever.

The screenshot will show your ongoing QSO being invaded by the PACTOR signal, on the waterfall display. If you are fortunate, the callsign of the interfering station will be in the RX(1) window along with the callsign of the WL2K server he was calling - repeatedly.

The MixW status line at the bottom of the image will show the time, date, and mode you were in when your QSO was crashed.

Between the image, your own notes, and the sound recording, you should have enough information for a report to the FCC.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ June 03 2007,14:58)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,16:49)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. They just happen to have amateur licenses.

Again, they're NOT hams. So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.
Correctamundo, Chris.

Some will even go further and demand that the ham frequencies be given over to sailors. Their attitude is "It's not for having fun, it's for ships at sea."
They have their allocations. I used to listen to some VE run a weather net for recreational sailors on 12 MHz. Seems that the allocations are there, maybe they need to start using what they already have.

It also seems to me that a lot of the email traffic certainly might be inappropriate for ham bands. It's possible the way to chase these people away is to copy their traffic and when they get inappropriate or illegal email, notify the FCC. Should be an easy print.

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,19:18)]They have their allocations. #I used to listen to some VE run a weather net for recreational sailors on 12 MHz. #Seems that the allocations are there, maybe they need to start using what they already have.

It also seems to me that a lot of the email traffic certainly might be inappropriate for ham bands. #It's possible the way to chase these people away is to copy their traffic and when they get inappropriate or illegal email, notify the FCC. #Should be an easy print.
They do indeed have allocations. And they have commercial traffic services on those allocations. But you see, the cheap freeloaders would have to PAY to use them. (Sailmail is the one that comes to mind right now.)

And the whole thing is illegal.

97.113 - Prohibited transmissions - (a) (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

97.113(a)(5) clearly states the Winlink traffic system, as used by the yachters and RVers is illegal in and of itself.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,17:49)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. # They just happen to have amateur licenses. #

Again, they're NOT hams. #So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.
Chris, I'm confused.

One of the persistent complaints about WinLink2000 is that the stations don't ID properly if at all. And that the messages are encrypted in a proprietary format.

Yet by the same token, there is also this persistent complaint that the primary and majority users of WinLink2000 are yachters who happen to have amateur licenses.

If you don't know who the station sending the message is, and you don't know what the station is sending, how can you know it's a yachter sending non-amateur traffic?

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ June 04 2007,14:35)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,17:49)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. They just happen to have amateur licenses.

Again, they're NOT hams. So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.
Chris, I'm confused.

One of the persistent complaints about WinLink2000 is that the stations don't ID properly if at all. And that the messages are encrypted in a proprietary format.

Yet by the same token, there is also this persistent complaint that the primary and majority users of WinLink2000 are yachters who happen to have amateur licenses.

If you don't know who the station sending the message is, and you don't know what the station is sending, how can you know it's a yachter sending non-amateur traffic?
Go to the winlink site. Look at the map showing locations of active stations. The vast majority are shown over open waters. Also note the services offered those "sailing the seven seas", and note the history of the development team.

This is a system started by sailors, and geared mainly towards sailors. Emergency communications is a very, very minuscule part of what they do. Note the number of emails sent vs how many go over the hf circuits. The numbers are staggering.

Last month, 150,626 messages were handled by the system. 71,534 were sent/received over amateur hf frequencies.

Traffic Status (http://www.winlink.org/status/CmsTraffic.aspx)

-------------------------------------------

Station Position Locater:

Real-Time Positions of reporting Winlink 2000 Users (http://www.winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx)

You should visit there and browse the pages of the site. This system is a free internet email provider, plain and simple. It also does a fine job crashing ongoing QSO's, but that's an additional topic.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,17:20)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,19:18)]They have their allocations. I used to listen to some VE run a weather net for recreational sailors on 12 MHz. Seems that the allocations are there, maybe they need to start using what they already have.

It also seems to me that a lot of the email traffic certainly might be inappropriate for ham bands. It's possible the way to chase these people away is to copy their traffic and when they get inappropriate or illegal email, notify the FCC. Should be an easy print.
They do indeed have allocations. And they have commercial traffic services on those allocations. But you see, the cheap freeloaders would have to PAY to use them. (Sailmail is the one that comes to mind right now.)

And the whole thing is illegal.

97.113 - Prohibited transmissions - (a) (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

97.113(a)(5) clearly states the Winlink traffic system, as used by the yachters and RVers is illegal in and of itself.
Once we start to turn the ham bands into a common carrier providing communications infrastructure for 3rd parties we will loose all of our spectrum as it gets slowly eaten up.

Winlink started the ball rolling.

Then PSKmail entered the fray as a competitior to Winlink, albeit with a different operating plan.

We now have the HF-ALE network entering as a 3rd competitor wanting to gain a customer base for handling 3rd party email over the amateur spectrum.

According to Bonnie, KQ6XA, the HF-ALE group approached Winlink about using the ALE protocol to serve customers and was rebuffed by the Winlink Administrators. Therefore, they have been working on setting up internet email gateways for ALE connected stations and have finally succeeded.

This will only further the call for more spectrum to be available for use by wideband operation of robot stations carrying 3rd party emails to and from the internet.

And once that spectrum is eaten up there will be a hue and cry for even more --- and more --- and more --- and more.

Once the amateur radio paradigm moves away from being mainly a service for amateurs to communicate with other amateurs for whatever purpose and turns into a 3rd party common carrier there will be no going back. The ham bands will be lost to our posterity as a place to experiment and learn about radio and to talk to others with similar interests.

The ones that pooh-poohed this criticism of Winlink as a common carrier violating 97.113 should perhaps take another look as a 3rd competitor enters the fray. How many competitors will it take for the FCC to wake up and smell the roses -- or do they even care any more? How many competitors will it take for the ARRL to wake up and smell the roses -- or do they even care any more?

tim ab0wr

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ June 03 2007,12:35)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,17:49)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. # They just happen to have amateur licenses. #

Again, they're NOT hams. #So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.
Chris, I'm confused.

One of the persistent complaints about WinLink2000 is that the stations don't ID properly if at all. #And that the messages are encrypted in a proprietary format.

Yet by the same token, there is also this persistent complaint that the primary and majority users of WinLink2000 are yachters who happen to have amateur licenses.

If you don't know who the station sending the message is, and you don't know what the station is sending, how can you know it's a yachter sending non-amateur traffic?
Just go to the Winlink website and under professional software version. Then look for the link they provide as to who is using this great software. Go to their website and you will find the content they provide for a price. It's all for sailors. Go hangout on their Yahoo group. You'll see who the big users are.

[k0cmh]

The problem would be solved by giving those automatic WinLinkers their own small segment of the bands. Then they would see just how "nice" their mode is as they (to use CB terms) "walk all over eachother". After a while, they would all give up and then we could have the band segments back.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ June 04 2007,15:01)]Just go to the Winlink website and under professional software version. Then look for the link they provide as to who is using this great software. Go to their website and you will find the content they provide for a price. It's all for sailors. Go hangout on their Yahoo group. You'll see who the big users are.
So, because they offer a commercial version of the software and the application, it can be assumed that the transmissions you hear on 20 meters et al are therefore also for sailors?

But, because you can't copy the transmissions due to the encryption, you don't actually know that?

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ June 04 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ June 03 2007,12:35)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,17:49)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,09:22)]There certainly seems to be an attitude among operators who think they have an entitlement to frequencies, bands and operating methods because this is loosely considered public service.
This is because the big users of Winlink aren't hams, they're yachters who expect uninterrupted internet access for free. They just happen to have amateur licenses.

Again, they're NOT hams. So they really have no feel for how things should be on the air, nor do they really care.
Chris, I'm confused.

One of the persistent complaints about WinLink2000 is that the stations don't ID properly if at all. And that the messages are encrypted in a proprietary format.

Yet by the same token, there is also this persistent complaint that the primary and majority users of WinLink2000 are yachters who happen to have amateur licenses.

If you don't know who the station sending the message is, and you don't know what the station is sending, how can you know it's a yachter sending non-amateur traffic?
Just go to the Winlink website and under professional software version. Then look for the link they provide as to who is using this great software. Go to their website and you will find the content they provide for a price. It's all for sailors. Go hangout on their Yahoo group. You'll see who the big users are.
And RV'rs too, from what I'm seeing on these maps.

You can even click on them and get a status report. Plenty of them using it in California. One person is reporting to be at a campground pretty close to me, in fact......

I think the best way to put it is that they are "Hams on Paper". They possess the license but just use it for this purpose. To be legal though, they do have to have the license.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ June 04 2007,14:57)]Go to the winlink site. #Look at the map showing locations of active stations. #The vast majority are shown over open waters. #Also note the services offered those "sailing the seven seas", and note the history of the development team.

This is a system started by sailors, and geared mainly towards sailors. #Emergency communications is a very, very minuscule part of what they do. #Note the number of emails sent vs how many go over the hf circuits. #The numbers are staggering.

Last month, 150,626 messages were handled by the system. #71,534 were sent/received over amateur hf frequencies.

Traffic Status (http://www.winlink.org/status/CmsTraffic.aspx)

-------------------------------------------

Station Position Locater:

Real-Time Positions of reporting Winlink 2000 Users (http://www.winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx)

You should visit there and browse the pages of the site. #This system is a free internet email provider, plain and simple. #It also does a fine job crashing ongoing QSO's, but that's an additional topic.
Luke,

Thank you for the links provided.

They are an eye opener. It was actually refreshing to see some actual data "from the source" that wasn't filtered through potentially biased eyes.

I can now believe that a case can be made that some users of the WinLink system might doing so to duck commercial charges. The information on these sites certainly provide circumstantial evidence of such.

However... there are still a lot of things unproven. Such as the actual nature of the traffic, and how the users are using the system.

I am struck by a reminder of many amateurs of days gone by who were operating from religious missions out in Africa and Central and South America and other parts of the world, who openly passed church and mission related traffic on the amateur bands through legitimate amateur call signs. Most got away with it (and shouldn't have), which didn't make it right. But at least they had to pass their traffic "in the clear," usually on voice, so that there was no doubt (if you listened) about what they were doing.

What I'm trying to say is... you can infer via circumstantial evidence that the possibility of illicit traffic being passed exists. But can you prove it?

Oh... and I'd be careful about calling all of these maritime hams "paper amateurs." I know of one amateur (who is NOT using WinLink, I might add) who is a retired school teacher now travelling via a yacht up and down the East Coast. He may only be a Tech (formerly a Tech+), but he earned it. I should know... I taught his classes! So let's not paint all of these guys with the same brush...

73

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ June 04 2007,14:59)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 03 2007,17:20)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 03 2007,19:18)]They have their allocations. I used to listen to some VE run a weather net for recreational sailors on 12 MHz. Seems that the allocations are there, maybe they need to start using what they already have.

It also seems to me that a lot of the email traffic certainly might be inappropriate for ham bands. It's possible the way to chase these people away is to copy their traffic and when they get inappropriate or illegal email, notify the FCC. Should be an easy print.
They do indeed have allocations. And they have commercial traffic services on those allocations. But you see, the cheap freeloaders would have to PAY to use them. (Sailmail is the one that comes to mind right now.)

And the whole thing is illegal.

97.113 - Prohibited transmissions - (a) (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

97.113(a)(5) clearly states the Winlink traffic system, as used by the yachters and RVers is illegal in and of itself.
Once we start to turn the ham bands into a common carrier providing communications infrastructure for 3rd parties we will loose all of our spectrum as it gets slowly eaten up.

Winlink started the ball rolling.

Then PSKmail entered the fray as a competitior to Winlink, albeit with a different operating plan.

We now have the HF-ALE network entering as a 3rd competitor wanting to gain a customer base for handling 3rd party email over the amateur spectrum.

According to Bonnie, KQ6XA, the HF-ALE group approached Winlink about using the ALE protocol to serve customers and was rebuffed by the Winlink Administrators. Therefore, they have been working on setting up internet email gateways for ALE connected stations and have finally succeeded.

This will only further the call for more spectrum to be available for use by wideband operation of robot stations carrying 3rd party emails to and from the internet.

And once that spectrum is eaten up there will be a hue and cry for even more --- and more --- and more --- and more.

Once the amateur radio paradigm moves away from being mainly a service for amateurs to communicate with other amateurs for whatever purpose and turns into a 3rd party common carrier there will be no going back. The ham bands will be lost to our posterity as a place to experiment and learn about radio and to talk to others with similar interests.

The ones that pooh-poohed this criticism of Winlink as a common carrier violating 97.113 should perhaps take another look as a 3rd competitor enters the fray. How many competitors will it take for the FCC to wake up and smell the roses -- or do they even care any more? How many competitors will it take for the ARRL to wake up and smell the roses -- or do they even care any more?

tim ab0wr
Tim you are absolutely correct here. Having ALE come into the mix is just going to make things even worse. Next it will be winlinkers complaining about ALE operators stomping all over them. How ironic. LOL

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ June 03 2007,13:21)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ June 04 2007,15:01)]Just go to the Winlink website and under professional software version. Then look for the link they provide as to who is using this great software. Go to their website and you will find the content they provide for a price. It's all for sailors. Go hangout on their Yahoo group. You'll see who the big users are.
So, because they offer a commercial version of the software and the application, it can be assumed that the transmissions you hear on 20 meters et al are therefore also for sailors?

But, because you can't copy the transmissions due to the encryption, you don't actually know that?
The fact there is a commercial version in it's self is wrong. Why is there content on the AR bands being sold? If you go to the ad you will see it's content is not available any where else, so without Winlink you don't get it. It's broadcasting for profit on the AR bands. I don't have to hear what it is to know it's wrong. I also don't know many other reasons for transmitting nautical charts unless your a sailor. Do you?

[wd0ct]

"I can now believe that a case can be made that some users of the WinLink system might doing so to duck commercial charges. The information on these sites certainly provide circumstantial evidence of such.

However... there are still a lot of things unproven. Such as the actual nature of the traffic, and how the users are using the system."

Do you think OJ is innocent too?

[K3UD]

"Your call sign, your responsibility."

I imagine that Winlink probably has the station id embedded in the protocol but if you are interfered with how do you know who it is causing the interference? It seems like just using Winlink could be determined to be malicious interference on its face. What is the difference whether it is an auto or semi auto bot or someone causing deliberate interference to your QSO? So how do you really pin down the responsibility of which WinLink station just trashed your QSO?

On the other hand, interference is interference and Dave Sumner has warned us several times in QST that we need to be prepared for more of it. Of course this was before RM-11306 was asked to be withdrawn by the ARRL.

73
George
K3UD

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ June 04 2007,17:32)]"I can now believe that a case can be made that some users of the WinLink system might doing so to duck commercial charges. #The information on these sites certainly provide circumstantial evidence of such.

However... there are still a lot of things unproven. #Such as the actual nature of the traffic, and how the users are using the system."

Do you think OJ is innocent too?
I'll give you my opinion of OJ when you can tell us when you stopped beating your wife (or GF or SO or whatever is appropriate).

In other words: If you have to resort to an insult, then I can infer that you can't (or won't) answer the question.

You almost make a convincing argument, but you lack key facts.

Prove your case.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ June 04 2007,16:50)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ June 03 2007,13:21)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ June 04 2007,15:01)]Just go to the Winlink website and under professional software version. Then look for the link they provide as to who is using this great software. Go to their website and you will find the content they provide for a price. It's all for sailors. Go hangout on their Yahoo group. You'll see who the big users are.
So, because they offer a commercial version of the software and the application, it can be assumed that the transmissions you hear on 20 meters et al are therefore also for sailors?

But, because you can't copy the transmissions due to the encryption, you don't actually know that?
The fact there is a commercial version in it's self is wrong. Why is there content on the AR bands being sold? If you go to the ad you will see it's content is not available any where else, so without Winlink you don't get it. It's broadcasting for profit on the AR bands. I don't have to hear what it is to know it's wrong. I also don't know many other reasons for transmitting nautical charts unless your a sailor. Do you?
I'm not a sailor, so I lack data and thus can not answer a question about nautical charts.

You still miss (or elude) my point. You do not know what is being sent. You can infer it, you can read about it on a web site full of hype, and yes, something about this doesn't sit right.

But you don't know.

You believe it is wrong... and circumstantial evidence implies that your belief may have a factual basis... or may not... but you lack the facts.

Oh, and it can't be broadcasting. It's not a one way transmission of information intended for reception by the general public. It may well be an improper commercial use of the amateur bands (which you have implied but have yet to prove) but broadcasting it's not. (As my lawyer has reminded me in our never-ending discussion of 7O1YGF, court cases have been won or lost on minor factual errors like that.)

Oh, and you don't have to hear it to "know" it's wrong? Consider this:

There's this guy who lives down the street. Every night he sits in his basement for hours. If you walk past his house, you don't hear many voices, only strange beeps and clicks and noises. He gets delivery of all sorts of strange packages full of electronics, and he gets mail from overseas... including bad places like most of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, even (*gasp!*) Vietnam and Cuba. His back yard is full of all sorts of strange wires and antennas.

...why, he MUST be a spy or a terrorist or something! After all, look at all the (circumstantial) evidence!

Bottom line: You suspect, but you don't know.

Prove your case.

[N5PVL]

Or - You could forget all of that, and concentrate on the harmful interference to ongoing QSO's that WinLink is famous for.

For information about monitoring, recording and reporting WinLink interference, stop by at WinLink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) to see how actionable interference reports can be put together by just about anybody who cares to put in the time.

The WinLinkers are quite reliable about generating harmful interference through negligent operating practice. If they are crashing your QSO's, the FCC ought to know about it.

[KA4DPO]

That's the real issue. I don't care if the signals are comming from a sailboat or a winnebago, they just barge onto the air weather there's a QSO in progress or not. It's the interference that has go to be addressed. The fact that Sailors are using amateur radio to beat the system is another matter, not trivial, just another matter.

[wc5cw]

N5PVL, et al...

>"Your call, your responsibility"<-- Bill Cross, W3TN*

Four words, that if enforced as they relate to on the air activity demonstrated to be harmful to others are powerful, indeed.

And while I applaud and encourage my fellow operators who have the means and the ability to monitor automatic controlled stations that ignore the "listen first" paradigm, I--again--encourage all who have been exposed directly or indirectly to the issue of automatic control and its interference to communications in progress to correspond directly with their ARRL Division Director before the Board of Directors meeting to be held in July...This issue as part of the broader "band plan by bandwidth" issues is slated for discussion in preparation for a highly probable submission of another band plan petition for FCC rule making by the ARRL at some point in the months following this meeting.

FWIW, I echo the words of N5PVL and others...Discussion and correspondence needs to stay focused on the issues of interference by automatic controlled stations as a violation of the rules, as per Section 97.7 and 97.109(b), the latter quoted herein:

"When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations transmitting RTTY or data emissions on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by an EIC that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the EIC."

This particular issue, it seems to me, is the most blatant, most verifiable and most arguable against automatically controlled stations operating within the present WinLink protocol.

Other issues pertaining to rules violations--including violation of Section 97.113(a)(5)--regarding motivation and the use of amateur allocations as a substitute for commercially available forwarding and e-mail services--also important for reasons well stated--should be researched, discussed and publicly argued among concerned amateurs, but IMHO, be presented as related but separate arguments for new rules defining #protocol(s) and operation of subject stations, if not their ultimate cessation as alternate service providers in our precious allocations...As AB0WR and others clearly state, this too is a highly important issue for the safe-guarding and well-being of our operating environment...And in this regard, clear, concise correspondence by concerned amateurs should be sent to appropriate ARRL officials and Division Directors, as well. #

* Staff member, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (as quoted in an address to attendees at the Dayton Hamvention, May 2007)

The end game is all about political pressure founded on sound, factual argument clearly stated in simple, unambiguous terms...Passionate, but politely stated, arguments--as in the numbers of voices heard--often count as a motivating force for political entities (ARRL Division Directors) to act accordingly.

FWIW

Bruce
WC5CW

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 04 2007,23:20)]That's the real issue. I don't care if the signals are comming from a sailboat or a winnebago, they just barge onto the air weather there's a QSO in progress or not. It's the interference that has go to be addressed. The fact that Sailors are using amateur radio to beat the system is another matter, not trivial, just another matter.
Absolutely correct. We need to concentrate on the interference issue because that is the only thing we can really get these guys with right now. What they are passing has no bearing on if they are using the system for whatever reason. I could care less. What I do care about is when I am operating packet and a PIII signal comes over the top of my QSO then I get pretty pissed off. That is the main reason for my winlink lids exposed threads. Exposing these idiots to the general public should make them realize they are being lids. I have noticed a decrease in PIII activity near the 14.105 freq however it is still there and they still crash packet radio QSO's.

[N5PVL]

I think they are vulnerable in a number of areas, that vulnerability being brought on by thier open disdain for the FCC's PART97 regulations.

We already know how to do some good with the interference issue and should pursue that vigorously.

Still, it would be good to see some action on the issue of WinLink regularly providing a service that is already available on non-ham systems. - WinLink and SailMail being a case in point. This is just as serious as the interference issue, if not more so.

You get what you are willing to pay for. - A court order freezing the WL2K central server's database for content review would be expensive to arrainge - but the end result would very likely be an end to email transfers over the ham bands.

I am encouraging amateurs to monitor, record and report WinLink interference every day because this is something that any and all hams who are experiencing such interference can do. - It is not too difficult at all, once you see how it's done.

These other angles are more difficult and can be more expensive, but they can also bring more significant and definitive results.

To go at the problem at its root cause, I would work to have internet gateways regulated so that the temptation to utilize amateur radio spectrum for common carrier operation will be sharply curtailed, if not eliminated altogether.