WinLids Still At It [Archive]

N5PVL

10-31-2007, 10:07 PM

http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/arwatch/th_m1a.jpg

Click here (http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/arwatch/m1a.jpg) to see the full-sized image.

If you are experiencing harmful interference from WinLink2000 stations, put in a report at WinLink-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm). - It may be that we can do something about it.

Recording and publishing evidence of this bad behavior is a very good first step, and gets you prepared if further action turns out to be necessary.

We should try to solve our problems internally before going to the FCC, and WinLink-Watch provides amateurs with an easy to use mechanism to do precisely that - in an effective manner for a change.

Stop by any time, see what it is all about.

ne3r

11-01-2007, 12:58 AM

Charles,

Where it says calling WB0TAX all of those times, is each of those a separate transmission? Is there time to listen in between or is it more like one big burst? Normal amateur practice is more like "CALL CALL de MYCALL k" then listen for a response. I take it the interfering station is K0KWN, is that correct? Last but not least, could you call the interfering station back without one of those expensive SCS modems?

Thanks & 73 de Joe NE3R

N5PVL

11-01-2007, 05:05 AM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Oct. 31 2007,19:58)]Charles,

Where it says calling WB0TAX all of those times, is each of those a separate transmission? #Is there time to listen in between or is it more like one big burst? #Normal amateur practice is more like "CALL CALL de MYCALL k" #then listen for a response. #I take it the interfering station is K0KWN, is that correct? #Last but not least, could you call the interfering station back without one of those expensive SCS modems?

Thanks & 73 de Joe NE3R
The call of the current customer doesn't show in the image. If I get a callsign at all, its usually after an exchange with the server or after they give up on calling it. The exchange is still going on when I took that screenshot, so it's too early at that point to look for the customer's call.

In the PACTOR window, K0KWN is one of those who gave up. I was out of the shack while he was on, so I can't say whether he interfered with anybody. It could be K0KWN on there again, but you can't tell by the image.

When the customers call they send a burst, pause a few seconds and then send another. Like Packet, after so many connect requests with no answer, they give up. - Or try another go-round.

The servers scan around, listening on several frequencies in turn. If a customer hooks up to the server on one of those freqs, then while the server is busy, all calls on the other freqs go unanswered. - So they go on and on calling it, hoping the server will be back and they can catch it on the next go-round.

Note how this ties up several frequencies at once, either with server activity as shown in the image, or by customers calling over and over to a server that isn't there.

It would be difficult to purposefully design a more inefficient and antisocial 'networking' system for amateur radio.

The guy who designed the WinLink 'system' must be a major dip-tard.

Correction:

The guy who designed the WinLink 'system' IS a major dip-tard!

kc7gnm

11-01-2007, 01:15 PM

Not only the guy that designed it but the guy that is currently running it Charles. I copied one lid last night, KC7ACY, that was not listening. She kept calling and calling then finally got linked to a winlid station. Then even after disconnecting she reconnected again. All this while I was trying to maintain a connect with K9VSO-7 on packet. It is getting to the point that I don't even bother letting these idiots know they are interfering anymore. I just shove the data over to the FCC and will let them get surprised when they get the nasty gram from big brother. It is pretty obvious these idiots do not listen like Steve Waterman insists they do. If they did they would not start up right on top of an ongoing QSO like I see in your screen shot.

Chales wanna help me write a proposal to get PIII off the air permanently? I think we have enough proof that it is illegal on the ham bands.

KU0DM

11-01-2007, 01:40 PM

I know I am going to get lots of posts following this but...
Getting WinLink off the air isn't going to help anyone. I agree, the LIDs on HF, are, well, LIDS! But on VHF...
VHF WinLink and packet are both vital EmComm modes for a relatively reliable form of communication, and the people using VHF WinLink are much better. They stick to designated frequencies often send 1 burst, wait for a while (long enough that no one could belly-ache about a crashed QSO) then proceed.
Getting WinLink off of HF, not bad...having it taken off the air entirely would just cause more problems.

WA3KYY

11-01-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote[/b] (KU0DM @ Nov. 01 2007,09:40)]I know I am going to get lots of posts following this but...
Getting WinLink off the air isn't going to help anyone. I agree, the LIDs on HF, are, well, LIDS! But on VHF...
VHF WinLink and packet are both vital EmComm modes for a relatively reliable form of communication, and the people using VHF WinLink are much better. They stick to designated frequencies often send 1 burst, wait for a while (long enough that no one could belly-ache about a crashed QSO) then proceed.
Getting WinLink off of HF, not bad...having it taken off the air entirely would just cause more problems.
While PIII on the hambands almost always implies WinLink, WinLink does not need PIII to operate. PI and PII both work well for the needs and use far less bandwidth thereby reducing the chance to crash ongoing QSOs. Other ARQ protocols could also be used with a modification to the software. IIRC, PIII is not used on the VHF circuits at all. A ban of PIII on amateur frequencies is not a ban on WinLink.

ab0wr

11-01-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote[/b] (KU0DM @ Nov. 01 2007,06:40)]I know I am going to get lots of posts following this but...
Getting WinLink off the air isn't going to help anyone. I agree, the LIDs on HF, are, well, LIDS! But on VHF...
VHF WinLink and packet are both vital EmComm modes for a relatively reliable form of communication, and the people using VHF WinLink are much better. They stick to designated frequencies often send 1 burst, wait for a while (long enough that no one could belly-ache about a crashed QSO) then proceed.
Getting WinLink off of HF, not bad...having it taken off the air entirely would just cause more problems.
The issue isn't WL2K, per se.

Some of the issues are:

1) use of WL2K on a regular basis to bypass commercial services offering exactly the same functionality -- thus making WL2K a commercial offering in the amateur bands.
2)Use by WL2K on HF of a protocol designed for the commercial services which is not spectrum efficient in a shared spectrum environment like amateur radio.
3)Use of a system which is so spectrum inefficient you couldn't design it that way if you tried.

Each of these problems can be fixed.

1)We need to get away from the common carrier paradigm being propagated for amateur radio. Amateur radio should not be viewed as a way to establish common carrier infrastructure for the primary purpose of bypassing commercial services. Amateur radio was never meant to be an ISP. It was never meant to provide permanent infrastructure for third part "customers" or "clients", not even for emcomm use. If you don't want to see Walmart asking for spectrum in the ham bands for use in coordinating deliveries between their distribution centers for getting bottled water to disaster victims then don't continue pushing the amateur radio as common carrier paradigm.
2) move WL2K to a protocol/mode that is spectrum efficient and is compatible with the shared spectrum that is amateur radio. HF Packet was built to be this way from the ground up. Other modes/protocols can be also. We shouldn't reward use of spectrum inefficient modes/protocols, instead we should penalize them.
3).Require automatic systems to use known, efficient trunking schemes. One answering system per frequency monitored thus preventing "killer" trunks which will never answer. Move to a fully automatic system where store-and-forward traffic can be handled between hub and client during periods of time when the spectrum is less used, e.g. during the early afternoon on weekdays. Move the amateur community *AWAY* from expecting email to be "immediate delivery". Take a look at the guarantees provided by most ISP's on email -- I suspect you will find that none guarantee immediate delivery so why should amateur radio?

I could go on. This is a good basis to start from, however. None of this is anything that hasn't already been provided to the WL2K system administrators, to the ARRL, and to the FCC.

Neither the WL2K system admins or the ARRL has seen fit to even acknowledge that the problems listed above exist.

The FCC I suspect will be watching closely as to how the WL2K system and the ARRL proceed in the future, especially after the abortive attempt by the ARRL in the bandwidth regulation petition to *reward* WL2K for its inefficient, operation and deliberate interference to others using the amateur bands.

tim ab0wr

kb9xn

11-01-2007, 07:23 PM

How does a station identify themselves as a WINLINK 2000 station.
I personally wouldn't know one if he knocked on my front door.
What part of the band do they normally obliterate so others are unable to use it.

Thanks

kb9xn

11-01-2007, 07:26 PM

OK their is a screen shot of something with blue vertical stripes and one with some horizontal stripes. Which is which?

KI4ITV

11-01-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote[/b] (kb9xn @ Nov. 01 2007,07:23)]How does a station identify themselves as a WINLINK 2000 station.
I personally wouldn't know one if he knocked on my front door.
What part of the band do they normally obliterate so others are unable to use it.

Thanks
You would know it... by noticing your other guest trampled on the sidewalk, just before It asked you to open the garage door so it could come in.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

ne3r

11-01-2007, 11:44 PM

I've been doing a good bit of research on Winlink, Pactor 3, SCS modems, general HF e-mail capabilities. And I've found that:

1, if you want to send e-mail over HF, there aren't a lot of options. Now other than emergencies, I really don't see the need for exchanging e-mail over amateur radio, but that is just me.

2. SCS Modems and Pactor III seem to be pretty well designed for the job they do, but they shouldn't cause too much interference because busy detection is built into the protocol implementation on the SCS modems. I suppose it could still transmit over weak signals that it couldn't differentiate from noise, but that could happen in any mode. Then again, with a wide bandwidth, the chance of collisions is greater.

What I don't understand is, why does it cause such a problem? Are folks using it for daily general e-mail, not just for emergencies and drills? If so, I think that commercial wireless e-mail services would have something to say about that.

73 de Joe NE3R

AC0H

11-02-2007, 12:05 AM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,18:44)]I've been doing a good bit of research on Winlink, Pactor 3, SCS modems, general HF e-mail capabilities. #And I've found that:

1, if you want to send e-mail over HF, there aren't a lot of options. #Now other than emergencies, I really don't see the need for exchanging e-mail over amateur radio, but that is just me.

2. SCS Modems and Pactor III seem to be pretty well designed for the job they do, but they shouldn't cause too much interference because busy detection is built into the protocol implementation on the SCS modems. #I suppose it could still transmit over weak signals that it couldn't differentiate from noise, but that could happen in any mode. #Then again, with a wide bandwidth, the chance of collisions is greater.

What I don't understand is, why does it cause such a problem? #Are folks using it for daily general e-mail, not just for emergencies and drills? #If so, I think that commercial wireless e-mail services would have something to say about that.

73 de Joe NE3R
The SCS modems DO have busy detection built in. The PMBO owners have been told to turn it off by the WinLid admin Waterman. It cuts down on "thoughput".

The argument that WinLink is used in emergencies is pure, unadulterated, crap. They've embraced the EMCOM blanky to keep people from asking tough questions and not have to provide answers. "How dare you ask about WinLink usage, it could save lives".

99.99% of ALL WinLink traffic is just hum drum, everyday, "How are the kids? We're cruising the gulf of California for the next week" email.

I dare anybody to come to this thread and try to dispute it.

ab0wr

11-02-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,16:44)]I've been doing a good bit of research on Winlink, Pactor 3, SCS modems, general HF e-mail capabilities. #And I've found that:

1, if you want to send e-mail over HF, there aren't a lot of options. #Now other than emergencies, I really don't see the need for exchanging e-mail over amateur radio, but that is just me.

2. SCS Modems and Pactor III seem to be pretty well designed for the job they do, but they shouldn't cause too much interference because busy detection is built into the protocol implementation on the SCS modems. #I suppose it could still transmit over weak signals that it couldn't differentiate from noise, but that could happen in any mode. #Then again, with a wide bandwidth, the chance of collisions is greater.

What I don't understand is, why does it cause such a problem? #Are folks using it for daily general e-mail, not just for emergencies and drills? #If so, I think that commercial wireless e-mail services would have something to say about that.

73 de Joe NE3R
There are at least two commercial HF providers that use pactor modems just like WL2K does and provides similar functionality -- e.g. email, weather forecasts, and direct contact with meteorologists for use in establishing the safest sailing routes and departure date/times.

One of these is Sailmail and it costs $200 per year, hardly an extravagant cost.

The only *big* difference between Sailmail and WL2K is that Sailmail imposes a timelimit so you can't use it to do your regular internet email multiple times a day with huge attachments and such. It is for keeping in touch with loved ones and for safety use with weather and such -- EXACTLY what WL2K would have you believe their system is also for, up to and including the Winlink shills directly stating that is all it is used for and those that think people are using for doing their regular email are nothing but paranoid delusional people.

When needed for emergency use I suspect that Sailmail will waive the time limit although I have not directly investigated this.

If you didn't find out about Sailmail during your research then, frankly, you didn't do a very good job of investigating the issue.

Not only is Pactor III a wideband mode, the way in which it is used is not meant for the shared spectrum environment.

Most Pactor sessions will start out in Pactor I mode, a 200hz bandwidth mode. Then, without doing any further busy detection, it will shift into the wideband Pactor III mode if the channel will support that bandwidth.

That order of magnitude expansion of bandwidth without any busy detection is just plain nothing more than intentional, willfull, harmful interference to any existing adjacent communication sessions even if it is not malicious.

So, YES, people are using for daily general email and they are using a decidedly unfriendly protocol on shared spectrum. Not the actions of a group of hams that are interested in being good stewards of the amateur bands.

tim ab0wr

ne3r

11-02-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 01 2007,17:05)]The SCS modems DO have busy detection built in. The PMBO owners have been told to turn it off by the WinLid admin Waterman. It cuts down on "thoughput".

The argument that WinLink is used in emergencies is pure, unadulterated, crap. They've embraced the EMCOM blanky to keep people from asking tough questions and not have to provide answers. "How dare you ask about WinLink usage, it could save lives".

99.99% of ALL WinLink traffic is just hum drum, everyday, "How are the kids? We're cruising the gulf of California for the next week" email.

I dare anybody to come to this thread and try to dispute it.
They are told to turn off the busy detection? That doesn't make sense. It is sort of like saying that one is more important than the other.

I have no doubt that winlink is used in emergencies and emergency planning, I've seen it in action, both with MARS & ARES. But I don't see why that would be an excuse for not being open about the system.

As for the types of traffic going over Winlink, it is hard to say. I didn't have access to the SCS modem long enough to really get into monitoring. But it seemed difficult at best, but I'm sure it would be possible, as long as you got a good enough signal from both ends, you could capture and decode the messages. Oddly enough, many folks claim that Winlink is secure, which is a claim that can't really be made on the ham bands.

73 de Joe NE3R

ne3r

11-02-2007, 01:44 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 01 2007,17:24)]There are at least two commercial HF providers that use pactor modems just like WL2K does and provides similar functionality -- e.g. email, weather forecasts, and direct contact with meteorologists for use in establishing the safest sailing routes and departure date/times.

One of these is Sailmail and it costs $200 per year, hardly an extravagant cost.

The only *big* difference between Sailmail and WL2K is that Sailmail imposes a timelimit so you can't use it to do your regular internet email multiple times a day with huge attachments and such. It is for keeping in touch with loved ones and for safety use with weather and such -- EXACTLY what WL2K would have you believe their system is also for, up to and including the Winlink shills directly stating that is all it is used for and those that think people are using for doing their regular email are nothing but paranoid delusional people.

When needed for emergency use I suspect that Sailmail will waive the time limit although I have not directly investigated this.

If you didn't find out about Sailmail during your research then, frankly, you didn't do a very good job of investigating the issue.

Not only is Pactor III a wideband mode, the way in which it is used is not meant for the shared spectrum environment.

Most Pactor sessions will start out in Pactor I mode, a 200hz bandwidth mode. Then, without doing any further busy detection, it will shift into the wideband Pactor III mode if the channel will support that bandwidth.

That order of magnitude expansion of bandwidth without any busy detection is just plain nothing more than intentional, willfull, harmful interference to any existing adjacent communication sessions even if it is not malicious.

So, YES, people are using for daily general email and they are using a decidedly unfriendly protocol on shared spectrum. Not the actions of a group of hams that are interested in being good stewards of the amateur bands.

tim ab0wr
I read about sailmail, it actually sounded very similar to winlink, but they don't seem to be a very big player. If they were, I would bet that they would be making a big fuss if folks are using the ham bands to send general e-mail that isn't amateur radio or emergency related that bypasses their paid service. Other remote wireless internet/e-mail services were satellite based, and seemed pretty expensive. But only winlink uses the amateur bands.

I don't really see wideband digital as wrong, as long as the operator is following good amateur practice. I suppose that disabling busy detection wouldn't exactly be good amateur practice, but I didn't come across any recommendations to disable busy detection on winlink, but it could be something obscure that I missed.

I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong. I think it does open up a can of worms. Like how to keep commercial communications off of the ham bands or how to be sure that nobody is breaking 3rd party traffic rules. I would assume that whoever is running the winlink system has figured this out.

73 de Joe NE3R

KC5CSG

11-02-2007, 02:19 AM

So, I can guess you all think winlink is bad? I don't have an opinion yet. Who wants to give me a good one?

Jerry

ad4mg

11-02-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,20:28)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 01 2007,17:05)]The SCS modems DO have busy detection built in. The PMBO owners have been told to turn it off by the WinLid admin Waterman. It cuts down on "thoughput".

The argument that WinLink is used in emergencies is pure, unadulterated, crap. They've embraced the EMCOM blanky to keep people from asking tough questions and not have to provide answers. "How dare you ask about WinLink usage, it could save lives".

99.99% of ALL WinLink traffic is just hum drum, everyday, "How are the kids? We're cruising the gulf of California for the next week" email.

I dare anybody to come to this thread and try to dispute it.
They are told to turn off the busy detection? That doesn't make sense. It is sort of like saying that one is more important than the other.

I have no doubt that winlink is used in emergencies and emergency planning, I've seen it in action, both with MARS & ARES. But I don't see why that would be an excuse for not being open about the system.

As for the types of traffic going over Winlink, it is hard to say. I didn't have access to the SCS modem long enough to really get into monitoring. But it seemed difficult at best, but I'm sure it would be possible, as long as you got a good enough signal from both ends, you could capture and decode the messages. Oddly enough, many folks claim that Winlink is secure, which is a claim that can't really be made on the ham bands.

73 de Joe NE3R
Joe,

If you want to see the discussion of turning off signal detection firsthand, join the Yahoo wl2kemcomm groups, and look through the archives. I cannot provide this information, as I was kicked off that group for asking about this very signal detection scheme. I posted my inquiry, word for word, in the other thread about winlink here.

It is exactly as you say ... winlink network administrator k4cjx has determined that winlink email is more important than other amateur communications. And busy channel signal detection in the SCS modems used in this network are turned off.

Jerry, countless opinions have been given about the shoddy and inconsiderate operation of the winlink free internet email network. It should be very easy to look for the last winlink thread here, which ran for over a dozen pages. It is complete with numerous screenshots of winlink operations obliterating ongoing packet radio qso's, and includes some interesting quotes from Steve Waterman, the network administrator for winlink. Winlink isn't necessarily bad in itself, and has been adapted successfully by MARS, where it is well suited for their use, on dedicated "channels". It is the arrogant manner in which it is deployed on amateur frequencies, and the reckless disregard for other amateurs that this network has that makes it bad for amateur radio. It is designed to be run on an assigned, exclusive commercial channel. That statement is on the SCS web site. They state that the modem is designed for commercial communications. It was never intended for amateur radio.

kc7gnm

11-02-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,19:44)]I've been doing a good bit of research on Winlink, Pactor 3, SCS modems, general HF e-mail capabilities. And I've found that:

1, if you want to send e-mail over HF, there aren't a lot of options. Now other than emergencies, I really don't see the need for exchanging e-mail over amateur radio, but that is just me.

2. SCS Modems and Pactor III seem to be pretty well designed for the job they do, but they shouldn't cause too much interference because busy detection is built into the protocol implementation on the SCS modems. I suppose it could still transmit over weak signals that it couldn't differentiate from noise, but that could happen in any mode. Then again, with a wide bandwidth, the chance of collisions is greater.

What I don't understand is, why does it cause such a problem? Are folks using it for daily general e-mail, not just for emergencies and drills? If so, I think that commercial wireless e-mail services would have something to say about that.

73 de Joe NE3R
1) There are options besides winlink. There is sailmail which uses it's own freqs off ham radio and uses the same exact client that winlink uses. There is also satellite and cell phone email that you can use as well. There are other options but the problem is we got a nice little free email service that these rich boaters don't have to pay for.

2) Yes the modems do have busy detection built in but Mr. Steve Waterman, AKA Winlid god, has said that they turn it off because it reduces throughput. This statement in itself is one reason why anyone that operates winlink is a lid. If the guy running the network says it is ok to trash someone else's QSO to send your "very important" email that can't wait until you find a hotspot somewhere says this then it just damaged the reputation of every PMBO out there.

kc7gnm

11-02-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 01 2007,20:05)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,18:44)]I've been doing a good bit of research on Winlink, Pactor 3, SCS modems, general HF e-mail capabilities. And I've found that:

1, if you want to send e-mail over HF, there aren't a lot of options. Now other than emergencies, I really don't see the need for exchanging e-mail over amateur radio, but that is just me.

2. SCS Modems and Pactor III seem to be pretty well designed for the job they do, but they shouldn't cause too much interference because busy detection is built into the protocol implementation on the SCS modems. I suppose it could still transmit over weak signals that it couldn't differentiate from noise, but that could happen in any mode. Then again, with a wide bandwidth, the chance of collisions is greater.

What I don't understand is, why does it cause such a problem? Are folks using it for daily general e-mail, not just for emergencies and drills? If so, I think that commercial wireless e-mail services would have something to say about that.

73 de Joe NE3R
The SCS modems DO have busy detection built in. The PMBO owners have been told to turn it off by the WinLid admin Waterman. It cuts down on "thoughput".

The argument that WinLink is used in emergencies is pure, unadulterated, crap. They've embraced the EMCOM blanky to keep people from asking tough questions and not have to provide answers. "How dare you ask about WinLink usage, it could save lives".

99.99% of ALL WinLink traffic is just hum drum, everyday, "How are the kids? We're cruising the gulf of California for the next week" email.

I dare anybody to come to this thread and try to dispute it.
The problem is you won't. Steve Waterman is the top lid when it comes to winlink and he knows that he cannot dispute anything we have said here. He is too much of a wimp to come here and debate this issue. Every time someone does try to debate him over on one of his reflectors on yahoo he has you banned. Ask Tim and myself about that one. We brought up good questions and instead of getting answers all we got was the boot.

kc7gnm

11-02-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,21:44)]I read about sailmail, it actually sounded very similar to winlink, but they don't seem to be a very big player. If they were, I would bet that they would be making a big fuss if folks are using the ham bands to send general e-mail that isn't amateur radio or emergency related that bypasses their paid service. Other remote wireless internet/e-mail services were satellite based, and seemed pretty expensive. But only winlink uses the amateur bands.

I don't really see wideband digital as wrong, as long as the operator is following good amateur practice. I suppose that disabling busy detection wouldn't exactly be good amateur practice, but I didn't come across any recommendations to disable busy detection on winlink, but it could be something obscure that I missed.

I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong. I think it does open up a can of worms. Like how to keep commercial communications off of the ham bands or how to be sure that nobody is breaking 3rd party traffic rules. I would assume that whoever is running the winlink system has figured this out.

73 de Joe NE3R
That is because sailmail is run by hams as well. They have commercial callsigns of course but they don't make much money off the system. They pretty much do it like a non-profit. Just enough to pay for the spectrum and the callsign I suspect.

kc7gnm

11-02-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Nov. 01 2007,22:19)]So, I can guess you all think winlink is bad? I don't have an opinion yet. Who wants to give me a good one?

Jerry
Never said winlink itself was bad but the way it is being run by Steve Waterman and the way it crashes QSO's is bad. That is my beef with the system. Every weekend when I get on packet there isn't a time when I haven't been trashed by a winlid. I can't even send a decent message to friends over packet because I know I will get disconnected by a winlid station. It is pretty sad when I have to run two programs just to do packet anymore. I run MixW to copy the interference and my packet program. I don't even bother contacting the person causing the interference anymore because every time I do all I get is an angry response. I just forward the info to the FCC now. I am pretty sure they will get tired of us all sending them reports of interference from one specific system being used and will truly investigate it. For the time being we have to be patient and keep sending in those interference reports.

ab0wr

11-02-2007, 02:48 PM

ne3r:Quote[/b] ]I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong.

Are you familar with the rules in Part 97.113?

Especially the one about regular use of amateur radio in lieu of reasonable commercial services that do the same thing?

Irregular use of the ham bands to send or receive an email to/from loved ones or to get a weather forecast should not be a problem.

Regular use of the ham bands for reading and sending your internet email *is* a problematic. When you see a Pactor III session last for 20minutes or more just exactly what do you think is being sent or received?

Amateur radio was never meant to be a common carrier service used to carry third party traffic to/from a destination on a regular basis. That *is* what common carriers are for.

The Amateur Radio Service was laid out for intercommunications between hams, for technical investigations by hams, and as a resource for developing a pool of technically trained individuals whose interest is primarily the art of radio.

If you will look at the definition of the amateur radio service or look at the purposes of the service you will not find the words "common carrier" mentioned anywhere.

This paradigm of amateur radio as a common carrier is an insidious one and it is becoming more and more pervasive as time goes on. As we give away more and more amateur spectrum for use by government organization and NGO "customers" for emcomm use and as we give away more and more amateur spectrum for a few to use as common carrier/ISP links to the internet we are going to find that the definition of the Amateur Radio Service is going to be fundamentally changed -- and not for the better.

tim ab0wr

ne3r

11-02-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 02 2007,07:48)]ne3r:Quote[/b] ]I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong.

Are you familar with the rules in Part 97.113?

...

tim ab0wr
Yep - Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

I could have worded that differently. Using amateur radio for regular day to day e-mail seems to fall on the wrong side of that rule. But in emergency situations, I can see where HF e-mail can be useful. And like anything else, you would need to use it often enough to maintain proficiency. Some may say apples and oranges, but to me it is sort of like all of the NTS birthday and holiday greeting messages, they may seem pointless these days, but they keep folks familiar NTS, and are in general, good for amateur radio.

It seems that most of the complaints about winlink, have more to do with the operators, and less to do with the concept.

73 de Joe NE3R

kc7gnm

11-02-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 02 2007,11:39)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 02 2007,07:48)]ne3r:Quote[/b] ]I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong.

Are you familar with the rules in Part 97.113?

...

tim ab0wr
Yep - Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

I could have worded that differently. Using amateur radio for regular day to day e-mail seems to fall on the wrong side of that rule. But in emergency situations, I can see where HF e-mail can be useful. And like anything else, you would need to use it often enough to maintain proficiency. Some may say apples and oranges, but to me it is sort of like all of the NTS birthday and holiday greeting messages, they may seem pointless these days, but they keep folks familiar NTS, and are in general, good for amateur radio.

It seems that most of the complaints about winlink, have more to do with the operators, and less to do with the concept.

73 de Joe NE3R
Bingo. That has been my complaint the whole time. When I send the offender an email letting him know his station is interfering with my ongoing communications and I get back a nasty reply saying not my problem then I get upset at these jerks. Now I don't even send a message. I just screen capture the lid and send a report to the FCC. I have probably sent over 20 so far and still counting.

k6jpd

11-02-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 02 2007,08:39)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 02 2007,07:48)]ne3r:Quote[/b] ]I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong.

Are you familar with the rules in Part 97.113?

...

tim ab0wr
(edit)... I can see where HF e-mail can be useful...
well, i can also see that a 10 kw amp "could be useful" too. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
"mail" (from one amateur directly to another amateur) forwarding has been operating for years......... it's called PACKET; a protical that LISTENS before it transmits.

WINSTINK does not belong on AMATEUR bands, operate it on MARS freqs or better yet 27MHz

ne3r

11-02-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote[/b] (k6jpd @ Nov. 02 2007,09:29)]well, i can also see that a 10 kw amp "could be useful" too. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
"mail" (from one amateur directly to another amateur) #forwarding has been operating for years......... it's called PACKET; a protical that LISTENS before it transmits.

WINSTINK does not belong on AMATEUR bands, operate it on MARS freqs or better yet 27MHz
You have a good point. One advantage to interfacing with internet e-mail is that you only need a ham on one end, and a receiving station that could be anywhere with an internet connection.

MARS & Winlink seem to go together well. As I understand it (I'm not a MARS operator) there are specific frequencies set aside for this sort of thing on MARS.

SCS modems listen before they transmit, as long as they are told to. It seems that there is no "official" reccomendation from the folks running winlink that says to disable busy detection.

27 MHz, LOL, putting it there would just put more AM between 28 and 28.3 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73 de Joe NE3R

n1ohx

11-09-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 01 2007,17:05)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,18:44)]I've been doing a good bit of research on Winlink, Pactor 3, SCS modems, general HF e-mail capabilities. #And I've found that:

1, if you want to send e-mail over HF, there aren't a lot of options. #Now other than emergencies, I really don't see the need for exchanging e-mail over amateur radio, but that is just me.

2. SCS Modems and Pactor III seem to be pretty well designed for the job they do, but they shouldn't cause too much interference because busy detection is built into the protocol implementation on the SCS modems. #I suppose it could still transmit over weak signals that it couldn't differentiate from noise, but that could happen in any mode. #Then again, with a wide bandwidth, the chance of collisions is greater.

What I don't understand is, why does it cause such a problem? #Are folks using it for daily general e-mail, not just for emergencies and drills? #If so, I think that commercial wireless e-mail services would have something to say about that.

73 de Joe NE3R
The SCS modems DO have busy detection built in. The PMBO owners have been told to turn it off by the WinLid admin Waterman. It cuts down on "thoughput".

The argument that WinLink is used in emergencies is pure, unadulterated, crap. They've embraced the EMCOM blanky to keep people from asking tough questions and not have to provide answers. "How dare you ask about WinLink usage, it could save lives".

99.99% of ALL WinLink traffic is just hum drum, everyday, "How are the kids? We're cruising the gulf of California for the next week" email.

I dare anybody to come to this thread and try to dispute it.
More ignorance. You cannot disable the DCD detection in an SCS modem, and winlink cannot either. Also, since the MBO's only answer when called, if it WERE possible to turn off the DCD there would be no change. Where do you people come by the information you use to make these claims?

Don't dare people to dispute a thread where you claim knowlege of a mode you have not used. How do you know what everyday Winlink traffic is? you don't own a modem to monitor it? The majority of Winlink traffic is amateur radio related. The common theme is to log on and request amateur radio bulletins from a long list of topics. on a second connect the system will send you the information you requested. The proof is on the air, most e-mails are less than 1 kilobyte, and it takes less than 30 seconds to send. However most sessions last 12 minutes or more, meaning the user is transferring large amounts of bulletin traffic.

Steven

n8yx

11-09-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ohx @ Nov. 09 2007,08:59)]How do you know what everyday Winlink traffic is? you don't own a modem to monitor it? The majority of Winlink traffic is amateur radio related.
I am aware of numerous requests that were conveyed to the users and/or PMBO operators for the contents of such...yet no one is willing (or able) to provide that information.

Why?

ne3r

11-09-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote[/b] (n8yx @ Nov. 09 2007,09:11)]Quote[/b] (n1ohx @ Nov. 09 2007,08:59)]How do you know what everyday Winlink traffic is? you don't own a modem to monitor it? The majority of Winlink traffic is amateur radio related.
I am aware of numerous requests that were conveyed to the users and/or PMBO operators for the contents of such...yet no one is willing (or able) to provide that information.

Why?
That is a good question.

n5rfx

11-09-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ohx @ Nov. 08 2007,09:59)]More ignorance. You cannot disable the DCD detection in an SCS modem, and winlink cannot either. Also, since the MBO's only answer when called, if it WERE possible to turn off the DCD there would be no change. Where do you people come by the information you use to make these claims?
Steven,

From the PTC-IIusb manual on page 85:
Quote[/b] ]A busy channel is defined as all signals that are audibly distinctly different from noise, but, however, having a speed < 250 Baud. Packet-Radio (300 Baud) is virtually ignored. Furthermore, strong carriers on the channel are not evaluated as channel busy.
This is the issue being discussed. You may not be able to disable the DCD detection in an SCS modem, but you can certainly ignore it. You have to understand that it does make a difference whether there is busy detection at the PMBO. How do you as an interrogator know that the PMBO will not interfere with an on going QSO that you cannot hear, but that the PMBO can hear? Certainly you understand HF propagation?

73,
Mark N5RFX

N5PVL

11-10-2007, 01:27 AM

N1OHX says:
Quote[/b] ]
Don't dare people to dispute a thread where

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif ---{ # #ROTFLMAO !!! # #}

wz9o

11-10-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 09 2007,18:27)]N1OHX says:
Quote[/b] ]
Don't dare people to dispute a thread where

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif ---{ # #ROTFLMAO !!! # #}
Sounds like an English major http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KI4ITV

11-10-2007, 06:34 PM

This just in from 30 meters...
e oePinRE IS KEYING ON TOP OF YOU IN AMTOR OR PACTOR FORMAT AND I CAN GET MAYBE 65% OF YOUR TX. I WISH OPS WOULD BE MORE COURTEOUS THAN THAT.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I ENJOY QSO WITH MyNY FOLKS AND TRY TO ALWAYS BE COURTEOUS AeeUT IT.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

ad4mg

11-10-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>n1ohx confidently proclaims: </span>More ignorance. You cannot disable the DCD detection in an SCS modem, and winlink cannot either. Also, since the MBO's only answer when called, if it WERE possible to turn off the DCD there would be no change. Where do you people come by the information you use to make these claims?

Perhaps you can offer your wisdom to Steve Waterman, K4CJX, network administrator Winlink, and charter member of the "Winlink Developement Team":

Quote[/b] ] Posted by: "K4CJX" k4cjx@{full address removed}

Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:56 pm (PST)

To no-name:

We attempted to use active signal detection. Our "buddies" would stay on frequency and keep the Auto-start from operation. When it became obvious that the interference was actually intentional jamming, <span style='color:red'>we took the active signal detection off</span>, and now only use passive signal detection on the initiation end. if you have a better schema and can code the DSP so that it will recognize the difference between malicious interference and real interference, I am all for you providing this code. Otherwise, case closed.

Intentional QRM ...BS ... he lives in the same fantasy world you live in.

Ah, so many lies! You people sell your soul for free internet email. How sad.

EDIT: "Case Closed" he says. Definitive proof that the network administrator of the winlink network insists that signal detection be turned off in the SCS modem at the PMBO. It's important to do this so they can "serve their clients". To hell with any amateur communications that aren't heard by the "initiating station". This, ladies and gentlemen, is today's Winlink Network. Free internet email for all, at the expense of amateur HF radio operators the world over. Sweet.

ad4mg

11-11-2007, 10:24 AM

I'm curious ... no comment on what Steve has to say about turning off signal detection in the SCS modem?

Is another myth "busted"?

KI4ITV

11-11-2007, 01:11 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Luke, re-organizing groupthink through email takes a little longer when using a HF delivery system.
It might be a day or two. That one hurt, and will take some serious re-working to get it spinning again properly.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

k2gsp

11-11-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 01 2007,09:39)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 02 2007,07:48)]ne3r:Quote[/b] ]I also don't find HF/internet e-mail on the amateur bands to be wrong.

Are you familar with the rules in Part 97.113?

...

tim ab0wr
Yep - Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

I could have worded that differently. Using amateur radio for regular day to day e-mail seems to fall on the wrong side of that rule. But in emergency situations, I can see where HF e-mail can be useful. And like anything else, you would need to use it often enough to maintain proficiency. Some may say apples and oranges, but to me it is sort of like all of the NTS birthday and holiday greeting messages, they may seem pointless these days, but they keep folks familiar NTS, and are in general, good for amateur radio.

It seems that most of the complaints about winlink, have more to do with the operators, and less to do with the concept.

73 de Joe NE3R
Show me one instance of emergency use on HF by Winlink.

ad4mg

11-11-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ Nov. 11 2007,08:11)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Luke, re-organizing groupthink through email takes a little longer when using a HF delivery system.
It might be a day or two. That one hurt, and will take some serious re-working to get it spinning again properly.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It is quite funny ... they always run away when any of their "facts" are shown to be anything but. If he had any character at all, he would apologize to AC0H for declaring Robert's post as "more ignorance".

I won't hold my breath waiting.

kc7gnm

11-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ohx @ Nov. 09 2007,11:59)]More ignorance. You cannot disable the DCD detection in an SCS modem, and winlink cannot either. Also, since the MBO's only answer when called, if it WERE possible to turn off the DCD there would be no change. Where do you people come by the information you use to make these claims?

Don't dare people to dispute a thread where you claim knowlege of a mode you have not used. How do you know what everyday Winlink traffic is? you don't own a modem to monitor it? The majority of Winlink traffic is amateur radio related. The common theme is to log on and request amateur radio bulletins from a long list of topics. on a second connect the system will send you the information you requested. The proof is on the air, most e-mails are less than 1 kilobyte, and it takes less than 30 seconds to send. However most sessions last 12 minutes or more, meaning the user is transferring large amounts of bulletin traffic.

Steven
More ignorance? Your imperious leader Steve Waterman said to turn the busy detection off. Apparently it can be done and is being done because these boneheads do not listen before answering a lid.

Your information about ham to ham traffic is very inaccurate as well. There are more missionaries that pump out third party traffic on the hf bands than do hams. Sorry but your facts are dead wrong. Just go look on the winlink site and you will see they spout off that over 150,000 emails a month pass through their system. That is a lot of traffic for just hams. Also why would you pass bulletins over hf if the winlink system is supposed to be internet connected to pass all the bulk stuff. The only thing you are supposed to do is the last link to collect your mail. If a winlink session is lasting for more that 30 min then they are passing way more than bulletins as these are normally not that big and with the compression used by winlink it would not take that long. What is happening is winlink is turning out to be a fully functioning email service that sailors that want to save a few bucks get to avoid paying sailmail and the time restrictions it has. Maybe winlink needs to set the time restrictions even stricter than sailmail? Maybe give 10 min a day airtime. Maybe that would make a bunch of these morons go back to sailmail since they have a little big longer. I think 10 min a day would be fine and it would force a lot of these morons to stop sending these huge unnecessary attachments.

kc7gnm

11-11-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 11 2007,10:07)]Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ Nov. 11 2007,08:11)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Luke, re-organizing groupthink through email takes a little longer when using a HF delivery system.
It might be a day or two. That one hurt, and will take some serious re-working to get it spinning again properly.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It is quite funny ... they always run away when any of their "facts" are shown to be anything but. If he had any character at all, he would apologize to AC0H for declaring Robert's post as "more ignorance".

I won't hold my breath waiting.
You know why these guys come in here defending winlink? They are probably the ones that only got their license out of a cracker jack box to operate winlink only. They probably don't operate any other mode and don't care about anyone else unless they can't get their email. Just go look at some of the sailmail sites. They are full of ads to get your license quick. Probably just memorized the question pool for general and took the test and forgot all about the other aspects of ham radio. That is todays mentality when it comes to winlink. That is the only thing Steve Waterman and their bunch care about. They definitely do not care about the rest of ham radio. If they did they would not have tried pushing that crap called RM-11306 on the rest of the community.