WinLids on Parade - AE6XO [Archive] - Page 3

WA0LYK

11-19-2007, 01:51 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 18 2007,05:00)]Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ Nov. 18 2007,07:31)]Obviously, you can't always hear everything, but this ready excuse IS very convenient. To argue that it isn't, is just silly.
The salient issue remains how to arrive at a workable solution that is "FAIR" to everyone, the WL2K users as well as the rest of us. There needs to be a spot in the sandbox for everyone.

We have a recurring problem on HF with interference of all sorts, most of which takes place in the HF phone bands. Some is clearly "intentional and malicious," much is mindless and stupid, and most is not being "litigated" by the FCC because it is difficult to establish the kinds of proof that enforcement demands if it is to be fair. What is being proposed with regard to WL2K by a number of posters on this thread is equivalent to banning phone because it is being abused by a host of users.

If it is the nature of use that is wrong, not so much the mode of use, and we must seek to correct the nature of use -- regardless of the mode. If it is the space available that is the problem, then it is only natural that we should examine the potential for changing and realigning that space to fit the demonstrated need.

RM-11306 sought to utterly remove the automatic-operations sub-bands. That was a wrong solution, and it failed for good reason. Enlarging the sub-bands and splitting them into narrow- and wide-bandwidth corridors has merit.
Why does there have to be a solution that is "FAIR" to everyone, especially when it rewards those users who cause harmful interference?

The current shared spectrum rules are already "FAIR" to everyone. There is just one set of users that has decided to not play by the rules. They have, in essence, declared everyone operating on "their" frequencies to be jammers and therefore decided to not utilize busy detection - at all.

Most of us would continue to have a qso if possible when bothered by a jammer, i.e. ignore them. However, few if any would start a qso over an existing one. Winlink could do the same thing if they wished, i.e. turn off busy detection on a case by case basis if their transmissions were being jammed.

I also don't know how assigning a space for wideband digital would help unless all narrowband signals were banned from that space. In fact, if other wideband signals were allowed, this wouldn't solve winlink's problem. This also goes against no one "owning" a frequency and starts us down a road I certainly don't want to go down.

If this should happen, there will be a huge incentive for other folks to find the highest bandwidth signals possible and operate them in the most obnoxious manner all the while declaring that "interference" mitigation is the responsibility of the calling station who naturally "can't" hear anyone on the frequency. In addition, anyone who operates on "their" self-declared frequencies will be labeled jammers and deserve any interference they receive. All this will be done in the hopes they will also receive a unique allocation for their operation. Not a good direction to set amateur radio on.

Ultimately, the best solution is for winlink (and other similar operations) to admit that amateur radio is shared spectrum and that a place and time to operate is NEVER guaranteed to anyone. This will mean email will have to be delayed until an open frequency can be obtained. Winlink just needs to suck it up and admit to their users that this is the case and then tell everyone that future operations will be conducted in accordance with current shared spectrum rules followed by all other amateurs.

I might add, this has a great incentive to utilize more narrow bandwidths like pactor II since it is much more spectrum efficient as many have pointed out in the past.

Jim
WA0LYK

kc7gnm

11-19-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4WCA @ Nov. 18 2007,20:02)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 17 2007,22:00)]Quote[/b] (KI4WCA @ Nov. 17 2007,23:07)]Quote[/b] (KC0OFZ @ Nov. 17 2007,19:35)]AC0H
MIV wants to reward the Winlids/ARRL he is shilling for, no one else. The "taditional" hams (us) mean nothing to him. In this climb to the top of the Winlink/EmComm mountain nothing matters, only the $$$ at the end of the rainbow.
Because we do not support this Winlink garbage blindly we are all "stupid", "b***hers", and "whiners" and the list goes on and on. This is going to be pushed on us more and more as the winlids demand more and more of the spectrum. Unfortunately there are those of us on this board who are all to willing to give winlink ANYTHING it wants.
How about a new band for the winlink crowd?Say in the commercial maritime and aero allocations?And a commercial license to go with it.Yes, that would work.The military currently has a very capable sat network for data relay.I would think cw,ssb, and psk would be enough for emcomm stuff on the amateur allocations.Unless the real agenda is a spectrum grab.And transforming the amateur service into something decidedly non amateur.
They already have that in the form of Sailmail. They just choose to bypass a pay service and use the amateur band for their free email service.
I know.I was being sarcastic.The saving of a very few dollars while indiscriminately nuking the psk guys is very lame, as is the emcomm argument.
Oh I totally agree. The Emcomm argument is the lamest of all. The most they would ever use winlink for is maybe health and welfare. For true emcomm you would never rely on email.

k6jpd

11-19-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Nov. 18 2007,18:51)](edit for brevity) ...Why does there have to be a solution that is "FAIR" to everyone...[/quote]
wa0lyk..... GREAT post! it pretty well sums up the problem and the solution http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ab0wr

11-19-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote[/b] ]Ultimately, the best solution is for winlink (and other similar operations) to admit that amateur radio is shared spectrum and that a place and time to operate is NEVER guaranteed to anyone. This will mean email will have to be delayed until an open frequency can be obtained. Winlink just needs to suck it up and admit to their users that this is the case and then tell everyone that future operations will be conducted in accordance with current shared spectrum rules followed by all other amateurs.

Great post!

It brings out the one thing that the WL2K system administrators have never admitted, not even to themselves.

WL2K does not have dedicated spectrum allocated to it. Thus, advertising WL2K as a "life-saving" communications system to the user base is actually putting those people who depend on it for safety-of-life communications in a dangerous situation. There is no guarantee that they will be able to find a PMBO on a clear frequency to facilitate those safety-of-life communications when they are needed.

The WL2K system admins have tried bullying the amateur community into "giving" WL2K clear frequencies by turning off their busy detection and running roughshod over other communications using the frequencies they consider to be "theirs". This mindset has not worked (for the most part) and has made WL2K one of the most despised operations that amateur radio has ever seen. The WL2K system admins should consider the current situation carefully when making plans for the future although with their arrogance and hubris I doubt this will ever happen.

This is an out-growth of the ever more popular mindset which sees the Amateur Radio Service as a common carrier for third party traffic instead of a service primarily for the purpose of communications between amateur radio operators. The mindset of the Emcomm fanatics that sees the ARS as a common carrier providing permanent communications infrastructure for third parties, i.e. government agencies and non-government agencies, is closely related and is just as pernicious as WL2K in the long run.

I take heart in the fact that I see so many upstanding amateurs on QRZ fighting to keep amateur radio true to its roots and purposes. Don't let those who see the amateur bands as spectrum to be carved up for the use of small special interests wear you down.

tim ab0wr

KD6NIG

11-19-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. Why? Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

N5PVL

11-19-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,10:48)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? #Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. #Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. #If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. #Why? #Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. #Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. #All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. #Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In AE6X0's case:

The guy works for NASA, and has been associated with ham radio since the 60's - and he "just doesn't know" that he is supposed to listen before transmitting?

I don't think so.

ky5u

11-19-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,08:48)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. Why? Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
If I have a rig that puts out a bad spur and QRMs and I don't know about it then that is one thing. Once I know and spread the word around to others, if I or any of those folks still use it knowing it will QRM then that is ok by you?

The Winlink folks know the program can easily interfere with others, yet they don't do anything about it. In fact, they shift the blame to the user. And truthfully, most users of WL2K should know by now that it interferes, and still use it anyway.

KD6NIG

11-19-2007, 04:26 PM

Yeah, but from what I read about it, isn't the AVERAGE user a person who uses a boat (or RV or whatever) that goes to a class to get the appropriate license, hooks up the modem, and goes to emailing?

Ok, so maybe this guy knew more. Maybe others do too. But perhaps they think its like packet....that it DOES have busy detection. Has anyone tried asking any of the other people on these watch lists?

Once they are contacted and ignore you, and/or spit in your face, then you take it to the next level, obviously. But from what I'm hearing, wouldn't the logical step process be:

1) Record the users infractions. If you don't feel comfortable with one, and with these lists I'm seeing, most violate multiple times, then record a few times.

2) See if they have an email address. If they do, contact them, send them the screenshots, and offer to help them understand what they are doing is wrong.

3) If met with no response, a bad response, or after talking to them they continue, then take the letter you sent them, as well as any responses, and forward it to the FCC?

Then you would be proving to the FCC that you attempted to try and educate the other user and attempted to solve the problem on your own, and that didn't work-now maybe the FCC will act since your complaints have been ignored?

This is the system that Repeater owners often have to use. They have to verbally and make a written request to a user if they don't want them to use the system. If those are ignored, then they go to the FCC who then sends the scofflaw a letter.

Didn't it work with this guy? I mean, I don't agree with the method, but someone contacted him, said "hey, there is a thread on QRZ about you QRMing people" and he came on, apologized, and as far as I can tell, hasn't done it again, right?

And, I seem to recall activity went down on that particular frequency for a few days too.

So why not try it some more? I mean whats the worst that will happen? It won't work and the FCC will have hundreds of letters not only proving QRM, but you tried to resolve the issue using the "self enforcement" provision of the rules, and you were basically told where to go. Then it should be their turn. Either that or they turn a blind eye, then you DO have basis for a lawsuit.

Documentation. You gotta have it before you can take that kind of step. Right?

This thread, if not doing anything else but being bickering that continues, should prove that if you tell these people, maybe SOME of them will at least think about what they are doing.

And if not, you have the paper trail. Once the FCC goes after them, they cannot cry "but I didn't know." They will be required to take action that the FCC agrees with.

It would expedite the process, to be sure, wouldn't it?

ky5u

11-19-2007, 04:30 PM

Another mark in the "it's ok to QRM as long as it doesn't happen to you" column.

KD6NIG

11-19-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 19 2007,09:30)]Another mark in the "it's ok to QRM as long as it doesn't happen to you" column.
Show me where in my reply I said that.

I believe I said to contact them and if that doesn't work, contact the FCC.

Where in that statement did it say "let it go!"?

I try to suggest a better method and this is the reply I get?

No WONDER this problem continues. You just expect these guys to banish themselves from the airwaves because you got QRM'd. Isn't the proper process outlined in our rules?

Sheesh. Next time, just tell me my solution sucks and move on. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KD6NIG

11-19-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 19 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] ]Ultimately, the best solution is for winlink (and other similar operations) to admit that amateur radio is shared spectrum and that a place and time to operate is NEVER guaranteed to anyone. This will mean email will have to be delayed until an open frequency can be obtained. Winlink just needs to suck it up and admit to their users that this is the case and then tell everyone that future operations will be conducted in accordance with current shared spectrum rules followed by all other amateurs.
Theres only one problem with that statement-

It would apply to both sides of the equation equally.

Meaning if the packet stations are silent for a few minutes, and Winlink starts a session, the packet stations would then have to wait.

Both sides would need to admit this, and with winlink sessions lasting much longer.....that wouldn't work either.

Wouldn't seperation, though rewarding the winlinkers, be better for that reason? Provided you eliminate the QRM, both sides will STILL not be happy-once a packet station starts a contact and transmissions pause, the frequency is clear (to the modem) and it will fire up, right?

What you would REALLY need is for Winlink to work EXACTLY like the modes you're talking about-and require a HUMAN to listen for traffic and ask if the frequency is clear first. Putting the modems in control will mean the Winlink session will initiate once the packet modems pause. The Winlink modem can't tell if a QSO is in progress, just like a regular packet modem cannot. It waits for open air, waits x milliseconds as setup, and initiates transmission if nothing is heard.

The only difference is a normal packet network uses short bursts. Winlink goes nuts for a few minutes.

The modes are incompatible. One mode transmits for a few seconds at a time. One goes for a few minutes. The people who only transmit for a few seconds will not accept that kind of sharing. Even if the QRM goes away, they won't appreciate if someone is on there for 20 minutes downloading 30 emails.

But if you turned detection on like many people are saying they need to do, all you will do is you won't be QRM'd. Winlink will wait for the opening and take it. You aren't QRM'd if you aren't transmitting at the time-the frequency is clear when no transmissions are occuring. Right? I mean, at least, to a computer, it is, which is what busy detection is.

Its still not gonna work. If you share, you'll still be waiting for Winlink to clear. The computer only looks for the presence of something. It cannot tell if you're in QSO.

Seperation would reward the QRM'rs. But with the protocol the way it is, the only way is to change the protocol, or to seperate the modes so they can live in harmony. Seeing that the FCC has done much so far, I see them taking the easy out.

Contrary to popular belief by many in this thread, this will be ultimately what happens, unless Winlink is either declared an illegal mode, or enough complaints are submitted that the FCC shuts them down.

However, having the FCC demand they use busy detection will stop the QRM-it will just wait till you're not transmitting and then startup. And the FCC will look at this and say "well, the frequency was clear. No intentional QRM" and you'll be in the same boat, except you won't be stepped on. You'll just be interrupted mid-QSO because there was a short break between transmissions.

I don't support Winlink by any means, but its plain to see-the modes don't work well together. If you don't seperate them, you'll still be waiting for Winlink to finish anyway, or to have a short break where your modem can then take the frequency for a few seconds. Then....another break, Winlink sees open air, and it fires up again.

If both sent in a few second bursts, it would work. They don't.

The complaints would simply change from QRM to "Winlink is constantly tying up (insert frequency here).

Thats why I keep saying that seperation is the solution. Not because I want to support or gift QRM, but because the modes simply are NOT the same. The protocols may be similar, but the amount of channel time used to complete a transaction is not.

Either way, you'll be waiting for your turn. Winlink takes more of the lions share of time. Stick it somewhere small and let them tie up that area to their hearts content, and let them fight EACH OTHER FOR AIRTIME.

Instead of taking up all of yours because you use a protocol that is much more effective and efficent.

Its not fair, but you know if they do wait for open air, they will still be hogging everything!

Or, tell me I'm wrong, please. But every complaint I see here says "They just took over for 20 minutes." I'm assuming its a solid transmission, not small packets. If not, please inform me I'm wrong and I'll retract my statement.

w3wn

11-19-2007, 06:06 PM

Some of the recent comments in this thread tend to make one question what the real motives and objectives of some of the posters are.

Is the objective the removal from the HF bands of:
( a ) #The WinLink Network sponsored by Mr. Waterman et al;
( b ) #The removal of ALL WinLink activity;
( c ) #The removal of ALL PACTOR III activity;
( d ) #The removal of most or ALL relatively wide-band digital modes

It's one thing if the primary objection is to Mr. Waterman's WinLink network, or at least a significant (if not majority) portion of it's users. #One can argue, and argue convincingly, that many of these users are amateurs in name only; and that their primary if not only reason for using WinLink is to avoid using commercial systems for any of a number of reasons. #I'm not saying you'd win the argument, mind you -- but you could argue this convincingly.

And you can also argue convincingly (again, not to say you'd win the argument) that certain aspects of PACTOR III make it a poor match for the Amateur Service overall, including but not limited to it's proprietary nature... and that use of this mode should be limited, curtailed, or even eliminated.

Now... if either or both of these last two paragraphs are (more or less) your arguments, then the suggestion that the two camps in the HF digital community -- ie, narrow band-mode users and wide-band mode users -- get together and hammer out a compromise to co-exist is a good and wise one. Even if this is to the point of agreeing to a voluntary band plan (both in the automated-station and non-automated-station portions of the sub-band) to segregate the narrow-band users and the wide-band users. #This would avoid if not eliminate the majority of mode-based interference.

On the other hand, if your position is against the wide-band modes existing on HF in the first place, then any suggestion for compromise or sharing will continue to be turned down out of hand. # Those daring to suggest as such will continue to be insulted and otherwise demeaned by those objecting to said compromises... by terms such as "winlids," "shills," "trolls," "sellouts," and further terms of varying degrees of derogatory.

IMHO, a hard-line position against the wider bandwith modes will ultimately fail. # A particular mode may fall by the wayside, but there are others out there, and more that are being developed. #Be it WinLink, ALE, or something else we just haven't heard about (yet), sooner or later, a wide-band mode will gain enough credence and users that it will be shoe-horned somewhere into the band. #Fighting tooth and nail against that may delay the inevitable... but it will happen.

It is becoming clear to the dis-interested third parties that the two camps involved need to work out a way to co-exist. #If they don't, sooner or later, someone or some organization outside the two camps may choose to impose a means of co-existance that one or both camps may find it hard to live with.

Are you really prepared to cut off your nose to spite your face?

ky5u

11-19-2007, 06:13 PM

Good news is new Ham Magazine!

K8YZK

11-19-2007, 06:42 PM

Charlie, loved the new mag, but I think the three stooges where smarter then some winlink ops.
Also in steady of Amateur Radio, you should have put ECOMM and Winlink. Isn't that what they are saying, it is the panacea for emergency communications.

Kurt

KI4NGN

11-19-2007, 06:48 PM

Laughing, Charlie, you sure do have a lot of time on your hands! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

W3MIV

11-19-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 19 2007,14:13)]Good news is new Ham Magazine!
Geeziepeezie, how do I subscribe?!

KI4ITV

11-19-2007, 09:42 PM

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

N2RJ

11-19-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 19 2007,08:25)]Oh I totally agree. The Emcomm argument is the lamest of all. The most they would ever use winlink for is maybe health and welfare. For true emcomm you would never rely on email.
I guess that's why emergency management officials have blackberries. ;)

k2gsp

11-19-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 18 2007,12:06)]Some of the recent comments in this thread tend to make one question what the real motives and objectives of some of the posters are.

Is the objective the removal from the HF bands of:
( a ) #The WinLink Network sponsored by Mr. Waterman et al;
( b ) #The removal of ALL WinLink activity;
( c ) #The removal of ALL PACTOR III activity;
( d ) #The removal of most or ALL relatively wide-band digital modes

It's one thing if the primary objection is to Mr. Waterman's WinLink network, or at least a significant (if not majority) portion of it's users. #One can argue, and argue convincingly, that many of these users are amateurs in name only; and that their primary if not only reason for using WinLink is to avoid using commercial systems for any of a number of reasons. #I'm not saying you'd win the argument, mind you -- but you could argue this convincingly.

And you can also argue convincingly (again, not to say you'd win the argument) that certain aspects of PACTOR III make it a poor match for the Amateur Service overall, including but not limited to it's proprietary nature... and that use of this mode should be limited, curtailed, or even eliminated.

Now... if either or both of these last two paragraphs are (more or less) your arguments, then the suggestion that the two camps in the HF digital community -- ie, narrow band-mode users and wide-band mode users -- get together and hammer out a compromise to co-exist is a good and wise one. #Even if this is to the point of agreeing to a voluntary band plan (both in the automated-station and non-automated-station portions of the sub-band) to segregate the narrow-band users and the wide-band users. #This would avoid if not eliminate the majority of mode-based interference.

On the other hand, if your position is against the wide-band modes existing on HF in the first place, then any suggestion for compromise or sharing will continue to be turned down out of hand. # Those daring to suggest as such will continue to be insulted and otherwise demeaned by those objecting to said compromises... by terms such as "winlids," "shills," "trolls," "sellouts," and further terms of varying degrees of derogatory.

IMHO, a hard-line position against the wider bandwith modes will ultimately fail. # A particular mode may fall by the wayside, but there are others out there, and more that are being developed. #Be it WinLink, ALE, or something else we just haven't heard about (yet), sooner or later, a wide-band mode will gain enough credence and users that it will be shoe-horned somewhere into the band. #Fighting tooth and nail against that may delay the inevitable... but it will happen.

It is becoming clear to the dis-interested third parties that the two camps involved need to work out a way to co-exist. #If they don't, sooner or later, someone or some organization outside the two camps may choose to impose a means of co-existance that one or both camps may find it hard to live with.

Are you really prepared to cut off your nose to spite your face?
Hey take your argument to the Winlink group on Yahoo and see what headway you make. I put up what I think the first step needs to be until that happens I have no reason to budge on what I believe, nor does anyone else. As far as ALE goes it's bigger joke then Winlink. I cringed when I read from ALE's main cheerleader about the ability to send cell phone text messages over HF. Yea I see a big EMCOMM use for that. Nope as far as I'm concerned the ball is in their court. Turn on the signal detection and then there can be talk. If you can't play nice with what you have you don't get anymore.

N5PVL

11-19-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 19 2007,13:13)]Good news is new Ham Magazine!

http://www.qrz.com/uploads/post-7-96003-stoogexQRM.JPG

Rinaldo, Waterman and Sumner?

kc7gnm

11-19-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Nov. 19 2007,17:44)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 19 2007,08:25)]Oh I totally agree. The Emcomm argument is the lamest of all. The most they would ever use winlink for is maybe health and welfare. For true emcomm you would never rely on email.
I guess that's why emergency management officials have blackberries. ;)
And what good are black berries going to do you if they are in the effected area? They can't send and receive email and what good is sending email out of the area going to do? Sorry but that argument just doesn't fly. Email is not used for serious emcomm. You don't know how long it would take an email to get from point A to point B and even if it got there at all. You normally get a delayed delivery status after about an hour so what good what that do if the email can't get through. You guys are making all kinds of excuses and none of them make any sense what so ever.

kc7gnm

11-19-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 19 2007,18:58)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 19 2007,13:13)]Good news is new Ham Magazine!

http://www.qrz.com/uploads/post-7-96003-stoogexQRM.JPG

Rinaldo, Waterman and Sumner?
Nah that would be Waterman, Rinaldo, and Sumner. You give waterman too much credit for being Mo.

wa3vjb

11-20-2007, 01:50 AM

Quote[/b] ] If a compromise could be a workable solution to obviate the worst cases of interference

Albert the compromise is for WinLink users to remember they have to yield the right of way if their telemetry would cause interference.

They must do this by law, and should resume doing it as their contribution to "compromise" on the shared spectrum we all otherwise wish to enjoy.

--Paul/VJB

KI4ITV

11-20-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Nov. 19 2007,13:50)]Quote[/b] ] If a compromise could be a workable solution to obviate the worst cases of interference

Albert the compromise is for WinLink users to remember they have to yield the right of way if their telemetry would cause interference.

They must do this by law, and should resume doing it as their contribution to "compromise" on the shared spectrum we all otherwise wish to enjoy.

--Paul/VJB
It's funny how we miss the big stuff that means so much.
We can pick minutia to the core, but the truth is the truth.
Good point OM.

W8EFA

11-20-2007, 02:45 AM

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 19 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,10:48)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? #Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. #Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. #If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. #Why? #Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. #Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. #All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. #Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In AE6X0's case:

The guy works for NASA, and has been associated with ham radio since the 60's - and he "just doesn't know" that he is supposed to listen before transmitting?

I don't think so.
Quote[/b] ]I sincerely apologize to those of you who were conducting Packet communications that I stepped on when I checked my Winlink messages, as discussed in these posts. #I am on a sailboat trip from San Diego to Mexico and it is not always easy to find a working frequency. #I will do a better job of checking the frequency to see if it is in use. It is sometimes difficult to do this given on-board noise and interference, but I will do a better job. #

Again, my apologies.

Richard Mogford
AE6XO

Why would you still say he doesn't know? #He already told you it was unintentional explained the noise factor etc, and apologized. #
You may be completely correct about WINLINK but your attitude and actions are the antithesis of how a good Ham should act. # #I would rather QSO AE6XO any day than you, pretty big of him to apologize. Pretty small of you not to accept it.

Also one of N5PVL's web pages is for something called P.E.S.T. (Packet Experimentors Society of Texas) (membership of 2, PVL and his dog)

Uhh it's Experimenters....may want to spell the title correctly...hilarious. #Also may want to change all the Thiers to theirs.
(Is that why he is so upset someone worked for NASA... they can spell?)

On the home Page of PEST
Quote[/b] ]
Dedicated to the PEST Amateur Packet Radio group.

Sure, sometimes our activities can be bothersome or irritating, but we're working for a better future for amateur packet radio, so there! #

Isn't that the same kind of like you accuse WINlink of - #being bothersome or irritating? #It is Ok for you though?

"So there" - kind of like the attitude you accuse Winlink users of? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KI4ITV

11-20-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 19 2007,14:45)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 19 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,10:48)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. Why? Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In AE6X0's case:

The guy works for NASA, and has been associated with ham radio since the 60's - and he "just doesn't know" that he is supposed to listen before transmitting?

I don't think so.
Quote[/b] ]I sincerely apologize to those of you who were conducting Packet communications that I stepped on when I checked my Winlink messages, as discussed in these posts. I am on a sailboat trip from San Diego to Mexico and it is not always easy to find a working frequency. I will do a better job of checking the frequency to see if it is in use. It is sometimes difficult to do this given on-board noise and interference, but I will do a better job.

Again, my apologies.

Richard Mogford
AE6XO

Why would you still say he doesn't know? He already told you it was unintentional explained the noise factor etc, and apologized.
You may be completely correct about WINLINK but your attitude and actions are the antithesis of how a good Ham should act. I would rather QSO AE6XO any day than you.

Also one of N5PVL's web pages is for something called P.E.S.T. (Packet Experimentors Society of Texas) (membership of 2, PVL and his dog)

Uhh it's Experimenters....may want to spell the title correctly...hilarious. Also may want to change all the Thiers to theirs.
(Is that why he is so upset someone worked for NASA... they can spell?)

On the home Page of PEST
Quote[/b] ]
Dedicated to the PEST Amateur Packet Radio group.

Sure, sometimes our activities can be bothersome or irritating, but we're working for a better future for amateur packet radio, so there!

Isn't that the same kind of like you accuse WINlink of - being bothersome or irritating? It is Ok for you though?

"So there" - kind of like the attitude you accuse Winlink users of? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You can say what you will about Charles, but he seems to live what he believes and does not seem to have a gathering mass of amateurs with burning pitchforks going after his preferred mode of operation.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

N5PVL

11-20-2007, 03:12 AM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 19 2007,21:45)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 19 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,10:48)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? #Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. #Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. #If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. #Why? #Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. #Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. #All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. #Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In AE6X0's case:

The guy works for NASA, and has been associated with ham radio since the 60's - and he "just doesn't know" that he is supposed to listen before transmitting?

I don't think so.
Quote[/b] ]I sincerely apologize to those of you who were conducting Packet communications that I stepped on when I checked my Winlink messages, as discussed in these posts. #I am on a sailboat trip from San Diego to Mexico and it is not always easy to find a working frequency. #I will do a better job of checking the frequency to see if it is in use. It is sometimes difficult to do this given on-board noise and interference, but I will do a better job. #

Again, my apologies.

Richard Mogford
AE6XO

Why would you still say he doesn't know? #He already told you it was unintentional explained the noise factor etc, and apologized. #
You may be completely correct about WINLINK but your attitude and actions are the antithesis of how a good Ham should act. # #I would rather QSO AE6XO any day than you.
Apparently you missed out on it the last six or seven times I mentioned this, but AE6XO had been observed crashing QSO's on three seperate occasions prior to my report here.

Did you 'get it' this time around, Sherlock?

Of course he had an excuse... Who doesn't? - But that doesn't change the fact that he had just been caught at it three times in a row, does it?

Some of you guys must have 'sucker' tatooed across your foreheads, it's really embarassing to have to explain the same old facts of life to you, over and over again.

Funny how WinLid apologists are never embarassed to demonstrate a lack of basic reading comprehension. Maybe THAT's why they don't respect PART97 or thier fellow hams, the concept is too complex for them and kind of shoots over thier heads.

Potty training them must have been a heck of a job.

ab0wr

11-20-2007, 03:13 AM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,10:20)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 19 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] ]Ultimately, the best solution is for winlink (and other similar operations) to admit that amateur radio is shared spectrum and that a place and time to operate is NEVER guaranteed to anyone. #This will mean email will have to be delayed until an open frequency can be obtained. #Winlink just needs to suck it up and admit to their users that this is the case and then tell everyone that future operations will be conducted in accordance with current shared spectrum rules followed by all other amateurs. #
Theres only one problem with that statement-

It would apply to both sides of the equation equally. #

Meaning if the packet stations are silent for a few minutes, and Winlink starts a session, the packet stations would then have to wait.

Both sides would need to admit this, and with winlink sessions lasting much longer.....that wouldn't work either.

Wouldn't seperation, though rewarding the winlinkers, be better for that reason? #Provided you eliminate the QRM, both sides will STILL not be happy-once a packet station starts a contact and transmissions pause, the frequency is clear (to the modem) and it will fire up, right?

What you would REALLY need is for Winlink to work EXACTLY like the modes you're talking about-and require a HUMAN to listen for traffic and ask if the frequency is clear first. #Putting the modems in control will mean the Winlink session will initiate once the packet modems pause. #The Winlink modem can't tell if a QSO is in progress, just like a regular packet modem cannot. #It waits for open air, waits x milliseconds as setup, and initiates transmission if nothing is heard.

The only difference is a normal packet network uses short bursts. #Winlink goes nuts for a few minutes.

The modes are incompatible. #One mode transmits for a few seconds at a time. #One goes for a few minutes. #The people who only transmit for a few seconds will not accept that kind of sharing. #Even if the QRM goes away, they won't appreciate if someone is on there for 20 minutes downloading 30 emails.

But if you turned detection on like many people are saying they need to do, all you will do is you won't be QRM'd. #Winlink will wait for the opening and take it. #You aren't QRM'd if you aren't transmitting at the time-the frequency is clear when no transmissions are occuring. #Right? #I mean, at least, to a computer, it is, which is what busy detection is.

Its still not gonna work. #If you share, you'll still be waiting for Winlink to clear. #The computer only looks for the presence of something. #It cannot tell if you're in QSO.

Seperation would reward the QRM'rs. #But with the protocol the way it is, the only way is to change the protocol, or to seperate the modes so they can live in harmony. #Seeing that the FCC has done much so far, I see them taking the easy out.

Contrary to popular belief by many in this thread, this will be ultimately what happens, unless Winlink is either declared an illegal mode, or enough complaints are submitted that the FCC shuts them down.

However, having the FCC demand they use busy detection will stop the QRM-it will just wait till you're not transmitting and then startup. #And the FCC will look at this and say "well, the frequency was clear. #No intentional QRM" #and you'll be in the same boat, except you won't be stepped on. #You'll just be interrupted mid-QSO because there was a short break between transmissions.

I don't support Winlink by any means, but its plain to see-the modes don't work well together. #If you don't seperate them, you'll still be waiting for Winlink to finish anyway, or to have a short break where your modem can then take the frequency for a few seconds. #Then....another break, Winlink sees open air, and it fires up again.

If both sent in a few second bursts, it would work. #They don't.

The complaints would simply change from QRM to "Winlink is constantly tying up (insert frequency here).

Thats why I keep saying that seperation is the solution. #Not because I want to support or gift QRM, but because the modes simply are NOT the same. #The protocols may be similar, but the amount of channel time used to complete a transaction is not.

Either way, you'll be waiting for your turn. #Winlink takes more of the lions share of time. #Stick it somewhere small and let them tie up that area to their hearts content, and let them fight EACH OTHER FOR AIRTIME.

Instead of taking up all of yours because you use a protocol that is much more effective and efficent.

Its not fair, but you know if they do wait for open air, they will still be hogging everything!

Or, tell me I'm wrong, please. #But every complaint I see here says "They just took over for 20 minutes." #I'm assuming its a solid transmission, not small packets. #If not, please inform me I'm wrong and I'll retract my statement.
The answer to your quandry is called a "leaky bucket". If you detect a carrier then you start filling the bucket with "busy units". The bucket has a "hole" in it that the "busy units" drain out of. By adjusting the fill rate and the drain rate you can do a very good job of not taking over a frequency during a "lull" but still have a reasonably fast access time.

Winlink, being a non-frequency sharing protocol, would have a different set of fill/drain rates than packet which *is* a frequency sharing protocol. The leaky bucket paradigm is basically what packet already uses to minimize collisions.

Separation is still nothing more than "channel assignments" in the ham bands wrapped up in different words. If you separate *everything" from the WL2K frequencies then you have, in essence, assigned the frequencies to exclusive use by WL2K.

I personally don't think anyone would be concerned if WL2K interfered on an occasional basis. Jeesh, all modes do this to each other for all kinds of reasons -- on an occasional basis. If the Pactor busy detection used a well designed "leaky bucket" paradigm along with a reasonable carrier detect paradigm, the interference *would* be occasional. If someone then had to wait 20 minutes for the frequency to clear that wouldn't be any different than waiting for a round-table to clear a frequency so a net can take place.

The modes *are* different. Pactor *needs* to be redesigned to be a good neighbor on the ham bands. That *is* what needs to happen -- either that or WL2K needs to integrate a different protocol into their system.

I liked the analogy someone drew once between Pactor and Spark. Spark was a nasty old operation that was not conducive to frequency sharing. Pactor is the same. Perhaps Pactor needs to have the same treatment as Spark, at least as far as the ham bands is concerned.

Separation is *not* the answer. As WA0LYK pointed out, once you reward one operation that way the hunt will be on for the next operation that can get dedicated FREE frequency assignments in the ham bands - and the next -- and the next ........

tim ab0wr

ab0wr

11-20-2007, 03:33 AM

w3wn:Quote[/b] ]Now... if either or both of these last two paragraphs are (more or less) your arguments, then the suggestion that the two camps in the HF digital community -- ie, narrow band-mode users and wide-band mode users -- get together and hammer out a compromise to co-exist is a good and wise one. Even if this is to the point of agreeing to a voluntary band plan (both in the automated-station and non-automated-station portions of the sub-band) to segregate the narrow-band users and the wide-band users. This would avoid if not eliminate the majority of mode-based interference.

On the other hand, if your position is against the wide-band modes existing on HF in the first place, then any suggestion for compromise or sharing will continue to be turned down out of hand. Those daring to suggest as such will continue to be insulted and otherwise demeaned by those objecting to said compromises... by terms such as "winlids," "shills," "trolls," "sellouts," and further terms of varying degrees of derogatory.

IMHO, a hard-line position against the wider bandwith modes will ultimately fail. A particular mode may fall by the wayside, but there are others out there, and more that are being developed. Be it WinLink, ALE, or something else we just haven't heard about (yet), sooner or later, a wide-band mode will gain enough credence and users that it will be shoe-horned somewhere into the band. Fighting tooth and nail against that may delay the inevitable... but it will happen.

I can only suggest that you go read the FCC comments in the R&O known as the Omnibus R&O back in 2006. You will find that the FCC *expects* the CW/RTTY portions of the HF ham bands to be narrow bandwidth areas.

Why do you think they made the CW/RTTY portions of 80m and 40m smaller instead of larger with their R&O?

It certainly wasn't because they expect the CW/RTTY portions of the band to become havens for wide bandwidth data modes that can't share spectrum in a cooperative manner.

If you'll read that R&O closely I think you'll find that they don't expect the HF bands (or even 6m, 2m, or 70cm) to become high-speed links to the internet. They expect the bands to be used for amateur-to-amateur communications instead -- just like the definition of the Amateur Radio Service spells out.

The FCC has to consider *all* uses and users of the ham bands in how they establish the rules and regulations -- not just a small, special interest group that makes up less than 1% of the total amateur community that wants to turn the ham bands into a common carrier providing high-speed links to the internet.

Most of the wide bandwidth data modes have already started to fall out of favor on the ham bands. Mt63 and the 2khz Olivia modes are prime examples. Narrower modes are already supplanting them -- at least with amateurs that put the benefit of the ARS ahead of personal benefit.

Your argument just doesn't seem to ring quite true. There are too many examples that show that narrower modes are the wave of the future, not wider ones.

tim ab0wr

W3MIV

11-20-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Nov. 19 2007,21:50)]Quote[/b] ] If a compromise could be a workable solution to obviate the worst cases of interference

Albert the compromise is for WinLink users to remember they have to yield the right of way if their telemetry would cause interference.

They must do this by law, and should resume doing it as their contribution to "compromise" on the shared spectrum we all otherwise wish to enjoy.

--Paul/VJB
Paul: Adherence to the Rules does not constitute a compromise. You know well my respect for the Rules, and my insistence on following them. You are quite correct about the Waterman Gang needing to adhere as closely to the text as everyone else, and that is something they are clearly failing to do. The problem is, however, to some folks, a law is only as good as its enforcement.

The problem, however, is that the rustlers are loose in town, having their way with our wimmen and shootin' up the front street, and the sheriff is paying them no heed. Or, at least, the sheriff does not seem to be too interested in a going into the Long Branch and calling the Waterman Gang out into the street.

I think a part of the problem is that these cases are taking place in or very close to the sub-bands set aside for automatic operations, and that the intereference that has so many knickers in knots is being caused to packet operations, and not much outside the sub-bands. Yet.

Were we to expand the sub-bands somewhat and sub-divide them into wide-band and narrow-band corridors, we might be able to craft a workable compromise. The situation is getting worse, not better, and it will become a far more serious and more disruptive issue as the sun cycle ramps up in the next several months.

Sitting here arguing like a clutch of rabbis around a table is getting nowhere.

n9lya

11-20-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 19 2007,14:45)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 19 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,10:48)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2007,16:06)]So you want to be constructive? #Explain why people would continue to use this software given a pretty good chance it will QRM another amateur every time it is used.
Because, at least from what I'm reading here, the average user doesn't even know.

They probably just get the HF rig, hook the modem to it, and probably never have even heard static, much less whoever they are QRMing.

It worked with the guy in this thread. #Perhaps when you get QRMd a google or a QRZ check on the person should be in order. #If an email address is found, notify the person of what they are doing.

I think you will find that, just like the person in this topic, they didn't know. #Why? #Because they probably got the stuff and someone set it up for them, and/or they got the license, read the instructions, set it up per them, sent themselves a test email, it worked, done.

Just like the average computer user would do. #Unless the instructions say something about it (assuming, of course, they even read them!) they won't know. #All they know is they can get their email, it works.

Who cares about anything else. #Until its brought to their attention, of course http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In AE6X0's case:

The guy works for NASA, and has been associated with ham radio since the 60's - and he "just doesn't know" that he is supposed to listen before transmitting?

I don't think so.
Quote[/b] ]I sincerely apologize to those of you who were conducting Packet communications that I stepped on when I checked my Winlink messages, as discussed in these posts. #I am on a sailboat trip from San Diego to Mexico and it is not always easy to find a working frequency. #I will do a better job of checking the frequency to see if it is in use. It is sometimes difficult to do this given on-board noise and interference, but I will do a better job. #

Again, my apologies.

Richard Mogford
AE6XO

Why would you still say he doesn't know? #He already told you it was unintentional explained the noise factor etc, and apologized. #
You may be completely correct about WINLINK but your attitude and actions are the antithesis of how a good Ham should act. # #I would rather QSO AE6XO any day than you, pretty big of him to apologize. #Pretty small of you not to accept it.

Also one of N5PVL's web pages is for something called P.E.S.T. (Packet Experimentors Society of Texas) (membership of 2, PVL and his dog)

Uhh it's Experimenters....may want to spell the title correctly...hilarious. #Also may want to change all the Thiers to theirs.
(Is that why he is so upset someone worked for NASA... they can spell?)

On the home Page of PEST
Quote[/b] ]
Dedicated to the PEST Amateur Packet Radio group.

Sure, sometimes our activities can be bothersome or irritating, but we're working for a better future for amateur packet radio, so there! #

Isn't that the same kind of like you accuse WINlink of - #being bothersome or irritating? #It is Ok for you though?

"So there" - kind of like the attitude you accuse Winlink users of? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You have no argument to the topic so you attack Charles for his spelling... Typical of someone who has no legitimate argument. TYPICAL LID.

73 jerry n9lya

wa3vjb

11-20-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote[/b] ]Were we to expand the sub-bands somewhat and sub-divide them into wide-band and narrow-band corridors, we might be able to craft a workable compromise.

So, refusal of a tiny, noisy, part of the hobby to comply with the rules yields the benefit of reserved spectrum?

No wonder they feel emboldened to operate with impunity; there's a chance under your scenario for a payoff.

Isn't that how CB became a free-for-all ?

--Paul/VJB

w3wn

11-20-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 19 2007,23:33)]I can only suggest that you go read the FCC comments in the R&O known as the Omnibus R&O back in 2006. You will find that the FCC *expects* the CW/RTTY portions of the HF ham bands to be narrow bandwidth areas.

Why do you think they made the CW/RTTY portions of 80m and 40m smaller instead of larger with their R&O?

It certainly wasn't because they expect the CW/RTTY portions of the band to become havens for wide bandwidth data modes that can't share spectrum in a cooperative manner.

If you'll read that R&O closely I think you'll find that they don't expect the HF bands (or even 6m, 2m, or 70cm) to become high-speed links to the internet. They expect the bands to be used for amateur-to-amateur communications instead -- just like the definition of the Amateur Radio Service spells out.

The FCC has to consider *all* uses and users of the ham bands in how they establish the rules and regulations -- not just a small, special interest group that makes up less than 1% of the total amateur community that wants to turn the ham bands into a common carrier providing high-speed links to the internet.

Most of the wide bandwidth data modes have already started to fall out of favor on the ham bands. Mt63 and the 2khz Olivia modes are prime examples. Narrower modes are already supplanting them -- at least with amateurs that put the benefit of the ARS ahead of personal benefit.

Your argument just doesn't seem to ring quite true. There are too many examples that show that narrower modes are the wave of the future, not wider ones.

tim ab0wr
Tim, I think you're heading off on a tangent here, or at least trying to blur the issue. Again.

What does the FCC "expect" in the CW/RTTY segments? Good question. Maybe you should ask them. Certainly, they don't expect analog voice or certain other wide-bandwidth modes (like SSTV). But -- they obviously don't have a problem with PACTOR-III and similar wide-bandwidth digital modes, as those modes ARE permitted in the band.

Why did they make the CW/RTTY portions of 80 & 40 smaller? Because they wanted to expand the phone sub-bands to accomodate phone users. Period. You don't think it's a co-incidence that the code test requirement was dropped immediately after the expansion, do you? One was hand-in-hand with the other.

You state that the FCC "expects" the bands to be used for amateur-to-amateur communications. Well, like it or not, that is what many of the various PMBO users are doing, or think they are doing. You disagree? Fine. Then petition the FCC for a ruling.

Yes, the FCC is supposed to consider all uses and users of the amateur (and other) bands. That's not the point at all.

Like it or not, and I know you don't, that >1% of users of the WinLink System, and ALE and other WinLink and other PMBO type users, may be a special interest group in your eyes -- but they are users of the bands.

Like it or not, they exist.

Like it or not, your continual posting and kvetching here is and of itself not going to change that.

You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck. The other is to figure out a way to live with them. And that you don't want to do. So what's your third choice?

And... that MT63 and 2 kHz Olivia are (or are not) falling out of favor is irrelevant. What has that got to do with living with the WinLink System PMBO's in the automated-digital-station sub-band?

What is, after all, the entire point to this thread? A WinLink user caused QRM to existing other-mode users. And, I see that Charles has, in his infinite wisdom, started ANOTHER thread on the same topic about another WinLink user. I'm sure the subjects of these threads are being duly publicly embarrassed. How nice. Is that all the solution you have?

The only viable solution, which I doubt you'd like, will be to segregate the wider modes from the narrower modes, specifically in the automated sub-band.

n5rfx

11-20-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 19 2007,07:52)]You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck.
RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) asks the FCC to return the RTTY/Data subbands to narrowband operations.

The FCC has not announced a comment period, but comments can be made through EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi) to convince the FCC that this petition should be considered.

73,
Mark N5RFX

K8YZK

11-20-2007, 02:09 PM

I am not a fan of Winlink, and was kicked off the yahoo group, but my question is in this thread and others, comments have been made that Waterman has said to turn off the busy detection on the SCS. If so does anyone have a actual message from him to do that, if so can not that be used a evidence that Winlink Sultan has basically said to hell with other modes/contacts in progress, go ahead and qrm them?

If there is such a message can it be posted here, for ALL to see?.

Also since the software is proprietary(I looked that up in the dictionary so I wouldn't get ragged on), isn't this basically against the openess of ham radio,as we are suppose to be self-policing as Hollingsworth said.

WA0LYK

11-20-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Nov. 20 2007,05:32)]Quote[/b] ]Were we to expand the sub-bands somewhat and sub-divide them into wide-band and narrow-band corridors, we might be able to craft a workable compromise.

So, refusal of a tiny, noisy, part of the hobby to comply with the rules yields the benefit of reserved spectrum?

No wonder they feel emboldened to operate with impunity; there's a chance under your scenario for a payoff.

Isn't that how CB became a free-for-all ?

--Paul/VJB
Yep, no one championing a "reserved" segment for winlink has yet said whether or not they would ban all other uses in their proposed wide, automatic segment. If not, the problem won't go away. If so, then they are rewarding those who don't use busy detection with a payoff of spectrum dedicated to their use and only their use.

I am still a believer in the fact that when EVERYONE else operates properly in a shared spectrum environment and only a small group does not, then it is incumbent upon that small group to conform to the accepted rules of operation. There is no responsibility for the greater than 90% of other operators to adjust their rules of operation to make room for an operation that doesn't conform to the rules.

I have been convinced that the use of pactor 3 and turning off busy detection are both violations of "good amateur practice". From what I have been able to determine, pactor modems only detect signals within a +/- 250 Hz range which is enough in a commercial environment to insure a busy/idle status of the 3 kHz channel. This just won't work in a shared spectrum environment resulting in the question of why this specific mode was used in the first place. Turning off busy detection simply because there are "jammers" basically turns anyone operating on winlink's chosen frequencies into jammers. Neither of these should be considered "good amateur practice"!

Simply creating a "wide" area won't suffice to change the above. There are other "wide" types of data emissions such as ALE and there will be others in the future. Winlink will have to play nice with these or the interference will simply be transferred to other types of operation. As the sunspot cycle starts it's upswing, the interference potential will also increase. I don't believe in changing rules where the problem is just transferred to someone else. This isn't solving the problem, only removing it from one's own immediate area.

This "compromise" also doesn't address international concerns. Remember, the auto subbands we are discussing are only within the US. If winlink/pactor doesn't play nice with stations in the US, it isn't going to play nice with stations in other countries either. How do you resolve the interference problem when there are foreign operators legitimately operating in these areas?

Here is another compromise offer.

Winlink stops the use of pactor 3 and uses busy detection.

Jim
WA0LYK

ad4mg

11-20-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote[/b] ]w3wn: But -- they obviously don't have a problem with PACTOR-III and similar wide-bandwidth digital modes, as those modes ARE permitted in the band.

Not exactly ... P-III is permitted only in the "auto sub-band" due to it's "wideness". P-II may spew QRM outside of the auto sub-band.

W3MIV

11-20-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Nov. 20 2007,08:32)]Quote[/b] ]Were we to expand the sub-bands somewhat and sub-divide them into wide-band and narrow-band corridors, we might be able to craft a workable compromise.

So, refusal of a tiny, noisy, part of the hobby to comply with the rules yields the benefit of reserved spectrum?

No wonder they feel emboldened to operate with impunity; there's a chance under your scenario for a payoff.

Isn't that how CB became a free-for-all ?

--Paul/VJB
So what answer do you offer, Paul?

Given the total lack of any real enforcement actions against the growing problems -- an abdication by the FCC that seems not slated for change in the future -- what particular course would you recommend?

W3MIV

11-20-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Nov. 20 2007,10:11)]Here is another compromise offer.

Winlink stops the use of pactor 3 and uses busy detection.
I would not only accept such a compromise, but work hard to see it adopted. Please tell us how to go about achieving it.

kc7gnm

11-20-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 20 2007,07:28)]Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Nov. 19 2007,21:50)]Quote[/b] ] If a compromise could be a workable solution to obviate the worst cases of interference

Albert the compromise is for WinLink users to remember they have to yield the right of way if their telemetry would cause interference.

They must do this by law, and should resume doing it as their contribution to "compromise" on the shared spectrum we all otherwise wish to enjoy.

--Paul/VJB
Paul: Adherence to the Rules does not constitute a compromise. You know well my respect for the Rules, and my insistence on following them. You are quite correct about the Waterman Gang needing to adhere as closely to the text as everyone else, and that is something they are clearly failing to do. The problem is, however, to some folks, a law is only as good as its enforcement.

The problem, however, is that the rustlers are loose in town, having their way with our wimmen and shootin' up the front street, and the sheriff is paying them no heed. Or, at least, the sheriff does not seem to be too interested in a going into the Long Branch and calling the Waterman Gang out into the street.

I think a part of the problem is that these cases are taking place in or very close to the sub-bands set aside for automatic operations, and that the intereference that has so many knickers in knots is being caused to packet operations, and not much outside the sub-bands. Yet.

Were we to expand the sub-bands somewhat and sub-divide them into wide-band and narrow-band corridors, we might be able to craft a workable compromise. The situation is getting worse, not better, and it will become a far more serious and more disruptive issue as the sun cycle ramps up in the next several months.

Sitting here arguing like a clutch of rabbis around a table is getting nowhere.
This has been explained to you many times but you just don't get it Albert. If you give them an inch they will want a foot. If you give them a foot they will want a yard. Then different nets will see this as precedence and then they will want freqs allocated to them for use exclusively. Then you will start getting the broadcasters like Baxter wanting their own freqs. Pretty soon we won't have any shared spectrum at all. Do you see the problem with your wanting to give them their own spectrum now?

kc7gnm

11-20-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 20 2007,10:07)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 19 2007,07:52)]You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck.
RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) asks the FCC to return the RTTY/Data subbands to narrowband operations.

The FCC has not announced a comment period, but comments can be made through EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi) to convince the FCC that this petition should be considered.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Just got done reading this petition and it is very well written. You know you are going to get the waterman crowd all up in arms when they find out they can only operate PIII in the 10m Band. We have been telling these guys this the whole time that PII offers better performance than PIII and uses less spectrum in the process.

I for one can endorse this proposal and I will be making my comments very quickly to support this. I urge everyone to support this RM and get the word out to support this. If this becomes reality then we will have pretty much gotten rid of a scurge of lawbreakers off the ham radio bands.

kc7gnm

11-20-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 20 2007,10:34)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Nov. 20 2007,10:11)]Here is another compromise offer.

Winlink stops the use of pactor 3 and uses busy detection.
I would not only accept such a compromise, but work hard to see it adopted. Please tell us how to go about achieving it.
Tell Steve Waterman to stop using PIII. I bet he will laugh at you.

KD6NIG

11-20-2007, 05:55 PM

The only reason why I say you might want to compromise is the simple fact that most everyone here thinks that, because of the QRM, the FCC will "ban" Winlink.

I am of the opinion that they will not ban it. I see them possibly sanctioning them, requiring them to use busy detection, etc, but I don't see them banning it. If they were going to-they would have by now.

So what are you all going to do when the FCC says "BAD WINLINK" and slaps the hand of those who QRM, they switch detection on, and then you're waiting 20 minutes for them to finish a transaction?

I know its unheard of, but the FCC could very well tell you all to get along or don't use the spectrum at all. Then what?

Just because they QRM right now and you have a vendetta against them for that reason doesn't mean the FCC will ban them.

I would be making preperations for that very possibility. Unless someone can, without a doubt, prove there is some major illegality, I see the FCC telling you to play along nice or don't play. And you know who will win if that happens.

Instead of wanting to ban them, I'd be pushing for the QRM to stop, and to facilitate that, I'd suggest they get moved to a new small subband somewhere away from where you are.

Otherwise, you'll still be dealing with them-and with busy detection on, they will be doing so, with the nod of the FCC.

k2gsp

11-20-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote[/b] (K8YZK @ Nov. 19 2007,08:09)]I am not a fan of Winlink, and was kicked off the yahoo group, but my question is in this thread and others, comments have been made that Waterman has said to turn off the busy detection on the SCS. If so does anyone have a actual message from him to do that, if so can not that be used a evidence that Winlink Sultan has basically said to hell with other modes/contacts in progress, go ahead and qrm them? #

If there is such a message can it be posted here, for ALL to see?.

Also since the software is proprietary(I looked that up in the dictionary so I wouldn't get ragged on), isn't this basically against the openess of ham radio,as we are suppose to be self-policing as Hollingsworth said.
If you read through this thread you will find the exact quote as was written to me. If you go to the Yahoo Group you will find the thread he posted on about signal detection when I asked him.

KI4SXC,
Greg

n9lya

11-20-2007, 06:41 PM

accidently dupped

k2gsp

11-20-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 19 2007,11:55)]The only reason why I say you might want to compromise is the simple fact that most everyone here thinks that, because of the QRM, the FCC will "ban" Winlink.

I am of the opinion that they will not ban it. #I see them possibly sanctioning them, requiring them to use busy detection, etc, but I don't see them banning it. #If they were going to-they would have by now.

So what are you all going to do when the FCC says "BAD WINLINK" and slaps the hand of those who QRM, they switch detection on, and then you're waiting 20 minutes for them to finish a transaction?

I know its unheard of, but the FCC could very well tell you all to get along or don't use the spectrum at all. #Then what?

Just because they QRM right now and you have a vendetta against them for that reason doesn't mean the FCC will ban them.

I would be making preperations for that very possibility. #Unless someone can, without a doubt, prove there is some major illegality, I see the FCC telling you to play along nice or don't play. #And you know who will win if that happens.

Instead of wanting to ban them, I'd be pushing for the QRM to stop, and to facilitate that, I'd suggest they get moved to a new small subband somewhere away from where you are.

Otherwise, you'll still be dealing with them-and with busy detection on, they will be doing so, with the nod of the FCC.
No, your solution continues to be give them their own piece of the airwaves, but that is not going to work and I doubt the FCC will see it that way either. If I didnt know better I'd swear you are pushing for a return to 11306 and calling it a compromise.

n9lya

11-20-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 20 2007,02:07)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 19 2007,07:52)]You have, IMHO, two choices. #One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. #Good luck.
RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) asks the FCC to return the RTTY/Data subbands to narrowband operations.

The FCC has not announced a comment period, but comments can be made through EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi) to convince the FCC that this petition should be considered.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Thanks for info..
They are not accepting comments at this time. #as you mentioned..
However.. I do not want to miss it,
Please post here when they do .. Thanks Jerry

wa3vjb

11-20-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote[/b] ]Given the total lack of any real enforcement actions against the growing problems -- an abdication by the FCC that seems not slated for change in the future -- what particular course would you recommend?

On what do you base your conclusion the FCC has abdicated enforcement against the problems we are discussing in this thread?

The lack of action suggests a system of triage. For now the activity is apparently not enough to trigger notice in the enforcement arena.

My suggestion: People with grievances must continue to document being victims of interference. This will establish that it's a prolonged, chronic problem that cannot be solved directly between the parties.

The file of complaints can then be employed against any proposed rulemaking or band planning, for consideration whether Winlink has "earned" goodwill for any expansion their proponents may desire.

So, two scenarios are immediately available: Get the incidents of interference on the books for possible enforcement, and get the incidents of interference on the books for future rulemaking to preclude, curtail, and further restrict the offenders.

--Paul/VJB

ky5u

11-20-2007, 07:27 PM

Plaster their call signs all over the internet as QRMers.

n5rfx

11-20-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 19 2007,11:11)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 20 2007,10:07)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 19 2007,07:52)]You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck.
RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) asks the FCC to return the RTTY/Data subbands to narrowband operations.

The FCC has not announced a comment period, but comments can be made through EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi) to convince the FCC that this petition should be considered.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Just got done reading this petition and it is very well written. You know you are going to get the waterman crowd all up in arms when they find out they can only operate PIII in the 10m Band. We have been telling these guys this the whole time that PII offers better performance than PIII and uses less spectrum in the process.

I for one can endorse this proposal and I will be making my comments very quickly to support this. I urge everyone to support this RM and get the word out to support this. If this becomes reality then we will have pretty much gotten rid of a scurge of lawbreakers off the ham radio bands.
Greg,

Thanks. I saw your comments (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519814163) on EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi).

Others who wish to make comments on RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) can do so on EFCS.

73,
Mark N5RFX

kc7gnm

11-20-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 20 2007,19:03)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 19 2007,11:11)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Nov. 20 2007,10:07)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 19 2007,07:52)]You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck.
RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) asks the FCC to return the RTTY/Data subbands to narrowband operations.

The FCC has not announced a comment period, but comments can be made through EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi) to convince the FCC that this petition should be considered.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Just got done reading this petition and it is very well written. You know you are going to get the waterman crowd all up in arms when they find out they can only operate PIII in the 10m Band. We have been telling these guys this the whole time that PII offers better performance than PIII and uses less spectrum in the process.

I for one can endorse this proposal and I will be making my comments very quickly to support this. I urge everyone to support this RM and get the word out to support this. If this becomes reality then we will have pretty much gotten rid of a scurge of lawbreakers off the ham radio bands.
Greg,

Thanks. I saw your comments (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519814163) on EFCS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi).

Others who wish to make comments on RM-11392 (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574) can do so on EFCS.

73,
Mark N5RFX
Did you agree with what I wrote?

n5rfx

11-20-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 19 2007,17:15)]Did you agree with what I wrote?
Yes, absolutely. Good comments.

73,
Mark N5RFX

ab0wr

11-21-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote[/b] ]Tim, I think you're heading off on a tangent here, or at least trying to blur the issue. Again.

No tangent is being pursued by me.

Quote[/b] ]What does the FCC "expect" in the CW/RTTY segments? Good question. Maybe you should ask them. Certainly, they don't expect analog voice or certain other wide-bandwidth modes (like SSTV). But -- they obviously don't have a problem with PACTOR-III and similar wide-bandwidth digital modes, as those modes ARE permitted in the band.

I don't have to ask the FCC. I already know.

From the R&O:
Quote[/b] ]19. ARRL also requests that we not impose a 500 Hz bandwidth limitation in the definition of data emissions, arguing that this limitation would have unintended consequences because the limitation also applies to amateur service bands in which a higher symbol rate or
bandwidth is permitted.87 We understand ARRL's concern, but we note that eliminating or relaxing the bandwidth limitation would de facto eliminate the separation of narrow bandwidth and wide bandwidth emissions.

In other words they expect the CW/RTTY portions of the band to be for narrow bandwidth signals.

The FCC has shown they have a pretty good handle on things. That's one reason why RM-11306 didn't have a good chance at the FCC and the ARRL wound up pulling it. By *not* laying out specific bandwidth limitations the FCC allows us to experiment with data signals with all kinds of bandwidths while not actually getting involved with arguments over what exceeds bandwidth limits and what doesn't exceed the bandwidth limits.

That does *NOT* mean that the FCC expects widebands data signals to take over the CW/Data sub-bands at the expense of all other users of the sub-bands.

Quote[/b] ]Why did they make the CW/RTTY portions of 80 & 40 smaller? Because they wanted to expand the phone sub-bands to accomodate phone users. Period. You don't think it's a co-incidence that the code test requirement was dropped immediately after the expansion, do you? One was hand-in-hand with the other.

Talk about tangents. You totally missed the point. The reason they could do this is because of the narrow-band characteristics of the signals in the CW/Data portions of the band.

Quote[/b] ]You state that the FCC "expects" the bands to be used for amateur-to-amateur communications. Well, like it or not, that is what many of the various PMBO users are doing, or think they are doing. You disagree? Fine. Then petition the FCC for a ruling.

Yes, I disagree. Amateur-to-amateur communications are defined as being between two or more control operators. Anything else is a third party communication. That makes ALL email communications via a PMBO third party communications. A ham station whose *only* purpose in life is handling third party communications, screened by no control operator even at the entry point into the system, then it is making the Amateur Radio Service into a common carrier. Almost all other ham systems, including the NTS-Digital, have their messages screened by actual, physical control operators at the entry point into the system.

I don't take my marching orders from you or anyone else. I will handle the issue in the manner *I* best see fit. If shining the light of day on the system will allow peer pressure to resolve the issue without involving the FCC all well and good. It's called "self policing". The FCC should be the *last* resort, not the first resort as you always seem to intimate.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, the FCC is supposed to consider all uses and users of the amateur (and other) bands. That's not the point at all.

Like it or not, and I know you don't, that >1% of users of the WinLink System, and ALE and other WinLink and other PMBO type users, may be a special interest group in your eyes -- but they are users of the bands.

Like it or not, they exist.

Yes, they exist. And there are many, many things they could do to make the system more spectrally efficient. From implementing out-of-band signaling (and that isn't what you probably take it to mean) to having a PMBO monitor one and only one frequency in order to avoid killer trunks, the system could be made to live with other users in relative harmony.

As I've pointed out before, you couldn't have a worse system if you actually *tried* to design one.

As Skip Teller originally pointed out and Charles has demonstrated in another current thread, WL2K is at *least* five times less spectrally efficient when using PIII as PII. It's actually *worse* than five times because of the killer trunks that are continually encountered in the system.

Like it or not, WL2K has an ethical obligation to consider the needs of the other 99% of the amateur community -- not just its own needs.

Quote[/b] ]Like it or not, your continual posting and kvetching here is and of itself not going to change that.

It is the posting and kvetching here on QRZ that helped educate the amateur community about RM-11306 and contributed in at least some small way in getting the ARRL to pull the petition.

If you don't like reading it -- THEN DON'T. It's *YOUR* problem, not mine.

Quote[/b] ]You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck. The other is to figure out a way to live with them. And that you don't want to do. So what's your third choice?

Back to this argumentative fallacy? You have artificially restricted the choices.

Have you never heard of the concept of self-policing? I guess not.

There are lots of ways for WL2K to design a system that can be lived with. I have given you lists of design changes at least twice. You don't seem to be able to remember them more than 24 hours. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why.

Quote[/b] ]And... that MT63 and 2 kHz Olivia are (or are not) falling out of favor is irrelevant. What has that got to do with living with the WinLink System PMBO's in the automated-digital-station sub-band?

Irrelevant? Why? Because you don't want to or don't have the capability to understand the reason why?

Why do you think they are falling out of favor? There is at least two major reasons. Don't just dismiss them because you don't understand the issue. And they apply directly to WL2K and PIII.

Quote[/b] ]What is, after all, the entire point to this thread? A WinLink user caused QRM to existing other-mode users. And, I see that Charles has, in his infinite wisdom, started ANOTHER thread on the same topic about another WinLink user. I'm sure the subjects of these threads are being duly publicly embarrassed. How nice. Is that all the solution you have?

The issue is that they are doing this willfully. And I will ask you again, have you ever heard of the concepts of self-policing and peer pressure? It's not obvious that you have.

Quote[/b] ]The only viable solution, which I doubt you'd like, will be to segregate the wider modes from the narrower modes, specifically in the automated sub-band.

Malarky. That's the answer of someone who wants to take the easy way out -- with utter disregard for the long term results of doing so.

As WA0LYK has pointed out how do you handle ALE and WL2K in the wideband portion of the segregated portions? Just let them QRM themselves to death? Both are wideband, robot operations. ALE implements a form of busy detection and so would be adversely harmed by trying to compete with WL2K.

Your answer of segregation is no answer.

tim ab0wr