WinLids on Parade - AE6XO

[N5PVL]

From the WinLink-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm) files:

Today I watched as WinLid AE6XO trashed out an active Packet network with several participants - so he could check his eMail.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/arwatch/AE6XO%20WB0TAX%2014098/int05.jpg

I got curious about what kind of idiot would transmit right on top of an active Packet network ( or anywhere else ) without listening first. - So I looked up AE6XO at QRZ...

Here's what I found:

http://199.245.125.13/hampix/o/x/ae6xo.1148136697.jpg

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #---{ #Big surprise, huh? #}

Ok, another sailboater who would rather screw up the ham bands with WinLid than pony up 20 bux a month for SailMail. - You can tell by the picture that AE6XO must be in dire financial straits, right?

Here's his bio from QRZ:

Quote[/b] ]I originally obtained an amateur license in Canada in the late 1960s, but let it lapse. I got back into radio in 2004 largely because I wanted to explore using SSB on sailboats. I have a friend who is now cruising in Central America who encouraged me to get my General license.
I work at NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, CA and have my main station at our house in Anchor Bay, CA (about 120 miles north of San Francisco). I have a Yaesu FT-900 running into a multiband dipole or a Gap Challenger vertical. I have an old Heathkit SB-201 linear that I fire up for more power sometimes. I also have an FT-900 on my sailboat.

My wife (Leslye) and I live on a houseboat during the week in Redwood City, CA. I have an old Kenwood SSB radio there with a small Hustler vertical. We also have a pretty good ham shack at work.

In addition to my interest in HF for boats, I also like to work with digital modes that enable email via the Winlink system.


There you have it.... He works at NASA's Ames Research Center, and he's been familiar with amateur radio for over forty years. - but he's too stupid and/or uncivilized to listen before he transmits.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif #---{ # Amazing, Ain't It? # }

[KC2PBJ]

It's not just WinLink. We get the nitwits doing loooong tune-ups right on top of QSO's every day and people who just fire up their "Lin-Yar" and talk over everyone. Guess what? The callsigns are not from NCG's and NCE's. Perhaps listening before transmitting any form of communicationshas become the lost art of amateur radio. WinLink is way overused and most users don't have a clue of its transmission characteristics - nor do the majority even care in the "Me First, Last, and Always" mindset.

[N5PVL]

Well, I'm a 13wpm general, and even I know that you're not supposed to transmit without listening first...

I am sure that many of the WinLinkers are just stupid, but I am equally sure that many more of them simply do not care.

The first condition is beyond our power to change, but perhaps by pointing out their error, they can someday be made to care. - Whatever it takes to get the WinLinkers to stop generating harmful interference and crashing QSO's.

Packet networks typically include participants from all over the country, talking back and forth in short bursts, so the chances of actually listening on that frequency and not hearing anything are like slim - and none.

There is simply no excuse for keying up in PACTOR 1 mode, precisely on top of an active Packet radio net like that.

When the server replies, it is not actually on top of the Packet activity, but having two strong ARQ signals on either side of your packets is impossible to compete with. - It generally stops any effective communication.

[ky5u]

Give it up Charles. He's better than you, has a sailoboat and the bucks to live it up, a Winlink user, and a mandate from God to QRM Amateur Radio. You're just a little pissant legal amateur who wants to do Ham Radio for fun and see it survive. You loser you!

[N5PVL]

I'm so ashamed... ( sob )

[AE6IP]

Y'all have any evidence that he could hear the packet net from his location, or are you just stirring up crap?

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,11:25)]Y'all have any evidence that he could hear the packet net from his location, or are you just stirring up crap?
My guess is that he didn't listen to see if he could hear or not. When their email is at stake - they do whatever it takes. Based on the waterfall, looked like both signals were about equal power - my guess is that he COULD have heard it. If he has all that expensive equipment and the antennas to match, I'm sure he heard them.

Winlink just needs to be removed from the ham bands. My guess is also that if you simply remove the internet connection from them, it will stop most of them from participating anyway. That's the only reason for using it.

charles - did you send that picture to Riley?

Steve
AB8YY

[kc2orw]

Gotta send that email to the broker, how else you gonna keep yourself in Yachts and Mansions...

[n3ef]

http://www.panbo.com/archive....er.html (http://www.panbo.com/archives/2006/12/fcc_drops_morse_code_test_ham_on_your_hf_easier.ht ml)

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (n3ef @ Nov. 04 2007,19:24)]http://www.panbo.com/archive....er.html (http://www.panbo.com/archives/2006/12/fcc_drops_morse_code_test_ham_on_your_hf_easier.ht ml)
Yeah I really love this line from that site

Quote[/b] ]Thus, as Dan Piltch at Marine Computer writes, “it will be easier than ever for folks to get licensed up, and start using WinLink (with their Pactor modem) for free email”.

Now if this isn't proof that these idiot sail boaters want hf just to do their email then what is?

[w3wn]

I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer.

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,18:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
On-air actions in the ham bands *are* public.

Showing what you have done in a public forum is hardly libelous.

We are a self-policing service, after all, and have been since at least 1928.

Part of self-policing is pointing bad operation for everyone to see, for both applying peer pressure to those involved and to offer up an example to others in how to NOT operate.

There isn't anything in the FCC complaint process that says the complaint has to be kept private.

tim ab0wr

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer.

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 03 2007,20:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
And typically the way it works is the "Lid de Jour" sends your email to Waterman, who responds to you and copies Riley.

[KI4WCA]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 04 2007,13:29)]I'm so ashamed... ( sob )
Thank you for the work you do revealing this pernicious mode and its inept( to be charitable) use on HF. Of course,I do not have a sea going vessel and I am not wealthy.So I am a giant loser and my opinion matters not!!!

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KI4WCA @ Nov. 04 2007,23:07)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 04 2007,13:29)]I'm so ashamed... ( sob )
Thank you for the work you do revealing this pernicious mode and its inept( to be charitable) use on HF. Of course,I do not have a sea going vessel and I am not wealthy.So I am a giant loser and my opinion matters not!!!
LOL I guess a bunch of us are losers because I certainly cannot afford a boat but I can afford an ISP at least on my meager salary and know when to keep email off of ham radio. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC5CSG]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 04 2007,19:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
Well, you sure put him in his place................

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 04 2007,22:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
And this time you chose public humiliation first.

Heaven help you if you are wrong.

But hey... it' your petard, if you want to get hoist with it, so be it.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,23:26)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 04 2007,22:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer.

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
And this time you chose public humiliation first.

Heaven help you if you are wrong.

But hey... it' your petard, if you want to get hoist with it, so be it.
I didn't chose this route. Charles did. Need to watch who you quote next time. All I said is I get tired of trying to tell these lids that they are interfering only to get Steve Waterman to tell me it is our imagination.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Nov. 04 2007,23:25)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 04 2007,19:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer.

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
Well, you sure put him in his place................
Go play with your cell phone. Apparently you have no love of ham radio and you must be one of those winlids.

[AE6IP]

So nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net.

y'all've confused 'enforcement' with 'vigilantism' and you're not doing your own cause any good by this sort of behavior.

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,01:06)]So nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net.

y'all've confused 'enforcement' with 'vigilantism' and you're not doing your own cause any good by this sort of behavior.
Give me a break. If this guy or anyone else using Winlink doesn't want their picture and call up on this board . They should demand the PMBO's turn on the signal detection and insure they aren't interfering with ongoing QSO's they can't hear.

[N5PVL]

Here's the current WB0TAX ( 14.098 LSB ) Lid List:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
14.098 Lid List - WL2K customer stations observed interfering
with ongoing Packet QSO's while querying the WB0TAX WL2K server
at 14.098 MHz LSB.

------ Monitored (* = regulars )
k * * *
kg6yfc
kc9cna
ve0end
n2sbs
np2ls
kd5bzh
n7nrd
ki4dbz
n6hfc
kc2kqm
f5lww *
ve3vab
km4ev
kc4uil
kg4vko
km6kq
w4dsx
ad5no *
ke7guz *
kg6hex
ki4daz
va3sbh
kg4lae *
wq6w *
b1gpb
kb6axc
nb6m *
kb7wim
yn4mg
kd7vos
n4mg
yn6kn *
kc6onh *
kd5pdx *
kd7zpq
kg4ckz
kc0ij
ke4sud
f5lww *
w6ddp
kf6oid
kd5pdx
kb1jiz
kb1dec
ve2mdg
va3sbh
ke4sud
kb7wim
kg6qoy
kf7xt *
k6dbz
kb7wim
ve3nnj
kb6ztx *
ke7fgf
kb5pqm
kg4rzb *
kg6ssp
pa1haf
ki4joh *
kf6zwe
kd5pdx
kb1dec *
kb1hue *
kd5pdx
a1haf
n8bmv
vp3ng *
w1eo
vp9ng *
dl1phs
w6ddp
n6hfc
kb6ztx
kb1nch
ke7kmp
k8btn *
kc2opw
ki6iqp
k8btn *
kg6uhl
kc2dow
f4fih
k7msm *
wa2ejp
ae6xo *

======== Calling
VE2AFQ
K6IXA
WB0TAX
WA2DXQ

========
Stations monitored in the act of interfering with an ongoing Packet network
with participating stations from coast to coast... And kind of hard to miss
hearing because of that.

PACTOR FEC error correction is not perfect, so callsigns copied only once
may be garbled.

Stations monitored multiple times get a star * as they have been verified
as serial QRM mills.
[/QUOTE]

- And all that's just on one frequency!

Anyone who is experiencing WL2K interference and is uncertain as to how to proceed should just send me a PM with the frequency and time where the QRM seems worst. - I'll take the time to go there to monitor and record whatever is going on.

If it's another WinLid crashing QSO's, then pretty soon after we will have another WinLid on Parade.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #It's funny to watch the radio roaches scurry when you flick a light on, illuminating their degenerate attitudes and activities. #}

In these discussions, I have heard several references to Riley Hollingsworth having a WinLink setup on his boat, implying that the fellow is a little too involved in WinLink2000 to do his job.

If this is a rumour then it is an ugly one that should not be repeated. If there is some truth to it though, I'd like to see some useful evidence to back it up.

When you think about it, it really is amazing that the FCC has not moved against a single WinLinker, despite wholesale instances of harmful interference that go back for years and years.

Everybody seems to know about it except the FCC.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,13:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
hi... You forget Not Listening first, plus no busy detector built in to every SCS Modem Means they never will listen first.. We already know they won't.. Nothing unfair about the post...

73 jerry n9lya

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,05:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,01:06)]So nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net.

y'all've confused 'enforcement' with 'vigilantism' and you're not doing your own cause any good by this sort of behavior.
Give me a break. If this guy or anyone else using Winlink doesn't want their picture and call up on this board . They should demand the PMBO's turn on the signal detection and insure they aren't interfering with ongoing QSO's they can't hear.
Note that the Packet stations, the WinLink server and the customer all came in 'loud and clear' on my waterfall display.

I am located at the southern tip of Texas, the WinLid server is in Louisianna, the Customer is in the {edit} western US or out at sea, and the Packet net has stations all over the continental US.

I've mentioned this before, but here I'll note one more time that Packet nets are comprised of a number of stations scattered around the country. If you cannot hear one net member at a given time, then you will still be able to hear five or six others, possibly more. The communications consist of short, back-and-forth transmissions ( data bursts ) so that if you do not hear a distant station, within a few seconds you WILL hear a station that is closer on that same frequency.

I did not mention that the 14.098 net has had a station in the same area as the WinLinker customer and that station had no problem whatsover in hearing the net and participating in it. - This is for the shills who theorize that the western US is a "black hole" where normal 20 meter communications cannot be copied somehow - unless it is a WinLink server of course.

Fact is:
The WinLid neglected to listen before transmitting, or he listened and just didn't care. - The end result was harmful interference to several stations participating in a net.

The old boy might have a nice job and a couple of boats to play around with, but as far as the amateur radio community is concerned, he and his kind are gutter trash.

The fact that he works with NASA and has extensive experience with amateur radio does not excuse his behavior, it makes it inexcusable.

Note the asterisk after AE6XO's call in the 14.098 Lid List. - That means that he has been observed interfering with ongoing net activity on multiple occasions, not just the single incidence of interference that I have recorded and displayed here on QRZ.

[k6jpd]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 05 2007,00:06)](edit)nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net...
if you read the LETTER of the law, it really doesn't matter if he could hear it or not:

No person shall WILLFULLY or maliciously interfere with, OR CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO ANY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.

winstink, by it's design option to disable the detection option, a WILLFUL action, does fit the criteria in the first case (No person shall WILLFULLY or maliciously interfere with) and, even if the detection is not disabled, it still meets the second part too (OR CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO ANY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS...).

bottom line, interference, deliberate or not is still interference.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (k6jpd @ Nov. 05 2007,07:20)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 05 2007,00:06)](edit)nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net...
if you read the LETTER of the law, it really doesn't matter if he could hear it or not:

No person shall WILLFULLY or maliciously interfere with, OR CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO ANY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.

winstink, by it's design option to disable the detection option, a WILLFUL action, does fit the criteria in the first case (No person shall WILLFULLY or maliciously interfere with) and, even if the detection is not disabled, it still meets the second part too (OR CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO ANY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS...). #

bottom line, interference, deliberate or not is still interference.
I hadn't thought about it, but you are right.

A lot of us here, myself included have a tendency to overlook basic information like that and get all excited about how many scurrying radio roaches can balance on the end of a weak excuse.

Thanks for the moment of clarity, it was needed here.

[ne3r]

I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R

[N5PVL]

I was just looking at the waterfall image again, and noticed that WB0TAX's transmitter is drifting a bit when he transmits. The twin signals kinda lean off to the right a little bit.

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 05 2007,06:15)]I was just looking at the waterfall image again, and noticed that WB0TAX's transmitter is drifting a bit when he transmits. The twin signals kinda lean off to the right a little bit.
You might want to send him a note http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif - you can add that you know it wasn't your receiver because you were in the middle of a QSO in the frequency when he started transmitting!

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,08:57)]I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R
Go look at some of the groups that Steve waterman hangs out in and you will find out that he advocates turning off the busy detection as it decreases throughput. He has said it several times in those forums. He is the poster child for Winlink. What more do you need?

[kc7gnm]

Charles,

Want to confirm that you guys operate on LSB for packet like we do on 14.105. I have been criticized for that but after telling the lids that it is common practice to operate LSB on 20 meters for packet and has been that way for years they still think we are wrong.

[k0cmh]

I think a good solution would be to give WinLink a specific frequency on each Ham band, but restrict them to that frequency only. Then they can interferr with eachother till heck freezes over and not bother the rest of us Hams.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,01:31)]Charles,

Want to confirm that you guys operate on LSB for packet like we do on 14.105. I have been criticized for that but after telling the lids that it is common practice to operate LSB on 20 meters for packet and has been that way for years they still think we are wrong.
Greg... Yes 14.098 packet is running, in LSB.
have been for 20+ Years.

73 Jerry
N9LYA

7.1005 LSB
10.147 LSB
14.098 LSB

Just to name a very few...

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,06:28)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,08:57)]I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. #Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. #Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. #I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R
Go look at some of the groups that Steve waterman hangs out in and you will find out that he advocates turning off the busy detection as it decreases throughput. #He has said it several times in those forums. He is the poster child for Winlink. What more do you need?
The only thing I've seen from Steve is that the Winlink development team does not have a specific recomendation for busy detection, leaving the decision up to the operator. I'm a member of a couple of Winlink yahoo groups, maybe not the right ones. Maybe he is just careful about what he says. But it does seem that there is no offical position.

Again, there are some others who advocate it, giving a lot of reasons why busy detection doesn't work, but to me, the arguements don't hold much water when the other option is to simply cause interference to other stations.

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (k0cmh @ Nov. 05 2007,06:39)]I think a good solution would be to give WinLink a specific frequency on each Ham band, but restrict them to that frequency only. #Then they can interferr with eachother till heck freezes over and not bother the rest of us Hams.
Probably not a good idea - should they do the same with SSB, AM, PSK31, Nets, SSTV, etc?

The solution is §97.101 General standards.
(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice.

Note - the last 3 words.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,08:31)]Charles,

Want to confirm that you guys operate on LSB for packet like we do on 14.105. I have been criticized for that but after telling the lids that it is common practice to operate LSB on 20 meters for packet and has been that way for years they still think we are wrong.
Yes, we do. - When I joined the skipnet, 14.098 LSB was one of the net frequencies listed. It's apparently SOP and has been for many years.

I'm not sure why it is done that way but then again, I'm not a net manager so it's not my worry.

That's pretty funny about the hobby's worst Lids on record carping about the way HF Packet is operated. Why would they or anybody else care what sideband automated stations operating in the sub-bands operate on? - The idea is to stay in the sub-band and operate legally, not interfering with ongoing communications.

They can't handle that basic requirement, so they try to distract everybody's attention by carping about a non-issue like what sideband HF Packet operates on.

It's like dealing with a bunch of five year-olds.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (k0cmh @ Nov. 05 2007,08:39)]I think a good solution would be to give WinLink a specific frequency on each Ham band, but restrict them to that frequency only. #Then they can interferr with eachother till heck freezes over and not bother the rest of us Hams.
I'll have to disagree, though I recognize that your heart is in the right place.

We should never reward bad behavior with a gift of exclusive spectrum rights.

Nobody in amateur radio should have exclusive rights to any frequency, ever.

Especially not a pack of characterless Lids.

[KC0OFZ]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,20:26)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 04 2007,22:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
And this time you chose public humiliation first.

Heaven help you if you are wrong.

But hey... it' your petard, if you want to get hoist with it, so be it.
Can you read? He did contact the guy and the bugger did NOT care, just as you do NOT care. You are the typical winlid defender.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,01:54)]I didn't chose this route. Charles did. Need to watch who you quote next time. All I said is I get tired of trying to tell these lids that they are interfering only to get Steve Waterman to tell me it is our imagination.
My apologies; my error in picking the wrong reply to reply to.

I'll try to be more careful!

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (KC0OFZ @ Nov. 05 2007,10:28)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,20:26)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 04 2007,22:58)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 04 2007,21:58)]I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to contact AE6XO directly with your complaint prior to posting this publicly, and ask him for his side of the story?

Yeah, I know, I know, you already know it, after all, he owns a boat. #All the proof you need...

Not that I wish to defend a true lid... but if someone made an extremely unfair and potentially libelous post about my on-air actions in a public forum like this, without at least asking me first, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer. #

So for your sake, Charles, I hope either you're right, or that you have deep, deep pockets.
I have tried this approach several times in the past and all I got was an angry response saying it was not his problem and deal with it. That is the attitude that put me on the warpath with winlink. With idiots that just don't care anymore I don't take the time or courtesy to let them know. I just forward the stuff to the FCC and them publicly humiliate them on here.
And this time you chose public humiliation first.

Heaven help you if you are wrong.

But hey... it' your petard, if you want to get hoist with it, so be it.
Can you read? #He did contact the guy and the bugger did NOT care, just as you do NOT care. #You are the typical winlid defender.
Yes, I can read. He didn't contact the alleged offender this time. He has contacted at least one other alleged offender in the past and gotten a response that was not very nice, to say the least.

And I am NOT defending the so-called "win lids" which I thought I made very clear.

My point in all this is NOT to defend the alleged offender. On the contrary... it is to caution YOU to be careful.

But I guess I was too subtle. So let's see what we actually have here, based on Charles's original post:

We have evidence of an existing QSO being overriden by a WinLink user.

We have evidence showing the call sign that the offending signal used.

What don't we have? Proof that the call sign in use was actually being used by the licensee of that call. Yes, that's certainly very strong circumstantial evidence -- but it is not proof.

Now listen very carefully here: By not contacting the alleged offender and asking for his side of the story before going public, you open the door to a counter charge. The offender may claim that it was a bootlegger, or an unauthorized user, or otherwise that what was copied wasn't him. In short, deny everything. It becomes your word against his.

Considering some of the rather strong statements made against the amateur in question, you could very well be open to civil liabilities if you can not prove that it was indeed him.

Now, some of those counter-claims may expose the person in question to other charges of FCC violations... for example, if someone took out his boat (with permission, one would assume) and operated his equipment without it, the FCC will want to talk to him. But THAT is all a side issue.

You have made a strong allegation, but you have not proved your case -- yet.

Tread cautiously, for your sake -- not his.

'nuff said.

73

[k0cmh]

Other modes have taken on, by gentlemen's agreement, a specific frequency. #Some examples are SSTV (14.230 and 14.233) and PSK-31 (14.070). #These are examples of 20 meters, but the ARRL band plan contains the freqs in the other bands for these two modes. #I have yet to hear a sstv or psk31 signal outside those specific frequencies, even when they are very busy. #Those folks seem to know how to use specific frequencies (I am one of "those folks").

But then "gentlemen's agreements" would not hold the same clout as FCC regs.

So, yep I guess that idea would not work. #No ideas work for lids.

[N5PVL]

Gentlemen?? #( #Looking around in obvious alarm. #) #Where?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KD6NIG]

Welp, I'm sorry to say this, but in this case....the winlid probably was innocent.

Now before you all grasp for your hearts like you're going to have a coranary, hear me out.

Its possible the winlid had detection on. In fact, I'd almost say he probably did. Why? Think about how packet works. Station A is talking to Station B. But, the only time a packet is fired off and an ACK packet is sent back is when something is sent, ie, when you hit the enter key or reach the end of a line and the program automatically sends a carriage return. This is why packet networks are pretty effective, you could have quite a few QSOs going on, and with busy detect, you won't get collisions-your modem will wait for an opening, then fire away.

So its likely the winlid waited for an opening, then fired up. So I wouldn't accuse him blanket of not listening for QSO. I never listen for QSO on VHF packet either-the modem does it for me. If its busy, I just start typing what I want to do. The modem does the rest.

So its likely his modem waited for an opening then had at it.

Whats he guilty of?

-Running a protocol that, unlike packet, waits for openings and sends individual packets, it just keys up and stays keyed up for longer periods. Now if he KEPT going over your convo, then I'll buy the busy detector is turned off, which he likely did.

The bottom line is, winlink WOULDN'T crash packet QSOs if it worked the same as packet and with the same bandwidth. You'd get your email slower, but it would work. It would fall in between the other active packets on the frequency in use.

They are guilty of wanting their email and wanting it now. But I don't know if I would go as far as saying they are deliberately not listening. Its possible that they are, and once an opening comes they take over because of the PROTOCOL being the way it is.

Sure, they need to be stopped, but I think since the screams of BAN THIS are being ignored by the users and the FCC, perhaps a different tact should be tried. How about, SHARE THE CHANNEL? Nope, won't work.

The arrogance of people on both sides is amazing at times though. I wouldn't blanket accuse them of not running detection though. Packet is inherantly quiet-it only transmits to send something then stands by. Its not like a 2 way QSO with a few seconds in between. Its usually a few seconds of activity followed by a few large breaks.

The Winlids would be better served and wouldn't have any issues if they did turn busy detection on and allowed another 5 minutes for their emails.

The road could be shared. Just sounds to me like they don't want to share it.

But I wouldn't be so rash as to call people out as to not running busy detection. There is a possibility, albeit a slight one, that although its RECOMMENDED to turn it off, that some people haven't. Sure, the protocol is wasteful, and steps on people all the time. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they are purposely turning off busy detection either, unless you can prove it without a doubt.

The QRM argument is more than enough-don't blow it up even further by making accusations you cannot prove-it would probably help your cause http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[k0cmh]

Oh, but it is some much more fun to shoot first and ask later. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[N5PVL]

For my part, I do not care whether WinLids run error detection or not, I just want them to stop generating harmful interference that crashes QSO's.

Period.

[N5PVL]

KD6NIG says:
Quote[/b] ]
So its likely the winlid waited for an opening, then fired up.

You wasted a lot of bandwidth there for nothing, OM.

If you will take another look at the waterfall image, the WinLid fired up during a Packet transmission at the bottom, not after it.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/arwatch/AE6XO%20WB0TAX%2014098/int05.jpg

If there had been a wait, there would have also been some milliseconds of dead air between the two transmissions. - Think it through.

Note the gap between the PACTOR I transmission and the following Packet. - That Packet was waiting for the carrier it detected to stop, then there was some few millsecond's delay before it keyed up.

Even if there had been some dead air beteen the first two transmissions, that would not indicate that the WinLid had bravely flouted the WinLink administrator's advice... More likely it would be a simple matter of random timing.

I have seen RTTY operators during contests hang around and wait for the Packet activity to lull so they can call on that frequency. - I have never seen a WinLinker do anything remotely approaching that. - They just bust in and to hell with whatever else might be going on there, knowing that their system will ARQ any other activity to death.

[KD6NIG]

Ok, I see what you're saying, but wouldn't it be better to scream and yell about what you can prove (ie the crashed QSO and QRM) than about stuff you cannot prove (the malice?)

Not that I don't think they are right by any means, but I'm just trying to figure out why the FCC is ignoring the complaints. They seem valid, so the only thing I can think of is that the accusations of "you're not running detection" are being refuted by "Yes I am" and the FCC going, ok, then you're not deliberately doing it, must have been propogation, couldn't hear the other station or the frequency wasn't in use.....case closed?

Thats the part about it I don't get.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,12:16)]Ok, I see what you're saying, but wouldn't it be better to scream and yell about what you can prove (ie the crashed QSO and QRM) than about stuff you cannot prove (the malice?)

Not that I don't think they are right by any means, but I'm just trying to figure out why the FCC is ignoring the complaints. #They seem valid, so the only thing I can think of is that the accusations of "you're not running detection" are being refuted by "Yes I am" and the FCC going, ok, then you're not deliberately doing it, must have been propogation, couldn't hear the other station or the frequency wasn't in use.....case closed?

Thats the part about it I don't get.
OK, I dragged the image from the first post here so you could have your first look at it, but I'm not going to do that for the text, too.

Read the post.

You are starting to sound a lot like somebody who is scurrying around looking for an excuse, or for something negative or distracting to say.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ # A radio roach, perhaps? # }

[KC5CSG]

I would be most excited if someone in here posted a link to where I can see all of these "gentleman's agreements". I have nothing against them and think they should be honored. I just don't want to learn them by trial and error. I've found most hams don't buy the "honest mistake" excuse are are very unforgiving of them. So, can someone in here tell me where I can go online and see all of these "gentleman's agreements"? Please make it a reputable site. I've seen so called agreements on one site and then I go to another and see an agreement that is completely different.

Jerry

[N5PVL]

KC5CSG says:
Quote[/b] ]
I would be most excited if someone in here posted a link to where I can see all of these "gentleman's agreements". I have nothing against them and think they should be honored. I just don't want to learn them by trial and error. I've found most hams don't buy the "honest mistake" excuse are are very unforgiving of them. So, can someone in here tell me where I can go online and see all of these "gentleman's agreements"? Please make it a reputable site. I've seen so called agreements on one site and then I go to another and see an agreement that is completely different.

Jerry

None of that stuff makes any sense unless you are a gentleman.

I found one of them one time, and he explained some of it to me but I forgot what he said...

It didn't really make a lot of sense anyway, I do remember that much.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ---{ #Seriously speaking.... #}

The central amateur radio gentleman's agreement is The Amateurs Code (http://www.arwatch.com/info/hamcode.htm).

Sorry about the disreputable website, but that's where I had a copy of it handy.

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 04 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,06:28)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,08:57)]I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. #Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. #Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. #I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R
Go look at some of the groups that Steve waterman hangs out in and you will find out that he advocates turning off the busy detection as it decreases throughput. #He has said it several times in those forums. He is the poster child for Winlink. What more do you need?
The only thing I've seen from Steve is that the Winlink development team does not have a specific recomendation for busy detection, leaving the decision up to the operator. #I'm a member of a couple of Winlink yahoo groups, maybe not the right ones. #Maybe he is just careful about what he says. #But it does seem that there is no offical position.

Again, there are some others who advocate it, giving a lot of reasons why busy detection doesn't work, but to me, the arguements don't hold much water when the other option is to simply cause interference to other stations.
Here is one of Steves positions on it. The reason for it being turned off seems to change over time and depends on who Steve is taking too.



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, we took the active signal detection off, 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.

Your feelings, whoever you are, concerning my knowing there is a problem are immaterial. My problem is everyone's problem of too many operations in too little space. I was present when the formation of Part 97.221 was discussed, and agreed in Wash DC at the FCC. I understand its use then in containing HF Packet while allowing the only other automatic mode of that day, Amtor, to move anywhere below the SSB segment of the US band, and how that has all changed with the change in technology. #Semi-automatic control OUTSIDE the auto sub-bands is currently limited to 500 Hz. In those spaces, such operations require one to be very aware of interference. We do our best. To date, that seems to be good enough for those who make the rules. When it is not, we will deal with it case by case, which is really the way Part 97 works. It works for each and every control operator, independently.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wl2kemcomm/message/19347

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Nov. 05 2007,09:46)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,01:31)]Charles,

Want to confirm that you guys operate on LSB for packet like we do on 14.105. I have been criticized for that but after telling the lids that it is common practice to operate LSB on 20 meters for packet and has been that way for years they still think we are wrong.
Greg... Yes 14.098 packet is running, in LSB.
have been for 20+ Years.

73 Jerry
N9LYA

7.1005 LSB
10.147 LSB
14.098 LSB

Just to name a very few...
Reason I was asking is that I knew packet operated on LSB on 20m but Steve Waterman insists we are operating wrong. Shows you how much he actually knows about ham radio. LOL

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,11:06)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 04 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,06:28)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,08:57)]I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. #Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. #Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. #I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R
Go look at some of the groups that Steve waterman hangs out in and you will find out that he advocates turning off the busy detection as it decreases throughput. #He has said it several times in those forums. He is the poster child for Winlink. What more do you need?
The only thing I've seen from Steve is that the Winlink development team does not have a specific recomendation for busy detection, leaving the decision up to the operator. #I'm a member of a couple of Winlink yahoo groups, maybe not the right ones. #Maybe he is just careful about what he says. #But it does seem that there is no offical position.

Again, there are some others who advocate it, giving a lot of reasons why busy detection doesn't work, but to me, the arguements don't hold much water when the other option is to simply cause interference to other stations.
Here is one of Steves positions on it. The reason for it being turned off seems to change over time and depends on who Steve is taking too.



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, we took the active signal detection off, 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.

Your feelings, whoever you are, concerning my knowing there is a problem are immaterial. My problem is everyone's problem of too many operations in too little space. I was present when the formation of Part 97.221 was discussed, and agreed in Wash DC at the FCC. I understand its use then in containing HF Packet while allowing the only other automatic mode of that day, Amtor, to move anywhere below the SSB segment of the US band, and how that has all changed with the change in technology. #Semi-automatic control OUTSIDE the auto sub-bands is currently limited to 500 Hz. In those spaces, such operations require one to be very aware of interference. We do our best. To date, that seems to be good enough for those who make the rules. When it is not, we will deal with it case by case, which is really the way Part 97 works. It works for each and every control operator, independently.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wl2kemcomm/message/19347
If intentional interference was interfering with their QSO, turning off a busy detection system would seem to be OK. Just like in SSB, I was tought to ignore the interfering station and continue my QSO as long as I could.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 05 2007,10:24)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,12:16)]Ok, I see what you're saying, but wouldn't it be better to scream and yell about what you can prove (ie the crashed QSO and QRM) than about stuff you cannot prove (the malice?)

Not that I don't think they are right by any means, but I'm just trying to figure out why the FCC is ignoring the complaints. They seem valid, so the only thing I can think of is that the accusations of "you're not running detection" are being refuted by "Yes I am" and the FCC going, ok, then you're not deliberately doing it, must have been propogation, couldn't hear the other station or the frequency wasn't in use.....case closed?

Thats the part about it I don't get.
OK, I dragged the image from the first post here so you could have your first look at it, but I'm not going to do that for the text, too.

Read the post.

You are starting to sound a lot like somebody who is scurrying around looking for an excuse, or for something negative or distracting to say.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ A radio roach, perhaps? }
No, what I'm saying has been now been brought up above. It sounds to me like there is so much angst against winlids now that the possible actions that could be taken would include QRMing THEM in retaliation.

Either that or trying to make the accusations much worse, in which case the FCC is then rejecting them.

I mean, lets be honest here-Sure, in your examples it appears that the winlid is just smacking the heck out of you. But then you also have to question the fact that you continue to insist using that same frequency still though its an obvious winlink used one. Yes, yes I know, they don't have any right to the frequency. But lets be honest here....just because a bandplan says so, and you've set up your packet network there, neither do YOU, frankly!

I'm beginning to wonder with the inaction of the FCC if there is some kind of war going on, and the reason they aren't stepping in is because of this. I'm bringing up an honest point-I think there is more to the story than what all we're seeing here. You're quick to point out that they are stomping out your network, but in other threads on this very same board we hear whining about people coming onto a frequency and being told its a net freq, get off. Well, in a way, your little network of Packet stations is doing the same, right?

You insist they stop interfering with you, but instead of moving to a clean patch of air you continue to insist sitting in the same place. So it begs the question-if the FCC won't do anything about it, why sit and take it?

Its an honest question. OR, is this such a major war and an obsession you're going to do like the 20 year established HF net and stand your ground?

I mean, yeah, its malicious interference. But as a NCT, if I was on a repeater and every time I tried to use it some idiot would get on there and QRM me, at first I'd keep trying, but eventually I would MOVE ELSEWHERE instead of letting it get to me.

It seems to me that you're purposely staying there to perpetuate the fight.

The first 100 or so complaints I agreed with you, but its beginning to look like you're sitting there and trying to entrap people. Is the FCC seeing this and thus ignoring your complaints?

These are the questions I want answers too. The inaction of the FCC seems awfully blinding. Is it a blind eye or is there more to it?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,03:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,01:06)]So nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net.

y'all've confused 'enforcement' with 'vigilantism' and you're not doing your own cause any good by this sort of behavior.
Give me a break. If this guy or anyone else using Winlink doesn't want their picture and call up on this board . They should demand the PMBO's turn on the signal detection and insure they aren't interfering with ongoing QSO's they can't hear.
The PMBOs should turn on signal detection, but if you can't hear it, you can't know you're interfering with it.

And nobody here has bothered to gather any evidence at all that he could hear it.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,12:38)]Welp, I'm sorry to say this, but in this case....the winlid probably was innocent.

Now before you all grasp for your hearts like you're going to have a coranary, hear me out.

Its possible the winlid had detection on. In fact, I'd almost say he probably did. Why? Think about how packet works. Station A is talking to Station B. But, the only time a packet is fired off and an ACK packet is sent back is when something is sent, ie, when you hit the enter key or reach the end of a line and the program automatically sends a carriage return. This is why packet networks are pretty effective, you could have quite a few QSOs going on, and with busy detect, you won't get collisions-your modem will wait for an opening, then fire away.

So its likely the winlid waited for an opening, then fired up. So I wouldn't accuse him blanket of not listening for QSO. I never listen for QSO on VHF packet either-the modem does it for me. If its busy, I just start typing what I want to do. The modem does the rest.

So its likely his modem waited for an opening then had at it.

Whats he guilty of?

-Running a protocol that, unlike packet, waits for openings and sends individual packets, it just keys up and stays keyed up for longer periods. Now if he KEPT going over your convo, then I'll buy the busy detector is turned off, which he likely did.

The bottom line is, winlink WOULDN'T crash packet QSOs if it worked the same as packet and with the same bandwidth. You'd get your email slower, but it would work. It would fall in between the other active packets on the frequency in use.

They are guilty of wanting their email and wanting it now. But I don't know if I would go as far as saying they are deliberately not listening. Its possible that they are, and once an opening comes they take over because of the PROTOCOL being the way it is.

Sure, they need to be stopped, but I think since the screams of BAN THIS are being ignored by the users and the FCC, perhaps a different tact should be tried. How about, SHARE THE CHANNEL? Nope, won't work.

The arrogance of people on both sides is amazing at times though. I wouldn't blanket accuse them of not running detection though. Packet is inherantly quiet-it only transmits to send something then stands by. Its not like a 2 way QSO with a few seconds in between. Its usually a few seconds of activity followed by a few large breaks.

The Winlids would be better served and wouldn't have any issues if they did turn busy detection on and allowed another 5 minutes for their emails.

The road could be shared. Just sounds to me like they don't want to share it.

But I wouldn't be so rash as to call people out as to not running busy detection. There is a possibility, albeit a slight one, that although its RECOMMENDED to turn it off, that some people haven't. Sure, the protocol is wasteful, and steps on people all the time. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they are purposely turning off busy detection either, unless you can prove it without a doubt.

The QRM argument is more than enough-don't blow it up even further by making accusations you cannot prove-it would probably help your cause http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Ok but in the winlink world the PMBO does not sit on one specific freq. They scan freqs constantly on all bands. Some PMBO's scan up to 10 different freqs and when it stops on a freq that hears it is being called it fires up and starts not caring who was on the freq first. That is how winlink works.

Packet radio sits on one freq and does not scan several freqs. It is alwasy listening to that freq for traffic.

Do you see the big difference here?

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 04 2007,12:22)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,11:06)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 04 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,06:28)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,08:57)]I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. #Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. #Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. #I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R
Go look at some of the groups that Steve waterman hangs out in and you will find out that he advocates turning off the busy detection as it decreases throughput. #He has said it several times in those forums. He is the poster child for Winlink. What more do you need?
The only thing I've seen from Steve is that the Winlink development team does not have a specific recomendation for busy detection, leaving the decision up to the operator. #I'm a member of a couple of Winlink yahoo groups, maybe not the right ones. #Maybe he is just careful about what he says. #But it does seem that there is no offical position.

Again, there are some others who advocate it, giving a lot of reasons why busy detection doesn't work, but to me, the arguements don't hold much water when the other option is to simply cause interference to other stations.
Here is one of Steves positions on it. The reason for it being turned off seems to change over time and depends on who Steve is taking too.



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, we took the active signal detection off, 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.

Your feelings, whoever you are, concerning my knowing there is a problem are immaterial. My problem is everyone's problem of too many operations in too little space. I was present when the formation of Part 97.221 was discussed, and agreed in Wash DC at the FCC. I understand its use then in containing HF Packet while allowing the only other automatic mode of that day, Amtor, to move anywhere below the SSB segment of the US band, and how that has all changed with the change in technology. #Semi-automatic control OUTSIDE the auto sub-bands is currently limited to 500 Hz. In those spaces, such operations require one to be very aware of interference. We do our best. To date, that seems to be good enough for those who make the rules. When it is not, we will deal with it case by case, which is really the way Part 97 works. It works for each and every control operator, independently.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wl2kemcomm/message/19347
If intentional interference was interfering with their QSO, turning off a busy detection system would seem to be OK. #Just like in SSB, I was tought to ignore the interfering station and continue my QSO as long as I could.
Big difference there. You could tell if it was malicious interference or not. An unattended station has no way to know if it is interference or a QSO going. So it just fires up and steps on any QSO in it's way. From what I understand Packet has had to deal with malicious interference and yet they manage to leave the signal detection turned on. Winlink feels they have a greater priority then anyone else and don't seem to care. As is shown by Steve's statement of "case closed." He knows there is a problem, but because he has no solution for it. He and the developement team have decided to ignore it and "case closed."

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Nov. 05 2007,13:55)]I would be most excited if someone in here posted a link to where I can see all of these "gentleman's agreements". I have nothing against them and think they should be honored. I just don't want to learn them by trial and error. I've found most hams don't buy the "honest mistake" excuse are are very unforgiving of them. So, can someone in here tell me where I can go online and see all of these "gentleman's agreements"? Please make it a reputable site. I've seen so called agreements on one site and then I go to another and see an agreement that is completely different.

Jerry
Sure go to www.arrl.org and download their band plan. It is there plain as day.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 05 2007,05:07)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,05:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,01:06)]So nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net.

y'all've confused 'enforcement' with 'vigilantism' and you're not doing your own cause any good by this sort of behavior.
Give me a break. If this guy or anyone else using Winlink doesn't want their picture and call up on this board . They should demand the PMBO's turn on the signal detection and insure they aren't interfering with ongoing QSO's they can't hear.
Note that the Packet stations, the WinLink server and the customer all came in 'loud and clear' on my waterfall display.
[/quote]

Which says nothing about whether "the customer" could hear packet stations.

Quote[/b] ]
I am located at the southern tip of Texas, the WinLid server is in Louisianna, the Customer is in the northeastern US or out at sea, and the Packet net has stations all over the continental US.

Um, if you're still talking about AE6XO, he's in the west.

Quote[/b] ]
I've mentioned this before, but here I'll note one more time that Packet nets are comprised of a number of stations scattered around the country. If you cannot hear one net member at a given time, then you will still be able to hear five or six others, possibly more. The communications consist of short, back-and-forth transmissions ( data bursts ) so that if you do not hear a distant station, within a few seconds you WILL hear a station that is closer on that same frequency.

Depends on relative location, propagation and other factors. There's no "WILL" about it.

Quote[/b] ]
I did not mention that the 14.098 net has had a station in the same area as the WinLinker customer and that station had no problem whatsover in hearing the net and participating in it. - This is for the shills who theorize that the northeastern US is a "black hole" where normal 20 meter communications cannot be copied somehow - unless it is a WinLink server of course.

And Stanford's amateur radio station can hear things I can't, a mere few miles away.

Quote[/b] ]
Fact is:
The WinLid neglected to listen before transmitting, or he listened and just didn't care. - The end result was harmful interference to several stations participating in a net.

No Charlie, that's not a "fact". It's your speculation, based on what you believe holds about propagation. And you've demonstrated it's a speculation based on a bad assumption, as "the customer" isn't where you think he is.[/quote]

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,14:22)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,11:06)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 04 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,06:28)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,08:57)]I did some looking into the whole busy detection thing. Busy detection isn't a winlink thing, it is built in to the SCS modem, however, it can be disabled. Some have claimed that the folks running winlink have told everyone to turn off busy detection, I can't find any documentation on this. I've seen some others, I'm assuming they are Winlink users, advocate turning off busy detection to increase throughput, but they do not seem to be connected to the management of Winlink.

73 de Joe NE3R
Go look at some of the groups that Steve waterman hangs out in and you will find out that he advocates turning off the busy detection as it decreases throughput. He has said it several times in those forums. He is the poster child for Winlink. What more do you need?
The only thing I've seen from Steve is that the Winlink development team does not have a specific recomendation for busy detection, leaving the decision up to the operator. I'm a member of a couple of Winlink yahoo groups, maybe not the right ones. Maybe he is just careful about what he says. But it does seem that there is no offical position.

Again, there are some others who advocate it, giving a lot of reasons why busy detection doesn't work, but to me, the arguements don't hold much water when the other option is to simply cause interference to other stations.
Here is one of Steves positions on it. The reason for it being turned off seems to change over time and depends on who Steve is taking too.



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, we took the active signal detection off, 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.

Your feelings, whoever you are, concerning my knowing there is a problem are immaterial. My problem is everyone's problem of too many operations in too little space. I was present when the formation of Part 97.221 was discussed, and agreed in Wash DC at the FCC. I understand its use then in containing HF Packet while allowing the only other automatic mode of that day, Amtor, to move anywhere below the SSB segment of the US band, and how that has all changed with the change in technology. Semi-automatic control OUTSIDE the auto sub-bands is currently limited to 500 Hz. In those spaces, such operations require one to be very aware of interference. We do our best. To date, that seems to be good enough for those who make the rules. When it is not, we will deal with it case by case, which is really the way Part 97 works. It works for each and every control operator, independently.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wl2kemcomm/message/19347
If intentional interference was interfering with their QSO, turning off a busy detection system would seem to be OK. Just like in SSB, I was tought to ignore the interfering station and continue my QSO as long as I could.
But is it ok to interfere with legitimate comms? That is what Steve is advocating. He basically said we will operate no matter who is on the freq first.

Added. BTW how can packet operations be camping out to cause malicious interference when they have been there for 20+ years already?

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,12:33)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Nov. 05 2007,03:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 04 2007,01:06)]So nobody does have any actual evidence that he could hear the packet net.

y'all've confused 'enforcement' with 'vigilantism' and you're not doing your own cause any good by this sort of behavior.
Give me a break. If this guy or anyone else using Winlink doesn't want their picture and call up on this board . They should demand the PMBO's turn on the signal detection and insure they aren't interfering with ongoing QSO's they can't hear.
The PMBOs should turn on signal detection, but if you can't hear it, you can't know you're interfering with it.

And nobody here has bothered to gather any evidence at all that he could hear it.
If the siganl detection is on and can't hear it then chances are they aren't going to interfere and are within their rights to tx, but if it's off then there is no way to know. There are far to many cases here of interference to blame it on "They can't hear it." As long as the signal detection is turned off there is no one who can claim innocence in this.

[KC5CSG]

why not just petition the FCC to outlaw winlink on the amateur bands? I don't see any need for it.

[kc7gnm]

Here is a perfect example of a winlid pmbo not listening. Note that it only took about 4 attempts in P1 before the PMBO answered. He probably caught him on the right part of his scan cycle and got the quick repsonse. Notice also the packet traffic that is spaced out on the freq. There is a reason that packet is spaced out like that, that is so other users can get in and share the freq, something Winlink has no idea how to do. One other note the blank spots are my transmitter keying up and sending out a packet. Yes this QSO got destroyed by this lid K6IXA and he was the moron that gave the angry response to me and forwarded the email to Steve Waterman. Look up his website and you will see he is a boater and a missionary.

Linky (http://www.ke7ipw.org/k6ixa29may072124.wav)

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Nov. 05 2007,14:55)]why not just petition the FCC to outlaw winlink on the amateur bands? I don't see any need for it.
I am already working on the petetion. As soon as I get time to complete the writing I will have a few folks look at it and see if it meets the litmus test.

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,11:42)]But is it ok to interfere with legitimate comms? That is what Steve is advocating. He basically said we will operate no matter who is on the freq first.

Added. BTW how can packet operations be camping out to cause malicious interference when they have been there for 20+ years already?
This paticular response (not the original post, but the quote from the winlink group) seemed to address intentional interference. Of course it wouldn't be OK to interfere with legitimate communications.

[N2RJ]

Jerry,

There are way too many "honest mistakes" out there.

If you make an "honest mistake" at your job and detonate a nuke, or shoot and kill the President of the US, do you think you'll be forgiven?

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,11:42)]Added. BTW how can packet operations be camping out to cause malicious interference when they have been there for 20+ years already?
Funny, in other topics on this very same BB there are nets on HF that claim to have "ownership" of frequencies, but people say that they shouldn't.

Why should a packet network be treated any different on HF?!?

Every bandplan I've seen shows ranges of frequencies for modes, calling frequencies (with notation that communications BE ESTABLISHED THEN MOVED OFF SAID FREQUENCY!) and stuff like that.

The Winlink watch site seems to not only have identified the users and PMBOs, but the frequencies they favor. You would think in the range of frequencies allowed packet on HF, a few clear areas could be identified where winlink doesn't tread, and wouldn't that be a more suitable place for a network or "net" of stations?

I mean Winlink is NOT right to crash QSOs, but when you go from posting lists of callsigns to picking one out, and checking into said person, posting picture of said person, and start discussing what he does for a living, that you've crossed the line. Now you're starting to attack people individually, and THAT looks like a good old fashioned CB quarrel, or a quarrel on 75. People won't listen to you, you start getting personal......

And thats why I'm really, really, starting to wonder what the real story is. You don't usually get personal unless you're really frustrated, or someone else already has.

Its really starting to look more like a fight in a sandbox when people are picked out and chosen to be the target.

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 04 2007,13:01)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,11:42)]Added. BTW how can packet operations be camping out to cause malicious interference when they have been there for 20+ years already?
Funny, in other topics on this very same BB there are nets on HF that claim to have "ownership" of frequencies, but people say that they shouldn't.

Why should a packet network be treated any different on HF?!?

Every bandplan I've seen shows ranges of frequencies for modes, calling frequencies (with notation that communications BE ESTABLISHED THEN MOVED OFF SAID FREQUENCY!) and stuff like that.

The Winlink watch site seems to not only have identified the users and PMBOs, but the frequencies they favor. #You would think in the range of frequencies allowed packet on HF, a few clear areas could be identified where winlink doesn't tread, and wouldn't that be a more suitable place for a network or "net" of stations?

I mean Winlink is NOT right to crash QSOs, but when you go from posting lists of callsigns to picking one out, and checking into said person, posting picture of said person, and start discussing what he does for a living, that you've crossed the line. #Now you're starting to attack people individually, and THAT looks like a good old fashioned CB quarrel, or a quarrel on 75. #People won't listen to you, you start getting personal......

And thats why I'm really, really, starting to wonder what the real story is. #You don't usually get personal unless you're really frustrated, or someone else already has.

Its really starting to look more like a fight in a sandbox when people are picked out and chosen to be the target.
If someone is breaking the rules the FCC doesn't hold back on putting their name out there. I don't see what line is being crossed by identifying anyone who breaks the rules and calling them on it.

If you have to stay away from a frequency, because Winlink uses it. Then in essence you are giving them ownership of that frequency. You can say the same about Packet. The difference is Packet won't tx on an ongoing QSO, but Winlink will.

And finally. You can't entrap a guilty person. A guilty person will do what they normally do. Your just giving them an opportunity to do it.

[N5PVL]

KD6NIG says:
Quote[/b] ]
Funny, in other topics on this very same BB there are nets on HF that claim to have "ownership" of frequencies, but people say that they shouldn't.

Yep, a radio roach.

That whiney, blustery tone is hard to miss. One excuse or negative theory after another in a string, hoping one of them will 'catch', just like a small child would do.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,11:35)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,12:38)]Welp, I'm sorry to say this, but in this case....the winlid probably was innocent.

Now before you all grasp for your hearts like you're going to have a coranary, hear me out.

Its possible the winlid had detection on. In fact, I'd almost say he probably did. Why? Think about how packet works. Station A is talking to Station B. But, the only time a packet is fired off and an ACK packet is sent back is when something is sent, ie, when you hit the enter key or reach the end of a line and the program automatically sends a carriage return. This is why packet networks are pretty effective, you could have quite a few QSOs going on, and with busy detect, you won't get collisions-your modem will wait for an opening, then fire away.

So its likely the winlid waited for an opening, then fired up. So I wouldn't accuse him blanket of not listening for QSO. I never listen for QSO on VHF packet either-the modem does it for me. If its busy, I just start typing what I want to do. The modem does the rest.

So its likely his modem waited for an opening then had at it.

Whats he guilty of?

-Running a protocol that, unlike packet, waits for openings and sends individual packets, it just keys up and stays keyed up for longer periods. Now if he KEPT going over your convo, then I'll buy the busy detector is turned off, which he likely did.

The bottom line is, winlink WOULDN'T crash packet QSOs if it worked the same as packet and with the same bandwidth. You'd get your email slower, but it would work. It would fall in between the other active packets on the frequency in use.

They are guilty of wanting their email and wanting it now. But I don't know if I would go as far as saying they are deliberately not listening. Its possible that they are, and once an opening comes they take over because of the PROTOCOL being the way it is.

Sure, they need to be stopped, but I think since the screams of BAN THIS are being ignored by the users and the FCC, perhaps a different tact should be tried. How about, SHARE THE CHANNEL? Nope, won't work.

The arrogance of people on both sides is amazing at times though. I wouldn't blanket accuse them of not running detection though. Packet is inherantly quiet-it only transmits to send something then stands by. Its not like a 2 way QSO with a few seconds in between. Its usually a few seconds of activity followed by a few large breaks.

The Winlids would be better served and wouldn't have any issues if they did turn busy detection on and allowed another 5 minutes for their emails.

The road could be shared. Just sounds to me like they don't want to share it.

But I wouldn't be so rash as to call people out as to not running busy detection. There is a possibility, albeit a slight one, that although its RECOMMENDED to turn it off, that some people haven't. Sure, the protocol is wasteful, and steps on people all the time. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they are purposely turning off busy detection either, unless you can prove it without a doubt.

The QRM argument is more than enough-don't blow it up even further by making accusations you cannot prove-it would probably help your cause http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Ok but in the winlink world the PMBO does not sit on one specific freq. They scan freqs constantly on all bands. Some PMBO's scan up to 10 different freqs and when it stops on a freq that hears it is being called it fires up and starts not caring who was on the freq first. That is how winlink works.

Packet radio sits on one freq and does not scan several freqs. It is alwasy listening to that freq for traffic.

Do you see the big difference here?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a few 'hotspot' frequencies that winlink watch seems to monitor.

If thats the case, though its not right they are doing this, wouldn't it behoove you if you wanted to run a packet network to perhaps stay away from those 'hotspots'?

Remember-APRS started on a specific VHF frequency, and when it was found they were interfering with other stuff, they were asked to move (nicely!) and everyone did. Now, Winlink obviously isn't this polite, but is perhaps the reason the FCC isn't doing anything is because its HF, not as locally controlled as VHF (with repeater coordination, etc) is first come first served?

Every week we see a new topic on this to keep it in the limelight. Every topic gets pages and pages of replies. I want to know why the FCC isn't doing anything, and why we suddenly this week, pick out one user and post his life story along with a photo to make the point.

Sure, they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but clearly by staying on the same places they commonly use, they are going to stomp you every time. Common sense would tell you to move to where you won't be. YES, then they would win, but if your goal is to be able to chat to your buddies, why sit where you know you're gonna get stomped?

[ne3r]

Unfortunately, the original post doesn't give any information on the packet stations that were interfered with. In this case, I don't think it is likely that AE6XO would not have heard N5PVL but would have heard WB0TAX. Of course, there are a lot of unknowns. I'm assuming 20 meters.

http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=ae6xo (current location ~ 400 miles S of San Diego) On a boat, it is probably safe to assume that some sort of non directional antenna is being used


http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=WB0TAX-WL

Quote[/b] ]We currently use a Kenwood TS-2000 and have a TS-870s as a backup. We can not say enough good about the SCS PTC-II. It is a great device that can copy signals not heard by ear. We have a tribander and B&W folder dipole which work well. The beam normally stays pointed to the South East

Now if that yagi was pointed south west, the story changes, AE6XO may have been able to hear WB0TAX and not N5PVL, unless N5PVL had a bam pointed the same way. Either way, WB0TAX was likely in the 20 meter skip zone for N5PVL.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 05 2007,12:10)]KD6NIG says:
Quote[/b] ]
Funny, in other topics on this very same BB there are nets on HF that claim to have "ownership" of frequencies, but people say that they shouldn't.

Yep, a radio roach.

That whiney, blustery tone is hard to miss. One excuse or negative theory after another in a string, hoping one of them will 'catch', just like a small child would do.
Call me what you wish, but I'm beginning to see that BOTH sides are just as guilty.

When you stoop as low as to start picking individuals out and targeting them, you become as low as the people causing the QRM.

I'm done.

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,12:15)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 05 2007,12:10)]KD6NIG says:
Quote[/b] ]
Funny, in other topics on this very same BB there are nets on HF that claim to have "ownership" of frequencies, but people say that they shouldn't.

Yep, a radio roach.

That whiney, blustery tone is hard to miss. One excuse or negative theory after another in a string, hoping one of them will 'catch', just like a small child would do.
Call me what you wish, but I'm beginning to see that BOTH sides are just as guilty.

When you stoop as low as to start picking individuals out and targeting them, you become as low as the people causing the QRM.

I'm done.
I think the main difference is, packet is more likely to stand by on a busy frequency, where Pactor is not (probably because most users have chosen to disable busy detection).

[k2gsp]

I think the biggest reason there has been no action from the FCC, is because until recently there was no one documenting what was going on. Even now there are many instances where you can't even identify who is doing the interfering, because of the protocal being used and the lack of callsign use. I think the FCC will act once this new eveidence is put to them.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,15:01)]Every bandplan I've seen shows ranges of frequencies for modes, calling frequencies (with notation that communications BE ESTABLISHED THEN MOVED OFF SAID FREQUENCY!) and stuff like that.
You know that would be fine but it is almost impossible to move a packet qso once you are connected. Have you ever operated digital? Almost sounds like you haven't. Digital is not like voice where it is very easy to move once comms are established.

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 04 2007,13:15)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 05 2007,12:10)]KD6NIG says:
Quote[/b] ]
Funny, in other topics on this very same BB there are nets on HF that claim to have "ownership" of frequencies, but people say that they shouldn't.

Yep, a radio roach.

That whiney, blustery tone is hard to miss. One excuse or negative theory after another in a string, hoping one of them will 'catch', just like a small child would do.
Call me what you wish, but I'm beginning to see that BOTH sides are just as guilty.

When you stoop as low as to start picking individuals out and targeting them, you become as low as the people causing the QRM.

I'm done.
How is someone guilty of anything by tx within their rights and license; such as was the case with the packet signal? I say they did nothing wrong and the Pactor stations should wait their turn like everyone else.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,15:10)]Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a few 'hotspot' frequencies that winlink watch seems to monitor.

If thats the case, though its not right they are doing this, wouldn't it behoove you if you wanted to run a packet network to perhaps stay away from those 'hotspots'?

Remember-APRS started on a specific VHF frequency, and when it was found they were interfering with other stuff, they were asked to move (nicely!) and everyone did. Now, Winlink obviously isn't this polite, but is perhaps the reason the FCC isn't doing anything is because its HF, not as locally controlled as VHF (with repeater coordination, etc) is first come first served?

Every week we see a new topic on this to keep it in the limelight. Every topic gets pages and pages of replies. I want to know why the FCC isn't doing anything, and why we suddenly this week, pick out one user and post his life story along with a photo to make the point.

Sure, they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but clearly by staying on the same places they commonly use, they are going to stomp you every time. Common sense would tell you to move to where you won't be. YES, then they would win, but if your goal is to be able to chat to your buddies, why sit where you know you're gonna get stomped?
The reason we monitor is that is where our digital groups have been for years. What you are saying is that a new kid comes into town and starts a new game and then asks all the other kids playing the old game to move out of the park they have been using for years. Now this just sounds stupid. You are acting like a winlid. You are saying we should just up and move just because a bully came into town. Sorry I don't buy that. Your thinking is flawed and way off the mark. Again I say you probably do not operate any digital modes so how can you comment on this issue?

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,12:19)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,15:01)]Every bandplan I've seen shows ranges of frequencies for modes, calling frequencies (with notation that communications BE ESTABLISHED THEN MOVED OFF SAID FREQUENCY!) and stuff like that.
You know that would be fine but it is almost impossible to move a packet qso once you are connected. Have you ever operated digital? Almost sounds like you haven't. Digital is not like voice where it is very easy to move once comms are established.
Look at my sig. I operate a packet node/pbbs and have for years. The difference? Its on VHF, and around here we have a specific list of frequencies thats designated for said use. I believe there are 5, if I'm not mistaken.

HF is a different animal, but it sounds to me like some kind of packet network is being interfered with, which seems to like to use one frequency, a-la VHF. But there isn't a specific specified frequency for that. I know there are call frequencies and ranges of frequencies usually specified-not like where my packet sits, which according to the ARRL repeater directory as well as other sources, the frequency I use is listed as "PACKET" just like "APRS" is also specified on its national frequency.

I'm not saying its right to have to move, but this particular topic went from 'those winlids' to picking out one who happened to trash a QSO. Then it goes into details about the guy. Not that the guy is a saint if he trashed a QSO. But, when you start naming names and getting personal, you start to wonder if its a war, an obsession, or a move out of desperation.

I don't operate Packet on HF as I am a NCT. Thats why I'm posing the questions I'm asking. I have no dog in this hunt-I check my email via the internet not HF radio.

But having come from CB 15 years ago, I seem to recall the fights on there would suddenly get personal when one of the parties suddenly felt like they were losing.

I'm wondering if the FCC noticed that even though Winlids are in the wrong, that the stations affected have done nothing to attempt to move away from the interference as the bandplan allows.

It becomes a valid question when the war gets personal like it did with this posting. It went CB, or 75m by doing that kind of thing, in my opinion. Call me what you want, but its taken another step beyond where it was. Noting who uses a PMBO is one thing. Singling a person out and posting a biography.....its beyond. Its gone from a fight against QRM to.....being personal, it seems to me.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,12:28)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,15:10)]Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a few 'hotspot' frequencies that winlink watch seems to monitor.

If thats the case, though its not right they are doing this, wouldn't it behoove you if you wanted to run a packet network to perhaps stay away from those 'hotspots'?

Remember-APRS started on a specific VHF frequency, and when it was found they were interfering with other stuff, they were asked to move (nicely!) and everyone did. Now, Winlink obviously isn't this polite, but is perhaps the reason the FCC isn't doing anything is because its HF, not as locally controlled as VHF (with repeater coordination, etc) is first come first served?

Every week we see a new topic on this to keep it in the limelight. Every topic gets pages and pages of replies. I want to know why the FCC isn't doing anything, and why we suddenly this week, pick out one user and post his life story along with a photo to make the point.

Sure, they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but clearly by staying on the same places they commonly use, they are going to stomp you every time. Common sense would tell you to move to where you won't be. YES, then they would win, but if your goal is to be able to chat to your buddies, why sit where you know you're gonna get stomped?
The reason we monitor is that is where our digital groups have been for years. What you are saying is that a new kid comes into town and starts a new game and then asks all the other kids playing the old game to move out of the park they have been using for years. Now this just sounds stupid. You are acting like a winlid. You are saying we should just up and move just because a bully came into town. Sorry I don't buy that. Your thinking is flawed and way off the mark. Again I say you probably do not operate any digital modes so how can you comment on this issue?
Ok, so just because you have an established net there, everyone else should give way.

That must mean you also agree that every other net on HF should have that same right, and if you dare use their frequency, they should have the right to tell you to buzz off, right?

Just because its packet doesn't make it any different than if its SSB, or CW, unless of course the bandplan restricts modes.

Correct?

[k6jpd]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 05 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] ]
I am located at the southern tip of Texas, the WinLid server is in Louisianna, the Customer is in the northeastern US or out at sea, and the Packet net has stations all over the continental US.

Um, if you're still talking about AE6XO, he's in the west.

Quote[/b] ]
(edit) ... as "the customer" isn't where you think he is.
according to the APRS info that is on the winlink site,
he is in fact "at sea" off the coast of santo domingo as of about 4 hours ago:http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/winlink.cgi?AE6XO

Position of AE6XO --- 49.7 miles southwest of SANTO DOMINGO, BC --- Report received 4 hours 14 minutes 17 seconds ago
Status: 2007/11/05 15:19 UTC 25-10.80N 112-40.30W

[ne3r]

Quote[/b] (k6jpd @ Nov. 05 2007,12:41)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 05 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] ]
I am located at the southern tip of Texas, the WinLid server is in Louisianna, the Customer is in the northeastern US or out at sea, and the Packet net has stations all over the continental US.

Um, if you're still talking about AE6XO, he's in the west.

Quote[/b] ]
(edit) ... as "the customer" isn't where you think he is.
according to the APRS info that is on the winlink site,
he is in fact "at sea" off the coast of santo domingo as of about 4 hours ago:http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/winlink.cgi?AE6XO

Position of AE6XO --- 49.7 miles southwest of SANTO DOMINGO, BC --- Report received 4 hours 14 minutes 17 seconds ago
Status: 2007/11/05 15:19 UTC 25-10.80N 112-40.30W
That info isn't exactly APRS, there is a way to directly update findu.com via Winlink. It doesn't touch APRS or the APRS internet system.

73 de Joe NE3R

[N5PVL]

The 14.098 skipnet has stations registered in: CA,ND,LA,AR,AK,ME,FL,MO,IN,CO,WI,MN,NM,MI in the US, and BC in Canada.

There were only a few stations forwarding messages at the time, but I see the aguement about how many stations were being interfered with as being academic. The #CA skipnet station would be too close to copy most likely, but not the ones in the central US, as my station and WB0TAX are. Those midwest stations regularly forward with the CA guy, so again, unless there is some magical quirk of propagation that wipes out everything but WinLid systems - besides WinLid itself of course - then the fellow had ample opportunity to hear anything he might have bothered to listen for.

Normally there are two, four or six stations on frequency at a given time. I have seen as many as a dozen stations operating at once, but we generally try to avoid that situation by scheduling. From four to eight stations at a given time seems to be optimum.

They all operate in pairs, so its almost always an even number of stations on frequency, the exception being when one station calls for another that hasn't responded yet.

[N5PVL]

KD6NIG says:
Quote[/b] ]
Look at my sig. #I operate a packet node/pbbs and have for years.

Here's a screenshot (http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/N5PVL/newsetup-1.jpg) of my Packet station. - I recently switched software, it's a new BBS.

BPQ32 with WinFBB alpha. MixW for the Virtual KISS Packet TNC with waterfall display ( HF ) and to simultaneously monitor the same frequency for PACTOR transmissions. The VHF TNC is a PK-96.

The MixW system also allows me to monitor W1AW RTTY transmissions elsewhere in the passband - in addition to what I'm already doing. I recommend it very highly to any HF Packet user or SYSOP. - The best TNC I have ever owned, by a long shot.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,15:35)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Nov. 05 2007,12:19)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 05 2007,15:01)]Every bandplan I've seen shows ranges of frequencies for modes, calling frequencies (with notation that communications BE ESTABLISHED THEN MOVED OFF SAID FREQUENCY!) and stuff like that.
You know that would be fine but it is almost impossible to move a packet qso once you are connected. Have you ever operated digital? Almost sounds like you haven't. Digital is not like voice where it is very easy to move once comms are established.
Look at my sig. I operate a packet node/pbbs and have for years. The difference? Its on VHF, and around here we have a specific list of frequencies thats designated for said use. I believe there are 5, if I'm not mistaken.

HF is a different animal, but it sounds to me like some kind of packet network is being interfered with, which seems to like to use one frequency, a-la VHF. But there isn't a specific specified frequency for that. I know there are call frequencies and ranges of frequencies usually specified-not like where my packet sits, which according to the ARRL repeater directory as well as other sources, the frequency I use is listed as "PACKET" just like "APRS" is also specified on its national frequency.

I'm not saying its right to have to move, but this particular topic went from 'those winlids' to picking out one who happened to trash a QSO. Then it goes into details about the guy. Not that the guy is a saint if he trashed a QSO. But, when you start naming names and getting personal, you start to wonder if its a war, an obsession, or a move out of desperation.

I don't operate Packet on HF as I am a NCT. Thats why I'm posing the questions I'm asking. I have no dog in this hunt-I check my email via the internet not HF radio.

But having come from CB 15 years ago, I seem to recall the fights on there would suddenly get personal when one of the parties suddenly felt like they were losing.

I'm wondering if the FCC noticed that even though Winlids are in the wrong, that the stations affected have done nothing to attempt to move away from the interference as the bandplan allows.

It becomes a valid question when the war gets personal like it did with this posting. It went CB, or 75m by doing that kind of thing, in my opinion. Call me what you want, but its taken another step beyond where it was. Noting who uses a PMBO is one thing. Singling a person out and posting a biography.....its beyond. Its gone from a fight against QRM to.....being personal, it seems to me.
Actually the vhf packet and APRS freqs are gentleman's agreement freqs too. I can transmit voice on that freq if I wish just as anyone else can do any mode authorized on those freqs. The only difference it that even with 14.098 and 14.105 being recognized packet freqs on HF they can be heard worldwide and the vhf ones can only go at the most 50 miles line of sight. Now do you see the big picture here? No we don't own those freqs anymore than anyone else but when we are on the freq first we do technically own the freq until we release it. The same rules apply to packet, pactor, amtor, ssb voice, cw, and any other mode out there. The Maritime Mobile net parks on 14.300 but they don't own that freq. The HHH net meets every day on 7.235 and if it is in use we shift up or down. That is called being a good amateur radio operator. Winlids have a ton of different freqs to use but they choose to stay in the auto sub-band because they love to use their bandwidth hogging PIII mode to send their huge file attachments. In fact yesterday I monitored for almost 3 hours an ongoing PIII transmission just below the 14.105 packet freq. The only good thing is it was below and not interfering so I have no problem but what does someone have to send that takes 3 hours to send over hf?

[ad4mg]

Many are overlooking the golden rule. In each case of documented interference, the packet operations were the ongoing QSO in progress that was interfered with.

What other question remains?

It's whoever had the frequency first.

That is most straightforward, and there is nothing else to argue. Packet stations had the frequency, the winlink stations crashed an ongoing QSO.

Keep it simple, and the situation is obvious.

[N5PVL]

ab8yy says:
Quote[/b] ]
Winlink just needs to be removed from the ham bands. #My guess is also that if you simply remove the internet connection from them, it will stop most of them from participating anyway. #That's the only reason for using it.

charles - did you send that picture to Riley? #

Steve
AB8YY

I can see a lot of potential in exchanging information between the two networks ( Packet and the internet ) but using one network to transport the other one's traffic has turned out to be highly detrimental to amateur radio, for a number of reasons.

No, I haven't sent this screen capture to the FCC, I'm seeing what can be done with peer pressure right now. In the past, I have had some success with it and from what I understand, we are encouraged to settle things among ourselves whenever possible, without involving the FCC.

On the other hand, if he persists it may become necessary to make a report, following the procedure (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmaCmpl.html) outlined at the FCC website.

[K1VSK]

Haven't looked at QRZ in a few days and not surprisingly, N5plv has started another in an apparent never-ending quest for what, I am still unsure if it's just attention but that too is a suposition as are most of the accusations here regarding whether or not an interfering station ever heard the ongoing qso.
I previously surreptitiously started a dialogue with him in an attempt to obtain some reasonable opinion regarding whether or not my business should continue to sell this equipment. After some others responded with some factual info, we still continue to market the equipment based on the premise that if we did not, someone else would. So in continuing, we could help to educate potential users.

Although some people just want to use this forum to further their own personal opinion and bias, be it winlink, ARRL, etc, it does prove useful despite the libel, exaggeration and personal attacks, unfortunate as they may be. Exchanging ideas in a sensible manner becomes difficult here.

Toward that end, if anyone else here has any objective information we could impart to prospective users, please convey that info if you have the time.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Nov. 05 2007,20:20)]Haven't looked at QRZ in a few days and not surprisingly, N5plv has started another in an apparent never-ending quest for what, I am still unsure if it's just attention but that too is a suposition as are most of the accusations here regarding whether or not an interfering station ever heard the ongoing qso.
I previously surreptitiously started a dialogue with him in an attempt to obtain some reasonable opinion regarding whether or not my business should continue to sell this equipment. After some others responded with some factual info, we still continue to market the equipment based on the premise that if we did not, someone else would. So in continuing, we could help to educate potential users.

Although some people just want to use this forum to further their own personal opinion and bias, be it winlink, ARRL, etc, it does prove useful despite the libel, exaggeration and personal attacks, unfortunate as they may be. Exchanging ideas in a sensible manner becomes difficult here.

Toward that end, if anyone else here has any objective information we could impart to prospective users, please convey that info if you have the time.
Yes ... please encourage them to listen first before transmitting. Encourage them to utilize the signal detection feature in their modem. Encourage them to share amateur radio with others, and be courteous operators. Encourage them to openly participate in the winlink discussion groups, and discourage the veil of secrecy surrounding the operation of this network.

Teach them that they should expect that anything transmitted over amateur frequencies is in the public domain. Teach them the rules regarding what is permissible regarding internet email sent using amateur radio. Teach them that winlink is not a free replacement for legitimate commercial ventures providing the same service, per Part 97 regulations. Encourage them to use winlink when necessary, and not to use it when other services are available (when docked, for example ... Wifi is frequently available for a nominal fee).

Encourage the technically oriented among your customers to improve upon the wasteful practices utilized by this network.

Teach all of them that amateur radio exists for the pleasure of many, not the few. Make sure they get a microphone with the rig, so that they understand that the radio is not a device designed solely to transfer internet email.

And, above all, encourage them to replace the current network administrator, who is hateful, secretive, and has no regard for his fellow amateurs.

If you can accomplish 1/2 of the above, I'm certain winlink can overcome the overwhelmingly negative impression most amateurs have of this network.

Did I mention to encourage them to listen first?

EDIT: And, in the event that the