Winlinkers are a threat to CW

[kc7gnm]

This is a comment from the ECFS in regards to RM-11392.

Quote[/b] ]One of the primary tenents of amateur radio is expermentation.
To restrict the banpass allowed for amateur radio is to stifle
expermentation.
This petition was made by some disgruntled person that thinks that
his space is being imposed upon.
Please consider just the opposite. Increase the allowed bandwidth.
to 10 or 15 khz width in the lower portions of all bands.
The bands are very underutilized. Why waste so much of the bands
to CW when there are very few that use that mode. Move up in the
world, use the bands for modes that are relevant.
Try increasing the utilization of the bands and experpentation not trying to stifle it.
Thank You
David Alexander K7DA

This is the mentality of the winlink camp and they are not only wanting all the digital bandwidth but they want CW,RTTY, PSK .... etc. This is the way these folks think and if RM-11392 is defeated then they will have won a victory. Next they will propose taking over more of the CW/RTTY spectrum that they say is "underutilized". We have until the 1st to stop these guys so if you are a CW op then you might want to take a look at this RM. It not only protects other digital ops but it also protects CW ops. If you do comment please write a well thought out comment and not the boiler plate ones the winlink camp is using. Support this RM because it will probably be CW they will be coming after next.

[ky5u]

Yes, the scenario is they use so much of the data subband that it runs rtty and PSK users down on the present CW areas.

[W4INF]

QRO

[ne3r]

There are thousands of active CW operators. It is hard to tune through the bottom of an open band and not find at least one CW signal every 2 kHz or so, more in the evenings or on weekends.

73 de Joe NE3R

[ab8yy]

How can they possibly claim that this part of the bands is underutilized?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif? When the band is open you can barely find an empty spot to call CQ on RTTY or PSK! And CW is all over their subband on those days and nights. That is a very false statement. Winlink needs to be defeated at any cost. The FCC can't possibly take those comments with a grain of salt. The complaints about the QRM proves they are wrong completely wrong.

Steve

And to those who call us "radio cops" this is the reason we MUST be radio cops in the first place. Otherwise one single group of people will attempt to take over the whole band in time, if left unchecked.

Remember too, this is being done with the help and sanction of the ARRL. Where is our representation? They COULD get involved with this RM and help get it thru - couldn't they?

[K1CJS]

These people are obviously on in the morning and during the day, when the bands are quietest. #It's no big thing to go to some segment of the band, listen for a few minutes, and then say its quiet--which is what they're OBVIOUSLY doing.

If they have to have their winlink, let 'em do it in the section of the band reserved for the digital modes--not the CW segments or the phone segments. Too bad if its crowded--the other segments are crowded too.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Dec. 29 2007,09:58)]There are thousands of active CW operators. It is hard to tune through the bottom of an open band and not find at least one CW signal every 2 kHz or so, more in the evenings or on weekends.

73 de Joe NE3R
Apparently that is not what the winlinkers think. They think CW ops are under utilizing the band and that they should have the spectrum.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (W4INF @ Dec. 29 2007,00:17)]QRO
call me a lid if you want but that is how I am doing it. When I am QRO I rarely am interfered with by the Winlink idiot fringe.

Most of the WinLinkers are running compromise antennas on sailboats and RVs and 100 watts. They are no match for a 4el yagi and 1500w. Most of the PMBOs won't run QRO because it will increase their power bills substantially.

I'm going to get a legal limit amp that can do continuous 1500w RTTY so I can operate 1500w psk31 and CW in peace.

F*** them. Screw the whole lot. Their stupid sailboats could sink to the bottom of Davy Jones locker for all I care.

I'm sorry it has become an arms race, but I am fed up of being walked on.

The gloves are off.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 29 2007,12:34)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Dec. 29 2007,09:58)]There are thousands of active CW operators. It is hard to tune through the bottom of an open band and not find at least one CW signal every 2 kHz or so, more in the evenings or on weekends.

73 de Joe NE3R
Apparently that is not what the winlinkers think. They think CW ops are under utilizing the band and that they should have the spectrum.
It's not even that.

The WinLinkers and other sailboat owners are of the opinion that HF should be strictly for maritime use.

I've seen on at least one sailing board that "The FCC should turn over those frequencies to us. Its for ships at sea, not for a few hobbyists."

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 28 2007,18:58)]This is a comment from the ECFS in regards to RM-11392.

Quote[/b] ]One of the primary tenents of amateur radio is expermentation.
To restrict the banpass allowed for amateur radio is to stifle
expermentation.
This petition was made by some disgruntled person that thinks that
his space is being imposed upon.
Please consider just the opposite. Increase the allowed bandwidth.
to 10 or 15 khz width in the lower portions of all bands.
The bands are very underutilized. Why waste so much of the bands
to CW when there are very few that use that mode. Move up in the
world, use the bands for modes that are relevant.
Try increasing the utilization of the bands and experpentation not trying to stifle it.
Thank You
David Alexander K7DA

This is the mentality of the winlink camp and they are not only wanting all the digital bandwidth but they want CW,RTTY, PSK .... etc. #This is the way these folks think and if RM-11392 is defeated then they will have won a victory. Next they will propose taking over more of the CW/RTTY spectrum that they say is "underutilized". We have until the 1st to stop these guys so if you are a CW op then you might want to take a look at this RM. It not only protects other digital ops but it also protects CW ops. If you do comment please write a well thought out comment and not the boiler plate ones the winlink camp is using. Support this RM because it will probably be CW they will be coming after next.
I'm taking bets most WinLinkers couldn't copy code to save their lives. I'll also include a side bet that most of these "technologically advanced" folks have some deep seeded interpersonal communication issues.

They actually think this is new and innovative. It's like the Clampetts "movin to the hills of Beverly". Whoooooeeeeee! We got ourselves a Seeeement pond!

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 29 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 28 2007,18:58)]This is a comment from the ECFS in regards to RM-11392.

Quote[/b] ]One of the primary tenents of amateur radio is expermentation.
To restrict the banpass allowed for amateur radio is to stifle
expermentation.
This petition was made by some disgruntled person that thinks that
his space is being imposed upon.
Please consider just the opposite. Increase the allowed bandwidth.
to 10 or 15 khz width in the lower portions of all bands.
The bands are very underutilized. Why waste so much of the bands
to CW when there are very few that use that mode. Move up in the
world, use the bands for modes that are relevant.
Try increasing the utilization of the bands and experpentation not trying to stifle it.
Thank You
David Alexander K7DA

This is the mentality of the winlink camp and they are not only wanting all the digital bandwidth but they want CW,RTTY, PSK .... etc. This is the way these folks think and if RM-11392 is defeated then they will have won a victory. Next they will propose taking over more of the CW/RTTY spectrum that they say is "underutilized". We have until the 1st to stop these guys so if you are a CW op then you might want to take a look at this RM. It not only protects other digital ops but it also protects CW ops. If you do comment please write a well thought out comment and not the boiler plate ones the winlink camp is using. Support this RM because it will probably be CW they will be coming after next.
I'm taking bets most WinLinkers couldn't copy code to save their lives. I'll also include a side bet that most of these "technologically advanced" folks have some deep seeded interpersonal communication issues.

They actually think this is new and innovative. It's like the Clampetts "movin to the hills of Beverly". Whoooooeeeeee! We got ourselves a Seeeement pond!
Well to be honest I cannot copy code to save my life either. I passed the 5wpm test years ago then dumped it. I however respect other modes of operation and CW just happens to be one of them. Winlink has no respect for any mode. They just want more of the spectrum so they can use their so called advanced ham radio email to bypass commercial interests.

[k0dxc]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 28 2007,16:58)]This is a comment from the ECFS in regards to RM-11392.

Quote[/b] ]One of the primary tenents of amateur radio is expermentation.
To restrict the banpass allowed for amateur radio is to stifle
expermentation.
This petition was made by some disgruntled person that thinks that
his space is being imposed upon.
Please consider just the opposite. Increase the allowed bandwidth.
to 10 or 15 khz width in the lower portions of all bands.
The bands are very underutilized. Why waste so much of the bands
to CW when there are very few that use that mode. Move up in the
world, use the bands for modes that are relevant.
Try increasing the utilization of the bands and experpentation not trying to stifle it.
Thank You
David Alexander K7DA

This is the mentality of the winlink camp and they are not only wanting all the digital bandwidth but they want CW,RTTY, PSK .... etc. This is the way these folks think and if RM-11392 is defeated then they will have won a victory. Next they will propose taking over more of the CW/RTTY spectrum that they say is "underutilized". We have until the 1st to stop these guys so if you are a CW op then you might want to take a look at this RM. It not only protects other digital ops but it also protects CW ops. If you do comment please write a well thought out comment and not the boiler plate ones the winlink camp is using. Support this RM because it will probably be CW they will be coming after next.
Nooooooooooo

not my CW!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

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

[KC9JIQ]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 29 2007,10:43)]Quote[/b] (W4INF @ Dec. 29 2007,00:17)]QRO
call me a lid if you want but that is how I am doing it. #When I am QRO I rarely am interfered with by the Winlink idiot fringe.

Most of the WinLinkers are running compromise antennas on sailboats and RVs and 100 watts. #They are no match for a 4el yagi and 1500w. #Most of the PMBOs won't run QRO because it will increase their power bills substantially. #

I'm going to get a legal limit amp that can do continuous 1500w RTTY so I can operate 1500w psk31 and CW in peace.

F*** them. #Screw the whole lot. #Their stupid sailboats could sink to the bottom of Davy Jones locker for all I care.

I'm sorry it has become an arms race, but I am fed up of being walked on. #

The gloves are off.
That was just... GREAT!

But you know what, I can see a day when the SSB nets complain about CW stations taking over their frequencies, and WinLink does a hostile takover of the CW spectrum forcing the CW folks to move up the band!

Messin' with hams and their CW, it will not be a pretty sight! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Dec. 29 2007,18:50)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 29 2007,10:43)]Quote[/b] (W4INF @ Dec. 29 2007,00:17)]QRO
call me a lid if you want but that is how I am doing it. When I am QRO I rarely am interfered with by the Winlink idiot fringe.

Most of the WinLinkers are running compromise antennas on sailboats and RVs and 100 watts. They are no match for a 4el yagi and 1500w. Most of the PMBOs won't run QRO because it will increase their power bills substantially.

I'm going to get a legal limit amp that can do continuous 1500w RTTY so I can operate 1500w psk31 and CW in peace.

F*** them. Screw the whole lot. Their stupid sailboats could sink to the bottom of Davy Jones locker for all I care.

I'm sorry it has become an arms race, but I am fed up of being walked on.

The gloves are off.
That was just... GREAT!

But you know what, I can see a day when the SSB nets complain about CW stations taking over their frequencies, and WinLink does a hostile takover of the CW spectrum forcing the CW folks to move up the band!

Messin' with hams and their CW, it will not be a pretty sight! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Won't happen. If you've never tried to have a cw qso with an ssb on top of you, it ain't fun. CW never bothers ssb'ers since they can just notch out the carrier. Some of the newer dsp rigs have multiple automatic notches and just aren't concerned with cw.

Jim
WA0LYK

[WA0LYK]

I'll be honest I've been doing some doodling and I'm not sure we shouldn't recommend putting the auto sub-bands at the bottom of the general phone segments. It just might serve them right.

I've got to do some more figuring but it boils down to this. A 100 watt peanut rig with a peanut antenna on a peanut boat trying to deal with 1500 watt output amps (at least), huge antennas, compressed audio, and rf clipped ssb boys might just put them out of business.

Jim
WA0LYK

[N5PVL]

My favorite policy is to rectify matters by giving our rules and regulations back some of the bite that they have lost due to the machinations of the hinternetters, over the years.

The rules and regulations we have right now are capable of handling the problem, but only if they are backed up by the amateur radio community. - Without that support, no amount of new rules or regulations can seriously be expected to have much effect.

Of all the potential bandwagons that hams could jump onto, a "Let's play well together, respecting the rules, the hobby, each other and ourselves" would be a hard one for me to resist. There are probably lots of other hams who feel the same.

I'd like to see the Amateurs Code as prominently displayed and as closely followed as it was in years past. One sure indicator of how good the Amateurs Code is for the hobby is that hinternetters universally fear and dispise it.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #That's good enough for me! #}

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 29 2007,22:16)]I'll be honest I've been doing some doodling and I'm not sure we shouldn't recommend putting the auto sub-bands at the bottom of the general phone segments. #It just might serve them right.

I've got to do some more figuring but it boils down to this. #A 100 watt peanut rig with a peanut antenna on a peanut boat trying to deal with 1500 watt output amps (at least), huge antennas, compressed audio, and rf clipped ssb boys might just put them out of business. #

Jim
WA0LYK
I have been thinking somewhat along those same lines.

Although many of you do not agree with my take on it, I believe that expanding the sub-bands and sub-dividing them is a good compromise that preserves those legitimate uses of WL2K on amateur bands. Note that I would not recommend expanding them to the size some of the more ardent WinLink/ALE whackoes insist upon, but wide enough to give the packet and other "narrow-band" folks a chance.

I see RM-11392 as much a shot over their bows as a viable petition -- though I hasten to add that I support it and would hope to see it enacted with the proviso of an enlarged auto-ops sub-band system.

If this petition fails, it will not be because of Bonnie and K0QED's attempt to manipulate the ECFS by sending an army of mindless automatons to file inanities. It will fail because of some hidden agenda within the FCC -- and the recent decisions affecting the publication of the petition and its comment period convince me of that.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 29 2007,21:16)]I'll be honest I've been doing some doodling and I'm not sure we shouldn't recommend putting the auto sub-bands at the bottom of the general phone segments. #It just might serve them right.

I've got to do some more figuring but it boils down to this. #A 100 watt peanut rig with a peanut antenna on a peanut boat trying to deal with 1500 watt output amps (at least), huge antennas, compressed audio, and rf clipped ssb boys might just put them out of business. #

Jim
WA0LYK
Another attempt to put the HF Packet network out of business?

I don't think that is the intent there, but it would still end up being the result - for the reason you mention.

I'd like to see a solution that niether penalizes law-abiding, good operators ( including HF Packet stations ) nor gives away any of our spectrum forever to a channelized commercial-style service for non-ham communications.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 30 2007,09:57)]I'd like to see a solution that niether penalizes law-abiding, good operators ( including HF Packet stations ) nor gives away any of our spectrum forever to a channelized commercial-style service for non-ham communications.
Just what solution do you have in mind that would do as you want?

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 30 2007,06:57)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 29 2007,21:16)]I'll be honest I've been doing some doodling and I'm not sure we shouldn't recommend putting the auto sub-bands at the bottom of the general phone segments. It just might serve them right.

I've got to do some more figuring but it boils down to this. A 100 watt peanut rig with a peanut antenna on a peanut boat trying to deal with 1500 watt output amps (at least), huge antennas, compressed audio, and rf clipped ssb boys might just put them out of business.

Jim
WA0LYK
Another attempt to put the HF Packet network out of business?

I don't think that is the intent there, but it would still end up being the result - for the reason you mention.

I'd like to see a solution that niether penalizes law-abiding, good operators ( including HF Packet stations ) nor gives away any of our spectrum forever to a channelized commercial-style service for non-ham communications.
Actually I didn't post everything that was in my mind when I posted the comment.

I was thinking that since they want "wide" modes then let's make an auto sub-band for wide/narrow modes the phone portion and leave the existing auto sub-bands in the rtty/data portions for "narrow" only.

This does have the benefit of NOT granting the wide data modes an exclusive area to operate, it WILL be shared with AM, SSB, image, etc!

Jim
WA0LYK

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 30 2007,09:05)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 30 2007,09:57)]I'd like to see a solution that niether penalizes law-abiding, good operators ( including HF Packet stations ) nor gives away any of our spectrum forever to a channelized commercial-style service for non-ham communications.
Just what solution do you have in mind that would do as you want?
1. Ban anything other than SL1/2 Pactor III from the HF bands below 28Mhz.

2. Regulate the hardware, ban the sale or manufacture of any modems capable of having signal detection shut off.

3. Ban any and all closed protocols. It's defacto encryption. I know we've had this conversation before and that Clover and G-TOR were both proprietary. Just because we were stupid in the past means we have to continue to be stupid?

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 30 2007,10:57)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 30 2007,09:05)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 30 2007,09:57)]I'd like to see a solution that niether penalizes law-abiding, good operators ( including HF Packet stations ) nor gives away any of our spectrum forever to a channelized commercial-style service for non-ham communications.
Just what solution do you have in mind that would do as you want?
1. Ban anything other than SL1/2 Pactor III from the HF bands below 28Mhz.

2. Regulate the hardware, ban the sale or manufacture of any modems capable of having signal detection shut off.

3. Ban any and all closed protocols. It's defacto encryption. I know we've had this conversation before and that Clover and G-TOR were both proprietary. Just because we were stupid in the past means we have to continue to be stupid?
That is exactly what RM-11392 is going to do if it passes. I sorta agree with Albert however I say why not sub divide what we have now in the auto sub-bands. Don't give them more space, give them less and force them to work with themselves. It is funny almost every other mode can opertate in a few khz but pactor III needs 20 times more space than any other mode. This is just a thought only so Charles don't jump all over me as it being gospel. I think take the current auto sub-bands and give them about 6khz of it. Then they can operate all the wide band crap they want to. Then they won't have an argument about stifling innovation because then they can experiment all they want there. Maybe a new mode will come out and will start to interfere with their pactor III signal and vice versa. Then maybe they will get a taste of what us packet operators feel like in the current sub-band. The only problem would be the winlinkers would cry that is not enough space since it is never enough for them. Then we could use the exact same argument against them and say they are stifling our innovation of narrow band modes because they want our space too. Maybe only giving them 6khz would force them to actually think about sharing because then the only ones QRMing them would be themselves.

Add. I think the winlink and ALE camp seem to forget that this is a hobby first and emcomm second. They think we all are emcomm whackers and that if an emergency happens we should transfer all frequencies to them. Sorry I got into Ham Radio as a hobby to have fun and learn, not to be some whacker with an orange vest thinking I can do better than the professionals.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 30 2007,11:20)]...I sorta agree with Albert however I say why not sub divide what we have now in the auto sub-bands. Don't give them more space, give them less and force them to work with themselves...
Alas, by doing that you would only cause yourselves (packeteers) more grief by moving narrower, but far denser, competition into your own lanes.

In my view, the answer is to give them sufficient encouragement to employ the fastest speeds they can in modest bandwidth to encourage them to seek a more efficient paradigm of self-regulation for their own needs. That may best be accomplished by giving them some added room with a maximum of 1.5kHz -- though more could readily be argued if an NPRM is forthcoming.

It would be nice to see the debate centered on reasoned comments containing ideas targeted to solving the problems, rather than the usual brainless much now being foisted on the minions of the Commission by Bonnie and her tribe of ill-advised boosters.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 30 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 30 2007,11:20)]...I sorta agree with Albert however I say why not sub divide what we have now in the auto sub-bands. Don't give them more space, give them less and force them to work with themselves...
Alas, by doing that you would only cause yourselves (packeteers) more grief by moving narrower, but far denser, competition into your own lanes.

In my view, the answer is to give them sufficient encouragement to employ the fastest speeds they can in modest bandwidth to encourage them to seek a more efficient paradigm of self-regulation for their own needs. That may best be accomplished by giving them some added room with a maximum of 1.5kHz -- though more could readily be argued if an NPRM is forthcoming.

It would be nice to see the debate centered on reasoned comments containing ideas targeted to solving the problems, rather than the usual brainless much now being foisted on the minions of the Commission by Bonnie and her tribe of ill-advised boosters.
Not really Albert. Packet is only about 500hz wide and even if we only had the same amount of space as the wide banders we could have 5 times the number of users than they could. Also because packet by its very nature is very spectrum friendly and time shares much better than pactor you can have many users on the same frequency and they won't interfere with each other. Now take a psk31 or psk125 signal and you can fit even more into the same bandwidth. Point is they will have to learn to co-exist finally with themselves since they obviously do not want to co-exist with other modes.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 30 2007,09:04)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 30 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 30 2007,11:20)]...I sorta agree with Albert however I say why not sub divide what we have now in the auto sub-bands. Don't give them more space, give them less and force them to work with themselves...
Alas, by doing that you would only cause yourselves (packeteers) more grief by moving narrower, but far denser, competition into your own lanes.

In my view, the answer is to give them sufficient encouragement to employ the fastest speeds they can in modest bandwidth to encourage them to seek a more efficient paradigm of self-regulation for their own needs. That may best be accomplished by giving them some added room with a maximum of 1.5kHz -- though more could readily be argued if an NPRM is forthcoming.

It would be nice to see the debate centered on reasoned comments containing ideas targeted to solving the problems, rather than the usual brainless much now being foisted on the minions of the Commission by Bonnie and her tribe of ill-advised boosters.
Not really Albert. Packet is only about 500hz wide and even if we only had the same amount of space as the wide banders we could have 5 times the number of users than they could. Also because packet by its very nature is very spectrum friendly and time shares much better than pactor you can have many users on the same frequency and they won't interfere with each other. Now take a psk31 or psk125 signal and you can fit even more into the same bandwidth. Point is they will have to learn to co-exist finally with themselves since they obviously do not want to co-exist with other modes.
The problem is that you'll still be dealing with pactor II in the narrow portions that still don't have any busy detection.

Jim
WA0LYK

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 30 2007,12:56)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 30 2007,09:04)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 30 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 30 2007,11:20)]...I sorta agree with Albert however I say why not sub divide what we have now in the auto sub-bands. Don't give them more space, give them less and force them to work with themselves...
Alas, by doing that you would only cause yourselves (packeteers) more grief by moving narrower, but far denser, competition into your own lanes.

In my view, the answer is to give them sufficient encouragement to employ the fastest speeds they can in modest bandwidth to encourage them to seek a more efficient paradigm of self-regulation for their own needs. That may best be accomplished by giving them some added room with a maximum of 1.5kHz -- though more could readily be argued if an NPRM is forthcoming.

It would be nice to see the debate centered on reasoned comments containing ideas targeted to solving the problems, rather than the usual brainless much now being foisted on the minions of the Commission by Bonnie and her tribe of ill-advised boosters.
Not really Albert. Packet is only about 500hz wide and even if we only had the same amount of space as the wide banders we could have 5 times the number of users than they could. Also because packet by its very nature is very spectrum friendly and time shares much better than pactor you can have many users on the same frequency and they won't interfere with each other. Now take a psk31 or psk125 signal and you can fit even more into the same bandwidth. Point is they will have to learn to co-exist finally with themselves since they obviously do not want to co-exist with other modes.
The problem is that you'll still be dealing with pactor II in the narrow portions that still don't have any busy detection.

Jim
WA0LYK
True but we have to work on one problem at a time. I think getting them back into conformance of what the FCC intended the CW/Data band to be.

[k0dxc]

What a debate.

are any of you guys running for president? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[k0dxc]

Heck what am I talking about I still can't vote http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC7YPJ]

where to put them or how to get them to play nice are moot points, winlink by it's definition is illegal to operate on several differant points.
1: It is encrypted
2: the overwhelming majority of use is for retrieving e-mail from 3rd party sources
3: It's sole practical reason for use is to avoid paying for the commercial sailmail service

people can argue till there blue in the face about where to put winlink or how to reduce or eliminate the qrm, how much bandwidth should be allowed, or how to eliminate the automatic-semi auto loophole, it still doesn't change the fact that the use of the system as implemented is flat out without a doubt %100 illegal to use in the first place.
I will be supporting the rm, trying to get a comment written up that doesn't go off the deep end on the 3 points I just listed.
enforce the rules we have in place currently and you eliminate the problem, the rm is a needed measure for future issue's with wide modes eliminating an entire sub band and the dozens of narrow mode qso's that were there first.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC7YPJ @ Dec. 30 2007,16:20)]where to put them or how to get them to play nice are moot points, winlink by it's definition is illegal to operate on several differant points.
1: It is encrypted
2: the overwhelming majority of use is for retrieving e-mail from 3rd party sources
3: It's sole practical reason for use is to avoid paying for the commercial sailmail service

people can argue till there blue in the face about where to put winlink or how to reduce or eliminate the qrm, how much bandwidth should be allowed, or how to eliminate the automatic-semi auto loophole, it still doesn't change the fact that the use of the system as implemented is flat out without a doubt %100 illegal to use in the first place.
I will be supporting the rm, trying to get a comment written up that doesn't go off the deep end on the 3 points I just listed.
enforce the rules we have in place currently and you eliminate the problem, the rm is a needed measure for future issue's with wide modes eliminating an entire sub band and the dozens of narrow mode qso's that were there first.
If your first point is so, why then has the FCC not ruled against it?

Answer: Because it is not considered to be encrypted by the FCC. What you or I or anyone else may want to believe is wholly unimportant.

The second point you make would seem a reasonable assumption, but it remains an assumption without the kinds of proof needed for FCC enforcement.

Finally, your third assertion is on a par with many of Bonnie's in that it is purely an emotional cry of frustration without any basis in fact. "Sole practical reason" obviates any other uses, and that is plainly not the case.

How do you, as a matter of practical Rule making, separate uses on HF from those on bands above? It cannot be on the basis of some desire to merely avoid a commercial service.

RM-11392 offers a start on finding practical solutions to the problem users of narrow-bandwidth digital modes face at the same time it seeks to preserve some semblance of utility for the WinLink crowd.

As to whether or not the FCC will see it quite in the same way that I do is the moot part of the argument.

We shall see.

[WA0LYK]

Another point I'm going to make in my reply comments and I hope the fcc allows them is that there is a substantial amount of money being diverted away from the commercial market.

If just 1000 people file comments that they use high speed modems on a daily basis, most of them are using winlink probably. Just think if they had to pay $25 per month. That is $25,000 monthly, and $300,000 per year in revenue. Assume that is only 10 percent of the total uses, which is not an unusual reponse rate. We are talking about some serious change here.

Is it any wonder other folks haven't started up commercial offerings? The exploitation of the FREE amateur spectrum keeps a substantial amount of revenue and demand from moving to the commercial sector.

I also notice that none of the commenters that say they use it daily have included any rationale about why they use amateur radio versus sailmail or other competitor.

I'll bet I could convince the spouse to allow me to install equipment and antennas and along with a small group of folks here to begin a competitor to sailmail with this kind of money available.

Jim
WA0LYK

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Jan. 01 2008,01:53)]Another point I'm going to make in my reply comments and I hope the fcc allows them is that there is a substantial amount of money being diverted away from the commercial market.

If just 1000 people file comments that they use high speed modems on a daily basis, most of them are using winlink probably. #Just think if they had to pay $25 per month. #That is $25,000 monthly, and $300,000 per year in revenue. #Assume that is only 10 percent of the total uses, which is not an unusual reponse rate. #We are talking about some serious change here.

Is it any wonder other folks haven't started up commercial offerings? #The exploitation of the FREE amateur spectrum keeps a substantial amount of revenue and demand from moving to the commercial sector.

I also notice that none of the commenters that say they use it daily have included any rationale about why they use amateur radio versus sailmail or other competitor.

I'll bet I could convince the spouse to allow me to install equipment and antennas and along with a small group of folks here to begin a competitor to sailmail with this kind of money available.

Jim
WA0LYK
I'm not sure I would be reminding the FCC how much money is able to be made from the ARS spectrum. Especially in public comments which congress could read.

Also, with free amateur radio frequencies, how would you be able to make that kind of money setting up yet another commercial outlet which wouldn't be utilized.

Maybe get sailmail on our side on this issue. They are the ones loosing the money thru the illegal use of winlink.

As for the encryption issue, winlink is not encrypted. You just need to purchase the pactor iii modem to monitor it. This is due to proprietary data scheme, not necessarily encryption. I'm not sure if the proprietary thing would hold much water for a receive only freeware program - would it? I have heard stories about threatened lawsuits for creating soundcard transmission software, but what about receive only stuff?

At least then we could get confirmation on the offending PMBOs.

Steve

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Jan. 01 2008,08:53)]Another point I'm going to make in my reply comments and I hope the fcc allows them is that there is a substantial amount of money being diverted away from the commercial market.

If just 1000 people file comments that they use high speed modems on a daily basis, most of them are using winlink probably. Just think if they had to pay $25 per month. That is $25,000 monthly, and $300,000 per year in revenue. Assume that is only 10 percent of the total uses, which is not an unusual reponse rate. We are talking about some serious change here.

Is it any wonder other folks haven't started up commercial offerings? The exploitation of the FREE amateur spectrum keeps a substantial amount of revenue and demand from moving to the commercial sector.

I also notice that none of the commenters that say they use it daily have included any rationale about why they use amateur radio versus sailmail or other competitor.

I'll bet I could convince the spouse to allow me to install equipment and antennas and along with a small group of folks here to begin a competitor to sailmail with this kind of money available.

Jim
WA0LYK
Jim,

Also the commenter's must use the regular internet to file comments. Why are they not using that same service to send their regular email? Is it because they can that they do it?

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (K1CJS @ Dec. 29 2007,05:32)]These people are obviously on in the morning and during the day, when the bands are quietest. #It's no big thing to go to some segment of the band, listen for a few minutes, and then say its quiet--which is what they're OBVIOUSLY doing.

If they have to have their winlink, let 'em do it in the section of the band reserved for the digital modes--not the CW segments or the phone segments. #Too bad if its crowded--the other segments are crowded too.
You guys are missing the point....

They think the band is underutilized because they never LISTEN to it.... DUH..

73 jerry

[n7wr]

Winlink advocates could care less about anyone else or any other mode of operation. It's all about them and their toys.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (n7wr @ Jan. 07 2008,22:57)]Winlink advocates could care less about anyone else or any other mode of operation. It's all about them and their toys.
They already consider packet radio outdated so you can only imagine what they consider CW. They want more and more spectrum so they won't interfere with each other and they can send their spam and garbage all over the ham bands. In a nutshell Steve Waterman wants to turn the amateur radio bands into a common carrier commercial service.

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Jan. 08 2008,03:08)]Quote[/b] (n7wr @ Jan. 07 2008,22:57)]Winlink advocates could care less about anyone else or any other mode of operation. #It's all about them and their toys.
They already consider packet radio outdated so you can only imagine what they consider CW. They want more and more spectrum so they won't interfere with each other and they can send their spam and garbage all over the ham bands. In a nutshell Steve Waterman wants to turn the amateur radio bands into a common carrier commercial service.
What's ironic is that many of them accused the pro-code folks of arrogance and elitism. But they tout the use of digital robots, even over QSO's in progress.