Proposal to ban pactor on HF bands is going to fail

[n1ohx]

The title was to get your attention, it's actually
based on a short film called "the assasination of Richard Nixon".

It was "O.K."

The current proposal by the hysterical minority to ban
pactor on the H.F. bands is simply going to fail, if it has not
already..I have not been following it very closely as to do
so is an exercise in futility.

in the short few paragraphs I read, the author gave a handful
of assertions to the FCC about pactor that were simply
false, because the author himself did not have a clue
about what he was writing about. My favorite
part was when he asserted that pactor3 narrows itself
down in lower speed modes, and then spreads itself
out over other stations when it speeds up.

Senseless protcol wars aside, I think the fight to get Winlink
under control is not going to succeed by trying to pull
the carpet out from under their feet..pactor is simply
the protocol they use, it is not and end to a means.
On the 1% chance the FCC actually takes a look at the hysterical
e-mail forwarded rantings of the uneducated that are commenting
on this flawed document, you will find that winlink would still exist,
SCS will come up with a new protocol, and the Idiyachts will continue
on.

The QRM problem is foremost due to the people that are
attracted to WinLink..the Idiyachts..A lot of them are not even Ham
radio operators, they are people that got a ticket at the suggestion of
various yachting magazines. I know for a fact that they don't
even use monitor speakers, and sometimes are not even present
at their equipment when it calls for attention. Any moral interest
in the preservation of amateur radio is lost to these folks.

2nd in command to the QRM problem is the person assigning the frequencies
to the MBO's these lids are connecting to..Steve, K4CJX doesn't really
show that he is a seasoned ham in his choices..Like assigning
canadian MBO's in the PSK31 subband on 20 meters, where a 1.6 KC wide P3
signal can wipe out the whole sub-band..Yeah, it's legal, because
canadians can operate 1.6 kc there..and yeah, it's legal, because the
psk31 Sub-band isn't a legal assignment, it's a worldwide
co-operation of PSK31 enthusiasts, and it's known as a "Gentleman's agreement".

K4CJX is no gentleman. An idiyacht is going to operate
there without a monitor speaker, and because they are idiYachts they
wouldnt know what they are hearing in the first place.

If you people are going to file petitions..I think it's time to organize
a movement against the folks running WinLink itself..Winlink is a lot
more than k4cjx himself..but he is always the
person pointing out that we "have an out because of this loophole"..He
is the person assigning MBO's in complete disregard for
the preservation of amateur radio..And I know for a fact
he is arrogant and incompetent..if you want any
change to affect WinLink..start there..

Steven - N1OHX

[WA9SVD]

Very poor taste in your subject title, and frankly offensive.

It could easily be seen as a THREAT of physical harm.

I doubt the moderators will let it live very long.

[ad4mg]

Very poor taste in your subject title, and frankly offensive.

It could easily be seen as a THREAT of physical harm.

I doubt the moderators will let it live very long.

Just curious ... do you "winlink"?

[WA9SVD]

Just curious ... do you "winlink"?

What's Winlink?

NO, I have NOT used Winlink, nor do I have any interest or desire to do so. I also don't have any equipment to do so.

(If THAT answers your question.)

[NN4RH]

Very poor taste in your subject title, and frankly offensive.

It could easily be seen as a THREAT of physical harm.

I doubt the moderators will let it live very long.


If anyone is wondering what SVD is referring to, the original title of this thread was threatening of a violent crime against a particular person.

The thread title has since been changed, presumably by the moderators, so that SVD's post doesnt appear to make sense any more.

For what it's worth SVD, I absolutely agree with you that the orginal title was a threat and in very poor taste.

[WA9SVD]

If anyone is wondering what SVD is referring to, the original title of this thread was threatening of a violent crime against a particular person.

The thread title has since been changed, presumably by the moderators, so that SVD's post doesnt appear to make sense any more.

For what it's worth SVD, I absolutely agree with you that the orginal title was a threat and in very poor taste.

Yes. (I SHOULD have quoted the original subject line, which read "Assassination of -#---. "

(The callsign of a certain person was specified.)

[W4INF]

WTH, cant we just post without a bait & switch subject line anymore?

[n1ohx]

It wasn't bait and switch at all..It was clearly bait
and I was curious to see what the moderators would
do with it..I also explained the reasoning for
the subject line in the first few lines of
the message, which the mod's allowed to stay..

They didn't remove it due to poor taste, I'm betting
it was more for legal reasons in case someone actually
did it..Taste is in the eye of the taster..SFV..
I'm betting you are offended easily and frequentley, and find
a lot of things in poor taste.

The message ends in the same assertion, it is not
a bait and switch..like for say" Packet
will rule the earth" and then I take off on hysterical mumblings
of imaginary meetings with winlink officials.."

The tone of the message is relatively consistent
and the conclusion is the same as the beginning.

Steven - N1OHX

[WA9SVD]

Umm, how would YOU feel if somebody entitled a thread of "Assassination of (your call) because you are a firm Winlink supporter?

"It's not the License Class of the operator, it's the Licensed Operator's Class."

[ab0wr]

What proposal to the FCC are we talking about? Did I miss something that got filed with the FCC?

tim ab0wr

[KA8NCR]

Umm, how would YOU feel if somebody entitled a thread of "Assassination of (your call) because you are a firm Winlink supporter?

"It's not the icense Class of the operator, it's the Operator's Class."

Yeah, it was very poor taste. I don't believe for a minute he meant it as anything but an attention getter, but that's no excuse. The really unfortunate thing is that he made some salient points on the Winlink problem.

Winlink isn't going away, it's the darling of Ecomm for many reasons. And I have no problem with that. And I don't have a problem with yachters using it if they operate with in accepted amateur practice. That isn't happening, so rules updates are necessary. I happen to agree with the OP that the current proposal will, indeed, fail.

[k2gsp]

It is not the darling of EMCOMM for HF. I have not found one instance of it's use on HF for an emergency. I have a serious problem with it and the intentional interference it causes. I think declaring it as failed is wishful thinking. I believe the FC will at the very least reign the interference generators in. The author of this thread is a troll and nothing more. I suspect he is bored or just joined up with the winlids on their reflector.

[KA8NCR]

It is not the darling of EMCOMM for HF. I have not found one instance of it's use on HF for an emergency. I have a serious problem with it and the intentional interference it causes. I think declaring it as failed is wishful thinking. I believe the FC will at the very least reign the interference generators in. The author of this thread is a troll and nothing more. I suspect he is bored or just joined up with the winlids on their reflector.

I have a problem with the interference too. And I have a problem with the way the Winlink people conduct themselves when confronted with the poor operating practices. But that doesn't change the fact that Winlink is a powerful tool and it makes no sense to toss it out because a few people are abusing it. After Winlink, are we going to work on the ESSB people?

This is a dangerous path. Correcting bad operating is one thing, but wholesale banning of a mode is pretty much signing the death certificate of amateur radio because the next great new method of communication will surely piss someone off and the cycle repeats.

Winlink is the darling of emergency communications because it can do HF. Why would we want to neuter the public service people's ability to help served agencies because of a few selfish boaters? Public service is one of the few things this hobby has going for it. Public service isn't license to interfere, but banning it? C'mon, let's be rational here.

[AC0H]

I can't imagine ANY emergency situation where WinLink, HF Email, would neccesary for Ecomms. The free email crowd roll that cannard out evertime someone dare question what they're doing and how they're doing it.

Everytime one of these threads start I ask a simple question of the LidLinkers. Can you name one independently verifiable emergency where LidLink on HF was used for or by a served agency? Not one single instance has been put forth.

There are plenty of protocols which have been bannned from HF below 29Mhz. FM being one. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot more 10m FM users than LidLinkers and you don't hear them whining.

Turns out LidLink actually may have an Ecomm use, above 2m specifically. Oh wait..........LidLink uses plain old AX25 packet up there. My bad.

[k2gsp]

I have a problem with the interference too. And I have a problem with the way the Winlink people conduct themselves when confronted with the poor operating practices. But that doesn't change the fact that Winlink is a powerful tool and it makes no sense to toss it out because a few people are abusing it. After Winlink, are we going to work on the ESSB people?

This is a dangerous path. Correcting bad operating is one thing, but wholesale banning of a mode is pretty much signing the death certificate of amateur radio because the next great new method of communication will surely piss someone off and the cycle repeats.

Winlink is the darling of emergency communications because it can do HF. Why would we want to neuter the public service people's ability to help served agencies because of a few selfish boaters? Public service is one of the few things this hobby has going for it. Public service isn't license to interfere, but banning it? C'mon, let's be rational here.

They don't have to ban Winlink from hf, just unattended stations using Winlink. Make an operator be present while his station is up and running. It's a very simple fix that will fix a majority of the problems. Oh and they need to make the Winlink stations ID in a mode that is easily copied, without expensive modems, so there is accountability.

[KA8NCR]

I can't imagine ANY emergency situation where WinLink, HF Email, would neccesary for Ecomms. The free email crowd roll that cannard out evertime someone dare question what they're doing and how they're doing it.

Everytime one of these threads start I ask a simple question of the LidLinkers. Can you name one independently verifiable emergency where LidLink on HF was used for or by a served agency? Not one single instance has been put forth.

There are plenty of protocols which have been bannned from HF below 29Mhz. FM being one. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot more 10m FM users than LidLinkers and you don't hear them whining.

Turns out LidLink actually may have an Ecomm use, above 2m specifically. Oh wait..........LidLink uses plain old AX25 packet up there. My bad.

And every time these threads start and the venom against a useful mode starts, I ask why do we want to start a destructive process of banning modes.

I can't answer the question of whether or not an HF digital mode has been used in an emergency. It seems to me that the in this country, the answer is no. But do you want to use that as an excuse not to build out the capability? If you're going to cut these people loose forging agreements and demonstrating the capabilities to interface to known email, doesn't it make sense to actually create the networks?

ax.25 sucks on HF, that's why they don't use it.

[AC0H]

And every time these threads start and the venom against a useful mode starts, I ask why do we want to start a destructive process of banning modes.

I can't answer the question of whether or not an HF digital mode has been used in an emergency. It seems to me that the in this country, the answer is no. But do you want to use that as an excuse not to build out the capability? If you're going to cut these people loose forging agreements and demonstrating the capabilities to interface to known email, doesn't it make sense to actually create the networks?

ax.25 sucks on HF, that's why they don't use it.

Useful? To who?
I think we've already established from the silence that it hasn't been "useful" for Ecomms in this country. It is useful for people who want to dodge paying for an exsiting commercial service, namely sailmail. BTW, isn't that expressley verbotten in part 97?

During Katrina the internet was no more than 75 miles away from New Orleans in Baton Rouge. No need for HF and the QRM and interference which inevitably comes. Could have setup a high speed LidLink to get email out using 2m and up. Some of the Ecomm whackers are having technological wet dreams about an email shuttled through their station to some unnamed federal agency in DC which will save civilization as we know it. Using that fanatsy as justification for putting up with LidLink. Guess what, AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN!

Like I said, Ecomms gets rolled out everytime this comes up and the junior G-men and EMT school drop outs start salivating. In the mean time it deflects attention from the cheapskates avoiding a $25/mo bill for HF email, and the intentional QRM and interference they cause on a daily basis.

[KA8NCR]

Useful? To who?
I think we've already established from the silence that it hasn't been "useful" for Ecomms in this country. It is useful for people who want to dodge paying for an exsiting commercial service, namely sailmail. BTW, isn't that expressley verbotten in part 97?


No more than using a repeater autopatch.

To say that it isn't useful to emergency communications because there hasn't been an event of significance that would use it doesn't constitute a failure. I agree that it's of very limited use, but if the ecomm people want to build it out, I say have at it.

My point is that if you're going to go out and change the rules to chase off boaters, you're going to subject yourself to the laws of unintended consequences. The FCC isn't going to change amateur rules at our whim because we don't like who is using a particular set of frequencies.

I like the other gentleman's idea of at least requiring more open identification so these people can be outed and the appropriate complaints filed against them.


During Katrina the internet was no more than 75 miles away from New Orleans in Baton Rouge. No need for HF and the QRM and interference which inevitably comes. Could have setup a high speed LidLink to get email out using 2m and up. Some of the Ecomm whackers are having technological wet dreams about an email shuttled through their station to some unnamed federal agency in DC which will save civilization as we know it. Using that fanatsy as justification for putting up with LidLink. Guess what, AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN!


You're unfairly characterizing all users of Winlink as whackers. That isn't the case. Furthermore, it's only a select group of Winlink operators that are causing the problem. So let's just take the most irrational approach we can and ban the mode. Great. We should be congratulated on our inability to get along.


Like I said, Ecomms gets rolled out everytime this comes up and the junior G-men and EMT school drop outs start salivating. In the mean time it deflects attention from the cheapskates avoiding a $25/mo bill for HF email, and the intentional QRM and interference they cause on a daily basis.


Yeah, it does because public service is one area of the hobby of which the FCC takes notice. So again, because a few cheapskate boaters cause problems, we cut people off at the knees who are following the rules.

[k2gsp]

"Furthermore, it's only a select group of Winlink operators that are causing the problem"

That's a huge problem when they are the PMBO's. The PMBO's are worse then the boaters. They can't listen, because there is no one there. And they don't follow the rules. The PMBO's know they have an interference problem, but they keep the signal detect turned off, because of claimed intentional jamming, when in reality it's because of through put. I don't think that's following the rules.

[WA0LYK]

No more than using a repeater autopatch.

To say that it isn't useful to emergency communications because there hasn't been an event of significance that would use it doesn't constitute a failure. I agree that it's of very limited use, but if the ecomm people want to build it out, I say have at it.

My point is that if you're going to go out and change the rules to chase off boaters, you're going to subject yourself to the laws of unintended consequences. The FCC isn't going to change amateur rules at our whim because we don't like who is using a particular set of frequencies.

I like the other gentleman's idea of at least requiring more open identification so these people can be outed and the appropriate complaints filed against them.



You're unfairly characterizing all users of Winlink as whackers. That isn't the case. Furthermore, it's only a select group of Winlink operators that are causing the problem. So let's just take the most irrational approach we can and ban the mode. Great. We should be congratulated on our inability to get along.




Yeah, it does because public service is one area of the hobby of which the FCC takes notice. So again, because a few cheapskate boaters cause problems, we cut people off at the knees who are following the rules.

I expect if someone was using an autopatch in place of regular phone service you would find them banned pretty quickly. I certainly don't know of any autopatch locally that would allow you to chat with friends and family on a regular basis about anything under sun like boaters do with winlink.

I'm not sure exactly what fcc petition everyone is discussing about "banning" pactor. I don't believe there is one from what I can see. THERE IS a petition to limit bandwidths in the data sub-bands that would limit pactor 3 to only certain speed levels. This isn't the same as banning the protocol entirely.

On the other hand, I would not mind seeing pactor 3 banned entirely. It is a protocol designed for commercial use where seizing a channel means that you OWN the entire 3 kHz for whatever you want to do with it. This just isn't the case with the shared spectrum in the amateur bands. As much as winlink would like to make claims on 3 kHz channels, no one owns a frequency or a band of frequencies. The increase in speed level/bandwidth is not under the control of the operator during a connection, the modem determines what ever bandwidth is appropriate and if it expands over other qso's/modes, tough. This just makes it a mode that isn't appropriate at all, even with a limited bandwidth.

Jim
WA0LYK

[KA8NCR]

On the other hand, I would not mind seeing pactor 3 banned entirely. It is a protocol designed for commercial use where seizing a channel means that you OWN the entire 3 kHz for whatever you want to do with it. This just isn't the case with the shared spectrum in the amateur bands. As much as winlink would like to make claims on 3 kHz channels, no one owns a frequency or a band of frequencies. The increase in speed level/bandwidth is not under the control of the operator during a connection, the modem determines what ever bandwidth is appropriate and if it expands over other qso's/modes, tough. This just makes it a mode that isn't appropriate at all, even with a limited bandwidth.

Jim
WA0LYK

I have to agree with that, Pactor 3 is inappropriate on the ham bands because of its bandwidth and also because it's a proprietary protocol. At some point, someone is going to make that a little less so secretive.

[NI7I]

Very poor taste in your subject title, and frankly offensive.

It could easily be seen as a THREAT of physical harm.

I doubt the moderators will let it live very long.
What????????????????????????????/ Threat????????????????

you gotta be kidding

[k9xr]

What????????????????????????????/ Threat????????????????

you gotta be kidding

You have to read the ENTIRE thread to understand the threat part.

[WA9SVD]

You have to read the ENTIRE thread to understand the threat part.

Or at least the first few posts. Then again, that's too much effort for some people. And I suppose the moderators changed the original subject line just for jollies???

[k6jpd]

And every time these threads start and the venom against a useful mode starts, I ask why do we want to start a destructive process of banning modes..

banning modes?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

in your earlier posts, you have repeatedly refered to winlink as a MODE.

winlink is NOT a mode.
PACTOR (in all of it's versions) is a mode.

the direct problem is the winlink software that shifts to wide band PACTOR III without listening.... not the PACTOR mode itself.

[KA8NCR]

banning modes?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

in your earlier posts, you have repeatedly refered to winlink as a MODE.

winlink is NOT a mode.
PACTOR (in all of it's versions) is a mode.

the direct problem is the winlink software that shifts to wide band PACTOR III without listening.... not the PACTOR mode itself.

It doesn't matter; we're going to start banning modes or subsets of modes or the use of particular software packages because a few people are idiots. Dangerous line of thinking.

[AC0H]

banning modes?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

in your earlier posts, you have repeatedly refered to winlink as a MODE.

winlink is NOT a mode.
PACTOR (in all of it's versions) is a mode.

the direct problem is the winlink software that shifts to wide band PACTOR III without listening.... not the PACTOR mode itself.

AFAIK it's the SCS modem that does the auto-shifting of bandwidth. If it detects decent enough signal to noise ratio it automagically spreads out to increase throughtput. If it can determine SNR why can't it determine if a channel is busy? My PK-88 does a bang up job of signal detection and won't transmit if the channel is busy.

[WA9SVD]

AFAIK it's the SCS modem that does the auto-shifting of bandwidth. If it detects decent enough signal to noise ratio it automagically spreads out to increase throughtput. If it can determine SNR why can't it determine if a channel is busy? My PK-88 does a bang up job of signal detection and won't transmit if the channel is busy.

But your PK-88 is old, old Technology. It's obsolete, and for New technology to use similar techniques (or conceots) is unthinkable. We're dealing with a new paradigm in Amateur Radio. The old concepts must all be destroyed, including the concept of preventing deliberate interference.

[k2gsp]

They don't have to ban the mode or the subset of the mode or the subset of the subset of the mode. They just have to ban the unattended operation in that mode. It won't hurt EMCOMM, because in an actual emergency all bets are off and they can run what ever they have to. When ever they have to, to get the job done.

[kr2c]

I can't understand why the winlink guys just can't stick with P1. It's only text messages. They shouldn't need that much thruput. If it is emcomm they are concerned about then let them do p3 on declared emergencies and selected dates and times to test the system. I don't see a need to keep having these discussion over e-mail in non emergency situations.

[kc7gnm]

I have a problem with the interference too. And I have a problem with the way the Winlink people conduct themselves when confronted with the poor operating practices. But that doesn't change the fact that Winlink is a powerful tool and it makes no sense to toss it out because a few people are abusing it. After Winlink, are we going to work on the ESSB people?

This is a dangerous path. Correcting bad operating is one thing, but wholesale banning of a mode is pretty much signing the death certificate of amateur radio because the next great new method of communication will surely piss someone off and the cycle repeats.

Winlink is the darling of emergency communications because it can do HF. Why would we want to neuter the public service people's ability to help served agencies because of a few selfish boaters? Public service is one of the few things this hobby has going for it. Public service isn't license to interfere, but banning it? C'mon, let's be rational here.

RM-11392 never was designed to ban winlink. It was designed to take back the narrow band section of each hf band and bring it back into the spirit of what it was set aside for in the first place. Apparently the author of this thread did not read the whole proposal and has no clue what he is talking about.

[kc7gnm]

And every time these threads start and the venom against a useful mode starts, I ask why do we want to start a destructive process of banning modes.

I can't answer the question of whether or not an HF digital mode has been used in an emergency. It seems to me that the in this country, the answer is no. But do you want to use that as an excuse not to build out the capability? If you're going to cut these people loose forging agreements and demonstrating the capabilities to interface to known email, doesn't it make sense to actually create the networks?

ax.25 sucks on HF, that's why they don't use it.

Wow I use AX.25 all the time on 14.105lsb and it doesn't suck. I enjoy the challenge. Apparently a lot of folks have forgotten that part of ham radio. They go out and buy these complicated DSP radios and then expect them to work just like their internet connection does. The purpose of ham radio is to make you a better operator using different methods, not making ham radio exactly like the internet. Winlink is doing just that, trying to make ham radio like the internet and that is very bad for amateur radio.

[kc7gnm]

banning modes?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

in your earlier posts, you have repeatedly refered to winlink as a MODE.

winlink is NOT a mode.
PACTOR (in all of it's versions) is a mode.

the direct problem is the winlink software that shifts to wide band PACTOR III without listening.... not the PACTOR mode itself.

Actually you are incorrect. Winlink does not switch the pactor mode. The SCS modem does that automatically. If you are going to correct someone then you should be correct yourself.

[kc7gnm]

I can't understand why the winlink guys just can't stick with P1. It's only text messages. They shouldn't need that much thruput. If it is emcomm they are concerned about then let them do p3 on declared emergencies and selected dates and times to test the system. I don't see a need to keep having these discussion over e-mail in non emergency situations.

I will tell you why. They don't just send text. They send file attachments that usually take up to an hour to send using PIII. They are sending all kinds of crap and with no way to monitor it there isn't anything we can do about it. Steve Waterman refuses to let some of us look at the email traffic over the radio links because he says it is private emails. Well the way I was brought up in amateur radio nothing you say or do on the air is considered private. You have no expectations of privacy and should not expect any.

I have personally monitored a pactor III signal going on for 1 hour and 27 minutes one time. No ID what so ever during that time except at the end and if you miss the one shot then you won't know. Bottom line is they are not sending just text anymore.

[k8jd]

Most of the spectrum hungry data modes should be banned from HF. If people want to send high speed data it should be done on microwave or leased T-1 lines, not on the former Novice bands !