FCC Denies RM-11392

Really? So you think that because your rig is outside territorial waters, that one can elect to use WinLink on the amateur bands instead of SailMail?

Sorry, Bill, but the ship to shore phone call analogy just won't do. SailMail is available most places about the globe outside US territorial waters where the Marine Operator can't be heard.

As a US licensee, you are bound by the conditions of your license grant, when you operate in international waters.

The RV example is valid if the RVers are outback types, and not a 'plug in every night' vacationer. And, you'd be surprised how many cruising class boats there are tied up at US marinas. Holligsworth even owns a sea going "mini-tug" and who knows, maybe has an SCS modem aboard.

 

Don't you just love it? Here's Bonnie, the 'ALE Quick Call ver. 999.9 cheerleader' telling us that we aren't supposed to have fun working rarebit DX. Heck, I'm still grinning about working Ducie with my IC-703 on 40M SSB.

Bonnie, instead, promotes going bicycling or cave dwelling, while the rig at home auto-links with someone, somewhere and stores the information. What fun!! The machine worked ZX6DX for 10 milliseconds and I've got the archived file info to prove it. Oh boy. Don't know who the operator was or what conditions were like. Oh, but he left his handle on his link profile.

 

You almost had the reason but failed to come up with the right reason, i.e. "Mainly because the average ham has traditionally been opposed to change -- even if that change proves early on to be a better alternative to whats currently in vogue." This just isn't true for most hams. For most, digital messaging is not a better alternative to conversing with someone during a qso.

Digital messaging and digital modes in general are only going to interest a small minority of folks for a long, long time. On a common old routine day there are just better options available than using ham radio for these purposes. Ham radio is more like going to a pub. You call cq and see who answers or you scan around and see if there are old buddies, new folks, or dx that you'd like to TALK to. Most folks just want to use ham radio as an enjoyment not for a PURPOSE. Digital messaging implies a purpose for sending the message to someone you know. For most hams, this just isn't what using the radio is about. Cell phones and the internet is a much better alternative most of the time.

Simply being opposed to change is not the reason most hams don't want to see the bands covered up with digital modes on 365/24/7 basis. To a lot of hams, this would be like walking into a pub and telling everyone - no more talking in this pub we want silence, only text messaging will be allowed - even if you're all sitting around the same table. If you think this would go over well you have a problem.

The vast majority of hams want to CONVERSE, be it in cw, ssb, or some other mode. Sure digital modes allow this to an extent but more and more you see qso's consisting of simple macro's and then 'sk'. This isn't conversing with someone and doesn't really pique the interest of many. A lot of people try it and then move on to something else after getting tired of sending/receiving macro's.

Jim
WA0LYK

 

Think she does it upside down hanging from the ceiling?

 

There has NEVER been any request for "IP content" on the amateur bands. This is beyond belief !

 

Actually, test after test have shown that D-STAR affords clear communication at greater range than analog FM. The 6.25 kHz bandwidth, built-in error correction, and MGSK combine to produce a very robust signal.

 

I can, if I choose, operate any mode on any band from 1.8 MHz through 450 MHz from my Sebring convertible or from my Ford Expedition. That includes SSB voice, data, FM, or any other mode. Where I happen to be at the moment has no bearing on the legality of the operation.

The only restriction on content is that it not be commercial. If I send an e-mail to someone, or download a message, that is neither "commercial use" nor prohibited. Please note that I can legally do the EXACT same thing on one of the "traffic nets" -- but I will be occupying a frequency for a much longer time to pass the same content.

In an emergency, we MUST have reasonable speed data systems that are ONLINE and TESTED. Otherwise, we will not be able to support relief efforts after another Katrina-type disaster.

 

I guess you missed the second sentence of 97.205(e): "Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible." That's all the justification Riley needs to come down on a ham who uses a repeater after being informed he does not have permission to do so.

 

One thing I was told recently was that a number of the grants people are getting to buy D-Star gear explicitly require that the system include a 2 meter port. To me, this is utterly asninine: with exactly two exceptions (and those are difficult to operate), every D-Star capable user radio is a dual bander, and so there's no real benefit to insisting on getting on 2 instead of 440.

 

Everyone that has interfered with me on 20 meters has been a US ham when I copied the FSK id at the end or the P1 calling at the begining. I have yet to hear a foreign pactor III station interfere yet. Find another excuse because yours are just as bad as Bonnie's and Steve's.

 

Another winlid avoiding paying for a service that is offered commercially. You are the problem because you want to use the amateur spectrum for your own personal email service instead of paying the low fee that sailmail charges.

 

Lee, You are absolutely correct here. Bill is showing his ignorance of part 97. If you are in international waters and you are using your FCC issued callsign then you are bound by the FCC rules, period. It amazes me that this guy actually puts out newsline because he doesn't know a thing about winlink, digital comms, or the part 97 rules.

 

Larry,

Get off the Katrina thing. It is a broken record from you emcomm types. The folks I have heard from said that digital comms didn't work and that good old voice comms worked the best. Winlink was a mode that they said they could do without. Besides why not go satcom because it is faster and more reliable than hf digital comms? Our MCU (Mobile Communications Unit) has a SATCOM internet link and it works great. No worrying about propagation and the message gets through. Also you can send stuff encrypted on the SATCOM link vs the non-encrypted amateur radio bands. You guys always bring up Katrina and I am getting really tired of hearing how great winlink was for that disaster when in fact it was barely used.

 

*As to sailors? How many are there? In relation to all of ham radio, how *many hams are rich enough to own a vessel large enough to ply the *openseas to where the sailor needs digital messaging?

Why don't you wander to the position reporter and see how many hams use that aspect of it. Then select any one of them and see how they send a short positon, condition and comment once every day or so. There are many hams with sailboats worldwide. Right now, 472 on the reporter.
http://www.winlink.org/userPositions

Click on OH2NIN in the middle of the Atlantic and then click on view position link. I don't see how that differs from APRS. It is ham radio. It is not bypassing anything. You barely get enough time on a server in a day to get a wefax and a couple text only emails. It is developing a communication need and will probably evolve to something better.

When I move on to the boat (I will be retired living on whatever I have saved...cheap my ass) I will probably use cellphone for internet, but I will still use ham radio.

Read the book "66 days adrift". A ham and his wife lost at sea. If he had used winlink the family could have seen them go missing. Read "Adrift". This guy was 76 days in a raft. Again, friends or family would have been able to see that he stopped transmitting.

 

Who on Earth was this 'Mr Mark Miller' that started this "Dark Ages" petition?

Well done, you kept to your guns and fought back the enemy, but can someone explain please who is MR MARK MILLER and what organisation does he represent? Where is he coming from & what was his or his organisation's reason for trying to curtail US Ham Digi-modes priviledges?
Hope to hear from you now, 73.