FCC Denies RM-11392

That is exactly where winlink belongs. On bands that have dedicated channels. Not AR where the spectrum is shared.

 

Lee the problem is that most winlink station today only accept P3 connects. On MARS they are probably requiring that all stations accept P1 connects as well as the new P3 connects. I don't see why P1 is such a problem to use on the winlink network. If you are sending a couple of text messages it works fine. I think the whole idea behind wanting to use more bandwidth stems from the fact that the winlids want to attach their huge files with their emails like they do on their ISP and P3 with it's appetite for bandwidth allows these huge file attachments to be sent quicker. In my opinion file attachments should not be allowed. On the packet network you don't see file attachments because it slows things down and hogs up disk space. Why does ham radio have to be exactly like the internet? That is the question for winlink.

 

It is very interesting that your "facts" are always from un-named sources, and are always wildly different from verifiable reality. The simple FACT is that Winlink is the only system that is always available from a disaster area to anyone with a relatively inexpensive modem, a computer, and an HF radio.

SATCOM is not normally available until someone brings it into the area, and there is significant ongoing cost that few are willing or able to bear. For years, I have advocated SATCOM to link state public safety regional and district headquarters. The cost has not been justifiable to this point.

Very few locations had SATCOM capability after Katrina. Of the very few that did have SATCOM, in 100% of the cases it was provided by a relief agency (Baptist Relief or Salvation Army). In all cases, SATCOM supplemented HF, VHF, and UHF communications on the amateur bands.

Anyone who believes that voice is a good method of handling REAL disaster communications is an untrained "talking head" with an obvious total lack of disaster experience. Those who believe that encryption is necessary fail to understand the type of traffic that is handled. After over 30 years of emergency and disaster communications, I cannot point to ONE instance where we actually needed encryption.

 

The rather obvious issue is NOT which spectrum is used in an emergency. The issue is what EQUIPMENT and OPERATORS are available. In 100% of the cases, the only AVAILABLE equipment and operators are amateur.

The "infrastructure" nonsense is just another (yawn) Tim-ism.

 

To those of us who can read, the petition was a highly targeted attempt to outlaw use of SCS (and probably AOR) modems. It was filled with technical errors, contradictory statements/ allegations, and general ill will. The opposition to the petition was overwhelming and broad-based.

 

Actually, with an accurate position from 24 or 48 hours ago, the search area is quite well defined. Using wind and wave data, one may project a fairly small "first search" area.

If we assume a capsized boat, or an incapacitated crew, they would be unable to call for help on ANY radio. We can begin by overflying the projected course, then work our way outward toward the drift direction.

Assuming a max "normal sailing" speed of 12 knots, and a max drift of 5 knots, the search area at 24 hours is 288 nm by 60 nm. If the vessel sends a simple position report every 6 to 12 hours, the search area can get much smaller.

One fails to see the alleged issue. The use of ham radio is legal, normal, and well within the bounds of common sense.

 

Holy Mackerel!



I used to wonder how "so few" Winlink stations were causing so much interference to my own operations. Now I can clearly see where the problem in my consevative guestimates lay.

This is really going to be a problem when Cycle 24 ramps up.
Jeezus! Fasten your seatbelts folks. This topic is going to get nasty come 2010.

Thanks for the link BTW.
http://www.winlink.org/userPositions

Jeezus!

 

This was a good decision to reject this petition, because it puts the responsibility for establishing repeater operations on licensed radio hobbyists, where it belongs.

All it will take is one or two repeater operators to see the merits of sharing their underutilized pair of frequencies, and newcomers on digital will join the community quite nicely.

Could it be that existing licensees who hold these pairs don't see the merits of digital communications?

Hmm.

That may explain why the club in Newington is having such a hard time selling their digital agenda on HF as well.

Just a thought.

 

Define regular basis.

 

I had to laugh when I read the petition denial. I mean really laugh. These guys in Washington are professional bureaucrats, and why create more work for themselves. They answered what they found to be a narrow question and ignored the noise. They even took the narrow analysis of either a yes or a no in reading the support towards the petition. Like a ballot: ignore writing on the margins...

 

And if you count them and the 50 HFLink users, you have the exact number of canned responses to the petition.

 

Of course, you failed to mention that the 470-odd users shown on that map include many that last reported on Friday (more than 48 hours ago), and some as far back as Wednesday (over 96 hours ago). The position is maintained on the map so that anyone can see the location of an "at rest" user without the necessity of sending a message.

Simply click on the callsign at the right of the map to see when that callsign last reported. The "pop-up" will show the last position and any short message that the user wished to append. Those ~ 1 kb messages like below represent much Winlink traffic.

"KC4IQK Position report feed for KC4IQK
Course
Speed
Location 30-40.38N / 081-28.15W EM90GQ30
Fernandina Beach, FL for a few days.
Report received Thu, 08 May 2008 21:41:00 UTC"

This reality is hardly the scenario constantly manufactured by those who want to play the "mean rich people take over ham bands for their yachts" game.

Most of the people who have boats with Winlink on board have nothing that even approaches the vision of a "yacht" as envisioned by the average ham. Most are working people who had to work hard and save to have a small sailboat.

 

The problem I see is that at least half are on land or in a harbor and are probably too cheap to pay for wireless access just like they are too cheap to pay for sailmail.

Jim
WA0LYK

 

Of course I did? I failed to mention nothing. I just found myself literally amazed at how prolific this has become. There is a whole Marine Band Radio service with its own channels specifically designed and implemented for this type of activity. There are even a few commercial services available for marine HF email who's networks are suffering because most of the people who would use it are not investing in it and opting for amateur radio.

I am also well aware of the misplaced blame as to whom is actually using Winlink on their boats. READ HERE to see exactly what I have said about that very subject on these forums. I got ribbed a little for that opinion, but it is the truth, and you are correct.

There is a very good reason Winlink is fast becoming the most despised group of operators in amateur radio and it is NOT because we are imagining problems. I personally see person to person digital and CW QSO's creamed by Pactor on a DAILY basis. It happens much more than it should for the number of operators using that system, but their do seem to be far more users than I would have thought.

We are at the bottom of the solar cycle right now. This is going to get a LOT worse in the coming years.

The most disgusting part of all; is that Winlink is hiding behind the "Emergency Communications" moniker, all the while winking at the sailors, building a network basically focused on the convenience of amateur to non-amateur and non-amateur to amateur communications using ham radio.

BTW- I did click around on the calls and immediately noticed that the vast majority were boaters. You'd think they didn't even make Marine radios anymore.

 

Larry, You are way off your rocker if you think winlink was the only reliable service coming in and out of the affected area. You are 5 cans short of a six pack as always. You keep putting winlink on this pedestal that is not true. You seem to be the only one saying that winlink was the only reliable system used which I know for a fact that it was not used that much as I have talked to several emcomm folks that were in the area. Why do you insist on spreading lies about what actually happened with winlink during katrina?