ARRL report - No Consensus Reached for FCC on “Symbol Rate” Issues

Which is not AT ALL the same as "demean and diminish" the person.

We all have different viewpoints about something. Sharing those arguments is what allows us to see something besides our own point-of-view.

Kinda like those that ONLY watch FOX NEWS (sic) or MSNBC. You'll never get a full perspective of anything if all you're willing to do is hang out with those of like-mind.

Heck, I used to be anti-gun. But through the enlightenment from others, I'm now an NRA life-member and a firearms instructor.


Change CAN happen, so long as we're not so certain of our beliefs.


I change my opinion often, based upon new information.

 

The point was, and remains, that both I and you are discussing the proposed method or solution.

There is absolutely NO discussion on either part, of the character of the person making the proposed method. Therefore, this is simply not demeaning. It is not proper to try to escape criticism of one’s proposed solutioN. The method proposed will indeed frustrate people who have a legitimate usage

The paper further points out that the responsibility of allowing the impostors to use HF belongs to their national government, NOT to WINLINK. You yourself would be the reference for that! You yourself have pointed out WINLINK is not constrained by the FCC. You yourself have said they are not even addressed by the FCC!!! Therefore it is completely illogical to demand responsibility of them, for things they are NOT responsible for.

Removing legitimate privilege from legitimate users is not a supportable outcome of vain attempts to catch imposters Beforehand with 100% accuracy.....by persons who don’t even have a responsibility to catch them, & have no such duty. Nor arrest powers, nor a badge. Simply are not federal officers.

And as you are continuously pointing out by this very discussion, we are both discussing the SOLUTION proposed, nothing at all about the “goodness or badness” of the person proposing it. You said it yourself when you used the word “viewpoint”. That is the obvious proof that this was not to demean anyone’s Personhood. It is always fair to discuss the appropriateness of a proposed solution and attempts to prevent that are ......censorship

 

I want to thank both Lee and Ron, for actually expressing what their concerns were, so those could be brought out for honest and professional discussion. Rather than speak in vague terms, actually listing what is upsetting them , helps other people look at it objectively —-and decide if the statements addressed solutions, or the character of the person making the proposed solution

In an unusual way, that helps move towards collaboration.

The crux of their argument is basically, “does forcefully suggesting weaknesses in a person’s proposal equal demeaning their personhood? “

And as W4RAV is pointing out over and over, those are VERY different.

 

Sorry, Frank. Distractions kept me from answering.

Yes, Winlink can be copied as a monitor (important to differentiate between a monitor and linked with the ACDS). Caveat 1. Monitor can't ask for repeats, ARQs, as linked receiving station can.
Caveat 2. Monitor must have completely accurate, down to the single bit, copy (per Rick Muething, of Winlink Development Team. 2016 Winlink Interest Group cite). Also, per the experience of KX4O, and by admission from Peter Helfert DL6MAA, of SCS. And, by hints at trying diversity reception to chase down erroneous or missing bits.

Both encryption and encoding obscure. Simple and early encryption, as in Caesar Cipher (in honor of its inventor, Julius) shifted characters of the alphabet in a consistent manner. Much like HUFFMAN COMPRESSION in concept determines the most frequent ASCII characters in a body or frame of text, then reassigns a new, much shorter value to the character. Yes, its encoding. The simple fact that the translation of letters and characters varies and is not consistent from message to message, causes the problem. Sure, present company's supplier of technical information will tell you that there's a "dictionary" in Winlink's method, but it still counts uniquely and if anything is missing, gibberish from that point on. If the miss is early in the message body, then the rest is lost.

If there was no encoding translation through compression, chances are a lot more would be legible to a monitor. Recovery of the rest of the content would be much more likely.

Sadly, the difficulty of someone attempting to legibly monitor Winlink has been exploited. It's created an expectation of privacy that has subborned all manner of rules violations. From unlicensed users to hot sex talk. Hard to defend the need to continue to make copy so tough. Time to turn off the compression......and stop claiming it must be to improve efficiency. Pactor 4 will have a much greater throughput. The 30% or so improvement claimed by Winlink is questionable anyway for all the extra freight that has to be carried along for accurate decoding.

73.

 

If you believe that Lee’s discussion of LZHUF is correct, and that Janice has the absolute best solutions, go ahead and write your views to the FCC!

It is not ad hominem for you to argue in favor of their viewpoint and against mine.

But it is Curious for you to suggest that I don’t have the right to address their claims & proposals..... that gets done every day here on this site, people argue this radio is better or that radio is worse. .

 

‘Lee, you failed to mention that Peter has CORRECTED his earlier statement. The claims you are making based on their early and erroneous claims are also incorrect

Everyone who is done the simple test now knows exactly how it works: you perfectly recreate all the way up until an error and then you’re in trouble. Solutions to that have even been proposed, and preliminary documentation of their suitability has already beepublished. You have never provided any objective critique of those experimental proofs, nor of the theoretical discussion that Peter has provided here

It would be better for you to acknowledge that Peter has corrected his statement and cease using his earlier statement as flawed justification

 

Cheers!

 

If you're attempting an apology, you can start with a request to remove your FCC filing. And resubmit it without the defaming content. And, if you do, please cite which paragraphs you wish to quote from my filing.

I once had an MD ham tell me in a phone call that he had prescribed meds using Winlink while hiking in the desert. I didn't file a complaint, but thought about what he had done for quite a while. Got me interested in misuse of Winlink many years ago and the presumption of privacy. Their lack of reasonable review of content likely contributed to why that and a lot of other things have found their way through their "system" in the meantime.

 

Can't you read "for meaning" what I said? I said exactly that: Copy is correct up to the point of missing or corrupted bit(s). Gibberish after that. So, if the error, fade, multipath happens early, the rest is lost. Drop the compression. End of problem.

 

It's why I said "no comment" to him. It's pretty sad.