Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

Done.. '2007322121542 '

JW

 

"free us from our Technology Jail"--"freedom for all"
blah, blah, blah.

Yep,--Here we go again,--KQ6XA has to SHOUT her
"PC ham radio agenda",--there ARE some things never change, after all.

                        K1MVP

 

<<The ARRL has not considered the opinions of its own members, nor those of the rest of the entire world in this revised petition.
I cannot imagine arrogance being displayed at a higher level than this.
Thank You Glenn for adding global perspective to the discussion.

73,
Luke Bannister - AD4MG>>

First, thank you Skip and others for your posts. And Luke, sadly this is just another example of ARRL secrecy and arrogance. I was a member of the Contest Advisory Committee ten years ago when QST VHF editor W3EP and the League steamrolled new VHF rover rules (by misrepresenting facts and by character assination) which hurt weak signal VHF contesting and roving in many parts of the country resulting in almost 10 years of declining participation and submitted logs. Several of us were able to, at least, get League to promise that the CAC would revisit the rover rules in two years. And two years later the CAC did revisit the rover rules AND VOTED 11-3 TO RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL ROVER RULES. The vote was completely ignored by the League and NEVER published in any of the League publications! The League remains arrogant and undemocratic, but in the present case, we can express our opposition to the FCC. I urge everyone to do so.
Doug K4LY ex-W0AH

 

There is nothing wrong with keeping the automatic responding stations in a segment reserved for them. The overwhelming majority of amatuer communications is real-time, live operator at both ends communications. That is unlikley to change anytime soon, if ever. Permitting automatic responding stations to exist anywhere amongst live operator QSOs, regardless of the mode employed is a recipie for disaster. It does not matter whether the traffic is W2K over Pactor III or NTS traffic via RTTY. Automatic respoding stations need to be segregated from live operator operations. I do not believe voluntary band planning and "gentlemens" agreements are sufficient with a reliance on the rule against willful interference to keep order. How do you file a complaint against chronic interference by an automatic responding station that requires a proprietary modem to identify? The reasonable solution is to provide a designated segment for such operations that live operators can avoid. Under a bona fide emergency, the rules already permit such stations to operate outside the reservered segment during emergency.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

 

Can't you just smell the money? Once again, the management of the ARRl is pocketing some cash from "unknown" sources.
I have personally seen them misrepresent members wishes. The ARRl has little to no interest in a better hobby; it is the dollar that rules these corrupt fellows worship. And I hope that they challenge me; after a very successful carrer in PR, I am looking for a cause.

 

ARRL is getting burned a new(and well-deserved) one at FCC's ECFS.
The days af ARRL's pulling a fast one are over!
72.
Bill, N4QA

 

Make that "career".

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but for the most part, doesn't APRS take care of what Winlink 2000 does? I mean I went to look at it to see "why I would want to use it". And after looking it over, I feel I am better off with APRS.

 

APRS does, but with the caveat that its a one shot deal. The packet goes out onto the network, and if it isn't picked up and relayed verbatim, its lost. Thats why APRS doesn't always work reliably in every area.

Packet radio "connects" to another station and relays the packet-and keeps trying until it gets an ack from the other end that it got it, or it fails and the connection drops.

APRS fires out the packet once, and you don't know if it makes it or not.

I'm guessing winlink is like conventional packet in that it connects and makes sure the message gets through, and if not, it tries again and again till it does.

Having said that, with dialup internet available in some cases for free, and 'wireless' internet for under $100, I see this just as an attempt for people to avoid a monthly fee.

I personally don't like the integration of the internet into regular packet networks much less the ability to get internet via radio (D-Star). There are many nefarious things on the internet that don't need to get onto the amateur radio airwaves. I'm talking about content as well as purpose. If you really need internet or email, you need to be somewhere where its available, or pay for a service. Period, the end.

APRS is handy for tracking and I have both my vehicles on it. However, it is NOT mission critical, the packets don't always make it, and I don't expect that. If I wanted reliable, immediate, must locate my vehicle at all times, I would pay for a commercial service. The whole idea about Amateur Radio is to come up with things like this by experimentation-but its not meant to be as reliable as the commercial versions of stuff.

I have no problem waiting to get my email if I'm out of cell phone range or not within range of a computer. If thats not acceptable to you, get a service that will allow for that. Using ham radio and then demanding your own space so it will be as reliable as a commercial service is not the way to go. If you want commercial service and exclusive access, pay for it.

Filed my comments a few weeks ago. And I don't think I'm going to renew my ARRL subscription this year. Especially if this makes its way through-I think they may find out how many people they have offended if this does go through.

But I guess if it does, all the winlinkers can keep the ARRL going, since they won't be paying a monthly service fee for email.....

 

Many tnx to all who posted this info and commented. I, too, filed my comments with the FCC and received my confirmation number...2007322457835. A well-worded nasty gram to the ARRL is already formulating in my brain as to why I'll be cancelling my membership.
Very 73 to all...Joe...w6udo

 

This is an important issue.  Why is there nothing on eHam?  The potential for economic abuse has been
raised on this thread and rightly so.  The system
does afford a degree of security.  For the same
reason it leads to abuse of 3rd party rules. This
system belongs on commercial allocations not on
amateur bands.  Why nothing on ARRL.org?  Come
on ARRL tell us what you have done. I'm a member
and I want to know.  Back door under the table
dealings and oral Ex Parte communications. Pure
slimeball.  Shame on the ARRL.

 

I've sent a short and sweet comment to the FCC opposing this. I'm also going to reconsider my membership in the ARRL.

 

This is absolutely true. In my opinion I think Pactor II and III is illegal because it is not easily decoded. This is equivalent to putting encryption on the ham bands. Winlink would be good except that now I need to spend over $1k just to decode this crap to identify who is jamming me. I got frustrated with hf packet because the QRM bots can't determine a freq is busy or not. They can only determine if another pactor station is on the air at the time.

One other thing is that I was operating our county MCU last week and we use winlink for EMCOMM which is an appropriate use for winlink. The problem I saw was all the different freqs these stations monitor and use. You would be surprised at all the different freqs these QRM bots take up. I say make them use one freq per band. They should be able to share the freq like Packet, PSK31 and APRS does. Why do they need over 50 some odd freqs per band to use? Also the winlink program says listen before you transmit but how does the bot listen? Sometimes the person initiating the contact can't hear someone else but the bot can. That is where the problem lies right now. I am going to file my comments right after I post this.

 

I do agree with the concensus this is not done.
If an automated system interferes in an running qso, is that by itself not allowed by law.
Digital modes do have an place in the ham society, but not at the cost we see now in this proposal...

Just my 2 cents (euro)

Cor

 

You know you are correct. I run an APRS station 24/7 that is an internet gateway as well. All APRS is on one freq so it does not intefear with other QSO's. Why can't they make winlink work over APRS inistead of HF. Would be much faster because APRS is at 1200 baud vs 300 baud. Plus APRS is all over the country and can be accessed almost anywhere.