Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

Mike the whole point of this thread has been about this. What we have been attempting to tell you and Larry is that by using pactor II or III we cannot monitor who the offending lid is that is stomping all over our QSO's. That has been the main topic this whole time. You and Larry have skewed this thread into the winlink is the all end for emcomm issue that it has turned into. You and Larry seem to think that just because only about 1% of all the messages passed via winlink is emcomm that it is the most awesome system devised. If you go to the winlink site they say that over 150,000 emails a month get passed via winlink. That is an awful lot of QRM flying around on HF if you ask me. Also why are so many emails being sent via HF instead of using other means. I counted 51 PMBO's listed on their homepage as well. If they are monitoring 5-6 different freqs a piece that is a lot of QRM out there. There are 25 PMBO's registered just in the United States. That is almost half the PMBO's. 13 of these 51 only allow pactor II and III connects only. There is a paragraph that explains express connections and what is happening to all these lids soon. Here it is in case you are too lazy to go read it for yourself on the winlink.org site.

Express Participating Network Stations

In addition to employing the "FastLink" methodology, some of the Winlink 2000 participating network stations (PMBOs) also restrict their protocols to Pactor II (400 to 800 bps) and Pactor III (1400 to 3600 bps.) In doing so, these PMBOs typically have a much higher ratio of traffic minutes and message counts to connect times than do the PMBOs that also receive the slower Pactor I (100 to 200 bps) protocol. In other words the amount of traffic that is passed with an Express PMBO is much greater for an equivalent amount of connect time with approximately the same number of connections. On average, this translates to a Pactor 1 station downloading an 80,000 byte file in approximately 80 minutes while on Pactor 3, the same download takes approximately 6 minutes.

With the popularity of the faster Pactor Protocols and the shrinking number of Pactor I stations using the Winlink 2000 system, more enhanced features may be brought into the system for an ever-increasing number of users.

Now if this does not scare you into believing that this crap is going to take over the HF bands then I give up on you and Larry because you are too blind to see what is going on. You need to read that last line of the quote to really understand what is going on. We are moving to a system that the average ham cannot monitor for part 97 rules violations. What we are doing is letting 51 stations police themselves. That to me is unacceptable as I think it is with a lot of folks on here with the exception of you and Larry.

Here is another lie you guys keep perpetrating. This is copied out of the Federal report "A failure of initiative"

Emergency communications were conducted not
only by voice, but also by high-speed data transmissions
using state-of-the art digital communications software
known as WinLink. In Mississippi, FEMA dispatched
Amateur Radio operators to hospitals, evacuation centers,
and county EOCs to send emergency messaging 24 hours per day. According to Bay St. Louis Mayor Edward A.
“Eddie” Favre, amateur radio operators were especially
helpful in maintaining situational awareness and
relaying Red Cross messages to and from the Hancock
County EOC.

Now why no mention of how many message actually were passed. Maybe because it was a very small number not worth mentioning. Here is what SATERN passed on its net from the same report.

The Salvation Army operates its own Amateur Radio
communications system using Amateur radio volunteers,
known as SATERN. During the Hurricane Katrina response
and recovery effort, SATERN joined forces with the
SHARES program and received over 48,000 requests for
emergency communications assistance utilizing federal
frequencies made available via the SHARES program.

Now why can a voice network keep track of how many messages are passed but a digital system such as winlink cannot? The problem too is the ARRL only focused on winlink as the almighty god of EMCOMM when in fact it was only one small tool that was used. What about all the traffic that was passed on vhf/uhf inside the disaster area? I am willing to bet that a lot of EOC's did not rely on winlink to carry important traffic. Most modern EOC's have satellite internet these days. It is more reliable than winlink will ever be. Face it winlink is run by volunteer operators and thus is prone to having problems. The military and national guard have much better equipment and stuff that is not cobbled together. If Larry did the stuff he claims he has done he would know that so that is why I do not believe his resume he posted. That is why he has lost all credibility in this thread.

Point is winlink is not the high and mighty system that you and Larry seem to think it is. It is nothing more than a way for some to have free email and to circumvent commercial services that are available. That is not the spirit of amateur radio and that is why it should not be allowed on the ham bands.

 

I thought you had an SCS there to use?

Rejected email, huh, guess that part works pretty good.

73
Mike[/QUOTE]
Mike if you go back and read I used our Mobile Communication Unit (MCU) winlink system. I tried personally with my Kam plus but could not find a PMBO willing to accept a pactor 1 connect so gave up on the stupid system. Why start out in pactor 1 if a station refuses to accept traffic from a pactor 1 station?

The email I sent was from my internet connection here at the house through yahoo. As I said above I cannot send winlink email over the air because these stations are starting to refuse all pactor one connects.

 

No circle for me.

I have never abandoned my original thesis that WinLink and PacTOR III do not belong ANYWHERE on HF outside of those designated sub-bands. You might look at the comments I have filed on RM-11306 -- from the very beginning.

So far as I am concerned, the entire EMCOMM song and dance is nothing more than a smoke-screen for the skulkers who wish to open up widespread, free-for-all WinLink use for personal email over HF.

Any and all legitimate EMCOMM uses can be carried out in the current sub-bands. If they are too crowded for such use, perhaps all of you should look to your confreres and seek some accommodation from the other WinLinkers for relief.[/QUOTE]
There is no reason why emails from public emergency agencies should be on the ham bands at *ALL*, even in designated subbands.

Those EOC's have access to NTIA assigned freqencies on HF. If having HF backup is so important, they should be putting PMBO's on NTIA frequencies and deputizing theirr "amateur volunteers" to use those frequencies from both fixed and mobile sites to pass these "critical" (what a joke!) emails.

There is absolutely no reason why the amateur bands should be used to provide common carrier infrastructure when government agencies have access to NTIA spectrum to use for this function.

This alone tells me that these EOC's are either just letting these hams "play" at being EMCOMM or are incompetent as all get out.

In either case it is a misuse of amateur spectrum to provide common carrier infrastructure.

tim ab0wr

 

I think it is the latter.

From Failure of Initiative regarding satellite phones:

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

There is no reason why emails from public emergency agencies should be on the ham bands at *ALL*, even in designated subbands.[/QUOTE]
Tim, so your also against the use of programs like PskMail too,,right?
73
Mike

 

Mike, let's clarify this. I believe that, except in an emergency, that there is no justification for transmitting internet email on amateur radio frequencies. None. Nada.

It is my understanding from previous discussions going back years that Tim, Albert, and I are pretty much in agreement with this.

At least in my opinion, the two primary functions of the Winlink network are getting email to/from sailing vessels, and getting email to/from amateurs travelling across land. Both should use the commercially available options. Emergency traffic is a microscopically small percentage of everyday Winlink email.

Why can't I buy a modem, and instead of paying Verizon their monthly fee, use the free internet email services provided by Winlink to send and receive all of my email? I already have HF rigs and antennas. That would be OK, wouldn't it? I could just go up the street to the library for internet access to sites such as this.

Now, multiply that scenario by say, 16,000 more hams, a very small number in comparison to the amateur population in the USA. My, what have we done?

We're lucky now that the system, by popular decision, is the exclusive free internet email provider for only that small segment of the amateur population.

As an Ecomm tool, I think Winlink has incredible value. I think it is an blatant misuse of the amateur service and amateur spectrum the way it is promoted and used as a free internet email provider on a day to day basis.

Period. And before you go off again, I do research what I discuss, and I'm a frequent visitor to the Winlink home page. It is not at all difficult to use the stats posted there to reach these conclusions. And, I am subscribed to the ecom group as well. I find many of the discussions informative, and it gives me greater understanding of the folks who use Winlink.

Theirs is mainly a PR problem, and I tried to warn Steve about it a couple of years ago. Numerous occasions to find a compromise to these arguments have passed, ignored by the WL2K folks, and now we have the current situation where the ARRL is expected to implement this huge spectrum grab so that Winlink can expand and grow. Had some attempt been made to undo some of the damage done by the perceived rude behavior of WL2K stations, we might be discussing how much spectrum the network needs and how it can be provided instead of beating this discussion about the merits of Winlink to death.

They were warned that the amateur community wasn't going to roll over and play dead, and we didn't. This all could have been put to rest some time ago.

It still isn't too late. I suggest the Winlink folks tell the ARRL to drop this silly petition, and lets get together and author a petition that doesn't punish the majority of amateurs for the benefit of a few. You may not see it that way, but the majority of hams do, and that's what counts.

I caution the network participants against the again discussed "mail bombing" of the FCC regarding this issue. If this thing is forced down the throats of amateurs in that manner, you may as well kiss the service goodbye. It won't be accepted, and there will be hell to pay on the bands.

Like I've suggested from day one, compromise is the answer. And it isn't likely to happen with the ARRL involved, with it's current leadership. There's not going to be anything easy about the process, but hard work always got things done in the past, and it should work equally well today. We can solve these problems, and learn to co-exist if we work together. Do it any other way, and we'll all suffer.

73,
Luke

 

The only ones looking foolish are those who keep claiming "it doesn't work" when there is a VAST MOUNTAIN of evidence that plainly PROVES that it does.

Plainly and simply put, a Winlink HF station works to send error-free data when NOTHING else works. Period.

SATCOM is NOT readily available in about 99% of the struck locations. You certainly cannot use a portable SATCOM terminal in the middle of a hurricane, and any fixed SATCOM antenna is just about guaranteed to be wiped out or moved enough to eliminate the link. For that reason, SATCOM links go into / return to service LONG AFTER a hurricane has struck. They do not provide communications during and immediately after the hurricane.

People with no experience with an actual disaster come up with all sorts of "this would work better" ideas. Most of them are laughable, because the people have ZERO idea what it is like in a disaster area. Until you have actually EXPERIENCED a disaster area IN PERSON, you absolutely have no basis to judge what DOES -- or DOES NOT -- work.

 

Mike if you go back and read I used our Mobile Communication Unit (MCU) winlink system. I tried personally with my Kam plus but could not find a PMBO willing to accept a pactor 1 connect so gave up on the stupid system. Why start out in pactor 1 if a station refuses to accept traffic from a pactor 1 station?

The email I sent was from my internet connection here at the house through yahoo. As I said above I cannot send winlink email over the air because these stations are starting to refuse all pactor one connects.[/QUOTE]
Why on earth would you have P-I in an EMCOMM van ? To me, that is the single most telling point about your whole inane argument.

You DECIDED that you wanted to "prove" that Winlink did not work. You set up a "system" that you KNEW would be unable to connect. In other words, you set up a PREDETERMINED result to support your PREDRAWN conclusion -- which renders any "result" of the "test" invalid.

Now, out of one side of your mouth, you claim that it "should" connect at P-I. (It will, in a valid emergency, by the way, as is WELL published.) Out of the other side of your mouth, you say that P-II and P-III should not occupy frequencies for a long time. You can have short connect times OR you can have P-I. You cannot have both. (But, you already know that.....)

And then, from one side of your mouth, you ask "why" it should start out in P-I. From the other side of your mouth, you state that you want to be able to read the ID. While there are several other technical reasons to start in P-I (none of which can be understood if one chooses not to understand), one of the reasons is so that any station who choses to do so CAN pick up the ID.

 

Tim, so your also against the use of programs like PskMail too,,right?
73
Mike[/QUOTE]
I am against any "amateur service" which purports to provide regular, 3rd party traffic to and from amateur users by bypassing reasonable, alternative commercial radio services.

If you'll look back through this thread Winlink advertises itself as being useful in keeping people in touch with loved ones as the travel the open ocean or open roads.

Yet, the data Winlink provides shows the average daily user receives/sends 12 email messages per day. This would seem to be way far and above "keeping in touch with loved ones". I don't know the standard deviation but my initial guess would be that half the users operate as intended, sending one or two personal messages per day, and that the other half abuse the operation by using it as a main internet email gateway for all their email -- thus bypassing alternative commercial services in operation for just that purpose.

I can only say that pskmail doesn't advertise itself as being a "free" alternative to commercial HF email services. Winlink does.

The proof is in the pudding. From what I can garner, pskmail seems to fit Part 97.113 restrictions while Winlink does not. Should pskmail be shown to have moved into the realm of regular bypassing of reasonable, alternative radio services for 3rd party communications I would be against it using the ham bands as well.

tim ab0wr

 

Larry you only prove yourself more stupid with each post. Think about what you just said. SATCOM is not readily available in about 99% of the struck locations. Are you that dumb? SATCOM pretty much covers all of the United States period. No one said about using a SATCOM terminal in the middle of a hurricane and with that statement you probably won't be operating HF either. Think about how stupid your statement is. I will say it now because you are an idiot if you think that just because a hurricane comes in that the SATCOM signals will not reach into the affected area. You really need to go back and learn how radio signals propagate because what you just said was pure stupidity.

You just will not listen Larry and you are very closed minded. Everyone on here has told you what the problems are with using winlink and pactor III. You just refuse to listen because you think that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

Keep posting and show how stupid you really are. I don't have to call you that because you are showing us with every post you make.

 

Greg, you said you used an SCS here but also said you only used a KAM Plus.

Now which one should we beleive, you or you?

73
Mike

 

Why on earth would you have P-I in an EMCOMM van ? To me, that is the single most telling point about your whole inane argument.

You DECIDED that you wanted to "prove" that Winlink did not work. You set up a "system" that you KNEW would be unable to connect. In other words, you set up a PREDETERMINED result to support your PREDRAWN conclusion -- which renders any "result" of the "test" invalid.

Now, out of one side of your mouth, you claim that it "should" connect at P-I. (It will, in a valid emergency, by the way, as is WELL published.) Out of the other side of your mouth, you say that P-II and P-III should not occupy frequencies for a long time. You can have short connect times OR you can have P-I. You cannot have both. (But, you already know that.....)

And then, from one side of your mouth, you ask "why" it should start out in P-I. From the other side of your mouth, you state that you want to be able to read the ID. While there are several other technical reasons to start in P-I (none of which can be understood if one chooses not to understand), one of the reasons is so that any station who choses to do so CAN pick up the ID.[/QUOTE]
Does this idiot actually read my posts? Here is what I said in case you can't go back and actually read my previous posts.

I said I tried it personally at my home with my KAM plus which only has pactor 1. I could not connect because the idiot PMBO's only accept II or III.

I said too that I used the SCS modem in our MCU too and it does do 2 and 3. Those are two different systems Larry and you need to actually read the posts before you start spouting off again.

 

POUNDING MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL. You guys are morons. READ WHAT I SAID TO LARRY.

 

The latest INDEPENDENT poll shows just about a 50% to 50% split among amateurs regarding the regulation by bandwidth proposal. In other words, as many support it as oppose it.

The nonsense "anti-Winlink" arguments on this forum IGNORE the fact that what ACTUALLY is being fought is ANY method of digital communications that seeks to advance HF capabilities. Winlink is merely the INVENTED "Satan" of the person who did not get his way on the ARRL committee, and those who have been "hoodwinked" into believing the subsequent nonsense.

The "rich yachters" and "rich RVers" are merely invented personifications to try to create some sort of "class warfare". The FACTS are that most people with Winlink capabilities are people with AVERAGE incomes. Of the people in this area with Winlink setups, only ONE owns an "RV" -- a travel trailer. I priced one like it: $24,000. VERY far from a "rich RVer". Nobody that I know owns a "yacht".

This "Stop Winlink" nonsense actually seeks either to cram ANY signal wider than 500 Hz into a tiny sliver of spectrum -- or to ban it outright. "Stupid" is the most kind word that comes to mind to describe that idea.

One of the major points of my articles has been "The only systems that can be depended upon to WORK when a disaster strikes are the systems IN OPERATIONAL USE every day." Winlink is operational and is tested every day. If it were NOT used every day, it would NOT be a viable tool for EMCOMM.

The inability to experiment with advanced techniques is THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT to the continued existence of amateur radio. If we become only DXers and ragchewers, our bands are doomed. If we CONTINUE to contribute to the State of the Art, we remain viable. If we CONTINUE to offer a valuable EMCOMM/Disaster resource, we remain viable.

I want to be able to send 100,000 bps in a 1 Hz bandwidth on HF under multipath conditions. Impossible ? YES. Does that "proposal" make as much sense as many of the "proposals" made on this forum ? Unfortunately, yes.

 

My, my. "idiots". "morons".

When one abandons thought for ideology, one tends to see all others as incapable of thought.

It is quite obvious that you have an agenda, and that the actual performance of Winlink has no bearing on that agenda. The fact that nobody else can reproduce the "result" of your test strongly suggests that something was wrong with the test.