Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

And why wouldn't they ? What is your point ?

 

Someone reads all 150,000 messages every day? Wow, that must be one tired person...


"subject to scrutiny" - except from the amateur radio community, the ARRL OO program...

 

Most of the comments come from those who do not own a boat...

It isn't about Winlink, and it never has been. It is about the ability to step FORWARD with technologies that have yet to be invented, or to have ham radio become a bunch of frequencies used only by a few with outdated technology. If you truly believe that DXing, ragchewing, and/or CW speed offer convincing reasons to hold these frequencies; you are sadly mistaken.

If we are standing still, we ARE going backwards. I am sorry that someone's feelings got hurt when he was outvoted on the ARRL committee; BUT, that is a poor reason to mount a smear campaign against anything that faintly approaches newer digital technology.

One wonders why I am the only person on this forum to offer design parameters for the ARRL modem that could REPLACE the SCS. Could it be that the purpose of this thread is destruction of a (wrongly) perceived "villian", rather than construction for the good of Amateur Radio ? I beg someone to prove that wrong..... for the good of hams everywhere.

 

The rather obvious misquote "15,000 users sending 150,000 emails" is NOT from the website. 150,000 e-mails does not represent a daily total, but a monthly total WORLDWIDE.

Current monthly statistics show about 23096 TELNET (VHF/UHF) and 21993 HF, with an average HF airtime of 3.27 minutes per message (including, call, connect, message, and disconnect). That total is for ALL stations, worldwide.

Certainly you have heard of software that scans messages for suspicious content ? That is in use, and people have been rather rapidly removed if they violated prohibitions. Add the fact that many people are monitoring and/or have access to messages, and the system is pretty open.

And for the "secret message" bunch: I can prove beyond any doubt that a secret message can be passed without the knowledge of the person who actually passed it. No, I am not talking about a written message. It was done on a radio station in Honolulu during WW-II, and caused a national ban on playing requested songs at a specific time -- and on reading "requested for/requested by". If a code is shared by the correspondents, the person delivering the message need never know.

"Could you wear the yellow sweater ? It will make my photo better." can tell someone watching (who only sees -- not hears) that I have left something in a dead drop. I do not even need to know the person who puts on the sweater !

Trust me, if I want to send a secret message, I am able to send a secret message with very low probability of detection. Any "spy" worth his/her salt knows how to do it, and a ham radio is about the LAST thing one would try to use -- especially in the ham bands.

 

"pretty open" - only to those within the Winlink organization? Like, the PMBO operator, whose license is on the line if something inappropriate gets transmitted from his station? I'm sure he'd be the first one to send in the report that says he missed a bad message, that it went out over RF on amateur frequencies. Certainly someone other than the PMBO operator is watching on the RF side, somewhere?

Care to link me to one of those reports? Also, I'd be very interested to see how exactly (from a techincal standpoint, including necessary equipment and software) one would externally monitor a Winlink Pactor II/III conversation...

 

Wow Larry what a hypocrite. You sit there and tell us all these things could happen to an EOC (which by the way I mean mobile EOC) but yet you still insist that emails cannot be lost. Every post you put on the thread only confirms my opinion about you and how smart you are. You only read what you want to read then you try and post something and sound dumber every time you post.

You are pretty dumb if you think and EOC is not going to be manned at 0200 during an actual disaster. Give me a break because I doubt you have ever done any EMCOMM because everything you have said sounds like your own fantasy. Besides why would you be out there with no EOC to coordinate the effort. The EOC does not have to be a fixed building.

 

Show me proof of where every message is vetted. You have yet to show any proof whatsoever so just shut up Larry. You just keep showing us how dumb you really are.

 

The WinLink network is well established and would be an ideal "carrier" for terrorist comms. I just wonder how well the users are "vetted" and by whom? Ever heard of coded messages?
Sorry, but this IS something for consideration.

Jack VK4JRC

 

Really? Then why did CJX state that the daily average is about 6400 users sending/receiving 81000 messages?

Did he mis-speak?

Or are you perhaps being misled?

tim ab0wr

 

That's why our EOC is manned 24/7 by the National Guard with a fully capable staff -- including a delegated manager capable of making and implementing any decisions necessary to handle a disaster.

I'll repeat it again. I don't want to be in Texas during a disaster based on Larry's description of their operation. It sounds to be at least a decade behind in technology and the staffing sounds like it is a 2nd tier issue.

Not very confidence inspiring at all.

Oh, btw, our EOC is on an 80 acre hardened National Guard site with 24/7 manned (by armed guards)entrance/exits to the reservation. And that's just to get into the parking lot! Yeah, a tornado could probably blow through and take it out with a direct hit. That's why there is more than one!

tim ab0wr

 

It is more than being outvoted. You are making reference to Peter Martinez G3PLX and Skip Teller KH6TY two pioneers in the Amateur radio digital world who recognized a spectrum grab when they saw it. I am a supporter of regulation by bandwidth. WinLink2000 has done more to damage this movement by co-opting this needed change into a spectrum grab. Greed is the name of the game for WinLink2000 and the leaders of this group are 100% responsible for the failure of regulation by bandwidth.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

Why does Winlink 2000 want more space?

Is it greed, or just a sick desire for domination of HF?

Quote by K4CJX from March 2005 CQ magazine, page 15:

"Waterman said Winlink 2000 PMBO mailboxes in Perth, New South Wales, Qatar, the Netherlands, Austria, and South Africa are all moving traffic to and from the tsunami stricken areas on whatever basis it is sent. All traffic is sent at the same speed in terms of message flow. According to Waterman, “The only difference in any emergency is that the content changes. I suppose there may be more outbound thirdparty information, or more recipients per message, but really no user increases that are noticeable. Unlike other types of systems set up for EmComm, this system is used with or without EmComm daily by 6384 Winlink users to approximately 81,000 e-mail recipients. It takes a huge difference to be noticeable.”

From a QRZ.COM posting by K4CJX:

"FYI, P3 is about 92 percent of the Winlink activity, and the P3 is getting larger while the P1, P2 (out of the auto-subbands is getting smaller. Very crowded situation in those small segments and intollorable on 40 meters. There are no Winlink 2000 stations on known "Fixed, fully automatic HF Packet machine-to-machine operations in these auto sub-bands."

Note that P3 activity is confined to the subbands, but at least 92% of Winlink activity is flowing in the subbands, even though K4CJX complains it is "crowded" (without offering any explanation or data on wait times). Obviously, for Emcomm traffic, regular traffic would cease (under Federal Law) and then entire space in the subbands would be available for Emcomm traffic over Winlink 2000.

There is have never been any quantitative justification offered by Winlink for needing more space for P3. They just want it all!

Nobody "hates" Winlink as a system. Winlink is a neat and useful messaging system when used within limits. People just "hate" the way Winlink users stomp on ongoing QSO's, in or out of the subbands. However, the inference in the regulations is that if you operate in the subbands (for example by using MT63 there because it is so wide), you can expect to be stomped on, but outside the subbands, you have a right not to be stomped on!

So, how about the Winlink supporters stop attacking everyone else and instead concentrate on making the system work better in the subbands, where there is obviously more than sufficient space for 5000 emails a day and for whatever Emcomm traffic might be required in a real emergency...

 

I still can't believe someone is trying to sell this boondoggle for SCS as "new" or "innovative". There's nothing new or innovative about it. It's a proprietary protocol using proprietary hardware under threat of lawsuit, that fly's in the face of the Ham Radio spirit of openness and cooperation.

Because it's proprietary, and SCS could and have said they would, sue you if you built your own software emulated modem using the computer sound card, it is an encrypted protocol and should be banned from Ham Radio.

It's crying damn shame that the once proud and respected ARRL has allowed itself to be prostituted by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. The lure of all the free and easy DHS grant money was just too powerful to resist.

 

I believe that Steve has already had this discourse with you. As usual, same question, different day. Quit pretending to want an answer.

 

You should not believe Skip's nonsense. The ARRL is actively seeking specifications for an OPEN SOURCE HF modem that could REPLACE the SCS. I have given the benefit of my years of experience in HF modems to that effort, with an input on both the modem and on the protocol. (They are NOT the same thing.)

I still believe that the SCS is a real BARGAIN (compared to my $50,000 HF modems from the late 80's / early 90's), but I see several areas for improvement in HF modem design and protocol design -- the most important of which is in the protocol.

FYI: My best guess is that there is no more than $200 GROSS profit in an SCS modem, and that any ACTUAL return on investment (ROI) probably is still in the future. This estimate counts the value of all of the hours of coding, which many hams (maybe including the SCS guys) may not consider as a "cost" -- but it certainly is a large percentage of development costs in the REAL world.

The real issue IS NOT -- and NEVER has been Winlink. (The primary REAL issue is that someone got outvoted on the ARRL Digital Committee.) The issue of importance to ham radio is one of the continued viability of ham radio. If we cannot make use of modern modes and techniques, we cannot contribute to the advancement of the art and science, and we cannot effectively serve our communities when we are the ONLY means of communication available.