ad: elecraft

Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KH6TY, Mar 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: l-BCInc
  1. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    100% of the time, guaranteed? They've never stepped on an existing QSO?

    Never has one inappropriate piece of content hit the RF from the Winlink network either, right?

    Hard to believe, that one is...

    [edit] rewording...
  2. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Really? Care to comment on the following then?

    Here's the existing text of 97.309 b ... see link

    Here's the proposed new text from the ARRL... see this link

    Anyone notice anything suspiciously missing?
  3. AD4MG

    AD4MG Banned QRZ Page

    Identifying these stations is very difficult. It appears to be a good defense for these stations. Operate with total impunity, as the vast majority of amateurs cannot identify you. A license to steal.

    As far as the mail bombing of the FCC is concerned, a man had given his word on this public forum that this was not going to happen. I see what that man's word is worth now.

    It's OK though, as I archived all of this, knowing it would come down to getting down and dirty.

    Carry on Larry, your words solidify the resistance to this cheap, cheesy, and filthy attempt to pollute a resource meant for all. The concept of sharing is lost on those who wish to continue using free internet email via the amateur radio spectrum.

    I'll send the archived material to the FCC after a couple of thousand comments supporting the petition mysteriously appear out of thin air. I think they'll see the truth.
  4. WA4GCH

    WA4GCH Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is not a ANTI digital thing it's a What will happen to all other modes thing ....

    I don't see hunderds of 100 khz wide signals on 144.500-148.00 doing anything but jamming OSCAR'S, simplex and repeaters or the same on 50.3 - 54 doing anything but the same why do they even NEED to under the 222 mhz they already have?

    ARRL wise up we may be old but we still pay your bills ......


    LIFE MEMBER more that 30 years and still costing them money.

    Fight to have rights on VHF ......
  5. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wonder if Larry's coming back?
  6. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    100% of the time, guaranteed? They've never stepped on an existing QSO?

    Never has one inappropriate piece of content hit the RF from the Winlink network either, right?

    Hard to believe, that one is...[/QUOTE]
    When improper use has been done by ANY station, that station has been disciplined. The severity of the discipline depends upon whether or not it was willful and the exact type of message that was sent. Stations who did not show that the action was a) inadvertent (or rules misunderstood), and b) would not be repeated were removed and banned.

    The FCC and some other enforcement (in other countries) have been involved when a serious violation occurred. PMBO operators MUST act to protect their licenses, and the amateur service. They will not risk either their licenses or damage to amateur radio by failing to act.
  7. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes. What is missing is intelligent reading.

    A "digital code" is an ALPHABET and/or PROTOCOL. ASCII is an alphabet and a "protocol". Baudot, likewise. CCIR 476, likewise. Huffman coding is an "alphabet" and a protocol (often used as a protocol element).

    All the paragraph says is that "coding" (which is used by all modern modems for error detection, error correction, and to improve throughput) may be used. This is REQUIRED in ANY good modem to improve communication and shorten time on the air. My protocol that became G-TOR uses Huffman coding. Not ONE person objected to that !

    Coding IS NOT a new concept -- just one that has been "understood" in the rules, instead of stated. This "coding equals encryption" nonsense is a lie, and has been shown time and again to be a lie.
  8. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Then why propose to drop "must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication"?
  9. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    The only TRUTH is that those using a resource for good and working FOR the good of Amateur Radio have sat back far too long while those with well documented personal grudges have spouted nonsense and lies to inflame passions. Many of those working FOR Amateur Radio have awakened to the fact that they HAVE TO SPEAK OUT to counter the lies, false rumors, and other nonsense.

    When the "anti" and "pro" comments are compared, it is quite clear which commenters are offering well-thought comments, and which are merely repeating something that they were told was "truth". Sadly, the absolutely laughable comments made by some are damaging to ALL Amateur Radio. (e.g., Comments that address items / issues not in ANY proposal.)

    I started out as a Winlink / regulation bandwidth skeptic. When I witnessed the "Balderdash" being spouted here, and compared that with the FACTS that I could uncover -- and the FACTS from many years of experience with multi-tone modems on HF, I realized that those resorting to rumor and subterfuge to fight something must not have a FACTUAL case that could be presented in opposition.

    When FACTS do not support arguments, people resort to "campaigning" and false accusations. When FACTS support arguments, people do not need to campaign -- or to make false accusations. (I note that no "pro-Winlink" and/or "pro-regulation by bandwidth" thread has EVER appeared on QRZ. That strongly suggests that those guys are not the ones "campaigning".)

    Case in point: The alleged "difficulty" of ID of P-I, P-II, and P-III transmissions is flatly false. The ID is simple FSK, and can be decoded with any flea market computer, a KAM, a UTU, or any of dozens of other solutions.

    Also "funny", not ONE person on the forums of which I am a member has asked anyone to "mailbomb" anyone. And, just FYI, Steve was NOT the initiator of the thread that led to people awakening to the FACT that they were losing a "war" they did not even know was being fought ! Only when it became apparent that a bunch of people were making (largely inaccurate) comments, it was suggested that those who wished to do so should read the posted comments and offer their own comments.

    In other words, this forum started the "war" -- if "war" exists. Those seeking to advance Amateur Radio have FINALLY started to respond to the nonsense.

    Potentially ruining Amateur Radio to satisfy personal "issues" is NOT an acceptable action. When one is outvoted, one should have the good grace to accept that the MAJORITY made what they believed was a clear choice that was in the BEST INTERESTS of Amateur Radio. When one refuses to accept that others may ALSO be correct every now and then, one says something about one's perspective and character.
  10. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Because it is MEANINGLESS. By DEFINITION, PUBLISHED digital codes CANNOT be encryption. (I created Product Concepts and guided Product Development for a world leading Cryptographic manufacturer, as one of two persons with those responsibilities.)

    Also, it PLAINLY says "for the purpose of facilitating communications". That CLEARLY says (to anyone with a background to understand it) that the coding is for error detection and/or error correction and/or improvement of throughput.

    Reading is fundamental.....
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page