FCC ISSUES SIGNIFICANT RULE CHANGES

KD5ZER · Nov 9, 2006

Has this showed up in the Federal Register yet?

K4JF · Nov 11, 2006

[b said:

Quote[/b] (KD5ZER @ Nov. 08 2006,00:33)]Has this showed up in the Federal Register yet?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not yet. (as of 10 Nov)

Update: I understand posted 15 Nov. Therefore effective 15 December. Have fun!

AE4TM · Dec 1, 2006

[b said:

Quote[/b] (k4cjx @ Oct. 16 2006,23:52)]

[b said:

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Oct. 16 2006,16:56)]

[b said:

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Oct. 16 2006,04:57)]

[b said:

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Oct. 15 2006,14:51)]

[b said:

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Oct. 15 2006,23:29)]Finally, show me another system that offers direct to the recipient delivery at BOTH ends; does not require an amateur to type, transcribe, or send the message; does not require an amateur to receive, type, print, copy, or deliver the message; and offers 100% error-proof transmission. Show me another system that allows a single amateur to support ALL of the EMCOMM needs of an EOC until help can arrive. Show me another system that can be set up on UHF only; VHF only; or to utilize UHF, VHF, and/or HF with the SAME operator / user interface. Show me another system that allows the user to operate with a KNOWN interface, with no additional training required. Show me another system that is INSTANTLY available at the moment of a disaster, because it is up and running 24 hours a day, 7 day a week.

The simple fact is that Winlink is the ONLY system that can do all of those things.
.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for you but jnos2 can do all that and much more.
Setup a jnos server at your EOC and everyone everywhere can access it using their standard email client or airmail, need more then one server? no point jnos can forward messages to eachother over internet, wifi d-star packet or pactor something winlink can't do, once the pmbo used loses internet it becomes an island.
next to being a message center with both smtp/pop3 access and packet access it is also a node and tcp/ip router as wel as a web server news server and ftp server.
Click to expand...

In addition, Larry's statement about 100% error-free transmission leads me to believe that he is NOT a large user of RF based messaging.

Pactor I, Pactor II, and Pactor III do NOT provide 100% error-free operation even with WL2K.

It may be close, but it isn't 100%. I run enough messages through my NTS-D node that I *do* see errors. I see errors like multiple messages getting appended together (i.e. some messages won't get delivered to the intended recipient) as well as truncated messages (i.e. not all data gets delivered).

In an emergency these types of errors could be disastrous.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I have quite a lot of experience with HF, VHF, UHF, landline, cellular, and SATCOM communications that absolutely MUST be 100% error-free or the entire message will be lost. One bit in error will destroy the ability to decode a Strategic-level cryptogram. We have successfully operated to establish sync in BER of 10^-2, and to pass traffic at BER of 10^-3.

100% error free is not all that difficult to achieve, IF one understands the requirements of both the messaging system and the transmission medium. My design for landline and VHF/UHF will differ rather markedly from that for HF.

I challenge anyone to produce an actual message that was received over a Winlink system that is incomplete or in error. If the message was received, it is complete. If it is not complete, it was not received, and it was not put into the recipient's in-box.

Winlink: It's available. It works. It's been proven world-wide in disaster after disaster. No other system can make that claim. End of story.
Click to expand...

Larry,

I would also add that the symbol rate for Pactor 1 is 200 baud, and the symbol rate for Pactor 3 is only 100 baud. This, of course, is not to be confused with the speed of the transmission. Some do get confused, don't they!

Steve, k4cjx
Click to expand...

Steve,

Nicely said. I would also add that some in this forum would also prefer that Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, etc fully disclose their DSP SSB digital processing programs to the world in order that "SSB remain legal when using DSP."

Unlike some, I agree that these SSB voice enhancement programs, although not fully disclosed to all, are legal as does the FCC.

Ed AE4TM

AA5GO · Dec 6, 2006

If you spent as much time studying as you do whinning about doing away with cw you would of passed along time ago. You something for nothing people need to realize that when people still don't get into the hobby after removing all the requirements the government will sell off our frequencies anyways. It will have to be something worth being apart of and glorified cb is not. Leave the code alone!

K7JEM · Dec 6, 2006

[b said:

Quote[/b] (aa5go @ Dec. 05 2006,17:24)]If you spent as much time studying as you do whinning about doing away with cw you would of passed along time ago. You something for nothing people need to realize that when people still don't get into the hobby after removing all the requirements the government will sell off our frequencies anyways. It will have to be something worth being apart of and glorified cb is not. Leave the code alone!
Click to expand...

That argument was already proposed to the FCC and soundly rejected.

Joe

FCC ISSUES SIGNIFICANT RULE CHANGES

KD5ZER Guest

K4JF Ham Member QRZ Page

AE4TM Ham Member QRZ Page

AA5GO Ham Member QRZ Page

K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

Share This Page