ad: elecraft

Huggins Did It!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
  1. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    One of the interesting things was the feeling by some here that while WINLINK should be all open....they didn't like their posts HERE being quoted.....ah, what an interesting comment! I guess it startled them. That is one reason why I made the offer for anyone to get the chance to review the draft and object or make a retraction or whatever. So far, not a single person has taken me up on that (odd). I even emailed the first draft to Dr. Rappaport since he is difficult to reach right now and i didn't want him to be unaware of the draft. I haven't heard back from him.

    Other readers have been very enthusiastic, expecially after i summarized it and provided that summary up front. It is an enormous amount of objective data and disclosure. Appendix after Appendix with experimental data to allow people to grasp what we learned. One of the findings was completely unexpected and quite startling.

    Gordon
     
  2. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Don’t take what you read at face value. This is a maneuver with ulterior goal.

    The ARRL has tried a couple of times before over the past 15 years or so, to get “regulation by bandwidth”, but has been shouted down. This maneuver will set the stage for another attempt. They even spell it out how they will do it.

    First, segregate wide modes in reservations too small for the user base, which will cause problems.

    Then petition to “fix the problem” by increasing the wide bandwidth reservations. Along the way the distinction for automatic modes will be lost.

    Nobody should be surprised when the result ends up strongly resembling their previous regulation by bandwidth proposals.
     
    K0IDT likes this.
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    thank you for that insight! You may well be right

    the big loser in their proposal isn't WINLINK....at all.....it is JORDAN SHERER AND JS8!!!

    I tried to explain to those folks what is coming down the pike, but they were disinterested. Such is life. They will either lose functionality....or they will be forced into QRM-ville. Such is life.
     
  4. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Different BoD now, with a degree of willingness to accept input from members.
     
  5. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I somewhat agree, but there needs to be a discussion about the actual content of any submission the ARRL makes, so it's clear to most, if not all, parties that they are attempting to find an agreeable middle ground.
     
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Siddall put in exactly what the board had voted on. He’s extremely competent, and that’s what his client wanted, so that’s what he did.

    There was zero problem from WINLINK 97.221 C stations. Proven by the only objective study, and even accepted by their opponents!

    So ARRL attempted to fix a nonexistent problem, and in the process screwed up JS8. Oops!

    Then they took away a huge number of modes that FLDGI can do, and now propose you’re only allowed to use those on top of wide band WINLINK gateways, NTS-D ALE and more ...

    And they don’t yet have a band plan to solve any of this. Let’s hope they come up with a fix for this mess.


    If you can explain to me how any of that makes sense, I am all ears! It’s a representative body, and they have to proceed methodically, taking a vote and then doing what the vote said, but there is nothing inherently inside such a process that makes it come up with correct answers —- and I’m not sure it made them look very good.

    The smack down that they gave to people falsely claiming “ unreadable text necessarily proves encryption” was extraordinarily well done. Wait until you see what I wrote; I took it considerably farther, once I realized how biased even that had been applied


    There simply is never an excuse for bias and prejudice in the application of a provably false standard ( The latter part being what the ARRL made clear, Not the former ).

    I would assume that the other side might recognize how badly that portion of the filing went for them. Siddall is extremely good and he wrote very well

    What counts here is getting to the truth. Although they muffed up portions ( in my opinion ) the a RRL did well on much of it


    If there is a grander ulterior scheme here, they may have a longer game than I know
     
  7. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    They said a month ago that they were bringing the HF Band Planning Committee back to discuss how to deal with the issue of where to put the displaced modes, because they knew just dropping them in the ACDS segment wasn't going to go over very well.
     
  8. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Is it correctly pronounced HUG- or HEW- / -GINS or -JINS ? :confused: :D

    "The world wonders" ... ooops! Padding for encryption ?! :p
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  9. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    It looks like one of the loose cannons still doesn't posses basic reading skills. You know who you are, and unfortunately I can't block you on all the lists you've spammed with your latest misreading of something. You still need to be very careful with your language. I've tried to caution you before but it's your choice to continue the raving rants or not.

    Gordon, it's not you.
     
  10. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I know who it is. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page