I always appreciate your viewpoints especially given the wealth of knowledge and experience you have. However, in this case I don't think you are giving enough credit to some legitimate concerns about Winlink and data stations in general. (I'm a bystander to this issue and have no personal interest for or against Winlink or other digital modes). True, a major complaint about Pactor 3 (and thus Winlink) was that the encoding and ARQ rendered it completely unreadable by a third party. This has now been shown to be false, at least as far as the demonstrations go by KX4O and KX4Z, which was a significant accomplishment. But the issues are much larger. Winlink has become a proxy for the problems with all automatically controlled data stations including hogging frequencies, interfering with ongoing QSOs, and generally not having good methods to screen for and block illegal or inappropriate content in real time. And also, in a general sense, with the conflict of digital modes vs. traditional analog modes. Rightly or wrongly, Winlink is also now almost synonymous with the general digital regulatory issues of Baud, bandwidth, and subband allocations (in the US). And in this internet and email connected world, Winlink represents a commercial corruption of amateur radio since it clearly seems intended to provide an extensive, parallel alternative to a commercial email service for sailors. That Winlink can be used by others including amateur emergency groups doesn't erase this history and continued use, unfortunately. (And if it weren't Winlink, no doubt some other service with similar issues would spring up at some time.) These are not trifling, petty matters, and really do require regulatory and enforcement attention. I do note and appreciate that Winlink has stepped up and done a lot of self-policing recently. It's unfortunate but predictable that all these issues would come up to the FCC during the present rulemaking process which isn't focused on Winlink per se, nor even on most of the issues above. Due to the nature of the regulatory process, small steps are advisable rather than asking for an overhaul of a large number of regulations at once, but some people are naturally impatient for all the issues (as they see them) to be solved and this is evident in their comments. As for the forum discussions and rulemaking comments looking bad from your vantage point, I would point out that the US has many times more licensed amateur radio operators than any country in Europe, yet the available spectrum is very similar. It's not surprising then that our issues before the FCC are perhaps more loudly and robustly contested than elsewhere, especially when it comes to issues related to spectrum utilization.