I wasn't addressing you in my post, yet you seem to have taken umbrage and feel the need to defend even though my comments were about far more than one particular system. Nevertheless I'll spend the time to walk through your list: Hogging frequencies: I don't know what else to call it when ACDS stations squat on particular published frequencies and will interrupt any other QSO in progress, perhaps another ACDS station, when they wish (other digital and CW signals are allowed in the ACDS subbands). There is nothing in part 97 to justify this on HF, inside or outside of the ACDS subbands. Now, long ago the FCC recognized the special nature of repeaters which have no frequency agility at all and must stay on their particular frequencies in order to be useful. Accordingly they implemented the "coordination" of repeater frequencies, which does give a measured amount of exclusivity to the repeater frequency. Perhaps this should be extended to ACDS on HF, however no such special accommodation presently exists. Blocking objectionable Content in Real time: As I said, I appreciate that Winlink has of late been attempting to police this which is admirable. But my comments were in general for any ACDS station especially handling large amounts of traffic from unlicensed people on the internet who have no idea what is and isn't allowed. I am very skeptical of the claim that Winlink or anyone else except perhaps a Google, can in real time assess the content of an email to determine if it has prohibited content such as a commercial message. I would like to see a "challenge" test for Winlink (and other such systems) where violative messages are attempted to see how many get through rather than rely on the present Winlink data which probably doesn't include violative messages which escaped their filters since they don't know about them. Digital vs. Analog: My statement was: "And also, in a general sense, with the conflict of digital modes vs. traditional analog modes", meaning that the concern over Winlink is just a part of a larger issue which is a type of "old vs. new" conflict. It isn't just about ACDS subbands. Many data transmissions are now common and even digital voice (which the FCC considers to be a subset of phone, not data) is becoming more popular in the phone bands. There is real concern among many about how to preserve room for traditional modes especially if wide bandwidth digital activity is approved and becomes popular. Intended for commercial...: At this late date I don't think it can be seriously disputed that Winlink was and is used routinely as a substitute for paying for commercial email and sending messages that are more properly handled by such a commercial service in violation of part 97. Ok, enough of that, life is too short for more point - counterpoint. As I have said, I have no horse in this race. I try to see both sides of the issues which have been raised, and there are good arguments to go around. There's no doubt in my mind that systems such as Winlink will be used - there is no turning back the technology clock. The question is how to adjust them to fit them into the regulatory scheme, or how to change the regulatory scheme to accommodate them while still preserving other legitimate uses and avoiding commercialization and corruption of the amateur service. SM0AOM says these are non-issues where he is from, so perhaps another approach would be to loosen the regulations substantially and see what happens.