ad: hrd-2

WinLids on Parade - AE6XO

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by N5PVL, Nov 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: FBNews-1
ad: Subscribe
  1. K5GHS

    K5GHS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Show me where in my reply I said that.

    I believe I said to contact them and if that doesn't work, contact the FCC.

    Where in that statement did it say "let it go!"?

    I try to suggest a better method and this is the reply I get?

    No WONDER this problem continues. You just expect these guys to banish themselves from the airwaves because you got QRM'd. Isn't the proper process outlined in our rules?

    Sheesh. Next time, just tell me my solution sucks and move on. [​IMG]
     
  2. K5GHS

    K5GHS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Theres only one problem with that statement-

    It would apply to both sides of the equation equally.

    Meaning if the packet stations are silent for a few minutes, and Winlink starts a session, the packet stations would then have to wait.

    Both sides would need to admit this, and with winlink sessions lasting much longer.....that wouldn't work either.

    Wouldn't seperation, though rewarding the winlinkers, be better for that reason? Provided you eliminate the QRM, both sides will STILL not be happy-once a packet station starts a contact and transmissions pause, the frequency is clear (to the modem) and it will fire up, right?

    What you would REALLY need is for Winlink to work EXACTLY like the modes you're talking about-and require a HUMAN to listen for traffic and ask if the frequency is clear first. Putting the modems in control will mean the Winlink session will initiate once the packet modems pause. The Winlink modem can't tell if a QSO is in progress, just like a regular packet modem cannot. It waits for open air, waits x milliseconds as setup, and initiates transmission if nothing is heard.

    The only difference is a normal packet network uses short bursts. Winlink goes nuts for a few minutes.

    The modes are incompatible. One mode transmits for a few seconds at a time. One goes for a few minutes. The people who only transmit for a few seconds will not accept that kind of sharing. Even if the QRM goes away, they won't appreciate if someone is on there for 20 minutes downloading 30 emails.

    But if you turned detection on like many people are saying they need to do, all you will do is you won't be QRM'd. Winlink will wait for the opening and take it. You aren't QRM'd if you aren't transmitting at the time-the frequency is clear when no transmissions are occuring. Right? I mean, at least, to a computer, it is, which is what busy detection is.

    Its still not gonna work. If you share, you'll still be waiting for Winlink to clear. The computer only looks for the presence of something. It cannot tell if you're in QSO.

    Seperation would reward the QRM'rs. But with the protocol the way it is, the only way is to change the protocol, or to seperate the modes so they can live in harmony. Seeing that the FCC has done much so far, I see them taking the easy out.

    Contrary to popular belief by many in this thread, this will be ultimately what happens, unless Winlink is either declared an illegal mode, or enough complaints are submitted that the FCC shuts them down.

    However, having the FCC demand they use busy detection will stop the QRM-it will just wait till you're not transmitting and then startup. And the FCC will look at this and say "well, the frequency was clear. No intentional QRM" and you'll be in the same boat, except you won't be stepped on. You'll just be interrupted mid-QSO because there was a short break between transmissions.

    I don't support Winlink by any means, but its plain to see-the modes don't work well together. If you don't seperate them, you'll still be waiting for Winlink to finish anyway, or to have a short break where your modem can then take the frequency for a few seconds. Then....another break, Winlink sees open air, and it fires up again.

    If both sent in a few second bursts, it would work. They don't.

    The complaints would simply change from QRM to "Winlink is constantly tying up (insert frequency here).

    Thats why I keep saying that seperation is the solution. Not because I want to support or gift QRM, but because the modes simply are NOT the same. The protocols may be similar, but the amount of channel time used to complete a transaction is not.

    Either way, you'll be waiting for your turn. Winlink takes more of the lions share of time. Stick it somewhere small and let them tie up that area to their hearts content, and let them fight EACH OTHER FOR AIRTIME.

    Instead of taking up all of yours because you use a protocol that is much more effective and efficent.

    Its not fair, but you know if they do wait for open air, they will still be hogging everything!

    Or, tell me I'm wrong, please. But every complaint I see here says "They just took over for 20 minutes." I'm assuming its a solid transmission, not small packets. If not, please inform me I'm wrong and I'll retract my statement.
     
  3. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Some of the recent comments in this thread tend to make one question what the real motives and objectives of some of the posters are.

    Is the objective the removal from the HF bands of:
    ( a )  The WinLink Network sponsored by Mr. Waterman et al;
    ( b )  The removal of ALL WinLink activity;
    ( c )  The removal of ALL PACTOR III activity;
    ( d )  The removal of most or ALL relatively wide-band digital modes

    It's one thing if the primary objection is to Mr. Waterman's WinLink network, or at least a significant (if not majority) portion of it's users.  One can argue, and argue convincingly, that many of these users are amateurs in name only; and that their primary if not only reason for using WinLink is to avoid using commercial systems for any of a number of reasons.  I'm not saying you'd win the argument, mind you -- but you could argue this convincingly.

    And you can also argue convincingly (again, not to say you'd win the argument) that certain aspects of PACTOR III make it a poor match for the Amateur Service overall, including but not limited to it's proprietary nature... and that use of this mode should be limited, curtailed, or even eliminated.

    Now... if either or both of these last two paragraphs are (more or less) your arguments, then the suggestion that the two camps in the HF digital community -- ie, narrow band-mode users and wide-band mode users -- get together and hammer out a compromise to co-exist is a good and wise one. Even if this is to the point of agreeing to a voluntary band plan (both in the automated-station and non-automated-station portions of the sub-band) to segregate the narrow-band users and the wide-band users.  This would avoid if not eliminate the majority of mode-based interference.

    On the other hand, if your position is against the wide-band modes existing on HF in the first place, then any suggestion for compromise or sharing will continue to be turned down out of hand.   Those daring to suggest as such will continue to be insulted and otherwise demeaned by those objecting to said compromises... by terms such as "winlids," "shills," "trolls," "sellouts," and further terms of varying degrees of derogatory.

    IMHO, a hard-line position against the wider bandwith modes will ultimately fail.   A particular mode may fall by the wayside, but there are others out there, and more that are being developed.  Be it WinLink, ALE, or something else we just haven't heard about (yet), sooner or later, a wide-band mode will gain enough credence and users that it will be shoe-horned somewhere into the band.  Fighting tooth and nail against that may delay the inevitable... but it will happen.

    It is becoming clear to the dis-interested third parties that the two camps involved need to work out a way to co-exist.  If they don't, sooner or later, someone or some organization outside the two camps may choose to impose a means of co-existance that one or both camps may find it hard to live with.

    Are you really prepared to cut off your nose to spite your face?
     
  4. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    Good news is new Ham Magazine!
     
  5. K8YZK

    K8YZK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Charlie, loved the new mag, but I think the three stooges where smarter then some winlink ops.
    Also in steady of Amateur Radio, you should have put ECOMM and Winlink. Isn't that what they are saying, it is the panacea for emergency communications.

    Kurt
     
  6. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Laughing, Charlie, you sure do have a lot of time on your hands! [​IMG]
     
  7. KI4ITV

    KI4ITV Ham Member QRZ Page

    nyuk nyuk nyuk. [​IMG]
     
  8. N2RJ

    N2RJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I guess that's why emergency management officials have blackberries. ;)
     
  9. K2GSP

    K2GSP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Hey take your argument to the Winlink group on Yahoo and see what headway you make. I put up what I think the first step needs to be until that happens I have no reason to budge on what I believe, nor does anyone else. As far as ALE goes it's bigger joke then Winlink. I cringed when I read from ALE's main cheerleader about the ability to send cell phone text messages over HF. Yea I see a big EMCOMM use for that. Nope as far as I'm concerned the ball is in their court. Turn on the signal detection and then there can be talk. If you can't play nice with what you have you don't get anymore.
     
  10. N5PVL

    N5PVL Ham Member QRZ Page

    [​IMG]

    Rinaldo, Waterman and Sumner?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: ProAudio-1