WinLids on Parade - AE6XO

And what good are black berries going to do you if they are in the effected area? They can't send and receive email and what good is sending email out of the area going to do? Sorry but that argument just doesn't fly. Email is not used for serious emcomm. You don't know how long it would take an email to get from point A to point B and even if it got there at all. You normally get a delayed delivery status after about an hour so what good what that do if the email can't get through. You guys are making all kinds of excuses and none of them make any sense what so ever.

 

Nah that would be Waterman, Rinaldo, and Sumner. You give waterman too much credit for being Mo.

 

Albert the compromise is for WinLink users to remember they have to yield the right of way if their telemetry would cause interference.

They must do this by law, and should resume doing it as their contribution to "compromise" on the shared spectrum we all otherwise wish to enjoy.

--Paul/VJB

 

It's funny how we miss the big stuff that means so much.
We can pick minutia to the core, but the truth is the truth.
Good point OM.

 

Why would you still say he doesn't know?  He already told you it was unintentional explained the noise factor etc, and apologized.  
You may be completely correct about WINLINK but your attitude and actions are the antithesis of how a good Ham should act.    I would rather QSO AE6XO any day than you, pretty big of him to apologize. Pretty small of you not to accept it.

Also one of N5PVL's web pages is for something called P.E.S.T. (Packet Experimentors Society of Texas) (membership of 2, PVL and his dog)

Uhh it's Experimenters....may want to spell the title correctly...hilarious.  Also may want to change all the Thiers to theirs.
(Is that why he is so upset someone worked for NASA... they can spell?)

On the home Page of PEST

Isn't that the same kind of like you accuse WINlink of -  being bothersome or irritating?  It is Ok for you though?

"So there" - kind of like the attitude you accuse Winlink users of?  

 

You can say what you will about Charles, but he seems to live what he believes and does not seem to have a gathering mass of amateurs with burning pitchforks going after his preferred mode of operation.

 

Apparently you missed out on it the last six or seven times I mentioned this, but AE6XO had been observed crashing QSO's on three seperate occasions prior to my report here.

Did you 'get it' this time around, Sherlock?

Of course he had an excuse... Who doesn't? - But that doesn't change the fact that he had just been caught at it three times in a row, does it?

Some of you guys must have 'sucker' tatooed across your foreheads, it's really embarassing to have to explain the same old facts of life to you, over and over again.

Funny how WinLid apologists are never embarassed to demonstrate a lack of basic reading comprehension. Maybe THAT's why they don't respect PART97 or thier fellow hams, the concept is too complex for them and kind of shoots over thier heads.

Potty training them must have been a heck of a job.

 

The answer to your quandry is called a "leaky bucket". If you detect a carrier then you start filling the bucket with "busy units". The bucket has a "hole" in it that the "busy units" drain out of. By adjusting the fill rate and the drain rate you can do a very good job of not taking over a frequency during a "lull" but still have a reasonably fast access time.

Winlink, being a non-frequency sharing protocol, would have a different set of fill/drain rates than packet which *is* a frequency sharing protocol. The leaky bucket paradigm is basically what packet already uses to minimize collisions.

Separation is still nothing more than "channel assignments" in the ham bands wrapped up in different words. If you separate *everything" from the WL2K frequencies then you have, in essence, assigned the frequencies to exclusive use by WL2K.

I personally don't think anyone would be concerned if WL2K interfered on an occasional basis. Jeesh, all modes do this to each other for all kinds of reasons -- on an occasional basis. If the Pactor busy detection used a well designed "leaky bucket" paradigm along with a reasonable carrier detect paradigm, the interference *would* be occasional. If someone then had to wait 20 minutes for the frequency to clear that wouldn't be any different than waiting for a round-table to clear a frequency so a net can take place.

The modes *are* different. Pactor *needs* to be redesigned to be a good neighbor on the ham bands. That *is* what needs to happen -- either that or WL2K needs to integrate a different protocol into their system.

I liked the analogy someone drew once between Pactor and Spark. Spark was a nasty old operation that was not conducive to frequency sharing. Pactor is the same. Perhaps Pactor needs to have the same treatment as Spark, at least as far as the ham bands is concerned.

Separation is *not* the answer. As WA0LYK pointed out, once you reward one operation that way the hunt will be on for the next operation that can get dedicated FREE frequency assignments in the ham bands - and the next -- and the next ........

tim ab0wr

 

w3wn:

I can only suggest that you go read the FCC comments in the R&O known as the Omnibus R&O back in 2006. You will find that the FCC *expects* the CW/RTTY portions of the HF ham bands to be narrow bandwidth areas.

Why do you think they made the CW/RTTY portions of 80m and 40m smaller instead of larger with their R&O?

It certainly wasn't because they expect the CW/RTTY portions of the band to become havens for wide bandwidth data modes that can't share spectrum in a cooperative manner.

If you'll read that R&O closely I think you'll find that they don't expect the HF bands (or even 6m, 2m, or 70cm) to become high-speed links to the internet. They expect the bands to be used for amateur-to-amateur communications instead -- just like the definition of the Amateur Radio Service spells out.

The FCC has to consider *all* uses and users of the ham bands in how they establish the rules and regulations -- not just a small, special interest group that makes up less than 1% of the total amateur community that wants to turn the ham bands into a common carrier providing high-speed links to the internet.

Most of the wide bandwidth data modes have already started to fall out of favor on the ham bands. Mt63 and the 2khz Olivia modes are prime examples. Narrower modes are already supplanting them -- at least with amateurs that put the benefit of the ARS ahead of personal benefit.

Your argument just doesn't seem to ring quite true. There are too many examples that show that narrower modes are the wave of the future, not wider ones.

tim ab0wr

 

You have no argument to the topic so you attack Charles for his spelling... Typical of someone who has no legitimate argument. TYPICAL LID.


73 jerry n9lya