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: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
  1. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    So, refusal of a tiny, noisy, part of the hobby to comply with the rules yields the benefit of reserved spectrum?

    No wonder they feel emboldened to operate with impunity; there's a chance under your scenario for a payoff.

    Isn't that how CB became a free-for-all ?

  2. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Tim, I think you're heading off on a tangent here, or at least trying to blur the issue. Again.

    What does the FCC "expect" in the CW/RTTY segments? Good question. Maybe you should ask them. Certainly, they don't expect analog voice or certain other wide-bandwidth modes (like SSTV). But -- they obviously don't have a problem with PACTOR-III and similar wide-bandwidth digital modes, as those modes ARE permitted in the band.

    Why did they make the CW/RTTY portions of 80 & 40 smaller? Because they wanted to expand the phone sub-bands to accomodate phone users. Period. You don't think it's a co-incidence that the code test requirement was dropped immediately after the expansion, do you? One was hand-in-hand with the other.

    You state that the FCC "expects" the bands to be used for amateur-to-amateur communications. Well, like it or not, that is what many of the various PMBO users are doing, or think they are doing. You disagree? Fine. Then petition the FCC for a ruling.

    Yes, the FCC is supposed to consider all uses and users of the amateur (and other) bands. That's not the point at all.

    Like it or not, and I know you don't, that >1% of users of the WinLink System, and ALE and other WinLink and other PMBO type users, may be a special interest group in your eyes -- but they are users of the bands.

    Like it or not, they exist.

    Like it or not, your continual posting and kvetching here is and of itself not going to change that.

    You have, IMHO, two choices. One is to get the FCC to outlaw the wide bandwidth digital modes like PACTOR III. Good luck. The other is to figure out a way to live with them. And that you don't want to do. So what's your third choice?

    And... that MT63 and 2 kHz Olivia are (or are not) falling out of favor is irrelevant. What has that got to do with living with the WinLink System PMBO's in the automated-digital-station sub-band?

    What is, after all, the entire point to this thread? A WinLink user caused QRM to existing other-mode users. And, I see that Charles has, in his infinite wisdom, started ANOTHER thread on the same topic about another WinLink user. I'm sure the subjects of these threads are being duly publicly embarrassed. How nice. Is that all the solution you have?

    The only viable solution, which I doubt you'd like, will be to segregate the wider modes from the narrower modes, specifically in the automated sub-band.
  3. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    RM-11392 asks the FCC to return the RTTY/Data subbands to narrowband operations.

    The FCC has not announced a comment period, but comments can be made through EFCS to convince the FCC that this petition should be considered.

    Mark N5RFX
  4. K8YZK

    K8YZK Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am not a fan of Winlink, and was kicked off the yahoo group, but my question is in this thread and others, comments have been made that Waterman has said to turn off the busy detection on the SCS. If so does anyone have a actual message from him to do that, if so can not that be used a evidence that Winlink Sultan has basically said to hell with other modes/contacts in progress, go ahead and qrm them?

    If there is such a message can it be posted here, for ALL to see?.

    Also since the software is proprietary(I looked that up in the dictionary so I wouldn't get ragged on), isn't this basically against the openess of ham radio,as we are suppose to be self-policing as Hollingsworth said.
  5. WA0LYK

    WA0LYK Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yep, no one championing a "reserved" segment for winlink has yet said whether or not they would ban all other uses in their proposed wide, automatic segment. If not, the problem won't go away. If so, then they are rewarding those who don't use busy detection with a payoff of spectrum dedicated to their use and only their use.

    I am still a believer in the fact that when EVERYONE else operates properly in a shared spectrum environment and only a small group does not, then it is incumbent upon that small group to conform to the accepted rules of operation. There is no responsibility for the greater than 90% of other operators to adjust their rules of operation to make room for an operation that doesn't conform to the rules.

    I have been convinced that the use of pactor 3 and turning off busy detection are both violations of "good amateur practice". From what I have been able to determine, pactor modems only detect signals within a +/- 250 Hz range which is enough in a commercial environment to insure a busy/idle status of the 3 kHz channel. This just won't work in a shared spectrum environment resulting in the question of why this specific mode was used in the first place. Turning off busy detection simply because there are "jammers" basically turns anyone operating on winlink's chosen frequencies into jammers. Neither of these should be considered "good amateur practice"!

    Simply creating a "wide" area won't suffice to change the above. There are other "wide" types of data emissions such as ALE and there will be others in the future. Winlink will have to play nice with these or the interference will simply be transferred to other types of operation. As the sunspot cycle starts it's upswing, the interference potential will also increase. I don't believe in changing rules where the problem is just transferred to someone else. This isn't solving the problem, only removing it from one's own immediate area.

    This "compromise" also doesn't address international concerns. Remember, the auto subbands we are discussing are only within the US. If winlink/pactor doesn't play nice with stations in the US, it isn't going to play nice with stations in other countries either. How do you resolve the interference problem when there are foreign operators legitimately operating in these areas?

    Here is another compromise offer.

    Winlink stops the use of pactor 3 and uses busy detection.

  6. AD4MG

    AD4MG Banned QRZ Page

    Not exactly ... P-III is permitted only in the "auto sub-band" due to it's "wideness". P-II may spew QRM outside of the auto sub-band.
  7. KC7GNM

    KC7GNM Ham Member QRZ Page

    This has been explained to you many times but you just don't get it Albert. If you give them an inch they will want a foot. If you give them a foot they will want a yard. Then different nets will see this as precedence and then they will want freqs allocated to them for use exclusively. Then you will start getting the broadcasters like Baxter wanting their own freqs. Pretty soon we won't have any shared spectrum at all. Do you see the problem with your wanting to give them their own spectrum now?
  8. KC7GNM

    KC7GNM Ham Member QRZ Page


    Just got done reading this petition and it is very well written. You know you are going to get the waterman crowd all up in arms when they find out they can only operate PIII in the 10m Band. We have been telling these guys this the whole time that PII offers better performance than PIII and uses less spectrum in the process.

    I for one can endorse this proposal and I will be making my comments very quickly to support this. I urge everyone to support this RM and get the word out to support this. If this becomes reality then we will have pretty much gotten rid of a scurge of lawbreakers off the ham radio bands.
  9. KC7GNM

    KC7GNM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Tell Steve Waterman to stop using PIII. I bet he will laugh at you.
  10. K5GHS

    K5GHS Ham Member QRZ Page

    The only reason why I say you might want to compromise is the simple fact that most everyone here thinks that, because of the QRM, the FCC will "ban" Winlink.

    I am of the opinion that they will not ban it. I see them possibly sanctioning them, requiring them to use busy detection, etc, but I don't see them banning it. If they were going to-they would have by now.

    So what are you all going to do when the FCC says "BAD WINLINK" and slaps the hand of those who QRM, they switch detection on, and then you're waiting 20 minutes for them to finish a transaction?

    I know its unheard of, but the FCC could very well tell you all to get along or don't use the spectrum at all. Then what?

    Just because they QRM right now and you have a vendetta against them for that reason doesn't mean the FCC will ban them.

    I would be making preperations for that very possibility. Unless someone can, without a doubt, prove there is some major illegality, I see the FCC telling you to play along nice or don't play. And you know who will win if that happens.

    Instead of wanting to ban them, I'd be pushing for the QRM to stop, and to facilitate that, I'd suggest they get moved to a new small subband somewhere away from where you are.

    Otherwise, you'll still be dealing with them-and with busy detection on, they will be doing so, with the nod of the FCC.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page