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: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. K2GSP

    K2GSP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    If you read through this thread you will find the exact quote as was written to me. If you go to the Yahoo Group you will find the thread he posted on about signal detection when I asked him.

  2. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    accidently dupped
  3. K2GSP

    K2GSP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    No, your solution continues to be give them their own piece of the airwaves, but that is not going to work and I doubt the FCC will see it that way either. If I didnt know better I'd swear you are pushing for a return to 11306 and calling it a compromise.
  4. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for info..
    They are not accepting comments at this time.  as you mentioned..
    However.. I do not want to miss it,
    Please post here when they do .. Thanks Jerry
  5. WA3VJB

    WA3VJB Ham Member QRZ Page

    On what do you base your conclusion the FCC has abdicated enforcement against the problems we are discussing in this thread?

    The lack of action suggests a system of triage. For now the activity is apparently not enough to trigger notice in the enforcement arena.

    My suggestion: People with grievances must continue to document being victims of interference. This will establish that it's a prolonged, chronic problem that cannot be solved directly between the parties.

    The file of complaints can then be employed against any proposed rulemaking or band planning, for consideration whether Winlink has "earned" goodwill for any expansion their proponents may desire.

    So, two scenarios are immediately available: Get the incidents of interference on the books for possible enforcement, and get the incidents of interference on the books for future rulemaking to preclude, curtail, and further restrict the offenders.

  6. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    Plaster their call signs all over the internet as QRMers.
  7. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page


    Thanks. I saw your comments on EFCS.

    Others who wish to make comments on RM-11392 can do so on EFCS.

    Mark N5RFX
  8. KC7GNM

    KC7GNM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Did you agree with what I wrote?
  9. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, absolutely. Good comments.

    Mark N5RFX
  10. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    No tangent is being pursued by me.

    I don't have to ask the FCC. I already know.

    From the R&O:
    In other words they expect the CW/RTTY portions of the band to be for narrow bandwidth signals.

    The FCC has shown they have a pretty good handle on things. That's one reason why RM-11306 didn't have a good chance at the FCC and the ARRL wound up pulling it. By *not* laying out specific bandwidth limitations the FCC allows us to experiment with data signals with all kinds of bandwidths while not actually getting involved with arguments over what exceeds bandwidth limits and what doesn't exceed the bandwidth limits.

    That does *NOT* mean that the FCC expects widebands data signals to take over the CW/Data sub-bands at the expense of all other users of the sub-bands.

    Talk about tangents. You totally missed the point. The reason they could do this is because of the narrow-band characteristics of the signals in the CW/Data portions of the band.

    Yes, I disagree. Amateur-to-amateur communications are defined as being between two or more control operators. Anything else is a third party communication. That makes ALL email communications via a PMBO third party communications. A ham station whose *only* purpose in life is handling third party communications, screened by no control operator even at the entry point into the system, then it is making the Amateur Radio Service into a common carrier. Almost all other ham systems, including the NTS-Digital, have their messages screened by actual, physical control operators at the entry point into the system.

    I don't take my marching orders from you or anyone else. I will handle the issue in the manner *I* best see fit. If shining the light of day on the system will allow peer pressure to resolve the issue without involving the FCC all well and good. It's called "self policing". The FCC should be the *last* resort, not the first resort as you always seem to intimate.

    Yes, they exist. And there are many, many things they could do to make the system more spectrally efficient. From implementing out-of-band signaling (and that isn't what you probably take it to mean) to having a PMBO monitor one and only one frequency in order to avoid killer trunks, the system could be made to live with other users in relative harmony.

    As I've pointed out before, you couldn't have a worse system if you actually *tried* to design one.

    As Skip Teller originally pointed out and Charles has demonstrated in another current thread, WL2K is at *least* five times less spectrally efficient when using PIII as PII. It's actually *worse* than five times because of the killer trunks that are continually encountered in the system.

    Like it or not, WL2K has an ethical obligation to consider the needs of the other 99% of the amateur community -- not just its own needs.

    It is the posting and kvetching here on QRZ that helped educate the amateur community about RM-11306 and contributed in at least some small way in getting the ARRL to pull the petition.

    If you don't like reading it -- THEN DON'T. It's *YOUR* problem, not mine.

    Back to this argumentative fallacy? You have artificially restricted the choices.

    Have you never heard of the concept of self-policing? I guess not.

    There are lots of ways for WL2K to design a system that can be lived with. I have given you lists of design changes at least twice. You don't seem to be able to remember them more than 24 hours. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why.

    Irrelevant? Why? Because you don't want to or don't have the capability to understand the reason why?

    Why do you think they are falling out of favor? There is at least two major reasons. Don't just dismiss them because you don't understand the issue. And they apply directly to WL2K and PIII.

    The issue is that they are doing this willfully. And I will ask you again, have you ever heard of the concepts of self-policing and peer pressure? It's not obvious that you have.

    Malarky. That's the answer of someone who wants to take the easy way out -- with utter disregard for the long term results of doing so.

    As WA0LYK has pointed out how do you handle ALE and WL2K in the wideband portion of the segregated portions? Just let them QRM themselves to death? Both are wideband, robot operations. ALE implements a form of busy detection and so would be adversely harmed by trying to compete with WL2K.

    Your answer of segregation is no answer.

    tim ab0wr
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page