[FADCA] It's not about WL2K - It's about the future of Ham Radio

[David Calder]

> Dave, if you and I are in a CW contact at 65 WPM, it is safe 
> from casual monitoring. There is NOTHING illegal about Pactor 
> 3 or the FBB protocol.
> Sorry. Sure, let's just keep everything just the way it is. 
> Get no support from any agencies that can keep things like 
> BPL and other such interests from eating us alive. By the 
> way, Winlink is under "local or remote control, not 
> "automatic control." 


Yes, under control of the person wanting to send the email. That doesn't
say he will be listening to the frequency before he initiates the
the connection to make sure he is not clobbering a QSO if digital is
allowed to go anywhere they want to.

I have run a packet BBS for 16 years and we have always stayed within
our little space and we ARE automatic. Everyone know where it's at
so if they start a QSO there they know they might get clobbered.



>  It is a well known fact, at least by the FCC Engineering and 
> Technology division, that HF propagation is such that even if 
> two stations are manned on HF, interference may occur to a 
> third station on frequency, even though neither station can 
> hear the third (or more) stations.


This is exactly why it shouldn't be allowed to "run free" anywhere
Digital wants to go. If high speed data or multimedia is simply not
possible without sacrificing an inordinate amount of spectrum for
"communications", then that sacrifice is not justifiable.

I agree that segmentation by bandwidth by rule is probably better
for the hobby than segmentation by mode but the favoritism to Winlink
needs to be removed.


> If you're interested the actual physics showing this 
> scattering property you can look at standard E&M textbooks. 
> One  written by the distinguished Berkley physicist J.D. 
> Jackson, is a good one, and of course there are many others.


Don't even start with the mumbo jumbo. Your getting off the subject here.


> Secondly, the apparent low percentage of wider band digital 
> transfer protocols is primarily due to a simple fact that 
> there is no incentive for further development of such 
> protocols since there is no place to use them.


Huh? Is this not your quote?

"Unlike other types of systems set up for Emcomm,
this system is used with or without EmComm daily by 6384 Winlink users to
approximately 81,000 e-mail recipients. It takes a HUGE difference to be
noticeable."


Looks like it's working pretty well where it is.

150,000 emails a month, is currently flowing successfully, using Pactor-III,
wholly inside the Part 97.221 sub-bands, eliminating QRM to everyone else
outside the sub-bands from those stations. 

Pactor-III saves 30% in overall airtime over Pactor-II for the typical
2-minute email transfer, but consumes *FIVE* times the bandwidth?

The elimination of spectrum-wasting "scanning" would cut the need for
spectrum in half.
Stay in one place.
 
This is why you can be sure Pactor-III would be all over the phone bands
if Winlink can escape the subbands.


 
> Reasonable people should agree that the ARRL band plan is 
> consistent with the FCC's comments in their Order for 
> RM-10740 (November 2004)


It's in agreement with Winlink's agenda.


> The ARRL Band Plan expects Amateur Radio operators will 
> continue to assume voluntary placement responsibilities, not 
> only for current modes used today, but also for the 
> development of new enabling technologies by placing similar 
> bandwidth operations in similar places.


Bull, they know better than that. They just have Winlink in their
back pocket. You going to tell me the P3 modems they used at the ARRL
They paid for? Not.

I didn't get in this thread to bicker over Winlink. I just sent an email
to get another side of it and do Bud a favor by letting him know what was
being said about him. I just sent the nice stuff. There is more from his
"local"
Hams of what they think of him. I thought I was PART and a paying member of
FADCA but I can see the minute someone doesn't agree with the agenda you are
No longer a part of it.

But since you and Bud want to back me in a corner when was just quoting
What was being said. Here we go.

Dave n4zkf




> 
> For the Amateur Radio service to enhance its impact on 
> emergency communications, it should at least have the 
> opportunity to develop and provide services that are up to 
> the standards of the rest of the telecommunications world.  
> Winlink 2000 is the best available example of an important 
> EMCOMM tool.  I believe that Winlink 2000 is only a sample of 
> the systems and technology that can be developed, once our 
> service has regulations that do not continue to impede progress. 
> 
> 
> Steve, k4cjx
> 
>