Not to defend or criticize anybodies position
and/or opinion, but just wanted to give a bit of
insight. Not sure what the situation is in the
US, but I have worked on boat electronics in the
Caribbean for a couple of years now and as far as
I can see the few only ones (still) using Pactor
type modems with SSB radios for email (and
weather) are smaller sailing boats (under 40
feet) and they mostly only use it when at sea and
far from any land based Wifi access that they can
easily get for free at any marina or restaurant.
These type of boat owners are basically your
typical live-aboard that have used most of their
savings or sold their house to purchase the boat
to "live the adventure", so usually there is not
much leeway left for expensive satellite downlink
Internet access, and not that it would make sense
in a boat in that size range anyhow to install a
system that in certain cases would possibly be
worth more than the boat itself. So I seriously
doubt that they are just being cheap by using
Pactor because they want to avoid paying for
regular Internet access. Again, I would say
nowadays in the marine industry nobody is really
paying for it anymore unless its the case of a
150 feet or more megayacht equipped with twin
huge satellite dishes, and even they usually take
advantage of Wifi while docked in a marina, or
just rent a wireless Wimax modem for access. So
the point would be that Pactor still being the
pain in the posterior it is to operate for a
non-ham person (in comparison to say a Wifi
connection), these people do it out of necessity
and lack of choices to them when nothing else is
available, like during an ocean crossing. On the
other hand the weather and data features from
competing services like Inmarsat, Iridium, and
also KVH, have come down in cost a lot, but are
still out of reach for most of the small to
medium size average sail boat owners. Hope that helps a bit.
Alex
At 10:14 PM 11/29/2015, you wrote:
The ARRL has been, seemingly, pushing for more
WINLINK / PACTOR availability for some time. ?
One speculation is that they hope to increase
membership through more boat, and yacht, owners
getting licenses specifically for operating
using those modes because they do not want to
have to pay for Internet access using
considerably more expensive commercial links. ?
Of course, being able to afford, and to operate,
such watercraft usually requires a substantial
investment and yet those same people don't want
to spend any money to be able to use the
Internet while on the water. ? Then, again,
amateur radio operators also have a reputation
as to being "cheap" and, I suppose, boat / yacht
owners are no different where money is
concerned! Although the ARRL does not normally
make the actual number of members public, if one
takes a look at the mailing notice that has to
be published, periodically, that is in small
print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy to
get a pretty good idea as to the number of
members. ? For some time, the ARRL has "pushed"
EMCOMM to get new members to replace other
members who have abandoned the ARRL and, it
seems, that they are doing the same thing with
boat owners. I abandoned the ARRL some time back
because they have long stopped supporting what I
believe the direction that amateur radio should
take. ? Since I am not an ARRL member, I do not
comment on the internal workings of that
organization. ? However, when the ARRL submits
petitions to the FCC, or even when they are
proposing such, that affects the entire amateur
radio population then I definitely do have the
right to comment! Several years ago, the ARRL
submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded
WINLINK / PACTOR operations that they retracted
after quite an uprising within the membership. ?
It appears that they might be trying it again. I
realize that thing are changing and have been
changing for some time during the over 56-years
that I have been licensed and some of those
changes have been for the good of amateur radio
and some have not been good for amateur radio. ?
However, I definitely believe in doing
everything possible to stop changes that are
definitely? not in the best interests of the
Amateur Radio Service. Glen, K9STH? Website:
http://k9sth.net From: Bry Carling AF4K
<[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc:
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected] Sent: Sunday,
November 29, 2015 4:46 PM Subject: [Glowbugs] I
agree Dear David, I echo all of the
sentiments below. I think that in retrospect, it
was a huge mistake to take away so much CW
spectrum from the General Class CW operators on
80m. I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion of
WINLINK / PACTOR and any other UNATTENDED
digital mode operations on our HF bands! They
cause QRM and are a nuisance no matter what is
done to claim that they have been cleaned up!
Many of my ham friends and I confess to having
missed the April 2015 QST article and your It
Seems to Us page in the September 2015 issue.
These articles discuss proposed changes to
accommodate digital modes, while eliminating or
reducing extra class phone privileges on 80
meters. Many of us have now been awakened to the
ARRL???s conclusions and the proposed
recommendations to its executive committee, and
to the FCC. And while the door may be closed to
the initial polling (only 1,000 respondents), we
nevertheless feel the need for clarification,
and if necessary an appeal for a reconsideration
of these ARRL???s proposals.First, this may be
simply a matter of clarification. I read, and
then re-read both the September and April
articles several times. I can find no assurance
that the proposal would provide that the
remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be
retained for the exclusive use of Amateur Extra
Class licensees. While this may be merely an
oversight, the absence of this assurance seems
suspicious. A clear statement in your recap like
???while the extra class phone exclusivity will
be reduced by 50 kHz, the 3650-3700 segment will
be protected for the exclusive use of holders of
Amateur Extra Class licensees,??? would have
eliminated much anxiety. Would you please
clarify this via email and through QST as soon
as possible.Next, many of us earned extra class
licenses through hard work and devotion to the
hobby. I earned mine shortly after incentive
licensing was introduced in the 1970s. Incentive
licensing is, in my opinion, one of the ARRL???s
most significant initiatives. I was very proud
to be awarded my new license, the extra band
operating privileges, and the right to request
special call signs. Many of us I am sure had the
feeling that we were in the top of the class!
Today of course, some of these hard earned
???extras??? have either disappeared or made
available to a broader base of hams without that
extra effort. Then there is the dropping of the
20 WPM code requirement, and the code
requirement completely, etc., which further
eroded the merit-based/privilege system that
incentive licensing had launched. Moreover,
remember that many of us are in our 50s, 60s,
70s, 80s, and so on, and we continually hear
about the erosion of our other hard-earned
rights in other areas of life (Social Security,
Medicare, Veteran???s benefits, etc.).My recent
posting to the qrz.com posting on this subject
Friday rapidly became a popular topic. And
discussions on nets to which I belong and among
club members proved that many extras class
licensees were totally unaware of these
proposals. I have also received an extraordinary
number of private emails since Friday
questioning the ARRL???s motives, and the
protection of our operating privileges.So David,
would you kindly send your reply to me (via
email) as soon as possible addressing the above
points? Please address these specific
questions:1. Is it true that the ARRL proposal
will protect exclusive Amateur Extra Class 80
meter phone frequencies (either 3650-3750, or
even 3650-3700) and thus add that specific
language to this proposal? And if not, why
not?2. Will you reopen this issue for further
input now that a wider audience has had the time
to become informed? (As of noon today, Sunday,
there have been nearly 12,000 views on the
qrz.com forum.)3. When is the ARRL Executive
Committee supposed to take this matter up, and
where do we find a listing of the members of
this committee?Thank you for your time, David.
And thank you for the many fine things you and
the ARRL do for our hobby.Respectfully,73,
_______________________________________________
Boatanchors mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
_______________________________________________
Boatanchors mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
