I have been a strong supporter of melded technologies which can act symbiotically and do something that is otherwise not possible by the separate technology. Winlink 2000 (WL2K) has this capability and has a place for casual use, health and welfare messages (if you have the e-mail address), and similar uses. It is particularly helpful for the ARES hams who are without HF licensing and who have limited computer/networking skills.
When emergency communications are needed, one can not totally depend upon the internet. WL2K is highly internet centric, perhaps ~90% internet and ~10% RF. When the internet is operational via a Telpac or other local connection, one could use WL2K or other options such as WiFi connections. The reality is that if you have internet access, It may not even require amateur radio frequencies. Many who have studied this are coming to the same conclusion ... a low cost satellite internet connection with WiFi or similar connectivity for local use can make for a very robust connection. When it comes to tactical or local digital traffic, Winlink 2000 is not an appropriate solution using Telpacs, since you lose connectivity to even local stations working through a Telpac if the internet fails or the WL2K system goes down. As you have pointed out elsewhere, WL2K can not be expected to be up 100% of the time but you have been able to have it operational for 95% of the time and you are working on improving that up time. While this is noteworthy it is not adequate. Yes, you could set up an e-PMBO (emergency PMBO) if you received permission from you, the one world wide WL2K Administrator. But this requires your assistance in putting the software on the e-PMBO computer since the software is not allowed to be in the hands of any one but you. Such a system could not be easily repaired during a crisis unless they had a connection to you. And as you have said in the past, there is no way that you can install PMBO's just because someone wants one in their area. With newly developing technology, that is not centralized, and where the programs are readily available, the e-PMBO local server is probably not a good decision for most emergency applications. For a serious emergency network you simply can not take on this much risk. You insure you have RF connections for backup. We only have to look what happened within the last couple of weeks to some hams who had the WL2K system fail at their county level. No messages could get through. Instead of finding out the problem, you and your WL2K proponents attacked this person for every possible reason other than what really happened. This individual has considerable knowledge and considerable Winlink 2000 experience. As it turned out the messages did get to the Winlink 2000 system and eventually at least one message got through, but was very delayed several hours. Some of the messages, however, never did reach their destination. And yet you kept insisting that the WL2K system was working fine. I want to stress that it is not just the internet that must be used with Winlink 2000, but also a VERY complicated internal system. The system has merit for some applications, since it simplifies addressing, especially for remote portable users. But NOT as an emergency network. And it is being touted as such. We have limited resources in terms of personnel and equipment. It is best to focus on one solid method of digital communication for emergency and priority traffic. Winlink, being an all RF network could be helpful if it was able to be updated as technology changes. Since this is not possible, and since WL2K can not meet those requirements, it is necessary to come up with solutions that do. Ideally, having an RF system as well as an internet connection is the best solution and some are working toward that end. JNOS2 is probably a good example since it can work on either Linux or Windows environments (now with the latest breakthrough it can even run under Win XP), and act as a node, BBS, work on most networks and, in addition, be a Telpac for Winlink 2000 if needed. For those of us who used Aplink and later Winlink for many years, and who also use the internet on a daily basis, it is clear that both capabilities are a must in a serious network. If Winlink had evolved into such a system, it would be very powerful and useful for many different digital emergency solutions. But it did not happen and you made a decision to move toward the internet as the basic solution with no alternative RF path if you can not get into the internet. WL2K is a highly centralized system that is the opposite of what amateur radio main strength lies ... which is having a distributed system that is not dependent upon one individual or one station and that can operate on an ad hoc basis. Any of the concerns you have about the current use of Winlink could be easily corrected if the source code was made available. Adding a CW ID or other ID is trivial and you know that. Forgive me if I do not accept your premise that these are the only reasons you oppose the use of Winlink. The comments are so extreme with your ideal of placing a "time bomb" in software. For the record, I don't even want to use ANY software that had such potentially disabling code. And I don't want to associate with anyone who thinks this way, and I have difficulty in believing that anyone else would support such your views, particularly for emergency communications efforts. Rick, KV9U -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Waterman, k4cjx Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 20:45 To: [email protected] Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I thought Auto Pactor was Illegal? Rick, I guess you are quoting me regarding the original automatic forwarding of Winlink Classic. The very reason we moved TO Winlink 2000 is why we moved FROM Winlink Classic. That is, to take fully automatic forwarding OFF the HF bands once there was a more appropriate and efficient forwarding option using the Internet. The FCC has NO definition for "semi-automatic operation." Rather, they refer to it as either "local" or "remote control." But, leaving that discussion for another time, Winlink Classic was not made for the current Windows operating systems. I doubt if it would work with a Windows op system greater than Windows SE. It used Borland C++ (16 bit) and was designed for the earlier Windows operating systems. Remember, the system it replaced was a DOS system called ApLink. Winlink Classic is difficult to use, and with most modems I hear it being used with today, is actually used illegally because it does NOT properly identify when no connection is made. That is, when an automatic station calls and no one answers, there is no CW or FEC identification. It just stops pulsing the called station. NOT GOOD! We are not opposed to Winlink Classic for any other reasons than what I have stated above, and our intent is certainly not to force those using it to move to Winlink 2000. Winlink Classic should not be used because of what it does NOT do, and not because we want to attract those who are using it into Winlink 2000, although, of course, they are welcomed as users. Steve, k4cjx Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 10/24/2005 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
