I strongly disagree. A protocol that routinely QRMs existing QSOs has
no right to be heard on the bands. On the contrary, it should be
scrupulously avoided in other than emergency conditions.
WinLink's problem could easily be corrected by equipping its PMBOs
with a busy frequency detector, as has been previously suggested.
Were that accomplished, my objections to WinLink would evaporate, as
would those of most other amateurs.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> what about all the ARES/RACES guys that are using winlink2000 ? It
like all the other modes have the right to be heard on the bands
>
> John
> VE5MU
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Danny Douglas
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination
Info
>
>
>
> I can certainly understand the want and need for people such as
full time RVers ( I am part time and DONT want to see email when on
the road). and sailors to have ham radio aboard for fun and
emergencies but definitely not just so they can come up and troll the
internet. It would be nice to, for instance, have spot collecting
capability when I want to DX, or a way to find the path of a QSL card
I might want to mail on the road (heavens knows why - I can wait a
couple of weeks). RVers, in particular, dont really need full time
internet capability (unless they live in the RV), and can always stop
by a public library to check their mail, or they can pull up in
Walmarts parking lot and hit half a dozen open wireless systems
around them.
>
> Anyone who goes boating, full time, should certainly have
commercial phone/internet capability and NOT depend on a HOBBY
connection to do what it was not designed for, or that inteferes with
other peoples hobby use of the bands. I certainly would not want to
depend of ham radio for my health and welfare aboard a boat, out in
the middle of the ocean - thats what they mad satellite
communicatiions for.
>
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
>
> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Ivey
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq
Coordination Info
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I agree with what you are saying. I guess that no one really
realized what would happen when the FCC allowed this. But I still say
that most of the traffic that goes through the system right now is
needless. With all the communications out there, internet, cell
phones and the like it should not be allowed on the ham bands.
>
> Joe
> W4JSI
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kv9u
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq
Coordination Info
>
>
> Joe,
>
> I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that
when we first
> came up with these technologies, the promoters and users
lobbied heavily
> to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the
ARRL was
> influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There
was a very
> great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is
also fair to
> say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control
on the HF
> bands.
>
> The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be
able to
> place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the
bands
> providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If
they were
> fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow "automatic"
portions of
> the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in
width, then
> they had to also operate only in "automatic" areas. This was
done
> primarily to accomodate Pactor 3.
>
> While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of
the bands,
> good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once
you become
> aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to
handle
> potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed
for
> emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but
there might be
> some priority and heath and welfare traffic.
>
> E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is
a "done
> deal" here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop
it now
> without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and
that doesn't
> seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for
emergency use
> or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be
something
> that is available and frequently used by the hams who will
try to gain
> access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with
Winlink and
> the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it
is not
> always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the
time you
> might want it.
>
> My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers
available,
> preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server
can be
> accessed from most locations when you need to access them.
While I have
> been told by the owner that this is not possible for the
Winlink 2000
> system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such
as PSKmail,
> which does not have the weakness of the underlying
infrastructure of
> Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
> Joe Ivey wrote:
> > I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic
stations on the
> > ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being
used as an
> > internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is
not related
> > to ham radio.
> >
> > I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency
traffic and
> > would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for
such a
> > purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really
understand the
> > term "emergency traffic". Simply put it means the threat to
life,
> > injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are
confined to a
> > general local area. It very rare that one needs to send
traffic from
> > the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham
radio serves a
> > great purpose in these cases and we as operators should
help out when
> > we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting
to check
> > is email should not be allowed on the ham bands.
> >
> > My 2 cents worth.
> >
> > Joe
> > W4JSI
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date:
3/8/2007 10:58 AM
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date:
3/8/2007 10:58 AM
>
