The WinLink folks have run a long and effective campaign of
disinformation. They claim that most of the QRM caused by WinLink
PMBOs either is the fault of a WinLink user who called on a busy
frequency, or isn't really QRM because the "victim" was running
panoramic reception and thus had his or her RX filters set too wide.
Because few hams own Pactor modems, its very difficult to prove that
you were QRM'd by a WinLink PMBO; even when you have one, as I do,
you must move pretty quickly from whatever mode you were using to
capture the offender's callsign -- and that means abandoning your
QSO, which many are reluctant to do even in the face of a Pactor
signal blasting away.
The hidden transmitter effect -- which causes WinLink PMBOs to QRM
ongoing QSOs even when its users are scrupulous about only making
requests on clear frequencies -- is not intuitively obvious to most
amateurs. Every few months, someone starts a thread here along the
lines of "lets allocate more space to automatic operations"
or "WinLink is fine, why is there a problem". Allowing such
statements to stand would reinforce the WinLink disinformation
campaign, which is why I and others so assiduously rebut them on the
spot. You may find that annoying, John, but the alternative --
wideband WinLink anywhere on the bands -- would be far more annoying,
I assure you.
So why don't we just "not operate in the middle of automatic
stations" and shut up, as you suggest? Two reasons:
1. unattended automatic stations with a bandwidth of 500 hz or less
can run anywhere in the data bands, so there is no safe frequency
2. failing to vociferously object to WinLink's QRM generation will
make it easier for the ARRL to convince the FCC to enact its
bandwidth-based frequency allocation proposal, which as a side effect
would greatly expand the frequencies available to 3 khz WinLink PMBOs.
My belief is that the more amateurs -- everywhere in the world --
that understand the problem, the more pressure will be brought to
bear on the ARRL leadership to
a. modify its frequency allocation proposal
b. pressure the WinLink team to re-engineer WinLink to acceptable
operational standards
If you haven't sent email to Dave Sumner (ARRL CEO) expressing your
concern with the ARRL's support for WinLink, I encourage you to do
so; you need not be an ARRL member or US citizen to do this! Dave's
email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hey I'm one of the first to complain about WINLINK knocking out a
QSO, and it is usually during a DX contact that it happens
>
> What I can't understand is the constant complaining about big bad
old winlink, with the arguments going around and around.
> I don't have to operate in the middle of the automatic stations. I
have a VFO and can go down below 3590, and find good
> QSO's between 3580 and 3590, or go to a different band.
>
> I know that I have the right to operate digital modes where I
please, but common sense also says why fight QRM?
>
> WINLINK is not going to disappear, and any new ARQ mode to replace
Pactor 2 and 3 will have to supported by the WINLINK folks
> Nobody really seems to know what happened to SCAMP, maybe the P3
modem builders made him an offer he couldn't refuse?
> There are authors out there quietly woking away on new stuff, like
141A and RFSM2400 which show some promise and deserve
> support from the digital community.
>
> If I were a US ham right now I would want to do several things:
>
> * Instead of trying to burn winlink at the stake, work from within
the organization to try and reduce the frequencies used on 80M
> Honey always works better than vinegar.
> * Mount a concerted campaign with local Homeland Security offices,
talking about the lack of data frequencis for emergency use,
especially for all those
> fancy P3 modems that they bought. Point out how much better it
would be with another 25 or 50 kHz of bandwidth to 3650.
> * Another campaign with the politicians, same argument, but
pointing out how the federal bureaucrats (FCC) have put the US at
risk.
> *ARRL? they know not what they do. Not much to do except plot a
revolution and/or run for office.
>
> The thought crossed my mind as I went through the 75 or so emails
over the past few days as to how many of the authors actually
> use digital modes on the air...........
>
> John
> VE5MU
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
> 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
>
