That's not a competent defense, Walt. The fact that WinLink's
functionality is unique does not diminish the QRM that WinLink
generates. Rather than confront this head on -- perhaps by confining
WinLink PMBOs to a small number of narrow band segments until busy
frequency detection was implemented -- a disinformation campaign was
launched: the remote user will ensure that the frequency is clear,
the hidden transmitter effect is a myth, the real problem is
panoramic reception, etc.
The reason we don't seen hundreds of PSKMail servers confronting
WinLink is that there isn't much interest in sending email over HF.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board
Meeting, there
> was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink
was doing.
> And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.
>
> So if everyone "hates" WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of
PSKMail servers on
> line in the U.S. confronting WinLink?
>
> And spare me the "well its not MS" because one could just as well
have written a
> PSKMail type applications for MS. Rein just felt comfortable in
using Linux.
> And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use
WinLink or
> change to Linux.
>
> This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when
it comes down
> to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find
another or
> pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want. I
didn't have to
> beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a
parched land.
>
> The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a
past-time/
> hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility.
We each need
> to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the
best of
> capabilities. In some cases it might be only a "well done"
or "thanks". But I
> am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really
appreciate
> being told that they ARE appreciated.
>
> And thanks for your effort in amateur radio.
>
> 73,
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> > The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for
the
> > WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their
> > implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand
on
> > QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate
first
> > step than calling in the FCC as a blunt instrument.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> > --- In [email protected], kd4e <kd4e@> wrote:
> >
> >> > Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's
already
> >> > in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is
> >
> > not
> >
> >> > malicious, but it is clearly willful.
> >>
> >> We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
> >>
> >> > An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not
support
> >> > any semi-automatic system that violates §97.101 would provide
the
> >> > incentive required for the WinLink organization to immediately
> >> > incorporate busy frequency detection in their PMBOs --
> >
> > particularly
> >
> >> > if this announcement contained an appropriately supportive
quote
> >
> > from
> >
> >> > the FCC's Hollingsworth.
> >>
> >> But will the ARRL and FCC agree to ban the use of any digital
> >>mode that does not have always-on busy frequency detection (when
> >>initially connecting and for at least the first two minutes -- to
> >>permit a "hidden transmitter" to be detected on the handover of an
> >>ongoing QSO) and also always-on clear-mode ID's?
> >>
> >> Ham history teaches us that the Ham fraternity unfortunately
> >>includes the same percentage of selfish scoff-laws as the rest of
> >>society. We could blindly open the floodgates but carelessly
> >>opening things up without proper boundaries will not create
greater
> >>freedom but will instead create freedom-limiting anarchy.
> >>
> >> The 11 meter band is clear evidence of the failure to
> >>maintain and enforce necessary boundaries.
> >>
> >> If the FCC fails to enforce existing regs then adding more
> >>freedom for the selfish and careless to spread the problem is
> >>hardly a wise choice.
> >>
> >> If the FCC shows evidence of a sustainable commitment
> >>to the aggressive enforcement of existing regs *then* relaxing
> >>the boundaries would make sense.
> >>
> >> It is unfortunate to experimentation and technological
> >>advancement that this is necessary but blame the selfish
> >>scofflaws and not the ARRL or the FCC.
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
> >>Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
> >>Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
>
