Hi Steve, I may have some issues with the Winlink 2000 system but the ones you mention below are not the ones.
We all know that there are hams who are opposed to changes that are needed for ham radio to progress. As Skip Teller has pointed out, there are those at the FCC who do not take amateur radio emergency communication seriously anymore. I don't extend that to mean that everything is hopeless and we should just treat it as a hobby until we lose our frequencies. If we do what he is suggesting, I think most reasonable hams know that we can expect to lose many of our frequencies in the future. One of the ONLY possible things we can do to regain support from some at FCC is to be able to deliver the best possible emergency support we can and get support from our served agencies. Over time we will have considerable support from those agencies and rest assured it will get back to DHS/FEMA who play a big part in this. That is why the ARRL is finally moving on making some changes and accepting such an enormous change to the ARES structure. I don't think that emergency communications has been as big of a consideration at ARRL until the last few years when they started realizing the long term implications. Message systems that interface with the internet on HF (and VHF/UHF and microwave, etc.) are vitally needed, because this is one of the only ways we can meet the expectations of the agencies we continue to serve, but who are realizing we are falling far behind advancing technology. And it is a logical extension of what we have done for many years, e.g., phone patches, traffic handling with third party messages, etc. Only it is much more spectrum efficient due to the throughput speeds. Much faster than voice channels with large amounts of data and with attachments that are not practical to handle with the existing NTS/NTSD system. (You still need the NTS for some kinds of traffic and non e-mail delivery traffic.) As I have said, I am a supporter of Winlink 2000 with some reservations. But they are not related to the use of our frequencies as long as safety measures are taken for semi-automatic modes that will not transmit over the top of on-going use of the frequency. I do not use P modes such as P2 and P3 so I have limited knowlege of whether they can meet that test. But I do know without question that Packlink SCD which is the program that uses the SCAMP mode will not intentionally transmit on a frequency that has EITHER a SCAMP transmission in progress OR any other mode including a carrier. It won't even transmit with one very weak signal that I will guarantee a human operator not looking at the waterfall would often not realize is even there. There was a comment made that the operator could override this feature and cause interference. But this is truly a red herring. While an operator can override this type of channel detection, they would be the same kind of operator who would manually do it with any other mode. We all know we have these kinds of poor operators now matter where you are on the bands. Consider the behavior of contesters who transmit over the top of others. The virus issue appears to be a misunderstanding by Skip Teller. I can only let him comment from his perspective since he is the person who made the claim about a virus being on the WL2K system. From previous communications from you, it is my understanding that since its inception, the Winlink 2000 system has had fewer than 5 hours downtime. While that is no guarantee of future operation without any failures, it looks like a pretty good track record to me. And I think most reasonable hams would agree. Where the Winlink folks need to make changes is in their approach toward anyone making any critique or questioning of their system, weaknesses, design, etc. There are some people on your group who are very helpful and want others to succeed in using the WL2K system I have spent some hours on the phone with these sincere and helpful folks. Unfortunately, like most groups, there are some really overbearing, abrasive ones who go out of their way to create unnecessary enemies of WL2K by their attitude that you either accept WL2K 100% or you can go away. Also, the attitude that if you do not have all the lastest equipment, especially the SCS modem, then you need not bother with WL2K. As the spokesperson for WL2K, one would expect that you would want to take these folks to task (privately of course) and explain to the them that they are not helping further the cause. But you have not. And you have in some cases joined in, adding even more discord. Calling some one a fool for not accepting something on face value is in itself completely unacceptable to most reasonable people. May I suggest that you rethink your position. Perhaps even welcome comments and criticisms. There should not be anything to fear if the system is a good system. It will prove itself to people over time. But, no, the average person is not going to invest their energy and resources into something without a thorough examination and later perhaps trying some components of the system and over time deciding whether this will or won't work in their environment. Many hams come from different walks of life and many are very knowledgeable about systems approaches, computer science, technology, etc. and they are not going to accept things just because some strident person told they have to because ARRL said so, or you said so. If you knew anything about marketing you would know that such an attitude is counterproductive and pushes the thinking people away. 73, Rick, KV9U -----Original Message----- From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:13 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over? Rick, I appreciate your comments, however, look at what is being said: 1. The "Winlink wants your frequencies" campaign, all whopping 45 stations, Worldwide? Absurd..Simply a tactic to influence the ARRL BOD. 2. Recently, I wrote a simple and routine message letting users know that they must re-establish their email recipients in order to keep the hits on the server down. No big deal. Next thing I know, the same few start rumors about Winlink being infested with SPAM and virus's. This is not honest and useful matters for conversation. It also preys on those who do not know any better. It is a campaign waged against a target that has been moving successfully forward, and without incident, until someone got their big ego bashed when they were outvoted on the now two year old, long forgotten digital committee. the entire matter has been blown out of perportion. You would think that we control all that takes place with respect to band planning, and have more influence than others. Obviously, this is false and those who want whatever they favor are shooting at the wrong target. Winlink prefers not to automatically forward on HF bands. This does not stop others. Winlink uses the Internet, who doesn't? And, regardless of any reasonable conversation or discussion, the vendetta continues. So why bother. It is not arrogance, it is numbness. With all that Amateur radio must contend with today, such conflict only weakens the fraternity. As we all know, with proper allocation, there is room for any protocol as long as it is managed properly. From my perspective, as an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth in a receiver for a 50 Hz signal, and then complaining about agacent signal interference is not proper management, however, if the band is segmented properly, that won't be an issue. But, that is just my perspective. Others may think that opening their receiving bandwidth for a 50 Mhz signal is appropriate. What is so, so what. No one has a hold on any of this, and blame is not the answer for resolution. Steve, k4cjx -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ 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/
