Dave,
The problem is not that we mind any opposition to what we are doing. It gives us an opportunity to tell our story. The problem is not the protocol we use, be it Amtor, Clover, Pactor, SCAMP or what comes next, and next after that, nor is it the fact that we stopped using fully, machine driven automatic operations. (BTW, I did a search, and have not found one message where the HF Packet community refers to their own fully-automatic operations as "robots.") The issue is that those using Winlink are being given much credit for being bad guys, when those opening their receivers to utilize 3 to 4 Khz spectrum scopes to operate a 50 Hz signal start complaining. Another example, is how four to six "pro Winlink 2000" people have been targeted for having some sort of hold on band planning in the US. I wish we did, because we would adopt the Canadian style band plan in a minute. Howard speaks of "Winlink Haters." This is not anyone who opposes semi-automatic operation or wants it gone or in this space or that space. It is not even someone who thinks that Winlink users have some sort of chip in their brain that keeps them from listening before they transmit, rather, it is the individual, who starts to attack the character of those who they oppose, calling them liars, etc. This usually happens when the opposing side of any argument (discussion), runs out of any alternative option or is cornered in some discussion, and uses character assassination as a smoke screen. Another issue is the miss-information in such broadcasts for support such as "Winlink wants your frequencies" and then proceeds to attempt to make criminals out of those who use it. All 20 some participating stations in the US. Absurd. We don't want "your" frequencies, because they don't belong to "you" any more than they belong to me. What we want is to be taken out of the 5 KHz space (as an example) on forty meters that is shared by fully-automatic Packet stations that have squatters rights on whatever frequency they are using. Considering that we are using SCAMP at 1.9 Khz and Pactor 3 at 2.1 KHz, that does not leave much space, not only for WL2K, but also for whatever someone wishes to develop next. Perhaps it would be store and forward digital Voice or Image. Let's face it, given the opportunity, why wouldn't someone take advantage of propagation rather than depending on someone being on the other end for any of these protocols. Like it or not, it is done in most other communications media, including SMTP mail or WEB based mail that I am using currently. I interpret Howard as saying, that we don't mind disagreement with any of this, but what we do mind, are the absurd tactics used to try to stop it completely. If it was not desired and not growing like a weed, it would not be necessary. However, all those negative, knowingly miss-leading tactics do is make us ALL look bad, and destroys credibility on either end of the disagreement. Regarding your suggestions: There are only 4 people writing code, and administering the network, dealing with SCAMP coding, etc. We just don't have time to convence the World to use Winlink 2000 nor do we particularly want that. In my own opinion, it should be reserved for those who really need it, not that we mind others, but when you have access to the Internet, use the Internet. We are now concentrating on EmComm, and are having some success there. This is a way for others to become involved. Winlink 2000 started as APLink under DOS with Amtor, then it went to Winlink "Classic" and to Clover, and then Pactor. Winlink 2000 has used Pactor and Packet exclusively, and soon will PROBABLY include SCAMP. However, the discussion about the expense involved with Pactor 3 is a mute point. If you don't want to pay the money, then don't buy the modem. Similarly, if you don't want to spend a thousand dollars on a radio, then don't buy it either. If you don't like the fact that the US dollar is being devaluated against other currencies, then buy Ten Tec instead of some other foreign made brand. That choice is yours, but picking on it as just another reason to attempt to make Winlink "wrong" is not appropriate, at least, to me. Lastly, Dave, I personally do not agree with most of what you have written that I should do. How about this, you write the following: be a good citizen on the amateur bands. I suggest that you compose a "white paper" that a. briefly describe why the FCC put the following statement in their last NPRM comments? *QUOTE FROM the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004. "4. Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor." b. Because of the hidden transmitter effect, regardless of the position of control operator, and due to the "QRN" type sounding digital signals now being deployed on the HF bands, describe how users of ALL Amateur communications will should use signal detection to inhibit transmission, especially during contests and emergencies. lastly, I will put something somewhere on the Winlink WEB site about how we are doing it in SCAMP. BTW, the SCS firmware has such signal detection, and it is can be very sensitive. We have not deployed it to date other than in the client end, which turns yellow with a warning to the initiating station user. "We all think we are thinking when we are merely re-arranging our prejudices." Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may never convince most hams to personally use Winlink, but I > believe there's a way for you to convince most hams that Winlink will > be a good citizen on the amateur bands. I suggest that you compose > a "white paper" that > > a. briefly summarizes the goals, benefits, and technical history of > WinLink > > b. outlines semi-automatic operation, and acknowledges the resulting > unintentional QRM caused by semi-automatic operation with protocols > like Pactor that lack busy detectors (the "hidden transmitter" problem) > > c. briefly describes SCAMP, its objectives, and its incorporation of > busy detectors as a means of eliminating unintentional QRM > > d. commits to transitioning the majority of WinLink traffic to SCAMP, > with the policy that a PMBO's busy detectors will only be disabled or > ignored during declared emergencies > > e. commits to confining Pactor-based Winlink traffic to an explicit > set of sub-bands, whether or not this is required by whatever plan the > FCC ultimately adopts, with a further committment to reduce the size > of these sub-bands over time as Winlink traffic shifts to SCAMP > > This white paper should be posted on all of the major reflectors and > web sites, and run as an article in QST. > > Obviously I speak only for myself, but I believe that most if not all > opposition to Winlink would dissappear in response to the > dessemination of this white paper. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ 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/
