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 digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
