As a former user of ARQ Amtor, Pactor I and Clover II many years ago, including using the Aplink system and later the Winlink System (mostly with Clover II), I found these systems to be limited, but of some practical value since there was no internet back then and you could have traffic forwarded through the amateur radio digital circuits. Later a rudimentary Netlink system was added so that traffic could also go into the internet but I had discontinued Pactor operation by then and did not do any more digital operation until the advent of the sound card modes.
It is not coincidental that the administrator of these older discontinued systems is also the current administrator of the Winlink 2000 system. Steve has, shall we say, a particular focus or view that does not waver from what he believes is right. He can be very amicable on a telecon but you quickly realize that he has a strong agenda and it is only one way, his way and no other. Even logical discussion is difficult as he tries to steer the conversation always to his perspective. Even with a nearly one hour conversation, it is difficult for him to hear other views. He considers radio amateurs who want to mostly keep the status quo as not being progressive. These issues are critical for the future of digital ham radio, even though some do not even want it discussed. The decisions of today will impact us for decades, such as the huge loss of text digital data spectrum on 80 and to a certain extent on 40 meters. As pointed out by several of us, the Winlink 2000 position is that if they implemented busy channel detection, the system would no longer operate well since they would have too many times that the nearby frequency is busy enough that they could not respond with the automatic station without causing interference to human operators. They compare it to contesters who often cause intentional interference to other operators with poor operating practices. Like so many things in life, it is never going to be all one way or the other. There is often some middle ground, even though the more extreme and strident parties will not be satisfied with any decision. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: > I have known for a long time that some of the complainers about > Pactor and Winlink have never operated or even copied a single > word of the mode. I ask that you read with open mind the comments > made by Steve, K4CJX and the PFD attached file. It hits the nail > right on the head. > > > ------------------------------ > Read my original comments attached. The ARRL has backed off of their > proposal due to "controversy" stated by the numbers of complaints from > the "grass roots" Amateur. Have you looked into the comments provided > by the mislead "Grass Roots" Amateur for RM-11306? Have you noticed > that VERY few are proponents of any change at all? Most are concerned > that the "Winlink Robots" (all 29 of them) are going to take over the > entire > Amateur spectrum and destroy any possibility of DXers interfering with > each other, etc., > > > Want to help? Make INFORMED comments via > http://www.activeham.com/hamaction/ > <http://www.activeham.com/hamaction/%A0> > > > Riley Hollingsworth has nothing to do with this. > > > Thanks much! > > > > Steve, k4cjx > --------------------------------- >
