I was a "Winlink insider" when this happened, I was working on HF Email to
work with Winlink. Skip Teller quit the group and it was Winklink forever when
this ad hoc committee forced this idea through. this was after SSCA told them
to go screw themselves, since they told everyone they'd need to buy an SCS
modem.
Joe is right and I was there... And left when they wanted me to give HF email
away for free.
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 17:14, "Stan" <stan_snydery@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> This proposal was developed by *Winlink insiders* who hijacked the ARRL
>> process. These self-serving individuals railroaded a recommendation
>> through an ad hoc committee and the Board of Directors
>
> Wow, now we're not only mispresenting the facts - finally we need the help
> of some conspiracy theory.
>
> Absurd.
>
> Stan
>
>
>> On 25.11.2013 at 10:57 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can
>> realize
>>> modes nobody thought of till today.
>>
>> We don't *need* those wider bandwidth modes for either
>> radioteletype
>> (user to user) communications or amateur "data" (bulk transfer)
>> uses.
>> The *only value* of wider bandwidth signals is to carry more data -
>> either digital voice or *commercial* data quantities. In the
>> former
>> case, digital voice belongs in the "voice, image" allocations and
>> in
>> the latter case, commercial data transfers *do not belong* in the
>> amateur bands at all.
>>
>>> Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in
>> the
>>> US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
>>> active on VHF/UHF only.
>>
>> This is not an issue of "national density" - it is number of hams
>> in
>> total or number of users per KHz. There are more amateurs in the
>> US
>> than there are in Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South
>> America *combined*. If even the same percentage of licensees were
>> to
>> use wide band data modes in the US as in the rest of the world, the
>> horrendous level of interference from wideband data signals would
>> more than double over night.
>>
>>> This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against
>>> Winlink/Pactor rather than supporting the future of ham radio.
>>
>> No, this is all about the future of amateur radio. Do you want an
>> amateur service that is about the amateurs and provides an
>> opportunity
>> for amateur to amateur communication or do you want an amateur
>> service
>> in which the amateur bands are used as conduits for low cost
>> commercial
>> data transfer - essentially another mobile service - dominated by
>> one
>> or two corporations?
>>
>>> This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more
>> global
>>> future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
>>
>> This proposal w
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|