Hi Jim
You are getting correct on the idea that more and more hams are shifting to
Winlink (which to me is not even ham radio - more like VOIP or SKYPE).
I participate in some traffic handling nets, CW and SSB, and more and more
I hear someone check into the net with traffic and make the statement,
"I'll Winlink these to you" instead of doing the old ways.
I participated for years in traffic nets and the fun was always in the
proficiency of these guys to pass traffic on CW with great efficiency. A
LOT of these guys are now the ones I now work in the CW contests. Think
most of the good ones came from traffic nets.
What is gonna happen in an emergency when the Winlink's are all down. 73
Tom W7WHY
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>
wrote:
> Congratulations, Ward --- in the order you presented them within your
> post, you:
>
> 1 ) paid lip service to those of us who are devotees of narrow band comms
> and find the idea of fighting for spectrum space with wideband signals
> distasteful and unwarranted
>
> 2) slid in the silly argument that us narrow-band-bubbas don't need to
> worry 'cuz 'dem wideband modems cost >$1000.00 so there won't be enough of
> them to matter; never mind that the cost of a minimally efficient HF
> transceiver has gone north of $1500.00 several years ago....so, who in
> theIr right mind could conjure up the notion that a boat owner would spend
> >$2000.00 to communicate from his/her boat??? AHHHH....but, in the same
> paragraph, you introduce the real reason why the arrl is pushing this
> amalgamation of narrow/band ops and screw the CW/RTTY bubbas when you state
> , " Winlink system is rapidly shifting toward emcomm/public service, which
> is prominent in our Basis and Purpose of 97.1(a)."
>
> 3) the arrl (non-capitalized for emphasis) has always pushed the notion
> that ares, races and any other four letter word that connotes some sort of
> public "service" is, down and dirty, the REAL reason....and don't any of
> you "unwashed types" (those that haven't drank the kool-aid) forget that!!
>
> 4) toss in, at the end, the obligatory "ham radio needs to get with the
> program - our
> over-reliance on decades-old analog modes is laughable," the absolute
> need, in the eyes of the arrl to "grow the business," AND promote new
> technology and, thus, new members.......you have captured the essence of
> the arrl!!!! Your non-profit organization must "grow" so there's more pesos
> in the coffers!
>
> Let's cut to the chase scene:
>
> The arrl recognizes or believes the numbers of CW and RTTY operators is at
> a stagnation point while new members are focused on D-star, Win-link and
> the like....having us "old guys" disappear, i.e. cancel our membership 'cuz
> you have tossed us under the bus for the "sake of technology," is a
> calculated risk the arrl elitist are willing tyo take!!! In short
> ---------- Follow the money!!!
>
> Wideband modes are incompatible with CW and RTTY! Arguments for altering
> band plans - whether you say it splintering or whatever - is one
> consideration OR, more palatable is your suggestion of:
>
> [If the maximum bandwidths of phone and data signals are to be
> linked in
> one rule, a simple administrative fix could be made by the very
> simple
> change of applying 97.307(f)(2) to all of the HF bands - renumber
> it
> from 97.307(f)(2) to 97.307(g) or add (2) to all of the HF bands
> in
> 97.305. Digital voice would remain confined to the phone bands
> because
> even though it is transmitted as bits, the overall package is
> still
> classified as a phone emission, just as digitized images are still
> considered image emissions (facsimile). (See 97.3(c) and 2.201)]
>
> Any other approach panders to new members and the true goals of the arrl
> - increase the bottom line dollars in the coffers!!
>
> 71.5, 72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|