[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Futurer

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Futurer
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:38:08 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
When was the last time where you saw someone in favor of 11708 specifically address the concerns of the anti-11708 group regarding ADS, Winlink, etc? Maybe I have just missed it?

1. I still don't have a crystal clear answer on the ability of a 3rd party to monitor a P4 exchange. How are we supposed to self police?

2. There is no discussion on Winlink's view that the ADS subbands don't actually apply because the guy on the boat end is the control op for a remote station.

3. There is no elaboration as to the effectiveness of the busy-channel stuff.

4. Where are these wide-data codes, and what is the benefit beyond file transfer? And the US is not the only place encoding techniques can be developed - where is the magic bullet that flows from "once we have wide data permission, we can change the world through the use of the XXXXXX codec." As it stands, ONLY the P4 protocol seems to benefit.


If the pro-11708 guys really wanted to gain support for this proposal from the "uninformed masses" (I forget what ZZ's term for guys objecting was...), then they would take time to enumerate specifc counters to these and the other issues that guys in the RTTY community and to an extent the CW community are actually worried about.

Instead, what the 11708 guys are doing is to provide condescending comments about the opposition, to gloss over completely the concerns we have, and to fluff up the great coming prosperity of the digital mode explosion that should follow with adoption of 11708.


-----Original Message----- From: Tom Osborne
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:59 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Futurer

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

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:44 AM, James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>

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
         change of applying 97.307(f)(2) to all of the HF bands - renumber
         from 97.307(f)(2) to 97.307(g) or add (2) to all of the HF bands
         97.305.  Digital voice would remain confined to the phone bands
         even though it is transmitted as bits, the overall package is
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 mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>