On 11/23/2013 1:41 PM, Michael Rapp wrote:
>
Being fairly new to ham radio I may have mis-heard this, but the use
case I keep hearing about in my local area is to send a large Excel
spreadsheet over HF via Winlink to an served-agency email address in
an emcomm situation.
The use case doesn't hold water ... there simply is no use of Winlink
for long distance HF communication during large scale emergencies.
The amateur communications - even in large scale emergencies - tend to
be conducted at VHF where 2.8 KHz bandwidths are already permitted
while the long distance communication is done via the *internet* and
other commercial circuits. One need only look at the after action
reports from New Jersey ARES during "Hurricane" Sandy so see the most
recent confirmation of this *fact*.
The only place Winlink (and Pactor III/IV) makes any sense is with
the "Yachting" set and they're simply *abusing* amateur radio rather
than pay for satellite internet and/or expensive HF data services.
Such abuse represents *commercial use* of amateur radio and should
have been banned 30 years ago but it was like the boiling a frog -
the heat was turned up slowly (the abuses increased gradually enough
that those who raised the alarm about Winlink/Sailmail were easily
silenced and ignored (particularly when certain ARRL Directors and
officers are complicit in promoting Winlink/Sailmail).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/23/2013 1:41 PM, Michael Rapp wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Being fairly new to ham radio I may have mis-heard this, but the use case I
keep hearing about in my local area is to send a large Excel spreadsheet
over HF via Winlink to an served-agency email address in an emcomm
situation.
I do not understand the technical details at all, but the impression I have
is that the Pactor IV protocol is supposed to make this use case more
reliable, more efficient, and/or faster. Or at least that is my perception
from people who seem positive or indifferent towards the ARRL proposal.
Again, I'm a little hesitant as I'm so new to ham radio but the impression
I've gotten is that the ARRL proposal is to -- somehow -- help remove some
of the impediments to sending large file attachments over Winlink, but I
don't understand the technical details enough to say how it does that, so I
could be completely wrong.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jeff Blaine <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>wrote:
The guys promoting the winlink/pactor 4 stuff keep talking about improved
emcom support. But I'm not sure how these two items tie together.
73,
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|