[Amps] WinLink

[Will Matney]

Dave,

What I read was that this was not announced until after the vote and a bunch of hoopla went on before they would put it out publically. I guess the link was what become of the afterwards. The way I read about it, they tried to hide it back as first by one small mention tucked away where nobody would notice. See, the thing is, like I said earler, I dont give a tinkers damn about what they do with the band, etc., just the way it was done. Read my post back to Rich and you'll see why. Plus, the website where I read about it. One of the voters who desented, explains a lot in detail. They done somthing worse in my opinion to Rich years back and this just really set me sore. Rich had done a lot for the technical side of the hobby and was just flat sh#t on by the establishment because of folks with their hands in the cookie jar. As was commented on earler, the ARRL is nothing more than a magazine publisher with their hands out now. They dont have any help for those who need it and dont care. It's became just one big money making gimmick for a few to keep them in a job IMHO. I'm sorry to sound this way, but when I see folks in the right getting wronged, my hackles stand up. I consider Rich a good friend and have never met him. However, he has helped me everytime I've asked, never failed, if not within the same day I asked. He and others have done a lot for others, giving freely. Then you have those in there now, who only see the bottom line as dollars with no cents (sense). Even though a joke was said, it digs at the real truth.

Best,

Will


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/6/05 at 3:56 PM Dave wrote:

>They haven't been very secret about it; the proposed bandplan is available
>via http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html .
>
>Personally, I don't have a problem with switching to a bandwidth-based
>allocation scheme, though any proposed change in allocations will generate
>squawking and crowing from those getting less and more respectively. What
>concerns me is that this proposal would also eliminate the frequency
>constraints on semi-automatic operation. Frankly, I'd rather have BPL
>deployed next door than open the bands to robot stations that call over
>ongoing QSOs. Unless such stations are running software that reliably
>detects busy frequencies and declines to answer calls if doing so would QRM
>someone, they should remain corralled in a few band segments.
>
>    73,
>
>       Dave, AA6YQ
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: amps-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces at contesting.com] On
>Behalf Of Will Matney
>Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:06 AM
>To: amps at contesting.com
>Subject: [Amps] WinLink
>
>
>I just ran across something (2-3 days back actually) about the ARRL almost
>secertely pushing through a new bandplan for Winlink, I think was the name.
>I have read some others opinions before I made this post. One wonders why I
>will not re-license and this shows why. I have seen the ARRL now, over and
>over, for years now, seem to do some pretty underhanded things. It seems to
>me it is always tied to a money flow some where. I know all to well what
>they did to Rich Measures on here, and it was over deep pockets controlling
>what the ARRL now does. I'm sorry, the ARRL is supposed to be for all the
>amateur radio folks but when money is involved somewhere, it seems that
>things gets hushed, law suits gets threatened, and stuff is done under the
>table. Folks wonder why the membership is dropping off and this pretty much
>nails it. Before we had the internet, where information flows sooo freely,
>keeping things hid away was 100% easier. I started on the net about the
>same
>time I said by  -by to my license. These types of actions is the very
>reason
>they went. To straighten it out, there ought to be a major house cleaning
>of
>the ARRL, and the FCC. There's too many corporate and political fingers in
>there. The ARRL should only be staffed by non-political, non business tied
>hams IMHO. This very thing is the reason I dont see myself ever being
>re-licensed in the near future. I just had to say something as I'd had this
>bottled up now for a few days. Any comments are welcome.
>
>Will
>
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps at contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.999 (20050215) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.nod32.com