[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

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 at 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,
>