April 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12065] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Dick Mondro 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

I will attempt to add a few comments to an already lengthy message.. Dick Mondro, W8FQT ITEM 1 Winlink 2000 is starting to deploy sophisticated signal detection with its new SCAMP protocol, and has this option available in the SCS modems as well. However, with only 40 some PMBOs Worldwide, this is not an issue. With the future deployment of other digital communications applications, non-real-time connectivity on the HF bands will become common place. The problems, if there should be any, will certainly be adequately handled by such signal detection. Realistically, however, the active control operator can usually detect one side of any existing activity on a given frequency. ITEM 2 I refer you to ?97.219(c) which provides protection for licensees operating as part of a message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing such communications once they become aware of their presence." Winlink 2000 is constantly being hampered by hackers as is any other Internet based system. However, there has not been one incident of any successful attempts within the last five years. This is not my opinion, but fact. Most EOC's and other government and civil agencies use the Windows operating systems, and do so successfully. ITEM 3 If anyone can provide an alternative system it will be embraced. To date nothing even close exists so why bring up the issue of it being proprietary? The client software is free of charge as is the network software. The only expensive portion is the SCS HF modem. The development of SCAMP and other future protocols will ease this issue. As to SCAMP Protocol and the Pactor 3 Modems, this is not the case. The developers of SCAMP, like so many other developers of digital data transfer modes, are purposely dragging their feet in anticipation of having some bandwidth to deploy their protocols. SCAMP is in Beta test currently, and more can be learned by joining the SCAMP Yahoo group on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCAMPprotocol/ <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCAMPprotocol/> . The following is a message from the Williamson County TN Emergency Management Director showing his approval of WL2K.. many more messages like this are available if anyone is interested. From: Bill Jorgensen [mailto:BILLJ@williamson-tn.org] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 16:30 To: k4cjx(a)comcast.net <mailto:k4cjx@comcast.net> Subject: WinLink2000 Steve, WinLink 2000 was installed recently in the Williamson County Emergency Communications Center and Outlook Express set up on my work station desk top to access the WinLink server. I never imagined I would be using it as soon as I did. About two weeks ago the Williamson County GroupWise Server encountered problems and was off line for three hours. During this time period the Emergency Communications Center was without GroupWise e-mail, but in its place I was able to use WinLink 2000 as a backup e-mail service for dispatch emergencies until the County's was restored. Since this time, Outlook Express icons for emergency email have been put on all desk tops in the Emergency Communications Center. I do know the time will come again when an incident such as a server going down or if we loose the "last mile" of the internet we won't have connectivity. It is reassuring to know we will have WinLink 2000 at our disposal during that time of need. In the emergency communications field every second counts. William K. Jorgensen, Director Williamson County Department Of Emergency Communications -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12060] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats 4 APR, 2005 - 1630 CDT I apologize for what is now becoming a long message. Rather than use the "reply to" function which creates word wrap problems, my responses to Kay's thoughtful reply are in blue text. 73 - Dick, W9GIG ======================================================================== To take Dick's points in order: 1. The real HF interference potential when a Winlink robot responds to a message from a human operator; I'm not sure how this differs from other HF interference potential. Even though we all listen before transmitting (including querying a mailbox type station), the nature of HF propagation is such that we can't guarantee we aren't stepping on somebody who can hear us while we can't hear them. Anybody here who's never been barked at for QRMing a QSO after you dutifully asked if the frequency were in use and waited for a reply? It also occurs to me that the ARRL sponsors various HF contests, which are vociferously damned as QRM by many League members who are prevented by contests from doing what they like to do on the air. Yet we don't hesitate to sponsor contests, because we think they're worthwhile. The difference is having human beings on both ends of the RF circuit. Yes there are people who are careless, particularly when propagation changes during a contest. But I understand (and perhaps somebody can correct me) an HF Winlink robot responding to incoming traffic is not aware of the interference it may be inflicting on other users. There will be growing interference problems as the day-to-day use of Winlink increases. 2. It appears most of the users seem to be using Winlink as an RF extension of the Internet for direct personal ham to non-ham, and non-ham to ham (without a control operator) use; I'm not sure how this bears on the future of the system as an emergency communications resource under the responsible supervision of an ARRL-based committee, distinct from what the recreational boaters may do today. Perhaps Dick Mondro could comment more on any safeguards in the system with regard to inappropriate message content. I know it is my responsibility to educate any non-hams whom I might call on the repeater autopatch that (for example) they must keep their language clean in our conversation; I assume I would have the same responsiblity with regard to non-hams with whom I might exchange radio e-mail. Is Winlink use going to be supervised by any committee 24x7? My concern is not what system is used during a real large-scale emergency. In this case, the government will probably issue a directive shutting down or restricting casual use of amateur radio frequencies. But please tell me what is going to happen when routine personal non-emergency Winlink signals overwhelm non-Winlink users of the spectrum? If the use of the Internet is any measure of activity, the interference will be become pervasive. It's so easy to propagate flame emails and spam on the Internet. Do you really believe responsible amateur operators will be able to keep this large scale message pollution from overwhelming our spectrum allocations? Winlink undoubtedly has safeguards built in to its software. But any program using the Windows operating system is subject to being hacked and this will happen as the number of Winlink users (hacker targets) increase. 3. And the fact that Winlink is a proprietary (expensive) system that so far has not generated any alternative hardware/software for using this mode. We have Winlink capability here at my house but haven't spent over $50 on software ... and we didn't *have* to spend that much. We do not own one of the fancy TNC's. Again, I imagine Dick Mondro can tell us more about the progress towards alternatives such as the SCAMP protocol. End users simply do not have to purchase one of those proprietary TNC's to use the Winlink network. SCAMP protocol will hopefully reduce the entry fee for potential Winlink users. However, I understand that it's still a work in progress that does not yet match the capabilities of the expensive Pactor III modem. In my county, something that keeps the EMA officials awake at night is the fear that they might lose e-mail connectivity, which they need as much as they need telephones to manage a disaster. Our ARES/RACES organization has no interest whatso-blinking-ever in sending messages to the other side of the USA, because our county EMA has no such interest. However, hams' perceived value to the county increased dramatically when we told them we can instantly give them e-mail connectivity to municipalities in the county and to the state EMA if the regular ISP should go down. In fact, Verizon DSL failed for 8 solid hours in the whole Philadelphia region recently. Had the county been on that service, they would have needed our radio e-mail desperately. Recognizing that their e-mail connectivity is vulnerable, the county has paid for the necessary equipment for us to operate a PMBO and to create three hardened portable radio e-mail stations with both VHF and HF capability that we can take to municipalities as needed during a communications failure. We are a long way past "Please copy number one, routine ...." Loss of connectivity will always be an issue for everyone. However, a catastrophic loss (all ISPs down) of wired Internet connectivity over a wide area would be very unusual. And if such a loss were to happen, how would the Winlink RF stations be able to connect to wired Internet circuits with the redundancy that now exists in the wired network? Your mentioning Verizon's 8 hour system-wide DSL failure tells me it was a computer problem, not a land-line failure. All large ISPs have multiple high-speed Internet links. During the last two large California earthquakes, the area's wired Internet did not go down. Yes, it was poked full of holes, but it still worked. You appear to be talking about using Winlink-to-Winlink stations in a local or perhaps small regional network. I don't think this will be a problem for most casual HF users outside of these small areas. Obviously, VHF or higher spectrum use is not the issue. But this does not negate my reason #1 and #2 as I have already discussed. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12064] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Tom Frenaye 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

At 01:14 PM 4/4/2005, Dick/W8FQT wrote: >I'm not sure where you got the information on ARRL Membership of Winlink >2000 users but when I attended a forum in Melbourne FL last November to a >packed auditorium, we asked how many were members and I was shocked to see >that it was about 98 percent of the attendees. [stuff cut] >I'm sorry I disagree with your numbers, but they are wrong as I have seen it >with my own eyes. Hi Dick - I've received 25-30 e-mail messages about the proposed bandwidth petition in the last two weeks, mostly as forwarded messages from Dave Patten. Almost all are from people "on the water" somewhere, have a New England home address and who are active Winlink users. Almost all of them are not members. Most of the e-mail is addressed to K1ZZ (as apparently instructed by K4CJX), since, as "everyone knows", Dave is the one that makes the final decision on this, not the Board. The earlier messages all were in a panic about losing the ability to use Pactor3 - something we haven't even suggested - and missed completely that the issue is what parts (or all) of which bands should wideband digital be permitted in (expanded into), and whether to extend the use of semi-automatic and automatic control into those areas (or in the case of automatic control, whether to continue to allow it at all). I spoke to Dave P on the telephone before sending out my message. He said that he'd responded to more than 250 similar messages in the last two weeks and that his rough approximation was that something like 10% of them were ARRL members. He was in the process of preparing a summary of the comments for this weekend's Executive Committee meeting. Dave P also mentioned that from he'd seen, there were about 5100 Winlink users. So, take the numbers for what they're worth. The people who are "on the boats" are generally not members but have a real investment in Winlink for something. I have no idea what the content of their messages is generally like - but that must be something we can decode on the air, right? In any case, I do find it very interesting to know what non-members think - and very curious to understand what makes them tick since they obviously don't think ARRL is worthy of their $39/year. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:12063] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Joel Harrison 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

Tnx info, Dick, much appreciated. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Dick Mondro [mailto:dmondro@wowway.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12062] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats There are actually more Telpac Winlink Stations in operation within the USA providing connectivity to HF PMBO's and most are set up for support of emergency communications through local Emergency Management Offices using ARESR. Please see the map at the following link. http://winlink.org/images/WL2K%20Telpac%20Map%20-%20US.GIF Yes there are boaters and RV'ers such as myself (34" self contained motor home) that have both Telpac and an HF PMBO that can be dispatched to any location within hours to provide emergency communications. And no I don't use it for internet connectivity for pleasure or email, I use WI FI for that. Many of the boaters used their stations to provide emergency communications during the hurricanes and tsunami last year. It's not all for personal gain, but some, if not most, amateurs dedicate themselves to public service. I feel it is unfair for anyone to insinuate that Winlink developers have a hidden agenda to mass market this system for personal gain. There is no motivation for profit because there is no profit and to even elude to the fact that Winlink is being promoted to ARRL under "what looks like false pretenses" is an irresponsible statement. All the developers are retired from successful business ventures and have no need or ambition to attain any more personal wealth. There are simply dedicated amateurs that are attempting to give their technical expertise to the amateur community, and yes they are all ARRL Members, one, who just last year, I had the pleasure of presenting with his fifty year plaque. 73, Dick -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:41 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12061] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats I may have been hiding under a rock lately, but I gather that a lot of the current use of WinLink is by individuals, out on their boats, who desire to have email and/or an internet connection out there. Is that correct or have I misunderstood something?? I'm just curious more than anything....no other reason (at the moment!) 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12062] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Dick Mondro 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

There are actually more Telpac Winlink Stations in operation within the USA providing connectivity to HF PMBO's and most are set up for support of emergency communications through local Emergency Management Offices using ARESR. Please see the map at the following link. http://winlink.org/images/WL2K%20Telpac%20Map%20-%20US.GIF Yes there are boaters and RV'ers such as myself (34" self contained motor home) that have both Telpac and an HF PMBO that can be dispatched to any location within hours to provide emergency communications. And no I don't use it for internet connectivity for pleasure or email, I use WI FI for that. Many of the boaters used their stations to provide emergency communications during the hurricanes and tsunami last year. It's not all for personal gain, but some, if not most, amateurs dedicate themselves to public service. I feel it is unfair for anyone to insinuate that Winlink developers have a hidden agenda to mass market this system for personal gain. There is no motivation for profit because there is no profit and to even elude to the fact that Winlink is being promoted to ARRL under "what looks like false pretenses" is an irresponsible statement. All the developers are retired from successful business ventures and have no need or ambition to attain any more personal wealth. There are simply dedicated amateurs that are attempting to give their technical expertise to the amateur community, and yes they are all ARRL Members, one, who just last year, I had the pleasure of presenting with his fifty year plaque. 73, Dick -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:41 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12061] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats I may have been hiding under a rock lately, but I gather that a lot of the current use of WinLink is by individuals, out on their boats, who desire to have email and/or an internet connection out there. Is that correct or have I misunderstood something?? I'm just curious more than anything....no other reason (at the moment!) 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12061] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Joel Harrison 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

I may have been hiding under a rock lately, but I gather that a lot of the current use of WinLink is by individuals, out on their boats, who desire to have email and/or an internet connection out there. Is that correct or have I misunderstood something?? I'm just curious more than anything....no other reason (at the moment!) 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12060] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by dick＠pobox.com 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

4 APR, 2005 - 1630 CDT I apologize for what is now becoming a long message. Rather than use the "reply to" function which creates word wrap problems, my responses to Kay's thoughtful reply are in blue text. 73 - Dick, W9GIG ======================================================================== To take Dick's points in order: 1. The real HF interference potential when a Winlink robot responds to a message from a human operator; I'm not sure how this differs from other HF interference potential. Even though we all listen before transmitting (including querying a mailbox type station), the nature of HF propagation is such that we can't guarantee we aren't stepping on somebody who can hear us while we can't hear them. Anybody here who's never been barked at for QRMing a QSO after you dutifully asked if the frequency were in use and waited for a reply? It also occurs to me that the ARRL sponsors various HF contests, which are vociferously damned as QRM by many League members who are prevented by contests from doing what they like to do on the air. Yet we don't hesitate to sponsor contests, because we think they're worthwhile. The difference is having human beings on both ends of the RF circuit. Yes there are people who are careless, particularly when propagation changes during a contest. But I understand (and perhaps somebody can correct me) an HF Winlink robot responding to incoming traffic is not aware of the interference it may be inflicting on other users. There will be growing interference problems as the day-to-day use of Winlink increases. 2. It appears most of the users seem to be using Winlink as an RF extension of the Internet for direct personal ham to non-ham, and non-ham to ham (without a control operator) use; I'm not sure how this bears on the future of the system as an emergency communications resource under the responsible supervision of an ARRL-based committee, distinct from what the recreational boaters may do today. Perhaps Dick Mondro could comment more on any safeguards in the system with regard to inappropriate message content. I know it is my responsibility to educate any non-hams whom I might call on the repeater autopatch that (for example) they must keep their language clean in our conversation; I assume I would have the same responsiblity with regard to non-hams with whom I might exchange radio e-mail. Is Winlink use going to be supervised by any committee 24x7? My concern is not what system is used during a real large-scale emergency. In this case, the government will probably issue a directive shutting down or restricting casual use of amateur radio frequencies. But please tell me what is going to happen when routine personal non-emergency Winlink signals overwhelm non-Winlink users of the spectrum? If the use of the Internet is any measure of activity, the interference will be become pervasive. It's so easy to propagate flame emails and spam on the Internet. Do you really believe responsible amateur operators will be able to keep this large scale message pollution from overwhelming our spectrum allocations? Winlink undoubtedly has safeguards built in to its software. But any program using the Windows operating system is subject to being hacked and this will happen as the number of Winlink users (hacker targets) increase. 3. And the fact that Winlink is a proprietary (expensive) system that so far has not generated any alternative hardware/software for using this mode. We have Winlink capability here at my house but haven't spent over $50 on software ... and we didn't *have* to spend that much. We do not own one of the fancy TNC's. Again, I imagine Dick Mondro can tell us more about the progress towards alternatives such as the SCAMP protocol. End users simply do not have to purchase one of those proprietary TNC's to use the Winlink network. SCAMP protocol will hopefully reduce the entry fee for potential Winlink users. However, I understand that it's still a work in progress that does not yet match the capabilities of the expensive Pactor III modem. In my county, something that keeps the EMA officials awake at night is the fear that they might lose e-mail connectivity, which they need as much as they need telephones to manage a disaster. Our ARES/RACES organization has no interest whatso-blinking-ever in sending messages to the other side of the USA, because our county EMA has no such interest. However, hams' perceived value to the county increased dramatically when we told them we can instantly give them e-mail connectivity to municipalities in the county and to the state EMA if the regular ISP should go down. In fact, Verizon DSL failed for 8 solid hours in the whole Philadelphia region recently. Had the county been on that service, they would have needed our radio e-mail desperately. Recognizing that their e-mail connectivity is vulnerable, the county has paid for the necessary equipment for us to operate a PMBO and to create three hardened portable radio e-mail stations with both VHF and HF capability that we can take to municipalities as needed during a communications failure. We are a long way past "Please copy number one, routine ...." Loss of connectivity will always be an issue for everyone. However, a catastrophic loss (all ISPs down) of wired Internet connectivity over a wide area would be very unusual. And if such a loss were to happen, how would the Winlink RF stations be able to connect to wired Internet circuits with the redundancy that now exists in the wired network? Your mentioning Verizon's 8 hour system-wide DSL failure tells me it was a computer problem, not a land-line failure. All large ISPs have multiple high-speed Internet links. During the last two large California earthquakes, the area's wired Internet did not go down. Yes, it was poked full of holes, but it still worked. You appear to be talking about using Winlink-to-Winlink stations in a local or perhaps small regional network. I don't think this will be a problem for most casual HF users outside of these small areas. Obviously, VHF or higher spectrum use is not the issue. But this does not negate my reason #1 and #2 as I have already discussed. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12059] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Joel Harrison 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

TNX info Kay. Some good user based non-biased input. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12058] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats To take Dick's points in order: 1. The real HF interference potential when a Winlink robot responds to a message from a human operator; I'm not sure how this differs from other HF interference potential. Even though we all listen before transmitting (including querying a mailbox type station), the nature of HF propagation is such that we can't guarantee we aren't stepping on somebody who can hear us while we can't hear them. Anybody here who's never been barked at for QRMing a QSO after you dutifully asked if the frequency were in use and waited for a reply? It also occurs to me that the ARRL sponsors various HF contests, which are vociferously damned as QRM by many League members who are prevented by contests from doing what they like to do on the air. Yet we don't hesitate to sponsor contests, because we think they're worthwhile. 2. It appears most of the users seem to be using Winlink as an RF extension of the Internet for direct personal ham to non-ham, and non-ham to ham (without a control operator) use; I'm not sure how this bears on the future of the system as an emergency communications resource under the responsible supervision of an ARRL-based committee, distinct from what the recreational boaters may do today. Perhaps Dick Mondro could comment more on any safeguards in the system with regard to inappropriate message content. I know it is my responsibility to educate any non-hams whom I might call on the repeater autopatch that (for example) they must keep their language clean in our conversation; I assume I would have the same responsiblity with regard to non-hams with whom I might exchange radio e-mail. 3. And the fact that Winlink is a proprietary (expensive) system that so far has not generated any alternative hardware/software for using this mode. We have Winlink capability here at my house but haven't spent over $50 on software ... and we didn't *have* to spend that much. We do not own one of the fancy TNC's. Again, I imagine Dick Mondro can tell us more about the progress towards alternatives such as the SCAMP protocol. End users simply do not have to purchase one of those proprietary TNC's to use the Winlink network. In my county, something that keeps the EMA officials awake at night is the fear that they might lose e-mail connectivity, which they need as much as they need telephones to manage a disaster. Our ARES/RACES organization has no interest whatso-blinking-ever in sending messages to the other side of the USA, because our county EMA has no such interest. However, hams' perceived value to the county increased dramatically when we told them we can instantly give them e-mail connectivity to municipalities in the county and to the state EMA if the regular ISP should go down. In fact, Verizon DSL failed for 8 solid hours in the whole Philadelphia region recently. Had the county been on that service, they would have needed our radio e-mail desperately. Recognizing that their e-mail connectivity is vulnerable, the county has paid for the necessary equipment for us to operate a PMBO and to create three hardened portable radio e-mail stations with both VHF and HF capability that we can take to municipalities as needed during a communications failure. We are a long way past "Please copy number one, routine ...." 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12058] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Kay Craigie 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

To take Dick's points in order: 1. The real HF interference potential when a Winlink robot responds to a message from a human operator; I'm not sure how this differs from other HF interference potential. Even though we all listen before transmitting (including querying a mailbox type station), the nature of HF propagation is such that we can't guarantee we aren't stepping on somebody who can hear us while we can't hear them. Anybody here who's never been barked at for QRMing a QSO after you dutifully asked if the frequency were in use and waited for a reply? It also occurs to me that the ARRL sponsors various HF contests, which are vociferously damned as QRM by many League members who are prevented by contests from doing what they like to do on the air. Yet we don't hesitate to sponsor contests, because we think they're worthwhile. 2. It appears most of the users seem to be using Winlink as an RF extension of the Internet for direct personal ham to non-ham, and non-ham to ham (without a control operator) use; I'm not sure how this bears on the future of the system as an emergency communications resource under the responsible supervision of an ARRL-based committee, distinct from what the recreational boaters may do today. Perhaps Dick Mondro could comment more on any safeguards in the system with regard to inappropriate message content. I know it is my responsibility to educate any non-hams whom I might call on the repeater autopatch that (for example) they must keep their language clean in our conversation; I assume I would have the same responsiblity with regard to non-hams with whom I might exchange radio e-mail. 3. And the fact that Winlink is a proprietary (expensive) system that so far has not generated any alternative hardware/software for using this mode. We have Winlink capability here at my house but haven't spent over $50 on software ... and we didn't *have* to spend that much. We do not own one of the fancy TNC's. Again, I imagine Dick Mondro can tell us more about the progress towards alternatives such as the SCAMP protocol. End users simply do not have to purchase one of those proprietary TNC's to use the Winlink network. In my county, something that keeps the EMA officials awake at night is the fear that they might lose e-mail connectivity, which they need as much as they need telephones to manage a disaster. Our ARES/RACES organization has no interest whatso-blinking-ever in sending messages to the other side of the USA, because our county EMA has no such interest. However, hams' perceived value to the county increased dramatically when we told them we can instantly give them e-mail connectivity to municipalities in the county and to the state EMA if the regular ISP should go down. In fact, Verizon DSL failed for 8 solid hours in the whole Philadelphia region recently. Had the county been on that service, they would have needed our radio e-mail desperately. Recognizing that their e-mail connectivity is vulnerable, the county has paid for the necessary equipment for us to operate a PMBO and to create three hardened portable radio e-mail stations with both VHF and HF capability that we can take to municipalities as needed during a communications failure. We are a long way past "Please copy number one, routine ...." 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12057] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

Just as the pro-Winlinkers were on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.... http://www.zerobeat.net/bandgrab.shtml K3HRN is, at least, an ARRL Life Member. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12056] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats
by Joel Harrison 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

When Tom receives an email, he looks up the callsign of the sender in the ARRL database and knows for sure what a persons membership status is. A show of hands in a room doesn't provide any verification of actual numbers and the honor system most times is not accurate in this area. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Dick Mondro [mailto:dmondro@wowway.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:14 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12054] Re: Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats Tom, I'm not sure where you got the information on ARRL Membership of Winlink 2000 users but when I attended a forum in Melbourne FL last November to a packed auditorium, we asked how many were members and I was shocked to see that it was about 98 percent of the attendees. Dan Miller and I were prepared to sell League Membership to them but felt we were preaching to the choir. We did manage to enlist some new members though with the help of South Florida SM Sherry Brower and I feel we covered that two percent. I had a stronger feeling that these people knew about ARRL and were selling it to others in greater numbers than I have ever seen in any special interest group. The people writing are no different than any other special interest group. As we attend meetings, we ask people to let us know how they feel on issues and we have given them the opportunity to do so. Is that a bad thing? Asking for member input, as we have done, is a positive thing that gives them a feeling of being an important part of our organization. The problem now is that we are not supporting the WL2K effort in any positive way through information or education. The only information folks are getting is through misinformation and innuendo. If we are committed to supporting the future of digital communications for ARES(r) we must get the Winlink Management Team formed and working. It has been eleven weeks since the last BoD Meeting and very little progress has taken place. We need to be able to deal with the bandwidth issues to promote experimentation with digital modes and I am confident that we will do what needs to done. I'm sorry I disagree with your numbers, but they are wrong as I have seen it with my own eyes. 73, Dick Mondro, W8FQT -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 7:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12043] Yachts, cruisers, and rowboats The e-mail about wideband digital modes has been interesting in the last couple of weeks. I see the Winlink "managers" have called out the troops. I assume you've all seen at least a couple of them. The thing that strikes me most about the messages I've received is just how little they appear to know about ARRL and what is being considered, even though they were prompted with detailed info on what to comment on. A large majority are not ARRL members. Why not? Ham radio seems to be an important thing in their life. Getting licensed, then investing in the hardware and setting up and using an HF radio with Winlink isn't exactly plug and play. We've always thought that getting people on the air was an important step in getting people to a lifetime of ham radio - and that leads to ARRL memberships. Is it just that they can't easily get delivery of QST while "on the road"? What aren't they members? (Why don't they understand that membership gives them a real voice?) -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005

1 0