[Boatanchors] Pactor on Sailing boats

[Bry Carling AF4K]

This is not what I hear.
Dave Summer more or less said the same things and wanted to know who was doing it.
Several hams supplied him with examples, including an illegal unattended HF mailbox
with no amateur license.

On 30 Nov 2015 at 9:16, Alex [Temple Boatanchors] wrote:

> Not to defend or criticize anybodies position 
> and/or opinion, but just wanted to give a bit of 
> insight. Not sure what the situation is in the 
> US, but I have worked on boat electronics in the 
> Caribbean for a couple of years now and as far as 
> I can see the few only ones (still) using Pactor 
> type modems with SSB radios for email (and 
> weather) are smaller sailing boats (under 40 
> feet) and they mostly only use it when at sea and 
> far from any land based Wifi access that they can 
> easily get for free at any marina or restaurant. 
> These type of boat owners are basically your 
> typical live-aboard that have used most of their 
> savings or sold their house to purchase the boat 
> to "live the adventure", so usually there is not 
> much leeway left for expensive satellite downlink 
> Internet access, and not that it would make sense 
> in a boat in that size range anyhow to install a 
> system that in certain cases would possibly be 
> worth more than the boat itself. So I seriously 
> doubt that they are just being cheap by using 
> Pactor because they want to avoid paying for 
> regular Internet access. Again, I would say 
> nowadays in the marine industry nobody is really 
> paying for it anymore unless its the case of a 
> 150 feet or more megayacht equipped with twin 
> huge satellite dishes, and even they usually take 
> advantage of Wifi while docked in a marina, or 
> just rent a wireless Wimax modem for access. So 
> the point would be that Pactor still being the 
> pain in the posterior it is to operate for a 
> non-ham person (in comparison to say a Wifi 
> connection), these people do it out of necessity 
> and lack of choices to them when nothing else is 
> available, like during an ocean crossing. On the 
> other hand the weather and data features from 
> competing services like Inmarsat, Iridium, and 
> also KVH, have come down in cost a lot, but are 
> still out of reach for most of the small to 
> medium size average sail boat owners. Hope that helps a bit.
> 
> Alex
> 
> At 10:14 PM 11/29/2015, you wrote:
> >The ARRL has been, seemingly, pushing for more 
> >WINLINK / PACTOR availability for some time. Â 
> >One speculation is that they hope to increase 
> >membership through more boat, and yacht, owners 
> >getting licenses specifically for operating 
> >using those modes because they do not want to 
> >have to pay for Internet access using 
> >considerably more expensive commercial links. Â 
> >Of course, being able to afford, and to operate, 
> >such watercraft usually requires a substantial 
> >investment and yet those same people don't want 
> >to spend any money to be able to use the 
> >Internet while on the water. Â Then, again, 
> >amateur radio operators also have a reputation 
> >as to being "cheap" and, I suppose, boat / yacht 
> >owners are no different where money is 
> >concerned! Although the ARRL does not normally 
> >make the actual number of members public, if one 
> >takes a look at the mailing notice that has to 
> >be published, periodically, that is in small 
> >print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy to 
> >get a pretty good idea as to the number of 
> >members. Â  For some time, the ARRL has "pushed" 
> >EMCOMM to get new members to replace other 
> >members who have abandoned the ARRL and, it 
> >seems, that they are doing the same thing with 
> >boat owners. I abandoned the ARRL some time back 
> >because they have long stopped supporting what I 
> >believe the direction that amateur radio should 
> >take. Â Since I am not an ARRL member, I do not 
> >comment on the internal workings of that 
> >organization. Â However, when the ARRL submits 
> >petitions to the FCC, or even when they are 
> >proposing such, that affects the entire amateur 
> >radio population then I definitely do have the 
> >right to comment! Several years ago, the ARRL 
> >submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded 
> >WINLINK / PACTOR operations that they retracted 
> >after quite an uprising within the membership. Â 
> >It appears that they might be trying it again. I 
> >realize that thing are changing and have been 
> >changing for some time during the over 56-years 
> >that I have been licensed and some of those 
> >changes have been for the good of amateur radio 
> >and some have not been good for amateur radio. Â 
> >However, I definitely believe in doing 
> >everything possible to stop changes that are 
> >definitely not in the best interests of the 
> >Amateur Radio Service. Glen, K9STHÂ  Website: 
> >http://k9sth.net       From: Bry Carling AF4K 
> ><bcarling at cfl.rr.com> To: k1zz at arrl.net Cc: 
> >FLBOATANCHORS at yahoogroups.com; 
> >tetrode at googlegroups.com; 
> >Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net; 
> >amradio at mailman.qth.net; 
> >Arizona-AM at yahoogroups.com; 
> >dcboatanchors at mailman.qth.net; 
> >CarolinaHamSwap at yahoogroups.com; 
> >boatanchors at puck.nether.net Sent: Sunday, 
> >November 29, 2015 4:46 PM Subject: [Glowbugs] I 
> >agree    Dear David, I echo all of the 
> >sentiments below. I think that in retrospect, it 
> >was a huge mistake to take away so much CW 
> >spectrum from the General Class CW operators on 
> >80m. I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion of 
> >WINLINK / PACTOR and any other UNATTENDED 
> >digital mode operations on our HF bands! They 
> >cause QRM and are a nuisance no matter what is 
> >done to claim that they have been cleaned up! 
> >Many of my ham friends and I confess to having 
> >missed the April 2015 QST article and your It 
> >Seems to Us page in the September 2015 issue. 
> >These articles discuss proposed changes to 
> >accommodate digital modes, while eliminating or 
> >reducing extra class phone privileges on 80 
> >meters. Many of us have now been awakened to the 
> >ARRLâEURTMs conclusions and the proposed 
> >recommendations to its executive committee, and 
> >to the FCC. And while the door may be closed to 
> >the initial polling (only 1,000 respondents), we 
> >nevertheless feel the need for clarification, 
> >and if necessary an appeal for a reconsideration 
> >of these ARRLâEURTMs proposals.First, this may be 
> >simply a matter of clarification. I read, and 
> >then re-read both the September and April 
> >articles several times. I can find no assurance 
> >that the proposal would provide that the 
> >remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be 
> >retained for the exclusive use of Amateur Extra 
> >Class licensees. While this may be merely an 
> >oversight, the absence of this assurance seems 
> >suspicious. A clear statement in your recap like 
> >âEURoewhile the extra class phone exclusivity will 
> >be reduced by 50 kHz, the 3650-3700 segment will 
> >be protected for the exclusive use of holders of 
> >Amateur Extra Class licensees,âEUR would have 
> >eliminated much anxiety. Would you please 
> >clarify this via email and through QST as soon 
> >as possible.Next, many of us earned extra class 
> >licenses through hard work and devotion to the 
> >hobby. I earned mine shortly after incentive 
> >licensing was introduced in the 1970s. Incentive 
> >licensing is, in my opinion, one of the ARRLâEURTMs 
> >most significant initiatives. I was very proud 
> >to be awarded my new license, the extra band 
> >operating privileges, and the right to request 
> >special call signs. Many of us I am sure had the 
> >feeling that we were in the top of the class! 
> >Today of course, some of these hard earned 
> >âEURoeextrasâEUR have either disappeared or made 
> >available to a broader base of hams without that 
> >extra effort. Then there is the dropping of the 
> >20 WPM code requirement, and the code 
> >requirement completely, etc., which further 
> >eroded the merit-based/privilege system that 
> >incentive licensing had launched. Moreover, 
> >remember that many of us are in our 50s, 60s, 
> >70s, 80s, and so on, and we continually hear 
> >about the erosion of our other hard-earned 
> >rights in other areas of life (Social Security, 
> >Medicare, VeteranâEURTMs benefits, etc.).My recent 
> >posting to the qrz.com posting on this subject 
> >Friday rapidly became a popular topic. And 
> >discussions on nets to which I belong and among 
> >club members proved that many extras class 
> >licensees were totally unaware of these 
> >proposals. I have also received an extraordinary 
> >number of private emails since Friday 
> >questioning the ARRLâEURTMs motives, and the 
> >protection of our operating privileges.So David, 
> >would you kindly send your reply to me (via 
> >email) as soon as possible addressing the above 
> >points? Please address these specific 
> >questions:1. Is it true that the ARRL proposal 
> >will protect exclusive Amateur Extra Class 80 
> >meter phone frequencies (either 3650-3750, or 
> >even 3650-3700) and thus add that specific 
> >language to this proposal? And if not, why 
> >not?2. Will you reopen this issue for further 
> >input now that a wider audience has had the time 
> >to become informed? (As of noon today, Sunday, 
> >there have been nearly 12,000 views on the 
> >qrz.com forum.)3. When is the ARRL Executive 
> >Committee supposed to take this matter up, and 
> >where do we find a listing of the members of 
> >this committee?Thank you for your time, David. 
> >And thank you for the many fine things you and 
> >the ARRL do for our hobby.Respectfully,73, 
> >_______________________________________________ 
> >Boatanchors mailing list 
> >Boatanchors at puck.nether.net 
> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> 
>