Hi Jack, There will always be varying viewpoints on various technical issues. The difference today is that we have vehicles to actually allow the average person to discuss them worldwide such as through the democratizing process on groups like digitlradio.
There are those who do not really seem to grasp the paradigm shift in the world because it can be messy (as democracy in action always is!) There are others who strongly oppose democratization because they are losing the power to control others. Individuals have nearly equal standing at times, even against larger organizations. It also means that extreme views, mentally unbalanced, etc., also get equal time and we do not have the moderating of a larger power as we once had. Now the individual must do the sifting and winnowing and there are many who are not able or willing to do that. What we have on groups like this one, is a "Letters to the Editors Column" without an editor who had the power to filter out things that they did not want to come through. Of course whether this was good or bad depended upon your viewpoints. If we can not discuss these views, then these groups would have little or reduced value because you never knew who or what was being blocked. The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for well over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, however they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher bands became unusable. Packet does not work well on HF. It requires a relatively high S/N ratio for any kind of throughput. The Aplink system was set up with the Amtor protocol, to allow HF connections to BBS MBO's (Mail Box Operations), since Amtor was nearly (not completely) error free and could work much deeper into the noise. It only has a single character case, so was similar to messaging sent via CW or voice nets. These BBS's eventually were tied in to local VHF packet BBS systems so that hams could send traffic worldwide although it could take days to get through. Everything was done via amateur radio RF links for HF although there were "wormholes" (practically speaking, the early internet), that made big jumps to connect VHF packet. When Pactor and Clover II became available, the BBS system moved to these modes and renamed the system Winlink to include a MS Windows GUI interface along with the two new modes providing the transport. In the late 1990's the Winlink controllers realized that the system traffic load was very limited and that the internet could be used to off load most of the traffic. A Netlink system was added to Winlink, but I did not get involved in that so only read a little about it in the RTTY Digital Journal which at that time was THE vehicle of information for digital operation until its failure. The Winlink controllers met and came up with a new topology for Winlink and developed an internet centric system that now uses the internet to route traffic on a worldwide system with varying distances for the RF side to gain access to the internet. This can be a mile or 1000 miles or more, can be on VHF or HF, but removes the forwarding traffic off the amateur frequencies. If they had not done this, the necessary BBS forwarding would not be possible to support on HF. And instead of messages going through the internet in a few seconds, it would still take days to reach the recipient. Unattended HF Beacons are generally not legal to operate here in the U.S., but perhaps your rules allow you to do this? Using a non standard mode will limit you to few other potential users. Pactor is not very hard on switching of rigs. Amtor was a bit much at times, but with many rigs intended to be QSK these days, or close to it, I would not be the slightest bit concerned about using Pactor due to switching issues. Your experience with PSKmail is similar to mine. Many, many, hours spent trying to get it to work with no practical results. Even when I have a Linux system that I can dual boot into for experimenting. 73, Rick, KV9U vk4jrc wrote: > Hi Rick, > > I just hope this FCC thing does not make people turn sour on the > hobby, hobbies are meant to be fun! > I guess the reason for my Packet interest is the stand alone mailbox > aspect of it, no Internet connection needed. The PBBS is a repository > of messages sent by anyone and retreived by the addressees or anyone > who wants to read a general bulletin etc. Whilst HF 300 baud is slow > etc, I am not sending pictures etc, only text. The beacon also acts > as a method of determining propagation too. I have a KAM XL fo my TNC > which has good features. My SCS PTC TNCs also have Packet, but the > mail box setup is not as good, however they do have robust packet > mode, which is more reliable than ordinary HF packet. > Don't mention pactor....not interested :-( Its a T/R relay destroying > mode which by operation, is hungry on my portable power budget :-) > PSKMail? Many hours spent for not a lot of results....video card wars > with Linux! I would like to get it working, but I am not sure IF its > really suitable for my portable ops, from a motorcycle :-) > My station needs to be compact with a reasnable power budget. Right > now I have an ICOM 703, KAM XL and Psion 3MX palmtop PC and Buddipole > antenna, for field use. I sure would like a physically smaller TNC > with the same features, but the KAM will have to do right now. > In the meantime, I will setup the Packet gear on my Icom 718 and MA5- > V antenna at home and give 18MHz a go with some packet beacons, for a > few days and see what happens. > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > >
