As we have been finding out through testing, ALE may have a place in a few niche interest areas but it is likely to be of limited value on the ham bands, and not well supported, since the shared nature of the bands do not lend themselves well to this kind of continuously dedicated frequencies. If the FCC does rule that ALE soundings are a legal activity, there is the potential for unintended consequences if we allow beaconing throughout the HF bands.
The data transfer of ALE is not good enough from what the majority of us have tried when using the wide bandwidth form of 8FSK2000, however the narrow 8FSK400 mode has proven itself to be quite robust, a far better fit for a shared frequency band, and with better throughput, in many cases, because it works under much more difficult conditions. This is especially pronounced during emergency situations with low power and mediocre antennas! If you really want to get support for your special interest area, I might suggest that you need to be careful with your choice of words. It is far better to work with human nature, and not against it. You need to come up with positive reasons to support something and if you have really have something of value to offer, others may gravitate toward it over time. Because one of your spokespeople takes an extreme attitude toward others, you have paid a dear price. One only has to look at the vitriol on qrz.com and other forums, when something like ALE is brought up. It is nearly universally derided by 95% or more of the posters. You need to think about why that is. Consider the belief that older technology is of reduced value compared with new technology. It is these very same "old technologies" that actually work during an emergency. Particularly, the one main need of tactical voice which is the most needed emergency communications. This is one of the inherent values of amateur radio over other forms of emergency communications. The high technology systems can fail and when they do it is the low tech systems that can temporarily provide limited emergency assistance. It can not replace the previously damaged infrastructure but it can help. Having digital modes can be helpful too, if they work. The more complicated systems, and the more they depend upon the internet for most of their operation, such as Winlink 2000, the more risk you have that it won't be there when you most need it. Building decentralized systems that can also interoperate with existing systems, (even Winlink 2000) makes much more sense. You claim that "some are saying we have no business even providing emergency service." and yet no one from this group has claimed that hams should not be involved with emergency communications. Misrepresenting other hams' viewpoints does not lend credence toward your views. Why make such statements? Instead of complaining about RTTY contests vs a digital mode that may not be legal, you should be welcoming clarification from the FCC. And if the FCC rules against you, you should then petition them to change the rules. But your group is not doing this. Instead you try to silence anyone who even tries to get some clairity on what is and what is not responsible behavior in such cases. Is it because you know the rules do not support what you are currently doing and it makes you uncomfortable to have other hams point out that what you are doing appears to be in violation of the rules? It appears so to me. Why else would your spokesperson act in such a malignant manner and personally attack those who want clarification? The ironic part of all this is that most of us have a lot more in common than have differences. Most all the hams I personally know want to help at some level depending upon their interests and abilities.But when you are unwilling to deal with basic issues and attack those who do, you ought not be wondering why you do not get the support you are looking for. 73, Rick, KV9U >> Andy wrote: >> >> Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is >> underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective >> but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other modes without >> ARQ are just not going to cut it. NBEMS is too new to evaluate, PSK >> Mail has promise but does not have enough users. >> >> ----- Alan wrote: It really disillusioned me that the most advanced network we could assemble in coastal MS was 2m voice nets with HF interstate links. 1950's tech. We could have well used packet capability from 80's, but largely MIA. Needed email/hf links, but few had airmail/P23. (But those who did provided a real and valuable service) ------- > Alan also wrote: > > I would not call it a farce, but somewhat agree otherwise. But that's in > our control. What are we going to improve that? Write it off? > > I don't think ALE is a panacea, but it offers much. We are still > learning new ways to use it, and are building a core infrastructure. > Independent of individual interpretation of sounding legality/value, > there is value in being able to assemble an HF net, and also in the data > transfer modes. > > Several of us see ALE as a link establishment layer, after which other > data modes can be used as needed. Only have an HW ale rig? We support > AMD or DTM. Have P2/3? We'll support that. Want to use Olivia, no > problem. Have capability to use fed std modes? go for it. That's how we > are designing our systems. > > Would pskmail & nbems have more users if they had established > frequencies and the capability to assembled a net? Yep. Would they own > the freq? No. But there is value in trying to coordinate, & collect > activity. > > I guess the core difference is some are saying we have no business even > providing emergency service. And I believe that is a very extreme and > unsound position. > > You seem to be saying it's overrated, and does not represent the > mainstream. You might be right, I'm not proud of most of what I hear on > the bands. I've about given up on introducing kids in scouts to radio > based on the consistent bitter old fart syndrome we encounter from most. > Yet there are gems in the mix as well. > > So what's this have to do with digital radio? I think we have a large > opportunity to contribute. We all want an alternative to $1k proprietary > modems. But until we get that alternative there is some value there. > That does not mean we can or should compromise operation in the rest of > the bands. But there needs to be a place. Just like there should be for > other digital modes, current and future. > > The whole idea that a legal limit rtty contest op is somehow appropriate > & allowed, yet other digi sigs should not be is non-sensical. Some of > the new modes offer incredible performance & efficiency. they can be fun > for casual work. But they could also offer significant value in an > emergency if harnessed. > > That's our opportunity. And each of us can decide if we are satisfied in > being just a consumer & whine, or find a way to contribute to the > advancement & protection of our hobby. > > This will be my last post on this subject. For what it's worth, I'm not > a vest wearing ARES guy. Hardhat with a rubber duckie. And suspenders > with multiple badges. Not even an ARES member. I just see a different > side than the heavy theme in this group for the last few days, I guess > because I've seen the positive impact we can provide. > > Have fun, > > Alan >
