Rick wrote: > As we have been finding out through testing, Hmm, you've been testing ALE? Don't see you in many of the logs.
I've been testing/using/linking ALE for a couple of years now. Getting a really good understanding of what works well, what does not, etc. I know you have a very strong position on all things ALE related, so not going to debate it here. > 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, I know you have a very strong negative position on all things ALE related, so not going to debate it here. > since the shared nature of the bands > do not lend themselves well to this kind of continuously dedicated > frequencies. Dedicated frequencies?????? Huh????? We share the most contested 5khz of spectrum in all hamdom!! And try to be good neighbors. > 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 ALE network still adds significant value even without sounding. Not going to debate sounding here, you've already asked for clarification. > 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, Can you point to a higher throughput soundcard data transfer protocol? Freely available? Which can interoperate with HW ALE radios? It's not perfect, in fact there is still much to do. I'd have to concede for througput, P2 & P3 still win. But at a high cost in dollars and philosophy. And only because we cannot use the faster modes due to symbol rate. There are versions of the FS protocol which have had the symbol rate dialed back which would be legal and work great. > 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. The current thought process for the ALE teams is to enable use of any data transfer modes the linked stations would like. Pactor, psk, olivia, 8fsk400, fae, whatever. > If you really want to get support for your special interest area, I don't have an agenda. I do feel there are some significant advantages to ALE, and that it's the best horse we have to ride right now. But never have promoted one to the detriment of others. I have challenged the "nothing else comes close" & "soundcards can't do hi thruput" positioned expoused by hardware TNC bigots. But I also use other digital modes, including the hated pactor. But also olivia, fae, etc > 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. Ahh, the personal axe. I get it. Say no more. I've figured out that the QRZ forums are populated largely by anti-digital (in any forms) hams. With some strong PSK31 advocates. They are not keen on newer modes of any kind, including Olivia, etc. So there will never be a receptive audience there, nor would I expect one. eham.net is more open minded, and I find the quality of the posting to be a step above the personal attacks tolerated on QRZ. I now scan QRZ mainly for entertainment value, but it's a sad commentary on our hobby. And ever one of those flame wars brings more users online. They just don't post. Same even here. I've already been receiving private email on this whole thread. Comments like this: "I have been waiting for a cogent and cohesive response to the nonsense on the digital radio group (Yahoo) about public service, winlink, etc. You provided it. Thanks." > 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. > Have you read the threads from the last few days????? " Mmmmm........looks like enough money to "buy" some dedicated commercial frequencies, to move WinLink off the Ham bands :-)" I'm not going to dig them out, but it was enough to push me out of lurker mode. General tone: Emcomm assist from hams is not needed, not welcome. Use commercial > Instead of complaining about RTTY contests Actually, I did not complain about rtty contests. I just pointed it out as an example of other modes/operations which are doing the same exact action you criticise the winlink ops of doing. And it's factual, a known issue, been discussed multiple times, annoying cw, psk, all the digital ops, and even some ssb ops. One of my best friend is a hard core rtty contester. And even he admits this is an issue. I think sometimes it's people calling with the decode sw set incorrectly. Other times it's splits. > vs a digital mode that may > not be legal, you should be welcoming clarification from the FCC. Ahh, the "symbol rate" angels on a pinhead question? Or the sounding? Or the selcall in voice freqs? We'll see how it goes. Myself, I don't expect a response, as I believe the FCC tires of these internal interpretation questions. And the more we bug them, the more likely we are to see a bandwidth based approach, which I think would be a good thing, if done right. (the arrl one was not) I'm not going to weigh in on your personal dispute with others in the digital world. It's clear you are opposed to ALE for a laundry list of reasons. That's your right to hold that opinion. But I'm not aware of any forum/discussion group focused on the support/development/usage of a particular mode or hobby that welcomes vitrolic "anti" dialog. Kindof like expecting a steakeater's mailing list to tolerate hostile posts from PETA/vegans. Would a pskmail focused group allow a winlinker to come in and question the validity and usefullness of their mode? Why be surprised when winlink forums do not tolerate the opposite? This has nothing to do with validity of any of the opinions. It does have to do with the dynamics of focused discussion groups VS the very broad ones. I do see this forum as a more reasonable place to discuss pro's & con's of all things digital. If it becomes biased one way or the other, then it becomes less useful & relevant. Myself, I'd rather focus on what we can do, learn to interoperate. Develop a shared busy channel detector which works for all modes. Extend it to include mode identification like multi-psk does. Work toward shareable subroutines which can be leveraged in multiple programs, for different purposes. Build leveragable backends which provide useful function for the digital modes when we want/need to go beyond kbd chats. OK, we've worn this out. I know you really, really dislike ALE. That won't change. I'm into all things HF digital, and hope we can get back to that. Have fun! Alan
