Alan, The testing was completed months ago and you know that very well as I have discussed this before. I do not have a particularly strong position on ALE. Have you ever considered that it might be you and your group who take such a view? My view is in the middle as I have stated over and over. In fact, I have been a strong proponent of ALE 400/FAE 400. But it is not what you want to hear. You want hams to rally around your particular agenda of the 8FSK2000 ALE mode as a focal point of emergency communications, and most of us do not support you that far and you extend to take this to mean rejection. It is NOT negative to suggest that the wide bandwidth mode of ALE may have a small part to play in emergency communications. It is a realistic assessment and an honest assessment.
If you wish to use ALE for annunciation purposes on the amateur bands, you have no choice other than to designate a specific frequency or in the case of your group, many frequencies, that are used by those members. If soundings are being made on a regular basis by a number of stations, those frequencies can not easily be used for other purposes since you can not move off the frequency due to the channelized ALE paradigm. Otherwise the paradigm fails at that point! This is not the most appropriate technology for a shared band. So you ignore basic reality and don't want to even discuss it (debate it, as you say below). From the testing that a number of us operators have done, and many are from this forum and other as well, the honest truth is that in our experience, the 8FSK2000 ALE mode does not perform as well as other modes. It is not as sensitive and it has low throughput compared to those modes because the HF bands are frequently a difficult environment. Many of us have found that the ALE 400 and particularly the FAE 400 (8FSK400) mode has the best combination of sensitivity, slow to moderate throughput, and robustness. I can think of no case where 8FSK2000 is going to be a better fit for shared frequencies. It is drastically wider, with much more interference potential, and much less sensitive. After all you do not need much throughput for a SELCAL, do you? But you want to keep using a legacy 8FSK mode, which I think most reasonable digital hams would have to admit is an older technology that was intended for channelized commercial and military use. You want to do this because you want to support backward compatibility to embedded hardware. Meanwhile, we have two ARQ sound card modes. The FAE 400 mode and now the NBEM system which works on both Linux and Windows and which can scale from a slow to sometimes moderate speed messaging . Perhaps it can be tied in with 8FSK400 someday or some other SELCAL approach? However, if you folks continue to attack your friends, you won't have many left! You can claim that only anti-digital hams are on QRZ, but more likely you will find that QRZ is the true democratic melting pot of contemporary viewpoints. You may not like what most hams are thinking but they reflect the overwhelming majority view. I can assure you that those of us with reasonable and middle of the road positions get private comments from those who appreciate a more balanced view that looks at the pros and cons. Nothing in life is all one way or the other. There are trade offs. I am willing to stick my neck out and say if the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Most people won't do that. The people who do tend to speak out are those that have an agenda on one side of an issue or the other. Like I always say, the people on the extremes do not want to provide you with all the information that could help you make an informed decision. They only want to support one side. I look at both sides and have to take heat from both. And I have, even on QRZ.com. And as I have said, your spokesperson is one of your worst nightmares because she constantly attacks anyone who even remotely disagrees with her. I have never seen any time that Bonnie has EVER said, "you know, maybe you have a point there that I had not thought of." It is only her way or nothing. And as I have said you are paying a severe price for this on the general ham groups who will not tolerate that kind of behavior. She can not do like she did with me and prohibit posts on "her" group and later remove me from "her" group for comments made elsewhere because of her seething anger. Just read her inappropriate comments with an open mind for once. My views are again, in the middle path of most of this. Just because I do not agree with some one lockstep is no reason to attack such views. It is better to discuss them specifically. Something that you and your group almost never do. They talk around the subject, but they never will deal with the specific item so it can never get resolved. You read so many of your biases into what others write, that you distort what they are saying as you have done repeatedly as below. Think about why you have fewer and fewer supporters the next time make absurd claims that someone "really, really, dislike ALE, " when you know that is not remotely accurate. Particularly when you know I have strongly supported ALE 400/FAE 400 and have probably sung the praises of FAE 400 more than any other poster to this forum. 73, Rick, KV9U Alan Barrow wrote: > 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 >
