It appears that there has been no change to the peer to peer support in the RMSpacket. I know that when I brought this up a few years ago, the programmer was adamant that they not have peer to peer support in Telpacs because it was strictly designed to be a simple internet telnet to packet connection. The concern that others expressed at the time was that most potential or casual users would need to learn several different and rather complicated systems (packet is extremely complicated compared to other modes), and would be very risky for emergency use when you just want it to work. Airmail 2000 has been the program of choice for many who have selected packet as their main VHF mode of data transport and if we ever had enough hams to get involved with packet for emergency use, I would have to recommend that direction for now.
The reason some are focusing exclusively on Winlink 2000 is that they want one solution, believe (incorrectly according to my Division Director) that Winlink 2000 is THE solution "and no other" from the ARRL, and consider the majority of emergency hams to be of limited knowledge, particularly with the large number of new Technician class hams who have a large learning curve and can not operate HF so will only be using VHF packet for digital. But is it possible to have enough radio amateurs who are involved with emergency communications who can actually use all these different modes and systems? I know that in our area it is not possible, but in heavily populated areas you might be able to build a core group. That is how it has been explained to me by some proponents of Winlink 2000. With the advances of digital modes, packet is not very robust and can not tolerate weak signals, thus for those of us looking forward, there may be better approaches such as NBEMS which can work with very weak signals and do it with sound card modes that are low cost. I don't know of anyone in our Section using ALE for signaling but I know of some ops who are using an 80 meter HF packet store and forward system with what seems to be very poor results based upon the number of retries. The ALE modulation, particularly the FAE400 mode, may be a far better choice, especially if a BBS type system were developed as VE5MU mentioned recently. In ALL cases, we must not lose sight of the fact that you must always have phone (voice) communications available in emergencies. Digital data plays a much smaller secondary role. To show you how absurd it can get, in our Section we have "Digital Communications Coordinator" who actually believes that having hams "check in" to his Winlink 2000 VHF only PMBO via RF or even via the internet is somehow an emergency amateur radio net. Needless to say, the Winlink 2000 (and earlier Winlink/Netlink/Aplink) systems have been around for decades, so this is nothing new. But what is new are the changing faces of new hams coming in and the loss of others who may have the most experience. So on going activities are never ending. I am very skeptical that using government funding will help a lot in developing networks with active and motivated operators. I really believe that history has shown the reverse. When radio amateurs see a value in a particular mode or system, they will support it as they overwhelmingly did with packet. Even HF Pactor was once popular (as was Amtor) but those days are gone as sound card modes really are the main direction that most of us digital operators have taken and trying to buck that trend may be counterproductive. 73, Rick, KV9U Jeff Moore wrote: > If I understand your question, you want to know if 2 or more stations > are connected to a gateway if they lose communication if the Internet > connection goes down!? The gateways don't (AFAIK) provide peer to > peer communication directly. They provide a connection point into the > WL2K system to pick up or leave your Airmail. That connection between > the gateways (RMS or Telpac) and the CMS servers is usually via > Internet, but can also be done via packet (if it's close enough to the > CMS server) or via HF/Pactor. > > That said, the Airmail2000 program does provide one capability that > the Paclink MP program doesn't currently -- peer to peer > connectivity between packet (and possibly Pactor) stations running the > Airmail software. As far as packet goes that can be accomplished with > a basic packet station running a terminal program of some kind. With > the right terminal program, both keyboard to keyboard chat and file > transfer capabilities exist. > > This is why I believe that the Airmail/WL2K system should be > considered just one tool in the bag of Emcomm tricks to be used along > with NBEMS, ALE, and other digital communication modes. The trend I > see is to put all your eggs in the WL2K basket. I'm not sure that's a > smart thing to do. > > Use the WL2K system, but also practice and use the other modes that > are available for Emcomm purposes. > > In the Central Oregon area, we are starting with Airmail/WL2K, we are > also encouraging the Airmail users to get familiar with basic packet > operations so that they understand how it all works. When everyone is > comfortable with using packet and Airmail/WL2K, then we will introduce > other digital modes and techniques that will add to the capabilities > of our local area. In the process, we will expand the packet network > in our area and extend it into adjacent areas. One thing we also want > to do is start a regular packet net like a voice net. The more hams > use their packet equipment, the more familiar they become with it and > how to use it. > > Helping with all of this in Oregon, is the State pushing the Emcomm > people to implement and get active using the WL2K system, which we are > doing. Packet has existed in our area for years but up until just > recently the numbers of active hams doing it has been dwindling. > That's changing because the State has recognized the usefulness of > packet/digital communications and it's pushing funds out to us to help > get this in place. > > Every area is going to be different. What works in Central Oregon may > not work in your area, so you may have to dig different tools out of > your tool bag to make Emcomm work. For example, without packet > capability or WL2K gateways that are reachable in your area, you may > have to resort to HF/Pactor and NVIS antenna technology to reach into > an area with WL2K gateways. > > Hopefully, I've answered your questions. > > 73, > Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY > DCARES - Deschutes County ARES > Bend, Oregon
