Re: "From my perspective, as an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth
in a receiver for a 50 Hz signal, and then complaining about agacent
signal interference is not proper management, however, if the band
is segmented properly, that won't be an issue."
Steve, you seem to be implying that QRM to PSK QSOs from semi-
automatic operation is largely the fault of PSK operators using
panoramic software. The problem I and others have experienced is a
semi-automatic station QRMing the PSK frequency I'm currently using,
not an adjacent frequency; each time this has happened to me, my SCS
modem revealed the QRMing signal to be a Winlink PMBO running Pactor.
This is no surprise. The hidden transmitter problem is well
understood; protocols like Pactor that lack busy detectors prevent
station automation software like Winlink from inadvertenty QRMing
ongoing QSOs. Without busy detectors, semi-automatic operation will
QRM QSOs in whatever signals with which it shares spectrum. That's
why Rick KN6KB is engineering busy detectors into SCAMP.
What's a surprise is your implying that the blame lies elsewhere,
rather than acknowledging the problem and the efforts underway to
elminate it.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> I appreciate your comments, however, look at what is being said:
>
> 1. The "Winlink wants your frequencies" campaign, all whopping 45
> stations, Worldwide? Absurd..Simply a tactic to influence the ARRL
> BOD.
>
> 2. Recently, I wrote a simple and routine message letting users
know
> that they must re-establish their email recipients in order to
keep
> the hits on the server down. No big deal. Next thing I know, the
same
> few start rumors about Winlink being infested with SPAM and
virus's.
>
> This is not honest and useful matters for conversation. It also
preys
> on those who do not know any better. It is a campaign waged
against
> a target that has been moving successfully forward, and without
> incident, until someone got their big ego bashed when they were
> outvoted on the now two year old, long forgotten digital
committee.
>
> the entire matter has been blown out of perportion. You would
think
> that we control all that takes place with respect to band
planning,
> and have more influence than others. Obviously, this is false and
> those who want whatever they favor are shooting at the wrong
target.
> Winlink prefers not to automatically forward on HF bands. This
does
> not stop others. Winlink uses the Internet, who doesn't? And,
> regardless of any reasonable conversation or discussion, the
vendetta
> continues. So why bother. It is not arrogance, it is numbness.
>
> With all that Amateur radio must contend with today, such conflict
> only weakens the fraternity.
>
> As we all know, with proper allocation, there is room for any
> protocol as long as it is managed properly. From my perspective,
as
> an example, opening a 3 KHz bandwidth in a receiver for a 50 Hz
> signal, and then complaining about agacent signal interference is
not
> proper management, however, if the band is segmented properly,
that
> won't be an issue. But, that is just my perspective. Others may
think
> that opening their receiving bandwidth for a 50 Mhz signal is
> appropriate. What is so, so what. No one has a hold on any of
this,
> and blame is not the answer for resolution.
>
>
>
> Steve, k4cjx
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Ken had some good points but perhaps a few things to clarify. I
a
> more
> > middle of road type ham, I can see pros and cons to both sides
of
> these
> > issues and I know that there will be those who don't want to
hear
> this but
> > bear with me if you can:
> >
> > 1. WL2K would only be a short term replacement for a served
> agency's e-mail
> > in an emergency situation where they lose their internet
connection
> or mail
> > server. I can not imagine any ham operators who would be opposed
to
> that
> > since this is what we are all about ... as we do the best we can
for
> > supporting emergency communications. The amounts of traffic
would
> need to be
> > throttled back to only the most important messages. And this
would
> likely be
> > going through the mini e-mail server ability of a Packlink AGW
> connection
> > that can connect with an agency LAN and allow this traffic via a
> standard
> > e-mail client such as MS Outlook Express, etc., on VHF/UHF
packet
> radio to
> > the next nearest working internet connection.
> >
> > 2. The WL2K system has been designed specifically to be as
simple as
> > possible for the served agency ... so yes, in that respect, it
is a
> no
> > brainer. However, the behind the scenes systems are quite
> complicated and,
> > yes, it could fail. So far they have indicated that they have
only
> had a
> > few hours of downtime which seems reasonable to me. I admit that
if
> they had
> > a failure right in the middle of your emergency situation, it
would
> be very
> > unacceptable. But then again, even HF communications (like
> yesterday) can go
> > down as well for an extended period. I am personally not sure of
> whether the
> > current configuration is all that secure (2 mirrored stars), but
> they are
> > increasing this to a future maximum of 8 redundant world wide
> servers so it
> > will be better than a lot of other systems. If the internet
portion
> of WL2K
> > goes down, we still should have a rudimentary NTS/NTSD backup
> system that
> > will kick in to continue traffic handling. However, things like
> attachments,
> > accuracy, and quick delivery won't be possible like it is with
WL2K.
> >
> > 3. WiMax, while not here yet officially, is nearly here when
they
> finalize
> > the protocols perhaps this summer? Actually, I use an early
version
> of WiMax
> > right now as I keyboard to all of you via an Alvarion 7 mile 2.4
> GHz I MBPS
> > link to my ISP. These links are not easy to set up however as
you
> need
> > absolute line of sight with no obstructions. One of my closer
paths
> (5
> > miles) is completely blocked by my neighbor's barn about 1/4
mile
> away:(
> > Luckily, by cutting down some trees on the other side of the
> highway, I was
> > able to access the 7 mile link to the 300 foot tower from about
20
> feet up
> > on one of my towers. WL2K systems do use high speed linking now
so
> check out
> > the winlink.org web site and see what they are already doing.
> >
> > 4. No comment on this point:)
> >
> > 5. I have not talked to any RV/cruiser users, only our local
test
> team that
> > has been sending e-mail with Paclink AGW to a Telpac node. Also,
on-
> going
> > testing via the SCAMP mode on HF using Paclink SCD. You need a
good
> > connection on HF for SCAMP to work, but when you reach about 10
db
> S/N
> > ratio, it can scream. Having said that, it is a lot more
difficult
> to reach
> > 10 db S/N than I ever imagined. (S-meter readings are not 5 or 6
db
> per
> > division:(.
> >
> > For those who want weaker signal throughput (at much slower
speeds
> of
> > course) you have to use the proprietary and very expensive SCS
> modem which
> > is the only other product available with those kinds of ARQ
speeds.
> I
> > personally do not feel it is appropriate to be using closed
> protocols on
> > amateur radio, but that is a different issue for each individual
to
> decide
> > for themselves.
> >
> > 6. The ego issue is a serious problem. The WL2K group is
currently
> made up
> > of four individuals with one as principal spokesperson. It would
be
> ideal if
> > they would be open to critiques and questions from others
without
> attacking
> > others and without trying to suggest that anyone who does not
> believe in and
> > fully accept and embrace this system is a fool. (Sadly, they
have
> done
> > this).
> >
> > They would actually have more support from the ham community if
> they had a
> > marketing person who understands marketing and how to "win
friends
> and
> > influence people." What I have seen, is that they close down
> discussion when
> > they start feeling uncomfortable because some one disagrees with
> them, even
> > if only on some sticking points. They should welcome any
challenge,
> since if
> > their system is as good as they say, they have nothing to fear.
> They choose
> > not to do this and worse, they have some loose cannons who are
very
> > vitriolic with a take it or leave it attitude. Some have taken
them
> up on
> > the leaving part as what happened to a central U.S. ham in the
past
> week.
> > Very unfortunate. They have even gone so far as to remove people
> from their
> > discussion group who disagree too strongly. This is also very
> unfortunate
> > because it weakens their position.
> >
> > Their attitude now is that since the ARRL BOD has accepted WL2K
> as "the
> > way," and because the ARRL ARESCOM proposal is basically a done
> deal, with
> > WL2K bypassing nearly all the NTS/NTSD message routing, there is
> nothing
> > further to discuss. You are either with us or against us and if
you
> are
> > against us you need to go away. Even if you are 90% in support
of
> WL2K that
> > is not good enough. It has to be 100%. I am very uncomfortable
with
> this
> > kind of attitude. I would bet a lot of other hams are too.
> >
> > Having this much power in the hands of so few is a heady thing
and
> abuse of
> > power is common in the human condition. I honestly don't believe
> that any
> > small group of hams has ever had this much control over other
hams
> in our
> > history. There is also the possibility that one person with the
> right
> > knowledge could sabatoge the system. It is not impossible for
> someone to
> > have a nervous breakdown or become irrational. Could this ever
> happen? It is
> > very remote. But it still should give a thinking person some
> reflection on a
> > pretty darn serious issue of emergency communications that must
not
> fail.
> > Most other distributed ham systems by their very nature can
never
> be so
> > affected.
> >
> > The good news is that the ARRL has some relationship with the
WL2K
> group
> > with some kind of escrow of the software so that it can not be
> taken away
> > from the ham community in the future. I would expect that we
will
> be hearing
> > a lot more about this in the future.
> >
> > I would not expect anything even remotely close to WL2K coming
> along for a
> > long time. Probably we are measuring in terms of years. The
LinLink
> group
> > does not seem to be getting very far in even figuring out what
they
> want to
> > do yet ... much less coming up with some thing that could work
as
> an open
> > source collaborative solution.
> >
> > Are there any other groups even working on an alternative
solution?
> I doubt
> > it very much, but if they are could they let us know?
> >
> > I also wonder if the reason the U.S. is leading in this area is
> because our
> > government allows third party communications and many other
> countries do
> > not. So there is much less of a reason to develop such a system
> elsewhere.
> >
> > Perhaps in an ideal world, we would see a collaborative of
amateur
> radio
> > operators working together on developing a very secure network
that
> could
> > meet the request by FEMA. Or at least work toward that goal.
> Especially if
> > it was sponsored by ARRL.
> >
> > While WL2K does not meet this request in total, at least it is
the
> one thing
> > in place and working right now. Most of us simply do not have
the
> software
> > writing ability that has been spent over many years in
developing
> the WL2K.
> > Or do we?
> >
> > Thanks for bearing with me:)
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick, KV9U
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Wilhelmi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:46 AM
> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
> >
> >
> >
> > Guys-
> >
> > I have been reading this thread since it started weeks
> > ago. Very interesting.
> >
> > Point 1 - In an attempt to sell our services, WL2K is
> > billed to served agencies as a "replacement for your
> > Internet connection". Clearly it is not.
> >
> > Point 2 - In an attempt to sell our services, WL2K is
> > billed to served agencies as a "no brainer" it is so
> > simple to use. Fact is, WL2K has many layers of
> > software and hardware. It is very involved to setup
> > and maintain. There are many possible single points of
> > failure.
> >
> > Point 3 - IF the object is to come up with an
> > alternative to the email/internet connection for
> > served agencies, the ARRL/WL2K folks should be pushing
> > adoption of WIMAX systems. Bandwidth is not an issue,
> > connect the nodes 25 miles apart and provide email,
> > full motion video and anything else to 100s of
> > location at one time in real time.
> >
> > Point 5 - Talk to any user of WL2K; a "cruiser" or
> > RVer. They know the message limitations. Messages are
> > short and cryptic. They rarely spell out an entire
> > word. They use Q signals and other means of keeping
> > the message as short as possible.
> >
> > Point 6 - Remember that the WL2K push is simply ego
> > driven. A few folks who want to prove that they can do
> > it and overcome the problems of all the layers of
> > software and hardware and make it work. Then it will
> > fall on the non-ego driven folks to implement it and
> > make it work. That is where it will fail and is the
> > system's weakest link. This scenario is not new, we
> > all have seen the same thing happen at our jobs. It is
> > very common.
> >
> > Just relax. WL2K will get replaced by the next big
> > thing in a few months and we will all forget about it
> > just like we have with Y2K. :)
> >
> > 73 - Ken - N7QQU
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date:
4/6/2005
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
