Correction: I meant to say
"The hidden transmitter problem is well understood; protocols like
Pactor that lack busy detectors prevent station automation software
like Winlink from avoiding the inadvertent QRMing of ongoing QSOs."
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> 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/
