My understanding is that SCS Pactor modems have the ability to
detect Pactor signals, but not SSB, CW, RTTY, PSK, MFSK, or SSTV
signals. While this capability might be exploited to allow multiple
Winlink PMBOs to share a single frequency, it would not be useful in
eliminating QRM to ongoing QSOs in modes other than Pactor.
Contesting stations are attended, not semi-automatic. They are thus
equipped with busy detectors: ears.
As several ops have pointed out, having busy detectors available
does not guarantee their use. I would like to believe that most hams
will do the right thing -- whether they be DXers, contesters, or
PMBO operators -- and respect ongoing QSOs. That means using your
head-mounted busy detectors, and keeping your semi-automatic station
operation software's busy detector enabled.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I said "as an example," however, you are correct about signal
> detection. SCAMP is where we are going to deploy it, but it may
also
> be deployed in Pactor before it is all over. It is there, just not
> used on the slave end. In my opinion, proper signal detection is
> something that should be used across the board, especailly by
> contesters..However, due to the nature of non-channelization in
> Amateur radio, I doubt if it will permeate to non-digital
protocols.
> Can you imagine the frustration of the guy on SSB not being able
to
> transmit because his signal detection is disabling is
transmissions?
>
>
> Steve, k4cjx
>
>
>
> --- 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/
