I had opted not to participate in this thread so far,
but it seems once again that the hidden station case
is not seen, and it is very common on HF, even DXers
know about it to their frustration....
Anyone that does not hear any other station may
trigger a Winlink PMBO response. This may respond to
the request, initiating QRM to anyone close to the
frequency and with good propagation to the Winlink
station site.
The QRMed station will not hear the request either and
the PMBO may seem to come out of the blue.
With an "activity detector", the PMBO might never
respond...a chicken and egg situation, indeed.
Segregating mutually such incompatible activities on
different frequencies seems to be the only reasonably
functional solution.
73 de Jose, CO2JA
--- Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am dissapointed to see you revert to "the root
> cause of the QRM is
> PSK operators opening their receivers to 3 kHz".
> This is factually
> incorrect, as we have discussed here many times. The
> root cause is
> semi-automatic stations without busy detectors, such
> as Winlink
> PMBOs running Pactor. When you so transparently
> attempt to shift the
> blame, you create a very negative impression. Given
> the effort to
> add busy detectors to SCAMP, I do not understand
> why, from a public
> relations perspective, you continue to snatch defeat
> from the jaws
> of victory.
>
> Running WinLink PMBOs on SCAMP with active busy
> detectors should, in
> my view, allow activity on any frequency available
> to signals of
> SCAMP's bandwidth. The same should be true for any
> other next-
> generation semi-automatic or automatic protocol.
> Protocols like
> Pactor or Packet being used in semi-automatic or
> automatic operation
> should be constrained to sub-bands to limit the QRM
> they impose on
> others. This is the "win-win" you should be seeking:
> WinLink gains
> access to the spectrum it needs, and the rest of the
> amateur
> community is free of QRM from Winlink PMBOs, from
> automatic packet
> stations, and from all other "hidden transmitter"
> scenarios.
>
> Requiring busy detectors for attended operation
> makes no sense,
> Steve. As Rick KV9U pointed out, any SSB, RTTY, CW,
> or PSK operator
> who knowingly calls over existing QSOs would simply
> disable the busy
> detector. Most transceivers lack the CPU and DSP
> horsepower required
> to implement busy detectors. As for digital
> protocols that sound
> like QRN, it seems to me that the onus is on the
> designers of these
> protocols to make them audible to other spectrum
> users;
> transmitting "QRL" in CW every 30 seconds would be
> one way to do
> this without sacrificing appreciable throughput.
>
> I did not suggest that you "convince the world to
> use Winlink 2000";
> I suggested that you convince the world that Winlink
> will be a good
> citizen on the amateur bands, and provided explicit
> advice on how to
> do so. None of what I suggested requires any more
> software
> development or network administration than you are
> already
> undertaking.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
> Waterman, k4cjx"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > The problem is not that we mind any opposition to
> what we are
> doing.
> > It gives us an opportunity to tell our story. The
> problem is not
> the
> > protocol we use, be it Amtor, Clover, Pactor,
> SCAMP or what comes
> > next, and next after that, nor is it the fact that
> we stopped
> using
> > fully, machine driven automatic operations. (BTW,
> I did a search,
> and
> > have not found one message where the HF Packet
> community refers to
> > their own fully-automatic operations as "robots.")
> The issue is
> that
> > those using Winlink are being given much credit
> for being bad
> guys,
> > when those opening their receivers to utilize 3 to
> 4 Khz spectrum
> > scopes to operate a 50 Hz signal start
> complaining. Another
> example,
> > is how four to six "pro Winlink 2000" people have
> been targeted
> for
> > having some sort of hold on band planning in the
> US. I wish we
> did,
> > because we would adopt the Canadian style band
> plan in a minute.
> >
> > Howard speaks of "Winlink Haters." This is not
> anyone who opposes
> > semi-automatic operation or wants it gone or in
> this space or that
> > space. It is not even someone who thinks that
> Winlink users have
> some
> > sort of chip in their brain that keeps them from
> listening before
> > they transmit, rather, it is the individual, who
> starts to attack
> the
> > character of those who they oppose, calling them
> liars, etc. This
> > usually happens when the opposing side of any
> argument
> (discussion),
> > runs out of any alternative option or is cornered
> in some
> discussion,
> > and uses character assassination as a smoke
> screen. Another issue
> is
> > the miss-information in such broadcasts for
> support such
> as "Winlink
> > wants your frequencies" and then proceeds to
> attempt to make
> > criminals out of those who use it. All 20 some
> participating
> stations
> > in the US. Absurd. We don't want "your"
> frequencies, because they
> > don't belong to "you" any more than they belong to
> me. What we
> want
> > is to be taken out of the 5 KHz space (as an
> example) on forty
> meters
> > that is shared by fully-automatic Packet stations
> that have
> squatters
> > rights on whatever frequency they are using.
> Considering that we
> are
> > using SCAMP at 1.9 Khz and Pactor 3 at 2.1 KHz,
> that does not
> leave
> > much space, not only for WL2K, but also for
> whatever someone
> wishes
> > to develop next. Perhaps it would be store and
> forward digital
> Voice
> > or Image. Let's face it, given the opportunity,
> why wouldn't
> someone
> > take advantage of propagation rather than
> depending on someone
> being
> > on the other end for any of these protocols. Like
> it or not, it is
> > done in most other communications media, including
> SMTP mail or
> WEB
> > based mail that I am using currently.
> >
> > I interpret Howard as saying, that we don't mind
> disagreement with
> > any of this, but what we do mind, are the absurd
> tactics used to
> try
> > to stop it completely. If it was not desired and
> not growing like
> a
> > weed, it would not be necessary. However, all
> those negative,
> > knowingly miss-leading tactics do is make us ALL
> look bad, and
> > destroys credibility on either end of the
> disagreement.
> >
> > Regarding your suggestions: There are only 4
> people writing code,
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
