Dave, You wrote:
"***WinLink's use of scanning seems comparable to a DX station's use of split frequency operation to spread out its callers. Many of those callers continue to transmit while the DX station is working someone on another frequency, and thus cannot possibly respond. While this is not great operating technique, no one accuses those callers of holding their frequency. The DX station defines the pileup's upper and lower bounds, and thus the range of frequencies rendered effectively unuseable by anyone else.**** I am not "accusing" the Winlink client of intentionally holding the frequency, but only that the frequencies are *advertised* with the presumption that they are available, when, in fact they are not. The frequency is sometimes being "held" accidentally, but unnecessarily, because scanning is used, *and the frequencies are ADVERTISED*, giving the mistaken impression that they are always available. Since Winlink is a "published" network, and is asking the ARRL to petition the FCC for twice as many frequencies as they can even utilize at one time, they should be denied any request for access to any more frequencies than an independent traffic load analysis would indicate, *without any scanning*, which is at least HALF what they currently use anyway. I don't think the radio amateur community as a whole agrees to sacrifice unreasonable for the operating convenience of less-than-1% of the US hams, and only 0.3% of hams world wide, just for a minor increase in convenience for the less-than-1%. They are probably willing to grant Winlink spectrum to dominate (although they rather than Winlink SHARE like everyone else), but only in proportion to their less-than-1% size compared to the entire radio amateur population. The sub-bands already provide access for FOUR TIMES the spectrum that Winlink would be entitled to, so why does Winlink push to access to the majority of the radio amateur spectrum at the expense of 99% of the radio amateurs? Is there something wrong with this picture? \> From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \> Skip, > > Anyone attempting to connect to a PMBO is really no different than any other > ham calling CQ in the hopes of receiving a reply, except that in the case of > having a PMBO potentially on frequency it is more likely that a contact can > be made. It is dramatically more efficient than any other third party > traffic. > > As far as your suggestions on scanning, are you suggesting that each PMBO > have only one frequency and then to make up for the need to have many > different frequencies available to meet the constantly varying propagation > conditions, you would need to have many more PMBO systems in operation? Yes, the *majority* of scanning PMBO's are scanning two frequencies ON A SINGLE BAND, where the propagation is the same for each frequency, so propagation doesn't even enter into the matter. For those who scan several bands, propagation is different for each band, as we know, so the PMBO is more likely to connect with a caller than if he did not scan different bands. However, propagation is not the same for all callers, so those who call where they can be heard, while the PMBO is busy on another band, is still taking up spectrum in vain that someone else can use. Is this a responsible way for less-than-1% of the hams to be allowed to operate and a basis for taking away frequencies from 99% to allow domination by less-than-1%? > > My main concern is emergency communications planning and deployment so I do > have a bias toward that end and I hope that most hams who want to see > amateur radio survive also have a similar "bias." > > One of the things that I have tried to promote to the WL2K controller has > been to increase the number of HF PMBO stations. (And for that matter the > vhf/uhf only PMBO's as well). Especially for the lower bands 80 and maybe > even 160, which will not tend to cause interference during daylight hours > since signals do not travel as far and those bands are very lightly used. > These new PMBO's could use the new SCAMP mode to eventually replace much or > hopefully all of the Pactor modes someday. > > If you had an HF PMBO at least every 100 miles or so, they could handle > traffic without requiring the use of the higher frequencies and that would > free up those longer range frequencies for blue water and emergency traffic > folks. If the spectrum needed by the Winlink network would be limited to half of what it is today if scanning were not used, then that is a problem for the "Winlink Network Administrator" to solve by adding more PMBO stations. Rick, look at it like this - if the number of PMBO stations doubled, and scanning were eliminated, the same number of frequencies used today by Winlink would remain the same, but those frequencies would be available for everyone else up to twice as much time as they are today. I say "twice as much", because it is obvious that stations are not always calling for connects when the PBMO is busy elsewhere, but it must be a high percentage, because MOST of the QRM we suffer from unattended Pactor mailboxes is from stations repeatedly calling for a connect and never achieving one. When they are eventually successful, that means propagation WAS in their favor, but the PMBO did not reply because it was busy somewhere else. > > Since Winlink 2000 is administered by one person for the entire worldwide > system, they have indicated they do not have the ability to add many > additional stations. As I said previously, THAT IS A WINLINK ADMINISTRATION PROBLEM, not something that 99% of the hams should have to sacrifice for. SCANNING WASTES HALF OF THE SPECTRUM THAT WINLINK DOMINATES, AND FOR NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO WINLINK. > > Because WL2K is a proprietary system, they do not want any redundant system > to "compete" with their system, even though it would be far better for the > amateur community, and for emergency communications, to have many such > systems in place that are not directly connected to each other. If one WL2K > system failed, you would have other options. And yes, the chance of this > happening needs to be placed in the calculus of emergency planning. If the HF Packet people could get their act together and provide a reliable, simple to use, RADIO alternative to Winlink, that might be a good option. I have expressed this opinion to the Packet crowd and suggested to them that Winlink is by far the best choice for everyday traffic handling and that they would best accept being a backup system. My problem with Winlink is NOT the Winlink system, as a system, which I have often gone on record as admiring, but their refusal to equitably share the spectrum with others, AND SIMPLY OPERATE IN A SEPARATE, CONTIGOUS SPACE, just like CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV, and Phone people do and always have done, by silent agreement, instead of insisting (by plan!) to intermix with all other digital modes and cause random QRM which nobody can escape, because they do not know where to operate to avoid it. > > By the way, I did not see any retraction of your claim that the WL2K had > been infected by a virus, when in fact it had not. We need to keep a > balanced perspective on what is or is not real. Because of such emotional > views on this subject it seems that each side overstates the facts so that > those of us in the middle have to try and figure out what is really true. "Retract" my "claim"! ????? There is nothing to retract! Read for youself what K4CJX posted on the Winlink network, and the DRASTIC action that had to be taken. If it happened once, it can happen again, because Winlink is accessible by anyone, even from a "throwaway" Yahoo account, so anyone can easily disable the entire network if they wish to do so and know how. Note that K4CJX has publicly denied that Winlink ever had a virus problem. I hope you were not one of the ones taken in: ********************* "IMPORTANT ALL-USER UPDATE, March 5, 2005. The Central Mail Server (CMBO) is being attacked by new virus's from mail address books that contain Winlink.org addresses. These Winlink.org addresses are attempting to put virus's back into the system. In addition, there are approved Internet email addresses, which are also contained in address books of infected computers that are making an attempt to enter the Winlink system. We are catching an average of 1,500 of these attempts daily. NO FUN! Effective Tuesday, March 8, at 00:00 UTC, in order to protect, you, the user, as well as your email recipients, we are going to delete ALL the current entries in the Acceptance list, and start a new list. To make sure your favorite email recipients are contained in the approved acceptance list, be certain to send them an email AFTER 00:00 UTC on March 8 or thereafter. You may use multiple "TO" and "CC" addresses. It is a good way to also insure that you are sending to a live and proper address." ************************ Good thing this did happen in a real emergency, or perhaps the Winlink servers could not handle all the connect requests to re-register. It looks like a simple DNS attack could totally disable the Winlink system, so it really would be a good idea, from the emergency planning perspective, to have a fully-funtional backup system by someone else, wouldn't it! 73, Skip KH6TY ----- Original Message ----- From: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:09 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Digest Number 1516 > > There are 9 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: Automated stations and W1AW > From: Danny C Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2. Re: Automated stations and W1AW > From: Richard A Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 3. Re: Automated stations and W1AW > From: Danny C Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 4. RE: Winlink Scanning > From: "Skip Teller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 5. RE: Automated stations and W1AW > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 6. RE: RE: Winlink Scanning > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 7. Reminder - SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200... > From: digitalradio > 8. KN4LF Daily LF/MF/HF Radio Propagation Outlook #2005-016 > From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 9. Re: Winlink Scanning > From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:56:06 -0400 > From: Danny C Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Automated stations and W1AW > > > I must disagree that the broadcast are unnecessary or non-productive. There > are > many around the world (and still a lot in the USA) who do not have equal > capability of obtaining ham radio news, as we do. Cheap internet capability > is > not available to everyone. > > I used to listen to them weekly, when overseas in "backward" areas of the > world. > It was the only ham radio news I ever saw/heard. Many of us (the majority who > responded to at least two ARRL queries) who still think CW should be a part of > ham radio, and a test required for those who wish to use the CW sub-bands. > Copy of the broadcasts, with its "live" QRM, static, etc. is THE way to really > learn and increase capability in copying code. > > > Quoting Harv Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I have yet to hear W1AW BROADCAST any "information" which could not have > > been distributed more quickly, efficiently, and effectively in other media. > > > > If CW were removed from our licensing system requirements, as the rest of > > the world seems to be doing, then there would be no need for at least 2/3 of > > > > their BROADCAST time. > > > > The arguments/rationale for W1AW BROADCASTS are as bogus as those of K1MAN. > > Both are equally disruptive, unnecessary, and non-productive. They should be > > > > treated with equal justice. > > > > Harv, AI9NL > > > > On 4/20/05, Bob DeHaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > As far as I know the ARRL station has been using the same frequencies for > > > several decades (40 years or so)!!! So although they do not have a "right" > > > to the frequency, by convention we all know that's where they transmit so > > > we > > > try to leave the frequency open for them. They do not frequency hop or > > > where > > > would we listen? Or weren't you aware of this? > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On > > > Behalf Of Andrew J. O'Brien > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 15:42 > > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW > > > > > > > > > While discussing the QRM from automated stations, has anyone considered > > > W1AW's bulletins? Since they stepped on my QSO once, I am a little biased > > > about the issue. Will it not be easy to assume that if we monitor them > > > being on exactly the same frequency day after day that they are not first > > > QRLing ? > > > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:15 AM > > > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RE: Winlink Scanning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of "spectrum waste" is mostly a red herring when a human > > > > operator attempts to activate an automated station. As long as the > > > > automated > > > > station does not transmit on a busy channel, nothing is really "wasted." > > > > > > > > It is identical to any other human operator calling CQ. Eventually, we > > > > will > > > > may have some ALE modes that will increase the efficiency of HF digital > > > > connections and reduce the interference problems with quickly sounding > > > out > > > > the channel. Not a great deal different from a CW QRL? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]<[EMAIL PROTECTED] nsubscribe> > > > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > > > > > > > > > N7DC - 8 BAND DXCC - Honor Roll - 8 to Number 1 > > Ex- WN5QMX WA5UKR ET2US ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:59:26 -0500 > From: Richard A Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Automated stations and W1AW > > I think 99.9% of Amateurs would say YES! > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:22:04 -0400 "Andrew J. O'Brien" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree, I was in a QSO and should not have to end it just because > they need the frequency. I agree that it is a polite thing to do, move to > accommodate their valuable service, but since I forgot do they have a > right to just start broadcasting? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob DeHaney > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:20 AM > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW > > > As far as I know the ARRL station has been using the same frequencies for > several decades (40 years or so)!!! So although they do not have a > "right" > to the frequency, by convention we all know that's where they transmit so > we > try to leave the frequency open for them. They do not frequency hop or > where > would we listen? Or weren't you aware of this? > > 73, > > Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T > > -----Original Message----- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > Behalf Of Andrew J. O'Brien > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 15:42 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW > > > While discussing the QRM from automated stations, has anyone considered > W1AW's bulletins? Since they stepped on my QSO once, I am a little > biased > about the issue. Will it not be easy to assume that if we monitor them > being on exactly the same frequency day after day that they are not first > > QRLing ? > > Andy K3UK > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:15 AM > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RE: Winlink Scanning > > > > > > This discussion of "spectrum waste" is mostly a red herring when a > human > > operator attempts to activate an automated station. As long as the > > automated > > station does not transmit on a busy channel, nothing is really > "wasted." > > > > It is identical to any other human operator calling CQ. Eventually, we > > will > > may have some ALE modes that will increase the efficiency of HF digital > > connections and reduce the interference problems with quickly sounding > out > > the channel. Not a great deal different from a CW QRL? > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > Have a Good Day, > Dick Powers > > [This message contained attachments] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:25:30 -0400 > From: Danny C Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Automated stations and W1AW > > Then 99.9 percent would be WRONG. No one has that right. > > > Quoting Richard A Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I think 99.9% of Amateurs would say YES! > > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:22:04 -0400 "Andrew J. O'Brien" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I disagree, I was in a QSO and should not have to end it just because > > they need the frequency. I agree that it is a polite thing to do, move to > > accommodate their valuable service, but since I forgot do they have a > > right to just start broadcasting? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bob DeHaney > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:20 AM > > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW > > > > > > As far as I know the ARRL station has been using the same frequencies for > > several decades (40 years or so)!!! So although they do not have a > > "right" > > to the frequency, by convention we all know that's where they transmit so > > we > > try to leave the frequency open for them. They do not frequency hop or > > where > > would we listen? Or weren't you aware of this? > > > > 73, > > > > Bob DJ0MBC/WU5T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On > > Behalf Of Andrew J. O'Brien > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 15:42 > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW > > > > > > While discussing the QRM from automated stations, has anyone considered > > W1AW's bulletins? Since they stepped on my QSO once, I am a little > > biased > > about the issue. Will it not be easy to assume that if we monitor them > > being on exactly the same frequency day after day that they are not first > > > > QRLing ? > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:15 AM > > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RE: Winlink Scanning > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of "spectrum waste" is mostly a red herring when a > > human > > > operator attempts to activate an automated station. As long as the > > > automated > > > station does not transmit on a busy channel, nothing is really > > "wasted." > > > > > > It is identical to any other human operator calling CQ. Eventually, we > > > will > > > may have some ALE modes that will increase the efficiency of HF digital > > > connections and reduce the interference problems with quickly sounding > > out > > > the channel. Not a great deal different from a CW QRL? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > > > > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > Have a Good Day, > > Dick Powers > > > N7DC - 8 BAND DXCC - Honor Roll - 8 to Number 1 > > Ex- WN5QMX WA5UKR ET2US ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:08:40 -0400 > From: "Skip Teller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Winlink Scanning > > > >>>By distributing callers across multiple scanned frequencies, the > > incidence of multiple callers colliding on a single frequency is > > reduced. Such collisions prevent the PMBO from connecting with any > > of the competing callers, increasing time-from-request-to- > > connection. If the callers cannot hear each other, then they don't > > know to back off and the collision is extended in time -- further > > increasing time-from-request-to-connection for all callers. > > If the PMBO is busy passing traffic on another frequency, he is not scanning, > so the really > significant delay in time-from-request-to-connection is always waiting for > him to finish > passing traffic and resume scanning. > > Once he resumes scanning, he is going to connect with the strongest caller > that he can > hear, even if there are multiple callers. The only way he would be unable to > connect is if > all callers were at the same strength AND timing. So, using scanning has a > negligible > improvement in the time-from-request-to-connection, and that would only apply > to ONE of the > multiple callers - the one that was successful. For the others, that time > might be > infinite. > > > > > > > Because the PMBO stations are not allowed to broadcast, the client > > MUST call a specific PMBO. If he does that on any of the alternate > > frequencies of the PMBO, he cannot connect until the PMBO is > > finished passing traffic on the frequency being used. The client > > station may transmit continusouly for a connect, but he will not > > achieve one until the PMBO finishes passing traffic and starts > > scanning again and picks up the client station's transmission. > > > > > > > The result of the scanning is that the Winlink client station > > is "holding the frequency" for his own use and nobody can use it or > > capture it while he is doing that. > > > > >>>If callers (which are always attended) refrain from initiating a > > request on a frequency that is already busy or becomes busy after an > > unsuccessful request, then the caller is not guilty of holding the > > frequency. As I mentioned in my previous post, the problem is that a > > Winlink-on-Pactor PMBO has no busy detector, and thus threatens QSOs > > on any of its scanning frequencies with hidden-transmitter QRM. > > Knowledgable operators wishing a QRM-free QSO would therefore tend > > to avoid any frequency scanned by a Winlink-on-Pactor PMBO. Is a > > PMBO "holding" its scanning frequencies? Legally, no; pragmatically, > > yes. 14076.9 may currently be clear, but there's no way I'll call CQ > > there. > > With scanning, the caller is holding the frequency whether or not he is > "guilty" of doing > so, which would only be the case if he were aware that the PMBO was busy and > he kept > calling. He may not be "guilty" of holding the frequency, but he is > accidentally holding > the frequency nevertheless, because he thinks it is clear and the PMBO is > listening for a > connect, when, in reality, that is not true. The PBMO is not listening (on > the alternate > frequency) for a connect. Eliminating scanning eliminates this problem. > > The hidden-transmitter problem is certainly real, but ONLY after the PMBO has > been > triggered to transmit. In practice, the MAJORITY of QRM, as you can easily > observe on the > waterfall, is not the hidden-transmitter, but the client stations > transmitting, breaking up > the QSO, waiting for a while, and doing the same thing over again. If they do > trigger a > PMBO to transmit, then the QRM generally becomes much worse, as can also be > seen on the > waterfall. > > If there were no scanning, then the calling client station would not be > repeatedly calling > on the alternate frequency, even if he could not detect weaker activity on > the frequency, > because he would be monitoring the same frequency the PMBO he wishes to > contact is > currently using. In fact, HALF of all the Winlink advertises frequencies > would NEVER be > used by Winlink if there were no scanning, unless the number of PMBO's > doubled and scanning > was eliminated. If half of the frequencies currently advertised by Winlink > were eliminated > from their system, then half of the PMBO's could be reassigned to the vacated frequencies, > leaving a large block of frequencies available for everyone else to use > without fear of a > PMBO station popping up on top of their QSO like they do now. > > So, the real fair solution to the problem is: > > 1. Eliminate scanning. > > 2. Reassign PMBO to frequencies in a contiguous block, with a geographical > separation of > PMBO's on alternate frequencies, as much as possible, to lessen the chance of > adjacent > channel interference. > > This keeps the Winlink traffic handling capacity the same, frees up space for > others to > use, and eliminates the QRM to others by PMBO stations. The time-from-request-to-connection > would not be noticeably different, if there is any at all. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:22:37 -0500 > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Automated stations and W1AW > > Like so many things in life, there is no perfect answer, but the rules could > be changed to reflect a consensus if that became necessary. But there is no > absolute right or wrong, other than interpreting the current rules. > > At this time, the rules say that you don't own a frequency but if you are > already on a frequency, then others are not permitted to operate on your > frequency. > > Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that W1AW at least at one time > indicated that the control operator on duty does try to listen on the > frequencies just prior to their multifrequency transmissions and may tweak > slightly to avoid being right on top of someone else. But since their signal > is running full power and with pretty good antennas, they may not always be > able to hear weak stations. And it is when you have a weak station you are > trying to copy that you can least tolerate a strong signal in the passband. > > In some cases, it may be that the other emission is not really in your > passband, but is close enough to desense your front end, depending upon the > quality of receiver that you may have. I have to say that in all the years > that I have been involved with ham radio, I rarely have found any problem > with code practice or bulletins, except that the code practice on 3.580 is > right up against the digital "watering hole" area around 3580. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny C Douglas > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:26 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Automated stations and W1AW > > > > Then 99.9 percent would be WRONG. No one has that right. > > > Quoting Richard A Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I think 99.9% of Amateurs would say YES! > > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:22:04 -0400 "Andrew J. O'Brien" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I disagree, I was in a QSO and should not have to end it just because > > they need the frequency. I agree that it is a polite thing to do, move to > > accommodate their valuable service, but since I forgot do they have a > > right to just start broadcasting? > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:08:33 -0500 > From: "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: Winlink Scanning > > Skip, > > Anyone attempting to connect to a PMBO is really no different than any other > ham calling CQ in the hopes of receiving a reply, except that in the case of > having a PMBO potentially on frequency it is more likely that a contact can > be made. It is dramatically more efficient than any other third party > traffic. > > As far as your suggestions on scanning, are you suggesting that each PMBO > have only one frequency and then to make up for the need to have many > different frequencies available to meet the constantly varying propagation > conditions, you would need to have many more PMBO systems in operation? > > My main concern is emergency communications planning and deployment so I do > have a bias toward that end and I hope that most hams who want to see > amateur radio survive also have a similar "bias." > > One of the things that I have tried to promote to the WL2K controller has > been to increase the number of HF PMBO stations. (And for that matter the > vhf/uhf only PMBO's as well). Especially for the lower bands 80 and maybe > even 160, which will not tend to cause interference during daylight hours > since signals do not travel as far and those bands are very lightly used. > These new PMBO's could use the new SCAMP mode to eventually replace much or > hopefully all of the Pactor modes someday. > > If you had an HF PMBO at least every 100 miles or so, they could handle > traffic without requiring the use of the higher frequencies and that would > free up those longer range frequencies for blue water and emergency traffic > folks. > > Since Winlink 2000 is administered by one person for the entire worldwide > system, they have indicated they do not have the ability to add many > additional stations. > > Because WL2K is a proprietary system, they do not want any redundant system > to "compete" with their system, even though it would be far better for the > amateur community, and for emergency communications, to have many such > systems in place that are not directly connected to each other. If one WL2K > system failed, you would have other options. And yes, the chance of this > happening needs to be placed in the calculus of emergency planning. > > By the way, I did not see any retraction of your claim that the WL2K had > been infected by a virus, when in fact it had not. We need to keep a > balanced perspective on what is or is not real. Because of such emotional > views on this subject it seems that each side overstates the facts so that > those of us in the middle have to try and figure out what is really true. > > Maybe that is normal politics, but I would hope that more discussion could > center around practical solutions to ham radio's major reason for its > existence ... emergency communications. And perhaps even more importantly, > if you don't have those systems in place and used daily, contrary to what > some people believe, they won't be there when you need them the most. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Skip Teller > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:09 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] RE: Winlink Scanning > > > > > >>>By distributing callers across multiple scanned frequencies, the > > incidence of multiple callers colliding on a single frequency is > > reduced. Such collisions prevent the PMBO from connecting with any > > of the competing callers, increasing time-from-request-to- > > connection. If the callers cannot hear each other, then they don't > > know to back off and the collision is extended in time -- further > > increasing time-from-request-to-connection for all callers. > > If the PMBO is busy passing traffic on another frequency, he is not > scanning, so the really > significant delay in time-from-request-to-connection is always waiting for > him to finish > passing traffic and resume scanning. > > Once he resumes scanning, he is going to connect with the strongest caller > that he can > hear, even if there are multiple callers. The only way he would be unable to > connect is if > all callers were at the same strength AND timing. So, using scanning has a > negligible > improvement in the time-from-request-to-connection, and that would only > apply to ONE of the > multiple callers - the one that was successful. For the others, that time > might be > infinite. > > > > > > > Because the PMBO stations are not allowed to broadcast, the client > > MUST call a specific PMBO. If he does that on any of the alternate > > frequencies of the PMBO, he cannot connect until the PMBO is > > finished passing traffic on the frequency being used. The client > > station may transmit continusouly for a connect, but he will not > > achieve one until the PMBO finishes passing traffic and starts > > scanning again and picks up the client station's transmission. > > > > > > > The result of the scanning is that the Winlink client station > > is "holding the frequency" for his own use and nobody can use it or > > capture it while he is doing that. > > > > >>>If callers (which are always attended) refrain from initiating a > > request on a frequency that is already busy or becomes busy after an > > unsuccessful request, then the caller is not guilty of holding the > > frequency. As I mentioned in my previous post, the problem is that a > > Winlink-on-Pactor PMBO has no busy detector, and thus threatens QSOs > > on any of its scanning frequencies with hidden-transmitter QRM. > > Knowledgable operators wishing a QRM-free QSO would therefore tend > > to avoid any frequency scanned by a Winlink-on-Pactor PMBO. Is a > > PMBO "holding" its scanning frequencies? Legally, no; pragmatically, > > yes. 14076.9 may currently be clear, but there's no way I'll call CQ > > there. > > With scanning, the caller is holding the frequency whether or not he is > "guilty" of doing > so, which would only be the case if he were aware that the PMBO was busy and > he kept > calling. He may not be "guilty" of holding the frequency, but he is > accidentally holding > the frequency nevertheless, because he thinks it is clear and the PMBO is > listening for a > connect, when, in reality, that is not true. The PBMO is not listening (on > the alternate > frequency) for a connect. Eliminating scanning eliminates this problem. > > The hidden-transmitter problem is certainly real, but ONLY after the PMBO > has been > triggered to transmit. In practice, the MAJORITY of QRM, as you can easily > observe on the > waterfall, is not the hidden-transmitter, but the client stations > transmitting, breaking up > the QSO, waiting for a while, and doing the same thing over again. If they > do trigger a > PMBO to transmit, then the QRM generally becomes much worse, as can also be > seen on the > waterfall. > > If there were no scanning, then the calling client station would not be > repeatedly calling > on the alternate frequency, even if he could not detect weaker activity on > the frequency, > because he would be monitoring the same frequency the PMBO he wishes to > contact is > currently using. In fact, HALF of all the Winlink advertises frequencies > would NEVER be > used by Winlink if there were no scanning, unless the number of PMBO's > doubled and scanning > was eliminated. If half of the frequencies currently advertised by Winlink > were eliminated > from their system, then half of the PMBO's could be reassigned to the > vacated frequencies, > leaving a large block of frequencies available for everyone else to use > without fear of a > PMBO station popping up on top of their QSO like they do now. > > So, the real fair solution to the problem is: > > 1. Eliminate scanning. > > 2. Reassign PMBO to frequencies in a contiguous block, with a geographical > separation of > PMBO's on alternate frequencies, as much as possible, to lessen the chance > of adjacent > channel interference. > > This keeps the Winlink traffic handling capacity the same, frees up space > for others to > use, and eliminates the QRM to others by PMBO stations. The > time-from-request-to-connection > would not be noticeably different, if there is any at all. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 7 > Date: 21 Apr 2005 23:02:07 -0000 > From: digitalradio > Subject: Reminder - SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200... > > > We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. > > SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200Z, Apr 24 > > Date: Saturday, April 23, 2005 > Time: All Day > > SP DX RTTY Contest 1200Z, Apr 23 to 1200Z, Apr 24 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:44:22 -0400 > From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: KN4LF Daily LF/MF/HF Radio Propagation Outlook #2005-016 > > The KN4LF Daily LF/MF/HF Radio Propagation Outlook #2005-016 has been > published on 2200 UTC Thursday April 21, 2005 at > http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm . > > 73 & GUD DX, > Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF > Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster > Plant City, FL, USA > Grid Square EL87WX > Lat & Long 27 58 33.6397 N 82 09 52.4052 W > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contesting Propagation eReflector: > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/propagation > HC-DX Propagation Channel: > http://www.hard-core-dx.com/index.php?topic=Propagation > KN4LF Daily Solar Space Weather & Geomagnetic Data Archive: > http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf5.htm > KN4LF Daily LF/MF/HF Radio Propagation Outlook: > http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm > KN4LF HF/MF Radio Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm > KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.htm > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:18:48 -0000 > From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Winlink Scanning > > > ***AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Skip Teller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Once he resumes scanning, he is going to connect with the > strongest caller that he can hear, even if there are multiple > callers. The only way he would be unable to connect is if all > callers were at the same strength AND timing. So, using scanning has > a negligible improvement in the time-from-request-to-connection, and > that would only apply to ONE of the multiple callers - the one that > was successful. For the others, that time might be infinite. > > ***If one caller is substantially stronger than the other(s), then I > agree it will likely succeed at connecting with the PMBO. Short of > that, a weaker caller can prevent a stronger caller from connecting; > Pactor is simply not designed to handle contention. > > ***WinLink's use of scanning seems comparable to a DX station's use > of split frequency operation to spread out its callers. Many of > those callers continue to transmit while the DX station is working > someone on another frequency, and thus cannot possibly respond. > While this is not great operating technique, no one accuses those > callers of holding their frequency. The DX station defines the > pileup's upper and lower bounds, and thus the range of frequencies > rendered effectively unuseable by anyone else. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > 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/
