By redundant system, I mean also include redundant Winlink 2000 systems. (Of course someday there may be additional non Winklink 2000 systems, but so far they are just in the discussion stage and none seem to be able to meet the DHS/FEMA goals. Winlink 2000 does not either, but it comes closer with our limited abilities).
On the other hand there is no reason to put all the eggs in one basket. If you had a failure of one of the systems, additional systems would give you a much better chance of having a link available. Having the current and future increased multi-star servers is also helpful, but not like having discreet systems. It would be transparent to the user since all they care about is being able to connect to a given frequency to get their traffic through. This would also eliminate having multiple "channels" on one band per a given server station. This would eliminate one of the complaints about the current Winlink 2000 system. That is why I am hopeful that over time, this system and others that come later, will have a broad based administration. My preference is to have the ARRL deciding what should and should not be done, rather than private groups or companies, however, benevolent they appear to be. The reason that I prefer this is that the ARRL is the only U.S. national amateur radio organization. Further, unlike many organizations, the ARRL has a democratic structure where we hams elect our representatives at the Section Manager and Division Director/Vice Director positions. In turn, the Division Directors, represent us as members of the Board to set policies. If we are dissatisfied with their performance or their decisions, we can run other candidates and replace them. Because amateur radio is made up of such diverse interests, some of which are nearly antithetical to other interests, it is impossible to satisfy everyone. One only has to look at the absurd and self centered comments of hams who only want it their way and when a decision doesn't go their way, they no longer support the overall organization. In some ways that is helpful because the rest of us decide what direction we will go. Anyone who is not an ARRL member is out of the loop since they can not even provide input to their Section and Division leaders! I admit that when you are in a leadership position, you sometimes make a decision that at the time seems like the right thing to do but there have been those times where the decision was not such a good one and can have profound long term negative effects. So leaders need to carefully listen to their constituents and weigh the issues and try to look at what is best for the long term. 73, Rick, KV9U -----Original Message----- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Waterman, k4cjx Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 6:13 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Scanning Rick, We would LOVE to have a redundant system, but only if it wishes to meet the criteria that we impose on our own system, This would include the B2F format, which allows binary attachments, and the ability to route Ham-to-ham messages or Ham<>Internet recipient messages without the use of Packet H-routing. Because our routing is dynamic and there is no "Home" BBS. Rather, all stations on the system are transparent. There is more, but this is the essential stumbling block. Regarding Scanning: There is NO channelization in Amateur radio. In other words, no one "owns" any frequency. This includes the nets, etc. By agreement, such frequencies are generally set asside for operations, but not by regulation (a whole nother subject!) To channelize Amateur radio frequencies, the FCC would have to increase its resources toward Amateur to a much greater extent than I personally believe they would consider. Fact is, they are moving the other direction. Scanning provides the user several benefits. Most of the 24 US PMBOs scan two to four frequencies per radio. For example, I scan two frequencies on 30 meters. This gives the user an option should one of those two frequencies be otherwise occupied. Airmail, the client software will call for a period of a little less than 3 seconds per frequency scanned per radio, plus a 3 second FEC burst giving the station called and the calling station identification. So, if a station calls, the time that station calls is 9 seconds. Airmail code was written this way about two years ago and it cannot be over-ridden. As we add functionality to Airmail, eventually, the older versions will be replaced, and this will be the order of the day for all users. You are absolutely correct about the "scare tactics" sent out as a result of a an all-user message being sent announcing that we were refreshing the Acceptance list of Internet users. Routinely and periodically, we clear the acceptance list and start over simply to reduce the number of SPAM hits bouncing up against the system. However, each time that announcement is made, those who oppose what we are doing spread that rumor. They never spend the time to correct their assertions. Oh well... such is Amateur (radio) politics. FYI, Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 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: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 5/6/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 5/6/2005 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/
