Dave, If a sound card implementation worked well, it would not be difficult to move the Winlink 2000 system towards SCAMP. During the beta testing about a year and a half ago, several PMBO's were readily set up to handle SCAMP (Sound Card Amateur Messaging Protocol). It would not have been difficult to add more of these "bridge" stations that move traffic between amateur radio and the internet. And there would be many users who would be added.
Having said that, those who are not happy with the current activity of Winlink 2000, probably will be more unhappy if SCAMP, or some similar mode is ever developed since it could cause some serious congestion on the ham bands. Even with busy channel detect, it is not unreasonable that traffic through such systems could go up a great deal. Those who have already "invested" in the expensive SCS boxes would be loath to discontinue their use and for now we can expect that no sound card mode can eclipse the SCS Pactor implementation so there would be two parallel systems. This was done in the past when both Clover II and Pactor I were used in the original Winlink system over a decade ago. While some PMBO's may have been dedicated to one mode, some were able to switch appropriately to either mode when the selcal was transmitted. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: >Building a state-of-the-art implementation to the SCAMP requirements >(or beyond) would be an interesting project, but many developers >would consider it a dead end. Suppose we had such an implementation >in hand now. How would you convince the Winlink organization and its >user community to abandon their current hardware base and switch to >the new implementation? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>SCAMP used the RDFT engine for data transfer. Perhaps the SCAMP >>>developers will replace this engine with a more effective >>>implementation, but if such work is ongoing, its being conducted >>>quietly. >>>73, Dave, AA6YQ >>> >>> >>Given that the developers have little or no motivation >>nor spare resources to bring SCAMP into the light the >>task must fall to an proprietary-app independent team. >> >>Are there elements of SCAMP that are controlled by the >>proprietary Winlink2000 licensing that make independent >>work impossible or improbable? >> >>Linux developers wrestle past the efforts of MS and Adobe >>and others to prevent interoperability of Linux with their >>apps and have succeeded magnificently. >> >>Perhaps the solution to the SCAMP/Winlink2000 protocol >>bottleneck will be found in the Linux world? >> >> >>-- >> >>Thanks! & 73, >>doc, KD4E >>... somewhere in FL >>URL: bibleseven (dot) com >> >> >> > > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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/
