Re: "The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise
above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals."
A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, and
to have that goal make sense.
To me, pronouncements from inept bureacratic organizations are more
likely to contain anti-goals then goals.
Since we have a worldwide internet that does a fine job of
transporting email messages, what's the rationale for building,
organizing, and operating an HF-based world-wide email transport
system that's entirely independent of the internet? The need for a
means of rapidly compensating for local internet outages is obvious,
but you're proposing something many orders of magnitude more
comprehensive, complex, and expensive. The question is not "could
such a system be created"; it certainly could. The question is, "why
should we build and deploy it?".
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> What you say is mostly true.
>
> However, the actual infrastructure, network design has been made.
>
> The major, regional, district and in some cases local HF node
owners/operators (and their backups for redundancy) would have to
agree to maintain an almost 100% on-the-air operational capacity.
Additionally, some nodes would likely maintain "watch" on 2 or 3
frequencies. In other locations, their might need to be 2 or 3
stations serving the area (region, district or local) that might only
be able to watch one frequency.
>
> Down at the local level, it would be expected that messages would
be "dumped off" to V/UHF systems using the same E-Mail/messaging
format/protocol. BTW, an open source server and client E-
Mail/messaging protocol exist...there is simply the need to interface
it to a ubiquitous modem.
>
> There should be no need for a mesh network as it would not be
expected that stations would be mobile. The network does however
consider portable operations.
>
> I think the motivation is there in the individuals who now handle
traffic on the NTS and perhaps even more would join if the system
used only a currently available HF or V/UHF transceiver system and
PC...no additional hardware required.
>
> This is what FEMA and DHS desired when they joined in with the ARRL
in an MOA back a few years ago.
>
> We have come a long way since the AX.25 SkipNet on HF and TCP/IP
NOS systems operating on 2M and 70cm. And most of that experience or
rather lessons learned can be and will be applied to any new
national/international messaging system.
>
> All that is needed is for some to present a
requirements/specifications document (a specific goal) that the
amateur radio community will accept and work toward in a concerted
manner. Thus far, there has been no concerted amateur radio effort
to accomplish a like task. Rather a few individuals who pursue their
own ideas what a few others follow...much like the "clans" of 1000+
years or more ago.
>
> Society has seen the need for concerted efforts in accomplishing
common goals, yet today there is still much clannish movements in all
corners of the of society. The technical world, and especially
amateur radio should rise above that in concerted efforts to
accomplish desired common goals.
>
> 73,
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:00 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before
Transmitting: An
> Experiment
>
>
> An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the
> internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area
> internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure.
Either
> its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their
nodes
> (transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or
some
> subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain "super
> nodes" that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either
> approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale,
Walt?
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC
CONS/LGCA"
> <walt.dubose@> wrote:
> >
> > Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate.
> >
> > WinLink is a messaging application.
> >
> > SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard "modes" are modem/data
protocol
> implementations.
> >
> > We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a
> like or perhaps better HF E-Mail application. As far as data
> modes/protocols go, look at where we have gone since the early
PSK31
> days...there are dozens of soundcard data protocols/modes/modems.
> >
> > If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's
purpose
> was developing communications technology...or the technology
officer
> for amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data
> protocols/modes/modems produces as well as the HF E-Mail
applications
> developed. None are really as robust as the should/could be, none
of
> the sound card modes have the throughput that they should and there
> are is no really good HF E-Mail program that is based on the
> capability of operating "stand-alone" without using the Internet.
> >
> > Surely amateur radio can do better.
> >
> > Let me mention that a chat mode, while certainly the basis of so
> much amateur radio operations, and rightly so, should not be our
> ultimate goal in developing data modes and messaging systems...we
> should have and have always had higher goals.
> >
> > If we stop developing the chat modes, we risk losing the "fun" in
> amateur radio and the avocation itself. But still we need to look
> our purpose in society.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Walt/K5YFW
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:36 PM
> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before
> > Transmitting: An Experiment
> >
> >
> > Hopefully, there will be a shift toward more open software which
> would
> > be more in line with amateur radio tradition.
> >
> > The Winlink 2000 folks keep everything proprietary up to this
> point.
> > That even includes the old software such as Winlink. From what we
> can
> > tell, Winlink 2000 has one main programmer who is very
> accomplished, but
> > one person can only do so much. There may be one other person
> working
> > with them but it is not clear and they are not open to discussion.
> >
> > SCAMP actually uses components from Linux and uses GPL'd software
> such
> > as RDFT. But it is hard to tell what future software would be
used.
> It
> > has been a year or two since any development was done on SCAMP
that
> has
> > been openly discussed.
> >
> > The one ARQ mode currently available for sound card use is the
> Linux
> > based PSKmail. Even Linux sound card Pactor I may not work as
well
> as
> > hardware versions, although I wonder if the much more powerful
> computers
> > of today might help remediate that.
> >
> > The huge breakthrough that SCAMP provided in addition to the
busy
> > channel detect capability, was the "pipelined" ARQ which
eliminated
> the
> > computer timing issues. After all it worked fabulously well (with
a
> good
> > signal) on Windows XP.
> >
> > Pipelining also means that when you ARQ a mode, it doesn't
> appreciably
> > slow down the throughput, although it will increase latency
> somewhat
> > since the software is working on the last packet of data while
the
> next
> > packet is being received.
> >
> > It is my view that the amateur radio community can best benefit
> when we
> > have cross platform products that interoperate.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick, KV9U
> >
> >
> > kd4e wrote:
> >
> > >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?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
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/
