### more AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM? It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. ### If you can't design an unattended system that won't QRM other stations, then that system should never be deployed in the first place. The fact that bad things were done in the past is no excuse for continuing to do them. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector. ### Busy frequency detection is a band-aid for a bad system design. Rick KN6KB developed the busy frequency detector in SCAMP with encouragement from me and many others to address the fundamental flaw in Winlink. The SCAMP beta test demonstrated far better performance than implied in your use of the word "possibility" above, Jose. But as I've pointed out here in earlier threads, a busy frequency detector need not be perfect to be helpful. A busy frequency detector that only prevents QRM 80% of the time would reduce the incidence of QRM by a factor of 5. In actual practice, SCAMP performed even better than that. It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... ### That's completely untrue, Jose. The SCAMP design and implementation remain in the hands of the Winlink Development team, with nothing stopping them from deploying it. The "community" does not need access to the SCAMP busy frequency detector; its Winlink that needs access, and its had that access for years. SCAMP and its advanced features remain in the land of "could be but did not get to be"... ### As pointed out above, this is simply untrue. >snip< Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ? ### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4 years ago may now be practical. I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is available: the same stuff. ### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not. Of course, if YOU convince them to QRT, you need no zombie network. Brilliant. Could you achieve that? Seemingly not. ### My objective is the minimization of QRM from unattended systems like Winlink, not the termination of these systems. I really don't care how they solve this problem, though I've made several constructive attempts to help them. If the Winlink organization would rather monitor each PMBO 24x7 to ensure no transmission on busy frequencies, that's fine with me. In my technical opinion, busy frequency detectors are the most practical solution, but its not my decision to make. Again, a concept was tested. Period. It is not AVAILABLE. So there are no changes available to the public. Then, in fact, nothing has changed. ### Not true. The SCAMP busy frequency detector is available to the Winlink Development team. Its been available for years. Public access to the design is not required for Winlink to incorporate the SCAMP busy frequency detector into its PMBOs. +++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM generated by PMBOs? No, you keep on insisting on something contrary to a physical fact (hidden stations), that could be remedied using some unavailable technology (SCAMP). ### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an excuse for PMBO-generated QRM. ### Second, I am insisting on nothing contrary to any physical fact. Existence of the hidden transmitter effect is unquestionable. The only evidence of "hidden transmitter effect denial" is in the system design of Winlink. ### Third, you continuously refer to SCAMP as "unavailable technology" despite the fact that it lies in the hands of the Winlink Development team. So far, without a tangible solution, such kind of busy detection is merely daydreaming. ### The Winlink development team has possessed a tangible solution -- SCAMP -- for years. >snip< >>> Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this problem, but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its really sad. So a question is in order. Why, beyond what has been discussed here and all know, it was not deployed? Do you have any inside info we don't? ### The only information I have is what Rick KV9U quoted earlier today. Paraphrasing, the Winlink organization decided not to deploy busy frequency detection because it would mean their PMBOs might have to wait longer to acquire a frequency during non-emergency conditions. (Busy frequency detection would be disabled during emergencies). >snip< ### The publication of Rick's design is irrelevant, Jose, because Rick is a member of the Winlink development team. There is nothing stopping the Winlink organization from deploying it in their PMBOs. Would you force Rick to act against his will? ### Of course not. If he or the Winlink team have some better way to stop their QRM, I don't care how they do it. If his design is really as irrelevant as you state, it means that you have all the facts to substitute it. Then it is not necessary to go against anyone's will, just come forward with your own design. ### That's completely false, Jose. Making the design public is irrelevant because the "public" has no need of his design! The design is needed by the Winlink team, and they've had it for years. So, you have two choices: either shut them up or make it better. Which of those choices is easier for you? ### I would much rather they found a way to eliminate their QRM by a means other than going QRT. >>>snip<<< +++I expect Winlink to abide by the rules and regulations governing amateur radio Please illuminate us not governed by Part 97. Where does it state so ? ### For those of us governed by part 97, the relevant citation is 97.101(d): "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal". ### Every time a Winlink PMBO in the US transmits on a frequency already in use, its control operator violates 97.101(d). >snip< So, your point is that is Rick's sin is proving it is feasible, but not deploying it is his fault. ### I have offered nothing but praise for Rick's development of the SCAMP busy detector and its proof that multi-mode busy detectors are practical. I'm not privy to who in the Winlink organization decided not to deploy it; I have never attributed this to Rick personally. Is really this a valid way of encouraging the advancement of the art of communications? Telling the community that if you let us know "somethingbetter than the wheel", you will be harrassed in the future because of it? ### Jose, Winlink in its current form should never have been allowed on the air. At least in the US, its operation violates the rules governing amateur radio operation. Saying "you can stay on the air if you fix the fundamental problem in your design" is not discouraging to further advancement, particularly when they have had one such solution in hand for years. >snip< A chicken and egg situation. Is SCAMP available? No, it isn't. How to deploy something inexistent? ### SCAMP is available to Winlink. Why do you keep pretending that it isn't? > > So we arrive to a new definition of fallacious: whatever does not fit your own mental scheme. +++ That's a convenient statement for you to make, Jose; I challenge you to substantiate it. That's not hard to do. It just requires browsing this list. You have been overly recursive about all this, for a long time. ### If its not hard to do, then do it. ### And what does "overly rescursive" mean, exactly? >snip< Dave, I see your position as wishful thinking. Today, there is no SCAMP or alike available to the public. The beta testers have already told that their copies expired. Seemingly noone, besides Rick himself can revive SCAMP. And he refuses. Is there a possibility to circumvent that? ### For the Nth time, the public does not need access to SCAMP. The party who needs access to SCAMP is Winlink, and they have had this access for years. >snip< No, it is not that way, as far as I know. Winlink does not have it. It has not spread. The only facts are Rick's papers on the Digital Conference, and the expired software copies. ### You are incorrect. SCAMP was developed by Rick KN6NB, a member of the Winlink development team, as less expensive alternative to Pactor. The SCAMP busy detector design has been available to the Winlink organization since the day Rick conceived it, and its implementation remains in their hands. You have still a large task in front of you. But I would advise to review your tactics, because so far, all that we have is a big stir and no solutions. ### Not true. Through discussions here and elsewhere, the ARRL was persuaded to retract its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal, which would have dramatically increased the amateur spectrum available for unattended operation. That was a significant accomplishment. ### The ARRL technical staff now understands how unattended operation really works, and are saying they will catalyze the development of a new protocol that overcomes the hidden station QRM problem. Paul W4RI, the ARRL's CTO, is leading this effort; he was scheduled to report on it at the recent TAPR DCC, but I was unable to attend and have yet to discover what he said. (Anybody hear this report?) ### in the mean time, those of us opposing the generation of QRM by unattended stations will continue to rebut fallacious rationalizations of Winlink operation when they appear, and will continue to exert pressure on the Winlink organization to correct the fundamental flaw in its PMBO design. 73, Dave, AA6YQ