Re: [digitalradio] Winlink take over?
They both use SSB transmissions, and it's quite true that SSTV is not data -- SSTV is image, and the U.S. phone bands are designated voice/image and data. It is still illegal in the U.S. to be on a voice frequency and say OK, Bob, Here's the data you need: [multi- tone beeps for 20 seconds] How'd it come through? The group pursuing ALE on ham bands have a similar dilemma -- the tones containing digital data can be used for selective calling and the channel maintenance functions, but not for transmissions of text messages. Rather silly in my book: having voice/image grouped together as permitted, but having voice/data not permitted This subject has been discussed for months now, and it seems that the real issue is someone is going to do something I don't want to do with *my* frequency - whether it's someone else running wide data, someone else running fully automatic or semi-automatic modes, or whatever. Why do gentlemen's agreements work on 160 meters but nowhere else? Does anyone remember back a few years when we all had to look at the cheat-sheet to see which segments of 160 we could use for ANYTHING, then see how much power we could have in that segment on daytime and nighttime? When Loran-D disappeared -- and we got the whole band -- the FCC didn't have to tell us what modes to run where. Why do we need them to tell us on the other bands? Or maybe we should run all our emergency training/response nets on 160, that way we can run mixed-mode? -ps Danny Douglas wrote: As to the use of SSTV and voice on the same frequency, they are both SSB transmissions, and SSTV is not data. 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/
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
Message: 19 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:39:06 -0500 From: Rick Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Winlink take over? Skip, With all due respect, (and you have considerable), it seems that some of the arguments may be counter productive and may in some cases affect the survival of amateur radio. We are not a hobby in the eyes of the FCC. The hobby part is only due to a fortuitous intersection of our interests with what we are chartered by law. Rick, amateur radio definitely IS a hobby in the eyes of the FCC. The Commissioners just re-affirmed that in their recent ruling on Access BPL, Report and Order (RO) in ET Docket 04-37: We do not see a need to establish Access BPL-free zones around airports, military bases, hospitals, police stations and fire stations, as requested by NAC/Amherst. To the extent that these services warrant special protection, they will be afforded protection through the excluded bands, exclusion zones and consultation areas specified by NTIA. We similarly do not find that amateur radio frequencies warrant the special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and maritime safety operations. We note that in many instances amateur frequencies are used for routine communications and hobby activities. While we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing emergency communications, we believe that the general Part 15 provisions and the specific provisions being adopted herein for Access BPL operations are sufficient to protect these amateur operations. Note that the FCC does not even consider amateur radio important enough for maritime safety operations to warrant any special protection to amateur frequencies from interference by Access BPL, but Winlink stresses maritime safety for their users as one of their main and most important functions! It is clearly so stated in the Winlink bulletin. Ironically, if the Maritime Radio frequencies ARE protected from BPL, and the amateur frequencies are not, then as a maritime safety operation, Winlink would be more reliable in providing some maritime safety communications to their users by using the Maritime Radio frequencies rather than the ham bands. Looking at the five FCC Part 97, basis and purpose for amateur radio, you won't find anything suggesting a hobby component. What you will find is: #5 Advancing international good will. Some of us may help a little in that regard. #4 The expansion of a trained reservoir of operators and communications. Is that as important anymore? Probably not like it used to be, but maybe somewhat important. #3 Improvement through rules which advance skills in communications and the technical art of radio. We will look at that below. #2 Continuation of our ability to advance the radio art which is similar to #3 and then there is the big one and is the first one on the list ... #1 Recognizing and enhancing our ability to provide to the public, a voluntary and non-commercial communications service PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO PROVIDING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS. Rick, the FCC apparently does not consider providing emergency communications a very big one, because the Commissioners wrote, While we recognize that amateurs may ON OCCASSION assist in providing emergency communications It is only if we continue to advance the radio art and advance our communications ability and provide something of value to our served agencies that we will be allowed to even operate on our many frequencies throughout the spectrum. The goal that FEMA would like for us to have, is a total RF solution from anywhere to anywhere else and do it in very rapid real time delivery. We all know that this is impossible. But what we can do is meld our RF technology that we do very well with e-mail delivery. If we don't do it, we no longer have much to offer for message handling in many emergency situations. Besides, what real ham would not want to insure accurate (and timely) delivery of messages when even large parts of the internet and other telecommunications services are down? Winlink was recently hit by a virus/worm on their central servers that was so serious they had to require all their users to re-register before using the system. This clearly illustrates the danger of relying on a central, or star network topology. Kill the star and the system is worthless. At this time we do not have enough spectrum to adequately handle much traffic on RF paths. There are groups (e.g., LinLink) who are working on an RF only system. In the meantime we have only one system that actually works and can deliver this powerful communications method. A method not readily available to emergency organizations and government ... at least not yet. According to Winlink, all the health and welfare traffic on Winlink during the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster was handled just as normal email traffic with no need for any increase in frequencies. Obviously, in an emergency, much
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
I think that one of the reasons there's so much contention over Winlink is that it DOES work as well as it does... IMO, the ability to pass e-mail back to _the Internet_ is what people want, and while PSK31, Olivia, and all the other 'chat mode' protocols and even packet BBSes are a lot of fun, I expect that the majority of new(er) amateurs are much more interested in linking their radios back to the Internet that just so another single PC or user. (In many ways, this reminds me of the '80s and early '90s before the Internet took over -- dial-up BBSes were a lot of fun and people were quite enthusiastic about them, but they're all but gone now with the Internet. I think the same 'evolution' is in the process of happening with radio...) In other words, this ability is what's made Winlink as popular as it is. Granted, there simply isn't much bandwidth on the HF bands to begin with, so their ability to pass signals worldwide makes them a very valuable natural resource. As such, restrictions on how much bandwidth stations can use are reasonable. It's also absurd to have HF digipeaters out there (other than perhaps a few beacon repeaters for propagation studies or as emergency links when the infrastructure of, e.g., the Internet is busted). But in general, if you can make it back to a repeater, that repeater should have enough power to use a microwave link or direct cable connection the rest of 'civilization!' I think that a lot of what Winlink 2000 is used for now will be slowly replaced by, e.g., satellite Internet access so the 'pressure' on the HF bands will lighten up after awhile -- although that may well be some decades down the road. In the interim, I think that one of the best ways to lighten the pressure on the HF bands for data access is to restructure the bandplans so that bands are regulated by bandwidth and not modes. In particular, I expect that a very large number of Winlink users who are stationary or traveling along the major interstates in the US would be just as happy to connect to a VHF or UHF e-mail 'gateway' (e.g., on 2m or 440MHz) than they are to connect to an HF station. There's enough bandwidth up there that users will enjoy faster connections. My 'grand unified theory' is that when you're in well populated areas, you can probably get some megabits per second of bandwidth via WiMax, WiFi, etc. While traveling on major roadways inbetween cities, there's data service from the cell phone providers or VHF/UHF stations in the many tens to hundreds of kilobits per second. Getting a little more remote, you might still be able to get a VHF/UHF station... and for those who are really remote, out at sea, etc., there's the HF stations at some single digit to perhaps tens of kilobits per second. (Or satellite connections if you've got the $$$!) ---Joel Kolstad KE7CDV 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/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
I take it you ham been a ham for 10 years or less ? Or just don't remember per internet and all those packet system all running unattended.. Then came pactor as to what is in now. John, WØJAB At 01:01 PM 4/5/05, you wrote: I think this opinion is false-to-fact. IMO, most Hams want direct, person-to-person communication, not anonymous relaying of other peoples text. That is the foundation of Ham radio. ANY automated , personless passing on of text is sterile and fit for the Internet, but not Ham radio, except for emergencies. The net is fun, also, in its own way, but not as a mere link in a Ham connection. The reverse is also true. Bill 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/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink take over?
I also have been a BBS SYSOP since 1983 First running on a 64k radio shack system and later the MSYS... Sorry if I got you all up-set man At 04:46 PM 4/5/05, you wrote: I was first licensed in 1952, and have been an alternate sysop on a packet BBS, Thank you. Your rash assumptions may bite you in the*** someday. There was one very great difference in the Unattended Packet stations and the current digital conflicts.- They operated on very well defined frequencies that were coordinated and agreed to in advance. There were clear distinctions in the locations of the repeater pairs, and which ones were which mode. It is the lack of give and take and agreement that is the current problem. You should review the History better before shooting your mouth off. Bill 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/
