Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
Hi Ken, The equipment obviously needs to meet the rules of the sub band they are operating in. For example, you can not operate phone modes in the RTTY/Data sub bands. You can not operate RTTY/Data in the phone/image/fax portions of the bands. And you can not operate wide bandwidth modes such as FSTV on HF due to the restrictions on bandwidth. Some want to claim that there is no current limit in the RTTY/data bands, but if someone tried to use all of a given band, they would be cited by the FCC for not following good amateur practice which is codified in Part 97 as "no non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type." My rule of thumb is to try and follow the new Region 2 Band Plan from IARU as much as we can, although some things permitted in the BP would be illegal here in the U.S. so you have to temper your usage accordingly. And other than for spread spectrum, we don't have specific co-channel interference rules on HF because we don't have channels. The main thing is that we do not "willfully or maliciously interfere." We are fortunate that with the higher end equipment of today, we can get amazingly close to another station and not even know they are there by using improved filters and phenomenal IMD DR such as available from the big three high performance companies (Elecraft, Flex-Radio, and Ten Tec). 73, Rick, KV9U Ken Meinken wrote: > Rick, > > Do you really mean that anyone should be able to use whatever they > want? Are you really suggesting that fast scan, wideband TV should be > allowed on 20 meters? What about wideband FM? > > Seems to me that bandwidth and co channel interference need to be > restricted, otherwise we will have chaos and the bands will be useless > to all except those running max power with big antennas. > > Ken WA8JXM > > Rick wrote: > >> From my perspective, any group should be allowed to use whatever >> equipment they want on the ham bands, provided that they ID so that >> anyone can determine who they are, and that they are not obscuring the >> information and it can at least be monitored by anyone with similar >> equipment. Winlink 2000 does have some problems with respect to those >> perspectives of mine (and probably most hams). >> >> 73, >> >> > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Check our other Yahoo Groups > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
Ken, The Katrina After Action Report (AAR) brought Amateur Radio back into play, based on it's effectiveness in the pandemonium following the hurricane. By the end of 2006, MARS was facing de-funding and cessation of existence. The dynamic was the need for Emergency Communications as demonstrated as recently as the past year, and the number of MARS members who were all dressed up with no place to go. Put in this perspective, the happenings of the past year seem to make more sense. The Huntsville Hamfest in 2007 is where the MARS Chiefs decided to interact as a Tri-Service MARS organization (while retaining their own identity to the branch of service they represent), and the ARRL decided to enter into a MOU with MARS in which the division of responsibilities was defined. The outcome of that was the division between long-range (HF) and last mile (VHF) communications during disaster support emerged. For years, in the background,the SHARES (SHAred RESources) HF folks have been operating as the nucleus for communications infrastructure continuity between the various Federal entities, as well as Infrastructure providers. This group allows interaction between all Federal entities as well as the ones in the volunteer support field(s) who have been licensed into the system. In SHARES operations, a MARS Volunteer who is licensed into the system may directly contact any Federal Agency or Infrastructure Provider in net operation or disaster support. The same thing (on a smaller scale) has been implemented in the concept of Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) groups on a county to county basis, where all players interact to provide the most up-to-date plan for emergency operations. This allows for Fire, Law Enforcement, Major Business, Education, Manufacturing, Utility; any entity large enough to need an emergency plan to meet and keep up to date with each-others needs and capabilities. Amateur Radio is well represented in out county. We will have up to 8 redundant stations by the end of this summer, each paid for by the organization needing the support. It is blending toward a generic team of communications providers, in which (currently) an Amateur Radio Service license is the common bond. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Meinken Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms Dave, First of all, I will be the first to admit that I'm not up on all the latest technology. BUT, I have felt for a long time (34 years to be exact), that the heyday of amateur radio emergency communications is long past. If we look back to the 1930's and so, radio communications was rare and hams could provide extraordinary communications during an emergency compared to anything else available. Even in the 1950's and 60's, local governments could be easily isolated and would have to depend upon ham radio in an emergency. But during the 1970's and later, police, fire and other government agencies greatly expanded their ability to communicate even during emergencies. Individuals hams with a portable station were able to contribute less and less. A modern fire chief at a disaster isn't going to accept a ham with a hand held trying to get communications through to a certain heavy rescue truck or mutual aid unit. By the time Katrina came along, government agencies were expecting internet bandwidth and cell phone capabilities and that is certainly far beyond the realm of individual hams or even local ham organizations. Modern communications and the government's need for same has gone far beyond the scope and abilities of ham radio. I was very active with AREC and RACES during the late 60's and early 70's, (county EC and RACES Radio Officer) but I realized then that if I wanted to contribute to the community, I could do a million times more as a volunteer firefighter. Ham radio could only make minor contributions while trying to relive the glory days of earlier decades. Those days are long gone, I'm afraid. OTOH, perhaps it's good to see MARS actually doing something productive in this area. I was very active MARS in the 60's but was dismayed that it did nothing to follow fulfill it's charter of providing emergency communications. Ken David Little wrote: > > It is interesting , isn't it? > > MARS doesn't hold contests. > > MARS doesn't allow stations to intentionally interfere with other > stations. > > MARS doesn't promote awards for the number of contacts you can make in a > minute and not say anything. > > MARS doesn't get their panties wadded up when information is exchanged > without being interfered by contesters, QRN or jammers. > > Army MARS offers training during 90% of it's net operations. > > MARS has requirements for membership. > > MARS promotes discipline and efficient operation.
Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
Dave, First of all, I will be the first to admit that I'm not up on all the latest technology. BUT, I have felt for a long time (34 years to be exact), that the heyday of amateur radio emergency communications is long past. If we look back to the 1930's and so, radio communications was rare and hams could provide extraordinary communications during an emergency compared to anything else available. Even in the 1950's and 60's, local governments could be easily isolated and would have to depend upon ham radio in an emergency. But during the 1970's and later, police, fire and other government agencies greatly expanded their ability to communicate even during emergencies. Individuals hams with a portable station were able to contribute less and less. A modern fire chief at a disaster isn't going to accept a ham with a hand held trying to get communications through to a certain heavy rescue truck or mutual aid unit. By the time Katrina came along, government agencies were expecting internet bandwidth and cell phone capabilities and that is certainly far beyond the realm of individual hams or even local ham organizations. Modern communications and the government's need for same has gone far beyond the scope and abilities of ham radio. I was very active with AREC and RACES during the late 60's and early 70's, (county EC and RACES Radio Officer) but I realized then that if I wanted to contribute to the community, I could do a million times more as a volunteer firefighter. Ham radio could only make minor contributions while trying to relive the glory days of earlier decades. Those days are long gone, I'm afraid. OTOH, perhaps it's good to see MARS actually doing something productive in this area. I was very active MARS in the 60's but was dismayed that it did nothing to follow fulfill it's charter of providing emergency communications. Ken David Little wrote: > > It is interesting , isn't it? > > MARS doesn't hold contests. > > MARS doesn't allow stations to intentionally interfere with other > stations. > > MARS doesn't promote awards for the number of contacts you can make in a > minute and not say anything. > > MARS doesn't get their panties wadded up when information is exchanged > without being interfered by contesters, QRN or jammers. > > Army MARS offers training during 90% of it's net operations. > > MARS has requirements for membership. > > MARS promotes discipline and efficient operation. > > MARS gets to play on NTIA spectrum and doesn't have to subject itself > to the > bonfire of vanities experienced on ham frequencies. > > Kid of sets a precedent, doesn't it. > > This probably goes as far as any other single example to explain why the > ARRL relegated the Amateur Radio community to the realm of last mile (VHF) > communications in support of emergency communications and abdicated the HF > realm to the Tri Service MARS organizations. Bread and Circuses has worked > since Roman times; why should this be any different. > > The ARRL knew when to throw in the towel, and had a pretty good idea about > the quality of their members; as well as their devotion level to do the > tasks traditionally required of the Amateur Radio Service in exchange for > the spectrum they enjoy. The operation has been a success; the patient is > definitely dying > > Pactor III is probably more effective than CW ever was as a 'filter" to > determine the dedication level of emergency communicators. > > But, you have to consider that there is not a HF rig less than $500.00 > new, > and entry level for a HF rig that utilizes the best of 20th century > technology starts around $1200.00 > > With that said, you can begin to appreciate that the $900.00 cost of a > Pactor III controller (taking advantage of the 10% discount for Emergency > Communicators) will deliver the mail, with the cheapest HF rig. A PTC-IIex > controller connected to an Icom IC-718 cost about what an IC-7000 or a > little less than a TS-2000 costs; in a field of choices that can cost > up to > $15,000.00 for a HF rig alone. > > The "Contest Grade" of transceivers that go north of ten grand will > clog up > the airwaves and render them unusable by others far more often than Pactor > III and WL2K. > > Anyone saying that frequency usage during a contest is less adversely > affected than by WL2K transmissions using Pactor III is sadly being less > than truthful with their self and others, and there is simply no room for > discussion to the contrary. A little intellectual honesty will trump knee > jerk reaction every time > > Emergency Preparedness in our county in Glynn County, GA currently > includes > 8 SCS Pactor III controllers. At least 4 more are scheduled for purchase > prior to Hurricane season. > > The reason for this is that nothing else will come close to the throughput > and devotion of the WL2K system when other infrastructure is down. > > The county services have now learned the importance of owning t
Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
Rick, Do you really mean that anyone should be able to use whatever they want? Are you really suggesting that fast scan, wideband TV should be allowed on 20 meters? What about wideband FM? Seems to me that bandwidth and co channel interference need to be restricted, otherwise we will have chaos and the bands will be useless to all except those running max power with big antennas. Ken WA8JXM Rick wrote: > From my perspective, any group should be allowed to use whatever > equipment they want on the ham bands, provided that they ID so that > anyone can determine who they are, and that they are not obscuring the > information and it can at least be monitored by anyone with similar > equipment. Winlink 2000 does have some problems with respect to those > perspectives of mine (and probably most hams). > > 73, > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
I am also concerned with the expensive proprietary nature of the Pactor modes and the standardization on it by the WL2K proponents. Many ham PMBOs don't accept stations using Pactor 1. Now, MARS is becoming less friendly to Pactor 1 users as well. Hams need to develop a BETTER replacement for Pactor that is based on open standards. It would be fair to charge for it as long as the standard(s) were open. MARS would accept a replacement for Winlink 2000 if it were a better package. The new package would need to be friendly to keyboard users and still be able adapt to transmit messages at high speeds OR lower speeds under poor conditions. This would be sort of a cross between the current NBEMS, ALE400 and RFSM2400. Perhaps the Outpost software could be adapted to work with this too. Could this group provide the organization to support such an effort? Whatever happened to the ARRL attempt to define requirements for a new package? Howard K5HB --- Jeff Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I found even more interesting than the article > on QRZ was the comments on it. To a "T" everyone > commented that it was good that WINLINK2000 was now > being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur > bands. > > Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I > wasn't aware that there were bandwidth issues > associated with the WL2K system. > > Is this as big an issue as it appears to be? > > I'm personally more concerned with the expensive > proprietary nature of the Pactor modes and the > standardization on it by the WL2K proponents. > > Any comments?? > > Jeff Moore > KE7ACY > Deschutes County ARES > Bend, Oregon >
Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
Jeff, Pactor and Pactor 2 both fit fairly well in a 500 Hz bandwidth. When Pactor stations first connect (P, P2, or P3), they must be in the lowest common denominator of Pactor. The machines negotiate with each other and if it is determined that there is a P2 or a P3 station on both sides, they switch to that mode. When two P3 stations switch from Pactor, their bandwidth increases dramatically. Since these modems will transmit no matter what is in their passband, they will go right over the top of other stations. When the FCC first allowed this kind of operation, it was with the understanding that these modes would come up with improved listening abilities and follow the standard Part 97 mandates. This is not happening and in fact, the Winlink 2000 administrator has actually openly said to not use protection for other stations because he claims that malicious operators would prevent Winlink 2000 from operating. It has become the largest interference issue on the HF RTTY/Data bands. If this is allowed, then other groups will likely increase similar activities with their systems. The FCC has received rather large numbers of requests for information on this issue but have not really responded yet. From my perspective, any group should be allowed to use whatever equipment they want on the ham bands, provided that they ID so that anyone can determine who they are, and that they are not obscuring the information and it can at least be monitored by anyone with similar equipment. Winlink 2000 does have some problems with respect to those perspectives of mine (and probably most hams). 73, Rick, KV9U Jeff Moore wrote: > What I found even more interesting than the article on QRZ was the > comments on it. To a "T" everyone commented that it was good that > WINLINK2000 was now being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur bands. > > Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I wasn't aware that > there were bandwidth issues associated with the WL2K system. > > Is this as big an issue as it appears to be? > > I'm personally more concerned with the expensive proprietary nature of > the Pactor modes and the standardization on it by the WL2K proponents. > > Any comments?? > > Jeff Moore > KE7ACY > Deschutes County ARES > Bend, Oregon > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
YES ! 73 - Bill KA8VIT = Bill Chaikin, KA8VIT USS COD Amateur Radio Club W8COD WW2 Submarine USS COD SS-224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ka8vit.com = To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:27:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms What I found even more interesting than the article on QRZ was the comments on it. To a "T" everyone commented that it was good that WINLINK2000 was now being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur bands. Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I wasn't aware that there were bandwidth issues associated with the WL2K system. Is this as big an issue as it appears to be? I'm personally more concerned with the expensive proprietary nature of the Pactor modes and the standardization on it by the WL2K proponents. Any comments?? Jeff Moore KE7ACY Deschutes County ARES Bend, Oregon - Original Message - From: Mark Thompson Subject: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms N1IN MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms Those tornados that swept across the Mid South Feb. 5 and 6 carried Army MARS into a new era of operations. For the first time as far back as we can remember, a state government called for MARS deployment in response to an actual emergency. The resulting teamwork gave the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency—TEMA—its only e-mail link during President Bush’s visit to the storm-stricken area. That link was the army MARS WinLink 2000 Radio e-mail system. Stuart S. Carter, the Army MARS Chief, gave a full account of the MARS tornado response on his biweekly broadcast to members Feb. 15. Compiled from several after-action reports, Carter’s account follows verbatim. On Tuesday, 5 Feb 08, Region 4 Director Jim Hamilton (AAA4RD) was watching the weather on TV and based on the developing storm, called Tennessee SD Chris Bindrim (AAA4TN), to place TN Army MARS on alert. A short time after calling Bindrim, Hamilton received an email from David Wolfe, AAR4CY, (Chief of Communication for the TN Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), State RACES Officer, and an Army MARS member) requesting TN Army MARS be placed on standby for possible support to TEMA. In addition to calling Bindrim, Hamilton also called Kentucky SD Barry Jackson (AAA4KY) who was already alerting Kentucky Army MARS members to stand-by for possible emergency support to officials in Kentucky. What I just told you Jim Moore, Great Falls, MT, AAM8AMT is that before the Tornados struck, the preparatory alerts were sent to Region 4 SDs and members to “Prepare and Stand by to assist.” This event illustrates the importance of detailed preparation and training which has taken place during realistic disaster response exercises over the past several years. In the case of TN, the story goes back a year and a half. Steve Waterman (AAA9AC) began working with TEMA’s David Wolfe, preparing for just such a deployment. At the time, Army MARS was just beginning to adopt the Winlink 2000 radio e-mail network system, and with the assistance of the then TN State Director, Paul Drothler, AAV4DJ, Army MARS had just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with TEMA. This MOU just served to strengthen an already strong relationship between TEMA and Army MARS. Next, Wolfe led TEMA staffers who were already hams to becoming MARS members and to become qualified MARS WinLink 2000 operators. The rest of Wolfe’s team soon obtained their amateur radio and Army MARS licenses. The next step was joint training for TEMA staff and TN Army MARS members. Some was classroom training followed up with extensive field training. The culmination of the field training was TNCAT07, a massive exercise, which included the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC, an 8 state alert consortium along the New Madras fault line). This exercise also included the participation by ARRL Amateur Emergency Radio Service (ARES), CAP and other EMCOM services, which clearly demonstrated interoperability between TEMA, TN Army MARS, the amateur radio community, and other municipal communications services. You have just heard that Army MARS was integrating and training with virtually all of the EMCOM services in TN. That was what this CAM calls leaning forward and TCAMO. As the situation developed Tuesday, the dispersed pattern of the multiple twisters and their swift movem
Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
I am not completely sure of David's point, other than MARS is a Military sponsored and channelized system intended for specific purposes which are very different from amateur radio. As a Navy MARS op (N0YUI, now a reissued ham call) in the mid 1960's and in the 1980's, as an AF MARS op (AFA3QH), I found it a very disciplined and structured system that can work well for radio message traffic. But the one comment that he echoes from what I have seen in the past few weeks is that ARRL has agreed to end long distance traffic and MARS is taking this over. I have only seen this claim from MARS. To my knowledge, the ARRL NTS is still operating and still promotes THRU traffic. I would think it would be major news to change this structure to mostly local traffic. Has the ARRL BoD really done this? The cost of equipment today is incredibly low compared to when I was first licensed (1963) and tried to scrape together enough to buy even the most basic equipment for HF CW and 2 meter AM, and used equipment makes it even less. A basic 10 watt crystal controller 2 meter AM transceiver (Clegg 22er) cost $200 in the mid 1960's. That translates into $1400 in today's money. I often wonder how I did afford what I did at the time! There will be hard core radio operators who will spend large sums of money for what interests them. Consider multi thousand dollar amplifiers and antennas systems. But very, very, few hams have the slightest interest in $1000 modems or even $500 modems. Most MARS operators do not use the SCS modems at this time. In fact, one local affiliate uses DOS with an old computer and an old software program. One thing you are confusing is the use of human to human contact with human to machine contact and where the machine ignores anyone else on the frequency. That is the problem! Not that there are many human operators on at the same time. Amateur radio is a shared resource and always has been. MARS is not. Emergency communication, which I admit is something that has been an interest of mine since my first experience with the 1965 floods in the midwest, is still a microcosm of ham radio and plays a small part 99.9% of the time. There is no great threat from loss of HF frequencies. In fact, we have been gaining bands in the past decade or so. We might lose some microwave bands that are basically unused, but HF, being world wide, involves much more than just one countries rules. Remember that in most countries, amateur radio does not have a strong emergency component and in some countries it is discouraged. I might suggest we look at the big picture. We should also not confuse emergency communications with the broader Public Service that Part 97 addresses. Supplying common carrier services for government agencies is a sure fire way to lose frequencies if it proves to be all that successful. But providing what we do best: national weather service storm spotting, local and regional communications for events, and other public service matches that purpose. We are still available for the really serious emergencies when all else fails. I would definitely not include Winlink 2000 as one of the systems you want to dedicate too much of your emergency structure since it is not exactly something available whenever you need it. Here is a good test. When you get on the bands, any bands, what modes can you generally expect to contact someone? That tells you where you want to be when all else fails. 73, Rick, KV9U David Little wrote: > It is interesting , isn't it? > > MARS doesn't hold contests. > > MARS doesn't allow stations to intentionally interfere with other stations. > > MARS doesn't promote awards for the number of contacts you can make in a > minute and not say anything. > > MARS doesn't get their panties wadded up when information is exchanged > without being interfered by contesters, QRN or jammers. > > Army MARS offers training during 90% of it's net operations. > > MARS has requirements for membership. > > MARS promotes discipline and efficient operation. > > MARS gets to play on NTIA spectrum and doesn't have to subject itself to the > bonfire of vanities experienced on ham frequencies. > > Kid of sets a precedent, doesn't it. > > This probably goes as far as any other single example to explain why the > ARRL relegated the Amateur Radio community to the realm of last mile (VHF) > communications in support of emergency communications and abdicated the HF > realm to the Tri Service MARS organizations. Bread and Circuses has worked > since Roman times; why should this be any different. > > The ARRL knew when to throw in the towel, and had a pretty good idea about > the quality of their members; as well as their devotion level to do the > tasks traditionally required of the Amateur Radio Service in exchange for > the spectrum they enjoy. The operation has been a success; the patient is > definitely dying > > Pactor III is probably more effective th
RE: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
It is interesting , isn't it? MARS doesn't hold contests. MARS doesn't allow stations to intentionally interfere with other stations. MARS doesn't promote awards for the number of contacts you can make in a minute and not say anything. MARS doesn't get their panties wadded up when information is exchanged without being interfered by contesters, QRN or jammers. Army MARS offers training during 90% of it's net operations. MARS has requirements for membership. MARS promotes discipline and efficient operation. MARS gets to play on NTIA spectrum and doesn't have to subject itself to the bonfire of vanities experienced on ham frequencies. Kid of sets a precedent, doesn't it. This probably goes as far as any other single example to explain why the ARRL relegated the Amateur Radio community to the realm of last mile (VHF) communications in support of emergency communications and abdicated the HF realm to the Tri Service MARS organizations. Bread and Circuses has worked since Roman times; why should this be any different. The ARRL knew when to throw in the towel, and had a pretty good idea about the quality of their members; as well as their devotion level to do the tasks traditionally required of the Amateur Radio Service in exchange for the spectrum they enjoy. The operation has been a success; the patient is definitely dying Pactor III is probably more effective than CW ever was as a 'filter" to determine the dedication level of emergency communicators. But, you have to consider that there is not a HF rig less than $500.00 new, and entry level for a HF rig that utilizes the best of 20th century technology starts around $1200.00 With that said, you can begin to appreciate that the $900.00 cost of a Pactor III controller (taking advantage of the 10% discount for Emergency Communicators) will deliver the mail, with the cheapest HF rig. A PTC-IIex controller connected to an Icom IC-718 cost about what an IC-7000 or a little less than a TS-2000 costs; in a field of choices that can cost up to $15,000.00 for a HF rig alone. The "Contest Grade" of transceivers that go north of ten grand will clog up the airwaves and render them unusable by others far more often than Pactor III and WL2K. Anyone saying that frequency usage during a contest is less adversely affected than by WL2K transmissions using Pactor III is sadly being less than truthful with their self and others, and there is simply no room for discussion to the contrary. A little intellectual honesty will trump knee jerk reaction every time Emergency Preparedness in our county in Glynn County, GA currently includes 8 SCS Pactor III controllers. At least 4 more are scheduled for purchase prior to Hurricane season. The reason for this is that nothing else will come close to the throughput and devotion of the WL2K system when other infrastructure is down. The county services have now learned the importance of owning their own amateur radio equipment and promoting operators from within their ranks to be able to have the additional layer of communications infrastructure available and in play during time of emergency. I would say this is a wake-up call, but, sadly, wake-up calls concerning the Amateur Radio Service are a small spot in the rear-view mirror. So, it is entirely predictable that the Amateur community would resist WL2k and Pactor III. It does what they no longer have the devotion to do. I continue to refine my ear, and ability to work voice under less than optimal conditions. I continue to refine my station(s); fixed, mobile and portable in an attempt to be prepared to do the job required to retain the Amateur Radio Spectrum. Pactor III is a tool that I use very sparingly. I am very fortunate to be able to use it freely on the NTIA spectrum, and, given a choice, it is a no-brainer which service will handle the most traffic during an emergency situation. To a "T", the amateur radio community will continue to resist, until they have no ground under their feet. Spectrum refarming is very lucrative for funding . The FCC may seem slow, but they do have a little more will to survive than others under their blanket seem to... All in all, it is progress. The direction it is taking isn't pretty, but the outcome will include Pactor III, I am not too sure it will include Amateur Radio... Laughing last will be a hollow victory in this case David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Moore Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 3:28 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms What I found even more interesting than the article on QRZ was the comments on it. To a "T" everyone commented that it was good that WINLINK2000 was now being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur bands. Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I wasn't aware that there were bandwidth issues a
[digitalradio] Propneter's stepping on each other.
Hello all, I spend a lot time it seems observing th prop net signals on 30 meters. I have put in a second sound card and split the receive audio to both cards at once, Mixw looks at the second sound card and gets a better picture of activity than does Prop net. I note a number of overlapping useless signals on exactly or very close to 10138.90, new radios are very frequency accurate so many are piling up on 10138.90. Usually that is great except in our case. I would like to propose some spreading out of the signal providers to reduce the stepping on each other going on now. I suggest something like all providers west of the Mississippi would transmit from +10 to +300 signals above 10138.90. Providers west of the Mississippi would spread out in some random manner from -10 to -300 Hertz of 10138.90. Some overlap could still occur but it should be much less and more signals would be decoded and reported. Les, W3GXT
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia
I was reading through these earlier postings and came across this one and was a little bit baffled. How did you measure the throughput of Olivia 250/2? From my testing it appears to be approx. 38wpm not 10. Though that is clearly not as fast as RTTY. Olivia has never been about being super fast unless you run 2000/8 maybe. But does fast matter IF you can't get through? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ham Radio Deluxe/Digital Master 780 would have the 250/2 as well as many > other mode as well as even 125/2. I measured the throughput of 250/2 > and it appears too slow for practical use at around only 10 wpm. Not > competitive with 45 baud RTTY at 60 wpm. I am sure it would be quite > robust however. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > John Bradley wrote: > > > > After you came up with the idea Sholto, I was fooling around with Rtty > > and Olivia 250/2, and they are very close to the same speed. > > > > MixW has 250/2 , so was playing with it. > > > > > > > > It would be interesting to see which would do better under poor > > conditions, which are the norm lately > > > > > > > > John > > > > VE5MU > > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Need a little help with AGW Packet Engine Pro, please
Dear Large Unpaid Research Department (LURD), I need some help with AGW Packet Engine Pro. I installed the freeware version of the AGW engine and I kept getting a "your soundcard does not support wave files" error message. So I finally uninstalled it. Today I installed the AGW Packet Engine Pro since it had a self-installation feature. I am still getting the same error message. My sound card works just fine with BPSK, MT63, Olivia, and other sound card modes. I have checked out all of the soundcard's settings, including drivers, and it is functioning properly. Any advice on this problem will be gratefully appreciated.? Jim W5LOG - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
What I found even more interesting than the article on QRZ was the comments on it. To a "T" everyone commented that it was good that WINLINK2000 was now being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur bands. Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I wasn't aware that there were bandwidth issues associated with the WL2K system. Is this as big an issue as it appears to be? I'm personally more concerned with the expensive proprietary nature of the Pactor modes and the standardization on it by the WL2K proponents. Any comments?? Jeff Moore KE7ACY Deschutes County ARES Bend, Oregon - Original Message - From: Mark Thompson Subject: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms N1IN MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms -- Those tornados that swept across the Mid South Feb. 5 and 6 carried Army MARS into a new era of operations. For the first time as far back as we can remember, a state government called for MARS deployment in response to an actual emergency. The resulting teamwork gave the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency—TEMA—its only e-mail link during President Bush’s visit to the storm-stricken area. That link was the army MARS WinLink 2000 Radio e-mail system. Stuart S. Carter, the Army MARS Chief, gave a full account of the MARS tornado response on his biweekly broadcast to members Feb. 15. Compiled from several after-action reports, Carter’s account follows verbatim. On Tuesday, 5 Feb 08, Region 4 Director Jim Hamilton (AAA4RD) was watching the weather on TV and based on the developing storm, called Tennessee SD Chris Bindrim (AAA4TN), to place TN Army MARS on alert. A short time after calling Bindrim, Hamilton received an email from David Wolfe, AAR4CY, (Chief of Communication for the TN Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), State RACES Officer, and an Army MARS member) requesting TN Army MARS be placed on standby for possible support to TEMA. In addition to calling Bindrim, Hamilton also called Kentucky SD Barry Jackson (AAA4KY) who was already alerting Kentucky Army MARS members to stand-by for possible emergency support to officials in Kentucky. What I just told you Jim Moore, Great Falls, MT, AAM8AMT is that before the Tornados struck, the preparatory alerts were sent to Region 4 SDs and members to “Prepare and Stand by to assist.” This event illustrates the importance of detailed preparation and training which has taken place during realistic disaster response exercises over the past several years. In the case of TN, the story goes back a year and a half. Steve Waterman (AAA9AC) began working with TEMA’s David Wolfe, preparing for just such a deployment. At the time, Army MARS was just beginning to adopt the Winlink 2000 radio e-mail network system, and with the assistance of the then TN State Director, Paul Drothler, AAV4DJ, Army MARS had just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with TEMA. This MOU just served to strengthen an already strong relationship between TEMA and Army MARS. Next, Wolfe led TEMA staffers who were already hams to becoming MARS members and to become qualified MARS WinLink 2000 operators. The rest of Wolfe’s team soon obtained their amateur radio and Army MARS licenses. The next step was joint training for TEMA staff and TN Army MARS members. Some was classroom training followed up with extensive field training. The culmination of the field training was TNCAT07, a massive exercise, which included the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC, an 8 state alert consortium along the New Madras fault line). This exercise also included the participation by ARRL Amateur Emergency Radio Service (ARES), CAP and other EMCOM services, which clearly demonstrated interoperability between TEMA, TN Army MARS, the amateur radio community, and other municipal communications services. You have just heard that Army MARS was integrating and training with virtually all of the EMCOM services in TN. That was what this CAM calls leaning forward and TCAMO. As the situation developed Tuesday, the dispersed pattern of the multiple twisters and their swift movement meant local communications systems were able to cope. Painful as the casualty and damage figures were, from the commo viewpoint this was not the wide-area wipeout associated with a force 5 hurricane. Army MARS resources weren’t needed until Friday. Steve Waterman, AAA9AC, received a phone call from TEMA on Thursday night, 7 Feb 08, summoning him to the Tennessee Emergency Operations Center in Nashville, and MARS station AAN4ETN, at 6:30 AM Friday morning TEMA’s Command bus was summoned to an airport in Macon County Thursday night, approximately 140 miles east of Nashville, where President Bush was flying to make his announcement of declaring TN a disaster area, and offering fede
