Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
It appears that it is customary to have semi-set channels for Olivia, with the center of the freq halfway between two KC markers. In other words : 14.0785 not 14078 or 14079. Thus filling in a full KC of space, so the next one up or down from there can do the same and you could soon have a full band, every 1 KC. Just above 14070 is not the best idea, because many PSK stations can be found at 14.072 plus up to a KC. The popularity of PSK is proven just by looking at the band, on an even semi-lively afternoon/evening and you can see PSK stations every few cycles up and down for 3 KCs from 14.069 -14.072 (as read on the rigs printout) with the audio usually 800 to 1500 cy above that. - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital I used winlink in it's early days, when I was doing a lot of keyboard to keyboard pactor 1, using a PK232MBX which I still have and still works. I think what has happened was the MT63 folks had picked 14109.5 as a calling channel. When OLIVIA came out , first in Linnux and later for windows someone suggested 14108.5 as a calling channel. Now the whole world is up there on Olivia, with lots of EU , South Africa and other countries readily found there. So, to keep peace with all players, what is the consensus as to where OLIVIA and all these new modes should operate? Personally I like the range just above 14070, like from 14072 or so up. Comments? John VE5MU - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Hi John,Until recently, I did not even think of going much above 14.095 or so. I have heard a number of Olivia stations above 14.100 this weekend. It may be where I live (north midwest U.S.), but there really are not that many digital signals on the bands (compared to phone and CW anyway). There are almost always some 14.070 PSK stations and then open frequencies from there to 14.100 except for Pactor and RTTY. Sometimes a few "other" modes like Olivia, MFSK16.Even though you can legally do it, I personally do not think it is right to operate in the areas that are intended for automatic operation since they are so small as it is. I used to be supportive of semi-automatic operation outside of that automatic area, but I no longer support that due to the inability of the robot stations to hear a busy channel. I would only support it if the robot station had busy detect software. This has been proven to be possible with my experiences when beta testing the SCAMP mode, so we know it can be done. No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/2006 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) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I used winlink in it's early days, when I was doing a lot of keyboard to keyboard pactor 1, using a PK232MBX which I still have and still works. I think what has happened was the MT63 folks had picked 14109.5 as a calling channel. When OLIVIA came out , first in Linnux and later for windows someone suggested 14108.5 as a calling channel. Now the whole world is up there on Olivia, with lots of EU , South Africa and other countries readily found there. So, to keep peace with all players, what is the consensus as to where OLIVIA and all these new modes should operate? Personally I like the range just above 14070, like from 14072 or so up. Comments? John VE5MU - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Hi John,Until recently, I did not even think of going much above 14.095 or so. I have heard a number of Olivia stations above 14.100 this weekend. It may be where I live (north midwest U.S.), but there really are not that many digital signals on the bands (compared to phone and CW anyway). There are almost always some 14.070 PSK stations and then open frequencies from there to 14.100 except for Pactor and RTTY. Sometimes a few "other" modes like Olivia, MFSK16.Even though you can legally do it, I personally do not think it is right to operate in the areas that are intended for automatic operation since they are so small as it is. I used to be supportive of semi-automatic operation outside of that automatic area, but I no longer support that due to the inability of the robot stations to hear a busy channel. I would only support it if the robot station had busy detect software. This has been proven to be possible with my experiences when beta testing the SCAMP mode, so we know it can be done. 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) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
John under FCC rules automatic control is authorized
3.620-3.635 7100-7105 10140-10150
14.0950-14.0995 and 14.1005-14.112
18.105-18-110 21.090-21.100 24.925-24.930 and 28.120-28.189
You must not confuse NTSD operation within these sub bands running
"Classic Winlink" software employing RF
forwarding to those stations running Winlink 2000 (or Winlink 2K) using
internet forwarding and primarily designed for
providing e-mail service. As indicated before NTSD operates almost
exclusively in the auto control band segments.
Winlink 2000 stations operate in other sections of the the band under
"semi-automatic" operation where they must be accessed
by a licensed station. The old hidden transmitter effect is quite
common in this operation even though the originating station is
supposed to make sure the frequency is clear before querying the
Winlink 2000 station.
Hope this helps
Dave WB2FTX
John Bradley wrote:
and where might those frequencies
be?
-
Original Message -
From:
David
Struebel
To:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent:
Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:58 AM
Subject:
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
John,
You are grossly misinformed. The Winlink stations on the frequecies you
list are Winlink 2000 stations handling e mail messages.
NTSD operates almost exclusively in the small automatic control band
segments.
Dave WB2FTX
John Bradley wrote:
I would like to point out that
Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group are responsible for most of the QRM
we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink
stations, especially around
14105 to 14110.
If Winlink, rather than
spreading themselves out all over the band, were to confine their
operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and below
14105, leaving the OLIVIA and
other similar modes some operating room, then it might be worthwhile
getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't have to be done by regulation,
just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice.
Like many hams, I have a pactor
1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't want to make a bad situation
worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't want to be any part
of more QRM
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -----
Subject:
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list.
However in all cases until the computer calls
and delivers the message with an automated voice it still requires
trained operator at the delivery end.
There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing
to either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of
delivery.
If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF station
or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email
and I can point you in the right direction.
Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/06
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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Hi John, Until recently, I did not even think of going much above 14.095 or so. I have heard a number of Olivia stations above 14.100 this weekend. It may be where I live (north midwest U.S.), but there really are not that many digital signals on the bands (compared to phone and CW anyway). There are almost always some 14.070 PSK stations and then open frequencies from there to 14.100 except for Pactor and RTTY. Sometimes a few "other" modes like Olivia, MFSK16. Even though you can legally do it, I personally do not think it is right to operate in the areas that are intended for automatic operation since they are so small as it is. I used to be supportive of semi-automatic operation outside of that automatic area, but I no longer support that due to the inability of the robot stations to hear a busy channel. I would only support it if the robot station had busy detect software. This has been proven to be possible with my experiences when beta testing the SCAMP mode, so we know it can be done. Over the years there has been a progression with HF networking. In the "old days" the early system was APLink which was an HF BBS system and autoforwarding using AMTOR/Packet. Some of the same people later developed an improved system using Clover II and Pactor I and called it Winlink. They also developed a way to get into e-mail messaging with an intermediate system called Netlink. Eventually they developed a system that dropped the amateur radio HF autoforward part and went to an internet based system for routing and forwarding and called it Winlink 2000. This is a pretty good messaging system for casual use although not a real emergency system that insures operability in case of local or wide spread internet failure. Aplink/Winlink always was as an alternative to the commercial circuits and so was then used for MARS and of course the NTS/D. The irony is that the one Winlink 2000 promoter, who was also a major player for decades with Aplink and Winlink, now claims Winlink is illegally operating due to a fairly minor software glitch. A glitch that could be fixed if they released the source code ... which they won't release. In fact, this same promoter has openly stated that he wished they had put a bomb in the Winlink software so no one else could use it anymore. Needless to say, some of us have said, enough is enough, and distance ourselves from this kind of personal attack against other hams. Any time you have someone who personally attacks what other hams are doing, you have to ask what is the real agenda here. Apparently, he thinks that folks would be forced to use the Winlink 2000 system instead. What is really happening is that others realize the shortcomings and are trying to come up with new software that addresses these limitations and still provides interoperability so that no matter what the conditions, you can still get the message through. Many of us think that is what amateur radio is all about. Some, of course, do not view it that way. By the way, there is the Winlink2000 yahoogroup that does permit open discussion of amateur radio networking as we try and move toward greater interoperability and alternative systems that the ARRL Board of Directors has requested be developed. While very few hams care about building an amateur radio network, there thankfully are a few. There is always the hope that amateur radio will not become totally irrelevant in the coming years. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, but why are we trying to use 14105 to 14110 for > OLIVIA and the other modes then? > > Why are we not down between 14073 and 14080, for example? > > I am not up on the FCC rules, our country's regulations would not > prohibit Olivia and the like in that segment. It doesn't make sense to > beat each > other over the head with QRM and I always thought Winlink was > winlink, not several different versions > > John 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Listen during any rtty test, they go all the way to
14150 (legally).
0
- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:01
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
never hear RTTY there, always just pactor...
and usually P3
- Original Message -
From:
Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:44
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
If you use 14105 - 14110 your going to be
bucking heads with rtty ops. You might read Olivia thru that, but the
rtty ops wont enjoy it.
- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:39
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Excuse my ignorance, but why are we trying to
use 14105 to 14110 for OLIVIA and the other modes then?
Why are we not down between 14073 and 14080,
for example?
I am not up on the FCC rules, our country's
regulations would not prohibit Olivia and the like in that segment. It
doesn't make sense to beat each
other over the head with QRM and I
always thought Winlink was winlink, not several different
versions
John
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006
12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink
Classic program with the Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD
Winlink Classic stations I connect to stay within in the automatic
sub-bands as laid out in FCC regulations, Part 97.221(b). These are:
14095-140995khz and 14100.5-14112khz. In fact, all of the stations I
connect to on 20m are either at 14096khz or 14098khz. Some other
stations may use other frequencies but these are the main
ones.This is different from the Winlink 2000 email group which
has statons on such frequencies as 14065, 14069, 14070, 14105,
14107, and 14109khz. Please note that the frequencies between
14100.5khz and 14112khz *are* designated by the FCC as being for
automatic type operation. So if you want to get involved with
handling NTS messages instead of email messages, getting involved
with the NTSD should not be an interference problem. Just as
a plug - the FCC has put out RM-11305 and RM-11306 out for public
comment. They will both have significant impacts on digital users.
Analyze the proposals carefully and MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FCC. Make
your analyses carefully, some impacts of the proposals could
actually result in more interference to digital operations instead
of less. tim ab0wrOn Saturday 14 January 2006 16:45,
John Bradley wrote:> I would like to point out that Dave Struebel
and the Winlink Group are> responsible for most of the QRM we
enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink> stations, especially around
14105 to 14110.>> If Winlink, rather than spreading
themselves out all over the band, were to> confine their
operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and> below
14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating>
room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This
doesn't> have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's
agreement would suffice.>> Like many hams, I have a pactor
1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't want> to make a bad
situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't> want
to be any part of more QRM>> John>
VE5MU>>> ----- Original Message
-> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic
handling and digital>>> Winlink 2000
has solutions to many of the requirements that you list.> However
in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message
with> an automated voice it still requires trained operator at
the delivery end.> There is an active NTS digital network but
lacking in stations willing to> either draw the traffic off
manaully or pass it on to other means of> delivery. If anyone is
interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF> station or as
a keyboarder to remov
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
never hear RTTY there, always just pactor...
and usually P3
- Original Message -
From:
Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:44
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
If you use 14105 - 14110 your going to be bucking
heads with rtty ops. You might read Olivia thru that, but the rtty ops
wont enjoy it.
- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:39
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Excuse my ignorance, but why are we trying to
use 14105 to 14110 for OLIVIA and the other modes then?
Why are we not down between 14073 and 14080,
for example?
I am not up on the FCC rules, our country's
regulations would not prohibit Olivia and the like in that segment. It
doesn't make sense to beat each
other over the head with QRM and I
always thought Winlink was winlink, not several different
versions
John
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:34
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink
Classic program with the Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD
Winlink Classic stations I connect to stay within in the automatic
sub-bands as laid out in FCC regulations, Part 97.221(b). These are:
14095-140995khz and 14100.5-14112khz. In fact, all of the stations I
connect to on 20m are either at 14096khz or 14098khz. Some other
stations may use other frequencies but these are the main
ones.This is different from the Winlink 2000 email group which has
statons on such frequencies as 14065, 14069, 14070, 14105, 14107, and
14109khz. Please note that the frequencies between 14100.5khz and
14112khz *are* designated by the FCC as being for automatic type
operation. So if you want to get involved with handling NTS
messages instead of email messages, getting involved with the NTSD
should not be an interference problem. Just as a plug - the
FCC has put out RM-11305 and RM-11306 out for public comment. They
will both have significant impacts on digital users. Analyze the
proposals carefully and MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FCC. Make your analyses
carefully, some impacts of the proposals could actually result in more
interference to digital operations instead of less. tim
ab0wrOn Saturday 14 January 2006 16:45, John Bradley
wrote:> I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the
Winlink Group are> responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF
from unattended Winlink> stations, especially around 14105 to
14110.>> If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out
all over the band, were to> confine their operations to a narrower
segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and> below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA
and other similar modes some operating> room, then it might be
worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't> have to be
done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would
suffice.>> Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting
doing nothing, but don't want> to make a bad situation worse .
Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't> want to be any part of
more QRM>> John> VE5MU>>> -
Original Message -> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS
and traffic handling and digital>>>
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you
list.> However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers
the message with> an automated voice it still requires trained
operator at the delivery end.> There is an active NTS digital
network but lacking in stations willing to> either draw the traffic
off manaully or pass it on to other means of> delivery. If anyone
is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF> station or as
a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can> point
you in the right direction.>> Dave Struebel
WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release
Date: 1/14/06
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date:
1/14/2006
No
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
At 08:44 PM 1/15/06, you wrote: >If you use 14105 - 14110 your going to be bucking heads with rtty >ops. You might read Olivia thru that, but the rtty ops wont enjoy it. Most if not all RTTY operations is going to be between 14,080 - 85 to about 14,098. Of course we all should know that 14,100 is a beacon freq and above that you will find automatic packet BBS's to 14,112 In my 35 years of RTTY I have never goon above 14,100. John W0JAB 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
If you use 14105 - 14110 your going to be bucking
heads with rtty ops. You might read Olivia thru that, but the rtty ops
wont enjoy it.
- Original Message -
From:
John
Bradley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:39
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Excuse my ignorance, but why are we trying to use
14105 to 14110 for OLIVIA and the other modes then?
Why are we not down between 14073 and 14080, for
example?
I am not up on the FCC rules, our country's
regulations would not prohibit Olivia and the like in that segment. It doesn't
make sense to beat each
other over the head with QRM and I always
thought Winlink was winlink, not several different versions
John
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:34
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink Classic
program with the Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD Winlink
Classic stations I connect to stay within in the automatic sub-bands as
laid out in FCC regulations, Part 97.221(b). These are: 14095-140995khz
and 14100.5-14112khz. In fact, all of the stations I connect to on 20m
are either at 14096khz or 14098khz. Some other stations may use other
frequencies but these are the main ones.This is different from the
Winlink 2000 email group which has statons on such frequencies as 14065,
14069, 14070, 14105, 14107, and 14109khz. Please note that the
frequencies between 14100.5khz and 14112khz *are* designated by the FCC
as being for automatic type operation. So if you want to get
involved with handling NTS messages instead of email messages, getting
involved with the NTSD should not be an interference problem.
Just as a plug - the FCC has put out RM-11305 and RM-11306 out for
public comment. They will both have significant impacts on digital
users. Analyze the proposals carefully and MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FCC.
Make your analyses carefully, some impacts of the proposals could
actually result in more interference to digital operations instead of
less. tim ab0wrOn Saturday 14 January 2006 16:45, John
Bradley wrote:> I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the
Winlink Group are> responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF
from unattended Winlink> stations, especially around 14105 to
14110.>> If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all
over the band, were to> confine their operations to a narrower
segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and> below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA and
other similar modes some operating> room, then it might be worthwhile
getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't> have to be done by
regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice.>> Like
many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't
want> to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's
act, I don't> want to be any part of more QRM>>
John> VE5MU>>> ----- Original Message
-> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic
handling and digital>>> Winlink 2000 has
solutions to many of the requirements that you list.> However in all
cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with> an
automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery
end.> There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations
willing to> either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to
other means of> delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD
either as a digital HF> station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic
drop me an email and I can> point you in the right
direction.>> Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area
Digital Cordinator- NTSD
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date:
1/14/06
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date:
1/14/2006
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
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Excuse my ignorance, but why are we trying to use 14105 to 14110 for OLIVIA and the other modes then? Why are we not down between 14073 and 14080, for example? I am not up on the FCC rules, our country's regulations would not prohibit Olivia and the like in that segment. It doesn't make sense to beat each other over the head with QRM and I always thought Winlink was winlink, not several different versions John - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink Classic program with the Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD Winlink Classic stations I connect to stay within in the automatic sub-bands as laid out in FCC regulations, Part 97.221(b). These are: 14095-140995khz and 14100.5-14112khz. In fact, all of the stations I connect to on 20m are either at 14096khz or 14098khz. Some other stations may use other frequencies but these are the main ones.This is different from the Winlink 2000 email group which has statons on such frequencies as 14065, 14069, 14070, 14105, 14107, and 14109khz. Please note that the frequencies between 14100.5khz and 14112khz *are* designated by the FCC as being for automatic type operation. So if you want to get involved with handling NTS messages instead of email messages, getting involved with the NTSD should not be an interference problem. Just as a plug - the FCC has put out RM-11305 and RM-11306 out for public comment. They will both have significant impacts on digital users. Analyze the proposals carefully and MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FCC. Make your analyses carefully, some impacts of the proposals could actually result in more interference to digital operations instead of less. tim ab0wrOn Saturday 14 January 2006 16:45, John Bradley wrote:> I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group are> responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink> stations, especially around 14105 to 14110.>> If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, were to> confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and> below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating> room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't> have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice.>> Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't want> to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't> want to be any part of more QRM>> John> VE5MU>>> ----- Original Message -> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital>>> Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list.> However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with> an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end.> There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to> either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of> delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF> station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can> point you in the right direction.>> Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/06 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
14.096Mhz and 14.098Mhz tim ab0wr On Sunday 15 January 2006 19:04, John Bradley wrote: > and where might those frequencies be? > - Original Message - > From: David Struebel > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:58 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital > > > John, > > You are grossly misinformed. The Winlink stations on the frequecies you > list are Winlink 2000 stations handling e mail messages. NTSD operates > almost exclusively in the small automatic control band segments. > > Dave WB2FTX > > John Bradley wrote: > > I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group are > responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink > stations, especially around 14105 to 14110. > > If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, > were to confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, > and below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating > room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't > have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice. > > Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't > want to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I > don't want to be any part of more QRM > > John > VE5MU > > > - Original Message - > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital > > > Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list. > However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with > an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end. > There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to > either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of > delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF > station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can > point you in the right direction. > > Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD > > > > > 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 > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > --- >--- > > > > > --- >--- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/06 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
and where might those frequencies be?
- Original Message -
From:
David
Struebel
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:58
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and
traffic handling and digital
John,You are grossly misinformed. The Winlink stations
on the frequecies you list are Winlink 2000 stations handling e mail
messages.NTSD operates almost exclusively in the small automatic control
band segments.Dave WB2FTXJohn Bradley wrote:
I would like to point out that Dave Struebel
and the Winlink Group are responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on
HF from unattended Winlink
stations, especially around 14105 to 14110.
If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves
out all over the band, were to confine their operations to a narrower
segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and below
14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar
modes some operating room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with
NTSD. This doesn't have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's
agreement would suffice.
Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting
doing nothing, but don't want to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink
cleans up it's act, I don't want to be any part of more QRM
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
Subject:
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that
you list. However in all cases until the computer callsand delivers
the message with an automated voice it still requires trained operator at
the delivery end.There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in
stations willing to either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to
other means of delivery.If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either
as a digital HF station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an
emailand I can point you in the right direction.Dave Struebel
WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date:
1/14/06
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)
SPONSORED LINKS
Ham radio
Craft hobby
Hobby and craft supply
Icom ham radio
Yaesu ham radio
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Please do not confuse the NTSD using the Winlink Classic program with the Winlink 2000 email system. All of the NTSD Winlink Classic stations I connect to stay within in the automatic sub-bands as laid out in FCC regulations, Part 97.221(b). These are: 14095-140995khz and 14100.5-14112khz. In fact, all of the stations I connect to on 20m are either at 14096khz or 14098khz. Some other stations may use other frequencies but these are the main ones. This is different from the Winlink 2000 email group which has statons on such frequencies as 14065, 14069, 14070, 14105, 14107, and 14109khz. Please note that the frequencies between 14100.5khz and 14112khz *are* designated by the FCC as being for automatic type operation. So if you want to get involved with handling NTS messages instead of email messages, getting involved with the NTSD should not be an interference problem. Just as a plug - the FCC has put out RM-11305 and RM-11306 out for public comment. They will both have significant impacts on digital users. Analyze the proposals carefully and MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FCC. Make your analyses carefully, some impacts of the proposals could actually result in more interference to digital operations instead of less. tim ab0wr On Saturday 14 January 2006 16:45, John Bradley wrote: > I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group are > responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink > stations, especially around 14105 to 14110. > > If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, were to > confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and > below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating > room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't > have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice. > > Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't want > to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't > want to be any part of more QRM > > John > VE5MU > > > ----- Original Message - > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital > > > Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list. > However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with > an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end. > There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to > either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of > delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF > station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can > point you in the right direction. > > Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
John, You are grossly misinformed. The Winlink stations on the frequecies you list are Winlink 2000 stations handling e mail messages. NTSD operates almost exclusively in the small automatic control band segments. Dave WB2FTX John Bradley wrote: I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group are responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink stations, especially around 14105 to 14110. If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, were to confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice. Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't want to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't want to be any part of more QRM John VE5MU - Original Message ----- Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list. However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end. There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can point you in the right direction. Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
nope.. i use it to call CQ every 6 months hi hi - Original Message - From: Chuck Mayfield To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital John,Wanna sell it?ChuckAA5JAt 04:45 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote:>I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group >are responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink>stations, especially around 14105 to 14110.>>If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, >were to confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to >14080, and below>14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating >room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This >doesn't have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement >would suffice.>>Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but >don't want to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up >it's act, I don't want to be any part of more QRM>>John>VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/06 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
John, Wanna sell it? Chuck AA5J At 04:45 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote: >I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group >are responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink >stations, especially around 14105 to 14110. > >If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, >were to confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to >14080, and below >14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating >room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This >doesn't have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement >would suffice. > >Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but >don't want to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up >it's act, I don't want to be any part of more QRM > >John >VE5MU Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I would like to point out that Dave Struebel and the Winlink Group are responsible for most of the QRM we enjoy on HF from unattended Winlink stations, especially around 14105 to 14110. If Winlink, rather than spreading themselves out all over the band, were to confine their operations to a narrower segment, ie 14072 to 14080, and below 14105, leaving the OLIVIA and other similar modes some operating room, then it might be worthwhile getting involved with NTSD. This doesn't have to be done by regulation, just a gentlemen's agreement would suffice. Like many hams, I have a pactor 1 TNC sitting doing nothing, but don't want to make a bad situation worse . Until Winlink cleans up it's act, I don't want to be any part of more QRM John VE5MU - Original Message - Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list. However in all cases until the computer callsand delivers the message with an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end.There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of delivery.If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an emailand I can point you in the right direction.Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I've got 2 PK-232's here that I haven't used in nearly 20 years. I've been active on the Wisconsin Sideband Nets. Harv, N9AI Washburn, WIOn 1/14/06, David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list. However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end. There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can point you in the right direction. Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD kd4e wrote: It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved atall then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messageswould likely to be rare except out of devastated areasand even then folks are already deploying digital relay stations to quick-up critical Internet access.The need also presumes the absence of cellphone andlandline communications.It seems to me that Ham Radio needs to offer a systemparallel to the Internet that delivers messages to people without access to E-mail or where significant Internetoutages make quick restoration improbable (what thatmeans in terms of a threshold of downtime and ofgeographical distribution is a future discussion). We need a digital message forwarding system, that preferablyincludes the capacity to optionally imbed small images, andthat has built in tracking and redundancy so that we alwaysknow where the message is and if a station or a group of stations are down there is always a way around.It needs to be frequency and mode diversified so that thebest and fastest frequency and mode are automaticallyselected (which may require the dropping of an attached image to use a more simple digital mode in favor of gettingat least the text message through).It needs to be operating system independent (MS Windows,Linux, or Apple Mac) and require no costly and/or proprietary hardware or software.We have an example of cooperative distributed computing here: http://folding.stanford.edu/ so citizens (Hams) may be expectedto figure out a way to do this!Just some thoughts ... 73, doc kd4e The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic handling, but the interest is just not there.The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery.Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the recipient.73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Winlink 2000 has solutions to many of the requirements that you list. However in all cases until the computer calls and delivers the message with an automated voice it still requires trained operator at the delivery end. There is an active NTS digital network but lacking in stations willing to either draw the traffic off manaully or pass it on to other means of delivery. If anyone is interested in joining NTSD either as a digital HF station or as a keyboarder to remove traffic drop me an email and I can point you in the right direction. Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cordinator- NTSD kd4e wrote: It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved at all then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messages would likely to be rare except out of devastated areas and even then folks are already deploying digital relay stations to quick-up critical Internet access. The need also presumes the absence of cellphone and landline communications. It seems to me that Ham Radio needs to offer a system parallel to the Internet that delivers messages to people without access to E-mail or where significant Internet outages make quick restoration improbable (what that means in terms of a threshold of downtime and of geographical distribution is a future discussion). We need a digital message forwarding system, that preferably includes the capacity to optionally imbed small images, and that has built in tracking and redundancy so that we always know where the message is and if a station or a group of stations are down there is always a way around. It needs to be frequency and mode diversified so that the best and fastest frequency and mode are automatically selected (which may require the dropping of an attached image to use a more simple digital mode in favor of getting at least the text message through). It needs to be operating system independent (MS Windows, Linux, or Apple Mac) and require no costly and/or proprietary hardware or software. We have an example of cooperative distributed computing here: http://folding.stanford.edu/ so citizens (Hams) may be expected to figure out a way to do this! Just some thoughts ... 73, doc kd4e The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic handling, but the interest is just not there. The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery. Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the recipient. 73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 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 Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
There is an active digital system in NTS called NTSD employing Winlink software and coverage from area to area. Many NTS operators keyboard into these NTSD stations but the main problem as always is getting the trafic delivered locally. It makes no sense to be able to relay trafic via HF digital but end up having to take it to the manual nets. We are always looking for additional stations to join us either locally or as NTSD stations. All it takes is an HF rig, a computer and a TNC capable of at least Pactor I ( the later versions of the AEA PK-232 will work. If interested please respond via e mail. Dave Struebel WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Cooridinator NTSD Tim Gorman wrote: The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they negotiate agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency shelters, what do they expect? The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's (Nov I think) that they AGREED with the Red Cross decision during Katrina to not let hams collect traffic in Red Cross shelters destined for loved ones from evacuees. As for routine traffic, there are lots of messages that have a reasonable delivery time that can be handled by the NTS. The ARRL needs to get off their duff and start being cheerleaders for this type of operation instead of being only cheerleaders for handling emergency agency operational and logistical traffic. I disagree that the only way this will work for digital is if it can be done on a store-and-forward basis. Your prediction is probably true as long as the ARRL and others continue to cast routine traffic as being unnecessary and a waste of time to handle. Especially in emergency situations, it is being able to get the message delivered that is important, not that it be done within 10 minutes. People waited days to find out about relatives in Katrina. Outgoing welfare traffic from that area could have been sent and delivered by hams much quicker than that. Even routine birthday notices, christmas greetings, and just plain hello's don't require delivery within 10 minutes. And for someone that doesn't remember an email address or even a telephone number, amateur radio still provides a reasonable alternative. psk nets can operate at least as efficiently as the old RTTY nets used to. I suspect they can operate better since it is easier to manage frequencies and to dispatch sender/receiver pairs off-frequency than during the old RTTY nets. The real kicker will be the number of people that are willing to dedicate the time and effort to make such a system work. Even when traffic nets were valid alternatives to the telephone system (e.g. late 50's to early 70's), the percentage of hams that were dedicated to traffic handling, even on a part-time basis, was small. Since digital operation is only about 10% of the total operations today, my guess is that the number of hams willing to make a digital system work will be insignificant. I suspect that if you did a survey on this list you would get no more than 1 or 2 people interested in doing routine traffic handling no matter how important the traffic is. Tim ab0wr On Monday 09 January 2006 15:17, williams wrote: (excerpts follow:) Because the need for NTS traffic became less and less about 20 years ago, I finally decided that it was not worth the effort required and only occasionally participated. Today the NTS traffic handles even less traffic and we have seen that even during severe emergencies in recent time, has almost no traffic flowing anymore. I know that even the ARRL folks are shocked at what has happened. The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic handling, but the interest is just not there. The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery. Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the recipient. 73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://grou
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I would be much more interested to learn what the Chinese
are up to in communications as they rush to build their
massive military bent on imperialistic conquest.
Are they relying only on satellites or are they, like the
Russian military, building redundant systems?
What I am seeing would make for a good Tom Clancy novel
where the most powerful military force on the earth is
suddenly and predictably neutered and lesser forces are
able to blackmail and/or annihalate the suddenly helpless
technology-dependent forces of the USA.
Perhaps Hams need to once again demonstrate the reliability
of alternative methods and to build a network upon which
at least some emergency communications may rely when the
ones they imagine to be reliable fail, again.
Not sure how we can help with the hyper-dependency of
the newest fighter jets and others on computers and
satellites. Don't know if they may even be flown if
EMP weapons take out their computers and/or the key
satellites are disabled. They could become billion
dollar relics in a moment and they will soon be replacing
less vulnerable craft.
Sigh ... well, it is a hobby so I suppose we can only
do what we can do and then nag our elected reps to take
a closer look at the rest!
doc
> Currently (according to my source(s)...U.S. and foreign contractors working
> for the DoD), Russia is using high-speed, robust digital modes on HF in
> addition to satellite communications. They are running at least 19.2 Kbps
> user throughput on 12 or 16 KHz channels and their modes will work down
> around -5 dB SNR with 99.9% accuracy. Also it is worth noting that they are
> using NVIS antennas even on their mobile units. Their basic base/portable
> NVIS antennas are not much more than multi-wire inverted Vs about 20 ft
> above ground with a number radials/counter-poise. One of their most popular
> lower throughput modems is a 96(?) tone OFDM type modem running in an 8 KHz
> channel width.
> Walt/K5YFW
--
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216
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/
RE: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Title: RE: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Currently (according to my source(s)...U.S. and foreign contractors working for the DoD), Russia is using high-speed, robust digital modes on HF in addition to satellite communications. They are running at least 19.2 Kbps user throughput on 12 or 16 KHz channels and their modes will work down around -5 dB SNR with 99.9% accuracy. Also it is worth noting that they are using NVIS antennas even on their mobile units. Their basic base/portable NVIS antennas are not much more than multi-wire inverted Vs about 20 ft above ground with a number radials/counter-poise. One of their most popular lower throughput modems is a 96(?) tone OFDM type modem running in an 8 KHz channel width. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of LELAND ZANTESON Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:58 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Correct on the vulnerability of satellites. The Soviet military has relied on CW and one time pads for secure, simple and reliable communications. However it does cause one to be succinct. Lee W6FPO LELAND ZANTESON [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
very - Original Message - From: LELAND ZANTESON To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital Correct on the vulnerability of satellites. The Soviet military has relied on CW and one time pads for secure, simple and reliable communications. However it does cause one to be succinct. Lee W6FPO LELAND ZANTESON [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/227 - Release Date: 1/11/2006 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Correct on the vulnerability of satellites. The Soviet military has relied on CW and one time pads for secure, simple and reliable communications. However it does cause one to be succinct. Lee W6FPO LELAND ZANTESON [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Icom ham radio Yaesu ham radio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
It is a pet peeve that our defense establishment is so
dependent on satellites.
The communist-fascist regime that has mainland China
enslaved and is building a massive military machine with
WalMart (etc) dollars has been building satellite-killer
technology for years.
Were comets, heavy smoke, Chinese sabotage, and/or jamming
to significantly impair satellite access we would be rendered
weak and blind.
I have used the SkyAngel satellite TV system and can testify
first-hand how easily it is messed with by mere common weather
patterns.
So yes, I do not believe that the evidence supports the contention
that solitary dependence upon satellite internet is a wise
mission-critical decision.
IMHO, YMMV ... doc
> Why do you say that satellite internet is not mission-critical reliable? It
> is what 90% of the military communications use.
>
> Of course if it fails, then there is always HF but should satellite internet
> fail, then the roll of HF will not be used in its traditional roll...it
> would be more used for liaison between first responders.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
--
~~
A blessed New Year to all!
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
30-70% Off Christian Books, CD's, DVD's, etc.
http://edenacres.bibleseven.com/b2i/b2i-index.html
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
/\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ } Sent from
( * Puppy Linux
() http://www.goosee.com/puppy
~
/ / / /
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216
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/
RE: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Title: RE: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Why do you say that satellite internet is not mission-critical reliable? It is what 90% of the military communications use.
Of course if it fails, then there is always HF but should satellite internet fail, then the roll of HF will not be used in its traditional roll...it would be more used for liaison between first responders.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of kd4e
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:00 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Satellite internet is not mission-critical reliable.
It could be disasterously foolish to design a solitary
dependency on such a non-redundant system, same as the
prior foolishness of "we have cell phones, we don't
need Ham radio".
This is not to say that ill-informed decisionmakers
brainwashed by high priced salesmen won't repeat the
errors of the past.
Does it occur to anyone as a lesson to be learned
that dependency on sensitive technologies like satellite
phones, cellphones, and complex Motorola/Ericsson/etc
systems which are typically first to fail and slow to
restore?
Sigh. doc
> Truthfully, the satellite internet communications connections cost less per
> year than one HF rig and even over three years cost less than the equipment
> required to run W2K or like systems...and the speed is much greater.
>
> Therefore, I believe the organization will be moving away from using amateur
> radio all together in the future.
--
~~
A blessed New Year to all!
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
30-70% Off Christian Books, CD's, DVD's, etc.
http://edenacres.bibleseven.com/b2i/b2i-index.html
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/ \ {|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| | |
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
/\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ } Sent from
( * Puppy Linux
( ) http://www.goosee.com/puppy
~
/ / / /
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216
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/
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
SPONSORED LINKS
Ham radio
Craft hobby
Hobby and craft supply
Icom ham radio
Yaesu ham radio
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Satellite internet is not mission-critical reliable.
It could be disasterously foolish to design a solitary
dependency on such a non-redundant system, same as the
prior foolishness of "we have cell phones, we don't
need Ham radio".
This is not to say that ill-informed decisionmakers
brainwashed by high priced salesmen won't repeat the
errors of the past.
Does it occur to anyone as a lesson to be learned
that dependency on sensitive technologies like satellite
phones, cellphones, and complex Motorola/Ericsson/etc
systems which are typically first to fail and slow to
restore?
Sigh. doc
> Truthfully, the satellite internet communications connections cost less per
> year than one HF rig and even over three years cost less than the equipment
> required to run W2K or like systems...and the speed is much greater.
>
> Therefore, I believe the organization will be moving away from using amateur
> radio all together in the future.
--
~~
A blessed New Year to all!
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
30-70% Off Christian Books, CD's, DVD's, etc.
http://edenacres.bibleseven.com/b2i/b2i-index.html
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
/\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ } Sent from
( * Puppy Linux
() http://www.goosee.com/puppy
~
/ / / /
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.213.216
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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I don't want to belabor this too much. I wrote a volume about it to my Director - never heard a single word back from anyone. Just let it be known that if an EMT ever said "I'm not going to treat anyone if I can't treat everyone!" he would be fired on the spot. The ARC didn't refuse to set up shelters even though they couldn't take care of everyone. That sounds pretty unfair to the ones they couldn't take care of! That alone should tell you that their logic was faulty. They applied one set of rules to the amateur service handling H&W traffic and another set of rules to themselves concerning provision of help to the evacuees. Since MOST of the evacuees were housed in shelters run by the ARC, it is no wonder that no H&W traffic came out of the area. The hams that lived in the area were busy with logistical and tactical communications for the agencies. The ARC wouldn't let out-of-area hams come in to offer to handle H&W. I still say it is the ARRL's fault for putting such a low priority on H&W traffic over the past twenty years - as is well documented in the MOU's they have negotiated. If the ARRL would put as much emphasis on handling H&W traffic and on developing systems using digimodes to handle the H&W traffic as they do on developing parallel backup links for common carrier infrastructure, the situation would be different. tim ab0wr On Monday 09 January 2006 19:59, KV9U wrote: > Tim, > > While I agree with much of what you say, I did not get the same > impression from the QST comments about not providing H&W traffic. > > My understanding was that this was a ARC decision so that it would be > more "fair" for everyone since not all shelters had equivalent radio > communications available. By denying everyone the service, no one had a > more favorable situation. > > Personally, I can not understand their logic which seems convoluted. I > have discussed some of this with at least one ARRL staff member who said > they were very surprised that almost no NTS traffic came out of Katrina > and they did not know what to make of it. I know they are very concerned > about this. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Tim, While I agree with much of what you say, I did not get the same impression from the QST comments about not providing H&W traffic. My understanding was that this was a ARC decision so that it would be more "fair" for everyone since not all shelters had equivalent radio communications available. By denying everyone the service, no one had a more favorable situation. Personally, I can not understand their logic which seems convoluted. I have discussed some of this with at least one ARRL staff member who said they were very surprised that almost no NTS traffic came out of Katrina and they did not know what to make of it. I know they are very concerned about this. 73, Rick, KV9U Tim Gorman wrote: > > The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they > negotiate > agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent > amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency > shelters, what > do they expect? > > The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's (Nov I think) that they > AGREED > with the Red Cross decision during Katrina to not let hams collect > traffic in > Red Cross shelters destined for loved ones from evacuees. > > As for routine traffic, there are lots of messages that have a reasonable > delivery time that can be handled by the NTS. The ARRL needs to get > off their > duff and start being cheerleaders for this type of operation instead > of being > only cheerleaders for handling emergency agency operational and > logistical > traffic. > > I disagree that the only way this will work for digital is if it can > be done > on a store-and-forward basis. Your prediction is probably true as long > as the > ARRL and others continue to cast routine traffic as being unnecessary > and a > waste of time to handle. > > Especially in emergency situations, it is being able to get the message > delivered that is important, not that it be done within 10 minutes. > People > waited days to find out about relatives in Katrina. Outgoing welfare > traffic > from that area could have been sent and delivered by hams much quicker > than > that. > > Even routine birthday notices, christmas greetings, and just plain > hello's > don't require delivery within 10 minutes. And for someone that doesn't > remember an email address or even a telephone number, amateur radio still > provides a reasonable alternative. > > psk nets can operate at least as efficiently as the old RTTY nets used > to. I > suspect they can operate better since it is easier to manage > frequencies and > to dispatch sender/receiver pairs off-frequency than during the old RTTY > nets. > > The real kicker will be the number of people that are willing to > dedicate the > time and effort to make such a system work. Even when traffic nets > were valid > alternatives to the telephone system (e.g. late 50's to early 70's), the > percentage of hams that were dedicated to traffic handling, even on a > part-time basis, was small. Since digital operation is only about 10% > of the > total operations today, my guess is that the number of hams willing to > make a > digital system work will be insignificant. > > I suspect that if you did a survey on this list you would get no more > than 1 > or 2 people interested in doing routine traffic handling no matter how > important the traffic is. > > Tim ab0wr > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Danny, You are correct on what you say. I would be willing to bet right now that the local governments do not have any idea of what we can do for them. I belong to a local ARES club here and I know for a fact that even our EMA office does not know what we can provide for them locally. There is a very large nuclear power plant located in my county and we meet annually with the local, state and federal EMA and go thru a practice with all the state and surrounding counties. We knew as much as 30 minutes before the time they were going to the next phase of the drill. The local people could not figure out how we knew this. We were communicating with the main check point on HF about 150 miles away. We also provide communications for a few local civic groups and they are amazed at how much time and steps it saved them. There is another thing that happens frequently in my area of the country. When we are under a tornado warning the news media will often broadcast that a tornado was spotted by a ham radio operator. Being a ham radio operator does not qualify you to be a storm spotter. Most of our club members are however. JoeW4JSI Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter - Original Message - From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital I really wonder if we are thinking in the same terms anymore. It seems tome that hams need to fill in the space where there exists no othercommunications, much as we have done in the past. Local emergencies such astornados, floods, landslides etc, knock out local communications from thedanger zone, to the rest of the world. Hams quickly fill in by going downtot he rescue squad, firestations, sheriffs offices etc. and are sent out tolocalities where the phones have gone out, or the local communications relaysites have failed. We can report that the river is up 12 feet over floodstate, or that a fire is out of control in so and so woods, and that isneeded by the local authorities so that can take immediate actions. That iswhat happened 9-11 and for many other localized emergencies. We didnt needto go into the red cross system, or to pass initial word about thesituation: after all CNN, ABC,CBS, and too many others to mention, werethere and carried it to the whole world live. We WERE needed though, tosimply get word between emergency services, as their own communications wentdown with the buildings, as did a ham radio repeater or more. We cetainlydidnt need to jump in and send cross country messages on that one.When Katrina hit, widespread communications outages occured. Localcommunications were completely destroyed, and again hams were in there tohelp between those services headquaarters and their outlaying stations ormobile units. Sadly, from many things I have read, the hams were notuniversally used as the local authorities had no idea how to use them, whereto send them, or what they could do. It behoovess amateur radio to workmore closely with local authorities now - before the next such emergency -and let them see us in action, and what we can do for them.If the internet is down, as during a widespread involvement such as Katrina,then yes we can help with long range commmunications, but it should only beto to a point of input to commerical or government link. We do NOT need toreinvent coast to coast communications, Indeed we have neither thefinancial or political backing to do so, nor do we have the incentive sincewe already have the internet to talk with each other. I have done morecommunicating in the past 10 years on the internet than in the 50 yearsprevious to that, 30 of them on ham radio. I sit here in Virginia at 5:42PM, EST writing this. You each will get it within minutes, no matter whereyou are in the world, as long as you have your computer up and connected tothe net. That is unheard of in decades past. I worked in governmenttelecommunications for 29 years and we would have loved to have a 400KBpscircuit like I have here at the house, let alone the T1s or even faster thatare available to some of you townies. Even the 56K dial up is so muchfaster than the two 300 baud rtty circuits I worked with for years. We donot now, nor shall we ever catch up with speed of todays or tomorrowscommercial or govenment links. Its idiotic to think we can, or should.Lets get ham radio back to the basics - provide what we can - where we can -with decent speeds and accuracy, But lets not attempt to be the next MCI.If governments want to buy and set up networks and have we hams come in andoperate them, as trained communicators, that is great, but most of us cannotafford the equipment or networking they will require. Meantime, I
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
I really wonder if we are thinking in the same terms anymore. It seems to me that hams need to fill in the space where there exists no other communications, much as we have done in the past. Local emergencies such as tornados, floods, landslides etc, knock out local communications from the danger zone, to the rest of the world. Hams quickly fill in by going down tot he rescue squad, firestations, sheriffs offices etc. and are sent out to localities where the phones have gone out, or the local communications relay sites have failed. We can report that the river is up 12 feet over flood state, or that a fire is out of control in so and so woods, and that is needed by the local authorities so that can take immediate actions. That is what happened 9-11 and for many other localized emergencies. We didnt need to go into the red cross system, or to pass initial word about the situation: after all CNN, ABC,CBS, and too many others to mention, were there and carried it to the whole world live. We WERE needed though, to simply get word between emergency services, as their own communications went down with the buildings, as did a ham radio repeater or more. We cetainly didnt need to jump in and send cross country messages on that one. When Katrina hit, widespread communications outages occured. Local communications were completely destroyed, and again hams were in there to help between those services headquaarters and their outlaying stations or mobile units. Sadly, from many things I have read, the hams were not universally used as the local authorities had no idea how to use them, where to send them, or what they could do. It behoovess amateur radio to work more closely with local authorities now - before the next such emergency - and let them see us in action, and what we can do for them. If the internet is down, as during a widespread involvement such as Katrina, then yes we can help with long range commmunications, but it should only be to to a point of input to commerical or government link. We do NOT need to reinvent coast to coast communications, Indeed we have neither the financial or political backing to do so, nor do we have the incentive since we already have the internet to talk with each other. I have done more communicating in the past 10 years on the internet than in the 50 years previous to that, 30 of them on ham radio. I sit here in Virginia at 5:42 PM, EST writing this. You each will get it within minutes, no matter where you are in the world, as long as you have your computer up and connected to the net. That is unheard of in decades past. I worked in government telecommunications for 29 years and we would have loved to have a 400KBps circuit like I have here at the house, let alone the T1s or even faster that are available to some of you townies. Even the 56K dial up is so much faster than the two 300 baud rtty circuits I worked with for years. We do not now, nor shall we ever catch up with speed of todays or tomorrows commercial or govenment links. Its idiotic to think we can, or should. Lets get ham radio back to the basics - provide what we can - where we can - with decent speeds and accuracy, But lets not attempt to be the next MCI. If governments want to buy and set up networks and have we hams come in and operate them, as trained communicators, that is great, but most of us cannot afford the equipment or networking they will require. Meantime, I will see you on CW , Digital modes or even SSB, plus if we have more to say, here we are - on email. Danny T - Original Message - From: "kd4e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital > It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved at > all then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messages > would likely to be rare except out of devastated areas > and even then folks are already deploying digital relay > stations to quick-up critical Internet access. > > The need also presumes the absence of cellphone and > landline communications. > > It seems to me that Ham Radio needs to offer a system > parallel to the Internet that delivers messages to people > without access to E-mail or where significant Internet > outages make quick restoration improbable (what that > means in terms of a threshold of downtime and of > geographical distribution is a future discussion). > > We need a digital message forwarding system, that preferably > includes the capacity to optionally imbed small images, and > that has built in tracking and redundancy so that we always > know where the message is and if a station or a group of > stations are down there is always a way around. > > It needs to be frequency and mode diversified so that the > best and fastest frequency and mode are automatically > selected (which may require the dropping of an
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they negotiate agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent amateurs from collecting outgoing message traffic at emergency shelters, what do they expect? The ARRL admitted in one of the latest QST's (Nov I think) that they AGREED with the Red Cross decision during Katrina to not let hams collect traffic in Red Cross shelters destined for loved ones from evacuees. As for routine traffic, there are lots of messages that have a reasonable delivery time that can be handled by the NTS. The ARRL needs to get off their duff and start being cheerleaders for this type of operation instead of being only cheerleaders for handling emergency agency operational and logistical traffic. I disagree that the only way this will work for digital is if it can be done on a store-and-forward basis. Your prediction is probably true as long as the ARRL and others continue to cast routine traffic as being unnecessary and a waste of time to handle. Especially in emergency situations, it is being able to get the message delivered that is important, not that it be done within 10 minutes. People waited days to find out about relatives in Katrina. Outgoing welfare traffic from that area could have been sent and delivered by hams much quicker than that. Even routine birthday notices, christmas greetings, and just plain hello's don't require delivery within 10 minutes. And for someone that doesn't remember an email address or even a telephone number, amateur radio still provides a reasonable alternative. psk nets can operate at least as efficiently as the old RTTY nets used to. I suspect they can operate better since it is easier to manage frequencies and to dispatch sender/receiver pairs off-frequency than during the old RTTY nets. The real kicker will be the number of people that are willing to dedicate the time and effort to make such a system work. Even when traffic nets were valid alternatives to the telephone system (e.g. late 50's to early 70's), the percentage of hams that were dedicated to traffic handling, even on a part-time basis, was small. Since digital operation is only about 10% of the total operations today, my guess is that the number of hams willing to make a digital system work will be insignificant. I suspect that if you did a survey on this list you would get no more than 1 or 2 people interested in doing routine traffic handling no matter how important the traffic is. Tim ab0wr On Monday 09 January 2006 15:17, williams wrote: (excerpts follow:) > > Because the need for NTS traffic became less and less about 20 years > ago, I finally decided that it was not worth the effort required and > only occasionally participated. Today the NTS traffic handles even less > traffic and we have seen that even during severe emergencies in recent > time, has almost no traffic flowing anymore. I know that even the ARRL > folks are shocked at what has happened. > > > The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I > think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most > expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic > handling, but the interest is just not there. > > The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work > for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so > you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all > this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues > holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic > that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. > Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery. > > Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. > We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital > technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages > can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the > recipient. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
It seems to me that if the E-mail system is involved at
all then Ham Radio is mostly irrelevant. Such messages
would likely to be rare except out of devastated areas
and even then folks are already deploying digital relay
stations to quick-up critical Internet access.
The need also presumes the absence of cellphone and
landline communications.
It seems to me that Ham Radio needs to offer a system
parallel to the Internet that delivers messages to people
without access to E-mail or where significant Internet
outages make quick restoration improbable (what that
means in terms of a threshold of downtime and of
geographical distribution is a future discussion).
We need a digital message forwarding system, that preferably
includes the capacity to optionally imbed small images, and
that has built in tracking and redundancy so that we always
know where the message is and if a station or a group of
stations are down there is always a way around.
It needs to be frequency and mode diversified so that the
best and fastest frequency and mode are automatically
selected (which may require the dropping of an attached
image to use a more simple digital mode in favor of getting
at least the text message through).
It needs to be operating system independent (MS Windows,
Linux, or Apple Mac) and require no costly and/or proprietary
hardware or software.
We have an example of cooperative distributed computing here:
http://folding.stanford.edu/ so citizens (Hams) may be expected
to figure out a way to do this!
Just some thoughts ... 73, doc kd4e
> The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I
> think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most
> expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic
> handling, but the interest is just not there.
>
> The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work
> for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so
> you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all
> this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues
> holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic
> that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately.
> Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery.
>
> Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts.
> We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital
> technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages
> can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the
> recipient.
>
> 73, Rick, KV9U
--
~~
A blessed New Year to all!
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
30-70% Off Christian Books, CD's, DVD's, etc.
http://edenacres.bibleseven.com/b2i/b2i-index.html
|_|___|_|
| | & | |
{|
/\ {|
/ \ {|
/\{|
/ @ \ {|
| |~_||
| -| ||
\ # http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
KD4E =
West Central Florida
/\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ } Sent from
( * Puppy Linux
() http://www.goosee.com/puppy
~
/ / / /
~~~
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/
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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
Historically, most the NTS traffic was done via CW. It took more than a generation to get acceptance of BPL (Brass Pounder's League) for non CW voice modes. RTTY digital was used some, but I would have to say that it was always a niche area. For those of us who used to be NCS (Net Control Stations) in the NTS, it became a huge burden to tie up a particular time and day to meet your obligation. Some do it even more than one day a week but may be retired and do it for self fulfillment as a public service. Because the need for NTS traffic became less and less about 20 years ago, I finally decided that it was not worth the effort required and only occasionally participated. Today the NTS traffic handles even less traffic and we have seen that even during severe emergencies in recent time, has almost no traffic flowing anymore. I know that even the ARRL folks are shocked at what has happened. In 25 years, the only really important message I sent was in the last few months to assist the person who wanted to send the message to Alaska after they got hit by a tornado. They did not have an e-mail address so there were few other ways to get a message there other than NTS. I used to handle some moderately important MARS messages a few decades ago, but they were so incompetent in getting messages, names, phone numbers through without garbling that I backed away from this activity when I found tragically flawed people making exceptionally destructive decisions, e.g., hold traffic for days and days if it did not go through "their" circuits. I knew they were on borrowed time and would eventually self destruct. And that is pretty much what has happened. The public now expects messages to be delivered in a reasonable time. I think 24 hours is about the maximum and really that is longer than most expectations. Digital could have had a really huge impact on traffic handling, but the interest is just not there. The only possible way that digital traffic can succeed is if it can work for most hams with easy to use access and be accessible at all times so you don't have to show up for a net. I realize that the downside of all this is the loss of camaraderie which I believe is one of the main glues holding the current CW and voice systems together for now. And traffic that comes in with an e-mail address needs to be dispatched immediately. Ideally, we would also have better ways to insure delivery. Will this ever happen? I used to think so, but have increasing doubts. We may see a different type of activity though with the newer digital technologies such as JNOS2, Winlink 2000, and now PSKmail where messages can be delivered via the net ... if you have an e-mail address for the recipient. 73, Rick, KV9U Tim Gorman wrote: > 9RN used to have a ham active on the NTS-D until he became sick in > 2004. He > passed away early in 2005 and no one has picked it up since then. > > At this point in time I am picking up the 9RN traffic off the NTS-D and > passing it into the 9RN via the CW NTS nets, at least as much as I can. I > generally screen out the broadcast messages because there just isn't > enough > time to pass them all. > > I'm with you. I would have hoped that some younger hams would have > stepped in > to pick this up, especially since it can be done via digital. > > There seems to be a lot of interest in doing the glamour work of handling > emergency agency traffic but little interest in doing the grunt work of > handling traffic for the public. > > tim ab0wr Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ 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/
Re: [digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
9RN used to have a ham active on the NTS-D until he became sick in 2004. He passed away early in 2005 and no one has picked it up since then. At this point in time I am picking up the 9RN traffic off the NTS-D and passing it into the 9RN via the CW NTS nets, at least as much as I can. I generally screen out the broadcast messages because there just isn't enough time to pass them all. I'm with you. I would have hoped that some younger hams would have stepped in to pick this up, especially since it can be done via digital. There seems to be a lot of interest in doing the glamour work of handling emergency agency traffic but little interest in doing the grunt work of handling traffic for the public. tim ab0wr On Sunday 08 January 2006 09:22, williams wrote: > There should not be any difficulty getting messages into the NTS in most > areas. This fall we had several nearby tornadoes. One about 4 miles from > our QTH and the other about 20 miles. My wife (also a ham) passed on a > message to me that one of the victims wanted sent to Alaska. It went out > a few hours later on one of the NTS nets. > > Most states should have a number of entry points for NTS traffic. Our > state has HF voice nets in the morning, at noon, and late afternoon, > plus a Novice net and later a Slow Speed net on CW later on and then the > higher speed CW nets at 7 pm and 10 pm. > > I would like to see more digital activity, but I have not been able to > find anysection interest at all. In fact, as active as our section is > in traffic handling, we do not even participate in the NTS/D and even > more surprising is that our Region Net does not either. I have never > been able to understand this lack of interest since it would be a way of > getting traffic through under even horrific conditions when even CW can > be iffy. And that assumes you have enough competent CW operators and > from what I have heard, the pool is shrinking. > > Perhaps I was naive, but I really thought that as the older hams became > silent keys, the newer hams who may not be as interested in CW, would be > more interested in digital traffic. One of the attractions for nets > though is the camaraderie you have on voice and even CW and which > doesn't seem to come across quite the same way on digital modes which > are more "arms length" or distant. But unlike conventional nets that > require real time participation, digital nets should have a real > advantage if they time shifted by the use of mail box systems. The > Winlink 2000 system can do some of this but of course it is really not > amateur radio for the bulk of the system and there is no guarantee that > it can remain operational during wide spread emergencies. Having a > serious, decentralized network would go a long ways to making amateur > radio relevant again for this kind of messaging. > > With the advent of a number of new digital technologies this past year, > particularly PSKmail and JNOS2, maybe someday we could see some kind of > ham digital network develop. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > John Becker wrote: > > This is true Dave *IF* you can get one of them onto > > the NTS circuit. > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > 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://208.15.25.196/ 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/
[digitalradio] NTS and traffic handling and digital
There should not be any difficulty getting messages into the NTS in most areas. This fall we had several nearby tornadoes. One about 4 miles from our QTH and the other about 20 miles. My wife (also a ham) passed on a message to me that one of the victims wanted sent to Alaska. It went out a few hours later on one of the NTS nets. Most states should have a number of entry points for NTS traffic. Our state has HF voice nets in the morning, at noon, and late afternoon, plus a Novice net and later a Slow Speed net on CW later on and then the higher speed CW nets at 7 pm and 10 pm. I would like to see more digital activity, but I have not been able to find anysection interest at all. In fact, as active as our section is in traffic handling, we do not even participate in the NTS/D and even more surprising is that our Region Net does not either. I have never been able to understand this lack of interest since it would be a way of getting traffic through under even horrific conditions when even CW can be iffy. And that assumes you have enough competent CW operators and from what I have heard, the pool is shrinking. Perhaps I was naive, but I really thought that as the older hams became silent keys, the newer hams who may not be as interested in CW, would be more interested in digital traffic. One of the attractions for nets though is the camaraderie you have on voice and even CW and which doesn't seem to come across quite the same way on digital modes which are more "arms length" or distant. But unlike conventional nets that require real time participation, digital nets should have a real advantage if they time shifted by the use of mail box systems. The Winlink 2000 system can do some of this but of course it is really not amateur radio for the bulk of the system and there is no guarantee that it can remain operational during wide spread emergencies. Having a serious, decentralized network would go a long ways to making amateur radio relevant again for this kind of messaging. With the advent of a number of new digital technologies this past year, particularly PSKmail and JNOS2, maybe someday we could see some kind of ham digital network develop. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: > This is true Dave *IF* you can get one of them onto > the NTS circuit. > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ 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/
