[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Dave, Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. The WINMOR busy detector hasn't yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I'll talk to him about this and when we might be able to do that. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Rick Muething rmueth...@cfl.rr.com wrote: Dave, Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. The WINMOR busy detector hasn’t yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I’ll talk to him about this and when we might be able to do that. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB That could be the development of the year. Andy K3UK http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Vic Poor' Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Dave, Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. The WINMOR busy detector hasn't yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I'll talk to him about this and when we might be able to do that. Rick and Vick, that would be a huge positive step. If there is any way I can help with this, please let me know. 73, Dave, AA6YQ .
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
All, I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might add some balance to put forth some facts and observations. 1) The majority of WL2K users are not 30 day wonder hams on expensive yachts. Marine mobile users are probably 20% of all registered WL2K users (about 15,000 total current active users). 2) Those that are Marine Mobile have (on average) the same radio skills as the average ham.some much better. Getting digital radio to work at all on a small sailboat (most MM users are not wealthy and have yachts of 35 feet) when you are sitting in a plastic boat inside the antenna near field is a challenge. I have seen and helped set up over 100 such installations. 3) Certainly there are a number of operators that fail to listen first or don't use the tools and procedures recommended to connect. E.g. AirMail limits the calling cycle to normally 20 seconds for most stations. Unfortunately bad operators and procedures exist in ham radio in every mode. 4) Marinas by and large don't do or sell radio installations (I have NEVER seen even one). They sell GAS/Diesel, dockage, supplies, beer and bait. In fact most marine radio service companies have minimal experience with ham radios or HF digital modes. 5) Scanning has been used in the past to improve the utilization of HF Pactor server stations but can be an issue. Pactor has some but limited busy channel detection capability. WL2K is now looking at and testing alternatives to the conventional scanning used in Pactor. The new WINMOR protocol allows more options and experimentation. a. RMS WINMOR server stations [Beta operation started in January 2010] operate on ONE frequency which can be changed (on the hour) during the day (most use 1 - 3 frequencies over a 24 hour day). The frequency list clients use indicate which frequency is in use on which UTC hour. The client software (RMS Express) shows users ONLY those frequencies in current use along with the propagation prediction to the remote server stations. Users can refresh their server station list over the air or over the internet if available. b. WINMOR uses an effective channel busy detector to warn users if a channel appears busy in the bandwidth of interest. The detector isn't perfect (neither is the human ear!) but it can detect most modes even in weak conditions (SSB, CW, PSK, Pactor, Olivia, WINMOR etc). c. The RMS WINMOR stations (servers) also have a similar DSP based detector which can block a reply to a connect request. This will prevent for example answering a connect request over an existing session/QSO not audible to the station originating the connect request (hidden transmitter situation). We're still experimenting and refining this but it definitely helps avoid accidental interference. To summarize: Painting all Winlink users with a broad brush of wealthy yachties with limited radio skills is no where near the truth and is an obvious attempt distort the facts to promote some agenda. If given the flexibility to work on and experiment with these digital modes it is possible to address issues and make progress improving our hobby. If we try and legislate every detail we end up generating rules or band plans that become obsolete quickly. This discourages experimentation (I still hope that is part of our hobby.) and progress. I don't have the time to get into flame wars or extended blogging ..If you have a legitimate technical question on WINMOR or a question about WL2K I will try and answer it with accurate facts. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Thanks, Rick. I have suggested in the past that your SCAMP/WINMOR channel busy detector could be inexpensively back-fit into WinLink PMBOs. Has anyone taken a look at this? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection All, I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might add some balance to put forth some facts and observations. 1) The majority of WL2K users are not 30 day wonder hams on expensive yachts. Marine mobile users are probably 20% of all registered WL2K users (about 15,000 total current active users). 2) Those that are Marine Mobile have (on average) the same radio skills as the average ham.some much better. Getting digital radio to work at all on a small sailboat (most MM users are not wealthy and have yachts of 35 feet) when you are sitting in a plastic boat inside the antenna near field is a challenge. I have seen and helped set up over 100 such installations. 3) Certainly there are a number of operators that fail to listen first or don't use the tools and procedures recommended to connect. E.g. AirMail limits the calling cycle to normally 20 seconds for most stations. Unfortunately bad operators and procedures exist in ham radio in every mode. 4) Marinas by and large don't do or sell radio installations (I have NEVER seen even one). They sell GAS/Diesel, dockage, supplies, beer and bait. In fact most marine radio service companies have minimal experience with ham radios or HF digital modes. 5) Scanning has been used in the past to improve the utilization of HF Pactor server stations but can be an issue. Pactor has some but limited busy channel detection capability. WL2K is now looking at and testing alternatives to the conventional scanning used in Pactor. The new WINMOR protocol allows more options and experimentation. a. RMS WINMOR server stations [Beta operation started in January 2010] operate on ONE frequency which can be changed (on the hour) during the day (most use 1 - 3 frequencies over a 24 hour day). The frequency list clients use indicate which frequency is in use on which UTC hour. The client software (RMS Express) shows users ONLY those frequencies in current use along with the propagation prediction to the remote server stations. Users can refresh their server station list over the air or over the internet if available. b. WINMOR uses an effective channel busy detector to warn users if a channel appears busy in the bandwidth of interest. The detector isn't perfect (neither is the human ear!) but it can detect most modes even in weak conditions (SSB, CW, PSK, Pactor, Olivia, WINMOR etc). c. The RMS WINMOR stations (servers) also have a similar DSP based detector which can block a reply to a connect request. This will prevent for example answering a connect request over an existing session/QSO not audible to the station originating the connect request (hidden transmitter situation). We're still experimenting and refining this but it definitely helps avoid accidental interference. To summarize: Painting all Winlink users with a broad brush of wealthy yachties with limited radio skills is no where near the truth and is an obvious attempt distort the facts to promote some agenda. If given the flexibility to work on and experiment with these digital modes it is possible to address issues and make progress improving our hobby. If we try and legislate every detail we end up generating rules or band plans that become obsolete quickly. This discourages experimentation (I still hope that is part of our hobby.) and progress. I don't have the time to get into flame wars or extended blogging ..If you have a legitimate technical question on WINMOR or a question about WL2K I will try and answer it with accurate facts. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find happy birthday grandma to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP I'll accept Dave and Skip's comments as valid points. BTW, the busy detect does work quite well in Winmor. Simon, I did not have a particular digital mode in mind, I was just exploring the receptivity to the overall concept of unattended operations, if wide was eliminated from the discussion. ANdy K3UK On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- *From:* Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@...] *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Cc:* Dave AA6YQ *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it could continuously reconfigure. And as I said, perfect is the enemy of good (with apologies to Voltaire). A busy detector that is only 80% effective would reduce QRM rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradi digitalradi o...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ k3ukandy@ wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO* end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor. Plus they are at this time in their own little (and I do mean little) part of the band. I do a lot of pactor operating and have a system waiting for traffic that I in turn get on it's way via the WWW. I scan about 12 freq's looking just for that very same type of traffic. Take a look at this map. http://www.winlink.org/userPositions did you notice that EACH and EVERY one has a ham call? Just because *some* don't use the mode does not mean it's a junk mode. And it would *really* be nice if some that did speak up a least operated the mode before bad talking it. So please let's not get this started once again. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri pactor 1,2 3 24/7/365 in the center of fly over country
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
- Original Message - From: kc4cop To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:08 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Your comments about Grandma's birthday indicates that you understand very little concerning traffic handling which has been a part of amateur radio from the very begining and is where the Relay in American Radio Relay League comes from.. The pupose of the yes maybe boring everyday messages is to keep a cadre of trained message handlers for those times when ham radio is called upon to provide communications during disasters and other emergenices when other modes of communication are down or otherwise unavailable, including the World Wide Web. The National Traffic System exists and has operated for many decades in this fashion. A natural extension of this is NTS Digital which indeed does operate automatic message handling systems primarily using Pactor and operates concurrently with the traditional manual NTS at all levels. However NTS Digital for the most part still uses what has become to be called Winlink Classic where almost all of the forwarding is done via RF. Yes we do scan, but Winlink Classic also has a busy frequency detector built into its scanner function. While not perfect it does result in inhibiting many connections when the frequency is busy. Personally I have seen it work upon detecting CW, RTTY, Pactor 1, PSK31 and some other digital modes and even just plain carrier. NTS Digital operates almost exclusively in the very small existing automatical control subbands. Indeed during RTTY contests when many of the activity moves into these autocontrol subbands our traffic handling ability is severely affected due to the busy detectors in the software. How big is this operation?... For March 2010 the NTS Digital system in Eastern Area which comprises most of the East Coast and the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 callsign areas and Eastern Canada handled over 6000 messages via the digital systems. Similar traffic levels are also posted by the other two areas, Central and Pacific covering the rest of the US and Canada Dave WB2FTX Easten Area Digital Coordinator- NTS Digital ARRL --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find happy birthday grandma to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (12) Recent Activity: a.. New Members 4 Visit Your Group http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit) MARKETPLACE Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more. -- Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you. -- Hobbies Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5) of the FCC rules, which states: (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies. Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is no. I don't know whether hams licensed in other countries are subject to equivalent (or even more stringent) regulations against communications which could be furnished through other radio services, but I suspect that the answer is yes, and that the basis for 97.113(a)(5) is to be found in the International Radio Regulations, which all administrations are required by treaty to implement. A documented confirmation or contradiction of my guess would be welcome. 73 DE KW6H, ex-AE6VW, Chris
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. ^^^ Or put them on 11 meters and make some use of that sanitorium. 73 Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
John, I don't know if your comments are directed to me or are in response to my comments on NTS Digital, but NTSD has nothing to do with hams at sea. If you want more information about NTS Digital operations and practices please check this web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/n_t_s_d.htm NTSD is a very very small portion of the automatic systems compared to Winlink 2000 and ALE,,,Again we are still using Winlink Classic, the version developed before Winlink 2000 and Classic does have a busy detector... NTS messages are and have been part of amateur radio for decades and continue in the tradition established early in the 20th century. Dave WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Coordinator NTSD - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode? -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2801 - Release Date: 04/09/10 14:32:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service , because those communications on a regular basis could be easily furnished through those alternative services too. I know, its stupid, but it also carries the same logic as the below example . K7AAT Adding to Skip's remarks, I will point out it is considered almost an indecency among the daily-position-report hams to mention 97.113(a)(5) of the FCC rules, which states: (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. That means that a US-licensed ham violates the FCC regs when s/he regularly transmits vessel position reports, which could be transmitted using the maritime mobile service, over ham frequencies. Not being a lawyer, I am not qualified to say whether a fixed ham station which received those messages and forwards them to a web page is also in violation, though my unqualified guess is no.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Ed G writes: Using your same logic below, it could well be determined that hams who partake regularly in 75M evening nets, or even regular QSO, etc, should take their conversations to FCC Part D Citizen's band, or other service , because those communications on a regular basis could be easily furnished through those alternative services too. I know, its stupid, but it also carries the same logic as the below example . K7AAT Ragchews or roundtable nets with other hams could not be reasonably accomplished via another radio service, nor could the authorized purpose of improving international understanding via person-to-person contacts on the radio. (Any ham who is using 80m to work other hams within the reliable range of CB class D probably ought to consider QSY to 144 MHz or above, but that is wandering pretty far off the topic of this thread.) Daily vessel position reports, on the other hand, ARE done via the Maritime Mobile Radio Service, so obviously they CAN BE. For exchanges of email messages between yachts at sea and non-hams ashore via MM frequencies, see http://www.sailmail.com for a non-profit connection. I believe that for-profit public coast stations offer such services as well. 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW), Chris
[digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Andy, The issue for me has less to do with bandwidth than operating methodology. The same problems exist independent of bandwidth; although wider bandwidth modes certainly exasperate the situation. I agree that Winlink servers scanning multiple frequencies is a poor use of limited frequency allocations. Regardless of the mode and/or bandwidth, the issue appears to be that of transmitting on a frequency already in use. While manual operators certainly do this, at least the they have control over it; unlike bots with mode specific busy detection or that feature disabled. I would certainly support a narrow bandwidth area *within the existing automatic sub-bands* for automatic operations; but not if it were allocated at the expense of non-automatic users. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Let me drill down on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the wide modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted unattended under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj n9...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ wrote: Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed bandplan is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or advancing the state of art. Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ
