[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Here we go again.. la5vna
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Hear we go again WHAT ? --- radionorway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here we go again.. la5vna __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Sorry to hear about the cancer. One of the nastier banes of human existence. Actually too many hams don't understand the rules and reg concerning these terms. Read the definition of automatic control. On a simplex frequency, how would a remote station exert control over the transmitting station while it is transmitting? The FCC carefully defines what control of an amateur station consists of. They then go on to define control operator and automatic control and what is required for exerting control. There are only two catagories, a live station control operator (either local or remote) and automatic control. That's all there is. Under the definitions, another station CAN NOT control a station unless it exerting commands that can adjust a transmitter. In this case the station is being operated remotely. Consequently, the term semi-automatic control just does not exist! You may define semi-automatic operation in relation to a communication between a station with a control operator and one with automatic control. Similarly, manual operation may have the connotation of a communication between two stations with control operators or full automatic operation to describe a communication between two automatically controlled stations. These would all be legitmate, but semi-automatic control is not a legitimate description under the FCC Part 97 rules. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fail to discern any value in questioning the legitimacy of the commonly used terms to describe direct operator control, semi-automatic control, and full automatic control, they are self-defining and represent the three categories of real-world operation. Their relative legality is a matter for the FCC to clarify, but they certainly do exist, often in actual documented practice though denied by the tiny minority who are misusing them. John, W0JAB -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ham-macguyver/ Ham House 10 Acres For Sale in Florida: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Doc (David?), much of your comments are very good but there is one point I would like to disagree with: the Winlink Development Team is very cooperative with people who want to add support for Linux (and I assume OSX). They have gone so far as to make certain code available. Granted, this is not open source but it is very, very cooperative. I did not intend to imply that they were anti-Linux, just that the fully functional app is only available in a proprietary MS version of windows format. Great news to read that they have made their code available for Linux development, too bad the Pactor folks have been less forthcoming despite early promises otherwise. I remain skeptical as to the widespread adoption of radio-Internet links on already crowded Ham spectrum. Sure would seem better to move such ops to new dedicated spectrum being abandoned by shortwave stations and broadcasting SSB links which have moved to satellite and cable. Perhaps a whole new licensing system for radio-Internet ops who are primarily appliance ops. It could become a new stepping stone from computer geeks to Ham Radio! In my opinion, the automatic operation should continue to be limited on the ham bands until busy detection is implemented. It has been my view that automatic operation might be banned from all Ham bands except perhaps the already channelized and hyper-regulated 60M segment. Or, see previous suggestion re. a new Service on new spectrum. :-) You probably know this already but just in case, there is a package called Mono that allows you to run .NET programs on Linux. It may be possible to run WL2K (the PMBO code) with this tool. Also, there is a Linux version of TelPac. I have not heard of Mono, will have to check that out. I have used WINE, it handles some but not all MS apps under Linux. There are a couple of others as well. Is TelPac a complete or partial implementations? Those of us who want to use Linux will need to help work on those versions. Howard I dream of sufficient coding competence to develop anything! What little I did in the past with BASIC, various macros, and a tiny bit with C, has been lost due to lack of use. Even my HTML and JAVA coding is weak. I love the guys on the Puppy Linux forum who can whip up a chunk of code in a heartbeat and who have woven together a magnificent tiny operating system to which it is really easy to add apps. I am trying to learn the process for making what are called DotPups. -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html Ham QTH: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
It doesn't exist legally but does in function. When a Ham, or the ARRL, flips a switch and begins essentially unattended operation without regard to QRM consequences something mid-way between truly attended-local and/or attended-remote operation and 100% unattended automatic/2-way broadcasting is occuring. This type of operation includes an element of broadcasting as a human is not actively involved in checking for QRM nor in detecting efforts to join the conversation. Perhaps we need a new term because automatic has certain specific meanings and broadcasting is one-way. What is happening is that automatic/2-way broadcasting operations are being mislabeled attended-local and/or attended-remote operation when they are *not* human attended. What shall we label this format of operation we definitely need a proper label so that we may then debate the proper boundaries. The FCC carefully defines what control of an amateur station consists of. They then go on to define control operator and automatic control and what is required for exerting control. There are only two catagories, a live station control operator (either local or remote) and automatic control. That's all there is. Under the definitions, another station CAN NOT control a station unless it exerting commands that can adjust a transmitter. In this case the station is being operated remotely. Consequently, the term semi-automatic control just does not exist! -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html Ham QTH: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
First and foremost, John, let me wish you the very best in your battle with cancer. Know that you're in our thoughts. As for the attachment, it does demonstrate progress. Steve has admitted in writing that the hidden transmitter effect actually exists. Its taken years, but he evidently now gets it. The following quote is particularly revealing: Again, since most of the current operations under local and remote control are using a protocol over 500 Hz, which requires such operations to be placed in very restrictive band segments, the problem is that there is now not much incentive to develop such signal detection techniques for existing or future protocols since there is little band space to use them. In other words, we're not motivated by the need to avoid QRM'ing our fellow amateurs; if you want us to deploy busy frequency detectors, you'll have to bribe us with more band space for semi-automatic operation. Its now clear why the two-year-old SCAMP busy frequency detector has never been incorporated into WinLink servers. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
May I point out that the are not the only ones using Pactor. Many still use it. At 05:21 PM 4/26/2007, you wrote: Most are concerned that the Winlink Robots (all 29 of them) are going to take over the entire Amateur spectrum They shure make a lot of qrm on the bands for only 29 robots
Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
PLEASE! let's not get off on this rant again!! John VE5MU - Original Message - From: John Becker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general May I point out that the are not the only ones using Pactor. Many still use it. At 05:21 PM 4/26/2007, you wrote: Most are concerned that the Winlink Robots (all 29 of them) are going to take over the entire Amateur spectrum They shure make a lot of qrm on the bands for only 29 robots -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007 12:19 PM
[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
Its now clear why the two-year-old SCAMP busy frequency detector has never been incorporated into WinLink servers. How should they do it? One is a soundcard app, the other a proprietary microcontroller box. in the old days, when packet qrm was sometimes a problem we had a robot silencer to wipe a qrg clean. The program was listening to ongoing transfers, noting to, via and from adresses, and the sequence number. Then it would send a short disconnect with spoofed sender and seq.number to the robots. The qrg did always clean-up in a minute. I guess pactor would be sensitive to this type of busy indicator.
[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
I described this in detail in an earlier post, Cesco. The basic idea is to modify the WinLink server to keep the Pactor modem in its reset state when server's frequency is occupied. One must of course allow the modem to accept valid incoming requests, but the state diagram for this is straightforward. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, cesco12342000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its now clear why the two-year-old SCAMP busy frequency detector has never been incorporated into WinLink servers. How should they do it? One is a soundcard app, the other a proprietary microcontroller box. in the old days, when packet qrm was sometimes a problem we had a robot silencer to wipe a qrg clean. The program was listening to ongoing transfers, noting to, via and from adresses, and the sequence number. Then it would send a short disconnect with spoofed sender and seq.number to the robots. The qrg did always clean-up in a minute. I guess pactor would be sensitive to this type of busy indicator.
[digitalradio] Re: the mislead about pactor and winlink in general
John, I am sorry to hear about the cancer and I pray that you be cured soon. Doc (David?), much of your comments are very good but there is one point I would like to disagree with: the Winlink Development Team is very cooperative with people who want to add support for Linux (and I assume OSX). They have gone so far as to make certain code available. Granted, this is not open source but it is very, very cooperative. They have also gone a long way to support MARS usage. WL2K fits MARS much better because of the channelized and controlled frequencies. In my opinion, the automatic operation should continue to be limited on the ham bands until busy detection is implemented. You probably know this already but just in case, there is a package called Mono that allows you to run .NET programs on Linux. It may be possible to run WL2K (the PMBO code) with this tool. Also, there is a Linux version of TelPac. Those of us who want to use Linux will need to help work on those versions. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very sorry to read about the return of your cancer, nasty plague upon humanity that. I have prayed in agreement for God's healing and wisdom for the medical professionals. I was pleased to read your reference to the abuse of common courtesy and voluntary spectrum sharing that occurs during many (most?) contests and what that suggests about the probability of future conflict among users of various modes should the proposal to abandon all boundaries be approved. I have used multiple digital modes in the past and anticipate doing so in the future. When Pactor changed from an open protocol to a costly proprietary one I stopped using it. Winlink has never been an option because I use Linux and Winlink is another proprietary protocol. Considering all of the open source/non- proprietary digital modes neither Pactor II/III or Winlink are necessary to the enjoyment or strategic use of digital modes. However, one does not need to be a drunk to understand that the abuse of alcohol is destructive to the body, nor does one need to operate any specific mode to observe and/or understand the way it is used in the real world. Let's not attempt to narrow legitimate input only to Pactor and Winlink operators. I fail to discern any value in questioning the legitimacy of the commonly used terms to describe direct operator control, semi-automatic control, and full automatic control, they are self-defining and represent the three categories of real-world operation. Their relative legality is a matter for the FCC to clarify, but they certainly do exist, often in actual documented practice though denied by the tiny minority who are misusing them. Unless the FCC budgets a large increase in enforcement resources Amateur Radio will remain a largely self- policing hobby. This means that the FCC must establish clear boundaries, mandatory common-mode identification of all transmissions, and rapid-response resolution of chronic conflicts. In the big picture this is less about digital modes and more about a sensible policy that redirects Hams away from their natural human selfishness and toward more courteous conduct - before the conflicts - not wisely minimized, balloons further out of control. [snip] -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ham-macguyver/ Ham House 10 Acres For Sale in Florida: http://mysite.verizon.net/kd4e/
