RE: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rud Merriam]

I do not do boats much, but prefer not to listen to them, so prefer sailing.


 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:53 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments


Rud Merriam wrote:
>
>  Roger,
>
>  As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is  
> technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is  
> to explore the digital technologies.
>
>  Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there  
> is that, also.
>
>  My license allows me to do this and I intend to do so within the  
> regulations.
>
>  There is one ham's reasons for pursuing my part of this hobby.
>
>  Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX  
> http://TheHamNetwork.net <http://TheHamNetwork.net>

Works for me, friend.  A little experimenting is a good thing.  I like 
messing with radios and messing with boats, and messing around with 
radios on boats.  I'll do my thing and you do yours.  And I'll bet that 
you listen before you transmit, too, which the regulations require of us 
both.

de Roger W6VZV



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rud Merriam wrote:
>
>  Roger,
>
>  As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
>  technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is
>  to explore the digital technologies.
>
>  Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there
>  is that, also.
>
>  My license allows me to do this and I intend to do so within the
>  regulations.
>
>  There is one ham's reasons for pursuing my part of this hobby.
>
>  Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
>  http://TheHamNetwork.net 

Works for me, friend.  A little experimenting is a good thing.  I like 
messing with radios and messing with boats, and messing around with 
radios on boats.  I'll do my thing and you do yours.  And I'll bet that 
you listen before you transmit, too, which the regulations require of us 
both.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Howard Brown]

OK, last comment before cooling off: No more space until automatics 
listen before transmitting.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:59:3:6 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments










  



Different countries have different reasons for the amateur service. 
Some 

consider it a public health issue to have hobbies for their citizens to 

participate in and keep them out of trouble. Since HF signals can easily 

cross political boundaries, one countries rules may not apply for such 

world wide communications.



Even if the U.S. prohibited amateur radio use, the frequencies would 

still often be busy.



Now, the question that I have is when did this 24/7 operation first come 

about? The first I ever heard was from someone claiming that a speaker 

at the GAREC (Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications) Conference 

said that without 24/7 alerting (or some thing to that effect) HF was of 

little value.



Sometimes people make self serving statements in order to try and build 

a solution to a non existent problem. This seems to be one of those times.



I have been waiting for someone to ask some basic questions:



1) What disaster events occur where the disaster is not known to 

governments and NGO's outside of the affected area?



2)What exactly do amateur radio operators do when we receive 

notification that a disaster has begun at some location that is 

different than we have always done in the past?



73,



Rick, KV9U



Rud Merriam wrote:

> Emcomm is a major reason for the US Amateur Radio Service as part of the FCC

> regulations.

>

> Since a disasters do not keep working hours I would say 24/7 operation is

> needed. 

>

>  

> Rud Merriam K5RUD 

> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX

> http://TheHamNetwor k.net

>   




  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rud Merriam]

Roger,

As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is
technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is to
explore the digital technologies. 

Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there is
that, also. 

My license allows me to do this and I intend to do so within the
regulations. 

There is one ham's reasons for pursuing my part of this hobby. 

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:14 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments


Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a 
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery.  This is band 
pollution, about on a par with BPL.

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:54 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:

>Wrong, John.  I own a PTC-II modem.  I have copied Pactor, done Pactor 
>QSOs (practically until I was the last ham in North America trying to 
>use Pactor for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs ... it is as dead as Julius 
>Caesar now, by the way.)  Do you?  Do you even know what you are talking 
>about?

Have you used that modem in the last year?
All - let me say that again - all of my QSO's in the last week has 
either been Pactor RTTY or Amtor. I can't seem to find any HELL
or MT-63 operators.

As far as Julius Caesar. I have first hand information that Elvis and
him was seen at the Seattle Airport on the way to London.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
> > Well John,
> >
> > Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
> >
> > Patrick vk2pn
>
>  And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?
>
>  Just trying to understand why so many "HATE" the mode of pactor.

1.  It habitually involves transmitting without listening first, as 
required by good operating practice and by law.

2.  Because it is spectrum-inefficient. 

3.  Because it involves using precious ham radio spectrum as a cheap 
form of email service.

In the past, when Pactor was used for traditional amateur radio 
purposes, and in accordance with good operating practices (i.e. 
listening first, John) I used Pactor and liked it.  In fact I presently 
own three Pactor TNCs ... a PK232, a Kam (long story, what junk), and a 
PTC-II. 

Hope this helped.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
>Well John,
>
>Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh?
>
>Patrick
>vk2pn

And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different?

Just trying to understand why so many "HATE" the mode 
of pactor.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
> > "Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
> > third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"
>
>  And just why do you think every message passed is email?
>
>  It seems to me you have never copied the traffic. Right?
>
>  John, W0JAB

Wrong, John.  I own a PTC-II modem.  I have copied Pactor, done Pactor 
QSOs (practically until I was the last ham in North America trying to 
use Pactor for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs ... it is as dead as Julius 
Caesar now, by the way.)  Do you?  Do you even know what you are talking 
about?

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[bruce mallon]

--- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"Please detail all the HF frequencies and modes 
your people will be manually monitoring 24/7. 
(This will make big news in the ham community)"

27.185 AM here in Tampabay ...

This is the only active non SSB frequency here ..


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
>"Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
>third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"

And just why do you think every message passed is email?

It seems to me you have never copied the traffic. Right?


John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[F.R. Ashley]

"Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery"

AMEN!  This is what I've been saying/asking all along.   Add to that, 
non-hams using ham frequencies for email.

73 Buddy WB4M 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dan KA3CTQ wrote:
>  I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1%
>  asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a
>  "land grab". Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any
>  examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change.

Exactly right.  I have been a ham for 40 years, and active on digital 
for almost 20.  During this time I have participated in emergency 
communications in the aftermath of earthquakes, and during fires.  
Never, not once, did automated systems make a measurable or significant 
contribution to any emergency communications.  The myth that they do is 
merely cover for them to push forward their agenda.  And that agenda has 
nothing, nada, to do with emergency communications.

Every emergency in my lifetime that involved emergency communications by 
hams was handled by SSB and CW stations, and FM stations, manned by live 
amateurs, usually operating under rough field conditions. 

Unattended Pactor transmitters should not be permitted on HF at all.  
Most or (likely) all that presently operate on HF are illegal because 
they transmit without checking the frequency to see if it is in use.

Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a 
third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery.  This is band 
pollution, about on a par with BPL.

de Roger, W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Mike/k1eg]

- Original Message - 
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments


> expeditionradio wrote:
>
>>  Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm. It is certainly not
>>  asking too much that 10% of each ham band be devoted to one of the
>>  primary purposes for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service.
>>
>>  Greg, where is your volunteer force of non-automatic operators
>>  providing 24/7 emergency service on HF?
>
> I have participated in numerous emergency communications scenarios,
> through several earthquakes and fires.

I have also Roger
>
> Never, not once, was automatic operation even involved in passing
> emergency traffic. 95% of it was done either on HF SSB or FM repeaters
> or simplex for short-range communications.  Mostly the latter.

I totally agree and I'm sick of hearing the Emcomm excuse.  If you listen to 
them
it would sound like we have Emcomm emergencies 24/7/365.  For true
Emcomm which happens rarely there is no need for more than one frequency
if their networking is designed properly and Bonnie should know this as 
well.
>
> Where is the 24/7 volunteer force?  Red Cross, RACES, and other
> "minuteman" style ham volunteer groups.  Not on Winlink.
>
> Automatic operation is mainly a way for boaters and RVers to use the ham
> bands for cheap internet access.  This is not a valid use of our amateur
> spectrum and is probably illegal since most of this traffic is
> business-related.

What is needed is somebody to monitor them and when it's business-related
collect this info and present it to the FCC as a formal complaint. I was 
going to
go the Winlink route until I took a closer look at it and realized it's a 
sham.
>
> de Roger W6VZV
>
Mike K1EG
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1077 - Release Date: 
> 10/18/2007 9:54 AM
>
> 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rud Merriam]

I cannot address the question about 24/7. It just seems obvious to me that
some form of 24/7 capability, if not operation, is needed. 

For 1) I do not understand your question. The disaster is going to be known
but I do not think that is the point. Ham radio often provides the early
communication from the area. 

Let me define a term: Communication disaster - a situation where normal
communication channels are overwhelmed. 

This is useful because it expands the concept to cover situations not
normally considered disasters while focusing on the role of hams. Skip
Teller just mentioned one of the classics of hurricane shelter
communication. 

I have mentioned the space shuttle Columbia in East Texas. Communicating
with cell phone or the commercial radios available to the responders simply
was not possible in the Piney Woods. For the first couple weeks only hams
using repeaters, sometimes portable, were the only means of reaching the
searchers combing the 100s of square miles. 

It also covers situation like the Houston to Austin MS-150 where 13,000
riders pass through a small town and overwhelm the local cell towers. These
are not emergencies the way we usually think of them. They are examples of
communication disasters. In the case of the MS-150 it has the potential for
being an emergency if a batch of riders all get hurt but cell phones do not
work. 

The evacuation of people from the Texas Gulf Coast for hurricane Rita was a
communications disaster. Cell phones were unusable along major stretches of
the Interstates and other corridors. The NGOs organizing shelters could not
communicate with cell phones to coordinate their activities.

None of that is specifically digital communications. The last one and Skip's
hurricane shelter situation both could use digital communications. There are
other examples from Rita that I have provided previously.

For 2), I think part of the pressure for 24/7 is because everyone is now
connected 24/7. Twenty years ago if you had relatives in South Carolina
going through a hurricane you slept at 3 am because nobody was on the TV
giving live reports. Now you can tune to a half-dozen cable channels. The
pressure is on all responders to communicate at that pace. 

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:00 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments


Now, the question that I have is when did this 24/7 operation first come 
about? The first I ever heard was from someone claiming that a speaker 
at the GAREC (Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications) Conference 
said that without 24/7 alerting (or some thing to that effect) HF was of 
little value.

Sometimes people make self serving statements in order to try and build 
a solution to a non existent problem. This seems to be one of those times.

I have been waiting for someone to ask some basic questions:

1) What disaster events occur where the disaster is not known to 
governments and NGO's outside of the affected area?

2)What exactly do amateur radio operators do when we receive 
notification that a disaster has begun at some location that is 
different than we have always done in the past?

73,

Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rick]

Different countries have different reasons for the amateur service. Some 
consider it a public health issue to have hobbies for their citizens to 
participate in and keep them out of trouble. Since HF signals can easily 
cross political boundaries, one countries rules may not apply for such 
world wide communications.

Even if the U.S. prohibited amateur radio use, the frequencies would 
still often be busy.

Now, the question that I have is when did this 24/7 operation first come 
about? The first I ever heard was from someone claiming that a speaker 
at the GAREC (Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications) Conference 
said that without 24/7 alerting (or some thing to that effect) HF was of 
little value.

Sometimes people make self serving statements in order to try and build 
a solution to a non existent problem. This seems to be one of those times.

I have been waiting for someone to ask some basic questions:

1) What disaster events occur where the disaster is not known to 
governments and NGO's outside of the affected area?

2)What exactly do amateur radio operators do when we receive 
notification that a disaster has begun at some location that is 
different than we have always done in the past?

73,

Rick, KV9U







Rud Merriam wrote:
> Emcomm is a major reason for the US Amateur Radio Service as part of the FCC
> regulations.
>
> Since a disasters do not keep working hours I would say 24/7 operation is
> needed. 
>
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Les Warriner]

What planet do you live on?  The CB'ers started a plan called REACT 
which proved to be an excellent program, is very much in use today, 
and to read their plan and the ARRL EMCOM course, it is difficult to 
tell the difference.  Best that you should line your ducks up before 
starting to shoot.


 At 08:57 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote:


Are you telling me that if US Amateurs didn't setup an "amateur
emmcom" then no-one would get a licence ? When was that introduced ? I
worked US amateurs long before this was thought of.

Anyway, even if it is the case, why should it be inflicted on the rest
of the amateur community?

This reminds me of the hoo-ha when the CB'ers started over here in the
70's, they setup an emergency group (can't remember what it was called
now), no-one asked them to do so & it was quite unnecessary, as far as
I know it was never used & died out when the CB'ers faded into
oblivion,but it made them feel important & wanted,poor things, flying
around on their motorbikes or cars with a sign on.

Alan G3VLQ


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1077 - Release Date: 
10/18/2007 9:54 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Alan Tindal]

Are you telling me that if US Amateurs didn't setup an "amateur 
emmcom" then no-one would get a licence ? When was that introduced ? I 
worked US amateurs long before this was thought of.

Anyway, even if it is the case, why should it be inflicted on the rest 
of the amateur community?

This reminds me of the hoo-ha when the CB'ers started over here in the 
70's, they setup an emergency group (can't remember what it was called 
now), no-one asked them to do so & it was quite unnecessary, as far as 
I know it was never used & died out when the CB'ers faded into 
oblivion,but it made them feel important & wanted,poor things, flying 
around on their motorbikes or cars with a sign on.

Alan G3VLQ 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Jose A. Amador]

OK, John. The first compressed BBS software I knew was it. I have not 
read otherwise in my old books. But it is possible to have been existsed 
and not gotten popular.

About what goes first and second, the first loss is already enough...he, 
he...

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> At 11:47 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>> John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>>
>>> ***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
>>> from one BBS to the other.
>> As far as I remember, compression started with FBB 5.13 around 1990.
>> MSYS (1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.
> 
> Not really Jose, There was a young developer in the St. Louis, Missouri
> area who had a WB9 call that was playing with it back then. I just cant
> remember his call but I'm sure Pete, WB9FLW would.
> 
> Then say the memory is the first to go and I can't remember what's 2nd.
> 
> 
> John



__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rud Merriam]

Emcomm is a major reason for the US Amateur Radio Service as part of the FCC
regulations.

Since a disasters do not keep working hours I would say 24/7 operation is
needed. 

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Tindal
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:09 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments


The point is that it is "24/7 emergency comms" is not required or part 
of the amateur service. We over here have RAYNET which is not a 
un-attended automatic operation.


Alan G3VLQ 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Alan Tindal]

The point is that it is "24/7 emergency comms" is not required or part 
of the amateur service. We over here have RAYNET which is not a 
un-attended automatic operation.

>You are welcome to your opinion, but the reality is, that we already
> have 24/7 access communications being provided on HF by automatic
> stations worldwide.

And don't we know it !!

Alan G3VLQ 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 11:47 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>> ***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
>> from one BBS to the other.
>
>As far as I remember, compression started with FBB 5.13 around 1990.
>MSYS (1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.

Not really Jose, There was a young developer in the St. Louis, Missouri
area who had a WB9 call that was playing with it back then. I just cant
remember his call but I'm sure Pete, WB9FLW would.

Then say the memory is the first to go and I can't remember what's 2nd.


John

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
> > Alan G3VLQ wrote: In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic
> > operation should be banned world wide. Automatic operation might be
> > essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm essential, I think not.
>
>  Alan,
>
>  Are you ready, along with all your friends, to personally monitor HF
>  24/7 for emergency communications?
>
>  You are welcome to your opinion, but the reality is, that we already
>  have 24/7 access communications being provided on HF by automatic
>  stations worldwide.

A pleasant little myth--all of these robot stations just standing by to 
respond to emergencies.  This is supposed to justify their constant 
QRMing of human operators when they transmit remorselessly without first 
listening.  It is very possible for a robot station to unknowingly 
(since they do not listen before transmitting) QRM other stations 
carrying emergency traffic.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Alan Tindal]

I entirely agree with you Roger, the "emergency service" is only an 
attempt to justify the automatic operations.
In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic operation should be 
banned world wide. The rest of the world's amateurs shouldn't have to 
suffer this sort of behaviour just for a few.
I have always been under the impression that amateur radio was 
something you did with the radio, not wander off & do the shopping or 
take the dog for a walk while the radio does its own thing.

Automatic operation might be essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm 
essential, I think not.

Alan G3VLQ

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Jose A. Amador]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:

> ***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
> from one BBS to the other.

As far as I remember, compression started with FBB 5.13 around 1990.
MSYS (1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.



> ***So where do you stand on Packet. It's about as slow and wide as 
> well as out dated as it can get..

I used Pactor as "layer 1" of FBB (actually it was a far more profound 
change) and it brought a 10:1 increase in thruput compared to AX.25 and 
Bell 103 tones with no FEC and no memory ARQ or maximum likelyhood 
decoding. The chosen layer 1 format for packet in 1982 is too weak and 
should have been superseded long ago. But no manufacturers besides 
Kantronics showed even a mild interest in changing layer 1 for a better 
one. Only MSYS had possibilities of using GTOR. And GTOR may have not 
been a good choice either, with FSK and minimum 100 baud speed.

Q15X25 could have been a replacement, being an improved format with FEC 
and using BCH codes, but again, it seems that 15 carriers, the speed and 
the modulation format used were too much for 2.4 kHz BW (I believe it is 
not a match to Pactor at all).  It did not achieve the required critical 
mass to become popular, either. It seems that the bad example of AEA 
jumping from the boat in fear of the Internet did a far more profound 
damage to packet radio.


73,

Jose, CO2JA





__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Jose A. Amador]

As Jean Paul Roubelat explains in the FBB docs, the design of FBB B1 
compression had to comply with a requisite from the french authorities, 
by which message headers must be sent in clear text.

But compression gives a measure of efficiency and allow to double the 
traffic or reduce the channel occupancy to at least 50% with the typical 
message text contents. The B1 protocol also allowed Z modem style 
transfers with resume. That is not trivial, since it allows a more 
efficient operation with limited duration band openings.

The Winlink B2 protocol adds the capability to handle RFC-822 headers to 
the B1 protocol. Compression is not encryption. The FBB source is is 
free software under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation.

I wouldn't be too surprised to read one day that the Sureté Francaise 
has been able to read at least the B1 protocol...

FBB also could incorporate message filters that allowed the sysop a 
considerable peace of mind, and it also could hold for inspection all 
bulletins and locally generated messages, if the sysop so wanted.


73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

Rick wrote:

> Of course traffic going through your station has to be read or it would 
> not have a purpose, but one of the "selling points" that the Winlink 
> 2000 folks claimed in the past, was that because of the compression it 
> made it virtually impossible to anyone to monitor the traffic. One other 
> ham claimed to have written a fix for that but then I never heard 
> anything further on that.
> 
> The problem is that some people are using ham radio for commercial 
> purposes when they use e-mail and even if we had a Pactor modem and 
> monitored, we would not be able to determine the traffic content. The 
> Winlink 2000 administrator does some spot checking of traffic, after the 
> fact, and has said that they do find abuses and shut off access for 
> those individuals.
> 
> I suppose what constitutes commercial traffic might vary some from 
> individual to individual, but I would not use it for any business 
> transactions, stock market quotations or buying and selling, that sort 
> of thing. I can see where it would be nice to use for sending messages 
> to relatives and friends if I was traveling, but this can only be 
> available for very few people.
> 
> As you know, I think that we need better, faster, and spectrum 
> conserving sound card modes. But as time goes on, if this was made 
> available, we would likely see an explosion in the use of the automatic 
> servers to support this desire. Ironically, the requirement of Pactor 2 
> and 3, actually drastically limits the number of people who would use 
> the servers. But that could change with very low cost access.
> 
> The one thing that could change with low cost access, is that it also 
> means more low cost monitoring capabilities and as long as there was not 
> some kind of compression scheme that made it impossible to read the 
> mail, then there would be a lot less abuse because those of us who 
> monitor a lot would be able to forward actual text to the FCC for any 
> violators. I expect that there would not be that many with an openly 
> monitored system.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>> in and out of this station yes.
>> Off the air traffic, some but not all.
>> As you may know it's compressed.
>>
>> John, W0JAB



__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rick]

I discontinued VHF packet about 15 years ago when it became obsolete in 
our area. A few people still used it for a while but now the trunk lines 
are gone and while some sites were converted over to APRS, long haul 
traffic is not possible. In the last week I did help a ham a little bit 
in trying get his PK232 on packet, but there is not much he can connect 
with anymore.

I never found HF packet to be useful since Amtor was much better at 
messaging under many conditions. Not that Amtor was so great either. 
Pactor was OK, as was Clover II, but that was when I discontinued all HF 
digital activities until the advent of the sound card modes. It is still 
amazing to me how well these modes work for keyboard contacts, although 
I admit some are very wide considering the throughput.

At the moment, the most spectrum conserving mode seems to be Pactor 2. 
Relatively modest width and reasonable good throughput. The weak signal 
speed and capability is very close to or really the same as Pactor 3, so 
P3 holds minimal advantage when you approach zero dB S/N, which is not 
uncommon on HF.

The fastest ARQ sound card mode is FAE at the moment. Because it uses an 
older 8FSK 125 baud modulation it is  excessively wide for ham use, but 
it was designed to work on fixed channel widths and they filled the 
available space with the best technology trade off at the time. In my 
view, this mode needs to be replaced with something at or less than 500 Hz.

Currently, FAE appears to be faster than Pactor 1, and can work deeper 
into the noise by a couple of dB, but is several times wider. The ARQ 
and the quasi full duplex capability is quite impressive in recent tests 
I have done.

I am open to further testing (hint, hint).

73,

Rick, KV9U




John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
> ***So where do you stand on Packet. It's about as slow and wide as 
> well as out dated as it can get..
>
> But as far as a ARQ sound card mode, the only thing I have seen was 
> a system that only could do 43.7% of what the TNC did.
>
> In other words, sent the traffic went out for lunch and still waited for
> the none TNC system to get done.
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
>  At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>
> > One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do
> > not, for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages
> > that pass on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that
> > some are. I will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect. I
> > was, quite likely, wrong about that and therefore should not have
> > said that.
>
>  Sorry for the bottom post but it's short.
>
>  Again I have *NOT* seen any even on the WinLink internet network.
>
>  Show me.
>
>  John, W0JAB

Per other posts in this thread, evidently even the Winlink people admit 
it, so consider yourself shown.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:23 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>Of course traffic going through your station has to be read or it would 
>not have a purpose, but one of the "selling points" that the Winlink 
>2000 folks claimed in the past, was that because of the compression it 
>made it virtually impossible to anyone to monitor the traffic. 

***In 1984 they started doing the very same thing to Packed traffic
from one BBS to the other.


>The problem is that some people are using ham radio for commercial 
>purposes 

***this may be true, but, as I have said I have not seen it.


>I suppose what constitutes commercial traffic might vary some from 
>individual to individual, but I would not use it for any business 
*** Nor would I.


>transactions, stock market quotations or buying and selling, that sort 
>of thing. I can see where it would be nice to use for sending messages 
>to relatives and friends if I was traveling, but this can only be 
>available for very few people.
>
>As you know, I think that we need better, faster, and spectrum 
>conserving sound card modes. 

***So where do you stand on Packet. It's about as slow and wide as 
well as out dated as it can get..

But as far as a ARQ sound card mode, the only thing I have seen was 
a system that only could do 43.7% of what the TNC did.

In other words, sent the traffic went out for lunch and still waited for
the none TNC system to get done.


John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rick]

Of course traffic going through your station has to be read or it would 
not have a purpose, but one of the "selling points" that the Winlink 
2000 folks claimed in the past, was that because of the compression it 
made it virtually impossible to anyone to monitor the traffic. One other 
ham claimed to have written a fix for that but then I never heard 
anything further on that.

The problem is that some people are using ham radio for commercial 
purposes when they use e-mail and even if we had a Pactor modem and 
monitored, we would not be able to determine the traffic content. The 
Winlink 2000 administrator does some spot checking of traffic, after the 
fact, and has said that they do find abuses and shut off access for 
those individuals.

I suppose what constitutes commercial traffic might vary some from 
individual to individual, but I would not use it for any business 
transactions, stock market quotations or buying and selling, that sort 
of thing. I can see where it would be nice to use for sending messages 
to relatives and friends if I was traveling, but this can only be 
available for very few people.

As you know, I think that we need better, faster, and spectrum 
conserving sound card modes. But as time goes on, if this was made 
available, we would likely see an explosion in the use of the automatic 
servers to support this desire. Ironically, the requirement of Pactor 2 
and 3, actually drastically limits the number of people who would use 
the servers. But that could change with very low cost access.

The one thing that could change with low cost access, is that it also 
means more low cost monitoring capabilities and as long as there was not 
some kind of compression scheme that made it impossible to read the 
mail, then there would be a lot less abuse because those of us who 
monitor a lot would be able to forward actual text to the FCC for any 
violators. I expect that there would not be that many with an openly 
monitored system.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> in and out of this station yes.
> Off the air traffic, some but not all.
> As you may know it's compressed.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

in and out of this station yes.
Off the air traffic, some but not all.
As you may know it's compressed.

John, W0JAB


At 08:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>John,
>
>Are you saying that you are able to monitor the traffic on Pactor modes 
>going to the Winlink 2000 system?
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Rick]

John,

Are you saying that you are able to monitor the traffic on Pactor modes 
going to the Winlink 2000 system?

73,

Rick, KV9U




John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
> Show us some of this "business-related" traffic.
> I have never seen any at all pass my screen. Not any.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
>   
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

*** comments in line.

At 07:59 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>No one is saying you don't have a right to get on the air. What this
>thread is about is expanding a sub-band that does not need to be
>expanded.

*** You do know that you slow and wide retry after retry mode of packet
will be in the same 3KC's on 40m with the pactor auto stations after 1/1/08?

> Also the problem with folks like you, not saying you do,
>that cause so much harmful interference it is making it hard for us to
>get on the air. 

***your packet stations have the same problem. And before you jump
my case again let me just state that I first got on packet was back in 
April of 1982. Ran a BBS for many many years. So I do know how the
mode works.


>Now I flip that question back to you. Do we have a
>right to get on the air using other modes besides winlink?

***the mode is pactor the service is winlink. get you stuff right
there Greg.


John, W0JAB 
in the center of fly over country

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:

>One last thing.  I like to say only what I *know* to be so.  I do not, 
>for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages that pass 
>on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that some are.  I 
>will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect.  I was, quite likely, 
>wrong about that and therefore should not have said that.

Sorry for the bottom post but it's short.

Again I have  *NOT*  seen any even on the WinLink internet network.

Show me. 

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:

>  Roger, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
>
>  If you can provide such 24/7 access on HF with manually operated
>  stations, they do so now. Show us your volunteer operator army on
>  duty. Otherwise, your continued protests ammount to little more than
>  lip service.

As a wise man once said, "in the face of [such] ignorance, the Gods 
themselves contend in vain."

I have said about all I have to say, as I believe that the absurdity of 
Bonnie's posts speak for themselves.

One last thing.  I like to say only what I *know* to be so.  I do not, 
for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages that pass 
on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that some are.  I 
will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect.  I was, quite likely, 
wrong about that and therefore should not have said that.

I hope that the majority of amateurs will resist strongly the 
Pactor/Winlink attempts at a frequency grab.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:
>
>  Roger W6VZV wrote:
>
> > Where is the 24/7 volunteer force? Red Cross, RACES, and other
> > "minuteman" style ham volunteer groups.
>
>  Roger,
>
>  Respectfully, those are all wonderful groups. But none of them
>  provide 24/7 access for emergency traffic on HF. At best, their
>  response is measured in hours or days.
>
>  Such 24/7 emergency access only exists with automatic systems.

Sorry, but that is not what I've seen during two decades of operating.  
The robot stations are at most bit-players.
>
>  If you are voluteering to provide 24/7 service with manual systems,
>  you will need more than just handwaving and oratory. You will need
>  operators on duty around the clock, and a real system for alerting
>  them.

This is offensive rhetoric, and inaccurate.  I will bet that north of 
99% of all emcomm, and all of the important emcomm, over the past three 
decades has been done via live amateur operators, not automatic 
stations.  The oratory and handwaving are by the Pactor bunch, who 
plainly have a different agenda than the rest of amateur radio.  This 
agenda does not involve emergency communications, although that is a 
convenient argument in support of a frequency grab.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Take a look at this map

http://winlink.org/positions/PosReports.aspx

I don't ZL3LL about 2000 miles south east of the big island of Hilo
had any internet connection to post this location update. nor did 
any most of the hams all around Australia. 

Yeah that's right, each and every one of them green pins on that map
is a ham. Now are you saying that they have no right to get on the air
while at sea?

Show us some of this "business-related" traffic.
I have never seen any at all pass my screen. Not any.

John, W0JAB



At 07:00 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>Automatic operation is mainly a way for boaters and RVers to use the ham 
>bands for cheap internet access.  This is not a valid use of our amateur 
>spectrum and is probably illegal since most of this traffic is 
>business-related.
>
>de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Roger J. Buffington]

expeditionradio wrote:

>  Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm. It is certainly not
>  asking too much that 10% of each ham band be devoted to one of the
>  primary purposes for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service.
>
>  Greg, where is your volunteer force of non-automatic operators
>  providing 24/7 emergency service on HF?

I have participated in numerous emergency communications scenarios, 
through several earthquakes and fires.

Never, not once, was automatic operation even involved in passing 
emergency traffic. 95% of it was done either on HF SSB or FM repeaters 
or simplex for short-range communications.  Mostly the latter.

Where is the 24/7 volunteer force?  Red Cross, RACES, and other 
"minuteman" style ham volunteer groups.  Not on Winlink.

Automatic operation is mainly a way for boaters and RVers to use the ham 
bands for cheap internet access.  This is not a valid use of our amateur 
spectrum and is probably illegal since most of this traffic is 
business-related.

de Roger W6VZV