### more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running
Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that
all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect
themselves from Winlink QRM?
It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known.
### If you can't design an unattended system that won't QRM other
stations, then that system should never be deployed in the first
place. The fact that bad things were done in the past is no excuse
for continuing to do them.
The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that
USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its
busy detector.
### Busy frequency detection is a band-aid for a bad system design.
Rick KN6KB developed the busy frequency detector in SCAMP with
encouragement from me and many others to address the fundamental flaw
in Winlink. The SCAMP beta test demonstrated far better performance
than implied in your use of the word "possibility" above, Jose. But
as I've pointed out here in earlier threads, a busy frequency
detector need not be perfect to be helpful. A busy frequency detector
that only prevents QRM 80% of the time would reduce the incidence of
QRM by a factor of 5. In actual practice, SCAMP performed even better
than that.
It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the
real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested,
but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self
distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin
air...
### That's completely untrue, Jose. The SCAMP design and
implementation remain in the hands of the Winlink Development team,
with nothing stopping them from deploying it. The "community" does
not need access to the SCAMP busy frequency detector; its Winlink
that needs access, and its had that access for years.
SCAMP and its advanced features remain in the land of "could be but
did not get to be"...
### As pointed out above, this is simply untrue.
>snip<
Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ?
### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now
that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4
years ago may now be practical.
I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is
available: the same stuff.
### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be
deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant
factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this
improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not.
Of course, if YOU convince them to QRT, you need no zombie network.
Brilliant. Could you achieve that? Seemingly not.
### My objective is the minimization of QRM from unattended systems
like Winlink, not the termination of these systems. I really don't
care how they solve this problem, though I've made several
constructive attempts to help them. If the Winlink organization would
rather monitor each PMBO 24x7 to ensure no transmission on busy
frequencies, that's fine with me. In my technical opinion, busy
frequency detectors are the most practical solution, but its not my
decision to make.
Again, a concept was tested. Period. It is not AVAILABLE. So there
are no changes available to the public. Then, in fact, nothing has
changed.
### Not true. The SCAMP busy frequency detector is available to the
Winlink Development team. Its been available for years. Public access
to the design is not required for Winlink to incorporate the SCAMP
busy frequency detector into its PMBOs.
+++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden
transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM
generated by PMBOs?
No, you keep on insisting on something contrary to a physical fact
(hidden stations), that could be remedied using some unavailable
technology (SCAMP).
### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why
did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an
excuse for PMBO-generated QRM.
### Second, I am insisting on nothing contrary to any physical fact.
Existence of the hidden transmitter effect is unquestionable. The
only evidence of "hidden transmitter effect denial" is in the system
design of Winlink.
### Third, you continuously refer to SCAMP as "unavailable
technology" despite the fact that it lies in the hands of the Winlink
Development team.
So far, without a tangible solution, such kind of busy detection is
merely daydreaming.
### The Winlink development team has possessed a tangible solution --
SCAMP -- for years.
>snip<
>>> Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs
that QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this
problem, but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its
really sad.
So a question is in order. Why, beyond what has been discussed here
and all know, it was not deployed? Do you have any inside info we
don't?
### The only information I have is what Rick KV9U quoted earlier
today. Paraphrasing, the Winlink organization decided not to deploy
busy frequency detection because it would mean their PMBOs might have
to wait longer to acquire a frequency during non-emergency
conditions. (Busy frequency detection would be disabled during
emergencies).
>snip<
### The publication of Rick's design is irrelevant, Jose, because
Rick is a member of the Winlink development team. There is nothing
stopping the Winlink organization from deploying it in their PMBOs.
Would you force Rick to act against his will?
### Of course not. If he or the Winlink team have some better way to
stop their QRM, I don't care how they do it.
If his design is really as irrelevant as you state, it means that you
have all the facts to substitute it. Then it is not necessary to go
against anyone's will, just come forward with your own design.
### That's completely false, Jose. Making the design public is
irrelevant because the "public" has no need of his design! The design
is needed by the Winlink team, and they've had it for years.
So, you have two choices: either shut them up or make it better.
Which of those choices is easier for you?
### I would much rather they found a way to eliminate their QRM by a
means other than going QRT.
>>>snip<<<
+++I expect Winlink to abide by the rules and regulations governing
amateur radio
Please illuminate us not governed by Part 97. Where does it state so ?
### For those of us governed by part 97, the relevant citation is
97.101(d): "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal".
### Every time a Winlink PMBO in the US transmits on a frequency
already in use, its control operator violates 97.101(d).
>snip<
So, your point is that is Rick's sin is proving it is feasible, but
not deploying it is his fault.
### I have offered nothing but praise for Rick's development of the
SCAMP busy detector and its proof that multi-mode busy detectors are
practical. I'm not privy to who in the Winlink organization decided
not to deploy it; I have never attributed this to Rick personally.
Is really this a valid way of encouraging the advancement of the art
of communications? Telling the community that if you let us
know "somethingbetter than the wheel", you will be harrassed in the
future because of it?
### Jose, Winlink in its current form should never have been allowed
on the air. At least in the US, its operation violates the rules
governing amateur radio operation. Saying "you can stay on the air if
you fix the fundamental problem in your design" is not discouraging
to further advancement, particularly when they have had one such
solution in hand for years.
>snip<
A chicken and egg situation. Is SCAMP available? No, it isn't. How to
deploy something inexistent?
### SCAMP is available to Winlink. Why do you keep pretending that it
isn't?
> > So we arrive to a new definition of fallacious: whatever does not
fit your own mental scheme.
+++ That's a convenient statement for you to make, Jose; I challenge
you to substantiate it.
That's not hard to do. It just requires browsing this list. You have
been overly recursive about all this, for a long time.
### If its not hard to do, then do it.
### And what does "overly rescursive" mean, exactly?
>snip<
Dave, I see your position as wishful thinking. Today, there is no
SCAMP or alike available to the public. The beta testers have already
told that their copies expired. Seemingly noone, besides Rick himself
can revive SCAMP. And he refuses. Is there a possibility to
circumvent that?
### For the Nth time, the public does not need access to SCAMP. The
party who needs access to SCAMP is Winlink, and they have had this
access for years.
>snip<
No, it is not that way, as far as I know. Winlink does not have it.
It has not spread. The only facts are Rick's papers on the Digital
Conference, and the expired software copies.
### You are incorrect. SCAMP was developed by Rick KN6NB, a member of
the Winlink development team, as less expensive alternative to
Pactor. The SCAMP busy detector design has been available to the
Winlink organization since the day Rick conceived it, and its
implementation remains in their hands.
You have still a large task in front of you. But I would advise to
review your tactics, because so far, all that we have is a big stir
and no solutions.
### Not true. Through discussions here and elsewhere, the ARRL was
persuaded to retract its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal, which
would have dramatically increased the amateur spectrum available for
unattended operation. That was a significant accomplishment.
### The ARRL technical staff now understands how unattended operation
really works, and are saying they will catalyze the development of a
new protocol that overcomes the hidden station QRM problem. Paul
W4RI, the ARRL's CTO, is leading this effort; he was scheduled to
report on it at the recent TAPR DCC, but I was unable to attend and
have yet to discover what he said. (Anybody hear this report?)
### in the mean time, those of us opposing the generation of QRM by
unattended stations will continue to rebut fallacious
rationalizations of Winlink operation when they appear, and will
continue to exert pressure on the Winlink organization to correct the
fundamental flaw in its PMBO design.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
