Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Chuck Mayfield]

Greetings,

As one who has been inactive in amateur radio emergency 
communications for several years, I heartily endorse the use of the 
Winlink system for EMCOMM.  The reasons are as follows:
Winlink 2000 tries to have 24/7 availability.  And mostly succeeds, 
through the use of Automatic / Semi-Automatic (call it what you will) 
responders, we are able to connect to the world from anywhere at 
any time, if we have the capability to connect to the Winlink 2000 
network.  They have stations that monitor most (all ?) bands that 
will let us get through under almost all conditions.  From my 
viewpoint, the important thing is communications.  If necessary, we 
can send messages to the control operators theirselves with 
instructions to connect a particular telephone number, etc. and I AM 
SURE they will carry out the task to get the emergency message 
through.  I have been inactive in NTS for several years, however in 
the several emergency situations I have been through, I would have 
been very happy to have a system equivalent to the Winlink 2000.  NTS 
was typically manned by hams like me, I worked full time.  I was not 
available 247 most of the time.  In response to the tornado that 
ripped through Wichita Falls, Texas, my employer saw fit to let me 
off for one day to support emergency communications, but for the most 
part, I was only available for the evening NTS nets.  I started the 
DFW Traffic Net on 146.88 and the Texas Slow speed CW net.  Served as 
one of the DFW representatives to the Texas Traffic net, RN5 Liaison 
and CAN Liasion.  We handled almost exclusively personal message, 
some 3rd party and some ham to others, except during 
emergencies.  But, when the chips were down, we had the capability to 
pass message traffic that mattered.  Whether we use HF, VHF, 
UHF,  Satellite, or magic, the key ingredient to emergency 
capabilities is training.  Untrained hams are part of the 
problem.  Trained hams are part of the solution.


Regards,
ChuckM  aa5j mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital- Sick of Flapping Lips Too....

[Dr. Howard S. White]






Tim:

Thank you for yet again for voicing your usual 
extremist anti Winlink, anti Bandwidth Regulation, anti ARRL and anti virtually 
everything else opinions.

Unfortunately we do not live in the idealized dream 
world that you wish it to be...

With EMCOMM, we have to deal with the real world 
situations as they arise.

FACT: After the last earthquake, It took 
several hours for the automatic self aligning systems to be plugging into power, 
reboot, realign, reconnector whatever they needed to do get back on the 
air .. While it was better than the several days of previous incarnations, it 
was still not good enough and Amateur Radio had a role to play (including some 
Digital Communications) until things got back on line. In fact, the 
California Office of Emergency Services maintains, I believe, 10 HF Amateur 
Stations that are used whenyour idealistic automatic self aligning 
systemsfail when you most need them

FACT: In the 2003 Fires, smoke was so intense 
that virtually all UHF and Satellite Systems were either blocked or refracted by 
the smoke to the point where they were not reliable. Amateur Radio had a 
major role to play until the smoke dissipated several days later and government 
communications were usable again. It got pretty intense when Ham Radio 
operators had to go out and rescue Fire Fighters whose 800 MHz Radios were 
blocked by smoke..

Winlink, along with Packet, SSB, CW, PSK, FM and 
RTTY are just some of the tools that were available to us Hams to provide 
communications when all else failed. 

Which in these cases they did and we were 
needed.

Discard any one of our tools or the ARRL, just 
because you hate it, makes no sense...

Basically Most of the Rest of the World has already 
got it right and they are waiting for the US to stop yakking about it and just 
catch up to them

I have to agree with our friend "Sick of Flapping 
Lips" 

that frankly I am also getting very tired of your 
anti everything rhetoric.

I apologize to them that I feel obligated to 
correct your continual distortions of facts and reality

and your attempts to rewrite history to fit your 
anti-everything views of life.


__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[doc]

  Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
  All other Modes (including several Weak Signal
  Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego
  EOC to the Imperial County EOC during the SET.

*All*?  Every possible mode was tested?

Really?  Do we have documentation of what was
tested and what variables were changed from
mode to mode?

The realities of propagation and the competencies
of other digital modes raise serious doubts about
the efficacy of such an assertion.

Same power, same antennas, equally competent ops
at both ends?

Or, token efforts with known-inferior digital modes
and/or inferior hardware at one end or both?

Given the history of hype one is required to be
cynical.

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Obviously you are not interested in a simple 
statement of fact...

The 2 EOC's were equiped with their usual equipment 
+ Winlink. The usual systems failed to connect because there was no direct 
propagation between the EOC's. Winlink because of its ability 
to automatically take advantage of relay connections was able to connect and 
pass the traffic when all else failed in this situation. The beauty 
of Winlink is that one can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic so as 
propagation changes there is usually a PMBO within range making for 
afairly reliable means of communications.

Winlink was not a planned mode for the SET... but 
when all else failed.. Winlink came to the rescue..

In spite of the Winlink Haters out there... and 
there were also several in both EOC's at the time  

I know you do not want to hear it... but Winlink 
Worked when all else available to the EOC's failed

We, hams, need to consider Winlink as ONE of our 
tools in our arsenal for EMCOMM
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:48 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
   Dr. Howard S. White wrote: All other Modes 
  (including several Weak Signal Digital modes) Failed to Connect the 
  San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC during the 
  SET.*All*? Every possible mode was tested?Really? 
  Do we have documentation of what wastested and what variables were changed 
  frommode to mode?The realities of propagation and the 
  competenciesof other digital modes raise serious doubts aboutthe 
  efficacy of such an assertion.Same power, same antennas, equally 
  competent opsat both ends?Or, token efforts with known-inferior 
  digital modesand/or inferior hardware at one end or both?Given the 
  history of hype one is required to becynical.IMHO, YMMV ... 73, 
  doc kd4e





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Tim Gorman]

Howard,

Hours to get back on the air?

You still don't get it, do you? These systems are made to be mounted on top of 
*MOVING* platforms and remain aligned!!

Why you think this won't work at temporary shelters and non-permanent 
locations is beyond me. 

There's no hours to get back on line. You might have some downtime if the 
whole installation is knocked on it's side and someone has to go out and 
stand it back up!! How long would that take?

I've never heard of smoke causing anything more than a temporary outage but I 
have heard of intense thunderstorms with lots of moisture causing problems. 
Unless you have an earthquake at the same time as you have massive forest 
fires long with heavy rain type thunderstorms I fail to see your concern with 
these systems. I might point out, however, that intense thunderstorms also 
wreaks havoc with Winlink throughput so I don't believe that would be an 
answer either.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the amateur service does not and 
should not have a role as a telecom common carrier. Not only is it beyond the 
scope of what the service is allowed to be by rule, the technology available 
in the telecom industry is far beyond what we can provide - largely because 
of cost. When the amateur community can put up birds with the capacity of 
these satellite links, maybe we can meet what the telcom industry offers, not 
before. 

The longer the ARRL and the amateur community focuses on trying to compete 
with services like DirectWay the less the amateur service will have to offer. 
What a waste.

tim ab0wr

On Saturday 25 February 2006 18:33, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
 Tim:

 Please stay where you are.. we already have enough people in California...

 California has started equiping EOC's with self aligning antennas...because
 in previous major earthquakes. it took several days to manually realign the
 antennas...

 In the last major quake, those equiped with self aligning antennas, while
 no where near instantaneous, were able to get back on the air in a few
 hours.

 During the period that they were off the air, Ham systems have a role to
 play...

 However when you get to the problems of shelters and outlying areas...
 there are no permanent installations so the satellite connection with
 self aligning antennas is just not available..   ... plus during our 2003
 Fires.. we found that both that 800 MHz Public Safety Systems and the
 satellite coverage had reliability problems getting through the dense smoke
 which blocked or refracted the signals..

 Here Ham Systems .. of which Winlink is just one tool in our
 arsenal...usually have a major role to play for the duration of the
 disaster... __
 Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
 Website: www.ky6la.com
 No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
 Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911
   - Original Message -
   From: Tim Gorman
   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:41 PM
   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital


   If all else available to these EOC's failed then I hope to God I am never
 in the area they are responsible for when a disaster occurs.

   With the self-aligning satellite links that provide mega-bit rates up and
 down that are available today for less than $2500 a year, an EOC without
 one is just being penny-wise and pound foolish.

   And if you come back and say that the EOC's are located where there is no
   satellite access, then I'll repeat, I hope to God I am never in the area
 they are responsible for when a disaster occurs. Such idiocy in site
 location and management is totally unacceptable.

   Nobody minds you being a cheerleader, Howard, and I agree with you that
   Winlink should be a tool in our arsenal, but when you start throwing out
 such totally unbelievable stuff, all you do is hurt the credibility of the
 people in charge of the EOC function in your county or state.

   I'm sure they appreciate you doing that.

   tim ab0wr

   On Saturday 25 February 2006 12:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
Obviously you are not interested in a simple statement of fact...
   
The 2 EOC's were equiped with their usual equipment + Winlink.  The
usual systems failed to connect because there was no direct propagation
between the EOC's.   Winlink  because of its ability to automatically
take advantage of relay connections was able to connect and pass the
traffic when all else failed in this situation.   The beauty of Winlink
is that one can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic so as
propagation changes there is usually a PMBO within range making for a
fairly reliable means of communications.
   
Winlink was not a planned mode for the SET... but when all else
failed.. Winlink came to the rescue..
   
In spite of the Winlink Haters out there... and there were also several

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[David Struebel]

Again,

I emphazise that NTS exclusively operates in the auto control band plan
the actual scenario of QRM from an autocontrolled NTS station is remote.
I have seen my station delay tranmitting due to RTTY, Pactor, and CW
stations on frequency

Dave WB2FTX

Dave Bernstein wrote:

  Yes, lots of talk, but no description of an actual scenario that 
substantiates that talk.

The explanation, I believe, is that there is no such scenario. If you 
disagree, describe the scenario.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
This has been talked about by many
Me for one.

At 05:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:


  I have never seen you or any one else here describe a scenario in
which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an automatic
station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station.

If you can describe such a scenario, please do so.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ
  

  
  






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 





  







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[David Struebel]

I think the title of this string should be changed. Most of the
comments have really no idea of the difference between
NTSD running "Classic Winlink" in the auto control subbands and Winlink
2000. I operate within the auto control subbands
in automatic mode connecting to other NTSD stations Although no one
"owns" a frequency, I would not operate outside of these subbands
and possibly interfere with another QSO in a another digital mode.
you have plenty of space to operate. It would appear that operation of
other modes
in the autocontrol subands is deliberately inviting a confrontation.

Dave WB2FTX
Eastern Area Digital Coordinator NTSD

doc wrote:

  This has been raised many times during this and other
debates in the Ham fraternity about the latest cause
of avoidable QRM.

It is one of the examples people unhappy point to as
an illustration of ARRL arrogance "do as I say, not as
I do".

OTOH, it is kind of silly if not looking for conflict
to start a QSO on a freq one knows has been used to the
benefit of thousands of Hams for 40 years at certain
times of day.

It remains the responsibility of the operators of W1AW
to be certain the freq is clear *prior* to transmitting.

Perhaps an Official Observer should cite them to make
the point that no one is above the law, regs, nor common
courtesy.

;-)  doc

  
  
Hmmm.  I have sent them a note or two in the past over exactly that.  I or
someone else was using a freq and they fired up.  I let them no in
unequivocal terms, that is not suppose to happen.  They are no different
than anyone else on that matter, and should check every frequency they are
about to fire up, and slightly change if someone else is there.

  
  



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 





  







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Danny Douglas]

I would still have a problem with that.  If there are to be sub-bands, they
should be mandantory, not suggested.  Otherwise there are going to be too
many people who decided not to go by the suggestions, or simply do not know
what they are.  Plus, if they are not international in scope, they are
useless.

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital


 If I'm hunting a clear spot to call CQ and there's a clear frequency
 in the automatic sub-bands, I should be able to call CQ there
 without fear of later being QRM'd by an automatic station that
 doesn't listen before transmitting.

 Were there a bandplan that suggested these sub-bands be exclusively
 used by specific modes or control schemes (e.g. remote initiation),
 then I would of course conform. But the governing bandplan is
 woefully obsolete:

 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

 According to this band plan, the only protocol allowed in the
 automatic sub-bands is Packet.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  I think the title of this string should be changed. Most of the
 comments
  have really no idea of the difference between
  NTSD running Classic Winlink in the auto control subbands and
 Winlink
  2000.   I operate within the auto control subbands
  in automatic mode connecting to other NTSD stations Although
 no one
  owns a frequency, I would not operate outside of these subbands
  and possibly interfere with another QSO in a another digital
 mode.
  you have plenty of space to operate. It would appear that
 operation of
  other modes
  in the autocontrol subands is deliberately inviting a
 confrontation.
 
  Dave WB2FTX
  Eastern Area Digital Coordinator NTSD
 
  doc wrote:
 
  This has been raised many times during this and other
  debates in the Ham fraternity about the latest cause
  of avoidable QRM.
  
  It is one of the examples people unhappy point to as
  an illustration of ARRL arrogance do as I say, not as
  I do.
  
  OTOH, it is kind of silly if not looking for conflict
  to start a QSO on a freq one knows has been used to the
  benefit of thousands of Hams for 40 years at certain
  times of day.
  
  It remains the responsibility of the operators of W1AW
  to be certain the freq is clear *prior* to transmitting.
  
  Perhaps an Official Observer should cite them to make
  the point that no one is above the law, regs, nor common
  courtesy.
  
  ;-)  doc
  
  
  
  Hmmm.  I have sent them a note or two in the past over exactly
 that.  I or
  someone else was using a freq and they fired up.  I let them no
 in
  unequivocal terms, that is not suppose to happen.  They are no
 different
  than anyone else on that matter, and should check every
 frequency they are
  about to fire up, and slightly change if someone else is there.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
  
  Other areas of interest:
  
  The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
  DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
 discussion)
  
  
  Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 






 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

 Other areas of interest:

 The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
 DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)


 Yahoo! Groups Links








 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 2/23/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[KV9U]

Brad,

Here in the U.S., repeaters can only operate on a coordinated frequency. 
They then have the right to operate and no one else can claim the right 
to a repeater output frequency without the permission of the frequency 
coordinator and anyone who was on that frequency would have to accept 
any interference. 

In terms of HF, it would a a very unusual radio amateur who would know 
all the HF frequencies that are used by the many e-mail servers and 
other automated radio servers.

On another questions you had on 30 meter operation, ARRL's bandplan is 
10.130 to 10.140 for RTTY and 10.140 to 10.150 for packet. This leaves 
10.100 to 10.150 for CW which normally can operate anyplace on any band 
with the exception of the new 60 meter band which unfortunately 
prohibits CW and digital.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Brad wrote:

 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  If I'm hunting a clear spot to call CQ and there's a clear frequency
  in the automatic sub-bands, I should be able to call CQ there
  without fear of later being QRM'd by an automatic station that
  doesn't listen before transmitting.

 Would you do this on a repeater output then complain if someone who
 can't hear you keyed the repeater? If you know full well that there
 are automatic stations there and their frequencies are published,
 expecting them to skirt around your itinerant operation sounds precious.

 Brad
 vk2qq.com






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Dr. Howard S. White]

All other Modes (including several Weak Signal 
Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC 
during the SET. 

Doc:

You were so hung up in your theoretical analysis 
that you missed the point

Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation path 
directly between the two EOC's during the test. Plus the path is difficult 
at best of times due to intervening mountain ranges. They had hoped HF 
Sideband and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the propagation gods were 
against them...

Winlink was not planned to be included in the 
SET. Winlink was tried as a total afterthought (because like you the EOC 
managers were very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its installation) 
when all other modes failed. I have been lead to believe that the EOC 
Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to prove that Winlink would 
also be useless in the SET Scenario.

Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a node 
over a thousand miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY relay the 
messages to the Imperial County EOC. 

As I was out in the field at the time, and do not 
have first hand knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was connecting 
through a different Winlink Node.

Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that 
Winlink was the only mode that worked when all else failed...as they had 
expected Winlink to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a number 
of them into Winlink converts.

Doc:

I loved your theoretical analysis of the 
situation.. 

but the Bottom Line Real World results in the 
Simulated Emergency Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate the 
effects of a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly 
could...

... showed that Winlink Worked...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
UnpuAmanished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:14 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
   The point I am making is that us hams have a 
  lot of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this 
  irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one of our tools makes no 
  sense...I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink 
  being"discarded". That is a red herring.The points I made, 
  and they were intentionallyprecise, were:1. Were any other 
  weak-signal digital modes tested?Winlink is one of many, and one of the 
  most complex.Why test only the most expensive and the most 
  complexrather than several different digital modes?2. In 
  proper emergency communications planning one*always* seeks the most 
  commonly available, leastcomplex, and most effective mode(s) for 
  communication.There is no evidence that such was done re. digitalmodes 
  in this case.3. Winlink was not listed as to be "discarded", 
  onlyas not the wise choice as a top-tier tool. Nothingpresented 
  in your reaction/reply has in the slightestway factually argued against 
  that assertion.There are standards and science which are 
  supposedto guide professional and wise decision making foremergency 
  communications.The assertion that Winlink is (or was) the only 
  andbest mode simply fails to meet the standard. ThatWinlink was 
  the *only* weak-signal digital mode testedmakes an entirely different 
  statement having nothingto do superiority and something else to do 
  withskewing the playing field.How about inviting operators of 
  several differentdigital modes to the test. Then using 
  real-worldprobabilities postulate equipment failure. It 
  isimpossible to not find a higher probability thatnecessary pairs of 
  rare Winlink stations at bothcritical ends will either not be in place or 
  suffersome sort of failure then one of the more common(due primarily 
  to cost) and more reliable (dueprimarily to simplicity) digital modes will 
  reallybe there when things really get ugly.Let me 
  illustrate.If one does a test that says that one must completea 
  relay of a package across difficult terrain andthe vehicles chosen are two 
  each Chevy S10's (SSB Voice),Honda Accords (CW), SUVs (complete VHF/UHF FM 
  RepeaterLink system), and Hummer H2s.Those vehicles would need to 
  be in precise positions(the equivalent of EOC's) prior to the suddenly 
  declaredrelay. They would have to be fully fueled, manned 
  bycompetent drivers, and absent mechanical problems.One would face 
  a series of serious challenges.Winlink, like the Hummer H2, is rare 
  and the probabilitythat sufficient hardware/software combinations at 
  bothends (and "both ends" is an unpredictable because EOC'smay be 
  breached by an earthquake or terrorist attack)when needed with antennas 
  and

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Joe Ivey]

There is one thing that puzzles me. How did you 
manage to set up Winlink between the two EOC's
if you could not communicate? It appears to me that 
both would have to know the band/frequency
and that the other EOC had to know that the other 
was going to switch to Winlink. Sounds sort of
strange to me. Guess they used ESP?

Joe IveyW4JSI

Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dr. Howard S. White 
  
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:17 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  
  All other Modes (including several Weak Signal 
  Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC 
  during the SET. 
  
  Doc:
  
  You were so hung up in your theoretical analysis 
  that you missed the point
  
  Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation 
  path directly between the two EOC's during the test. Plus the path is 
  difficult at best of times due to intervening mountain ranges. They had 
  hoped HF Sideband and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the propagation 
  gods were against them...
  
  Winlink was not planned to be included in the 
  SET. Winlink was tried as a total afterthought (because like you the EOC 
  managers were very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its 
  installation) when all other modes failed. I have been lead to 
  believe that the EOC Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to 
  prove that Winlink would also be useless in the SET Scenario.
  
  Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a node 
  over a thousand miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY relay the 
  messages to the Imperial County EOC. 
  
  As I was out in the field at the time, and do not 
  have first hand knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was 
  connecting through a different Winlink Node.
  
  Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that 
  Winlink was the only mode that worked when all else failed...as they had 
  expected Winlink to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a 
  number of them into Winlink converts.
  
  Doc:
  
  I loved your theoretical analysis of the 
  situation.. 
  
  but the Bottom Line Real World results in the 
  Simulated Emergency Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate 
  the effects of a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly 
  could...
  
  ... showed that Winlink Worked...
  __Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
  UnpuAmanished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
  911"
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
doc 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:14 
    AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
traffic handling and digital
 The point I am making is that us hams have a 
lot of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this 
irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one of our tools makes no 
sense...I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink 
being"discarded". That is a red herring.The points I made, 
and they were intentionallyprecise, were:1. Were any other 
weak-signal digital modes tested?Winlink is one of many, and one of the 
most complex.Why test only the most expensive and the most 
complexrather than several different digital modes?2. In 
proper emergency communications planning one*always* seeks the most 
commonly available, leastcomplex, and most effective mode(s) for 
communication.There is no evidence that such was done re. 
digitalmodes in this case.3. Winlink was not listed as to 
be "discarded", onlyas not the wise choice as a top-tier tool. 
Nothingpresented in your reaction/reply has in the slightestway 
factually argued against that assertion.There are standards and 
science which are supposedto guide professional and wise decision making 
foremergency communications.The assertion that Winlink is (or 
was) the only andbest mode simply fails to meet the standard. 
ThatWinlink was the *only* weak-signal digital mode testedmakes an 
entirely different statement having nothingto do superiority and 
something else to do withskewing the playing field.How about 
inviting operators of several differentdigital modes to the test. 
Then using real-worldprobabilities postulate equipment failure. It 
isimpossible to not find a higher probability thatnecessary pairs of 
rare Winlink stations at bothcritical ends will either not be in place 
or suffersome sort of failure then one of the more common(due 
primarily to cost) and more reliable (dueprimarily to simplicity) 
digital modes will reallybe there when things really get 
u

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Joe:

As I said, I was in the field and not at the 
EOC's so I do not know the exact sequence...


One of the great things about 
Winlink...

You can almost set it and forget it...

You Do Not need to know the band and frequency of 
the receiving station... 

You only need to know the frequencies of the 
Winlink PMBO Nodes

Using the Airmail client which has the list of 
frequencies in it, you can search the bands for a PMBO Node to connect 
to...

You connect to the PMBO node... send the Email.. 
the node passes it to the Internet.

At the other end.. the Winlink Station connects to 
a PMBO Node or the Internet.. and takes its Email off the Internet.

BOTH EOC's were equiped with Winlink Stations that 
polled the Nodes to see if there was traffic...

The traffic appeared in their Email 
Inboxes...

__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe 
  Ivey 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:50 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  
  There is one thing that puzzles me. How did you 
  manage to set up Winlink between the two EOC's
  if you could not communicate? It appears to me 
  that both would have to know the band/frequency
  and that the other EOC had to know that the other 
  was going to switch to Winlink. Sounds sort of
  strange to me. Guess they used ESP?
  
  Joe IveyW4JSI
  
  Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not 
matter
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dr. Howard S. 
White 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:17 
    AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
traffic handling and digital

All other Modes (including several Weak Signal 
Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County 
EOC during the SET. 

Doc:

You were so hung up in your theoretical 
analysis that you missed the point

Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation 
path directly between the two EOC's during the test. Plus the path is 
difficult at best of times due to intervening mountain ranges. They 
had hoped HF Sideband and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the 
propagation gods were against them...

Winlink was not planned to be included in the 
SET. Winlink was tried as a total afterthought (because like you the 
EOC managers were very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its 
installation) when all other modes failed. I have been lead to 
believe that the EOC Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to 
prove that Winlink would also be useless in the SET Scenario.

Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a 
node over a thousand miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY 
relay the messages to the Imperial County EOC. 

As I was out in the field at the time, and do 
not have first hand knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was 
connecting through a different Winlink Node.

Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that 
Winlink was the only mode that worked when all else failed...as they had 
expected Winlink to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a 
number of them into Winlink converts.

Doc:

I loved your theoretical analysis of the 
situation.. 

but the Bottom Line Real World results in the 
Simulated Emergency Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate 
the effects of a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly 
could...

... showed that Winlink Worked...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
UnpuAmanished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 
  7:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS 
  and traffic handling and digital
   The point I am making is that us hams have a 
  lot of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this 
  irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one of our tools makes 
  no sense...I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink 
  being"discarded". That is a red herring.The points I 
  made, and they were intentionallyprecise, were:1. Were 
  any other weak-signal digital modes tested?Winlink is one of many, and 
  one of the most complex.Why test only the most expensive and th

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[doc]

  The point I am making is that us hams have a lot
  of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this
  irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one
  of our tools makes no sense...

I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink being
discarded.  That is a red herring.

The points I made, and they were intentionally
precise, were:

1.  Were any other weak-signal digital modes tested?
Winlink is one of many, and one of the most complex.
Why test only the most expensive and the most complex
rather than several different digital modes?

2.  In proper emergency communications planning one
*always* seeks the most commonly available, least
complex, and most effective mode(s) for communication.
There is no evidence that such was done re. digital
modes in this case.

3.  Winlink was not listed as to be discarded, only
as not the wise choice as a top-tier tool.  Nothing
presented in your reaction/reply has in the slightest
way factually argued against that assertion.

There are standards and science which are supposed
to guide professional and wise decision making for
emergency communications.

The assertion that Winlink is (or was) the only and
best mode simply fails to meet the standard.  That
Winlink was the *only* weak-signal digital mode tested
makes an entirely different statement having nothing
to do superiority and something else to do with
skewing the playing field.

How about inviting operators of several different
digital modes to the test.  Then using real-world
probabilities postulate equipment failure.  It is
impossible to not find a higher probability that
necessary pairs of rare Winlink stations at both
critical ends will either not be in place or suffer
some sort of failure then one of the more common
(due primarily to cost) and more reliable (due
primarily to simplicity) digital modes will really
be there when things really get ugly.

Let me illustrate.

If one does a test that says that one must complete
a relay of a package across difficult terrain and
the vehicles chosen are two each Chevy S10's (SSB Voice),
Honda Accords (CW), SUVs (complete VHF/UHF FM Repeater
Link system), and Hummer H2s.

Those vehicles would need to be in precise positions
(the equivalent of EOC's) prior to the suddenly declared
relay.  They would have to be fully fueled, manned by
competent drivers, and absent mechanical problems.

One would face a series of serious challenges.

Winlink, like the Hummer H2, is rare and the probability
that sufficient hardware/software combinations at both
ends (and both ends is an unpredictable because EOC's
may be breached by an earthquake or terrorist attack)
when needed with antennas and power and everything
required is highly improbable in a properly designed
scenario.

Furthermore, due to the complexity of Winlink the
probability of failure in one or both of the rare
pairs required is also high.

Just as they postulated that your vhf/uhf repeater
would fail so they would equally have to postulate
the failure of one specific Winlink pair being in
perfect position operating perfectly undisturbed by
the same or some other variable.

If one postulates that the very common (Read: redundancy)
S10s, Accords, and SUV's all failed and that two rare Hummers
were in the right place at the right time with all variables
intact and suffered no failures (in spite of the complexity
and in spite of no redundancy due to cost) one has postulated
an absurdity.

Consider the many other far more common digital modes
and one sees clearly the fallacy of the Winlink/Hummer
postulate.  In emergency/mission-critical planning
redundancy is king.

These are simple and indisputable facts that no
emergency management professional may ignore unless
he wants to end up like the former FEMA Director.

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







I am in total agreement that WinLink 2000 using Pactor III is just one robust data mode and message handling system. It is currently the only mode/messaging system with a continental U.S. network on the ham bands.

Will other modes come into play and other systems become available? Only if hams are interested to write robust, high speed data modes and write programs for message handling systems. 

Until then, WinLink 2000 remains the un-challenged robust, high-speed, message handling system on the ham bands.


In my disaster relief communications requirement, we chose satellite Internet connectivity over WinLink 2000 because 1) the cost over three years was less, 2) it did not require to be operated by a general class ham or have a general class ham control operator, 3) E-Mail to the originator was received easily with a published E-Mail address and no registration of the return E-Mail address was required, and 4) we were able to use an E-Mail ubiquitous E-Mail client.

Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of doc
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:03 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital



I would like to see the documentation of this.


As a former employee of a state emergency management
agency and a former section emergency coordinator and
a Ham for a long time the scenario described must be
missing some important variables.


If HF Winlink could hold effective communications on
HF then so could a dozen or more modes. There is no
technological reason why HF Winlink was the only
reliable mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewed
to be certain of that outcome.


Not looking for an argument, just some healthy cynicism
based on a little knowledge of politics and science.


HF Winlink may have been one of many modes more
capable of effective weak signal communications but one
cannot ever make the claim that it would be the only.


Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the high
value of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be a
poor first/primary choice. The hardware is so rare as
to be readily postulated as probably unavailable at
both ends and the complexity of the systems rise above
standard emergency requirements for mission-critical
applications.


A third-tier or fourth-tier nice-to-have perhaps.


IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e


 Last August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San 
 Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9 
 earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which 
 destroyed most of the local infrasture.
 
 Due to the simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and 
 power sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land 
 Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial 
 County EOC.
 
 The only communications that proved reliable was HF Winlink. San Diego 
 EOC was able to connect into a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County 
 was able to connect to another HF node and we established and maintained 
 both Critical, Tactical and HW communications through Winlink Email.
 
 I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else failed 
 during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in the wool 
 Winlink Haters around here.
 
 Could we have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..
 
 We tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)... 
 however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for 
 relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or 
 reliability...
 
 So there definitely is a place for Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...
 __
 Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org


Other areas of interest:


The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)



Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/










Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply

RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







Jim wrote...


The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't be
able require CW be used for this purpose. You'll also have folks that
are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose.


Some commercial repeaters (those in the Land Mobile Radio Service) and some governmental services use CW at 20 WPM to identify their repeaters/base stations and some even have it identifying mobiles because its very inexpensive. But I'll bet that 99% or their radio technicians can't read a word of CW even at 2-3 WPM.

Walt/K5YFW








Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







IMHO, there are only two ways of preventing HF data mode QRM other than the hidden tranmitter...
One is to have a universal mode decoder that would identify the mode or require that each mode send a common protocol at the beginning of each transmission to identify the mode and to have established sub-bands automatic/semi-automatic operation.

The second is to break up a large sub-band into channels and have each mode assigned a number of channels (all who want this raise their hand).

I suppose the their way would be would be to only allow accepted modes in one sub-band and agree to negotiate and QRM and all other modes in another sub-band where you must accept any and all QRM.

There maybe other ways, but its the way I see things now.


Walt/K5YFW




-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tim Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:51 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital



Rick,


I think the problem is more complex than this. I believe you will find that 
sub-bands will ALWAYS be the answer of choice. 


First, I use a pk-232mbx on pactor in the automatic sub-bands as part of the 
NTS-D system. This box only listens for other pactor stations. If I were to 
be told that this was going to be banned from the ham bands, I would drop out 
of the NTS-D. So would others who use exactly the same equipment. None of us 
would have $1000 or more to get equipped with SCS modems. It would be much 
better to keep these operations in the sub-bands and keep them operating than 
to just kill the system by default.


Second, I would be interested in how SCAMP operated when QRM came on the 
frequency? Did it end the session so it wouldn't QRM the other guy? Or was 
the busy detector disabled after the session had been established?


If the later, the busy detection scheme is only a placebo for many, many 
situations and not a true fix. Since the systems today offer no true trunk 
system control signals (i.e. calls to a busy channel are not abandoned by the 
originating end but just continue to be attempted) as soon as the automatic 
station detects a clear channel (the station it could hear turns the 
transmission over to a station that can't be heard) the session will be 
started and will cause QRM. Bottom line? No difference. The QRM is just 
delayed by one transmission period. 


The only situations which would be truly helped would be those where the 
automatic station can hear ALL stations in the QSO on the frequency of use.


If SCAMP stops operation upon busy detection, even after a session is 
established, it is likely that the system would come to a screeching halt 
during busy times of the day. Since it is likely this is when long distance 
propagation may be at its best, system throughput could be drastically 
impacted. 


It would appear that the *only* way to minimize impacts of the automatic 
stations is to maintain automatic subbands. Other operations who want to 
venture into these areas should understand that protections against QRM are 
not what they are in other areas. 


For those who think that restricting automatic operations to small subbands is 
not fair to operations like Winlink, I would be happy to lay out changes in 
operation that would let Winlink pass all of its traffic on five 500hz 
channels. That's not five channels per band but five total, and Pactor II at 
that.


To those discussing email content. It is my opinion, for whatever that is 
worth, that it is *not* the content of a specific communication that is the 
problem, per se, but the *regularity* of third party communications. Regular 
communications with third parties are specifically mentioned in the Part 97 
rules. It would seem to be axiomatic that for one time use or even 
non-regular use, almost any content could be allowed, even it is not what 
most would consider acceptable. When the use is for third-party 
communications on a regular basis, especially the *same* third party all the 
time, the use enters a different realm. 


For instance, I keep getting the issue of weather reports thrown out when the 
subject comes up. These are *important* to ships at sea. 


Well, what would happen if I started broadcasting the local NWS system on 
3920khz or 146.52Mhz during times of bad weather? Wouldn't those weather 
reports be important to people on the road during periods of snow and 
freezing weather? If I were to do this on a regular basis, e.g. 24/7, does 
anyone on here think it would take more than a few days for me to get a 
letter from Riley? 


Would the Winlink people support having this type of operation on the ham 
bands? 


Just as there are other radio services providing this service (i.e. the NWS), 
there are other radio services providing for regular, third party email from 
ships, yachts, and boats

RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

At 09:34 AM 2/22/06, you wrote:

Some commercial repeaters (those in the Land Mobile Radio Service) 
and  some governmental services use CW at 20 WPM to identify their 
repeaters/base stations and some even have it identifying mobiles because 
its very inexpensive.  But I'll bet that 99% or their radio technicians 
can't read a word of CW even at 2-3 WPM.

Walt/K5YFW

Having worked in the 2 way radio service for over 27 years
I can tell you the you are right. The CW ID is not for the
system users or owners but because FCC rule 90.402
says the system MUST be ID'ed by voice or CW. trying
to get a person to it on time is out of the question.
I think the fine is $1,150.00 if I recall what I was told.







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







How about 2 PSK tones at 22.75 baud spaced 50 Hz apart that sends 1010101001010101 ?


Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:36 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital



-Dave,


How about something as distinctive as RTTY's RYRYRYRYRYRYRY? We all 
recognize RYs without decoding it with a terminal. Your tone idea 
is good, anything that is easy to recognize with the ear would be 
good. I wonder how QRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRL sounds in RTTY?


Andy K3UK


 -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 If QRL? in CW is too retro, we could specify a sequence of eight 
1 
 khz tones of 250 ms duration separated by 250 ms to convey the is 
 this frequency in use? message. It would be distinctive in a 
 waterfall display, and could easily be recognized by application 
 software.
 
 73,
 
 Dave, AA6YQ
 
 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jgorman01 jg6164@ wrote:
 
  The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't 
be
  able require CW be used for this purpose. You'll also have 
folks 
 that
  are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose.
  
  Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall 
 suffices
  for that. Recognizing a QRL in CW may not work well in this 
 situation.
  
  Jim
  WA0LYK
  
  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ 
 wrote:
  
   
   In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for 
 instance, 
   will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
   
   Most ops would quickly learn to recognize QRL? in CW. 
 Replying 
   requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether 
on 
 an 
   KSR-33 or a keyboard.
   
   It would be much better if the automatic station could respond 
 to a 
   standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that 
   suggested that to me at some time in the past?). 
   
   Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
   
   73,
   
   Dave, AA6YQ
  
 








Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org


Other areas of interest:


The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)



Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/









Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Danny Douglas]

:I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a frequency. I
know I
don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am reading a
transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops would never
hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are using.

I believe this is the crux of the whole discussion.  The failure to listen
to a frequency before transmission is the problem.  That is why the
whole suggestion of the software being fail-safe by not transmitting has
come up.  Personally, it has gone beyond amateur radio, if one is not
sitting there and involved in the transmission/reception of traffic.  I
worked 30 years on the commercial/government side of telecommunications and
that is where this type of transmission belong, not here on the ham bands.





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

At 04:48 PM 2/22/06, you wrote:
:I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a frequency. I
know I
don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am reading a
transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops would never
hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are using.

Every now and then I will jump onto HELL or MT63 other that those
2 digital modes all the other modes I operate have no watwefall  and
I must listen to tune. Maybe I'm missing a lot by not operating PSK.
But I did try it and fail to see or get a rush from it.








Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[doc]

I would like to see the documentation of this.

As a former employee of a state emergency management
agency and a former section emergency coordinator and
a Ham for a long time the scenario described must be
missing some important variables.

If HF Winlink could hold effective communications on
HF then so could a dozen or more modes.  There is no
technological reason why HF Winlink was the only
reliable mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewed
to be certain of that outcome.

Not looking for an argument, just some healthy cynicism
based on a little knowledge of politics and science.

HF Winlink may have been one of many modes more
capable of effective weak signal communications but one
cannot ever make the claim that it would be the only.

Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the high
value of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be a
poor first/primary choice.  The hardware is so rare as
to be readily postulated as probably unavailable at
both ends and the complexity of the systems rise above
standard emergency requirements for mission-critical
applications.

A third-tier or fourth-tier nice-to-have perhaps.

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e

 Last August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San 
 Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9 
 earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which 
 destroyed most of the local infrasture.
  
 Due to the simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and 
 power sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land 
 Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial 
 County EOC.
  
 The only communications that proved reliable was HF Winlink.  San Diego 
 EOC was able to connect into a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County 
 was able to connect to another HF node and we established and maintained 
 both Critical, Tactical and HW communications through Winlink Email.
  
 I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else failed 
 during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in the wool 
 Winlink Haters around here.
  
 Could we have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..
  
 We tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)... 
 however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for 
 relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or 
 reliability...
 
 So there definitely is a place for Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...
 __
 Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Danny Douglas]

NO NO NO NO NO NO
If they must do this thing, and the government 
deems it necessary, let the government give them 20 KC of the government 
assignments and least the ham bands to hams. The goovernment use of the HF 
bands has diminished considerably over he past 40 years, and they have it to 
spare.



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe 
  Ivey 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:05 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  
  Doc,
  
  It is just more B S from those that want to turn 
  ham radio into an email server. What needs to happen is give those 
  
  a 10-20 KHZ segment of each band and let them do 
  their thing and if anyone else was operating in that segment
  would have no reason to complain about 
  QRM.
  
  Joe IveyW4JSI
  
  Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not 
matter
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
doc 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:03 
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
traffic handling and digital
I would like to see the documentation of this.As 
a former employee of a state emergency managementagency and a former 
section emergency coordinator anda Ham for a long time the scenario 
described must bemissing some important variables.If HF Winlink 
could hold effective communications onHF then so could a dozen or more 
modes. There is notechnological reason why HF Winlink was "the 
only"reliable mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewedto be 
certain of that outcome.Not looking for an argument, just some 
healthy cynicismbased on a little knowledge of politics and 
science.HF Winlink may have been "one of many" modes morecapable 
of effective weak signal communications but onecannot ever make the 
claim that it would be the "only".Add to that the need for redundant 
hardware and the highvalue of simple over complex and HF Winlink would 
be apoor first/primary choice. The hardware is so rare asto be 
readily postulated as "probably unavailable" atboth ends and the 
complexity of the systems rise abovestandard emergency requirements for 
mission-criticalapplications.A third-tier or fourth-tier 
nice-to-have perhaps.IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e Last 
August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San  
Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9  
earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which  
destroyed most of the local infrasture.  Due to the 
simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and  power 
sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land  
Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial 
 County EOC.  The only communications that 
proved reliable was HF Winlink. San Diego  EOC was able to 
connect into a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County  was able 
to connect to another HF node and we established and maintained  
both Critical, Tactical and HW communications through Winlink 
Email.  I might note that the success of HF Winlink 
when everything else failed  during the SET really changed the minds 
of a lot of died in the wool  Winlink Haters around 
here.  Could we have accomplished the same with HF 
voice Relays?..  We tried HF voice without much 
success (they were in a HF dead zone)...  however in an real (non 
SET) disaster with more HF stations around for  relays...Likely... 
but definitely not with the same ease of use or  
reliability...  So there definitely is a place for Winlink 
EMCOMM in our bag of tricks... 
__ Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA



No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: 
2/21/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Doc:

It's amazing to me how fast the irrational Winlink 
Haters crawl out of the woodwork on this reflector

A briefreport on the drill is on Page 1 and 
Page 2 of the San Diego Section ARES Alert

www.qsl.net/sdgarrl/alert0905.pdf 


Most of the rest of the documentation is on the San 
Diego ARES Reflector on Yahoo.

Was Winlink a primary communications tool planned 
for the drill?

... Definitely not...

In fact, Winlink was very much an 
afterthought and ultimately an act of desperation... 

The people manning SD EOC were very much the 
Luddites who were opposed to even equipping the EOC with Winlink [I was not 
even at the EOC as I was manning a Mountain Top (my house) as a HF/VHF/UHF 
relayuntil the simulated earhquake disabled my tower]

BUT
When all else failed to connect to Imperial County EOC, the Luddites in 
the SD EOC finally tried Winlink...

They were able to connect through a HF Node inTexas which enabled 
them to pass vital traffic from EOC to EOC.

The point I am making is that us hams have a lot of tools in our EMCOMM 
arsenals.. and using this irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one of our 
tools makes no sense...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:03 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  I would like to see the documentation of this.As a 
  former employee of a state emergency managementagency and a former section 
  emergency coordinator anda Ham for a long time the scenario described must 
  bemissing some important variables.If HF Winlink could hold 
  effective communications onHF then so could a dozen or more modes. 
  There is notechnological reason why HF Winlink was "the only"reliable 
  mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewedto be certain of that 
  outcome.Not looking for an argument, just some healthy 
  cynicismbased on a little knowledge of politics and science.HF 
  Winlink may have been "one of many" modes morecapable of effective weak 
  signal communications but onecannot ever make the claim that it would be 
  the "only".Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the 
  highvalue of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be apoor 
  first/primary choice. The hardware is so rare asto be readily 
  postulated as "probably unavailable" atboth ends and the complexity of the 
  systems rise abovestandard emergency requirements for 
  mission-criticalapplications.A third-tier or fourth-tier 
  nice-to-have perhaps.IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e Last 
  August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San  
  Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9  
  earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which  
  destroyed most of the local infrasture.  Due to the 
  simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and  power 
  sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land  Line 
  voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial  
  County EOC.  The only communications that proved 
  reliable was HF Winlink. San Diego  EOC was able to connect into 
  a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County  was able to connect to 
  another HF node and we established and maintained  both Critical, 
  Tactical and HW communications through Winlink Email. 
   I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else 
  failed  during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in 
  the wool  Winlink Haters around here.  Could we 
  have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..  We 
  tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)...  
  however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for 
   relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or 
   reliability...  So there definitely is a place for 
  Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks... 
  __ Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[KV9U]

Dave is quite correct. Lets make it clear that those of us who want to 
see improvements in digital technology detection of busy channels, are 
not in opposition to standard third party traffic handling via amateur 
radio channels. In fact, I personally am in favor of this. The automated 
systems simply must have some controls in terms of insuring content so 
that ANY amateur radio operator who is monitoring can, in fact, be able 
to determine if there are abuses in progress.

This is a problem with Winlink 2000 since it uses compression techniques 
that make it much harder to decode. In fact, some Winlink 2000 folks 
were promoting this a while back as one of the benefits of the system 
and actually derided anyone who suggested that it was possible to easily 
decode their system.

Even though I support the basic concept of Winlink and Winlink 2000 and 
PSKmail, and other messaging systems as they are developed, we have not 
insured that we can self police in all cases. If we hams do not self 
police, no one else is going to be doing it. This is not a minor issue. 
And now we have some ARRL Directors supporting actual encryption on the 
ham bands starting with 50 MHz and above. This is truly a slippery 
slope and I believe we should convince our Directors that this is very 
bad idea considering the abuses that will surely occur if it was ever 
permitted.

In terms of content here in the U.S., the FCC liberalized the rules some 
years ago and does allow for some casual quasi personal business type 
messaging. This was made clear when it was pointed out that you could 
now order a pizza via an amateur radio phone patch such as through a 
repeater. But just because you can do this doesn't mean that you should. 
And owners of the radio servers need to be very careful about what kind 
of traffic is going through their system. We know from recent comments 
that there have been many borderline and possibly illegal transmissions 
being made on the Winlink 2000 system. My previous understanding was 
that the owner of the system was diligent in monitoring the throughput, 
but it appears otherwise. The same rules should apply to any other 
system and PSKmail would be no exception either although I would expect 
that the transmissions would be more transparent in that system?

If the hams using the radio servers knew that many people would be 
monitoring their transmissions, and that they would be blocked from 
using the system if they were caught, the amount of improper activity 
would be greatly reduced.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Dave Bernstein wrote:

 Pactor is not the problem, Roger. Ops running keyboard-to-keyboard
 Pactor can determine that the frequency is clear before
 transmitting, just as you would in PSK, RTTY, or Olivia.

 Other than excluding commercial content, its a slipperly slope to
 say what kind of traffic constitutes true ham radio and what
 doesn't. What's wrong with boaters with valid amateur licenses
 sending messages to Aunt Nelly, so long as they obey the rules and
 operate considerately.

 73,

Dave, AA6YQ

   




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Bernstein wrote:

Pactor is not the problem, Roger. Ops running keyboard-to-keyboard 
Pactor can determine that the frequency is clear before 
transmitting, just as you would in PSK, RTTY, or Olivia.
  

That is, of course, true.  I used to be a K to K Pactor operator myself 
and I still own a PTC-II.  However, Pactor has pretty much devolved to a 
mode outside of ordinary ham radio QSOs.  VERY few K to K pactor 
operators anymore.  If you go to the SCS website it is plain that ham 
radio is no longer their focus and serving boaters is.  By the way, I am 
also an avid boater and I am quite familiar with the uses to which 
members of my yacht clubs put Pactor.

Other than excluding commercial content, its a slipperly slope to 
say what kind of traffic constitutes true ham radio and what 
doesn't. What's wrong with boaters with valid amateur licenses 
sending messages to Aunt Nelly, so long as they obey the rules and 
operate considerately. 

73,

The law is comprised mainly of line drawing on the edge of slippery 
slopes. And nothing wrong with Pactor being a mode primarily designed 
for family communications.  However, that is outside the basic nature of 
amateur radio, IMO.

de Roger W6VZV



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Tim Gorman]

Rick,

I think the problem is more complex than this. I believe you will find that 
sub-bands will ALWAYS be the answer of choice. 

First, I use a pk-232mbx on pactor in the automatic sub-bands as part of the 
NTS-D system. This box only listens for other pactor stations. If I were to 
be told that this was going to be banned from the ham bands, I would drop out 
of the NTS-D. So would others who use exactly the same equipment. None of us 
would have $1000 or more to get equipped with SCS modems. It would be much 
better to keep these operations in the sub-bands and keep them operating than 
to just kill the system by default.

Second, I would be interested in how SCAMP operated when QRM came on the 
frequency? Did it end the session so it wouldn't QRM the other guy? Or was 
the busy detector disabled after the session had been established?

If the later, the busy detection scheme is only a placebo for many, many 
situations and not a true fix. Since the systems today offer no true trunk 
system control signals (i.e. calls to a busy channel are not abandoned by the 
originating end but just continue to be attempted) as soon as the automatic 
station detects a clear channel (the station it could hear turns the 
transmission over to a station that can't be heard) the session will be 
started and will cause QRM. Bottom line? No difference. The QRM is just 
delayed by one transmission period. 

The only situations which would be truly helped would be those where the 
automatic station can hear ALL stations in the QSO on the frequency of use.

If SCAMP stops operation upon busy detection, even after a session is 
established,  it is likely that the system would come to a screeching halt 
during busy times of the day. Since it is likely this is when long distance 
propagation may be at its best, system throughput could be drastically 
impacted. 

It would appear that the *only* way to minimize impacts of the automatic 
stations is to maintain automatic subbands. Other operations who want to 
venture into these areas should understand that protections against QRM are 
not what they are in other areas. 

For those who think that restricting automatic operations to small subbands is 
not fair to operations like Winlink, I would be happy to lay out changes in 
operation that would let Winlink pass all of its traffic on five 500hz 
channels. That's not five channels per band but five total, and Pactor II at 
that.

To those discussing email content. It is my opinion, for whatever that is 
worth, that it is *not* the content of a specific communication that is the 
problem, per se, but the *regularity* of third party communications. Regular 
communications with third parties are specifically mentioned in the Part 97 
rules. It would seem to be axiomatic that for one time use or even 
non-regular use, almost any content could be allowed, even it is not what 
most would consider acceptable. When the use is for third-party 
communications on a regular basis, especially the *same* third party all the 
time, the use enters a different realm. 

For instance, I keep getting the issue of weather reports thrown out when the 
subject comes up. These are *important* to ships at sea. 

Well, what would happen if I started broadcasting the local NWS system on 
3920khz or 146.52Mhz during times of bad weather? Wouldn't those weather 
reports be important to people on the road during periods of snow and 
freezing weather? If I were to do this on a regular basis, e.g. 24/7, does 
anyone on here think it would take more than a few days for me to get a 
letter from Riley? 

Would the Winlink people support having this type of operation on the ham 
bands? 

Just as there are other radio services providing this service (i.e. the NWS), 
there are other radio services providing for regular, third party email from 
ships, yachts, and boats, be they on land or sea.

tim ab0wr


On Monday 20 February 2006 22:14, KV9U wrote:
 John,

 At one time it was not technically possible for a robot station on semi
 (or for that matter on fully) automatic, to be able to detect diverse
 signals in the pass band.

 There were some who said it could not be done. Well, it HAS been done.
 Do you understand this?

 Your acceptance of this kind of QRM is no longer acceptable to
 reasonable amateur radio operators who now know that there is this new
 technology developed by Rick, KN6KB, the current Winlink 2000
 programmer. I have personally tested it when he incorporated it into the
 SCAMP mode and it is superb.

 Most of us now expect (perhaps demand) that further development with
 automated digital modes and equipment will include the ability to hold
 off transmitting until the channel is clear. If this doesn't happen then
 the best that can be said is that these operations would have to be kept
 in small subbands, similar to the current fully automatic subbands (that
 also include the wide band semi-automatic operations).

 My preference, and I think you 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[KV9U]

With the unfolding technologies we won't be needing subbands. For the 
older technology such as PK-232 equipment the stop gap is to keep the 
automatic operation areas in place for now. Ideally, they would 
eventually not be needed. At this time I am not sure that the SCS modem 
is a solution. It would require improved software to go with the modem. 
But there is no reason that this could not be developed as a retrofix.

 From everything I have been discovering, there is very little support 
(or even knowledge of ) the NTS/D. The current direction seems to be to 
move toward the internet as the solution for handling e-mail traffic 
with minimal ham activity. This is partially due to the desire for 
timely traffic handling (one hour maximum delivery time that can not be 
done by NTS/D) and partially due to the desire to reduce the number of 
automatic stations operating on HF.

This is the basic philosophy of the Winlink 2000 system:  only use ham 
radio for  a short distance to bridge a gap in the internet, (unless 
longer distances are needed for wide spread disasters or for isolated 
stations such as boaters),  keep HF stations off the air as much as 
possible to avoid HF forwarding due to the lack of bandspace as it is, 
and handle most of the short distance traffic via VHF/UHF packet to 
further keep messages off of HF, and also because an increasing number 
of new entrants do not have HF capability.

For casual types of operation, I think this is a good thing. I do not 
consider such systems true emergency communications systems because with 
certain single point failures, the system becomes inoperative. The 
decentralized NTS system can still get through, albeit with inaccuracies 
in the information and not necessarily in a timely manner. Sometimes 
that is still better than nothing getting through at all.

In answer to your question about SCAMP you have some excellent points.

SCAMP could be programmed to work either way. You could have it shut 
down after the link is established if it detects QRM. However, I am not 
sure this is appropriate for several reasons. After all, it listened for 
a period of time (random detection time with the current design and 
could be set for any minimum time if this proves necessary) and then if 
the channel is clear, it begins to use the frequency because it would be 
responding to the human operator on the other end of the link. The busy 
detector should be disabled once the link is established because anyone 
else using the frequency is now the QRM. Further, if others knew that it 
would abort with any QRM, we all know that there would be malicious 
operators who would only have to send a dit or two on the frequency and 
it would shut down the link.

With conventional data modes with human operators at both ends, if 
someone is calling CQ on the frequency and not one else has been heard 
for some time on the frequency and another station answers and then 
someone new comes up on the frequency, it is difficult to consider the 
new station as to having the frequency.  Sometimes they might, sometimes 
not.

Two solutions would be to either have some kind of QRL polling by the 
automated station or for the stations to be using ARQ operation.

This also highlights the value of an ARQ mode. Since the ARQ feature 
means that there is a back and forth series of transmissions within a 
reasonable amount of time. Certainly, within 30 seconds, but usually 
much less (like 1 1/4 seconds for Pactor). Wouldn't it be reasonable 
that stations operating in ARQ mode will insure that there is not a 
hidden transmitter between two other stations that otherwise would think 
the frequency is busy?

As was recently mentioned by the Winlink 2000 owner, during heavy use of 
the bands, such as contest weekends, Winlink 2000 HF operations are 
significantly affected in a most negative manner. So I agree that just 
having congestion can bring down HF networks due to so little space for 
so many signals.

As far as Winlink 2000's content or any other newer e-mail systems, 
there is no broadcasting to my knowlege. All the connections are from 
one station to the other station. In fact, it would be very difficult 
(not impossible, but very difficult) for anyone to even monitor the 
transmission content. Since the content is not transparent to the 
amateur community, unlike almost any other amateur mode, this is a root 
problem that we have not come to grips with.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Tim Gorman wrote:

 Rick,

 I think the problem is more complex than this. I believe you will find 
 that
 sub-bands will ALWAYS be the answer of choice.

 First, I use a pk-232mbx on pactor in the automatic sub-bands as part 
 of the
 NTS-D system. This box only listens for other pactor stations. If I 
 were to
 be told that this was going to be banned from the ham bands, I would 
 drop out
 of the NTS-D. So would others who use exactly the same equipment. None 
 of us
 would have $1000 or more to get equipped 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

I feel that  NO ONE should QRM anyone and that goes for
the Pactor auto stations. I think some misunderstood me
on this issues. But it will happen, even with SCAMP.
It will happen and is going to happen.

On the other hand look at W1AW. If it's time for the
CW or RTTY bulletin to start, guess what it's going to
start if the frequency is in use or not. And why has no
one said a word about it on the list? I'll answer that,
It's because they are not using a frequency between
14,069 and 14,073.









Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Danny Douglas]

Hmmm.  I have sent them a note or two in the past over exactly that.  I or
someone else was using a freq and they fired up.  I let them no in
unequivocal terms, that is not suppose to happen.  They are no different
than anyone else on that matter, and should check every frequency they are
about to fire up, and slightly change if someone else is there.


- Original Message - 
From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital


 I feel that  NO ONE should QRM anyone and that goes for
 the Pactor auto stations. I think some misunderstood me
 on this issues. But it will happen, even with SCAMP.
 It will happen and is going to happen.

 On the other hand look at W1AW. If it's time for the
 CW or RTTY bulletin to start, guess what it's going to
 start if the frequency is in use or not. And why has no
 one said a word about it on the list? I'll answer that,
 It's because they are not using a frequency between
 14,069 and 14,073.









 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

 Other areas of interest:

 The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
 DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)


 Yahoo! Groups Links








 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 2/20/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[doc]

This has been raised many times during this and other
debates in the Ham fraternity about the latest cause
of avoidable QRM.

It is one of the examples people unhappy point to as
an illustration of ARRL arrogance do as I say, not as
I do.

OTOH, it is kind of silly if not looking for conflict
to start a QSO on a freq one knows has been used to the
benefit of thousands of Hams for 40 years at certain
times of day.

It remains the responsibility of the operators of W1AW
to be certain the freq is clear *prior* to transmitting.

Perhaps an Official Observer should cite them to make
the point that no one is above the law, regs, nor common
courtesy.

;-)  doc

 Hmmm.  I have sent them a note or two in the past over exactly that.  I or
 someone else was using a freq and they fired up.  I let them no in
 unequivocal terms, that is not suppose to happen.  They are no different
 than anyone else on that matter, and should check every frequency they are
 about to fire up, and slightly change if someone else is there.




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

Oh go ahead, try me.


At 08:40 PM 2/21/06, you wrote:
I'd comment on W1AW, but given its bandwidth, I'm sure you'd
characterize my response as anti-wide.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Danny Douglas]

That may be true, and if I had remembered their freq/time. etc.  I would not
have been on there to start with, but now that I think of it, I probably
answred someone elses CQ there.  If I do remember, the schedule printed in
QST does say a freq + or _ a couple of KC.  I wonder how many (percentage?)
of times they do actually move if they hear someone on.  The trouble with an
OO getting involved in this type of thing is that they often do not hear
both ends of a conversation also.

 On the other hand, I do not feel at all obliged to vacate a frequency where
a scheduled transmission or net is going to meet, in say half an hour.  That
frequency can easily be used right up to a few minutes before the net meets,
especially by someone who knows about it, and is using the freq in order to
not only to communicate, but in order to keep it available for use as soon
as the net is ready.  I was not amused when I was on the frequency expected
near where the  3y operation was to be at a certain time, to open up the
bedlam, and I was talking to someone else there prior to that.  The
renta-a-cops showed in all their glory showing their IQ They yelled QRL
(no one was talking but us), busy (same thing), up up up up, guess they
meant we should be working split while talking,: and things I would not care
to repeat here on a family orientated hobby group.  Even after we said Yes
we know they plan to use this frequency, and when they come up we will clear
off  It made no difference to the weak minded and willful.  We were on
their frequency - after all they WERE listening to lit.   The feeding
frenzy was already on, and it wasnt even time for the zoo keepers to open
the gate.




- Original Message - 
From: doc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital


 This has been raised many times during this and other
 debates in the Ham fraternity about the latest cause
 of avoidable QRM.

 It is one of the examples people unhappy point to as
 an illustration of ARRL arrogance do as I say, not as
 I do.

 OTOH, it is kind of silly if not looking for conflict
 to start a QSO on a freq one knows has been used to the
 benefit of thousands of Hams for 40 years at certain
 times of day.

 It remains the responsibility of the operators of W1AW
 to be certain the freq is clear *prior* to transmitting.

 Perhaps an Official Observer should cite them to make
 the point that no one is above the law, regs, nor common
 courtesy.

 ;-)  doc

  Hmmm.  I have sent them a note or two in the past over exactly that.  I
or
  someone else was using a freq and they fired up.  I let them no in
  unequivocal terms, that is not suppose to happen.  They are no different
  than anyone else on that matter, and should check every frequency they
are
  about to fire up, and slightly change if someone else is there.




 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

 Other areas of interest:

 The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
 DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)


 Yahoo! Groups Links









 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 2/20/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[doc]

The regs do not *require* you to vacate the freq at
all.  Traditional Ham courtesy suggests you might.

One of the problems with the W1AW model is that it
gives rise to K1MAN copycats.

In all cases of competition for a freq there are
technical rights and social niceties.

QRM by anyone of anyone for any reason is always
an infraction.

Too late and too much of a cold for more ... and
no real need.  ;-)

doc

  On the other hand, I do not feel at all obliged to vacate a frequency where
 a scheduled transmission or net is going to meet, in say half an hour.



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Tim Gorman]

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 18:45, KV9U wrote:
 With the unfolding technologies we won't be needing subbands. For the
 older technology such as PK-232 equipment the stop gap is to keep the
 automatic operation areas in place for now. Ideally, they would
 eventually not be needed. At this time I am not sure that the SCS modem
 is a solution. It would require improved software to go with the modem.
 But there is no reason that this could not be developed as a retrofix.

I think you missed my point. Even with the new technology, sub-bands will be 
needed. You are only fooling yourself if you think busy detection by itself 
will eliminate the QRM from the hidden transmitter problem. Let me emphasize, 
*THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY* could not solve this problem during FCC hearings on 
the smart radio concept. 

It doesn't matter what kind of busy detection the automatic station has. If it 
can't hear anyone on the frequency it will, sooner or later, respond to a 
query. If you force the protocol to use an extended leaky bucket type of 
timing to respond to queries when activity has been detected at a prior time 
then you only load the channel up further with connection requests thus 
causing even more congestion than occurred before. This hurts the channel 
efficiency tremendously. If you program the protocol so that a session is 
stopped whenever another station is detected, you tremendously lower the 
throughput. 

When you make the channel less efficient you force more channels to be used to 
carry the traffic load. This causes even more opportunities for interference 
to happen. It's a merry-go-round with no way off.

The only answer is to establish sub-bands where this kind operation can exist 
in an efficient manner so as to maximize spectrum efficiency and minimize 
impacts on the rest of the spectrum.


  From everything I have been discovering, there is very little support
 (or even knowledge of ) the NTS/D. The current direction seems to be to
 move toward the internet as the solution for handling e-mail traffic
 with minimal ham activity. This is partially due to the desire for
 timely traffic handling (one hour maximum delivery time that can not be
 done by NTS/D) and partially due to the desire to reduce the number of
 automatic stations operating on HF.

Have you listened to the latest testimony in front of Congress concerning the 
use of email for handling tactical traffic? It's not good. It's what so many 
have been saying for a long time but can't get anyone to hear - especially 
the ARRL. When Mike Brown said he sent emails to a number of people in 
Washington about the situation in New Orleans, the answer was Email? Who can 
dig out information like this when I get 600 emails a day? (I'm paraphrasing 
of course - but this was the bottom line meaning!) There was one witness, I 
belive a vice-admiral, who said that there should have been telephone or 
radio contact to pass this kind of message - i.e. human to human contact.

If the ARRL doesn't rethink their priorties after this testimony, there isn't 
any hope for amateur radio to be a useful entity in the future, at least for 
important types of messages. It is important for a system with human 
intervention for delivery to be available for handling priority traffic - 
there just isn't anything else that works. You can't tell a computer to run 
down the hall and wake someone up to get them a message. 

That shouldn't be the only lesson learned either. In talking with a couple of 
people who were in the Superdome, a vast, vast majority of the people there 
could not have used email to notify anyone of their situation even if 
computers had been available. Even in this day and age there is a large 
majority of our population that do not use email let alone even have enough 
computer training to make use of it. Winlink and the ARRL would be useless to 
thses people. Only the NTS with its use of telephone numbers for delivery and 
with an established delivery network manned with actual personnel is set up 
to handle this -- assuming the ARRL ever gets off their behind and negotiates 
agreements that actually lets amateur radio help these victims. 

The automatic stations in the NTS-D aren't a problem. As far as I know, all 
operation by stations in the system occurs inside the automatic subbands. 
Those subbands just aren't big enough to cause a problem to most of the 
amateur radio community - as long as people are aware that they exist.


 This is the basic philosophy of the Winlink 2000 system:  only use ham
 radio for  a short distance to bridge a gap in the internet, (unless
 longer distances are needed for wide spread disasters or for isolated
 stations such as boaters),  keep HF stations off the air as much as
 possible to avoid HF forwarding due to the lack of bandspace as it is,
 and handle most of the short distance traffic via VHF/UHF packet to
 further keep messages off of HF, and also because an increasing number
 of new entrants do not 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Tim Gorman]

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 19:41, Dave Bernstein wrote:
 There are straightforward ways to successfully deal with this
 scenario a large percentage of the time. After noting the transition
 of a previously-busy frequency to not busy, an automatic station
 would wait some period of time - say 3 minutes. If the frequency
 remained clear during that interval, the automatic station would
 send QRL? in CW. If the frequency remained clear for 15 seconds, the
 automatic station would send QRL? in CW again. If the frequency
 remained clear for another 15 seconds, the automatic station could
 initiate transmission, or accept activation from remote stations.

I'm sorry but you are tilting with a windmill. You just added 4.5 to 5 minutes 
to every session request, even for messages that shouldn't take more than 
90sec to complete. That means this recommendation will require 3 times the 
number of channels to handle the same amount of traffic. That's not an 
effective way to do things.

In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for instance, will 
recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds. It would be much better 
if the automatic station could respond to a standard QRL signal during 
receive periods (wasn't it you that suggested that to me at some time in the 
past?). 



tim ab0wr


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Bernstein wrote:

I strongly diasgree with the suggestion that someone shouldn't use a 
clear frequency because an automatic station incapable of listening 
before transmitting might later show up.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

You got that right.

de Roger W6VZV



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

You know it not always the fault of the automatic station
but more the user. I dont know how many times that has
been said by me and others.



At 04:47 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
I strongly diasgree with the suggestion that someone shouldn't use a
clear frequency because an automatic station incapable of listening
before transmitting might later show up.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

This has been talked about by many
Me for one.

At 05:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
I have never seen you or any one else here describe a scenario in
which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an automatic
station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station.

If you can describe such a scenario, please do so.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

Dave I could talk till I was blue in the face about ready
to drop dead. But you and others already have you mind
made up with this anti wide and pactor attitude.

I nor anyone else could say a thing that would please
you.

Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your
ring of silence (you can't copy each other if you had to)
listens to the frenquncy (unable to ask if the frequency
is in use on every mode known to man) hears nothing.
brings up the auto station and in doing so QRM's a QSO
on the same frequency that he did not hear.

Now as I see it that is not the fault of the auto station.
But I know you are going to say that the auto station
*should* be able to tell if it was in use. And that is getting
real old with me.




At 06:47 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
Yes, lots of talk, but no description of an actual scenario that
substantiates that talk.

The explanation, I believe, is that there is no such scenario. If you
disagree, describe the scenario.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  This has been talked about by many
  Me for one.
 
  At 05:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
  I have never seen you or any one else here describe a scenario in
  which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an automatic
  station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station.
  
  If you can describe such a scenario, please do so.
  
  73,
  
 Dave, AA6YQ
 







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)


Yahoo! Groups Links







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[doc]

Hasn't SCAMP already successfully demonstrated the technology
for checking multiple modes prior to transmission?

Also, just because one cannot detect 1/2 of a QSO does
not mean that one may not detect the other 1/2.

If one truly cannot detect either side (with reasonable
receive sensitivity and antenna gain employed) then one's
legal transmission (only the minimum power necessary to
establish and maintain communications) will not be capable
of QRMing the existing QSO.

If you cannot hear them they should not be able to hear
you -- unless you are running an alligator station
(transmit side not balanced with the receive side).

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e

 Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your
 ring of silence (you can't copy each other if you had to)
 listens to the frenquncy (unable to ask if the frequency
 is in use on every mode known to man) hears nothing.
 brings up the auto station and in doing so QRM's a QSO
 on the same frequency that he did not hear.
 
 Now as I see it that is not the fault of the auto station.
 But I know you are going to say that the auto station
 *should* be able to tell if it was in use. And that is getting
 real old with me.




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Becker]

you just made my point once again.

  I nor anyone else could say a thing that would please
  you.


At 08:31 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
Lets take this in two parts, John.

1. In your original post (message 13673) you said You know it not
always the fault of the automatic station but more the user. In the
scenario you describe below, what did the user being QRM'd do
wrong?

2. Why is it unreasonable to expect the automatic station to verify
that the frequency is clear before transmitting? In its decision to
allow automatic operation, the FCC said First, the control operator
of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled
station must prevent the automatically controlled station from
causing interference. As your scenario perfectly illustrates, the
person who remotely activates the automatic station can't reliably
prevent the automatic station from causing interference by simply
listening to the frequency at his or her end. Only a listener at
the automatic station can ensure this. That listener could be a
human operator who only enables his or her automatic station when
present to prevent interference, or it could be a circuit and/or
algorithm that detects a busy frequency. Either way, there is no
excuse for failure to prevent interference with an ongoing QSO, as
is required.

The FCC quote can be found in
http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/fcc97221.htm ; its in paragraph
6. Note that its dated April 1995. The requirement to prevent
interference has been in force for many years.

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Bernstein wrote:

Automatic stations should not transmit without first verifying that 
the frequency is clear would please me just fine, John. Judging 
from a sample of comments filed with the FCC regarding the ARRL 
proposal, it would please a lot of hams.

You've again failed to respond to reasonable questions, obviously 
because the answers would require acknowledging the fallacy of your 
earlier posts. We're done.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

The Pactor stations never listen before they transmit, and they 
indiscriminantly QRM other law abiding amateurs.  Further, most of the 
traffic they carry is not really even ham radio.  It is email from 
boaters who don't want to pay for satellite internet service.  One 
wonders how much of this traffic hews to the amateur radio requirement 
that it not be business traffic.  At best most of it is CB type traffic, 
i.e. someone wanting to say hello to Aunt Nelly.

de Roger W6VZV



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[KV9U]

John,

At one time it was not technically possible for a robot station on semi 
(or for that matter on fully) automatic, to be able to detect diverse 
signals in the pass band.

There were some who said it could not be done. Well, it HAS been done. 
Do you understand this?

Your acceptance of this kind of QRM is no longer acceptable to 
reasonable amateur radio operators who now know that there is this new 
technology developed by Rick, KN6KB, the current Winlink 2000 
programmer. I have personally tested it when he incorporated it into the 
SCAMP mode and it is superb.

Most of us now expect (perhaps demand) that further development with 
automated digital modes and equipment will include the ability to hold 
off transmitting until the channel is clear. If this doesn't happen then 
the best that can be said is that these operations would have to be kept 
in small subbands, similar to the current fully automatic subbands (that 
also include the wide band semi-automatic operations).

My preference, and I think you will find the preference of an increasing 
number of hams, is that any automatic operation that has no auto detect 
for a busy channel should be banned from the amateur radio bands.

That is a very reasonable position to take considering the available 
software technology.

73,

Rick, KV9U



John Becker wrote:

 Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your
 ring of silence (you can't copy each other if you had to)
 listens to the frenquncy (unable to ask if the frequency
 is in use on every mode known to man) hears nothing.
 brings up the auto station and in doing so QRM's a QSO
 on the same frequency that he did not hear.

 Now as I see it that is not the fault of the auto station.
 But I know you are going to say that the auto station
 *should* be able to tell if it was in use. And that is getting
 real old with me.




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[Danny Douglas]

Yet, hundreds of Boy Scouts do exactly that, during every Jamboree,  Because
its a FUN thing for them to do.


- Original Message - 
From: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:52 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital


 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 There seems to be a lot of interest in doing the glamour work of handling
  emergency agency traffic but little interest in doing the grunt work of
  handling traffic for the public.
 
 I'm surprised to learn there is any work to be done in handling traffic
 for the public.  Can't imagine why anyone would want to send a message
 via ham radio.





 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

 Other areas of interest:

 The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
 DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)


 Yahoo! Groups Links








 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 1/6/2006





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

[John Bradley]

Granted it doesn't seem to make much sense handling 
traffic in this day of cellphones, internet, text messaging and 
whatever.

Rather than look at this as useless, think about 
this as practice. I don't know id you spent much time listening to the emergency 
services
nets during the hurricanes and other natural 
disasters, and the ability to handle messages under stress requires practice, 
and the best place for practice is the NTS traffic system. 

John
VE5MU

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jhaynesatalumni 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:52 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
  Tim Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]... 
  wrote:There seems to be a lot of interest in doing the glamour work of 
  handling  emergency agency traffic but little interest in doing the 
  grunt work of  handling traffic for the public. I'm 
  surprised to learn there is any work to be done in handling trafficfor the 
  public. Can't imagine why anyone would want to send a messagevia ham 
  radio.
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.0.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 
  1/6/06





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.