Steve, I think this proves Andrew's point. Trying to just read what you said, much less implement it is seemingly impossible.
KISS. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In [email protected], AAR2EY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > I don't know what has prompted this thread on your part, however, the > only threat to ALE is AQC-ALE in my opinion and that's not at all > bad. However most Amateurs that are working with ALE have yet to > realize the full potential of ALE, let alone the potential of AQC-ALE > that is available in PC-ALE. The AQC-ALE performance advantages over > ALE are amazing, however its use leaves 99% of the ALE hardware users > out in the cold as AQC-ALE is only to be found in the latest, most > expensive equipments, thus having it available in PC-ALE is just to > state of the art. > > As a licensed Radio Amateur for nearly 30 years and an SWL for about > 15 years before that, its been my observation that the Amateur Radio > Service if nothing else, adapts to technology that serves the Amateur > Radio Service best. I see ALE, especially in the U.S., becoming more > important to the Amateur Radio Service due to the large move underway > by the U.S. Government in the use of ALE within Federal circles and > those that serve and communicate with them down to the State level > and below, thus expect to see RACES and ARES become more ALE active > in the near future, the hand writing is clearly on the wall. > > In general there is great potential for the application of ALE within > the Amateur Radio Service, especially in the areas of ECOM and HF > e-mail networks and other follow on activity in my opinion. In > addition, due to the nature of Amateur Radio and today's and future > PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) based tools, advances can take place at > a much faster pace in areas that would not be seen in the hardware > Modem/TNC world where the rules of government licensing bodies around > the world do not limit such advances such as in the U.S. with the > FCC. Those that want to pursue the developing the PCSDM path of ALE > systems operation simply need to choose the proper system components > to do so if they are not already in place, many older and certain > newer radio and computer equipments are just not up to the task for > various reasons. > > ALE was developed originally to be hardware based and to a set of > Federal and Military standards and as many Amateurs use such hardware > based systems, an effort needs to be made to be backward compatible > with said systems in my opinion. However that should not mean that > advances for Amateur Radio use such as FAE ARQ by F6CTE in MultiPSK > should be held off do to existing limitations in any areas of ALE > systems in use. Users of ALE must choose their method of ALE and all > system components, with ALE hardware systems the application of 3rd > party tools for follow on DLP activity is very common, aside from AMD > some hardware ALE systems provide DTM and some DTM and DBM, use can > also be made of the PCSDM based or TNC/Modem based DLP, its just a > matter of tying the systems together to maintain the ALE linked state > by monitoring the follow on activity state status. The use of AMD is > the common denominator in the ALE world simply because the bulk of > all ALE hardware modem/controllers only offer AMD, however that is > not the case in the PCSDM based ALE world and bridging the two worlds > for the follow on DLP is all that is required, its up to the user > base to choose what their standard follow on DLP choice(s) are for > interoperability. In the Military ALE world its usually > MIL-STD-188-110 modem based with one or more waveforms that are used > for follow on, in the U.S. Government world its usually a commercial > TNC/Modem using Clover, GTOR or PACTOR I, which along with other > proprietary protocols (some on MIL-STD-188-110x modem) is the case > with other Governments, Para-Military, some 3rd World Militaries as > well Commercial users. The question to be answered in the Amateur > Radio world is what shall become the follow on ARQ protocol > standard(s)? For FSK modems my vote is DBM ARQ, FAE ARQ, GTOR and > PACTOR I as the main choices, as to higher speed modems the situation > is less clear due to existing rules in many countries, especially in > the U.S., however the MIL-STD-188-110x modem is an obvious choice, as > are the newer CLOVER and PACTOR x modes which could all be > implemented via the PCSDM as well as via hardware if they were not proprietary. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > > At 12:33 PM 6/18/2007, you wrote: > > >I wonder if ALE for amateur radio use is in danger of demise as the > >result of varying formats, similar to the old video tape format > >saga. The public's demand for a method of recording video was such > >that one format survived and the industry flourished. With ALE that > >amateur demand is so limited that it could flounder rather than flourish. > > > >Currently available software for ALE hams is apparently restricted > >to PC-ALE, MARS-ALE, and Multipsk. PC-ALE has an incompatibility > >with many rigs and decodes poorly with less than optimal > >soundcards. Multipsk decodes well with less than optimal > >soundcards, but does not perform many of the automated ALE > >procedures. MARS-ALE has many advantages over PC-ALE but its very > >nature restricts it to use only by MARS operators. > > > >A small group of hams has worked very hard at getting ALE a > >"toe-hold" in the amateur radio world. However, the potential user > >of ALE has to battle many more performance/compatibility issues than > >the average ham faces for other amateur modes of > >communication. Even when thing appear simple (like getting on PSK31 > >or RTTY) we lose people because they see it as too complicated. I > >fear that ALE will not grow unless there are significant > >enhancements in the development of software that is compatilable > >with ...most rigs in use since 1990, most soundcards used in cheap > >computers since 2000, and the most commonly interfaces used > >(Rigblaster, Microham, SignaLink, etc) > > > >Since the three software products I mentioned are mostly free of > >cost to the ham, it is hard to criticize the authors that > >design the software . However, ALE's amateur demise might not be > >for off . In fact, maybe there really is no ALE amateur movment to > >suffer a demise. Would we consider a mode used by less that 50 hams > >world-wide to really be anything more than one of those obscure ham > >experiments? Yes, I know...out of "obscure experiments" has come > >many a "killer app", but I worry that ALE needs compatibility and > >interoperability before in can grow. > > > > >
