+++more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>> Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why
>>> then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a
>>> remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme
>>> clearly fails in a hidden station scenario?
If the other user on the channel would be in the same mode, carrier
detection on the PTC itself would stop the answer of the PMBO.
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running
Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that
all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect
themselves from Winlink QRM?
What you are demanding is that they use multimode activity detectors.
That is something else.
+++I am demanding that PMBOs not transmit on a busy frequency.
Winlink's system design is flawed -- it ignores the hidden
transmitter effect. They should either correct the design, or QRT. A
multi-mode busy frequency detector is one solution -- and one the
Winlink team itself has developed and demonstrated.
I repeat again, it did not happen on packet, and did not happen with
APLINK or Winlink Classic.
+++The fact that someone got away with poor engineering in the past
is no excuse for poor engineering in the present. Soundcard software
has dramatically expanded the number of digital mode users on the
bands, so the impact of poorly engineered station management software
is much greater.
>>> Your argument seems to be "because there can be hidden
>>> stations, its okay for unattended stations to QRM them".
No, I did not. Don't put your words in my mouth.
+++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden
transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM
generated by PMBOs?
>>> Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate
>>> operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible.
I believe a bit of knowledge of history is in order. Winlink 2K
evolved from previous technology, which, as far as I know was never
disputed, because everybody accepted that certain frequencies were
used and their carrier detectors only detected the same mode.
+++I'm not familiar with this "previous techology" Jose, but if it
involved an unattended station relying on a remote initiator to
ensure a clear frequency, then its design was flawed. I'm guessing
that the timeframe preceded the explosion of digital mode usage
stimulated by soundcard software, which would mean that there were
far fewer operators around to be QRM'd.
The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Rick
Muething attempted to do it better and please more people. But his
work has only opened the grounds for some other people to start even
more attacks. It is really sad.
>>>Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that
QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this problem,
but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its really sad.
>>> There are no such obvious markers on frequencies in which
>>> unattended operation is permitted, the frequencies available for
>>> unattended operation vary from region to region, and these
>>> frequencies are not exclusively allocated to unattended
>>> operation. No unattended station can QRM a pre-existing QSO on
>>> the grounds that it "owns the right-of-way".
There is a window opening in 2009, with new ham bands limits. It
seems that there is more harmonizing work to be done by IARU.
+++That's great, Jose. So Winlink should either QRT until we have
these harmonized worldwide "unattended only" band segments, or it
should correct its design so that other amateurs aren't QRM'd.
>>> There is no secret sauce in the SCAMP busy frequency detector;
>>> Rick KN6KB prototyped it quickly, and was surprised by how well
>>> it worked.
Rick has proved to be really brilliant.
Is then such a source or algorithm already in the public domain ?
If it is so, why isn't it already known and widely available?
Can you elaborate on this? Can you provide a link to it?
+++The publication of Rick's design is irrelevant, Jose. Rick is a
member of the Winlink development team. There is nothing stopping the
Winlink organization from deploying it in their PMBOs.
>>> Furthermore, Rick is a member of the WinLink Development team;
>>> he could extend the existing WinLink PMBO implementation to
>>> include the SCAMP busy frequency detector, were the WinLink
>>> organization interested in reducing QRM. Worst case, the cost
>>> would be an additional soundcard for each PMBO.
You are here again demanding them to please you.
+++I expect Winlink to abide by the rules and regulations governing
amateur radio
>>> There has been not one report of failure by any developer
>>> attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in
>>> unattended stations.
Why? Because it works perfectly well, or because nobody has achieved
it entirely?
+++ The SCAMP busy detector worked perfectly well; were it deployed
in Winlink, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>>> The one well-reported attempt to build a busy frequency
>>> detector succeeded beyond expections, but inexplicably has not
>>> been deployed.
Well, we are reaching a point where people will be afraid of
publishing their findings, because their ideas can be used in more
ways than what they foresaw, and with opposite ends.
+++That's not even remotely true, Jose. In developing the SCAMP busy
detector, Rick set out explictly to eliminate the design flaw
exmplified by the reliance of Winlink PMBOs on remote initiators to
verify a clear frequency. He accomplished this goal, and was lauded
for it. Both the Winlink organization and the ARRL cited the SCAMP
busy detector as proof that unattended operation coult be expanded to
more frequencies without risk of QRM from the hidden transmitter
effect. The criticism is not that Rick developed this busy frequency
detecor, but rather that Winlink refuses to deploy it.
>>> I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to
>>> be made -- or when someone demonstrates that they aren't
>>> fallacious.
So we arrive to a new definition of fallacious: whatever does not fit
your own mental scheme.
+++ That's a convenient statement for you to make, Jose; I challenge
you to substantiate it.
Certainly, we can see all you are attempting to do is exhausting
those who disagree with you...but that by itself still does not solve
the problem you have been heralding.
+++ Where I disagree with your position, I have have provided an
objective counter-argument. If you see a flaw in my counter-argument,
then please illuminate it. It is not my intent to exhaust you or
anyone else -- only to respond to statements I believe to be false.
Demetre's "People hate Winlink because they're jealous" (my
paraphrase) is the relevant case in point.
We need something more than mere words about multimode activity
detectors.
+++ Winlink already has a multimode activity detector. They need to
deploy it, or find another way of avoiding the QRM they generate, or
QRT.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
