Re: [digitalradio] HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
You are 100% correct Rick. There have been many, including myself who have encouraged the League to seek input from its members. Some was started when the League started its little surveys on the web and now expanding by asking for technical input. So let's put on our "thinking caps" and tell the ARRL what we would like to see. Personally I would like to see a data transfer mode that would be able to provide at a minimum between 4000 and 5000 characters per minute throughput at SNRs or less than -5 dB. This and modifications could be used for messaging as well as file transfers and even digital voice. of perhaps there might be three modes for each of these needs. 73, Walt/K5YFW Rick wrote: > > > The ARRL has come under criticism in the past because it did not provide > enough input from the membership and I suspect that they are opening up > this line of communication from the members to even ask the questions to > determine what it is that we want (or not want), before they start > making moving in an RFP like direction. > > Initially, it is a determination of whether we want some kind of open > source protocol and, if so, what we think might be some of the > characteristics of that protocol. > > Based on comments to this group, there are different views on what that > should be. I am expecting that they will eventually publish some kind of > collation of the input and perhaps we may find some areas of consensus. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > Art Botterell wrote: > > They say it's not an RFP, and I have no reason to doubt that, but > > that still leaves me wondering what the League's query actually IS. > > Has there been any articulation of what the League's purpose might be > > in soliciting these comments? Is this a foray into standards- > > setting? Product development? Or what? > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
The ARRL has come under criticism in the past because it did not provide enough input from the membership and I suspect that they are opening up this line of communication from the members to even ask the questions to determine what it is that we want (or not want), before they start making moving in an RFP like direction. Initially, it is a determination of whether we want some kind of open source protocol and, if so, what we think might be some of the characteristics of that protocol. Based on comments to this group, there are different views on what that should be. I am expecting that they will eventually publish some kind of collation of the input and perhaps we may find some areas of consensus. 73, Rick, KV9U Art Botterell wrote: > They say it's not an RFP, and I have no reason to doubt that, but > that still leaves me wondering what the League's query actually IS. > Has there been any articulation of what the League's purpose might be > in soliciting these comments? Is this a foray into standards- > setting? Product development? Or what? > >
Re: [digitalradio] HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
They say it's not an RFP, and I have no reason to doubt that, but that still leaves me wondering what the League's query actually IS. Has there been any articulation of what the League's purpose might be in soliciting these comments? Is this a foray into standards- setting? Product development? Or what? 73, - Art KD6O On Jun 1, 2007, at 6/1/07 5:56 PM, Walt DuBose wrote: > ave been hesitant to comment on the ARRL seeking comments on a new > HF digital > protocol...but let's look again at what they ask... > > I. Comments from amateurs concerning development of an open-source > (non-proprietary) data communications protocol suitable for use by > radio > amateurs over high-frequency (HF) fading paths. This is not a > Request for > Proposals (RFP). > > II. Access Method: Is Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing > (OFDM) the > best candidate technology, or should other competitive technologies > be considered? > > III. Data Rate and Bandwidth: What data rates/throughputs are > achievable at > various bandwidths up to 3 kHz bandwidth? > > IV. Adaptivity: What adaptive features should be considered, such > as automatic > adjustment of transmitter power, modulation waveform and coding, in > order to > maximize throughput and efficiency in two-way contacts? > > V. Robustness: What is achievable for reliable operation at power > levels > typical in the Amateur Radio Service and low signal/noise and > interference ratios? > > VI. Error control: What are the appropriate applications of error > control > suitable for HF channels? For example, how should Repeat reQuest > (ARQ) and > Forward Error Control (FEC) be applied to two-way contacts and one- > to-many > (roundtable and bulletin) transmissions? > > VII. Activity Detection: What is an effective method of determining > whether a > frequency is busy prior to transmission? > > VIII. Operating System: What operating systems (such as Windows or > Linux) are > appropriate for Amateur Radio use with this protocol? > > IX. Hardware: What practical and affordable hardware platforms are > suitable for > amateur stations? Consider the use of personal computers with or > without sound > cards. Provide any information about the need for an additional > "box" if needed. > > Did Bonnie's response answer these questions? Some of the response > did and did > very well. However, the first paragraph of the ARRL's message > was..."This is > not a Request for Proposals (RFP)." The recommendation of a > specific protocol > or set of protocols was not what was requested. > > As the college professor told his student during a test..."just > answer the > question." > > We get to the point where we want to design what the airplane > should look like > and then determine what it can do and many times it doesn't meet > our real needs. > > I would appear that a set of design goals or specification goals > need to be > defined meet the needs of amateur radio..."an open-source (non- > proprietary) data > communications protocol suitable for use by radio amateurs over > high-frequency > (HF) fading paths." > > A desired format would be to specifically re-state the ARRL's > "question", > provide current data/capabilities and then based on an assessment > of current and > future preceived capabilities, determine what future capabilities > might be > possible and if they might meet the needs of the amateur radio > communnity. > > Too ofter those who deal consistantly with businesses/industry and > governments > are asked for request for proposals (RFP) and the government > federal government > is guilty of this...ask or seems to ask for an RFP when in > realitity they are > looking for a request for information (RFI). I believe that the > ARRL is > actually asking for the latter. > > The question may be do we want to go with what is currently > available with its > benefits and drawbacks (positive/negative attributes) or start with > a clean > slate? Since there is no need for adoption of a specific mode(s) > to meet an > ungent need, then we might well be advised to determine what our > (amateur > radio's) real needs are and start afresh...design from the bottom > up...not the > top down. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > bruce mallon wrote: >> OK so what we have here is a failure to communicate ? >> >> >> >> --- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Please click here to read the HFLINK recommendation >>> comments: >>> http://www.hflink.com/arrl/ >>> >>> Background >>> On 22 Feb 2007, the ARRL announced that it seeks >>> comments from >>> amateurs concerning development of an open-source, >>> non-proprietary, >>> data communications protocol suitable for use by >>> radio amateurs over >>> HF fading paths. >>> >>> ARRL's announcement was discussed at length in the >>> HFLINK Forum >>> and via private correspondence. >>> >>> On 15 May 2007, HFLINK respectfully submitted >>>
Re: [digitalradio] HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
ave been hesitant to comment on the ARRL seeking comments on a new HF digital protocol...but let's look again at what they ask... I. Comments from amateurs concerning development of an open-source (non-proprietary) data communications protocol suitable for use by radio amateurs over high-frequency (HF) fading paths. This is not a Request for Proposals (RFP). II. Access Method: Is Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) the best candidate technology, or should other competitive technologies be considered? III. Data Rate and Bandwidth: What data rates/throughputs are achievable at various bandwidths up to 3 kHz bandwidth? IV. Adaptivity: What adaptive features should be considered, such as automatic adjustment of transmitter power, modulation waveform and coding, in order to maximize throughput and efficiency in two-way contacts? V. Robustness: What is achievable for reliable operation at power levels typical in the Amateur Radio Service and low signal/noise and interference ratios? VI. Error control: What are the appropriate applications of error control suitable for HF channels? For example, how should Repeat reQuest (ARQ) and Forward Error Control (FEC) be applied to two-way contacts and one-to-many (roundtable and bulletin) transmissions? VII. Activity Detection: What is an effective method of determining whether a frequency is busy prior to transmission? VIII. Operating System: What operating systems (such as Windows or Linux) are appropriate for Amateur Radio use with this protocol? IX. Hardware: What practical and affordable hardware platforms are suitable for amateur stations? Consider the use of personal computers with or without sound cards. Provide any information about the need for an additional "box" if needed. Did Bonnie's response answer these questions? Some of the response did and did very well. However, the first paragraph of the ARRL's message was..."This is not a Request for Proposals (RFP)." The recommendation of a specific protocol or set of protocols was not what was requested. As the college professor told his student during a test..."just answer the question." We get to the point where we want to design what the airplane should look like and then determine what it can do and many times it doesn't meet our real needs. I would appear that a set of design goals or specification goals need to be defined meet the needs of amateur radio..."an open-source (non-proprietary) data communications protocol suitable for use by radio amateurs over high-frequency (HF) fading paths." A desired format would be to specifically re-state the ARRL's "question", provide current data/capabilities and then based on an assessment of current and future preceived capabilities, determine what future capabilities might be possible and if they might meet the needs of the amateur radio communnity. Too ofter those who deal consistantly with businesses/industry and governments are asked for request for proposals (RFP) and the government federal government is guilty of this...ask or seems to ask for an RFP when in realitity they are looking for a request for information (RFI). I believe that the ARRL is actually asking for the latter. The question may be do we want to go with what is currently available with its benefits and drawbacks (positive/negative attributes) or start with a clean slate? Since there is no need for adoption of a specific mode(s) to meet an ungent need, then we might well be advised to determine what our (amateur radio's) real needs are and start afresh...design from the bottom up...not the top down. 73, Walt/K5YFW bruce mallon wrote: > OK so what we have here is a failure to communicate ? > > > > --- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Please click here to read the HFLINK recommendation >>comments: >>http://www.hflink.com/arrl/ >> >>Background >>On 22 Feb 2007, the ARRL announced that it seeks >>comments from >>amateurs concerning development of an open-source, >>non-proprietary, >>data communications protocol suitable for use by >>radio amateurs over >>HF fading paths. >> >>ARRL's announcement was discussed at length in the >>HFLINK Forum >>and via private correspondence. >> >>On 15 May 2007, HFLINK respectfully submitted >>comments in response >>to ARRL's announcement. >> >>Read on the web: >>http://www.hflink.com/arrl/ >> >>Regards, >>Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA >>HFLINK Founder >> >> > >
Re: [digitalradio] HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols
OK so what we have here is a failure to communicate ? --- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please click here to read the HFLINK recommendation > comments: > http://www.hflink.com/arrl/ > > Background > On 22 Feb 2007, the ARRL announced that it seeks > comments from > amateurs concerning development of an open-source, > non-proprietary, > data communications protocol suitable for use by > radio amateurs over > HF fading paths. > > ARRL's announcement was discussed at length in the > HFLINK Forum > and via private correspondence. > > On 15 May 2007, HFLINK respectfully submitted > comments in response > to ARRL's announcement. > > Read on the web: > http://www.hflink.com/arrl/ > > Regards, > Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA > HFLINK Founder > > Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
