The Digital Future of Amateur Radio - Speakers Nee

[wa6itf]

I am in the process of planning the "Ham Radio Town Meeting" for Hamvention® 2007. We, Amateur Radio Newsline, Inc. proiduce this session in association with Hamvention® and present it there each year.

This year we have chosen for our two hour session the topic of "The Digital Future of amateyr Radio."

This will be an introductory level presentation and discussion designed to answer the most basic albeit important questions that seem to be on the minds of todays ham community as they begin to accept that a "digital" hobby service is enivatable.

Below is a list of the questions we hope to address if we can find the proper speakers who are willing to pay their own way to the Hamvention® and the desire to share their knowledge and views with their fellow hams.

If there is a topic that you would like to address, please e-mail me direct to newsline@arnewsline.org noting which subject you want to discuss along with your contact information, a brief outline of what you might say, plus a brief bio detailing your qualifications to address the matter. I will get back to you promptlt.

Oh yes: There will be a few ground rules in place.

1: You get 10 minutes plus another 5 for Questions and Answers. To keep the session moving along, this tiome constraint is enforced.

2: No flaming! I know that for some of you emotions run deep. Some of you do not agree with the ARRL's position on digital e-mail using Winlink 2000. Others don't like some of the protocols that have been developed, etc.

Well, please discuss those here -- not at the Town Meeting. What we are doing is a showcase of the "here and now" -- not the "maybe this is better" or "it should be this way." Flat out -- if you are a person who cannot contain his/her emotions then this session is not for you.

3: There is no honorarium, speaker fee paid and no expense reimbursement. ARNewsline as the session planner cannot afford to pay anyone anything and the Hamvention phased out reimbursement to forum speakers several years ago. If yoyu plan to attend as a speaker for this sesion you will get a free pass into the show -- but thats it. Nothing more. We pay our own individual way there just like the rest of you.

OK. Heres the list of topics we will be covering. Those with an Asterisk (*) already have speakers assigned.

73
de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
ARNewsline

1: * What is digital communications and what does it mean to ham radio?

3: Will ham radio be forced to go digital and if so why?

3: Is digital better than analog for ham radio?

4: * If Regulation by Bandwidth" is enacted by the FCC, how will it impact the move to digitalization of ham radio.

5: If ham radio goes "all digital" what "carriers of information" akin to today's "modes" will be most prominent in an all-digital world?

6: What are the pitfalls of going all digital?

7: Should ham radio embrace Winlink 2000 or other "commercial information carrier systems" or develop its own "ham radio digital information data carrier interchange?"

8: Should there be any spectrum left for analog legacy modes after ham radio goes digital?

9: * Can Morse be maintained in a digital ham radio world?
(Ill give you a hint: We are including this because the answer is "yes." It is the "how its done" that is very interesting.)

de
Bill P.

[KA3TGV]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Jan. 29 2007,12:52)]they begin to accept that a "digital" hobby service is enivatable. #
Hi Bill,

With all due respect, what is the basis and rationale for the quoted statement? #Making an unsupported statement does not make it a fact.

Many of the movers and shakers of amateur radio, not limited to our friends at the ARRL, are betting the farm your quoted statement becomes the future reality.

This is amateur radio, not to be confused with the telephone company or an internet service provider. I think too often, too many want to turn ham radio into a some sort of a quasi-commercial service.

Your comments?

vy 73

Doug
KA3TGV

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Jan. 29 2007,12:52)]1: * What is digital communications and what does it mean to ham radio?

3: Will ham radio be forced to go digital and if so why?

3: Is digital better than analog for ham radio?

4: * If Regulation by Bandwidth" is enacted by the FCC, how will it impact the move to digitalization of ham radio.

5: If ham radio goes "all digital" what "carriers of information" akin to today's "modes" will be most prominent in an all-digital world?

6: What are the pitfalls of going all digital?

7: Should ham radio embrace Winlink 2000 or other "commercial information carrier systems" or develop its own "ham radio digital information data carrier interchange?"

8: Should there be any spectrum left for analog legacy modes after ham radio goes digital?

9: * Can Morse be maintained in a digital ham radio world?
(Ill give you a hint: We are including this because the answer is "yes." It is the "how its done" that is very interesting.)

de
Bill P.
Quote[/b] ]1: * What is digital communications and what does it mean to ham radio?

Digital communications is a means of using computer data to transmit text, audio, and video. What it means to ham radio is that it provides a means of sending error-free, low-noise, high fidelity information over the noisy ham bands.

There are some very interesting possibilities. Modern software-defined radios can digitally capture a 40 Khz. slice of the band. That 40 Khz. wide segment of the band could be digitally transmitted to another location, forming a digital pipeline between them. The same data could be retransmitted in realtime on another band of subband, forming a linear repeater or 'linear translator', retransmitting any signals that are received, like a SSB repeater.

Quote[/b] ]3: Will ham radio be forced to go digital and if so why?

No, there will always be a place for the simplest radios in ham radio. Indeed, until the advantages of digital voice are widely perceived, we will not see it become common on the ham bands.

Quote[/b] ] the other 3: Is digital better than analog for ham radio?

Sometimes - but then again, there are places where QRP CW is the most appropriate technology.



Quote[/b] ]4: * If Regulation by Bandwidth" is enacted by the FCC, how will it impact the move to digitalization of ham radio.

Regulation by Bandwidth will make it easier for hams to develop new digital protocols, by eliminating the need to get pre-approval from FCC.



Quote[/b] ]

7: Should ham radio embrace Winlink 2000 or other "commercial information carrier systems" or develop its own "ham radio digital information data carrier interchange?"

I think Winlink on VHF is a great idea - it would be nice to see it proliferate and become more integrated with the popular APRS system. But on HF, it is at best controversial. The last thing we need is thousands of boaters using 20 meters as their personal email box. The commercial version of WinLink, SailMail, exists and is very affordable for boaters, so I don't see the validity of them using WinLink in the ham bands. On the other hand, WinLink for emergencies or for use by land-based missionaries and the occasional RVer or user who is 'off the grid' is another thing. I would not object to WinLink if I didn't fear that it will grow out of control on HF.

Quote[/b] ]9: * Can Morse be maintained in a digital ham radio world?
(Ill give you a hint: We are including this because the answer is "yes." It is the "how its done" that is very interesting.)


The key is that we should encourage the use of the "most appropriate" technology. That is not necessarily the most current or modern technology.

If I'm going backpacking in the desert, I would prefer a 2 oz. CW rig over several pounds of digital station. For this kind of application, the CW QRP rig is the most appropriate technology.

If I'm handling traffic in a disaster, I want an error-free digital text system, and/or high quality digital voice and pictures. I want to be able to send attachments that the disaster agencies can use to do electronic signatures. But, my first opportunity in any disaster will be to provide plain, analog voice capability in the first few hours of the event.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (KA3TGV @ Jan. 29 2007,13:19)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Jan. 29 2007,12:52)]they begin to accept that a "digital" hobby service is enivatable. #
Hi Bill,

With all due respect, what is the basis and rationale for the quoted statement? #Making an unsupported statement does not make it a fact.

Many of the movers and shakers of amateur radio, not limited to our friends at the ARRL, are betting the farm your quoted statement becomes the future reality.

This is amateur radio, not to be confused with the telephone company or an internet service provider. I think too often, too many want to turn ham radio into a some sort of a quasi-commercial service.

Your comments?

vy 73

Doug
KA3TGV
....with the intenet to use it instead of commercial services for cost reasons, I assume.

I don't mind developing it for backup or emergency use, but it seems like many are developing it for the purpose of avoiding the monthly bill, in my opinion.

[ab0wr]

A move to digital is assumed by those who would rather TYPE their real-time communications than SPEAK their real-time communications.

They are out of touch with the majority of the people alive today. Most people would rather communicate in real time using VOICE instead of a keyboard.

Time-delayed email is popular for communicating between people who are acquainted, have a topic to discuss, and who must time-shift their communications.

This is NOT the case for most amateur radio communications which are, instead, real-time and not time-shifted since they are primarily between people with no prior interaction and are being done on an ad-hoc basis.

Those who forecast a move to digital just don't have a good sense of human engineering principles.

Those who think digital voice is going to replace analog voice aren't living in the real world either. 99% of the amateur population isn't going to lay out the cost of a new HF rig to get a digital voice peripheral that has less functionality than the HF rig it is hooked up to, especially in the presence of noise or QRM.

The move to "digital" has been bally-hooed by the "digital elite" for over 25 years (i.e. since the development of packet radio). It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the near future.

If someone is going to talk about something at the hamvention, they should talk about the human interaction side of the equation and how it applies to digital communications in ham radio.

tim ab0wr

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 29 2007,16:01)]A move to digital is assumed by those who would rather TYPE their real-time communications than SPEAK their real-time communications.

They are out of touch with the majority of the people alive today. Most people would rather communicate in real time using VOICE instead of a keyboard.
Speak for yourself, Tim.

I had to "perform" as a public affairs specialist and radio and television broadcaster for years until I retired. One thing I found that was easier than voice communications for me was digital data. I communicate with my friends, many of them long term friends going back thirty years, all through the means of digital data communications. Store and forward doesn't bother me at all. It's like opening a virtual mailbox and seeing a letter from a long lost friend.

Rag chewing isn't high on my list of things to do in amateur radio. Experimentation, home brewing antennas and other gear all take precedence.

As the years have gone by, I find that I am more comfortable behind the keyboard than in face to face meetings. The stress increases as the years go by. A small problem that I have to deal with with the help of prescribed medications. Having to actually think about what I am saying, editing my replies, and giving things a once over before committing the thought to post helps prevent the inevitable foot in mouth problem.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 29 2007,18:15)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 29 2007,16:01)]A move to digital is assumed by those who would rather TYPE their real-time communications than SPEAK their real-time communications.

They are out of touch with the majority of the people alive today. Most people would rather communicate in real time using VOICE instead of a keyboard.
Speak for yourself, Tim.

I had to "perform" as a public affairs specialist and radio and television broadcaster for years until I retired. One thing I found that was easier than voice communications for me was digital data. I communicate with my friends, many of them long term friends going back thirty years, all through the means of digital data communications. Store and forward doesn't bother me at all. It's like opening a virtual mailbox and seeing a letter from a long lost friend.

Rag chewing isn't high on my list of things to do in amateur radio. Experimentation, home brewing antennas and other gear all take precedence.

As the years have gone by, I find that I am more comfortable behind the keyboard than in face to face meetings. The stress increases as the years go by. A small problem that I have to deal with with the help of prescribed medications. Having to actually think about what I am saying, editing my replies, and giving things a once over before committing the thought to post helps prevent the inevitable foot in mouth problem.
If you had bothered to quote the entire context of my post, you would have quickly seen the equivocation you are indulging in.

Communications with "friends" ARE a prime use of time-shifted communication. Exactly as I said.

To illustrate my point even more, how do you call "CQ" using email?

The VAST majority of communications on the ham bands really are ad-hoc communications between previously unrelated respondents. Time-shifted email just doesn't work for this kind of communication.

To point out the exact opposite of your situation, many of the hams I know want nothing to do with a keyboard at their station after using a keyboard all day long at work -- myself included.

Experimentation and homebrewing antennas and other gear are besides the point and are nothing more than an attempt to give some authority to your viewpoint using irrelevant evidence.

There *really* is a reason that digital communications are less than 1% of the communications on the ham bands today. Building up "digital" as where ham radio is going when it has been stuck at 1% for the past 25 years is being done by those who are lost and can't see the forest for the trees. When you are in the digital part of the forest the whole forest looks like it is digital. In fact, you are just in a small grove of digital trees and the vast majority of the forest is NOT composed of digital communications.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Golly, gee willikers! (as Hubert Humphrey used to cry), hunker down, 'cause this thread is going to be a humdinger!



http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Jan. 30 2007,15:16)]There *really* is a reason that digital communications are less than 1% of the communications on the ham bands today. Building up "digital" as where ham radio is going when it has been stuck at 1% for the past 25 years is being done by those who are lost and can't see the forest for the trees. When you are in the digital part of the forest the whole forest looks like it is digital. In fact, you are just in a small grove of digital trees and the vast majority of the forest is NOT composed of digital communications.
Whatever the reason it is only 1% on HF (UHF and SHF have a lot more digital going on) it is a good thing for the narowband (<500hz) operators, outside the contests you can park your transiver on the watering hole frequenty and just click to a CQ or a free spot to call CQ.
Most of the time all the qso's fit inside the 3khz passband.
Digital modes that don't mix with the common digital modes tend to pick their own wateringholes.

As always there are exeptions to the rule

[N2RJ]

Digital?

ROFL. The no code movement has fought long and hard to get its followers access to HF so that they can pick up a mike and yak.

[N5PVL]

I don't go to Dayton, so any ( on topic ) comment I might make here would be irrelevant.

This sounds like something the ARRL or TAPR would come up with. - The "Dayton Digital Group" will be put forward as being representative of all hams, not just the group of visitors to Dayton that they actually are.

These forward-looking organizations appear to have missed out on an important innovation called the internet. The internet allows input from amateurs all over the world, not just the tiny minority who happen to travel to Dayton, Dallas or some other hamfest location.

I wonder when or if these "edge of technology" organizations will discover the Internet? - Or is it the desire to get a better idea of what most amateurs want that they have yet to discover?

In my experience, these 'symposiums' and other mass-meetings are generally used to attempt to build consensus through non-rational, non-scientific means. - That is, of course, unless you are talking about the "science" of salesmanship and the "rationale" behind the use of propaganda.

A small group gets together, and subset of this group attends presentations by a truly tiny minority from within this subset, an organization "mover and shaker" type in attendence picks out his favorites and the result is put forward as the general concensus of all amateurs.

"Having heard all sides, and investigated all available information on the subject, I am now prepared to deliver a considered, careful judgement based upon my original prejudices."

- That's pretty well what these deals work out to, folks. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either out to play you for a sucker, or they have been suckered, themselves.

Note that clever ideas like ultra-wide digital signals all over HF for a so-called 'hinternet', the elimination of all content restrictions on the ham bands, the introduction of encryption on the ham bands, and a number of other mindless deregulation schemes have all issued from the decades of ARRL/TAPR DCC's (http://www.hamblog.com/?p=15) and other get-togethers.

Watch them try to put whatever comes out of this Dayton thing as being representative of, or best for "all hams".

They always do and it's a load of crapola, each and every time.

[KD6NIG]

Packet, something I use daily by the way, I use to enhance communications with my ham friends. I have had an occasional "keyboard to keyboard" QSO (if you want to call it that) but its mostly so that, at my convienece, I can check on my friends, without picking up a microphone to call them when they aren't available. I can leave a message to be returned at their convienece.

I would view digital modes as an enhancement to Ham Radio, but not the do all, end all, future of it.

And I don't like portions of stuff like D-Star that allows internet access over ham radio. In an emergency I can see it. But just so you can have your internet access anywhere the repeater is, I don't see that as right. There are wireless internet providers for this, and I view such a usage as circumventing a monthly bill.

Enhanceing the hobby is fine. Using ham radio for wide open internet, or to circumvent commercial services isn't right and shouldn't be encouraged. Use of such stuff in an emergency is fine, but for normal useage, such items should be disabled in my opinion.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Jan. 29 2007,11:52)]1: * What is digital communications and what does it mean to ham radio?

Morse Code.

Quote[/b] ]
2: Will ham radio be forced to go digital and if so why?


Ham radio has always been digital.

Quote[/b] ]
3: Is digital better than analog for ham radio?


Yes. Ask any Morse Code operator.

Quote[/b] ]
4: * If Regulation by Bandwidth" is enacted by the FCC, how will it impact the move to digitalization of ham radio.


Insert anti-WINLINK rant here.

Quote[/b] ]
5: If ham radio goes "all digital" what "carriers of information" akin to today's "modes" will be most prominent in an all-digital world?


CW

Quote[/b] ]
6: What are the pitfalls of going all digital?

The price of Vibroplex keyers will skyrocket.

Quote[/b] ]
7: Should ham radio embrace Winlink 2000 or other "commercial information carrier systems" or develop its own "ham radio digital information data carrier interchange?"


No.

Quote[/b] ]
8: Should there be any spectrum left for analog legacy modes after ham radio goes digital?


Yes.

Quote[/b] ]
9: * Can Morse be maintained in a digital ham radio world?


Morse is all there is to a digital ham radio world.

(removes tongue from cheek)

[PE1RDW]

Good thing you made it an over the top post Marty otherwise the sarcasm would have been missed http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

seriusly tough, CW is indeed the first digital mode with morse code as it´s encoding methode, they might as wel call the cw/data bands digital bands. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ky5u]

Digital Seminar at Hamvention 2007:

[wd0ct]

Wake me up when digital voice works down to the noise level.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Jan. 30 2007,15:23)]Wake me up when digital voice works down to the noise level.
Do you expect to live forever?

[w7act]

When I first looked at this thread I was thinking digital vs analog technology and I was going to compare the two. I wasn't thinking of Digital Modes.

As far as equipment Tech is concerned it's already here as digital is next step in the progression of technology from Analog, where it goes from here the sky is the limit, who knows what the next step will be.

Now as far as the Digital Modes are concerned they will continue to grow in popularity throughout the Amateur Radio Community as new digital modes will be developed just look at the new modes of digital communications that come along in the last ten years as I see no reason why this trend should not continue as that's the foundation of the Service since it's inception.

[ky5u]

Danger! Long Post (so please bear with me).

I guess the biggest question I have always had is, if digital is so spectrally effcient, why do they need to take over the whole band? Why not 20kHz somewhere in the data subband?

This is of course a rehorical question. There is a big gap between Buck Rogers ideas and technical understanding. Many amateurs speak of digital voice, video, data transfer as if it will fit into a 3kHz band segment. It won't. That kind of use would require 20kHz to 40kHz MINIMUM. Commercial 802.11 wireless devices use over 2mHz. The 20M band is 350kHz wide with the voice portion only about 200kHz. You do the math. While Tweekie and Buck Rogers are sending the data file mentioned above over a 40kHz spread, what are the 20 amateurs who usually use that spectrum for SSB supposed to do? Or how about the 40+ PSK-31 users?

I am over simplifying the issue so perhaps more people can see that when you hear Buck Rogers, you need to think of Buck Owens. This digital argument is getting a "Tiger By the Tail" to say the least. Most of the digital technology proposed is already over 20 years old and requires plenty bandwidth to work like the average amateur hopes/thinks/believes it will work. We are told that they can do wonders with 3-8kHz, and I know that for slow data, store and forward email, and digital voice that may be true. But this whole argument is "bait and switch". Bait you with lowball estimates of bandwidth and with your preconceived notions of your home 802.11 downloading streaming video and letting YOU associate the two in your mind. Then switch at the end saying, well if you want to do THAT we need alot more bandwidth!!

Before the average amateur forms an opinion, the digital proponents need to take voice, data, video, data downloads, store and forward email, and do a chart that says EXACTLY how much bandwidth is required, what the bit rate will be, etc. That way you will know if you hear them using 40kHz chunks (more like 200kHz chunks) that all other modes have to be pretty much eradicated before it will work.

You all have seen the Sprint commercial where two guys are sitting on the bench, one has Sprint and the other has Cingular and they are downloading a file. The Sprint guy gets up and leaves the Cingular guy in the dust with a smirking backward glance indicating his file was done in a fraction of the time. Remember? Well the Cingular guy is using GPRS/Edge which has a data rate FASTER than the DSTAR system and uses more bandwidth! In other words, a technology that is already faster than anything we have seen on the Ham Bands (other than bootleg 802.11 boxes on 2gHz) is shown in a commercial as "too slow" and not state of the art.

I am not asking you to believe me. All I am asking is that you get together and look at this movement really closely. Demand simple explanations and don't take bait and switch double talk. I am confident that you'll find that wideband digital belongs on VHF and above, and that what is left like store and forward email, etc. can fit into a couple of kHz in a small band segment in the data subband without killing voice, cw, PSK, and RTTY. You know, the MOST POPULAR MODES.

Sorry for being so long winded...

[N5PVL]

I agree with every particular of AG4YO's post - and I'm a digital weenie, as many of you know.

[KS4VT]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Jan. 30 2007,15:23)]Wake me up when digital voice works down to the noise level.
Digital voice is much more efficient and higher quality than analog down to 12 dB sinad and in some cases even lower depending on fade-margins to keep higher than the required 5% BER. #So in reality it does work to the noise floor better than analog. #You must have not had an opportunity to hear the latest vocoders that have a really good FEC codecs like P25's latest release.

Also spread spectrum is really a noise floor digital protocol that has no analog comparison.

[KA7RRA]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Jan. 30 2007,07:41)]I don't go to Dayton, so any ( on topic ) comment I might make here would be irrelevant.
You should go to Dayton it is a requirement that all ham operators go to Dayton its mandatory it is your duty as a ham radio operator!!!

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ Jan. 30 2007,17:00)]Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Jan. 30 2007,15:23)]Wake me up when digital voice works down to the noise level.
Digital voice is much more efficient and higher quality than analog down to 12 dB sinad and in some cases even lower depending on fade-margins to keep higher than the required 5% BER. #So in reality it does work to the noise floor better than analog. #You must have not had an opportunity to hear the latest vocoders that have a really good FEC codecs like P25's latest release.

Also spread spectrum is really a noise floor digital protocol that has no analog comparison.
And where, pray-tell, is P25 being used on the HF ham bands where it can work down to the noise level with attendant doppler shift, selective fading, atmospheric noise, and all the other impairments that occurr between 3Mhz to 30Mhz?

There are still far more 2m FM radios being sold for amateur use than any digital radio. It's because of a thing called marginal utility.

tim ab0wr

[KS4VT]

Are we just talking about HF here? I see nothing in the subject line or by the OP to define that. P25 & DStar are applicable digital modes in amateur radios and one is leading the other in popularity as time marches on.

Sure there are more analog FM radios being sold than their digital counterparts...old habits are so very hard to break and there are much more analog variations than digital on the open market.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ Jan. 30 2007,17:45)]Are we just talking about HF here? I see nothing in the subject line or by the OP to define that. P25 & DStar are applicable digital modes in amateur radios and one is leading the other in popularity as time marches on.

Sure there are more analog FM radios being sold than their digital counterparts...old habits are so very hard to break and there are much more analog variations than digital on the open market.
The ARRL's "Regulation by Bandwidth" primarily deals with HF regulation changes. So yes, the questions being asked obviously deal with HF digital. If the point of the discussion is to be held to VHF and above, then you will probably see little if any caustic remarks.

However, digital at VHF and above has it's own inertia to deal with. One of the things I never see discussed is the economic costs of selecting a standard and the costs of future upgrades. Unless the standard that is chosen is destined to remain static for 20 years or more, then amateurs will have to deal with budgeting to remain current as standards change, probably through obsolence of existing equipment and purchasing new equipment. This isn't unlike the need to move to newer Microsoft Windows upgrades periodically. However, the costs will be significantly higher. Equipment manufacturers will certainly love this! However, I suspect the vast majority of amateurs will refuse to play this game and the only ones left will be those who can afford it. What a sad state of affairs for amateur radio to fall into!

Some good questions for a speaker to deal with is:

What "standard" should be chosen?
What is the useful life of the "standard"?
What are the costs of future upgrades?

A symposium like this should deal with issues like this, but never does. Negative issues are just ignored. This is one reason the amateur population has never accepted the "agreements" that come out of meetings like this. There are always pros but never cons that are dealt with.

Jim
WA0LYK

[N0NB]

I'm not sure there is a digital future on HF, particularly HF voice. #I toyed with WinDRM a couple of weeks ago and tried to listen in on 20m. #I say I tried as I was receiving the station rather well by SSB standards, but WinDRM only copied about 10% of the audio. #The brief snippets I heard were clear and crisp audio. #Now, I suppose that if I had a decent tower and my tri-bander up, I could have raised his signal by a couple of S-units and maybe improved reception considerably. #As it is I would have been able to copy him on SSB 5x9 on my lowly wire.

I have used PSK31 and MFSK16 and both are fun modes. #It is a little unnerving for a slow typist like me to try and stay ahead of the transmitter, though. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #WinDRM may hold some promise and some hams seem to be using it to success. #For my low-end station the advantage is decidedly in favor of the analog modes.

One thing we will lose as the world hurls itself headlong into a digital future is the utility of simple equipment to receive radio. #What good will it be to build a crystal set once the AM band goes IBOC? #A recent issue of QST featured a couple of crystal set articles and it struck me that in the future some VLSI chips will be required to build the simplest of receivers. #Many people have discovered the magic of radio by way a crystal set. #What will be the attraction if all they hear is the hash of digital?

Don't get me wrong, I'll continue to experiment with digital modes. #However, until HF digital voice performance can reach at least 95% of the performance we get from SSB under even average conditions, I think it will remain a curiosity.

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ Jan. 30 2007,17:00)]Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Jan. 30 2007,15:23)]Wake me up when digital voice works down to the noise level.
Digital voice is much more efficient and higher quality than analog down to 12 dB sinad and in some cases even lower depending on fade-margins to keep higher than the required 5% BER. So in reality it does work to the noise floor better than analog. You must have not had an opportunity to hear the latest vocoders that have a really good FEC codecs like P25's latest release.

Also spread spectrum is really a noise floor digital protocol that has no analog comparison.
That is great but nobody I know cares about vhf fm or digital.

[kf4vgx]

There's definitely room for experimentation.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Jan. 30 2007,20:45)]Don't get me wrong, I'll continue to experiment with digital modes. However, until HF digital voice performance can reach at least 95% of the performance we get from SSB under even average conditions, I think it will remain a curiosity.
I agree that the digital transmissions need 2 things... better FEC, especially in less than ideal situations... and the ability to compress voice such that the bandwidth needed is way less than 3KHz.

Hams have an opportunity to advance the art in this area, and I'll be one that's happy to participate.

Digital transmission of voice on HF isn't ready for prime-time, not by a long shot, but it'll get there.

The downside of that is, in a situation like Katrina, we don't need to be wasting power on processing... analog voice, and yes, CW, can never be supplanted in limited power situations.

[N5PVL]

KS4VT says:
Quote[/b] ]
Also spread spectrum is really a noise floor digital protocol that has no analog comparison.

Not on MY noise floor, they don't! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

You can tell the SS #guys I said to keep off the furniture, too.

[KS4VT]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Jan. 30 2007,21:51)]
That is great but nobody I know cares about vhf fm or digital.

Well tell that to those who were on this thread that consisted of 98 posts and 4 pages long.

Digital QRZ Thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=135990;hl=ks4vt)

There are plenty who care...

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kf4vgx @ Jan. 30 2007,19:08)]There's definitely room for experimentation.
We need to MAKE room for experimentation without killing the popular modes. Define 20-25kHz in the data subbands for experimentation (include automatic stations). When the wideband digital modes overcome the interference by automatic stations and each other, they can make a better case to roam free in their underware, sniffing pretty flowers and petting the fuzzy little animals.

....and the FCC needs to require all digital modes to identify in CW at the beginning and end of every QSO. Lets everyone know who the interferers are without having to decode the digital stuff.

[kf4vgx]

they can make a better case to roam free in their underware, sniffing pretty flowers and petting the fuzzy little animals.

...
Man you should try poetryhttp://www.venushairhouston.com/animallovers/cat-and-flower.jpg http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[ky5u]

Oh freedom I hear the call,
to fight against the foe,
the modes most popular of all,
should not be used no mo'!

For I am the Digital Man,
who longs to roam with freedom,
across the radio bands,
whether or not I need 'em.

And walk the digital sand,
my soul to the world laid bare,
prancing about the land
in my digital underware.

[N5PVL]

That applies well to the WinLinkers, the ARRL HSMM group and TAPR.

Fortunately, there is much more to digital ham radio than that. Most digital ops are decent hams who know how to play well with others, but you don't hear a lot from them, or find them popping up where they are not supposed to be.

Don't get me wrong though; I'm all for the squeaky wheels getting greased... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[ky5u]

Yes Charles, and does not include RTTY, PSK, Packet, etc. In fact the Winlink folks divorce themselves from these modes as well saying that they interfere with Winlink (see Victor Poor's comments to the ARRL Bandwidth Proposal).

I would love to see competent, realistic, speakers like Mark Millen speak up to take Pasternak's challenge. Someone who will bring a little optimistic realism to the proceedings.

[kf4vgx]

I think Charles and Charlie should go.

Only thing is,

" You get 10 minutes plus another 5 for Questions and Answers. To keep the session moving along, this time ."

Both of you would need five hours or more ,however constraint is enforced http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.
And the questions would be a field day .


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WB2WIK]

I've tried "digital voice" on HF a few times, including quite recently. It sounds wonderful but isn't backwards compatible technology and lacking a carrier it's difficult to find another station without a prearranged schedule specifying the precise frequency.

Going forward, I'd expect to make this more user-friendly we'd need a standardized method of "finding" other stations, maybe along the lines of the tuning indicators used for RTTY, the waterfall for PSK, etc. Rigs having a spectrum scope feature might be most of the way there, but those not having this feature would need something.

I imagine algorithms to allow digital voice to work down into the noise will be developed eventually, so this probably won't be much of an obstacle.

Overlap of the technologies, old and new, is a given and must be provided for -- for probably fifty years! After all, here we are in 2007 still using CW and AM, and I know lots of hams who would give "spark" a try if it were legalized, even for a weekend.

WB2WIK/6

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]After all, here we are in 2007 still using CW and AM, and I know lots of hams who would give "spark" a try if it were legalized, even for a weekend.

The chance to mess up TV's for miles around?
HELL YEAH! Sign me up! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ Jan. 31 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Jan. 30 2007,21:51)]
That is great but nobody I know cares about vhf fm or digital.

Well tell that to those who were on this thread that consisted of 98 posts and 4 pages long.

Digital QRZ Thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=135990;hl=ks4vt)

There are plenty who care...
I meant my post literally. The guys I know aren't interested. I have a little interest. I hope to live long enough for hf digital voice to be a real competitor.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 30 2007,08:00)]Digital?

ROFL. #The no code movement has fought long and hard to get its followers access to HF so that they can pick up a mike and yak.
Same song, different day.

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 31 2007,13:28)]Quote[/b] ]After all, here we are in 2007 still using CW and AM, and I know lots of hams who would give "spark" a try if it were legalized, even for a weekend.

The chance to mess up TV's for miles around?
HELL YEAH! Sign me up! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
right on.
back in 1952 I built a 3 tube code practice oscillator that did that very well. it also recived short wave when not keying.

[N5PVL]

AG4YO says:
Quote[/b] ]
I would love to see competent, realistic, speakers like Mark Millen speak up to take Pasternak's challenge. #Someone who will bring a little optimistic realism to the proceedings.

The Newsline guy is only pretending to issue a challenge. What they are looking for is more people who are willing to shill for WinLink, HSMM, etc. - Not as easy to find as they were just a few years ago.

If somebody shows up wanting to talk about anything different, the usual deal is that they end up being scheduled during the lunch hour or failing that, their time will be cut short due to an unfortunate scheduling snafu. This is most particularly true if their 'different' ideas conflict in any form or fashion with - you guessed it! - WinLink and the HSMM stuff.

I was in on the early days of the various digital communications events and symposiums... This is the pattern that was established in the late 1980's by TPRS and TAPR when they were attempting to force amateur tcpip on everybody, and it continues uninterrupted to this day. Each and every one of these conferences is a sham from the word go. The organizers decide ahead of time what will and what will not be promoted, and dissenting or even differing viewpoints are actively discouraged or simply not scheduled.

The Newsline organization geeked and shilled for the crooked ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal last year as you might remember, even going so far as to run a simularly crooked "poll" on the AR NewsLine website that you could vote in as many times as you like. Polls at QRZ and HamPoll indicated @ 85% opposed, but the bogus NewsLine poll showed almost exactly the opposite results. - Surprise surprise surprise! - And we all know which of the three polls was featured in the AR Newsline broadcast, right?

So much for expecting objectivity or intellectual honesty from the AR Newsline organization.

So basically what we are talking about here is a nothing-burger. You open it up, and where's the beef?

I am not familiar with the individual you mentioned, Mark Millen. I will tell you though that unless he is a WinLink shill, he will get "the treatment" and be marginalized if he shows up expecting an even break at the digital conference in Dayton.

All of this leaves us with a question: - How can we arrainge for a legitimate, open exchange of ideas concerning digital amateur radio? - Or any other aspect of the hobby?

My guess that the answer will be found in the internet, a powerful communications tool that we are only now beginning to learn how to pick up and use.

[kf4vgx]

Charles, your ten minutes were up on your first post #. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

..
Come to think about it ,if constraint is enforced http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif.

How are they going to get the long winded blow hards off the stage http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif.

They must have a football player on stand by http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[K3UD]

There needs to be another item on the agenda.

How do we stop auto and semi-auto bots from popping up and causing QRM to ongoing QSOs? In the same vein, what is the best way to provide ID to an offending bot. Would they use a CW or voice identifier for the call sign ID so we can report the malicious interference to the FCC?

73
George
K3UD

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Would they use a CW or voice identifier for the call sign ID so we can report the malicious interference to the FCC?


That's not malicious interference, it's Ham Radio of the future and our savior. What are you some kind of luddite?

See, I've already got the answer from the digihams at the conference down.

[N5PVL]

AC0H says:
Quote[/b] ]
That's not malicious interference, it's Ham Radio of the future and our savior. What are you some kind of luddite?

See, I've already got the answer from the digihams at the conference down.

Does Bill Pasternak know about this? #( I bet he does. )
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N0NB]

It seems to me that one step is to outlaw any digital mode that is not a fully open protocol. #Any protocol that is patent encumbered or is in any way not allowed to be implemented freely by any radio amateur does not have a place in ham radio. #Amateur radio is for experimentation and open communications, proprietary protocols need not apply.

As I recall, PacTOR was patent encumbered and could only be implemented by payment of a royalty for each unit. #Later variations probably suffer the same encumbrance (I haven't kept up with later variations) and as such should not be allowed on the amateur bands. #

Anyone can implement any of the analog modes without royalty and there is little reason, from an experimenters point of view, that amateur digital modes should be any different. #Unfortunately, most any advanced digital protocol will be patented, but before it is allowed on the amateur bands at the very least a blanket royalty-free license should be given to anyone wishing to implement the given protocol for amateur radio use. #Any other position is just allowing islands of non-interoperable protocols that require proprietary hardware or software just to monitor the transmissions which I believe is contrary to the aims of the Amateur Radio Service as defined by the ITU and by the USA's Part 97.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]As I recall, PacTOR was patent encumbered and could only be implemented by payment of a royalty for each unit. #Later variations probably suffer the same encumbrance (I haven't kept up with later variations) and as such should not be allowed on the amateur bands. #
You are correct.
The pactor protocol is licensed by SCS.
They have allowed some programs, most notably MixW, to add some Pactor 1 receive capability but not so for Pactor 2 and 3 and forget about transmitting with any of them without the SCS $1K modem.

I've been reading up about PskMail which uses PSK125 as the protocol of choice

Quote[/b] ]How much bandwidth does the mobile ham really need?
Like most questions, there are several answers to this. The best one probably being "it depends on your lifestyle". If you are used to broadband internet access and don't want to give that up when you are en route, you are a potential candidate for internet access via satellite, and you will have to bear the cost of that luxury. If on the other hand you are en route to relax, and you don't need instant information, you could try PSKmail for bare bones information delivery. Pskmail gives you a 200 Hz wide channel to the internet. This is enough to get the most important email, the weather forecast and the daily update on the sunspots.

Linky. (http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/)

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Feb. 03 2007,01:59)]It seems to me that one step is to outlaw any digital mode that is not a fully open protocol. Any protocol that is patent encumbered or is in any way not allowed to be implemented freely by any radio amateur does not have a place in ham radio. Amateur radio is for experimentation and open communications, proprietary protocols need not apply.

As I recall, PacTOR was patent encumbered and could only be implemented by payment of a royalty for each unit. Later variations probably suffer the same encumbrance (I haven't kept up with later variations) and as such should not be allowed on the amateur bands.

Anyone can implement any of the analog modes without royalty and there is little reason, from an experimenters point of view, that amateur digital modes should be any different. Unfortunately, most any advanced digital protocol will be patented, but before it is allowed on the amateur bands at the very least a blanket royalty-free license should be given to anyone wishing to implement the given protocol for amateur radio use. Any other position is just allowing islands of non-interoperable protocols that require proprietary hardware or software just to monitor the transmissions which I believe is contrary to the aims of the Amateur Radio Service as defined by the ITU and by the USA's Part 97.
You are so right no non open protocols and no proprietary hardware/firmware & there compilers too.

[N8CPA]

What future does Amateur Radio have against a liddite mind set of:
"Contemptible human! #You have created this to be your Master. #Now cede and submit to it."

Amateur Radio is a human activity and human beings are analog creatures, not devices. #I have no problem with using the computer as a radio accessory. #But I don't think we should shift the focus of who we are and what we do to radio as mere computer accessory--or such systems that would only serve ham radio at the expense of hams themselves.

Just remember--if you have to ask how much Sailmail would cost, you can't afford the yacht!

[N5PVL]

AC0H says:
Quote[/b] ]
I've been reading up about PskMail which uses PSK125 as the protocol of choice

I utilized the link you provided and read about PskMail. It looks interesting, but to make it practical they need to port it over to Windows. The RF end of their thinking is good, but I wonder about the actual need for ARQ when AX25 offers more of the spectral efficiency they are after. ( Two or more stations can access the server at once. )

Again though, we are looking at details like "which mode" and overlooking the more significant legal and operational pitfalls associated with any sort of "hinternet" activity that attempts to put amateur radio into the role of a common carrier, competing with commercial internet services. - All this being in direct violation of the PART97 regulations which define, govern and protect amateur radio.

I can certainly admire the work put into PskMail, but it is much like admiring the gold trim on an '88 Cadillac pimpmobile with a faux leapord interior...

- A case of "Great work on a lousy job, packaged in an unfortunate manner".

Just yanking your chain... It really does look like good work.

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (KA3TGV @ Jan. 29 2007,13:19)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Jan. 29 2007,12:52)]they begin to accept that a "digital" hobby service is enivatable.
Hi Bill,

With all due respect, what is the basis and rationale for the quoted statement? Making an unsupported statement does not make it a fact.

Many of the movers and shakers of amateur radio, not limited to our friends at the ARRL, are betting the farm your quoted statement becomes the future reality.

This is amateur radio, not to be confused with the telephone company or an internet service provider. I think too often, too many want to turn ham radio into a some sort of a quasi-commercial service.

Your comments?

vy 73

Doug
KA3TGV
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you -- and I only have a few moments right now -- but heres what I as a writer who has following the "story" of ham radio -- and of telecommunications "politics" since the late 1960's -- see.

Ill start by saying that I hope I am wrong -- because in my view "digital everything" is not the panacia that the advertising leads one to believe. That stated, I do see all telecommunications -- and I do mean every aspect - from broadcast and intercommunications down to the lowest hobby level of flea-power FRS -- being forced by eventual government decree to go digital.

This is not because "digital equates to better." Rather, it is because our political leadership in Washington has been sold a proverbial "bill of goods that digital is the salvation of communications." Keeping in mind that 99.9% of those making telecommunications law are not technologically competant to do so, and that they base their devisions on "what they are told" rather than on what is factual, the result has been that the word "digital" has come to be equated with the words "good for America" while "analog" is now equated with "old, useless and no longer serving any real purpose."

So in the end, I see ham radio and all other forms of "hobby" and "hobby-like" communicatons -- including 11 meter CB, FRA, MURSA, GMRS and -- well -- you name it -- proverbially all being pulled -- kicking and screaming -- to an all digital world.

Can't happen. you say? Well sit back and watch. It is not only going to happen -- it is happening right this very moment and happening by government decree in the form of "DTV" and "IBOC."

Both the conversion to an all digital television broadcasting system and an eventual all-digital broadcast radio system are what are termed "unfunded government mandates." The federal government decreed that broadcasters would convert to digital methodology but refused to fund the conversion. Congressional committees are now considering similar mandates in other aspects of telecommunicatins for land mobile, em-comms, etc. because they believe that "digital" is better than "analog." And there is no reason not to believe that in some meaure in the not to distant future that Congress will mandate that -- by a certain date -- that all remaining analog communications in all spectrum -- will cease. Its not a matter of "will this happen" -- only "when will it happen."

For those whpo might question why Congrees would even care what hams do, there is an obvious answer. Its not a matter of ham radio or CB or whatever not being "important enough to consider" -- rather the existance of any analog servicee means that the conversion to all digital has not been completed.

So, we in Amateur Radio have a choice to make. We can ignore it and have it bowl us over. Or we can accept the fact that one day in the not all that distant future that ham radio as we have known it all our lives will cease to exist and be replaced by a "new world of Amateur Radio" based on digital intercommunications with our current analog world exiating only as a graphic user interface (GUI).

Anyhow, that what I firmly believe that the future holds in store for us. Whether or not I live to see it happen is another thing. I turn 65 on Wednesday and I think its going to be at least another 20 years before the last analog signal disappears from our bands. If I do make it to my 85th birthday -- I might get to see if this prognostication is accurate. And I hope I do live long enough to -- in this case -- be proven wrong.

Please pardon any typos as Im doing this on a laptop while eating breakfast at a wi-fi hotspot.

Now back to the digital world of AVID...

de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF

[ky5u]

Well thought reply, Bill. I can understand all of that but I see so much of the shortwave bands vacant now and Amateur Radio is but a small fraction of that that is actively being used. I believe when we see all the bands around us being gobbled up we should probably worry. But the truth is, they are not being gobbled up. So why would the government want these slivers of bandwidth?

I believe the "bill of goods" includes the false pressure of "if we don't do something the government will __" (you fill in the paranoid thought of the week in the blank). I believe the pressure really comes from a minority of our own Amateurs who are wideband digital enthusiasts. So, in this case, I believe we should call the bluff of the "if we don't go digital..." crew. Just say "no" to digital expansion without use numbers to justify it.

[N5PVL]

Bill thinks that analog is doomed and wants us all to jump onto the digital bandwagon, though admittedly it makes no sense to do so.

The author Kurt Vonnegut had something to say about this fatalistic attitude in the face of other's stupidity... I'll attempt to quote here from memory:

Quote[/b] ]
I saw a huge steamroller. It blotted out the sun.

The people all lay down, lay down. They did not try to run.

My love and I, we looked amazed upon this gory mystery.

"Lay down! Lay down!" the people cried, "The great machine is history!"

My love and I, we ran away. The engine did not find us.

We ran up on a mountaintop, left history far behind us.

Perhaps we should have stayed and died, but somehow we don't think so.

We went to see where history had been, and my! - The dead did stink so!


Bill, your attitude is not up to the cut. It stinks of death, OM, and you are quite welcome to it!

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 03 2007,10:33)]Both the conversion to an all digital television broadcasting system and an eventual all-digital broadcast radio system are what are termed "unfunded government mandates." The federal government decreed that broadcasters would convert to digital methodology but refused to fund the conversion.
Alas, the situation with conversion to digital broadcast is neither than simple, nor is it unfunded.

The conversion of broadcast to digital is a necessary consequence of competition to broacast from digital cable. The broadcasters wanted to convert but were unable to pull of the NTSC stunt of backwards compatibility, leaving them with a chicken and egg problem: who would buy the sets before there was content and who would provide content before there were consumers?

The government's participation was to fund the transition indirectly by giving away spectrum access to broadcasters so that they could perform the conversion. Billions of dollars of spectrum lease were writen off for this purpose.

The only unfunded mandate in all of this is the recent manadate that new television sets be able to receive digital broadcast. The TV makers are being forced to compensate for the FCC's failure in specing 8vsb.

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Feb. 03 2007,06:59)]It seems to me that one step is to outlaw any digital mode that is not a fully open protocol. Any protocol that is patent encumbered or is in any way not allowed to be implemented freely by any radio amateur does not have a place in ham radio. Amateur radio is for experimentation and open communications, proprietary protocols need not apply.
I fully agree -- and thats my problem with Winlink and other commercial products.

Adopting a closed protocol locks us into the designers of that protocol and their "upgrade" cycles. An open protocol means we are free to use our own minds and our ingenuity to improve our communications abilities as we need to -- not as some software writer sees fit.

At least AoR and Icom have chosen open protocols for their digital products, and to me that is a good start. AoR using G4GUO for HF SSB voice and Icom is D-Star using JARL digital open protocol -- currently for voice/data on VHF/UHF but applicable to HF. It will be interesting to see what the rest of the ham radio industry selects and -- hopefully -- whatever it is will be compatable with everyone else. Otherwise we could eventually find Icom equipped stations only able to talk with other Icom equipped stations or Kenwood equipped stations only able to communicarw with other Kenwood stations or Alinco stationd only talking with other Alinco stations, etc..

So, bottom line in my book is -- that whatever protocol we users adopt and what we as users permit the manufacturers to supply has to be open protocol and compatable between brands.

de
WA6ITF

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 03 2007,14:15)]Alas, the situation with conversion to digital broadcast is neither than simple, nor is it unfunded.

The conversion of broadcast to digital is a necessary consequence of competition to broacast from digital cable. The broadcasters wanted to convert but were unable to pull of the NTSC stunt of backwards compatibility, leaving them with a chicken and egg problem: who would buy the sets before there was content and who would provide content before there were consumers?

The government's participation was to fund the transition indirectly by giving away spectrum access to broadcasters so that they could perform the conversion. Billions of dollars of spectrum lease were writen off for this purpose.

The only unfunded mandate in all of this is the recent manadate that new television sets be able to receive digital broadcast. The TV makers are being forced to compensate for the FCC's failure in specing 8vsb.
No sir. I beg to differ with you -- as will every broadcaster in this nation.

The broadcast industry never had any interest in going digital -- with the possible exception of a few technicrats with dreams of grandure. Rather, this was foisted upon my industry by a bunch of know-nothing politicians in Washington -- who -- for the sake of trying to show that they are "true technologists" -- are costing this nation and its citizens hundreds of millions of dollars in a tail-chasing exercise that almost nobody wants other than the politicos.

Yes, the government "lent" the broadcast community extra spectrum, but there is a price tag to it. They also dictated to the industry that it would spend 10's of billions of dollars -- on rebuilding an infrastructure that did not need rebuilding -- and that was already servicing this nation very well. It also dictated to the general public that it would have to purchase converter boxes just to maintain what they now have. Oh -- being generous -- they will subsidize the boxes up to $50 each -- but they do not tell you that the price of these converters will not be the $79 that the government suggests -- but more like $400 to $500 per box -- if the manufacturers can ever get them to work properly.

No: This forced conversion to digital television is naught but a true unfunded government mandate and one that serves no real purpose except to the small number of pureists who demand theater-like quality in their livingroom and who have the money to pay for it. For the man in the street it does nothing but take food off his table to pay for a fancy digital TV set that he really does not want nor need.

de
WA6ITF

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 03 2007,12:35)]Bill thinks that analog is doomed and wants us all to jump onto the digital bandwagon, though admittedly it makes no sense to do so.
Charles -- You are almost correct. Its more like recognizing that -- whether we want it or not -- and I do not want it -- that ham radio and all other services will be dragged -- maybe kicking and creaming -- into the world of 100% digital communications. This is because Washington wants it -- not because you or I want it.

In the eyes of politicians, digital equates to "new and good." ":New and good" equates to being "modern" -- "with it" -- "in with the times." And what politician will walk awayy from being "in.?"

The biggest mistake hams make is to not think outside of the hobby. Hams look at the hobby as a closed society that nobody looks at except in times of emergencies but that is far from the case. Rather, in the political arean, we are looked upon as a test bed for ideas. Digitalization is just such an idea and we have no recourse other than to accept its being forced upon us.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 04 2007,11:03)]The broadcast industry never had any interest in going digital -- with the possible exception of a few technicrats with dreams of grandure. Rather, this was foisted upon my industry by a bunch of know-nothing politicians in Washington -- who -- for the sake of trying to show that they are "true technologists" -- are costing this nation and its citizens hundreds of millions of dollars in a tail-chasing exercise that almost nobody wants other than the politicos.


I'm sorry, but as someone who was deeply invovled with the broadcast industry during the early part of the transition I can categorically state that you are wrong. While it is true that the US tends to lag in communications technology, the impetus for the switch to digital did in fact come from the industry; mostly from broadcasters responding to loss of market to cable carriers, but also from manufacturers looking for a new market.

Quote[/b] ]
No: This forced conversion to digital television is naught but a true unfunded government mandate and one that serves no real purpose except to the small number of pureists who demand theater-like quality in their livingroom and who have the money to pay for it. For the man in the street it does nothing but take food off his table to pay for a fancy digital TV set that he really does not want nor need.


You might want to get in touch with the man on the street. He pays an amazing amount of money for television these days and by all reports on sales, very few people are going to be left who both want to receive over the air TV and don't have a digital ready set by '09.

[wd0ct]

"You might want to get in touch with the man on the street. He pays an amazing amount of money for television these days and by all reports on sales, very few people are going to be left who both want to receive over the air TV and don't have a digital ready set by '09. "

I heard a news blurb yesterday. It said 13.5 million of us were buying new tvs for the super bowl.

I wonder how many of them will be not hdtv ready?

Some will cry about their coming expense for digital tv but the vast majority will suck it up and go on. Such is the mentality of sheeple drawn like moths to the flame of greater complexity that is accepted as todays modern life.

[KC9ECI]

I'll go out and look at buying a new TV the day after the one I have no longer picks up a station.

[kf4vgx]

However #, kicking and creaming we will go.
100% digital communications .
See link,
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=145324

It's coming
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.icomuk.co.uk/images/icom/fieldsetField/259/IC-E2820%20.jpg IC-E2820

[N0NB]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 04 2007,12:20)]At least AoR and Icom have chosen open protocols for their digital products, and to me that is a good start. #AoR using G4GUO for HF SSB voice and Icom is D-Star using JARL digital open protocol -- currently for voice/data on VHF/UHF but applicable to HF. #It will be interesting to see what the rest of the ham radio industry selects and -- hopefully -- whatever it is will be compatable with everyone else. #Otherwise we could eventually find Icom equipped stations only able to talk with other Icom equipped stations or Kenwood equipped stations only able to communicarw with other Kenwood stations or Alinco stationd only talking with other Alinco stations, etc..
Precisely, Bill.

I would think that the JARL developed protocol would have enough credibility for it to become a standard. #Perhaps the ARRL or IARU needs to put their weight behind it for the other manufacturers to come on board.

One thing I see about amateur radio that does not lend itself well to an all digital future is our ad hoc nature of communication. #The digital stuff I am working with in the commercial world all needs a healthy backbone infrastructure to work well. #After many years of playing with packet, I have come to the conclusion that we cannot sustain the infrastructure that digital requires as the ad hoc practice is too pervasive. #Our most popular digital modes are those designed with ad hoc communications in mind. #The only way I see an all digital future is for the commercial Internet to serve as our backbone infrastructure.

I'm not closing the door on digital. #I'm sure there are some creative ideas out there, but at the end of the day, the protocols must be open to all that wish to experiment and learn.

[ky5u]

Bill,

Still no answer on exactly WHO/WHAT is the reason for Amateur Radio to go digital? The technology is many years old, the bandwidth is wholly insufficient, and there is little interest in doing so from Amateurs. Nobody is beating down the doors for the largely dormant SW band.

As far as how the digitization of AR resembles that of broadcasting, the only way that is truly the same is that the rich folks can afford the new toys and of course the losers will be the poor people stuck with old equipment and no money to buy digital gear.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 03 2007,11:33)]<<snip>>
Ill start by saying that I hope I am wrong -- because in my view "digital everything" is not the panacia that the advertising leads one to believe. That stated, I do see all telecommunications -- and I do mean every aspect - from broadcast and intercommunications down to the lowest hobby level of flea-power FRS -- being forced by eventual government decree to go digital.

<<snip>>

So in the end, I see ham radio and all other forms of "hobby" and "hobby-like" communicatons -- including 11 meter CB, FRA, MURSA, GMRS and -- well -- you name it -- proverbially all being pulled -- kicking and screaming -- to an all digital world.

Can't happen. you say? Well sit back and watch. It is not only going to happen -- it is happening right this very moment and happening by government decree in the form of "DTV" and "IBOC."

<<snip>>

So, we in Amateur Radio have a choice to make. We can ignore it and have it bowl us over. Or we can accept the fact that one day in the not all that distant future that ham radio as we have known it all our lives will cease to exist and be replaced by a "new world of Amateur Radio" based on digital intercommunications with our current analog world exiating only as a graphic user interface (GUI).

<<snip>>

de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
Bill,

I certainly hope this won't be the case because it will end up with amateur radio being nothing more than appliance operators, i.e. CB, FRS, etc. Only a few with resources and training will be able to experiment with direct digital signals.

The other major problem is that standards will have to be chosen just like they have been in public safety and digtial TV in order to guarantee interoperability. My guess is that P25 will be the one chosen and that the FCC will be told to channelize all amateur bands so that maximum use can be achieved. I just can't see Congress allowing a free-for-all on the amateur bands to try and determine which protocol will win.

This will be the end to experimentation on the ham bands. No more rolling your own QRP transmitter/receivers to see how things work. No more development of new modes. No more weak signal work with analog signals to learn about propagation. Just plug it in, turn it on and talk/type. We will lose a valuable resource for those interested in electromagnetic waves and how they work. Those that really want to study this will become freebanders and scoff at the regulations that won't let them learn.

Lastly, once standards are set, stagnation will set in. Just assume that all ham equipment must be P25 capable by January 1, 2009 on a channelized basis from 160 meters to 5 gHz. All existing equipment will immediately become worthless. In addition, what happens 10 years down the road when people get tired of the limitations imposed by the protocol chosen in 2009. You can bet the manufacturers will have reasons old equipment can't be upgraded and that new must be purchased. Only a few will be able to participate and therefore it will be goodbye amateur radio.

I've been around the telecomm industry too long and know how "standards" work. They may be necessary but they do have costs and those costs are very, very high. Updating to newer and better standards takes a large amount of capital and planning. This means many standards are destined to live for 40 to 60 years before they can be changed. You'll never convince me that the installed base of SCS modems wasn't the reason the SCAMP sound card protocol development was suddenly "put on hold" and is a perfect example of the costs involved in replacing a "standard".

One thing some of the digital mavens should be asking themselves is if they are willing to live with current standards for this length of time. How would the Winlink folks like to have a Pactor 3 chosen as the standard for 40 years? I sometimes wonder if they have ever thought of what will happen when another "service" starts offering better and faster service using better equipment.

Perhaps this is what folks ultimately want or perhaps they are just so blinded by wanting the ability to use high bandwidth/high data speeds on HF that they are willing to trade the future for their immediate needs. Who knows? I do know that the ARRL has been unduly influenced by digital mavens who have only a very small tunnel view of ham radio and wouldn't give a second thought about every mode but high speed multimedia services disappearing. Most of these folks only see radios as black boxes and don't really care about what goes on inside of them. I think you'll find that this is really a very small minority of amateur operators whose weight far exceeds their numbers.

We need to fight this move to digital and the highly likely complete standardization as hard as we can. People are not born with the knowledge of how RF, radios, components, etc. work. They need the ability to experiment and build and try things. A move to digital only in the amateur service will stifle everyone's ability to have the flexibility to learn these things by using simple, homebuilt equipment.

Those folks, such as you, who have the ability to communicate with the movers and shakers should make it a priority to emphasize that amateur radio is more than just emergency communications and sending emails. It is also a place where people can learn the basics of electronics, electromagnetic propagation, and most of all experiment. Your characterization of amateur radio being "hobby communications" just like CB, MURS, FRS, etc. is just wrong. Many, many of us are more than just communicators.

Sure many of us duplicate stuff that has been done before, but this is the essence of learning. Everyone has to learn that 2+2=4, that e=mc^2, and that e=ir; we aren't born knowing these things. A radio service where people can learn new things is what is important. Losing the ability to utilize analog signals and equipment will severely limit this individual experimentation and therefore limit the ability to learn. Just ask yourself why the QRP movement in amateur radio is so large and has so many participants. Ramsey, MFJ, Ten Tec, and Elcraft sell enough QRP equipment for it to be a profitable line of products, not to mention the QRP clubs that exist just so people can learn about these things I have mentioned.

If this does come to pass, I'll gladly give up my amateur license and join with others who will become freebanders using simple analog equipment that we build. Believe me, it will happen if for no other reason than it can be done.

Jim
WA0LYK

[N5PVL]

wa6itf says:
Quote[/b] ]
The biggest mistake hams make is to not think outside of the hobby. #Hams look at the hobby as a closed society that nobody looks at except in times of emergencies but that is far from the case. #Rather, in the political arean, we are looked upon as a test bed for ideas. #Digitalization is just such an idea and we have no recourse other than to accept its being forced upon us.

As the testbed for new ideas, part of our responsibility is to shoot down the stupid or politically motivated ones, early on. Accepting and going along with what we know is wrong has never been part of our job as amateurs. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Bill, you've been hanging around too many ARRL folks and have picked up some strange ideas about what amateurs are supposed to do and think. - You should be careful not to let those kind of people warp your mind. Look at what happened to poor Paul Rinaldo... - You don't want to wind up being snookered like he has, do you?

My take on this is that if the ARRL and other parties involved think that they are going to "push" amateurs into doing something both stupid and unecessary and against our will, that the ARRL and other parties should not be surprised when they wind up being isolated and marginalized.

With the ARRL down to less than 20% of the US ham population and consistently losing @ 2% of their membership per year, how long do you imagine ithe ARRL will be around in any case, much less after alienating and losing still another large block of their membership by attempting to force one more obvious stupidity upon us?

Amateurs noted the mad scramble at ARRL HQ in recent months to accomodate and preserve WL2K, the worst Lids ( by volume ) in amateur radio's history, while making a point to do absolutely nothing to preserve morse code, the single best example of good operating practice and professional quality radio operation in the hobby, bar none. - Very few were impressed by this display of 'character' on the ARRL's part, Bill. - A lot of us are seriously starting to wonder just whose side the ARRL is on.

Do you think that the bandwidth segmentation proposal, the rape of ARES and the ARRL 'embracing' WinLink2000 has really done the ARRL any good?

What I get out of this is that it's way past time for an organizational enema at ARRL HQ, and for you Bill to find a group of amateurs to hang around with who can muster more character than it takes to "just go along with it" when something wrong is going on that threatens the hobby.

I hope the present crew at ARRL HQ does attempt to force digital upon the ham radio community Bill, because that will be the end of them, once and for all.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Feb. 04 2007,15:17)]<<snip>>

I would think that the JARL developed protocol would have enough credibility for it to become a standard. Perhaps the ARRL or IARU needs to put their weight behind it for the other manufacturers to come on board.

<<snip>>

I'm not closing the door on digital. I'm sure there are some creative ideas out there, but at the end of the day, the protocols must be open to all that wish to experiment and learn.
Your pretty flipant about using the word "standard". How long should we expect this standard to last, 10 years, 20 years, or more? Should everyone establish a depreciation reserve to begin saving for equipment that uses the next "standard" that will be chosen in perhaps 5 years?

The term "standard" means more than just something nice to have. It means it will be the one, common means of transport. Nothing else will be accepted but the "standard".

Your reference to open protocols (plural) and experimention is anathema to the term "standard". If you tell all the manufacturers that D-Star is going to be the "standard" and to include it in all radios, then why would any further experimentation with other "protocols" be required? You may experiment with different languages or software coding to implement the chosen "standard", but in the end it must meet the "standard" or you just don't have a "standard".

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the term of "standard" being tossed around by everyone simply frightens me. Especially, digital standards where not even one bit in a frame can be added without being incompatible and where one and only one standard is allowed.

Jim
WAOLYK

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 04 2007,11:13)]The biggest mistake hams make is to not think outside of the hobby. Hams look at the hobby as a closed society that nobody looks at except in times of emergencies but that is far from the case. Rather, in the political arean, we are looked upon as a test bed for ideas. Digitalization is just such an idea and we have no recourse other than to accept its being forced upon us.
No one is looking on amateur radio as a testbed for digitialization.

There is no movement underway in Washington to force any service beyond broadcast television to change to a digital format.

Those services which are moving to digital are doing so because of user demand for digital.

In 2009, when broadcast television finally goes all digital in the United States, it will have taken twenty-two years to do so. You cannot point in the last 20 years to a single attempt by any part of the federal government to force digital modes onto amateur radio in any form.

[N5PVL]

Earlier I mentioned something about the promoters of these so-called "digital conferences" having an agenda to push.

This ARNewsline/Dayton one has a really bogus agenda, with the inevitable GIGO factor that follows.

With this in mind, would anybody want to venture a wild guess as to what kind of recommendations and attitudes are likely to issue from this conference? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[kf4vgx]

Time will march on,with or without .

Paraphrase as you will.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 04 2007,18:27)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 04 2007,11:13)]The biggest mistake hams make is to not think outside of the hobby. Hams look at the hobby as a closed society that nobody looks at except in times of emergencies but that is far from the case. Rather, in the political arean, we are looked upon as a test bed for ideas. Digitalization is just such an idea and we have no recourse other than to accept its being forced upon us.
No one is looking on amateur radio as a testbed for digitialization.

There is no movement underway in Washington to force any service beyond broadcast television to change to a digital format.

Those services which are moving to digital are doing so because of user demand for digital.

In 2009, when broadcast television finally goes all digital in the United States, it will have taken twenty-two years to do so. You cannot point in the last 20 years to a single attempt by any part of the federal government to force digital modes onto amateur radio in any form.
That isn't what they're telling us here, Marty.

The Feds are providing major funds for public service agencies to convert to digital trunked networks, to improve interoprerability. Reportedly, agencies will not even be able to buy repacement analog radios in a very short time.

Digital trunking looks like marvelous stuff, and our county is shifting everything and everybody even remotely connected to emergency services over to it. The system is designed to have multiple, redundant facilities, to make it as reliable as conceivably possible. The backups have backups, but, they still have a place in their plans for hams.

I haven't heard anybody propose a ham version of a trunked network yet, but why not? Use trunking technology to link all the semi-dead repeaters in the area. Get some use out of that bandwidth.

I think there would be benefits to digital voice on both HF and VHF.

Constant-carrier modes cause less interference to consumer electronics than do amplitude modulated modes like SSB.
As a result of antenna restrictions and a rising background electrical noise level in our neighorhoods, I see the need for hams to increase their base power levels. 400 watts of constant carrier digital will disrupt the neighbors less than 400 watts of SSB or CW.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Feb. 04 2007,21:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 04 2007,18:27)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Feb. 04 2007,11:13)]The biggest mistake hams make is to not think outside of the hobby. Hams look at the hobby as a closed society that nobody looks at except in times of emergencies but that is far from the case. Rather, in the political arean, we are looked upon as a test bed for ideas. Digitalization is just such an idea and we have no recourse other than to accept its being forced upon us.
No one is looking on amateur radio as a testbed for digitialization.

There is no movement underway in Washington to force any service beyond broadcast television to change to a digital format.

Those services which are moving to digital are doing so because of user demand for digital.

In 2009, when broadcast television finally goes all digital in the United States, it will have taken twenty-two years to do so. You cannot point in the last 20 years to a single attempt by any part of the federal government to force digital modes onto amateur radio in any form.
That isn't what they're telling us here, Marty.

The Feds are providing major funds for public service agencies to convert to digital trunked networks, to improve interoprerability. Reportedly, agencies will not even be able to buy repacement analog radios in a very short time.
Yes, what you're describing is happening. But it's the exact opposite of the claim that the feds are forcing unfunded changes.

Is there a mandate that requires you take the funds, or are the feds offering funds if you opt to go to trunking?

As far as I know, it's the later, and at least some have turned down the funds.

Hardly the same as being "forced."

On the other hand, I am completely unaware of any federal effort, funded or otherwise, to force amateur repeater conversion to digital. This would require a change in the regs, which would require a petition and the whole process behind it, and there's nothing on the FCC's docket like that at all.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, I am completely unaware of any federal effort, funded or otherwise, to force amateur repeater conversion to digital. This would require a change in the regs, which would require a petition and the whole process behind it, and there's nothing on the FCC's docket like that at all.

The more I think about this the more I believe Charles is right.

The FCC isn't going to force digital anything on us. They don't want to do what little they do now. The only thing we have to be careful of is the ARRL trying to slip something through the FCC with nobody noticing.

If you can't get some Hams to spend $150 on a PL capable 2m mobile radio without needing an act of congress and enduring the entire PL/No PL debate for the 100th time, what makes the ARRL think they can force anybody to pony up the $$$ to go with D-Star WinLink/SCS?

[kf4vgx]

Why D-Star is not being used by a majority of Amateurs http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif.

Peer pressure, when will the younger generation of our Amateur Society start making decisions on their own .
Much less read in these bias forums.

The price is to " HIGH".
Bring it down and the over all sales will more than compensate .

I would have A D-Star repeater in an instant,and so would quite a few others.





http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KD6NIG]

I don't have a problem with any new digital protocols as long as the following requirements are met:

1) ID must occur in some kind of clear way, ie, a way that anyone with a standard reciever, turned to the appropriate mode (be it AM, FM, SSB, whatever) can identify the station(s) making the transmission.

2) It has to be open enough that it can be discerned by at least OO's that its not being used for illicit activities (anything that violates FCC rules in ham radio). I don't want people using ham radio for pornography. However, I don't have any inherant desire to read anyone else's mail, so I'm willing to not know what the protocol is, as log as I can ID the station that thrashed me if they aren't when they are supposed to be. I'll leave content enforcement to the appropriate people. I don't mind digital voice like D-Star, because its not private if I choose to buy a radio that works on it, but the data side needs monitoring against illicit use, the same as the winlink email.

3) I'm sorry to say it, but "appliance operation" is already pretty prevelant in Ham radio today. It may not be the majority but if it isn't I would be awfully surprised. And as more stuff goes solid state and parts for old boatanchors become more scarce, its only going to climb.


Myself personally, I don't see a need for all of this stuff when there are already commercial solutions for mobile internet, but I can see how people would want that. But using ham radio to avoid service fees isn't right. The only use I could see is maybe to get my internet to my wifes grandparents next door so I could use it over there, but I can about do that now with my wireless router (and I know if I put an external antenna on it I definetely could) but then I also think of the aspect that doing so would, although the router has security, makes my signal available a bit further down the street, where someone with the "know how" could do who knows what with it. If I used ham radio to extend my home network range, then its even further, and I risk another licence if its used wrong.

I'm not afraid of the technology. I'm afraid of misuse of it-violating ham radio 'gentlemens' agreements, and the actual code itself by getting emails or pulling sites up on the internet, via ham radio, that violate our rules of decency. Yes, I know that the gentlemens agreements are already tossed aside on contest weekends, but at least the contesters have to give a callsign to complete the contact, so you know who the LID is http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I don't need to peek at people's email, but if its going over ham radio, its not supposed to be encrypted, and rules need to be enforced. If you don't want peeking, you need to use a commercial service. (well, at least not peeking from your ham radio peers like would happen if someone is watching a packet channel while i'm leaving a message in somoenes TNC box. I'm not going into what peeking may or may not occur on the actual internet itself http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )

[KB9YFI]

speakers NEE?

-shrubbery!!!!!!

[WA3KYY]

It's been said before but it needs to be said again. Digtial modes will become mainstream when they offer clear advantages over the way things are done now.

For error free sending of messages and the like, digital is the method of choice.

For ad hoc communications where you tune across the bands looking for a contact, many digital modes, especially digital voice, aren't even in the ball park much less the game. If you have to be precisely on frequency and can only decode a digital stream by synching at the start of a transmission, it will not be used by the majority of amateurs for the typical ad hoc QSO. Until then, use of digital modes will remain a low percentage of amateur communications.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[N5PVL]

N0NB says:
Quote[/b] ]
One thing I see about amateur radio that does not lend itself well to an all digital future is our ad hoc nature of communication. #The digital stuff I am working with in the commercial world all needs a healthy backbone infrastructure to work well. #After many years of playing with packet, I have come to the conclusion that we cannot sustain the infrastructure that digital requires as the ad hoc practice is too pervasive. #Our most popular digital modes are those designed with ad hoc communications in mind.

Much of that depends upon where you play with packet. There are large areas of the USA that have packet connectivity, and all of Europe and Japan does in addition to the many other networks that are scattered here and there around the globe.

Of the large-scale packet networks that were built here in the USA during the 1980's, all are still in operation today ( though in some cases under different management ) with one important and significant exception that was called TexNet.

TexNet started off with a kind of clutzy proprietary node system that ignored the state of the art in networking, going backward to utilize the obsolete, unreliable 'Star' network topology that required a centralized "network manager", thus suffering from a single failure point that could disrupt or shut down the entire network.

To balance this backwardness on the software end, they developed a recipie for the infrastructure that worked out fairly well, unvolving 9.6kb UHF backbone links and 1.2kb user access.

TexNet grew to over 100 nodes covering a large part of Texas, plus Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Then the movers and shakers at TPRS ( Texas Packet Radio Society ) decided to "improve" the network by including donated fiber-optic links instead of their proven ham radio infrastructure to link important nodes. Later when internet access became inexpensive and common, they started a program to systematically replace the UHF 9.6kb. backbone links with internet links between nodes.

Harry Ridenour N0CCW, the TexNet network manager passed away, the new internet and fiber-optic links were shut down and so TexNet became the only large scale packet network in ther history of amateur radio to totally dissapear without a trace.

All of the others are still around. Some are in better shape and some are in worse but they are all there except TexNet - the only one to go over to internet linkages.

Contrast this with the packet network in Europe, which a few years ago upgraded from 9.6kb access to 19.2kb access, with backbone links in the MB range making cross-continent VOP ( voice over packet ) exchanges common enough that VOP software is included with the popular Flex32 packet program.

Quote[/b] ]
The only way I see an all digital future is for the commercial Internet to serve as our backbone infrastructure.

There's no shame in ignorance if you are ready, willing and able to rectify the condition in the face of new and better information.

Historical Note:
The same moronic "movers and shakers" who undermined and eventually destroyed TexNet went on to be be known as "the Dallas group" who managed a hostile takeover of TAPR in the late 1980's. - This was the point when TAPR ceased to support packet radio networking in the USA, actively discouraging it in fact when they finally gave up on trying to convert it all to tcpip.

Yes, our packet network in the USA was the first casualty of the 'hinternet'. - It wasn't tcpip, so it had to go.

I sat in on a pre-seminar meeting with Greg Jones WD5IVD in that era, where Greg outlined the way the USA packet network could be rapidly undermined by imposing unwanted internet links that would, because they were faster than ham radio, take our packet radio traffic and "route it around" the existing HF network stations. Greg explained that with no traffic, those dedicated HF backbone stations would shut down and then amateur tcpip could take over with internet links instead.

The part about destroying the global HF packet network worked out much as Greg suggested, but nobody liked amateur tcpip so there was nothing to replace what was irresponsibly vandalized. Greg went on to set the tone at TAPR as the guiding influence of "the Dallas group", a tone that unfortunately lingers to this day.

- So you can imagine how impressed I am with your suggestion that we utilize the internet as the backbone of what? - An amateur packet radio network?

Give me a break.

Amazingly, we're still having that clutzy, obsolete "Star" network topology shoved at us by folks who either get on the internet and call what they are doing "ham radio", or get on the air and act like arrogant asses, crashing people's QSO's without any detectable concern or remorse. ( ARESCOM/WL2K )

Packet radio ( and the internet ) utilizes the partially-meshed network topology, lightyears ahead of the obsolete Star network topology that requires a vulnerable central control point. Stuff that easily knocks down Star networks will have little or no effect on packet radio or the internet.

We took what was best about the internet ( partially-meshed network structure ) and left out the dead wood ( IP ) and came up with the most effective digital networking system at our disposal to this day. - AX25 packet radio.

[N0NB]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 05 2007,12:50)]- So you can imagine how impressed I am with your suggestion that we utilize the internet as the backbone of what? - An amateur packet radio network?

Give me a break.
Actually, it was not my intent to suggest an Internet backbone was needed or desired and I've never advocated such. #However, to move the traffic at speeds required for today's digital user (after being familiar with the Internet) some sort of higher speed backbone is necessary. #Doing it via amateur radio should be the goal for all of us. #However, I don't see the amateur radio community in this country being able to construct (site acquisition, money for hardware, coordinating efforts, etc.) the necessary microwave network.

The efforts to build out UHF backbones for the packet networks in Kansas and northern Oklahoma failed due to cost (which always fell on a select few including myself) and politics. #Someone was always stirring the pot against some form of using the network. #In the end a lot of us threw up our hands in frustration and walked away.

Despite what you may believe about me, I don't want amateur radio tied to the Internet, there is simply to much opportunity for trouble. #My point, probably less clear than it should have been, was to say what I think will happen, not that I want it to happen.

[N5PVL]

N0NB says:
Quote[/b] ]
However, to move the traffic at speeds required for today's digital user (after being familiar with the Internet) some sort of higher speed backbone is necessary. #Doing it via amateur radio should be the goal for all of us.

A: Physics 101 - This is never, repeat never going to happen.

Ever.

Period. - The internet will perpetually be significantly faster, no matter what we do or try.

B: Your theory of "If we can't be as fast as the internet, then we should throw up our hands, give up on radio and use the internet instead." #is simply not worthy of serious, adult consideration. See A.

You've already decided that ham radio is just not good enough by default. - That attitude of yours is the thing that doesn't cut the mustard though... It's just not good enough for this fine hobby.

An adult, realistic view of digital amateur radio would put "always will be significantly slower than the internet at useful distances, making IP more of a liability than an asset" at the top of the column, before any other considerations are made or innovation developed. If you do not work with these simple realities in mind, you will only end up wasting your and other's time. I've seen it happen over and over again.

Ever wonder why absolutely no usable network has resulted from the last fifteen years of TAPR's activities?

Ever wonder why there are successful AX25 networks that cover several states but you never hear about a large-scale amateur tcpip network - anywhere?

Think it over... If your idea of amateur radio's relevance is tied up with providing internet-like communications, then your best bet is to save yourself a lot of frustration by getting out right now. - Put that callsign back in the pool for someone who will appreciate it.

One thing that has been proven conclusively, over and over again, is that you cannot build and maintain a viable packet radio "network" with non-ham links of any kind. In every case these "vapor networks" have vaporized as soon as somebody gets into a snit, gets bored or falls upon hard financial times. These faux networks literally never last and it is just as well since it is just packet access to the internet, not amateur radio digital networking in the first place. - It's just a cheap sham that always falls on its face.

C: The real thing tends to be much more tenacious than the cheap shams. - It gives you something to build upon and improve gradually in cooperation with others instead of taking on the world all at once by yourself. No large-scale packet network that has stuck with RF all the way has ever disappeared or gone away. - And every one that has utilized non-ham links has, appropriately enough, vaporized.

These are the realities of digital amateur radio and there are no appeals where the laws of physics apply, as they most certainly do here.

I hope that you adjust to these realities easily and so go on to be a productive member of the amateur radio community. - You are certainly no dummy and its good to have guys around who are interested in the digital stuff. We make up, after all, a tiny minority within the hobby and should stick together.

[kf4vgx]

A: Physics 101 - This is never, repeat never going to happen.

Ever.

....



I'll remember you said that http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif .

But then again everyone has a right to an opinion http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[AE6IP]

Wow. I guess that means IRLP is a figment of my imagination, eh, Charlie?

[kn4ds]

I dunno that I agree that it'll never happen (higher throughput on HF)...

Look at MPEG2... the standard for satellite direct to home, right?

Well, it was, and has been.

The problem has become... surprise... bandwidth... now MPEG4 is coming along.

What's to stop hams from adapting similar compression algorithms for data and/or phone? Or coming up with something even more efficient?

I do not, and will never, believe that digital can take the place of analog... I can, *today* just hook up to any old car battery that still produces 12 volts and get traffic through... and in a disaster, there are certain to be a few car batteries around. If I absolutely have to, I can make radio and get word out to come save our sorry behinds... I can't guarantee that I can power an RF generator (transmitter), along with an AD converter.

The main thing will always be... can I make RF and modulate it in a way that someone somewhere can hear it? Analog will always require lower power, and CW requires the least amount of power and technology to get that "come help us please" message out.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 06 2007,01:03)]Wow. #I guess that means IRLP is a figment of my imagination, eh, Charlie?
No, but your literacy has come into question.

Get someone to read the following for you and explain what it means.

Quote[/b] ]
The internet will perpetually be significantly faster, no matter what we do or try.

And my name is Charles, Marti, not Charlie. That's AG4YO, not nearly so handsome as yours truly as should be evident from my photo below:
#
<center>http://www.uspacket.org/images/misc/thumb.jpg
Yah Yah!

</center>
They say the front side is even better !