What happenned to Packet in the US?

[N5PVL]

What was it that caused Packet networks in the United States to decline over the course of a decade that saw astounding growth and advancement of the Packet network in Europe? #( 19.2 access, 78.2 fulldup backbone )

Was it - the internet? # - #Well, yes and no. #Remember that Europeans had cable access to the internet long before we ever got past dialup here in the US, and it had no negative affect there at all.

What was different here in the US that caused us to regress and degenerate while the Europeans moved ahead and progressed?

Well, #the internet was involved allright, but only as a tool. - Not as a first cause.

In the late 80's, I attended a Packet get together in Austin, Texas, hosted by the Texas Packet Radio Society. Later I would edit TPRS's "Quarterly Report" - But I was new to TPRS at that point and Greg Jones WD5IVD had no idea who I was.

I got to Austin a day early so I could tour the state capital. I remembered somebody mentioning an early get-together the night before the conference at a German-style beer hall ( Beer and sausage - Mmmmmm ) there in Austin.

( Note: #The "Dallas group takeover" of TAPR in the early 90's by the TPRS crew included Greg Jones WD5IVD and most of the TPRS BoD. Jones would later go on to be president of TAPR. )

So I walked into the outdoor beer hall, looked around and found a group who were obviously hams. Almost everybody else there were college kids, so the hams stood out.

I sat down and said howdy, but Greg was talking so I didn't get to go much past " Hi, I'm Charles, N5PVL".

Greg was talking about what a shame it was that hams were too stupid to go for amateur tcpip, and how retarded anybody who was involved in Packet networking must be, in light of the internet.

I was not used to hearing such a cynical attitude about the great majority of amateurs. - I decided to find out more, so I smiled and nodded at the right times and places, joining the laughter about how stupid hams in general really are, and it paid off. I had gained this geekoid group's confidence.

It turned out that the other hams in the group were proponents of NOS. One of the fellows asked Greg, "How can we ever hope to get 'progress' while AX25 Packet is so popular and doing so well? ( Remember at that time, QST used to give hams the impression that if you didn't have a Packet setup, you were missing out on the best part of Ham Radio. )

Greg smiled because he had an answer. He explained that very soon, internet access would be available to everyone, not just government facilities and universities and that NOS stations could then link up together on the internet instead of Packet Radio.

Then he explained how to undermine and destroy the AX25 Packet net by means of a hostile takeover. - Something that immediately appealed to this group of fellows who looked down upon thier fellow hams with scorn.

"All we have to do", he explained, "is to join them in order to beat them. We will set up Packet BBS stations and do all of our message forwarding over internet links, much much faster than ham radio."

To grasp what Greg was saying, imagine for a moment that you have invested big bucks on a dedicated, computer-controlled HF digital station in the late 1980's in order to provide your fellow hams with access to an independent, all-ham Packet radio network. - But when you receive a Packet message or bulletin and try to forward to to a distant location, it is already there because you have been "routed around" by faster non-ham internet links.

Greg explained that only a few Packet/internet gateways could thus undermine the entire AX25 network by depriving key servers ( BBS stations in major cities #) of traffic so that the operators lose heart and give up on trying to provide that service to thier fellow hams.

At the same time, Packet bulletins intended for the European network could be re-routed as @WW and injected into the US Packet network with internet links, thus serving to abruptly double the network's loading with inappropriate traffic, thus making it very, very slow. - So that amateurs would stop having fun with it and be ready to look for something else. ( NOS, in theory )

I guess Greg and his NOS friends had never heard about the Amateurs Code, where you are supposed to avoid doing anything that would lessen the enjoyment of your fellow hams, and how we are supposed to look out for each other's interests.

They were too busy giggling at the prospect of all those disheartened Packet BBS operators, and the thousands of Packet users in that era who would then be "forced" to go over to amateur tcpip when AX25 Packet had been vandalized sufficiently so that it was undermined.

Unfortunately, as we all know, Greg Jones was a lot better at figuring out how to vandalize the hobby than he ever was at building anything. The gateway stations did a great job of undermining AX25 Packet just as he said - but hams still didn't like NOS, never did and so we ended up with - nothing.

Meanwhile, in Europe, high-speed backbone links and VOP ( Voice over Packet ) were being developed on the excellent AX25 net there.

Here's the ironic part:

Amateur tcpip never went anywhere in the US, but it caught on big in Europe where they had a great AX25 network to run that IP over.

Greg Jones and his NOS buddies cut thier own noses off to spite thier face. - If they had read and understood a copy of The Amateurs Code and went by its tenets, they would be enjoying high-speed amateur tcpip this very day - just as hams in Europe have been doing for decades.

If they had respected and worked with thier fellow hams instead of denigrating them, and working against them.

That's what happened to the US Packet net, boys and girls. I was there, and I saw it from start to finish.

Use of internet gateways was regulated in Europe, so that it was illegal to transport one networks traffic over the other.

It's a shame, and I mean a real shame that we never had that protection here in the US.

73 DE Charles, N5PVL

[n0iu]

Why has this been duplicated? Hasn't this already been beaten to death in the exact same post started on November 28?

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....=176038 (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=176038)

Scott NØIU

[kf4vgx]

" hat happenned to Packet in the US?. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif.

Charles , take two midols and ask us again tomorrow

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

This is getting hilarious http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif .

[KC4RAN]

That thread was locked due to troublemakers coming in and starting crap... and it's already started with this one. I hope Glen comes down hard on those that can't leave a thread alone and feel they must hijack it.

In any case, as I posted in that one, it looks like there is still ongoing effort going towards updating AX.25, including a paper and methodology for adding FEC to AX.25, but I guess I don't know who exactly 'owns' AX.25...

At first glance, it looks to be owned by TAPR, but I don't know if they are just the last keeper of the protocol. Was the protocol itself published as any sort of standard by anyone other than TAPR? I didn't see an RFC for the protocol, but I did see one for the methodology of encapsulating AX.25 inside IP (RFC 1226).

[N5PVL]

Nobody 'owns' AX25, as far as I have been able to determine. There is certainly nothing to prohibit anyone from modifying or re-doing it however they like best.

[N5PVL]

KC4RAN says:
Quote[/b] ]
That thread was locked due to troublemakers coming in and starting crap... and it's already started with this one. #I hope Glen comes down hard on those that can't leave a thread alone and feel they must hijack it.

The Trolls want to shut down a topic, and sure enough, it's the topic that gets shut down, not the Trolls.

It's a win-win situation - for the Trolls.

[kn4ds]

I still believe the Europeans built out their packet network as they did due to the per-minute charges for Internet access... it was a hot topic at the time.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 05 2007,22:30)]I still believe the Europeans built out their packet network as they did due to the per-minute charges for Internet access... it was a hot topic at the time.
Now they are having to renegotiate just about all the tower sites that are not privately owned, if I understand correctly.

I'm starting to wonder if there is not a better idea out there somewhere, that would wean us off of any dependency upon commercial or govt tower space, giving us the means for long-term planning and utilization of tower space/resources.

As it is, there is the problem with tower space abruptly going away, and there is also a problem with key 'guru' types periodically going away or burning out that needs to be addressed. - I'm thinking in terms of Packet nodes but the same applies to repeater sites, or any combination therof.

Perhaps we can start to investigate the best way to work with lower antennas, from 30-100 feet. - Both long-range, directional backbone links and wide-area, omnidirectional access systems.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 05 2007,22:30)]I still believe the Europeans built out their packet network as they did due to the per-minute charges for Internet access... it was a hot topic at the time.
Now they are having to renegotiate just about all the tower sites that are not privately owned, if I understand correctly.
Yes... nothing comes easy in Europe, it appears.

As we are discussing in another thread, access to towers for ham activities is becoming scarce here in the US, too.

Not to hijack the thread, but the tower access problem leads me to this question - how can DSTAR on 1.2Ghz be the answer to a question that hasn't been asked yet?

[wb7dmx]

years gao I used packet a lot, even run a seperate digipeater 24/7 with antennas and a mocom-70 at full power.

but now a day with all the highspeed internet, it is about useless from my point of view, e-mail works much better.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (wb7dmx @ Dec. 05 2007,22:41)]years gao I used packet a lot, even run a seperate digipeater 24/7 with antennas and a mocom-70 at full power.

but now a day with all the highspeed internet, it is about useless from my point of view, e-mail works much better.
That, I think, is the prevailing attitude that will keep the VHF packet network from regaining the popularity it once enjoyed.

Digital enthusiasts will continue to develop and improve throughput with packet or other as-yet-undeveloped modes.

But this age of ubiquitous high-speed Internet access has pointed up packet as painfully slow for so many people.

If we can get something going locally, I'm willing, and even eager, to put my packet BBS back up. I just have my doubts about the interest level.

[N5PVL]

I think the speed arguement is meaningless.

VOIP is 'better' and 'faster' than HF phone, too. - So what?

Comparing Packet radio communications to the internet as if they were in competition is not really relevant at all. - There is literally no point to it - unless you are intent upon dissing ham radio.

My feeling is that the folks who no longer like ham radio because the internet is 'better' and 'faster' should probably turn their tickets in and go find a forum on internet issues.

That is one of the primary difficulties with the "ham internet" or hinternet paradigm. - It's proponents are perpetually dissatisfied and disparaging about 99% of what ham radio is, and seemingly cannot forgive RF communications for being so non-internet-like.

- So they bang and bang on the round ham radio peg, trying to force it to fit into the square internet hole.

Hams complain about the damage to the hobby but those complaints fall upon deaf ears, as the damage being described is exactly what the hinternetters are working for.

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,21:09)]I think the speed arguement is meaningless.

VOIP is 'better' and 'faster' than HF phone, too. - So what?

Comparing Packet radio communications to the internet as if they were in competition is not really relevant at all. - There is literally no point to it - unless you are intent upon dissing ham radio.

My feeling is that the folks who no longer like ham radio because the internet is 'better' and 'faster' should probably turn their tickets in and go find a forum on internet issues.

That is one of the primary difficulties with the "ham internet" or hinternet paradigm. - It's proponents are perpetually dissatisfied and disparaging about 99% of what ham radio is, and seemingly cannot forgive RF communications for being so non-internet-like.

- So they bang and bang on the round ham radio peg, trying to force it to fit into the square internet hole.

Hams complain about the damage to the hobby but those complaints fall upon deaf ears, as the damage being described is exactly what the hinternetters are working for.
my post was just my thoughts as to why packet has kinda died off, and not my feelings about packet.

as I still have all my packet gear ready to go at any time.
there just in nothing in this area any more, well at least not on 2 meters.
I never was interested in hf packet.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,23:09)]I think the speed arguement is meaningless.

VOIP is 'better' and 'faster' than HF phone, too. - So what?

Comparing Packet radio communications to the internet as if they were in competition is not really relevant at all. - There is literally no point to it - unless you are intent upon dissing ham radio.

My feeling is that the folks who no longer like ham radio because the internet is 'better' and 'faster' should probably turn their tickets in and go find a forum on internet issues.

That is one of the primary difficulties with the "ham internet" or hinternet paradigm. - It's proponents are perpetually dissatisfied and disparaging about 99% of what ham radio is, and seemingly cannot forgive RF communications for being so non-internet-like.

- So they bang and bang on the round ham radio peg, trying to force it to fit into the square internet hole.

Hams complain about the damage to the hobby but those complaints fall upon deaf ears, as the damage being described is exactly what the hinternetters are working for.
I don't mean to dis ham radio... I simply offer observations as to why we won't see packet regain its previous glory.

Charles, I think you do a fine job promoting packet, and operate honorably and in the finest traditions of amateur radio...

You knew there'd be a "but" coming...

But...

In order to gain the audience/participation of years gone by, packet's going to have to offer something that simply isn't available anywhere else.

Can you, in good conscience, tell us that we are missing out on tremendous discussions on various technical aspects of amateur radio, or, for that matter, any other topic, by not accessing a packet BBS regularly?

My experience, which admittedly is some years back, is that the messages passed on packet were mostly rigs for sale and various and sundry other "routine" traffic. Now and then I'd see an NTS message come through, but that was rare...

Has it changed? What are we missing out?

I'm not dissing ham radio by not partaking of the packet Kool-Aid. I *am* asking you... what's available on packet that's not available, faster, easier and more conveniently, on the Internet? What benefit does the average ham gain by utilizing packet?

To be clear, I do *not* condone gateways, I will *not* operate any system that moves traffic between the public Internet and amateur radio... the "hinterneters" as you call them are wrong-headed from the get-go, I agree with that.

If you persist in your belief that because I am not out encouraging people to put their TNCs back on the air (or even FlexNet), I am not a true ham, then I will accept that.

[K9STH]

Threads get "hijacked" on QRZ.com every day. That is not a problem. What IS a problem is when people get into the personal attack mode and that is why I shut down the previous thread.

Frankly, I don't care if a thread gets "hijacked" so long as things don't get problematic with the "rules of the road" of QRZ.com. I haven't reiterrated them lately so here goes:

No profanity

No obscenities

No personal attacks

If you stay away from those you generally will not incur the wrath of the staff of this site.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[KI4NGN]

Not ever having done packet, and not being familiar with the mode, I have been following the discussion because I do have an interest in most amateur radio discussions.

Do I understand correctly that a packet network supports one or more bulletin boards? That in addition to real-time QSO's, one may also post messages that may be accessed by connecting to the BB station?

Mike

[k5okc]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,21:39)]What was it that caused Packet networks in the United States to decline over the course of a decade that saw astounding growth and advancement of the Packet network in Europe?
I believe your question is based on a personal perception and not based on fact. It is malformed question.

There was no astounding growth anywhere during the US decline, and packet is just as dead in Europe as it is in Asia, Africa, North and South America.

In order to defend your European perception you will have to provide much more documentation on why you think it is true.

If you limit your question to "What caused Packet networks in the United States to decline over the course of a decade?" Then that would not be malformed, and actually might narrow down an answer you can deal with.

I can tell you why it declined in the US. It's the same reason that repeater use has declined.

That reason is, that the hams who built the nodes and the repeaters no longer enjoyed it. A good friend of mine said it this way: "It attracts the wrong kind of hams." Think about it. You spend months building and aligning a repeater, find some donated tower space, work out all the interference issues, and when you're all done you sit back and watch people abuse it.

After a few years you learn all there is to know, even though the people using it are not what you envisioned, and then there comes a point when you figure it is just more work than exciting new technology.

Hams are like that, they don't want to be a public service. That's what clubs are for.

Alas, there's your answer. The reason repeaters and packet declined, is that public service clubs declined.

My theory is, if you build public service clubs, with an active mission, then ham radio will be needed to support your goal. Without clubs, it's just a bunch of hobby people, as it should be. Each with his own likes and dislikes.

[N0NB]

The latest revision to the AX.25 protocol (http://www.tapr.org/pub_ax25.html) is version 2.2 dated July 1998 (from the PDF at the top of the page). How it differs from earlier versions, I've not examined. The PDF shows that the document is copyright 1997 TAPR and 1984, 1993 ARRL.

As I understand it, the document is copyrighted and the protocol is open for anyone to implement. The individual implementations are copyrighted by their respective authors.

I'm curious if AX.25 version 2.2 has been implemented anywhere.

Google also returns a draft from a bit over a year ago regarding an
FEC extension to AX.25 (http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf).

Perhaps known to others is ax25.net (http://www.ax25.net/).

[k5okc]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Dec. 06 2007,07:57)]I'm curious if AX.25 version 2.2 has been implemented anywhere.
No. Parts of it were implemented in JNOS.

The problem with Version 2.2 is they threw in the kitchen sink. The XID stuff for instance. It says "Complies with ISO 8885."

That's nice. ISO documents cost hundreds of dollars each. You won't find them on the Internet, but if you can get in to an engineering college library you might be able to make a copy.

Throughout the document they refer the reader to ISO documents.

Sorry, bsssst, you lose. ISO standardization is wonderful, but unless the ARRL publishes a book with AX.25 and all the ISO specifications applicable, then it would be more fun to go make cookies...

[n9lya]

I thought this was TALK and OPINIONS..

Why does anyone need to post anything BUT.

73 Jerry n9lya

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (k5okc @ Dec. 06 2007,00:46)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,21:39)]What was it that caused Packet networks in the United States to decline over the course of a decade that saw astounding growth and advancement of the Packet network in Europe?
I believe your question is based on a personal perception and not based on fact. #It is malformed question.

There was no astounding growth anywhere during the US decline, and packet is just as dead in Europe as it is in Asia, Africa, North and South America.

In order to defend your European perception you will have to provide much more documentation on why you think it is true.

If you limit your question to "What caused Packet networks in the United States to decline over the course of a decade?" Then that would not be malformed, and actually might narrow down an answer you can deal with.

I can tell you why it declined in the US. #It's the same reason that repeater use has declined.

That reason is, that the hams who built the nodes and the repeaters no longer enjoyed it. #A good friend of mine said it this way: "It attracts the wrong kind of hams." #Think about it. #You spend months building and aligning a repeater, find some donated tower space, work out all the interference issues, and when you're all done you sit back and watch people abuse it.

After a few years you learn all there is to know, even though the people using it are not what you envisioned, and then there comes a point when you figure it is just more work than exciting new technology.

Hams are like that, they don't want to be a public service. #That's what clubs are for.

Alas, there's your answer. #The reason repeaters and packet declined, is that public service clubs declined.

My theory is, if you build public service clubs, with an active mission, then ham radio will be needed to support your goal. #Without clubs, it's just a bunch of hobby people, as it should be. #Each with his own likes and dislikes.
Okc...

Now that post made most sense...

Right now Packet is that just a bunch of Hobby Orented hams

with some Emcomm groups piled on..

I think (opinion only) if enough hams that wish to get links for emcomms with enough it could revitalize SOme of what Packet used to be.. I for one am not sure I ever would wnat packet to become what it once was.. becuase even in its hay day it was too fragmented..

Meaning those who had ideas some fel it should be their way or no way..

I am thinking if used for emcomms and everyone has maybe a remotely similar goal.. There will be less fragmentation... Amongst the builders and users of the system... Who knows..

May or may not happen...

I kind of hope it does..

In mean time there is enough packet activity for me and some others to enjoy..



73 jerry n9lya

[k5okc]

Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Dec. 06 2007,12:14)]I thought this was TALK and OPINIONS..

Why does anyone need to post anything BUT.
What are you getting at?

[K9STH]

OKC and LYA:

Cool it! You both are starting to get personal and that is exactly why I terminated the last thread on this subject. The subject matter of the thread is fine. However, getting personal in your posts is not.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Dec. 06 2007,05:57)]OKC and LYA:

Cool it! #You both are starting to get personal and that is exactly why I terminated the last thread on this subject. #The subject matter of the thread is fine. #However, getting personal in your posts is not.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators
I was just asking a straight honest question.. To his honest straight honest question.. Where did either of us get personal.. Out of line or what...

Please get a grip.

You are overly sensitive...There was nothing wrong with either of our postsings in question...

I think you need to get with Fred and do an investiagtion and make a determination..

If the Talk and Opinions Forum cannot contain talk and opions fine shut the whole forum down. #Quick getting on us for simply having an open non hostile conversation.

73 Jerry N9LYA



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

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,05:19)]Not ever having done packet, and not being familiar with the mode, I have been following the discussion because I do have an interest in most amateur radio discussions.

Do I understand correctly that a packet network supports one or more bulletin boards? That in addition to real-time QSO's, one may also post messages that may be accessed by connecting to the BB station?

Mike
You understand it correctly.

If there is a BBS on the frequency, within range or reachable by use of one or more digipeaters (which are store and forward simplex type repeaters rather than the full duplex repeaters you're accustomed to on, say, 2 meters), you can connect to that BBS and read and leave messages.

Many (most) of those messages are routed around the world, via HF links between systems or even via Internet connections in cases where the BBS is "isolated" either by token of license privileges of the operator, equipment (lack of) or propagation issues.

At one time, there were systems posting all the packet traffic to one of the rec.radio.amateur newsgroups.. I've not looked in on Usenet groups in a long, long time, so I don't know if that's still going on.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (k5okc @ Dec. 06 2007,05:23)]Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Dec. 06 2007,12:14)]I thought this was TALK and OPINIONS..

Why does anyone need to post anything BUT.
What are you getting at?
okc I was meaning to convey.. Why does anyone have to attach FACTS to their Talk and Opinions Postings.. I thought I was clear but evedently someone was thinking I was attacking you..


Not sure where the Mods come from.. But I wish they would comprehend what they read.

No Hostilistes posted from ME or OKC on this thread at eash other.. GEE..

73 jerry

[k5okc]

I understand you now. This statement about the Europeans is often used in Charles arguments. This isn't a personal attack, this is an observance.

While I don't expect a bibliography, I just feel he needs to explain where he came up with the idea that one region was ascending, while another was descending.

It's my opinion, that Europe only descended later than North America.

[KD6NIG]

I see some people have stuff at the ready.

Course, I can understand why you aren't running it if nobody uses it. I leave mine up though and others around here do too, in the hopes that others will try it out and maybe it will get going again.

If not, I guess its costing me a few bucks a month for that radio and TNC to be on, but as I say, what the hey. Maybe someone can use it and maybe get into it.

I think there are many stations that could be ressurected if the stuff was just hooked back up and powered on. But I can see why they disconnected it, too.

I'm actually pretty impressed with the system we have going around here. I figured it would be pretty much gone as much of it has, but surprisingly, its still out there.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (k5okc @ Dec. 06 2007,07:28)]I understand you now. #This statement about the Europeans is often used in Charles arguments. #This isn't a personal attack, this is an observance.

While I don't expect a bibliography, I just feel he needs to explain where he came up with the idea that one region was ascending, while another was descending.

It's my opinion, that Europe only descended later than North America.
Ok.. OKC

Lets start fresh... Was trying to get along in this thread.. Thought we were both doing quite well. I could not figure out what set the Moderator off?? I went back through the entire thread.. I was thinking he must have been in the old thread, or something.. I think he needs to be cautious.. A moderator must also be moderate as well..

No hostilities intended, implied or otherwise..


For sake of any other problems.. I will try to expand on my questions so their is less doubt. I am not big on much past asking the questions.. So it may appear short... Not the intention!!! I am just being breif.. I see no reason to build a reply or post with thing unrelated to the immediate question.. unless I have several question.. Or Opinions..
Sometimes I get emotional.. yes.. but that should not be taken as personal.. Only when I get personal should it be taken that way.. And I saw nothing here in this thread that was even remotely personal between us...




Thanks for replying...

No other comments at this time except>>>

happy holidays
73 Jerry n9lya



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

[K9STH]

The previous thread on this subject was locked because of personal attacks. The comments made by LYA and OKC were, in my opinion, a possible start to the same problem.

LYA has already sent me a PM about this and, if he so wishes, he has my blessing to contact Fred with his complaints. So long as things do not get personal I have no problems with the discussion. But, when the discussion in this particular forum goes "over the edge" I will take action.

If the participants wish I can move this thread to "Rag Chew Central" where there is more "leeway" in the type of discussion. However, so long as it remains in this forum I must insist that anything which resembles a personal attack must not be even "hinted". Several persons contributed to the locking of the previous thread and if participants in this discussion are "miffed" because of me being very strict in this thread they can thank those who caused problems in the previous thread.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 06 2007,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,05:19)]Not ever having done packet, and not being familiar with the mode, I have been following the discussion because I do have an interest in most amateur radio discussions.

Do I understand correctly that a packet network supports one or more bulletin boards? That in addition to real-time QSO's, one may also post messages that may be accessed by connecting to the BB station?

Mike
You understand it correctly.

If there is a BBS on the frequency, within range or reachable by use of one or more digipeaters (which are store and forward simplex type repeaters rather than the full duplex repeaters you're accustomed to on, say, 2 meters), you can connect to that BBS and read and leave messages. #

Many (most) of those messages are routed around the world, via HF links between systems or even via Internet connections in cases where the BBS is "isolated" either by token of license privileges of the operator, equipment (lack of) or propagation issues.

At one time, there were systems posting all the packet traffic to one of the rec.radio.amateur newsgroups.. I've not looked in on Usenet groups in a long, long time, so I don't know if that's still going on.
OK, without drawing the unbridled wrath of those who's lives depend on the death of Winlink, how does this differ from WinLink?

I don't mean all of the QRM caused by not checking for frequency in use that I 100% agree is wrong and should be stopped, but just from the perspective of it's use?

Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.

So how is a ham using WinLink for email different than a ham using a packet network (for other than real-time QSO's) to pass messages?

Again, I'm NOT advocating for WinLink or Pactor III because I agree that the current use does seem to violate good amateur practices and the regulations.

QRM aside, they're both sending and receiving, storing and forwarding messages, so why the antagonism about WinLink users doing it but the total acceptance of it being done by packet users?

If you're going to flame me, please don't bother typing. I'm asking an honest question and would appreciate an honest, non-deprecatory answer.

Thanks!

Mike

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Dec. 06 2007,08:49)]So long as things do not get personal I have no problems with the discussion. #But, when the discussion in this particular forum goes "over the edge" I will take action.

If the participants wish I can move this thread to "Rag Chew Central" where there is more "leeway" in the type of discussion. #However, so long as it remains in this forum I must insist that anything which resembles a personal attack must not be even "hinted". #Several persons contributed to the locking of the previous thread and if participants in this discussion are "miffed" because of me being very strict in this thread they can thank those who caused problems in the previous thread.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators
From the previous thread on this topic:

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 29 2007,06:37)]Quote[/b] (n0iu @ Nov. 29 2007,12:54)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 29 2007,05:38)]
From where I sit, Scott, you're discounting something that actually happened by saying that it could never happen.
I am not saying that it didn't happen, I just think it is totally ridiculous to attribute the demise of packet to a group of people not following The Amateur's Code.
Scott NØIUThat's because the concept whizzed right over your head.

I keep noticing that this is not an 'insulated isodent' - The Trolls here always DO stick up for Lids!

--{ #You know... Like, birds of a feather? #}

So I guess we can also thank Charles for the previous thread being locked!

Scott NØIU

[N5PVL]

Fred, can you have a word with K9STH? - He is getting out of hand.

If you look back upon the discussions STH has locked, note that the great majority if not all of them appear to be related to digital issues.

It's the subject he is locking down, not any misbehavior. There is an obvious, inappropriate bias.

Could you please move him to another section, where his talents would perhaps be better employed?

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Dec. 06 2007,08:49)]The previous thread on this subject was locked because of personal attacks. #The comments made by LYA and OKC were, in my opinion, a possible start to the same problem.

LYA has already sent me a PM about this and, if he so wishes, he has my blessing to contact Fred with his complaints. #So long as things do not get personal I have no problems with the discussion. #But, when the discussion in this particular forum goes "over the edge" I will take action.

If the participants wish I can move this thread to "Rag Chew Central" where there is more "leeway" in the type of discussion. #However, so long as it remains in this forum I must insist that anything which resembles a personal attack must not be even "hinted". #Several persons contributed to the locking of the previous thread and if participants in this discussion are "miffed" because of me being very strict in this thread they can thank those who caused problems in the previous thread.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators
Glen... Please show us where we was attacking each other.. In your personal reply to me you state you were wanting to stop the shouting match.. I and OKC were not shouting either... We were stating opinions and opposing view points.. Those types of discussions by nature can get heated with out attacks.. What is wrong with that.. The Talk and Opinions Forum by nature pulls that type of debate out in the open... Is this QRZ or my kids third grade class room forum where everyone must be ohhh so HAPPY...???

Please get with Fred review these threads and what I have said.. Then Moderate moderately...



Please Moderate with CARE...

Also if you have the desire.. PM me if you think you may be miss interpriting outher postings before you slap our
wrists.

Now back to the topic...


73 Jerry n9lya



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

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 05 2007,16:25)]Fred, can you have a word with K9STH? - He is getting out of hand.

If you look back upon the discussions STH has locked, note that the great majority if not all of them appear to be related to digital issues.

It's the subject he is locking down, not any misbehavior. There is an obvious, inappropriate bias.

Could you please move him to another section, where his talents would perhaps be better employed?
I could not disagree more. K9STH keep up the good work.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[n9lya]

Hi OKC..

Back to our rudely interupted discussion..

If charles posts something.. Or I for that matter.. That we beilieve is how something happened.. Is happening or will happen, is it ok.. If we simply state our piece and NOT offer evidence...

For example...

I stated my opinion about HF Packet.. You said I was wrong.. I said I was not... Regardless is it a problem.. for us to have differeny view points.. My oipinion is just that.. If I give evidence.. Then maybe its more then an opinion or it is an opinion with some kind of intended basis..

What I am saying.. Without re-reading Charles Post... What if that was Just his opinion and he has no evidence.. How is that different then if he had evidence and simply withheld it??? Or if he intended it to be pure opinion, or conjecture..


No argument here... Just asking...

I know you want to see some hard evidence..

And I was just asking why... You answered this for the most part... But I just want to know..



Thanks... 73 Jerry
N9LYA http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[k5okc]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,17:08)]OK, without drawing the unbridled wrath of those who's lives depend on the death of Winlink, how does this differ from WinLink?

I don't mean all of the QRM caused by not checking for frequency in use that I 100% agree is wrong and should be stopped, but just from the perspective of it's use?

Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.

So how is a ham using WinLink for email different than a ham using a packet network (for other than real-time QSO's) to pass messages?

Again, I'm NOT advocating for WinLink or Pactor III because I agree that the current use does seem to violate good amateur practices and the regulations.

QRM aside, they're both sending and receiving, storing and forwarding messages, so why the antagonism about WinLink users doing it but the total acceptance of it being done by packet users?

If you're going to flame me, please don't bother typing. I'm asking an honest question and would appreciate an honest, non-deprecatory answer.

Thanks!

Mike
You ask some good questions, but you should probably start a new subject. This subject is about why European packet supposedly increased during the time that North American packet decreased.

I'm afraid your question is well off that mark, as Winlink has nothing to do with the question at hand.

[N5PVL]

Maybe OKC can show us all those Packet nodes in the US that are moving better than 10MB an hour over 128kb all-ham radio backbone links to thousands of happy amateurs who access this large-scale ( continental ) network at 19.2kb. ( except for a few 9.6kb old-timers )

- Since Packet in Europe allegedly never advanced past what we do here in the US.

I know a lot of our European lurkers are having a good belly-laugh right about now, at poor old Steve's basic lack of a clue about Packet radio.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #I think it's a hoot, too. #}

[k5okc]

Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Dec. 06 2007,17:56)]Hi OKC..

Back to our rudely interupted discussion..

If charles posts something.. Or I for that matter.. That we beilieve is how something happened.. Is happening or will happen, is it ok.. If we simply state our piece and NOT offer evidence...

For example...

I stated my opinion about HF Packet.. You said I was wrong.. I said I was not... Regardless is it a problem.. for us to have differeny view points.. My oipinion is just that.. If I give evidence.. Then maybe its more then an opinion or it is an opinion with some kind of intended basis..

What I am saying.. Without re-reading Charles Post... What if that was Just his opinion and he has no evidence.. How is that different then if he had evidence and simply withheld it??? Or if he intended it to be pure opinion, or conjecture..


No argument here... Just asking...

I know you want to see some hard evidence..

And I was just asking why... You answered this for the most part... But I just want to know..



Thanks... 73 Jerry
N9LYA http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well let me say I don't need any hard evidence. I have retracted a bit and will merely say that I am interested in why he believes what he does.

I've only been to Europe about 10 times, and then only for a few days, so I'm not an expert on European ham radio, or even packet radio.

I'm sure there is a good reason, as he uses the argument that the European packet increased. But the argument becomes a little suspect when he also attributes the fall of ham radio to any one person or club. I think that's a little too hard to believe.

But I'm not running for office, nor have a web site image to maintain, so I will defer (respectfully) further comment on the subject.

[k5okc]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 06 2007,18:07)]Maybe OKC can show us all those Packet nodes in the US that are moving better than 10MB an hour over 128kb all-ham radio backbone links to thousands of happy amateurs who access this large-scale ( continental ) network at 19.2kb. ( except for a few 9.6kb old-timers )

- Since Packet in Europe allegedly never advanced past what we do here in the US.

I know a lot of our European lurkers are having a good belly-laugh right about now, at poor old Steve's basic lack of a clue about Packet radio.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #I think it's a hoot, too. #}
You win Charles. #Since you are getting personal (again), I will now bow out and return to more important subjects.

Bye Now

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,15:08)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 06 2007,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,05:19)]Not ever having done packet, and not being familiar with the mode, I have been following the discussion because I do have an interest in most amateur radio discussions.

Do I understand correctly that a packet network supports one or more bulletin boards? That in addition to real-time QSO's, one may also post messages that may be accessed by connecting to the BB station?

Mike
You understand it correctly.

If there is a BBS on the frequency, within range or reachable by use of one or more digipeaters (which are store and forward simplex type repeaters rather than the full duplex repeaters you're accustomed to on, say, 2 meters), you can connect to that BBS and read and leave messages.

Many (most) of those messages are routed around the world, via HF links between systems or even via Internet connections in cases where the BBS is "isolated" either by token of license privileges of the operator, equipment (lack of) or propagation issues.

At one time, there were systems posting all the packet traffic to one of the rec.radio.amateur newsgroups.. I've not looked in on Usenet groups in a long, long time, so I don't know if that's still going on.
OK, without drawing the unbridled wrath of those who's lives depend on the death of Winlink, how does this differ from WinLink?

I don't mean all of the QRM caused by not checking for frequency in use that I 100% agree is wrong and should be stopped, but just from the perspective of it's use?

Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.

So how is a ham using WinLink for email different than a ham using a packet network (for other than real-time QSO's) to pass messages?

Again, I'm NOT advocating for WinLink or Pactor III because I agree that the current use does seem to violate good amateur practices and the regulations.

QRM aside, they're both sending and receiving, storing and forwarding messages, so why the antagonism about WinLink users doing it but the total acceptance of it being done by packet users?

If you're going to flame me, please don't bother typing. I'm asking an honest question and would appreciate an honest, non-deprecatory answer.

Thanks!

Mike
Let's see how do we show the difference?

99.9% of packets messages both originate from and terminate to other hams. There were (are??) some who put in email gateways to/from the internet but the traffic was very limited since it wasn't "private" at all. Anybody either in the routing chain or monitoring could read it.

Compare that to winlink. Probably 99.9% percent of the traffic originating from "hams" goes to non-ham third parties. Probably 99.9% (maybe less, who can tell since winlink doesn't publish anything) percent of the traffic coming from the internet to "hams" comes from non-ham third parties.

So in essence, 99.9% (or 90%, or 95%, you pick the number) is entirely third party traffic.

What's worse, is lets say there is a crew of four on a sail boat and only one ham. I suspect that each of the crew uses the ham"s "winlink email address" to send messages to their third parties. So now you have a bunch of third party to third party traffic.

On the higher bands, lots of "emcomm" groups have installed telpac stations so that third parties can send emails to other third parties via totally automatic stations at both ends. No physical ham is involved in the moving of the traffic. Consequently, you have amateur radio being used as a replacement for the internet, i.e. being ISP's.

Packet is primarily for ham to ham traffic. This is why it fell out of use once the internet became ubiquitous, there was a faster and easier way to communicate with your ham buddies.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't revive packet, since it would be good for ham to ham traffic not only in routine communications but also during emergencies. However, it is not designed to allow third parties to use it without ham intervention, so it may be difficult to convince folks to use it instead of winlink.

Jim
WA0LYK

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,18:08)]Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.
WRONG. Some messages are from missionaries that get messages from non-hams and pass the messages over the ham radio freqs to other non-hams. This is one reason why winlink should be banned from the ham bands. Let it work over on sailmail and MARS. They have the ability to have dedicated freqs for their email service. Ham radio does not have the ability to dedicate frequencies for the strict use of email.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (k5okc @ Dec. 06 2007,19:19)]Well let me say I don't need any hard evidence. I have retracted a bit and will merely say that I am interested in why he believes what he does.

I've only been to Europe about 10 times, and then only for a few days, so I'm not an expert on European ham radio, or even packet radio.

I'm sure there is a good reason, as he uses the argument that the European packet increased. But the argument becomes a little suspect when he also attributes the fall of ham radio to any one person or club. I think that's a little too hard to believe.

But I'm not running for office, nor have a web site image to maintain, so I will defer (respectfully) further comment on the subject.
I spent 3 years over in Germany with the callsign DA2GNM and ran packet radio over there. In fact I was running 9k6 into a user node and they were running much higher than 56k microwave links with homebrew equipment. These guys knew what they were doing over there. Charles is right. The German packet system is working very well over there. Ours here just lost steam to the internet. It might happen over there too but these guys already have a high speed network over RF while we stayed stuck at 1k2. Over there you had to have special permission just to put up a digipeater. Here anyone can put one up and take it down without any coordination at all.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 06 2007,20:13)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,15:08)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Dec. 06 2007,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,05:19)]Not ever having done packet, and not being familiar with the mode, I have been following the discussion because I do have an interest in most amateur radio discussions.

Do I understand correctly that a packet network supports one or more bulletin boards? That in addition to real-time QSO's, one may also post messages that may be accessed by connecting to the BB station?

Mike
You understand it correctly.

If there is a BBS on the frequency, within range or reachable by use of one or more digipeaters (which are store and forward simplex type repeaters rather than the full duplex repeaters you're accustomed to on, say, 2 meters), you can connect to that BBS and read and leave messages. #

Many (most) of those messages are routed around the world, via HF links between systems or even via Internet connections in cases where the BBS is "isolated" either by token of license privileges of the operator, equipment (lack of) or propagation issues.

At one time, there were systems posting all the packet traffic to one of the rec.radio.amateur newsgroups.. I've not looked in on Usenet groups in a long, long time, so I don't know if that's still going on.
OK, without drawing the unbridled wrath of those who's lives depend on the death of Winlink, how does this differ from WinLink?

I don't mean all of the QRM caused by not checking for frequency in use that I 100% agree is wrong and should be stopped, but just from the perspective of it's use?

Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.

So how is a ham using WinLink for email different than a ham using a packet network (for other than real-time QSO's) to pass messages?

Again, I'm NOT advocating for WinLink or Pactor III because I agree that the current use does seem to violate good amateur practices and the regulations.

QRM aside, they're both sending and receiving, storing and forwarding messages, so why the antagonism about WinLink users doing it but the total acceptance of it being done by packet users?

If you're going to flame me, please don't bother typing. I'm asking an honest question and would appreciate an honest, non-deprecatory answer.

Thanks!

Mike
Let's see how do we show the difference?

99.9% of packets messages both originate from and terminate to other hams. #There were (are??) some who put in email gateways to/from the internet but the traffic was very limited since it wasn't "private" at all. #Anybody either in the routing chain or monitoring could read it.

Compare that to winlink. #Probably 99.9% percent of the traffic originating from "hams" goes to non-ham third parties. #Probably 99.9% (maybe less, who can tell since winlink doesn't publish anything) percent of the traffic coming from the internet to "hams" comes from non-ham third parties.

So in essence, 99.9% (or 90%, or 95%, you pick the number) is entirely third party traffic.

What's worse, is lets say there is a crew of four on a sail boat and only one ham. #I suspect that each of the crew uses the ham"s "winlink email address" to send messages to their third parties. #So now you have a bunch of third party to third party traffic. #

On the higher bands, lots of "emcomm" groups have installed telpac stations so that third parties can send emails to other third parties via totally automatic stations at both ends. #No physical ham is involved in the moving of the traffic. #Consequently, you have amateur radio being used as a replacement for the internet, i.e. being ISP's.

Packet is primarily for ham to ham traffic. #This is why it fell out of use once the internet became ubiquitous, there was a faster and easier way to communicate with your ham buddies.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't revive packet, since it would be good for ham to ham traffic not only in routine communications but also during emergencies. #However, it is not designed to allow third parties to use it without ham intervention, so it may be difficult to convince folks to use it instead of winlink.

Jim
WA0LYK
Thanks for the reply.

One reply was about WinLink implementation, and as I explicitly exressed, I'm discussing usage only.

Another reply was that I was way off topic.

Not true. I was leading up to the perspective of a possible reason why packet was no longer popular in the US: available alternatives.

I don't know if it has been done, but as a programmer I know that it would be only slightly more than a trivial effort to link a packet BBS to internet email. One poster adamantly opposed to WinLink in the previously shut down thread said that he'd love for packet to be revived for the advent of charging postage for internet email so that he could avoid paying that postage.

I understand that WinLink is primarily third party traffic, but I can't help but wonder if there would be the same vigorous opposition if packet was used for email?

Remember that the internet and email is quite young when compared to ham radio. For many decades ham radio was used to link people to the world-wide telephone network via phone patches. It wasn't done on a large scale because it was impractical: phone conversations are by definition real-time.

Ham radio has provided third party to third party traffic for many years in the form of H&W messages when other networks have failed. As we all know this is changing with the ever expanding and increased reliability of commercial networks.

Hams have been using our hobby for telemetry for decades, and what is telemetry if not third party (the measuring instrument's) data?

ARPS isn't used to just so that one ham knows another ham's location, but rather for use outside of ham radio. That's just another form of third party data.

The implementation of the WinLink system is very flawed for ham radio, but the usage of it seems a natural fit: using ham radio to connect to another network.

I would find it impossible to believe that if it hasn't already been done, that if packet was revived, that it wouldn't ultimately be providing links to the internet, and anyone who doesn't believe that is really kidding themselves.

My whole point is that perhaps the reason that packet has fallen by the wayside is that it doesn't provide anything that hasn't become available via more efficient networks, and that while some implementations (WinLink for sure!) are flawed and inappropriate for ham radio, any viable network is going to be providing internet links.

It's all around us, and like it or not, everything that can be linked is being done so via the common network called the internet, and any network that doesn't provide an internet link is doomed, including packet.

Winlink provides, like it or not, the connectivity sought after by some hams.

I expect this connectivity desire will do nothing but increase.

WinLink, providing the desired connectivity, is unacceptable for ham radio because of its lack of QRM mitigation.

It's my understanding that packet is excellent in terms of QRM mitigation, but it lacks the desired connectivity.

Perhaps that leads to the solution for reviving packet in the US: provide internet connectivity.

Mike

[n9lya]

Mike.. Packet can do EMAIL NOW.. From one of the NOS varients.. Its called SMTP and was a part of SNOS JNOS and TNOS as far as I remember..

It was shot down in the 90's as there was no way to control content.. Commercial, private, or porn. Sure there were those who wanted to do it anyway.. But it would have been under a strong watchful eye so no one wanted to risk their license to give someone else Email via packet... There was also the lack or privacy ..

Same hold true for Winlink.. They have no control over content... But hey FCC does not seem too concerned.. $$$ Talks ethics walk...


73 Jerry N9LYA

[n9lya]

Further review of your posting...

Yes packet has fallen by the way side for FASTER networks like the internet..

However I wish to remind

The packet newtork at one time was a totally Amateur Radio Network and maintained and managed by Radio Hams..

then yes packet was connetced to the internet.. Then instead of using RF links stations started even forwarding via the internet.. Then FREE or cheap email became the available.. And instead of Hams building their networs up so they could do more and be faster... The #ones who opted to not do the work or pay the price, #opted to link more and more of it to the internet where less money and less efforts were required.. Instead of by using RF or adding more links.. They started dismanteling their stations in favor of a NON-AMATEUR network.. What a waste a large nationwide RF network was in place and utterly disintegrated due to this abandonment.

Yea admittedly Packet radio is not what it used to be.. but one Ham told me once and it holds true to this day.. Packet may have less users.. But the quality in users is what is important not the quantity..

Happy Holidays!!

73 jerry n9lya

[N0NB]

Why did European packet flourish and build high-speed networks while packet in north America remained moribund at 1200 bps? Two reasons, population density and a major difference in ham radio cultures.

First, as I understand it, the only places in north America where the population density approaches that of Europe is the northeast and southern California. Most everywhere else great distances must be spanned with only a handful of users which quickly makes the economics of building a high-speed backbone network astronomical.

Second, as I understand it, amateur radio in the USA has mostly a social emphasis while amateur radio in Europe is very technically oriented. There are likely many base reasons for this difference and they don't matter for this discussion. What matters is that pushing the boundaries by building new things is a matter of course in Europe and here in the USA we talk about it until someone else builds something that we can plop our credit card down for (and, yes, I'm as guilty as most other US hams).

My understanding is that historically amateur radio in Europe was very heavily regulated so as to protect the government owned telephone monopoly from competition. As a result, European amateurs were allowed to converse on technical topics and remarks of a personal nature for which recourse to the public network would not be required. USA amateurs faced no such restrictions except that business could not be conducted via amateur radio (this was relaxed considerably in the '90s).

Thus, the basic difference between hams in the USA and Europe that resulted in two radically different packet networks.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 06 2007,23:38)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,18:08)]Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.
WRONG. Some messages are from missionaries that get messages from non-hams and pass the messages over the ham radio freqs to other non-hams. This is one reason why winlink should be banned from the ham bands. Let it work over on sailmail and MARS. They have the ability to have dedicated freqs for their email service. Ham radio does not have the ability to dedicate frequencies for the strict use of email.
Missionaries have been using amateur radio to support their causes for YEARS - long before Winlink. They've ran third party phone patches and it was the same belly achin' that it had nothing to do with amateur radio.

That was, until the missionaries started working stateside and handing out QSL cards like a street marketer in Vegas pushing the latest showgirl revue. Then it was all fine and well for these people to be on the ham bands.

I can't condone nor accept the interference that certain Winlink people have caused. But I simply don't accept the premise that this has no place on amateur radio. What good are these communications technologies when all you pass on them are ARRL bulletins? We're afraid to pass third-party public service communications, and the reality is that these networks won't get any use for emergencies until the really big one hits. So they get built out, they work, they sit idle, people lose interest and then we all sit on QRZ and complain that it declined.

Winlink isn't going to go away, and I doubt Pactor-III is going anywhere either. You can complain all you want on QRZ, but the simple fact is that Winlink is the darling of emergency communications because it works with familiar software interfaces. Ditto for missionaries, mercenaries, mobile-MILFs and people living on sailboats. It's the darling of the ARRL because it gets to sit in the public service category, and the ARRL has always given public service activities a wide berth. As a consequence of that, the FCC has given public service activities a wide berth. Fair? No. But it is what it is, and public service is the first thing that amateurs like to reference when trying to defend spectrum.

There's always been questions on whether certain activities have a place on the amateur bands. Traffic nets, missionaries, phone patches, auto patches and now Winlink. With the crushing volume of utter stupidity on the bands, why are the Winlink people suddenly targeted when there's far more malicious and intentional interference going on elsewhere? People complain about the traffic handlers, the phone patchers, the maritime nets and now the Winlinkers, but the reality is that these stations are one of the few people who get to check the box for "public service on HF".

Winlink isn't going anywhere, they've established themselves (as tenuous and as dubious as you may think -- to some extent I agree) as public service. I'm not saying these people get to have dedicated frequencies, and again, I'm not condoning the bad behavior that has been witnessed. But you're not getting it banned, and it's a waste of time to try that approach. I used to think it was the way to correct the problem, but more and more I'm believing the FCC sees this as an intra-ham dispute and not a rules problem. So, I guess we all need to play nice.

[ab0wr]

ki4ngn:Quote[/b] ]Ham radio has provided third party to third party traffic for many years in the form of H&W messages when other networks have failed. As we all know this is changing with the ever expanding and increased reliability of commercial networks.

The problem isn't handling third party to third party traffic. The problem is in doing so with no intervening control operators being involved.

When two hams on CW are passing third party NTS messages there is a ham-to-ham communication involved. When two hams on SSB are passing NTS third party messages there is a ham-to-ham communication involved. When two packet operators are passing third party traffic (be it NTS or something else) there is a ham-to-ham communication involved even if the connections may be time-shifted via a BBS or digipeater.

When a third party to third party email gets passed on Winlink via an automatic Paclink station there are no ham control operators involved in the link at all. NONE. This is even touted as a feature that Winlink offers in the case of an EOC. Multiple non-ham users can use the system for passing email to and from other third parties with no ham even being required.

You may as well start handing out 2m HT's to everyone in a shelter or in an EOC and tell them to start having at it via the local 2m repeater-- no license required. There is exactly no difference in either scenario.

Quote[/b] ]Hams have been using our hobby for telemetry for decades, and what is telemetry if not third party (the measuring instrument's) data?

ROFL!!! Anthropomorphism anyone?

Quote[/b] ]ARPS isn't used to just so that one ham knows another ham's location, but rather for use outside of ham radio. That's just another form of third party data.

No it is NOT. Third parties may make use of it but it is not communication with a third party. There is no exchange of data or information between two parties at all.

Quote[/b] ]The implementation of the WinLink system is very flawed for ham radio, but the usage of it seems a natural fit: using ham radio to connect to another network.

The usage of it is NOT a natural fit for ham radio.

Quote[/b] ]CFR 47, Part 2, Section 1:
Amateur Service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

Note carefully the part about intercommunication. It is speaking about intercommunication between HAMS, not between hams and third parties (i.e. other networks and services) or between non-ham third parties.

In order for two hams to intercommunicate they must do so over the ham bands between amateur stations as station control operators. Anything else is, by definition, not intercommunication between amateurs and does not fit the principles laid out above for what the Amateur Radio Service is.

Using YOUR logic we may as well allow cross-band repeating between amateur band users and CB band users. Or between amateur band users and GMRS/FRS users. There is exactly no difference. CB and GMRS/FRS are nothing more than another "network".

Quote[/b] ]I would find it impossible to believe that if it hasn't already been done, that if packet was revived, that it wouldn't ultimately be providing links to the internet, and anyone who doesn't believe that is really kidding themselves.

That's what we have to fight against. We need to educate people better on what the principles of the Amateur Radio Service actually are. There needs to be specific questions on the test about this area.

Again, if we use the ham bands as nothing more than access gateways to third parties on the internet we may as well start setting up cross-band repeaters so we can talk to the CB and GMRS/FRS users. There is not any difference in the concept.

Quote[/b] ]My whole point is that perhaps the reason that packet has fallen by the wayside is that it doesn't provide anything that hasn't become available via more efficient networks, and that while some implementations (WinLink for sure!) are flawed and inappropriate for ham radio, any viable network is going to be providing internet links.

Amateur radio is about *radio* and intercommunicating via the radio. It is not about being an ISP and is not about the internet. As Charles has shown us, the hinternetters that can't tell the difference between the two have corrupted amateur radio tremendously. Whether the damage can be undone or not -- I don't know.

Quote[/b] ]It's all around us, and like it or not, everything that can be linked is being done so via the common network called the internet, and any network that doesn't provide an internet link is doomed, including packet.

That just isn't true. Linking via the internet may be the *easy* way, that doesn't make it the best way. The old adage of "no pain, no gain" applies here just as well as in physical sports. If we set up our operations depending on the internet we will be just as vunerable as the agencies we are supposed to be providing "fail-safe" backup communications for.

I am amazed this seems to be such a hard concept for so many people to grasp.

Quote[/b] ]Winlink provides, like it or not, the connectivity sought after by some hams.

"Some hams" is the operative phrase here. Those "some hams" have no real idea of the fundamental, underlying principles that define what amateur radio truly is. Those "some hams" just have no real understanding of the issues at all. It is those same hams that would build cross-band repeaters to the CB band if that were something they "sought after" regardless of whether it violates the guiding principles of the ARS or not.

Quote[/b] ]I expect this connectivity desire will do nothing but increase.

I guess we'll see. My guess is that will be determined by whether nor not they can make a sufficient spectrum grab to have enough bandwidth to make amateur radio attractive as a common carrier. That *IS* what the ARRL bandwidth proposal was all about -- make no mistake about that.

tim ab0wr

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 07 2007,04:48)]Thanks for the reply.

One reply was about WinLink implementation, and as I explicitly exressed, I'm discussing usage only.

Another reply was that I was way off topic.

Not true. I was leading up to the perspective of a possible reason why packet was no longer popular in the US: available alternatives.

I don't know if it has been done, but as a programmer I know that it would be only slightly more than a trivial effort to link a packet BBS to internet email. One poster adamantly opposed to WinLink in the previously shut down thread said that he'd love for packet to be revived for the advent of charging postage for internet email so that he could avoid paying that postage.

I understand that WinLink is primarily third party traffic, but I can't help but wonder if there would be the same vigorous opposition if packet was used for email?

Remember that the internet and email is quite young when compared to ham radio. For many decades ham radio was used to link people to the world-wide telephone network via phone patches. It wasn't done on a large scale because it was impractical: phone conversations are by definition real-time.

Ham radio has provided third party to third party traffic for many years in the form of H&W messages when other networks have failed. As we all know this is changing with the ever expanding and increased reliability of commercial networks.

Hams have been using our hobby for telemetry for decades, and what is telemetry if not third party (the measuring instrument's) data?

ARPS isn't used to just so that one ham knows another ham's location, but rather for use outside of ham radio. That's just another form of third party data.

The implementation of the WinLink system is very flawed for ham radio, but the usage of it seems a natural fit: using ham radio to connect to another network.

I would find it impossible to believe that if it hasn't already been done, that if packet was revived, that it wouldn't ultimately be providing links to the internet, and anyone who doesn't believe that is really kidding themselves.

My whole point is that perhaps the reason that packet has fallen by the wayside is that it doesn't provide anything that hasn't become available via more efficient networks, and that while some implementations (WinLink for sure!) are flawed and inappropriate for ham radio, any viable network is going to be providing internet links.

It's all around us, and like it or not, everything that can be linked is being done so via the common network called the internet, and any network that doesn't provide an internet link is doomed, including packet.

Winlink provides, like it or not, the connectivity sought after by some hams.

I expect this connectivity desire will do nothing but increase.

WinLink, providing the desired connectivity, is unacceptable for ham radio because of its lack of QRM mitigation.

It's my understanding that packet is excellent in terms of QRM mitigation, but it lacks the desired connectivity.

Perhaps that leads to the solution for reviving packet in the US: provide internet connectivity.

Mike
Beware the dark side, its allure is enticing!

You're right, it is little more than trivial to add email to packet using one of the NOS packages like JNOS. However, there is the issue of regulations to deal with. For example, 97.219 makes the first forwarding station accountable for violations of the rules contained in any messages that it forwards. This basically means that any and all emails must be screened for rules violations, i.e. pecuniary interests, language, criminal activity, etc. In other words, the first forwarding station is at least as responsible for content as the originating station. In addition, the first forwarding station must authenticate the originating station. Not an easy task.

You'll notice that winlink is not a message forwarding system. It does not use amateur spectrum to forward messages. I have no doubt it was designed that way specifically to get around 97.219 restrictions. However, by using the internet to forward messages rather than amateur spectrum, it becomes vulnerable to internet outages also. And, by doing no screening, it is also vulnerable to rules violations contained in the messages.

This is one reason people don't connect packet to the internet for email, it is just too much work to screen all messages and authenticate all stations.

As far as telemetry goes, it is specifically allowed under 97.111 and is mentioned in other paragraphs such as 97.217. Therefore it is not considered third party messaging.

You'll also notice that phone patches have actual, physically present control operators present as 97.115(b)(1) requires in order to monitor and supervise the third parties participation. This is one problem I have with winlink's use of telpac stations to move email from third party to third party. There is no control operator present to monitor or supervise the third parties emails (messages) since the stations are automatically controlled.

Again, beware the dark side. Here is another issue with internet connectivity for you to chew one, IRLP/Echolink. Lets say you hook a two meter rig up and connect it to IRLP. 97.109(e) says you may not use an automatically controlled station to pass third party communications unless you are using rtty or data emissions. Therefore, this IRLP station can't be considered to be automatically controlled and the only other option is local or remote control. So, lets say a foriegn operator connects via IRLP and uses the station. They must be considered a remote control operator. Do they have an FCC-issued reciprocal permit for alien amateur licensee or are they from Canada? No? Then you are breaking FCC rules by allowing them to control your station.

Let me add that I don't consider IRLP/Echolink to provide "control" of your station as defined in the regulations, therefore, you are allowing third party communications via an automatically controlled station in violation of the rules.

I know the FCC hasn't slapped anyone with this yet, but that is no guarantee it won't happen. They may even be amenable to changing the rules and are just waiting on someone to propose it. In any event, can you provide any justification under the rules for these two types of operation?

Finally, let me add that 97.3(a)(4) defines the amateur service as:

"Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried
out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."

You'll notice the phrase "intercommunications". This means communications between two hams. To me, it doesn't mean for the primary purpose of establishing automatically controlled stations for the sole purpose of passing third party messages.

To my way of thinking, if packet is viable at all, it should remain free and clear of internet connectivity. It should be established as a unique and separate entity that can stand on its own without the internet. These recent threads have me considering getting the old pk-232 out and seeing if I can get it working with a backup 440 rig I have.

Jim
WA0LYK

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 06 2007,09:59)]Beware the dark side, its allure is enticing!
Jim,

In your examples are talking about messages or communications that originate from the Internet, and not from an Amateur station?

73,
Mark N5RFX

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 07 2007,08:59)]Again, beware the dark side. Here is another issue with internet connectivity for you to chew one, IRLP/Echolink. Lets say you hook a two meter rig up and connect it to IRLP. 97.109(e) says you may not use an automatically controlled station to pass third party communications unless you are using rtty or data emissions. Therefore, this IRLP station can't be considered to be automatically controlled and the only other option is local or remote control. So, lets say a foriegn operator connects via IRLP and uses the station. They must be considered a remote control operator. Do they have an FCC-issued reciprocal permit for alien amateur licensee or are they from Canada? No? Then you are breaking FCC rules by allowing them to control your station.

Let me add that I don't consider IRLP/Echolink to provide "control" of your station as defined in the regulations, therefore, you are allowing third party communications via an automatically controlled station in violation of the rules.

I know the FCC hasn't slapped anyone with this yet, but that is no guarantee it won't happen. They may even be amenable to changing the rules and are just waiting on someone to propose it. In any event, can you provide any justification under the rules for these two types of operation?

Finally, let me add that 97.3(a)(4) defines the amateur service as:

"Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried
out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."

You'll notice the phrase "intercommunications". This means communications between two hams. To me, it doesn't mean for the primary purpose of establishing automatically controlled stations for the sole purpose of passing third party messages.

To my way of thinking, if packet is viable at all, it should remain free and clear of internet connectivity. It should be established as a unique and separate entity that can stand on its own without the internet. These recent threads have me considering getting the old pk-232 out and seeing if I can get it working with a backup 440 rig I have.

Jim
WA0LYK
Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals". So with respect to IRLP/Echolink, providing that for use by stations other than the licensee isn't third party because those in communcation are (ostensibly) licensed. It is still a control problem, but a different flavor. Which is why many people run these things under the scope of a repeater which enjoys a bit more flexibility.

The concerns you show are valid, but I think are out of proportion for the circumstance. If amateurs want to pass third-party traffic that flows through the internet and sent to licensed amateur radio operators on boat, then so be it. I view this as nothing more evil than an autopatch on a repeater. I agree in principle that these networks need to be self-sufficient, but just as repeater users found it convenient to bridge the gap to reach the "rest of the world", digital modes sometimes need that convenience as well.

I don't agree with the slippery slope logic that allowing these communications is going to turn the ham bands into one gigantic ISP. That argument makes flawed assumptions about the attractiveness of 1200 baud communications that simply, flat out, do not exist.

Again, I'm not excusing bad behavior and poor operating practice. That's a different issue.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 06 2007,10:40)]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals".
Not entirely. A licensed Amateur can be a third party if the licensed Amateur originates a message and is not the control operator of an Amateur station. There is no distinction between a third party who holds an amateur operator license grant and one who doesn't (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_1&id=amateur#Third%20Party%20Communications).

73,
Mark N5RFX

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 07 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 06 2007,10:40)]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals".
Not entirely. A licensed Amateur can be a third party if the licensed Amateur originates a message and is not the control operator of an Amateur station. There is no distinction between a third party who holds an amateur operator license grant and one who doesn't (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_1&id=amateur#Third%20Party%20Communications).

73,
Mark N5RFX
But in that instance described (IRLP/Echolink from Joe Amateur, no repeater/aux service), they're all licensed and therefore there is no third-party. That excludes passing the mic over to someone on one end of the communication, but I believe that the control issues for that lie on the person passing the mic.

I'm just thankful the IRS didn't draft amateur rules.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals". So with respect to IRLP/Echolink, providing that for use by stations other than the licensee isn't third party because those in communcation are (ostensibly) licensed. It is still a control problem, but a different flavor. Which is why many people run these things under the scope of a repeater which enjoys a bit more flexibility.

"ostensibly" licensed for operation in the United States?

According to the rules if you aren't the control operator then you *are* a third party. If there is a "control problem" then that *IS* determinant as to whether or not the communication is via a third party or not. Whether the communication is via a repeater or not is irrelevant.

Amateur radio stands at a cross-roads today, similar to where the CB service stood 4 decades ago. We can ignore the rules and regulations and make up our own as we go along or we can abide by both the spirit *and* letter of the rules and regulations.

We already know where the former paradigm leads, just look at the CB service today. It is only the latter paradigm that will insure the continued existence of amateur radio as a viable entity.

Please note that by using your logic that 2m repeater you mention could just as easily be hooked to a CB rig as the internet. We could then have cross-band repeat operation between hams and "good buddies". Under your paradigm that "control operators" don't really need to be control operators everything would be peachy-keen.

tim ab0wr

[n5rfx]

That is why I asked Jim about where the message/communication originated. If the message/communication originated from a licensed amateur that was in control of an amateur station, then the communications/message is not a third party. If the communication/message originated from the Internet, then the communication/message is third party.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,10:04)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 07 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 06 2007,10:40)]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals".
Not entirely. A licensed Amateur can be a third party if the licensed Amateur originates a message and is not the control operator of an Amateur station. There is no distinction between a third party who holds an amateur operator license grant and one who doesn't (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_1&id=amateur#Third%20Party%20Communications).

73,
Mark N5RFX
But in that instance described (IRLP/Echolink from Joe Amateur, no repeater/aux service), they're all licensed and therefore there is no third-party. That excludes passing the mic over to someone on one end of the communication, but I believe that the control issues for that lie on the person passing the mic.

I'm just thankful the IRS didn't draft amateur rules.
I think you are missing the point.

If you aren't the control operator then you are a third party.

Whether the mic lead originates 1000miles away with someone having a ham license or 2 feet away with someone who does not have a ham license the same definition applies -- both are third parties.

I will agree that Echolink/IRLP skirt the rules closely and that they try to meet the spirit of the law even if they don't meet the letter of the law. As long as that type of operation remains a minor player in the overall scheme of things no one is going to probably bother it at all.

But it *is* two feet down the slippery slope hanging on by its fingernails. Using it as a justification for *anything* else is likely to dislodge it from the extra weight and send it down the slope to perdition. *Especially* trying to use it as a justification for making the ARS into a common carrier handling third party traffic with no amateur control operators involved at all.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,09:39)]Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ Dec. 06 2007,23:38)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 06 2007,18:08)]Yes, I understand that it's (WinLink) purely an email system, but either the source or destination of those emails is a ham radio operator using his ham radio station.
WRONG. Some messages are from missionaries that get messages from non-hams and pass the messages over the ham radio freqs to other non-hams. This is one reason why winlink should be banned from the ham bands. Let it work over on sailmail and MARS. They have the ability to have dedicated freqs for their email service. Ham radio does not have the ability to dedicate frequencies for the strict use of email.
Missionaries have been using amateur radio to support their causes for YEARS - long before Winlink. #They've ran third party phone patches and it was the same belly achin' that it had nothing to do with amateur radio.

That was, until the missionaries started working stateside and handing out QSL cards like a street marketer in Vegas pushing the latest showgirl revue. #Then it was all fine and well for these people to be on the ham bands.

I can't condone nor accept the interference that certain Winlink people have caused. #But I simply don't accept the premise that this has no place on amateur radio. #What good are these communications technologies when all you pass on them are ARRL bulletins? #We're afraid to pass third-party public service communications, and the reality is that these networks won't get any use for emergencies until the really big one hits. #So they get built out, they work, they sit idle, people lose interest and then we all sit on QRZ and complain that it declined.

Winlink isn't going to go away, and I doubt Pactor-III is going anywhere either. #You can complain all you want on QRZ, but the simple fact is that Winlink is the darling of emergency communications because it works with familiar software interfaces. #Ditto for missionaries, mercenaries, mobile-MILFs and people living on sailboats. #It's the darling of the ARRL because it gets to sit in the public service category, and the ARRL has always given public service activities a wide berth. #As a consequence of that, the FCC has given public service activities a wide berth. #Fair? #No. #But it is what it is, and public service is the first thing that amateurs like to reference when trying to defend spectrum. #

There's always been questions on whether certain activities have a place on the amateur bands. #Traffic nets, missionaries, phone patches, auto patches and now Winlink. # With the crushing volume of utter stupidity on the bands, why are the Winlink people suddenly targeted when there's far more malicious and intentional interference going on elsewhere? #People complain about the traffic handlers, the phone patchers, the maritime nets and now the Winlinkers, but the reality is that these stations are one of the few people who get to check the box for "public service on HF".

Winlink isn't going anywhere, they've established themselves (as tenuous and as dubious as you may think -- to some extent I agree) as public service. #I'm not saying these people get to have dedicated frequencies, and again, I'm not condoning the bad behavior that has been witnessed. #But you're not getting it banned, and it's a waste of time to try that approach. #I used to think it was the way to correct the problem, but more and more I'm believing the FCC sees this as an intra-ham dispute and not a rules problem. #So, I guess we all need to play nice.
Good post. The answer is to expand the auto sub-bands somewhat and sub-divide them into wide- and narrow-band corridors. Give the packeteers a place to work, and let the WinLinkers operate within a controlled space that will encourage them to keep their speed levels down in order to maximize their operations.

I would also like to have seen a 60m allocation reserved for EmComm data alone, but the all 60m issues have been foreclosed.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 07 2007,10:14)]Quote[/b] ]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals". So with respect to IRLP/Echolink, providing that for use by stations other than the licensee isn't third party because those in communcation are (ostensibly) licensed. It is still a control problem, but a different flavor. Which is why many people run these things under the scope of a repeater which enjoys a bit more flexibility.

"ostensibly" licensed for operation in the United States?

According to the rules if you aren't the control operator then you *are* a third party. If there is a "control problem" then that *IS* determinant as to whether or not the communication is via a third party or not. Whether the communication is via a repeater or not is irrelevant.

Amateur radio stands at a cross-roads today, similar to where the CB service stood 4 decades ago. We can ignore the rules and regulations and make up our own as we go along or we can abide by both the spirit *and* letter of the rules and regulations.

We already know where the former paradigm leads, just look at the CB service today. It is only the latter paradigm that will insure the continued existence of amateur radio as a viable entity.

Please note that by using your logic that 2m repeater you mention could just as easily be hooked to a CB rig as the internet. We could then have cross-band repeat operation between hams and "good buddies". Under your paradigm that "control operators" don't really need to be control operators everything would be peachy-keen.

tim ab0wr
Yes, ostensibly licensed as it pertains to Echolink. You know, download the software and tell them you're ka8ncr and start transmitting?

The point I raised is that you can't compare amateur-to-amateur communication via "third party communication", say it's illegal and ignore what amateurs have been doing for years. IRLP is no more a rules bender than autopatches, so why is it being used as an example when the worry is about non-amateur traffic that isn't legal being passed over digital means?

I find it strange that you proclaim we're on a precipice overlooking doom with this whole Winlink issue and yet no one here raises any concern over the filth on the phone bands. If rules breakers are the threat to amateur radio, I would suggest you start on 75 meters. The mere fact that SCS modems cost so much should show that statistically, there's more rules breakers on phone than Pactor.

Your complaint about a lack of control operator overlooks the obvious problem that there are, at this moment, hundreds of amateur repeaters who do not have a control operator in complete compliance with FCC rules. Do you really want to open up that can of worms too?

[N5PVL]

Amazing how any set of circumstances, any question always leads to the same inevitable conclusion, among ARRL shills and WinLids at any rate, that the only possible solution to WinLid QRM and the commercialization of our amateur radio spectrum is to give the Lids their own private chunk of - you guessed it! - our ham radio spectrum!

Single-minded about their intent, aren't they?

Didn't Mel Brooks do a comedy routine about the 1930's once, about the Nazis wanting 'peace'?

A piece of Romania, A piece of Austria, A piece of France etc. etc. and so on...

Something like that?

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 07 2007,10:52)]Amazing how any set of circumstances, any question always leads to the same inevitable conclusion, among ARRL shills and WinLids at any rate, that the only possible solution to WinLid QRM and the commercialization of our amateur radio spectrum is to give the Lids their own private chunk of - you guessed it! - our ham radio spectrum!

Single-minded about their intent, aren't they?

Didn't Mel Brooks do a comedy routine about the 1930's once, about the Nazis wanting 'peace'?

A piece of Romania, A piece of Austria, A piece of France etc. etc. and so on...

Something like that?
Maybe because given an inevitable future, the conclusion is inevitable?

Just because people keep reaching a conclusion that you disagree with is no reason to disparage them, and just possibly, possibly, they're correct whether you like it or not.

We have incompatibility problems with all modes now, not just WinLink. Hell, you can't tell a PSK62 op that he's interfering with PSK31 QSO's without changing modes, and the only difference between them is their data rate. Add in all of the other digital modes and it becomes very apparent that the mode incompatibility problem is definitely not just a WinLink problem.

Do you have a workable proposal to mitigate QRM among all of the possible modes?

Mike

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 07 2007,10:22)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,10:04)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 07 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 06 2007,10:40)]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals".
Not entirely. A licensed Amateur can be a third party if the licensed Amateur originates a message and is not the control operator of an Amateur station. There is no distinction between a third party who holds an amateur operator license grant and one who doesn't (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_1&id=amateur#Third%20Party%20Communications).

73,
Mark N5RFX
But in that instance described (IRLP/Echolink from Joe Amateur, no repeater/aux service), they're all licensed and therefore there is no third-party. That excludes passing the mic over to someone on one end of the communication, but I believe that the control issues for that lie on the person passing the mic.

I'm just thankful the IRS didn't draft amateur rules.
I think you are missing the point.

If you aren't the control operator then you are a third party.

Whether the mic lead originates 1000miles away with someone having a ham license or 2 feet away with someone who does not have a ham license the same definition applies -- both are third parties.

I will agree that Echolink/IRLP skirt the rules closely and that they try to meet the spirit of the law even if they don't meet the letter of the law. As long as that type of operation remains a minor player in the overall scheme of things no one is going to probably bother it at all.

But it *is* two feet down the slippery slope hanging on by its fingernails. Using it as a justification for *anything* else is likely to dislodge it from the extra weight and send it down the slope to perdition. *Especially* trying to use it as a justification for making the ARS into a common carrier handling third party traffic with no amateur control operators involved at all.

tim ab0wr
I understand your point about the control operator issue. And I'm really sorry I commented on the IRLP aspect of it; really I am.

Amateur radio is not going to turn into a common carrier. There are few people who need HF communications in place of existing commercial services. And even fewer are willing to endure the licensing process.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 07 2007,13:10)]Do you have a workable proposal to mitigate QRM among all of the possible modes?
Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that the packet crowd's "solution" is to make all other digital modes illegal on HF.

But that couldn't be the case, since that would definitely be the pot calling the kettle black, and that would never happen.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 07 2007,10:52)]Amazing how any set of circumstances, any question always leads to the same inevitable conclusion, among ARRL shills and WinLids at any rate, that the only possible solution to WinLid QRM and the commercialization of our amateur radio spectrum is to give the Lids their own private chunk of - you guessed it! - our ham radio spectrum!

Single-minded about their intent, aren't they?

Didn't Mel Brooks do a comedy routine about the 1930's once, about the Nazis wanting 'peace'?

A piece of Romania, A piece of Austria, A piece of France etc. etc. and so on...

Something like that?
Well Charles, assuming that Winlink isn't going away, how would you solve the problem? I don't want to debate the merits of anything with you, Winlink, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, whatever. I'm just interested in your opinion on the event that the FCC rules Winlink/Pactor-III as an intra-ham problem and says "play nice".

What then?

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,14:55)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 07 2007,10:52)]Amazing how any set of circumstances, any question always leads to the same inevitable conclusion, among ARRL shills and WinLids at any rate, that the only possible solution to WinLid QRM and the commercialization of our amateur radio spectrum is to give the Lids their own private chunk of - you guessed it! - our ham radio spectrum!

Single-minded about their intent, aren't they?

Didn't Mel Brooks do a comedy routine about the 1930's once, about the Nazis wanting 'peace'?

A piece of Romania, A piece of Austria, A piece of France etc. etc. and so on...

Something like that?
Well Charles, assuming that Winlink isn't going away, how would you solve the problem? #I don't want to debate the merits of anything with you, Winlink, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, whatever. #I'm just interested in your opinion on the event that the FCC rules Winlink/Pactor-III as an intra-ham problem and says "play nice".

What then?
WinLink will then be forced off of the air. - They do not play nice and never have, so that would be the end of the matter.

I'm all for it.

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 06 2007,18:00)]N5PVL,
WinLink will then be forced off of the air. - They do not play nice and never have, so that would be the end of the matter.

I'm all for it.
Charles ,to be sure your not talking about taking actions into your own hands http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif. # How do you intend to force them off the air http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kf4vgx @ Dec. 07 2007,17:39)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 06 2007,18:00)]N5PVL,
WinLink will then be forced off of the air. - They do not play nice and never have, so that would be the end of the matter.

I'm all for it.
Charles ,to be sure your not talking about taking actions into your own hands http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif. How do you intend to force them off the air http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif.
If the rest of the amateur community is vigilant and keeps the Winlink system corraled in the automatic sub-bands with its wideband Pactor III mode then Winlink will die off under its own weight.

You are aware that the worst interferer with a Pactor III/Winlink operation is other PactorIII/Winlink stations?

They claim they turned off busy detection in their modems because of people trying to jam their operation. That's as big of a lie as the rest they tell. The real truth is because they interfered with themselves so badly that the operation was grinding to a halt.

The reason they want out of the corral so badly is because they interfere so badly with themselves. Breaking down the corral will allow them to spread all their stations out over dedicated frequencies for each. Instead of having 40-50 stations sharing 15-20khz you'll have 40-50 stations spread over 3khz * 40-50 or 120-150khz.

So if the FCC says "play nice" and still keeps them in the corral, they *will* force themselves off the air.

tim ab0wr

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 07 2007,09:27)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 06 2007,09:59)]Beware the dark side, its allure is enticing!
Jim,

In your examples are talking about messages or communications that originate from the Internet, and not from an Amateur station?

73,
Mark N5RFX
Mark,

Here is an list of the messages or communications as I classify them.

ham -> ham
ham -> ham -> 3rd party
3rd party -> ham -> ham
3rd party -> ham -> ham -> 3rd party
ham -> auto sta -> 3rd party
3rd party -> auto sta -> ham
3rd party -> auto sta -> ham -> 3rd party
3rd party -> auto sta -> auto sta -> ham
3rd party -> auto sta -> auto sta -> 3rd party

More explicitly, I was talking about winlink communications, where for example, the captain of a sailboat has a ham license and uses winlink to send/receive email but also allows the spouse, children, crew, and guests also use the same email account/ham station to send and receive their email also, i.e. allowing sharing of the email account between everyone on board.

Another example is the use of winlink paclink/telpac links where you have 3rd party -> auto sta -> auto sta -> 3rd party with no control operator present at either of the amateur stations.

Jim
WA0LYK

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,10:04)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 07 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 06 2007,10:40)]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals".
Not entirely. A licensed Amateur can be a third party if the licensed Amateur originates a message and is not the control operator of an Amateur station. There is no distinction between a third party who holds an amateur operator license grant and one who doesn't (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_1&id=amateur#Third%20Party%20Communications).

73,
Mark N5RFX
But in that instance described (IRLP/Echolink from Joe Amateur, no repeater/aux service), they're all licensed and therefore there is no third-party. That excludes passing the mic over to someone on one end of the communication, but I believe that the control issues for that lie on the person passing the mic.

I'm just thankful the IRS didn't draft amateur rules.
Yet the rules very specifically say:

"No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third
party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data
emission."

In order for a person using a VOIP link to operate a transmitter you would have to assume that they also are in control of the transmitter. Yet a VOIP link doesn't provide any of the functions specified for local or remote control, i.e. "directly (or indirectly) manipulates the operating adjustments in the station (through a control link) to achieve compliance with the FCC Rules." The only options left are that there is a control operator using either local or remote control or that the station is being operated automatically.

Jim
WA0LYK

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,12:50)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 07 2007,10:22)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 07 2007,10:04)]Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 07 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Dec. 06 2007,10:40)]Your scope of third-party communications in this instance is broader than what the FCC considers third-party communications. The FCC considers it "messages transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals".
Not entirely. A licensed Amateur can be a third party if the licensed Amateur originates a message and is not the control operator of an Amateur station. There is no distinction between a third party who holds an amateur operator license grant and one who doesn't (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about_1&id=amateur#Third%20Party%20Communications).

73,
Mark N5RFX
But in that instance described (IRLP/Echolink from Joe Amateur, no repeater/aux service), they're all licensed and therefore there is no third-party. That excludes passing the mic over to someone on one end of the communication, but I believe that the control issues for that lie on the person passing the mic.

I'm just thankful the IRS didn't draft amateur rules.
I think you are missing the point.

If you aren't the control operator then you are a third party.

Whether the mic lead originates 1000miles away with someone having a ham license or 2 feet away with someone who does not have a ham license the same definition applies -- both are third parties.

I will agree that Echolink/IRLP skirt the rules closely and that they try to meet the spirit of the law even if they don't meet the letter of the law. As long as that type of operation remains a minor player in the overall scheme of things no one is going to probably bother it at all.

But it *is* two feet down the slippery slope hanging on by its fingernails. Using it as a justification for *anything* else is likely to dislodge it from the extra weight and send it down the slope to perdition. *Especially* trying to use it as a justification for making the ARS into a common carrier handling third party traffic with no amateur control operators involved at all.

tim ab0wr
I understand your point about the control operator issue. And I'm really sorry I commented on the IRLP aspect of it; really I am.

Amateur radio is not going to turn into a common carrier. There are few people who need HF communications in place of existing commercial services. And even fewer are willing to endure the licensing process.
Yet that is exactly what most of the "hinterneters" are wanting. That is, the capability of conversing with non-amateurs through gateways with the internet. Worse, many want to allow third party to third party communications via automated stations.

When this occurs, amateur radio is nothing more than a common carrier.

If you go to the echolink/irlp web sites, nowhere do you find a discussion of how these operations fit under the rules. Just how do you allow a foreign operator to talk on a radio in the US? Does anyone verify that they have a reciprocal permit or is it ok because the station is under automatic control?

There is a plethora of ignoring the rules and a similar amount of ignorance about the rules. This is exactly what happened to the CB band and you know what happened there. Is it perhaps time we began to question some of these operations and either modify the rules appropriately or begin to operate strictly within the rules?

Jim
WA0LYK

[N5PVL]

WA0LYK says:
Quote[/b] ]
There is a plethora of ignoring the rules and a similar amount of ignorance about the rules. #This is exactly what happened to the CB band and you know what happened there. #Is it perhaps time we began to question some of these operations and either modify the rules appropriately or begin to operate strictly within the rules?

I think that it has been 'that time' for some years now. - I saw most of this coming better than a decade ago but as we all know, it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion here where the radio roaches are given all kinds of lattitude while the discussions they want to disrupt are su