</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka8ncr @ July 23 2004,20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which means that you scour ebay for Pactor I equipment since Pactor II/III is backward compatible #Or, you can go cream of the crop and get one from SCS. #Either way, you'll be able to communicate.......By using something that has proven itself to work well, has free software support such as Airmail and contrary to what you believe, is as inexpensive as packet.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The committee must have assumed every ARES station has a computer. Not according to a bunch of guys on the 7290 traffic net.
How much is that little (necessary) ditty from SCS? You are the first guy I've heard say you can "backward compatible" Pactor I to II/III.
Present day ARES is not exactly flourishing in this neck of the woods. I think it was extremely presumptuous of the League to expect a sufficient number of digitally inclined and financially capable amateurs to provide the necessary number of net members to sustain a national crisis in this manner.
The following comments were submitted by K5YFW and myself back in April, and I believe they still have merit.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Emergency Communications (E-Comms)
The premise of amateur radio emergency communications following WW-II and the Cold War was that they would comprise a stand-alone communications network not dependent on ANY other existing system(s) or networks. This coincides with concepts that created the Department of Defense, the Military Affiliated Radio System (MARS), RACES, and other similar programs.
The original and primary thrust of "radio relayed" communications was to handle "health and welfare" messages and civil emergency communications. With the advent of WW-II, the government and the amateur radio service came to recognize that there was a need to provide communications support to federal and local government agencies as well as to disaster relief organizations. While normal amateur radio communications were prohibited during WW-II, RACES-like civil defense communications were authorized and carried on by many amateur radio operators.
”Field Day” and various other contests are an acknowledgement of amateur radio operators' need to be able to take their existing equipment to remote locations and provide a level of communications comparable to their "home QTH" capabilities.
Discussion:
The NTS Area Staff Chairs, working with Al Nollmeyer, W3YVQ, have attempted to take "the long view" of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) and the National Traffic System (NTS) and their role in public service communications including both local/Section and national levels. ( E-Mail from WV1X)
Emergency Communications and NTS Operations
Perhaps we are mixing apples and oranges. The NTS and E-Comms (Emergency Communications) are not the same thing. Historically, the NTS was established to handle health and welfare traffic. During emergencies the NTS has taken on a role secondary to E-Comms. E-Comms has taken on a role of providing immediate priority communications to governmental and disaster relief agencies, as well as internal communications within these entities.
At local and state levels, E-Comms requires a network of stations on the air 24X7 while the emergency communications requirement exists. Generally these networks are limited to a few stations within a given geographic area. Local communications are passed upward to higher levels, typically through a single or a few gateway stations.
Additionally, in a common emergency communications scenario, net stations send information to the NCS for validation or approval by the emergency management entity at the NCS or the net it is supporting. There the decision is made to up channel communications. Only in instances where there is one isolated station representing a governmental or disaster relief agency in a specific geographical area do you generally find individual stations up channeling messages. While this type of communication still exists and may have been the norm during WW-II and even the early part on the Cold War Era, operational circumstances are different today.
The differences between these two types of communications are sufficient to require separate network topologies. Exercising the NTS provides no assurance that it will be capable of providing the level of communications necessary to support E-Comms.
There is no doubt that NTS and ARES communications need to have a strong digitally based foundation. However, I believe that we must still rely to a great extent on voice communications provided by first responders and their mobile radios. The vast majority of these operators rely on VHF/UHF FM or HF SSB to communicate. Very few have mobile digital capabilities. This type of operation MUST remain integrated within any emergency or NTS scenario.
Additionally, I have spoken with several active NTS operators, some of whom use Pactor and WinLink (AirMail). They have indicated to me that they prefer to manually forward messages rather than allow them to be forwarded automatically because they wish to insure that the message is actually sent and to obtain verification of receipt.
In many emergency communications situations, the originator of the message wants to know when their message is sent and when it is received and will not want to rely on an automatic system. Moreover, many emergency managers are not comfortable with relaying messages, instead preferring to have the messages delivered directly to the destination station. This is especially true of locations in relatively close proximity. Where stations are less than 200 miles apart, emergency managers and disaster relief providers prefer that destination stations receive their messages directly from initiating stations.
Introduction -- The ARESCOM committee mission is to develop a comprehensive program to enhance the current ARES emergency communications capability to include rapid and accurate handling of long range (inter-state, national, and international) emergency related message traffic. This committee was appointed by President Haynie as a result of Minute 25 of the July 2003 BOD Meeting. (From: Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications (ARESCOM) January 2004 Progress Report Number 1)
While there is no doubt that we need to develop long range emergency communications, we need to clearly define the scenarios where this is appropriate.
The first case might be a situation where all Internet communications, including all satellite communications, would be interrupted over the entire nation...or perhaps just Internet communications are interrupted. In this case, there is still the possibility of dialup national, high speed communications available at speeds greater than what amateur radio using HF could possibly hope to achieve. However, if even telephonic communications are lost, then the need for high speed, robust, HF data communications becomes an imperative.
Walt, I’m still not comfortable with the above paragraph. I’ve separated the two scenarios, merging the second scenario into the next paragraph. See if this reads a little easier:
The first case might involve the interruption of internet communications. In this case, there is still the possibility of national high speed communications using existing dialup telephone systems at speeds greater than what amateur radio HF networks could hope to achieve.
However, should the internet, telephonic, and satellite systems be lost or severely degraded, then the need for robust, high speed HF data communication becomes an imperative. In this contingency, you mostly likely would find local networks funneling communications up channel from local to state agencies and states to federal agencies. Of greatest concern would be communications within the larger states with their state government, and states on the West Coast, the Pacific, and Alaska communicating directly with Washington D.C. or the closest federal agency responsible for forwarding communications to the national command structure. Here a high speed, robust NTS/E-comms network would be most beneficial. However, other scenarios might not require this level of effort.
Before any final assumption is made concerning what type or kind of future communications are needed, the requirement should be discussed with both federal, state, and local emergency management agencies and with national disaster relief agencies to determine what the actual needs would be and to define specific scenarios.
Background -- there are situations when the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) must have the capability to pass message traffic across the nation quickly and accurately, and future expectations of ARES for such a nationwide capability will likely increase, especially with the ARRL's recent new Citizens Corps partnership with the Department for Homeland Security. This capability is not currently available to ARES. (From: Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications (ARESCOM) January 2004 Progress Report Number 1)
Again, before any final assumption is made concerning what type or kind of long range communications are needed, the requirement should be discussed with both federal, state, local emergency management agencies and with national disaster relief agencies to determine what the actual needs would be and to define specific scenarios.
Preliminary Findings -- It is generally felt that to accomplish this task, a close working relationship must exist between ARES and NTS. Historically, this relationship has failed to provide needed management, training and liaison to accomplish the goals of a viable emergency communications capability. (From: Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications (ARESCOM) January 2004 Progress Report Number 1)
There can be no doubt that we need a close working relationship between the NTS and E-Comms. In fact I would expect that E-Comms radio operators come from the ranks of NTS operators. However, we must not forget that the roles of the NTS and E-Comms ARE different. During emergencies the NTS has taken on a secondary role to E-Comms. E-Comms has taken on the role as primary mover of communications between various agencies. When E-Comms is the primary communications need, NTS steps down and can fill in as liaison stations. However, the location and reliability of these stations must be known. An emergency management office cannot afford to depend on unidentified stations. They must have pre-identified trained stations capable of supporting their up channel communications. If these stations cannot be pre-identified and depended upon, then the emergency management office will want to handle the up channel communications themselves.
Walt, the same thing gets said twice in the paragraph above. See if this more clearly conveys your message:
There can be no doubt that we need a close working relationship between the NTS and E-Comms. In fact, I would expect that E-Comms radio operators would come from the ranks of NTS operators. However, we must not forget that the roles of the NTS and E-Comms ARE different. During emergencies, E-Comms become the primary provider of communications between served agencies. NTS steps down to a secondary roll but can still fill in as liaison stations.
The location, communications capabilities (based on equipment), and reliability of NTS stations must be known. An emergency management office cannot afford to depend on unidentified stations. They must have known, trained operators capable of supporting emergency management up channel communications. If these stations are not identified or cannot be depended upon, then the emergency management office will want to handle up channel communications themselves.
Recommendation -- After a review of the Local and Section ARES, RACES and national NTS and NTSD requirements for public service, and desiring to provide a means of rapidly moving high volumes of radio email traffic nationally, the committee judges that the Winlink 2000 system (WL2K) is the most feasible platform for this purpose when added to existing resources or deployed for the first time. (From: Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications (ARESCOM) January 2004 Progress Report Number 1)
The problem here is one of cost vs. performance. The cost ($850-$1200) of deploying WinLink using the robust Pactor II or III may be cost prohibitive for most individual amateur radio operators. (See the cost analysis.) If Pactor I is used, the cost is lower and more amateur radio operators should be wiling to invest in using Pactor and WinLink; however, there is a decided performance loss between Pactor I and Pactor II and III.
There should be some concern about the robustness of Pactor. While we can identify what the throughput would be on a good channel (+10 dB SNR), I can find no published information on what the performance (throughput) is on a poor channel (at or near a 0 dB SNR).
WALT: you saying the MT63 has a baud rate of 20 Hz. Is that correct?:
In contrast to Pactor II/III, Johan Forrer, KC7WW, has shown in simulation that 2 KHz bandwidth MT63 signal, with a baud rate of 20 Hz, has a throughput of 20 CPS at a +10 dB SNR and at a 0 dB SNR still has a 20 CPS throughput. To be an effective robust mode, Pactor II/III needs exhibit this same robust capability. (See the attached Mode Comparison HTML file) Atch 2.
Use of the Internet as an integral part of the WinLink Network
Delivery of message traffic anywhere in the US where internet services are active, or amateur client stations are operating, can be accomplished automatically in a matter of minutes using simple email formatting. If security is required by a served agency, this system may be interfaced to a hardened terrestrial or satellite network, providing these actions are consistent with FCC Rules.
(From: Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications (ARESCOM) January 2004 Progress Report Number 1)
The assumption here is that internet services exist to some extent. However, building a network on this premise is risky at best and obviates the need to closely look at the implementation of such a network. Are there sufficient differences to warrant separate network configuration(s) so that the network can seamlessly fall back to one with NO internet services available?
This week Internet industry periodicals have again been reporting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other international agencies say that TCP/IP, the backbone of the Internet, still has sufficient vulnerabilities that cyber terrorists, using these flaws, could shut down a huge amount or perhaps all of the Internet. (From: The Inquirer, April 21, 2004, "Major defects pose threat to Internet" and Government Computer News, April 21, 2004, “Router flaw tests cyber alert system”)
I personally like the flexibility and ability of using the Internet, if it is available. There can be no doubt that it can immeasurably increase the delivery of traffic. However, to build a network that makes any assumption that the Internet exists to any extent jeopardizes the foundation of building the proposed network.
In building this new emergency communications network, it would be prudent to first decide if the network is one that must depend on the commercial Internet or will be a stand-alone network with the ability to be augmented by the commercial Internet.
TCP/IP
Over the past several years there has been much discussion among amateur radio operators here in the U.S. and abroad, concerning the use of raw TCP/IP or encapsulated TCP/IP should it be attempted on HF. If we can fall back to the days when individuals using the KA9Q TCP/IP stack at 1200 baud was successfully used on VHF for SMTP, I think that use of encapsulated TCP/IP should be considered on HF since we are able to send data at speeds equal to or nearly equal to that previously were only capable on VHF.
HF Network Issues
There is a problem with unattended operation when the unattended station cannot absolutely determine whether the frequency is in use. We are all familiar with the basic HF propagation principles. Unless the unattended station can without doubt determine that the frequency is clear, unattended stations cannot avoid causing interference. Unattended Pactor stations do not appear to have the ability to determine if a frequency is in use and have the potential, at any time they are activated, of causing interference. This was not as much of the problem in the past because unattended stations had free roam of the bands. Since the advent of sound card modes that is no longer the case. Unattended stations have not kept up with the times.
Using unattended Pactor stations, on the higher frequency bands have international implications. See Atch. 1
Cost Analysis
Cost of Running Pactor III
My assumption is that the network would ultimately desire to run Pactor III rather than Pactor I or II, thus I will address the cost of running Pactor III realizing that running Pactor II would be approximately $150 less than running Pactor III and running Pactor I might cost as little as $350 if new equipment were to be purchased.
A 2003 ARRL survey determined that the average annual amateur radio operator's "hobby budget" was approximately $750. The "local" buying habits of amateur radio operators over the last 15-20 years have also been noted. Amateur radio operators generally spend somewhere between the cost of a single band U/VHF transceiver and a dual band V/UHF transceiver...or somewhere between $350-$700 a year. This generally includes any amount spent on club, ARRL dues and/or subscription cost for amateur radio periodicals. In many cases, the cost of a computer is included in this amount.
An amateur radio operator wishing to run Pactor III will need to spend between $850 for the low end Pactor controller and Pactor III firmware upgrade or $1,200 for the high end Pactor controller and Pactor III firmware upgrade. Even the amateur radio operator with a budget of $750 per year might consider this a 2-3 year investment. This one piece of equipment is almost the investment cost of a new HF station.
The Committee report does not indicate that any other modes or systems were considered. Since several other robust modes exist that could be implemented, some at virtually no cost to the individual amateur, consideration should be given to the use of these modes. Even if a mode/system currently does not have an automatic store and forward and/or E-Mail type interface, there are sufficient numbers of technically capable amateur radio operators able to provide such interfaces. These modes may be able to use currently employed hardware and software. Additionally, modes using open source computer sound card technology could easily be exploited, improved upon, and implemented at very low cost. See Atch. 1.
Pactor III and WinLInk - Proprietary Systems
Since the Pactor II/III controller is proprietary with only one firm manufacturing the controller, the question must be asked: Can that firm produce the controller in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of U.S. amateur radio operators who might wish to participate in the "proposed" NTS/ARESCOM program? Or will that firm be willing to license production of the
controller to other manufacturers?
Additionally, the WinLink code is (or appears to be) proprietary. While the owner of the code has assured the ARRL that they will make the code readily available, there is still cause of concern. If during deployment or operation of the network it is discovered that changes to the code must be made, will the code owners be willing to make such changes and how quickly can they make those changes? With open source code, anyone with the necessary programming skills can make required changes. Further, open source code has been consistently more responsive to identified required changes than proprietary code. I would hope that the owners of the server and client code would make the code open for all non-commercial applications. Also, I would hope that the code owners and the League would encourage code to be written for open source operating systems as well as other major operating systems.
Conclusion:
NTS/ARES Communications Operation
While there is no doubt that NTS and ARES communications need to have a strong digitally based foundation, NTS and emergency communications still rely, to a great extent, on voice generated messages. This type of operation must be considered in any emergency or NTS scenario. Consideration should also be given to incorporating digital voice communications in NTS and ARES communications changes.
Digital Operation on HF (Potential for QRM)
The problem with unattended Pactor operation must be addressed...especially the potential for causing interference or being interfered with. Perhaps the solution is the designation of specific network frequencies, such as currently exist with other NTS and ARES net. Unless the unattended station can without doubt determine that the frequency is clear, unattended stations cannot avoid causing interference. A solution must be employed to insure orderly operation of the network.
Cost
The cost of implementation of Pactor II or III as a standard should be considered since other robust modes exist that could be implemented at virtually no cost to the individual amateur. Even though these modes/systems currently may not have an automatic store and forward/E-Mail type interface, I believe that there is sufficient technical capability within the amateur radio community to provide such an interface. These modes may use currently employed hardware and software. Additionally, modes using open source computer sound card technology could easily be exploited, improved upon, and a very low cost system developed and implemented.
Proprietary - Does not consider any alternatives.
The report does not indicate that any other mode or system was considered. However, if such is the case, then I believe that this should have been indicated in the report.
Proprietary hardware can present problems with availability of equipment, maintenance, and repair. Proprietary software can present problems with software maintenance, i.e. fixing bugs and updating the software to meet changing requirements. Unless the hardware and software suppliers are willing to contractually agree to provide the quantities necessary to meet deployment requirements and software maintenance to meet changing needs, then consideration should be given other modes and/or systems. Additionally, should either supplier go out of business, the system would be unable to expand and replacement hardware would be unavailable. This might also require the change to another system as the "standard".
Recommendation(s):
The following is but a partial list of recommendations for the Committee. However, I believe that they represent the major concerns that have been expressed to me by several NTS and ARES members and comments I have received from the amateur radio community at large.
(1) The Committee should issue a “call for papers” or proposals for the selection other modes and systems. This would be directed to the general amateur radio community and made in QST. The suggestions would need to incorporate a mode with provisions for a store and forward or E-mail interface.
A maximum of three months should be allowed for submission of proposals. After receiving and publishing proposals via the ARRL web site, the committee should allow a six week comment period from the general amateur radio community. The proposals would be submitted electronically in a non-proprietary formatted document. The committee would make its recommendations to the ARRL Board within six weeks.
(2) The Committee should be expanded to include additional individuals with programming knowledge in sound card modem technology and with networking expertise to insure that adequate consideration be given to all submitted proposals.
Additionally, the committee should solicit comments from emergency managers who may not be amateur radio operators and other qualified individuals with vast experience in providing emergency communications to local, state, and federal governmental agencies as well as major disaster relief organizations.
(3) The Committee should consider a methodology to specify/select net frequencies for automatically controlled store and forward stations to insure they do not interfere with other modes and other modes do not interfere with their operation.
Submitted by: Walt DuBose, K5YFW, San Antonio, Texas,
Danny McCarty, WA5KRP, San Antonio, Texas,
21 April 2004
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Frankly, at this point I'm pretty well burned out on the whole issue. I have to believe there is sufficient talent within the amateur community to deploy a system that does not rely on proprietary products. Once adopted, we have no asssurance that unforseen needs will be readily engineered by those who hold the code. Open source code is far more flexible and would make for a much larger pool of talent to tackle a given problem. And it would be free.
WA5KRP
Texas