View Full Version : SCAMP, Win Link, and Black Helos?
SCAMP, Win Link, and Black Helos
The ARRL recently announced the commencement of SCAMP (Sound Card Amateur Message Protocol) testing. The announcement said:
Quote[/b] ]On the air testing of the digital communication protocol began in late November, and the first transcontinental communication using SCAMP occurred on December 4. SCAMP is designed to eliminate the need for pricey external hardware for passing e-mail traffic on relatively narrow-bandwidth channels. Rick Muething, KN6KB, prepared a presentation on SCAMP for the ARRL-TAPR Digital Communications Conference in September. . . Muething says a dozen dedicated testers began initial on-air testing on HF and VHF November 27 using the alpha version of a Windows-based SCAMP client called Paclink SCD that he and Vic Poor, W5SMM, developed.
Vic Poor is well known as a developer of WinLink and Chairman of the recent "Ad Hoc Committee" responsible for the ARRL Bandwidth proposal. The Committee was embroiled in controversy when two of its members resigned to protest the "taking over of the Committee" by WinLink proponents. Likewise Rick Muething describes himself as, "Currently, involved with the Program and design development for Winlink 2000 as a member of the Winlink development team."
Why is SCAMP so Important?
Much of the controversy over WinLink involves its need for pricey Pactor modems. Pactor modems use proprietary software, another of its downfalls according to many Amateurs. In addition, Pactor has been targeted by Amateurs as not "spectrum friendly" as used by automatic stations and by excessive bandwidth use in the case of Pactor III. Finally as stated before, Pactor modems are expensive.
SCAMP substitutes a computer and sound card for the need to use a Pactor Modem. As the ARRL Article says, "SCAMP is designed to eliminate the need for pricey external hardware for passing e-mail traffic on relatively narrow-bandwidth channels", i.e. Pactor Modems. Therefore, as Pactor modems are eliminated from the WinLink argument the main arguments of WinLink critics are rendered moot.
Where's The Money?
Another argument that becomes less significant with the advent of SCAMP is the acertation that only "wealthy" Amateurs can afford WinLink. The argument that well-heeled Amateurs on sailboats and in RVs touring the world were trying to take over frequencies (per the ARRL Bandwidth based Bandplan proposal) for their own personal use appears to vanish as well. But does it?
The ARRL Article states:Quote[/b] ]...alpha testers included Scott Thile, K4SET; Bud Thompson, N0IA; Bill Hickey, AB7AA; Howard White, VE3GFW; Dave Wagner, WA2DXQ; Lor Kutchins, W3QA; Larry Trullinger, KB0EMB; Mike Burton, N6KZB; Bill Kearns, WB6JAR, and Steve Waterman, K4CJX. Primary testing was done on 40, 30 and 20 meters, and VHF testing was carried out on 2-meters using both FM and SSB. Alpha testing will continue over the next several weeks, and beta testing is set to crank up in February, Muething says.
Internet searches on the SCAMP alpha testers reveal a cross section of people that include sail boaters, RVers, an amateur with worldwide religious ministries, and more. They include Mr. Muething, Mr. Poor, and Steve Waterman all of WinLink fame. In essence, the same alleged "well heeled" group supporting WinLink are supporting SCAMP.
Black Helos
First the good news. The WinLink group has avoided any tie to pecuniary interests and WinLink remains free to Amateurs. It also appears that SCAMP will be made available to Amateurs at no charge. With SCAMP the potential exists for an open software modem scheme that ensures proper identification and is not dependent on an Amateur's pocket book.
The bad news is that there still appears to be a motivation for specific Amateurs to gain non-monetary benefit from the use of SCAMP and WinLink. In the article, Muething states he'd like to see: Quote[/b] ]...some band plan restructuring to "open up spectrum for digital modes and encourage new experimentation and development like SCAMP."
While the simple act of benefiting Amateurs with the development of Amateur freeware is the usual reason effort is expended to bring these applications to market, it remains to be seen whether specific amateurs' push to garner more spectrum is for a greater good, or for personal reasons.
What Should the Average Amateur Do?
The development of SCAMP is good news for most Amateurs interested in digital communications. No one can argue that WinLink using SCAMP is not better than WinLink using Pactor modems. The fact that SCAMP will be freely available to all Amateurs should be a boon to less "affluent" Amateurs using WinLink.
The average Ham should also ensure that in making additional spectrum available for these applications, that current users of other modes are not harmed. To do this, many Amateurs suggest segregating these modes to certain band areas. Others argue that whether Pactor or SCAMP, digital use and voice use do not mix well.
Whatever you decide as an Amateur to support, you should make your feelings know to the ARRL. Proposals that open the door for wide spread denigration of voice and CW (which account for over 95% of users today) should be avoided. Likewise, committees considering rule changes where these new digital applications are concerned should include a crossection of Amateurs including representation for current popular digital and non-digital modes.
At no time should a particular group of Amateurs supporting a specific application such as Winlink or SCAMP be allowed to "take over" a committee. Especially a committee making recommendations for FCC Rules (thereby legislating their views on all Amateurs). SCAMP and WinLink are not inherently BAD for Amateur Radio. How the use of these applications is applied or legislated to all Amateurs could be. Amateurs should follow the WinLink and SCAMP issue closely to ensure the proper amount of sunlight falls on related activities.
Charles, thanks for the good job of presenting above information in the context of realism, not spin.
73 Mike
I concur wholeheartedly with W8MW's assessment.
AL7N http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'm glad to hear a sound card alternative is under development. I am impressed with WINLINKs capabilities but not willing to invest the money it would require to get on line.
Besides, isn't inovation what this hobby is truely about?
n6kzb
12-14-2004, 08:31 PM
Quote:
Internet searches on the SCAMP alpha testers reveal a cross section of people that include sail boaters, RVers, an amateur with worldwide religious ministries, and more. #They include Mr. Muething, Mr. Poor, and Steve Waterman all of WinLink fame. In essence, the same alleged "well heeled" group supporting WinLink are supporting SCAMP.
End Quote:
Hmmmmmmmmmm, I don't own a RV, nor a sailboat, and keep my religious beliefs close to home. I am just a humble public fire department employee, that sees the value of an alternative, to the SCS Modem, and Pactor 3.
Having been in the emergency management buisiness most of my life, with technical responsibility for a 7,200 Sq mile RACES program, I can't wait for its release.
It will allow another method to pass messages in reliable form, to a participating HF or VHF mail system.
Will it ever equal the great throughput of Pactor 3, perhaps not, but after all you do get what you PAY for.
I find it wild that all the speculators abound with a shotgun approach to fact gathering, to generally support a personal agenda.
Within hours of the information that a new and exiting experiment on amateur frequencies was announced, here comes the soothsayers of doom.
Lets see, PSK31 and its variants, MFSK8/16, Hell mode, MT63, HF packet, etc. etc. etc., lets see "sound card based", OK...
Oh no need to complain, the word WinLink did not get mixed in, well excuse me.
Did you know that a WinLink PMBO can use Clover, Gtor, and other modes to get connected to, so lets be sure to whine about them now, after all I just used the "W" word.
Just like a bunch of election year pundits....
Relax, there is nothing to fear, move on.......
www.rivcoraces.org
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
K0RGR
12-14-2004, 08:58 PM
I intend to get heavily involved in converting some older boatanchor PCs to WINLINK/AIRMAIL nodes - primarily VHF - to have them ready for disasters. I'm waiting on an infusion of funds to replenish my supply of
boatanchor PCs which are slowly
being consumed for other ham projects.
na4it
12-14-2004, 10:42 PM
Very well written article. I feel the author is not slamming the developers of this new mode, but infact giving us the details so that a very infirmed decision can be made to include it in amateur radio. The need of newer, more "robust" systems to handle messages is need, and the volunteers doing the work cannot be asked to bear the expense. I believe an open mind, with caution and appreciation that others need space on the band also, is needed in looking at these new modes.
Isn't sending an email generally a one way transmission?
Is it possible that an email could be prohibited by international third party-traffic agreements when an email is being sent to a non-Amateur?
What about the rules of international communications where transmitted remarks may only be of a personal nature and not for business purposes? An non-amateur could send a business related email to an amateur station.
I am referring to FCC Parts 97.113, 97.115, and 97.117
ve3gfw
12-15-2004, 12:13 AM
As one of the Alpha Testers... I wish I owned a sailboat and I really wish I owned an RV... I do not belong to any Religious Ministries.. but when was that a crime? I am actually a not so humble Ph.D. engineer with more than 40 years experience with Computers and Radio.
SCAMP is an opportunity for Amateur Radio to remain relevant in the 21st century. We should be proud of this achievement.
Read Charles' post for what it is, a backhanded slap against the Winlink Development Team.
So as not to let this forum degenerate into something it should not be..Stop the "Jailhouse lawyering".... WINLINK IS LEGAL .. Period..
I guess the ultimate authority hast spoken.
wb9jfr
12-15-2004, 01:17 AM
Ok did I miss something?
Another way of getting away from building interfaces
I know you want have to buy one of those expensive interfaces
What happen to building your own hardware?
Now all you have to do is go to the store and buy audio cables why build them
I am glad I am not one of the appliance operators or have my ideas about ham radio gotten to old
I do own a fancy rig but I still build ham radio related items
Any way I hope there are still a few of us left who desire and experiment own our own
I do run sstv with a program but guess what I built my own interface
73
Jerry
Wb9jfr
kb0emb
12-15-2004, 01:23 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Quote[/b] ]Internet searches on the SCAMP alpha testers reveal a cross section of people that include sail boaters, RVers, an amateur with worldwide religious ministries, and more.
Yah missed again - I've never owned a sailboat (nor do I care to). Perhaps 'one of these days' for the RV. Not very good fact gathering (Internet search)....
As for 'an Amateur with Worlwide Ministries' my understanding is, he is a volunteer (believe you volunteer fire) for several Worldwide Ministries, getting messages to/from remote parts of the World....
When first 'exposed' to Winlink I opposed the idea, however I do read and I did read about it. Owning a PACTOR III modem might be 'nice' but my budget does not allow so SCAMP looks (and works) great! My interest in SCAMP is Emergency Communication. I do urge all the ARES/RACES members to check out Winlink and SCAMP in the near future.
Hope you get your "Internet Searches" a bit more accurate.
Larry - KB0EMB
http://www.qsl.net/kb0emb/
My understanding is that digital voice is now starting to be used on HF and I think I have heard some of this on 20 meters. I do know for sure that digital imaging is being sent on HF voice frequencies at this time using RDFT which is also used in the SCAMP mode.
What I don't understand is why folks would be upset about one mode over another. Once they are sent as a digital stream it is not possible to tell the content by just listening to that stream on your rig. You have to decode the information.
The main difference you will find with the digital data modes is that they will be able to function with lower S/N ratios since they can operate at relatively slow data rates if they have to due to poor conditions. This may not be true of digital voice since in order to have a reasonable conversation, the data rate has to be fast enough to make it work at least as well, and preferably better than current SSB technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
The Winlink team slapped themselves with their conduct on the Ad Hoc Committee. Even so, this does not mean WinLink is bad, nor does it mean we should not examine its use with SCAMP. What we should not do is be railroaded into a bandplan by any special interest.
When the Ad Hoc Report was released, many objections were expressed (including my own) against the report and against WinLink. This article says that while I don't advocate getting on your knees and worshiping WinLink just yet, I acknowledge that many of the problems we saw with WinLink have been addresses by the use of SCAMP.
I guess the SCAMP Testers who commented were too busy organizing their appearance to actually read the article and realize it represents a basic softening of opposition to WinLink using SCAMP.
My understanding is that digital voice is now starting to be used on HF and I think I have heard some of this on 20 meters. I do know for sure that digital imaging is being sent on HF voice frequencies at this time using RDFT which is also used in the SCAMP mode.
What I don't understand is why folks would be upset about one mode over another. Once they are sent as a digital stream it is not possible to tell the content by just listening to that stream on your rig. You have to decode the information.
The main difference you will find with the digital data modes is that they will be able to function with lower S/N ratios since they can operate at relatively slow data rates if they have to due to poor conditions. This may not be true of digital voice since in order to have a reasonable conversation, the data rate has to be fast enough to make it work at least as well, and preferably better than current SSB technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
N5PVL
12-15-2004, 04:09 AM
KV9U says:
Quote[/b] ]
What I don't understand is why folks would be upset about one mode over another. Once they are sent as a digital stream it is not possible to tell the content by just listening to that stream on your rig. You have to decode the information.
I think you are talking about mixed-mode operation and as long as it's all digital, I agree with you. It's really not "modes" that do not mix well - it's analog and digital.
I think that if we approach that issue on the basis of "analog/digital" rather than by "modes", it will be a lot easier for us to end up making sense.
Charles, N5PVL
KN6KB
12-15-2004, 01:25 PM
For those of you that want real FACTS about SCAMP please send me request at KN6KB@arrl.net and I will forward an infomation package to you. The draft specification for SCAMP is currently at http://www.winlink.org/Presentations/SCAMPspec.pdf
The alpha testers were selected because they knew something about sound card modes, have a modern computer and a radio and were willing to spend some of their time CONTRIBUTING to the hobby. Sorry but I did not have the time or inclination to background search to find out which had RVs, boats, bicycles, beams on 100 ft towers, worked for ministries, or had ever employed an illegal nanny!
Rick Muething, KN6KB
First I would like to say THANKS!! to Rick 'n Steve and all those other fine folks with the WinLink group for all the time and effort they have contributed to a good system.
ALL RV'ers and sailboaters are NOT rich folks.
I really like the idea of this new mode with soundcard use.
I have been a strong pusher (sounds bad?) of Pactor I & II, but have had concerns about Pactor III due to the 3K bandwidth.
The winlink group works very hard to be sure everyone using the winlink system listens before transmitting. Rick, maybe you would comment on this - are there any PBMO's that transmit without a request to send from a ham who should be listening before he requests a connection to a winlink PBMO?
All in all, I like the idea of this new system - from what I read in the pdf file.... On the idea of a seperate portion of band for digital, and analog - sounds good, but not sure how it could be worked out..... The problem with digital and analog (SSB) sharing the same freqs, the digital could hijack the freq could it not? It would be impossible to "talk over" a digital transmission, but the digital could "talk over" a SSB transmission - is this not true?
One person who is very open to learning and trying new things.
Ken H>
K9FV
I'm glad to hear about SCAMP. WinLink is too expensive for me as I am retired and on "fixed income". However, if it works out, I will be using it on my sailboat. And what's wrong with that?
N5PVL
12-15-2004, 05:26 PM
K4FJ says:
Quote[/b] ]
I'm glad to hear about SCAMP. #WinLink is too expensive for me as I am retired and on "fixed income". # However, if it works out, I will be using it on my sailboat. #And what's wrong with that?
The story I keep hearing about sailboat stations using wide digital modes is that they end up being like alligators... Big mouth but no ears. - It has something to do with sailboat antenna systems, no doubt.
When you combine the poor hearing with the wide-mode digital signal, the inevitable result is constant interference to the activities of other hams. The sailboat wide-mode guy will constantly disrupt QSO's he can't hear. On a busy band, he will do it often.
It doesn't matter if it's PACTOR or SCAMP.... One wide digital signal coming in on top of other hams QSO's is as disruptive and obnoxious as the other.
SCAMP will make the problem worse, not better as illustrated by the post I am responding to right now.
This is why sailboat operators who care about their fellow hams and want to be good operators would never consider using a wide digital mode when there are more narrow alternatives available.
They realize that the insignificant speed increase these wide modes offer is not worth the toll it incurs upon their fellow hams, when operated with the antenna systems common on sailboats.
The gentleman wanted to know "...and what's wrong with that?"
...And now he knows.
Charles, #N5PVL
n4zou
12-15-2004, 06:10 PM
Scamp is another Bandwidth hog. According to the information available it can use up to 2 KHz. I am sure it's like Pactor III in that narrow mode Pactor I is used to establish the link and then switch to wide mode Pactor III and a corresponding increase in required bandwidth. As Scamp is going to be a mail service this will promote the use of robots on at least one side of the link. If Scamp becomes popular as it should, as the cost will be very low, it wont take long for PMBO's to fill up the available bandwidth on the HF bands.
Quote[/b] ]Sorry but I did not have the time or inclination to background search to find out which had RVs, boats, bicycles, beams on 100 ft towers, worked for ministries, or had ever employed an illegal nanny!
Sorry Rick, looks like I hit a nerve. My humble apology. After you recover from getting your undies in a bunch, I'd like to find out more about SCAMP. Looks like it will be very useful.
wx4al
12-15-2004, 10:10 PM
Hello everyone,
VE3GFW writes:
"Read Charles' post for what it is, a backhanded slap against the Winlink Development Team."
As a supporter of the WINLINK concept, I didn't read his
post as derogatory or inflammatory. He brings up good
points to consider anytime we make changes to the
spectrum usage we now enjoy, which by the way,
is under increasing pressure by commercial interests
who lick their chops at the prospects of more spectrum.
Anybody remember when we had 5 Mhz in the 220 band?
"Stop the "Jailhouse lawyering".... WINLINK IS LEGAL .. Period"
Any system, protocol, device, or transmitter can be used
for both legal and illegal means. It is the end result that
matters, that is, the intent and conduct of the person
using the technology and how the current Rules
regulate that conduct. If WINLINK is used within the rules,
then fine. If WINLINK, like any other digital mode, is used
to violate the rules, then sanctions are available against
the violator, not the technology.
I will agree to stop any "Jailhouse lawyering" if you will agree to stop any "Jailhouse engineering". *WINK*
Respectfully,
Mike Watkins, Esq.
Attorney at Law
N4TQV
WA0LYK
12-16-2004, 12:59 AM
My problem with "robots" regardless of whether they use Pactor or SCAMP is that the robot will never listen to see if the connection request is going to interfere with a current qso.
There are two scenarios that can cause interference.
One, a person has email to send/receive but never listens to see if the frequency is clear. They just fire up the session and too bad if they cause interference.
Two, a person has email to send and does listen to see if the frequency is clear. However, due to propagation, his signal skips over my location and my signal skips over his. Propagation may even be such that the person listening can hear neirther me nor the person I am in qso with. Consequently, the frequency sounds clear at that moment in time. However, because the robot doesn't listem, it just sets up the connection and if propagation is right the robot just knocks my qso off the air. And because it is a robot, I have no way to interrupt it and let it know.
The justification that one end of a winlink connection listening to a frequency will prevent interference just isn't true, especially on the higher bands, i.e. 30 meters and above. Whether Pactor or SCAMP is used, the interference potential remains the same.
Consequently, we need to look at more than just mode when designing a band plan. If either end (or both ends) of a session utilize a robot they need to be segregated to small, specific areas of a band so the interference potential to other hams is minimized.
Jim
WA0LYK
KG4ZQZ
12-16-2004, 03:13 AM
re: WinLink -
- just say 'NO!' for a number of reasons:
1. WinLink servers and clients are only for Microsoft operating systems, and as such, can be presented with serious security flaws and vulnerabilities due to the flawed architecture of the hosting platforms
2. the proprietary, binary-only hosting software adds expense to a system
3. use of WinLink helps a monopoly extend its tentacles into the emergency communications industry
4. where is the guarantee that the WinLink server and client software will remain at a no-cost level?
5. what guarantee is there that WinLink will remain compatible with current and future platforms?
6. where are the cross-platform server variants? why only for Micro$oft?
7. where is the source code for the system? if WinLink is so valuable to Amateur Radio, why isn't the source code made available? before using *any* software, and *especially* for emergency communications, i'd want to see the source...
- i'll NEVER support, recommend or use 'Win' anything!
- just my $0.02
Quote[/b] ]6. where are the cross-platform server variants? why only for Micro$oft?
7. where is the source code for the system? if WinLink is so valuable to Amateur Radio, why isn't the source code made available? before using *any* software, and *especially* for emergency communications, i'd want to see the source...
- i'll NEVER support, recommend or use 'Win' anything!
No bias here?
Everyone, it seems, has a blind side.
I suggest reading about and actually trying Winlink before forming an opinion based on someone else's emotional venom.
Even if you are a Linux fan you will find a welcome with Winlink. Few people check close enough to know that there is already a running Linux Telpac-like system. You can run it today, if you have the initiatiave to stop reading these posts and do something constructive. I can put you in touch with it's developer.
If you step up and volunteer to tackle a programming job, and can do it well, you might find you 'd be given all the necessary info to port an existing Winlink client program to Linux. The Winlink Development team is actively seeking programming talent to make things like you want a reality. I know that for a fact! To date, no one has stepped forward. That's all it will take!
So why the attitude?
Lor W3QA
N5PVL
12-16-2004, 05:40 AM
W3QA says:
Quote[/b] ]
No bias here?
If you are having trouble finding bias here, you must not be looking very hard!
...Or did somebody actually suggest that there was no bias here? - I can't imagine that. I've heard some real whoppers here at QRZ, but nothing that radical.
Charles, #N5PVL
KG4ZQZ
12-16-2004, 12:16 PM
Quote[/b] (W3QA @ Dec. 16 2004,00:51)]Quote[/b] ]6. where are the cross-platform server variants? why only for Micro$oft?
7. where is the source code for the system? if WinLink is so valuable to Amateur Radio, why isn't the source code made available? before using *any* software, and *especially* for emergency communications, i'd want to see the source...
- i'll NEVER support, recommend or use 'Win' anything!
No bias here?
Everyone, it seems, has a blind side.
I suggest reading about and actually trying Winlink before forming an opinion based on someone else's emotional venom.
Even if you are a Linux fan you will find a welcome with Winlink. Few people check close enough to know that there is already a running Linux Telpac-like system. You can run it today, if you have the initiatiave to stop reading these posts and do something constructive. I can put you in touch with it's developer.
If you step up and volunteer to tackle a programming job, and can do it well, you might find you 'd be given all the necessary info to port an existing Winlink client program to Linux. The Winlink Development team is actively seeking programming talent to make things like you want a reality. I know that for a fact! To date, no one has stepped forward. That's all it will take!
So why the attitude?
Lor W3QA
- no, i'll *never* try WinLink on a M$ platform - ever!
- however, i do stand corrected - at least from what i've been able to gather is that current efforts aimed at porting functionality of the server to a Linux-based host have petered out (probably why there is no link to any Linux project on the winlink.org home page)...
- a full port, it would seem, would be no trivial project as the existing software is written in VB with M$ .NET extensions (AFAIK)?
- if the WinLink folks would post a link to current source, old or current related projects, or other internal documentation, perhaps some Linux-focused hams would be encouraged to take part? i don't see any such link on the winlink page (pardon the pun)...
- btw, refusing to use any M$ software is not 'emotional venom,' just common sense... there's no reason to use proprietary, binary-only software anymore for embedded, server, or desktop operations...
- "So why the attitude?": [sigh] i'm afraid that bridging that gap would push this news thread *way* off-topic and fill too many pages of responses...
- thanks for the info... if you run across any URLs i'd be happy to look at 'em...
ke0vh
12-16-2004, 02:41 PM
Very glad to hear of the possibility of an email use without having to spend tons of money I don't have. The interface is easy to the soundcard, have built several. My plans are at http://www.hamuniverse.com/ke0vhproject.html complete with pictures and schematic. Adaptable to all configurations. If you have questions feel free to email me at ke0vh@qsl.net.
I will be using this system if it becomes usable. Thanks to both the WinLink folks for the time and effort and all others who can make the over the air email happen using the soundcard. I see no reason to be critical of either groups. I guess some folks just need to complain.
73'
KEØVH
www.qsl.net/ke0vh
K0RGR
12-16-2004, 07:49 PM
This all sounds like progress to me.
When the smoke settles, let's next argue about where to put digital voice, and suggest some standard 'channels' to eliminate the problems with tuning it in.
KN6KB
12-16-2004, 07:51 PM
[quote=W3QA,Dec. 16 2004,00:51][QUOTE=Quote ]6. where are the cross-platform server variants? why only for Micro$oft?
OK KC4ZQZ time to put up or shut up!
The SCAMP protocol which this thread is supposed to be about (vs your rant about MS, Windows, Winlink etc) is attached and available at the winlink.org web site. The RDFT encoder/decoder programs needed are available via GNU/GPL for both Windows and Linux with source (links in the spec). With that spec and those programs you can develop your own Linux SCAMP client/server and give it to the Ham community (please support it too). That client will be compatible with other SCAMP clients (Linux, Windows, MAC or ?) provided you follow the specs. If you promise not to preach to me about Linux I'll even offer to help you if you get stuck on the required DSP processing or spec interpretation. I am sure since the Linux development tools are so superior to .NET you should be able to whip this out in a few weeks (at least you have the blueprint to follow...I did not).
The ball is in your court.
73,
Rick Muething KN6KB
OK KC4ZQZ time to put up or shut up!
The SCAMP protocol which this thread is supposed to be about (vs your rant about MS, Windows, Winlink etc) is attached and available at the winlink.org web site. The RDFT encoder/decoder programs needed are available via GNU/GPL for both Windows and Linux with source (links in the spec). With that spec and those programs you can develop your own Linux SCAMP client/server and give it to the Ham community (please support it too). That client will be compatible with other SCAMP clients (Linux, Windows, MAC or ?) provided you follow the specs. If you promise not to preach to me about Linux I'll even offer to help you if you get stuck on the required DSP processing or spec interpretation. I am sure since the Linux development tools are so superior to .NET you should be able to whip this out in a few weeks (at least you have the blueprint to follow...I did not).
The ball is in your court.
73,
Rick Muething KN6KB
Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 15 2004,10:26)]K4FJ says:
Quote[/b] ]
I'm glad to hear about SCAMP. #WinLink is too expensive for me as I am retired and on "fixed income". # However, if it works out, I will be using it on my sailboat. #And what's wrong with that?
The story I keep hearing about sailboat stations using wide digital modes is that they end up being like alligators... Big mouth but no ears. - It has something to do with sailboat antenna systems, no doubt.
Charles, #N5PVL
Actually, my little bit of experience with HF on my sailboat showed the exact opposite. With an insulated backstay (the most common antenna), I can hear quite a lot, but it is not an especially effective radiator. It is, after all, just an untuned long wire. More of a rabbit than an alligator. My reading in the sailing magazines shows similar experience for others.
However, I do prefer narrower band modes, and especially like PSK31 for that reason, among others. But I am searching for a way to send and receive email when afloat. Haven't been able to link up to anything yet.
KG4ZQZ
12-16-2004, 11:06 PM
Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Dec. 16 2004,15:49)]This all sounds like progress to me.
When the smoke settles, let's next argue about where to put digital voice, and suggest some standard 'channels' to eliminate the problems with tuning it in.
- that's another issue as well from what i understand...
- what will we end up with? digital, CW, phone portions of the band?
- btw, i've taken a look at the SCAMP specs (which look very interesting, up-to-date [today!]... and good news to be available - thanks!)... however, i can see why open source development efforts may have stumbled at this point...
- also, i wonder how well the busy detector works in current implementations?
- oh, and to KN6KB: thanks for the .pdf!
k4set
12-17-2004, 06:13 AM
Hello all,
Quote[/b] ]SCAMP alpha testers reveal a cross section of people that include ..... an amateur with worldwide religious ministries...
Guess this refers to me, but I'm afraid the research is lacking and the wording misleading. RadioMinistries is a non-profit non-denominational organization. I run this “worldwide religious ministry” out of my garage. All involved are unpaid volunteers. We provide amateur radio equipment to dedicated individuals and groups serving in remote locations around the world (I guess that’s what is being referred to). They use Winlink to help save lives (physically and spiritually), by providing critical medical services, famine relief, education, and many other critical and life changing services to the poor and needy. Winlink 2000 has been a life saver for many missionaries and secular humanitarian efforts.
SCAMP is showing tremendous potential. Congratulations to Rick (KN6KB) on what looks to be a fantastic new mode with the potential to revolutionize HF radio E-mail.
Quote[/b] ]They [SCAMP Alpha Testers] include Mr. Muething, Mr. Poor, and Steve Waterman all of WinLink fame. In essence, the same alleged "well heeled" group supporting WinLink are supporting SCAMP.
Some who use Winlink have money, just like some who use CW have money. What is being suggested by these kinds of "well heeled" group statements? It sounds like a simple “straw man” argument (set them up so you can knock them down). Fine, but why is this even mentioned in the context of a SCAMP discussion when the object of SCAMP is to bring the cost of state of the art digital communications down to the point where anyone with a decent radio, relatively recent computer, and a simple soundcard interface can take advantage of it? Thankfully “well heeled” talented individuals do have a place and interest in this hobby. Take a look at your shack and evaluate what you would have left to put on-the-air if money was not part of inventing, designing, developing, and manufacturing. Furthermore, Winlink, while well supported with talent and dedication, is not about profiting anyone other than its users and those they serve.
Quote[/b] ]Scamp is another Bandwidth hog. According to the information available it can use up to 2 KHz.
The effectiveness of various digital modes should take into consideration their function, and the efficiency should be measured in terms of the error free data transferred in comparison with the band width they occupy over time (spectral efficiency). Yes, Pactor III is wide, but no wider than SSB phone, and it has extremely high spectral efficiency. SCAMP looks to be somewhere between Pactor II and III in speed, and I suspect a little under Pactor II or III in spectral efficiency (we are still collecting that data). SCAMP will be significantly cheaper to implement than Pactor II or III. By contrast, PSK31 is extremely narrow in bandwidth, but it is not at all efficient in terms of data transferred per bandwidth over time (and it’s not error free either). Judged by those criteria, it is PSK31 that is the “bandwidth hog”, but PSK31 has fantastic efficiency when used as it was designed (keyboard to keyboard). #Please, let’s evaluate the effectiveness of the various digital modes based on relevant criteria that fit the objectives they are designed and used for.
More and more ARES operators are implementing Winlink capability into their operations. Others are using it in third world countries to help those that are starving to death, dying due to the lack of simple medical attention, or just need to hear that there is hope, and that someone loves and cares for them. Sure, many sailors and RVers are using Winlink to stay in touch with family and friends while away from conventional communications, but I fail to see why that is a less deserving use of spectrum than an SSB, PSK31, RTTY, CW, or some other ragchew or contest QSO.
Amateur radio is a great hobby. We all have a place in it, and my hope is that with good planning we can all co-exist and support one another for the common good. We should all strive to find new ways to make the most effective use of our available spectrum. SCAMP looks to be a fantastic way to do just that. Programmers like Rick and Vic, and dedicated individuals like Steve should all be congratulated. Their efforts provide the tools we need to provide the effective emergency digital communications that we are now mandated to provide by the FCC. We can use this capability to defend our spectrum. Winlink is a tremendous tool for the good of humanity. #Oh, I almost forgot, it’s also great fun to use!
Critics of SCAMP, Pactor, or Winlink 2000 should consider evaluating their motives and offer viable alternatives that are effective at moving error free data efficiently. We would all be listening then!
73 and 75, Scott, K4SET, Director, RadioMinistries
Thanks K4SET for a well written response. Just the type I would like to write if I were smart enough!
Again, Thanks to Rick and Steve and Jim and all the other great folks working on the winlink/airmail stuff. They are working and providing much good to the ham's in general of the world - all at their own expense.
73 de Ken H >
K9FV
N5PVL
12-17-2004, 02:02 PM
K4SET says:
Quote[/b] ]
Critics of SCAMP, Pactor, or Winlink 2000 should consider evaluating their motives and offer viable alternatives that are effective at moving error free data efficiently. We would all be listening then!
Now we are back to the old W2LK fallback tactic - character assassination.
Critics of W2LK etc. "should consider evaluating their motives" following some unspoken assumption, I presume, that anybody who might criticise W2LK or any aspect of it must being doing so from "bad motives".
Apparently Scott has no hesitation or shame about issuing a blanket condemnation of the character of anyone who has questions or criticisms in connection with the W2LK stuff.
Can't say I'm surprised at Scott's behavior. - It's par for the course, with the folks he has elected to run with.
When the facts do not back up their arguements, there's always underhanded insinuations about other folks' character if they dare to disagree.
Should we all practice a coordinated goose-step for W2LK?
I don't think so... Let's get our perspective in order here:
Proponents of W2LK have been caught red-handed attempting to hijack the ARRL's bandwidth segmentation proposal to further their personal ambitions, as opposed to what would be in the best interest of the hobby.
While they were doing so, much better men than anyone associated with W2LK were browbeaten and harassed until one left the committee in protest while the other wrote a dissenting finding in protest - which was suppressed by the W2LK folks through means of a threatened lawsuit.
When this misbehavior came to light, the bandwidth segmentation proposal was then suspect, and sure enough, upon inspection it turned out to be riddled with W2LK specific junk that had to be "Rathered" out of the document by participants here on QRZ, along with others at eHam and HamBlog.
Some of the motivation behind this heavy-handed, inappropriate behavior must have been the attempted spectrum-grab that would have put wide-mode digital signals all over the phone band, and the lowlife, mean-spirited attempt to make networked ham radio on HF illegal. - An attempt to eliminate "the competition" by underhanded means rather than to simply compete, as common decency and spirit of our hobby call for.
Decent people would hang their heads in shame after getting caught at such obviously underhanded and unworthy behavior in association with the highest levels of our hobby's organization. - But not the W2LK folks!
Their response is to initiate a character assasination campaigne against anyone who might further question their activities, or who had done so in the past.
Critics of W2LK etc. "should consider evaluating their motives" my hiney.
I've got another idea as to who should be re-examining their motives in this issue, and I am not by any means alone in this.
Does anybody think the ARRL is happy about their bandwidth segmentation proposal being hijacked and undermined through the avarice, sick need to "control", and anti-ham attitude of the W2LK group?
I don't think so.
There are technical issues at question here, and there are also questions of impropriety, and how much of it should be tolerated when we work together as hams.
Charles Brabham, #N5PVL
Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Administrator: #HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)
Quote[/b] ] RadioMinistries is a non-profit non-denominational organization. I run this “worldwide religious ministry” out of my garage. All involved are unpaid volunteers. We provide amateur radio equipment to dedicated individuals and groups serving in remote locations around the world (I guess that’s what is being referred to). They use Winlink to help save lives (physically and spiritually), by providing critical medical services, famine relief, education, and many other critical and life changing services to the poor and needy. Winlink 2000 has been a life saver for many missionaries and secular humanitarian efforts.
First, congratulations on a great idea for doing service to people everywhere through communications. You obviously refer to my statement:
Quote[/b] ]..the same alleged "well heeled" group supporting WinLink are supporting SCAMP.
The statement in the Article reports the "alleged" nature of the financial status of the proponents of WinLink by some Amateurs here. Feel free to read the other chains of messages in the news section. At no time do I personally make such an allegation.
You also seem to miss the point reported that SCAMP appears solve many of the objections to WinLink. The context of the article is that reaction to the AdHoc Committee and the conduct of some members has several ARRL Members (including me) concerned to the point of questioning the motivation of its members. Much pixel time has gone here to pointing out how bad WinLink is, while my main concern has always been the conduct of the Ad Hoc members. It may be nothing more than misplaced enthusiasm for a software program with alot of potential.
What we see is a committee not charged to develop a bandwidth based bandplan doing so. We see actions bordering on misconduct on the ad hoc committee whereby those remaining (after two resignations) to push the bandplan are WinLink developers/proponents as well. WinLink use stands to gain alot from the bandplan. What reasonable person would not want to ask questions about that?
Although I feel this way, the SCAMP article was done to show that many of the objections to WinLink were based on using the Pactor modems. SCAMP could change that. And what could change more attitudes is for Victor Poor to come onto QRZ here and address the actions of the ad hoc committee. Personally, I want to hear the other side of the story. Will that be easy? No. There are alot of pretty angry folks here, but I can promise him that I would be glad to discuss the issue with him here without rancor.
Anyway, what's really interesting is that we get an organized response from you guys on SCAMP, which most of us think will be a plus for Amateur Radio, yet not a word from the ad hoc members on the root issue. Trust.
N5PVL
12-17-2004, 11:49 PM
AG4YO says:
Quote[/b] ]
Anyway, what's really interesting is that we get an organized response from you guys on SCAMP, which most of us think will be a plus for Amateur Radio, yet not a word from the ad hoc members on the root issue. Trust.
As far as SCAMP goes, my feeling is that if we are having an interference problem now with 900 dollar modems - then what can we expect to happen when wide-mode operation becomes effectively free?
SCAMP will save a few hams some money while it starts an on-the-air turf war such as we have never seen. All of the ARRL hype over SCAMP guarantees it.
The ARRL's wisdom in this matter will also guarantee wide-scale disallusionment ( again! ) within the rank 'n file when they find out that it is almost impossible to operate wide digital modes like SCAMP outside of a protected autoforwarding sub-band without repeatedly causing interference.
There's good stewardship of our bands, for you... We have an interference problem with wide-mode digital stations - so let's find a way to make wide-mode digital stations cheaper and more popular, so we can increase the number of them on the air by an order of magnitude - or two.
Hey, let's see if we can get the ARRL to get behind this clever plan and push! - A wide-mode digital setup in every shack! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Better yet! - How about pushing for a national network plan that calls for hundreds more wide-mode digital stations now!
Yes, that must be the kind of forward thinking we really need, to get this interference problem handled responsibly and intelligently. - Proving beyond doubt the fitness of our stewardship of the valuable spectrum we are entrusted with.
I normally do not fall into sarcasm like this, but the mistakes being made right now are obvious mistakes, old mistakes that have hurt digital ham radio repeatedly in the past. Sooner or later we are going to have to learn that you just can't fool mother nature - and there are no exceptions to the laws of physics no matter how convenient that might be.
As far as ever trusting this group whose unseemly antics and unrepenting attitude we have been discussing for some while now #- #Surely you must be joking!
All you will accomplish by calling for them to explain themselves will be to bring up another arrogant proclamation or two of their official line of horse-hockey and when you don't go for that, we will be back on the character assassination go-round again.
You put in your two cents though - so I guess you are entitled to your ride! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Charles Brabham, #N5PVL
Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Administrator: #HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)
n6kzb
12-18-2004, 04:57 PM
If you folks are going to post and and have the fun you desire, then some clarification is in order:
WinLink 2000: It is a software program that offers a client server relationship. The BBS software can use many data modes, Packet, Pactor, Clover, Gtor, even Telnet.
A Winlink BBS does not initate a HF connect, it has to be connected to, then it responds.
The suggested client software is AirMail, (free), and can use many data modes. It will do peer to peer, that is two AirMail stations can connect and send error free messages, with files, over whatever modem you wish to use. (No WinLink BBS even used).
WinLink is not a bandwidth issue, the mode you choose to use is. It does not go into robot" mode like the HF Packet and Clover BBS's do for forwarding on HF. Or like all the FM packet BBS's do all day long.
The desired HF data mode is Pactor 3, because HF packet, and the rest do not maintain the connect over the long haul, nor operate well in low signal areas.
A WinLink BBS can be set up to use 1200/9600 baud packet radio, for local use, or interface into a areas packet radio system. (Again you have to connect to it first).
There is a "suite" of various software applications to assist you in your use or system desires.
Telpac: Offers a gateway from the packet ax.25 world to a telnet port of a WinLink BBS.
PacLink: Offers an interface from your computers email program to send messages over packet radio.
AGWPro: Offers an interface so you can use souncards along with your packet radio TNC.
SCAMP: Being developed to offer an HF/VHF error free protocol and capabilities to your sound card, that can interface to a WinLink BBS, or peer to peer. Boy does it work well on a VHF/UHF #radio, (that may see as much use as HF).
I can see by the majority of the posts, that emotions run high, with little fact or alternatives being offered.
Relax, the sky is not falling, and you may enjoy your hobby, as progress is moving forward, and there is more to come. Some feel that what has occured with WinLink, and all the applications that abound because of its years of tremendous results, offer a great solution to emeregency messaging.
Like the Porsche commercial....."nothing even comes close"..
www.rivcoraces.org
KG4ZQZ
12-18-2004, 08:16 PM
Quote[/b] (n6kzb @ Dec. 18 2004,12:57)]The desired HF data mode is Pactor 3, because HF packet, and the rest do not maintain the connect over the long haul, nor operate well in low signal areas.
- pls correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't Pactor 2 & 3 modes proprietary - unlike Pactor 1? does this mean a lock-in on either a single source of enabling hardware or use of licensed hardware?
I agree with those who are rightfully unhappy with selfish Hams who crank up digital transmissions on top of existing QSO's, who ignore gentleman's agreements as to the reasonable division of the bands and carelessly squat wherever they please no matter the harm to fellow Hams, and who misuse Ham bands for mariner-specific communications for which purpose bandwidth exists elsewhere.
I agree that SCAMP appears to be the platform-neutral public domain solution to the costly, proprietary, and platform-specific Pactor III.
I believe that the inevitable requirement in the near-term future (with or without Pactor III or SCAMP) is a re-division of the band assignments because digital modes are here and are not going away and the lack of modern-mode band segments is fostering chaos and disharmony in the hobby.
As for the bandwidth used by SCAMP it is nothing compared to HiFi/Wideband SSB and AM and the FCC has already refused to act to limit that except to say they'd rule on a case-by-case interference basis.
All Hams should be offered several new bandplan options and given the opportunity to vote as to which they prefer. Whatever is adopted is what licensed Hams have chosen and the issue should be closed -- until such an action is taken anything else that is done will be open to questions of legitimacy.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
73 & a blessed Christmas to all,
doc kd4e
Former ARRL-SEC, current FL3-DMAT member, Certified CISM Debriefing Specialist, former NH office of emergency Management employee, SkyWarn, etc, etc, etc. I care and am flexible about options to get the job done without destroying the hobby -- still lots of under-utilized HF bandwidth out there!
ve3gfw
12-19-2004, 04:24 AM
The infamous Nazi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, said that "If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, it becomes the truth"...Somehow much of what I have been reading alleging impropieties of the "Ad Hoc Committee" seems to fail into this category..
As I was not a member of any of the committees and had no personal involvement in any of these matters. I decided to do some independent research into the allegations.
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 17 2004,08:52)]..... The context of the article is that reaction to the AdHoc Committee and the conduct of some members has several ARRL Members (including me) concerned to the point of questioning the motivation of its members. ............while my main concern has always been the conduct of the Ad Hoc members. ..........
What we see is a committee not charged to develop a bandwidth based bandplan doing so. We see actions bordering on misconduct on the ad hoc committee whereby those remaining (after two resignations) to push the bandplan are WinLink developers/proponents as well.........
For those, who like Goebbels, keep referring to the long retired ad-hoc Digital committee, here is what I have found:
1. Opponents of the ARRL band plan seem to think that this committee is still in service. It is NOT. It has been retired since March of 2003.
2. Their recommendations went to another ARRL committee called the Volunteer Resources committee, who endorsed the majority recommendation.
3. The ARRL staff and the ARRL Board of Directors again endorsed it.
4. It is being alleged that this committee had much influence over the ARRL BOD
decision to propose their final band plan. It did not.
5. It was also alleged that it was "stacked with Winlink people." Fact is that there were two such people with an active involvement in the development of Winlink 2000, and their participation on this committee was at the invitation of the ARRL.
6. There were also two committee members on this ad-hoc Digital committee from the TAPR Board of Directors. Stan Horzelpa, WA1LOU, who writes the Digital Column in QST, and Mel Whitten, K0PFX, who may be seen in December QST, page 26, endorsing a digital voice product which also uses a wideband protocol.
So much for Goebbels allegations of the "Winlink 2000 railroad job." It’s plainly not true.
But, the band plan is not about Winlink 2000 or TAPR current interests. It is about providing enough space in the Amateur spectrum for the development of new data transfer protocols, including voice, data or image.
I., for example, would like to send images using MFSK. In many countries (such as Canada) where bands are regulated by bandwidth rather than content (mode), since MFSK uses only 300Hz this is possible in the “digital bands”. In the USA, where currently I reside and where we still have archaic content (mode) regulation, my MFSK signals carrying images are restricted to the voice bands even though they are only 300Hz wide. Realistically such restrictive regulations greatly impede the progress of US amateur experimentation. After all, our lives are filled with digital devices, and those who would like to see Amateur radio progress, would like to see more of it there, too. See http://winlink.org/future.htm and the statement just made recently in the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004 denying the petition for the deletion of (very) wideband HI0FI SSB and AM.
"4. Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to "reallocate" the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor."
In other words, the FCC is no longer interested in micromanaging the Amateur bands by regulatory means. However, I can see how such a statement may threaten older technologies. Fact is, that if any new technology does nothing to enhance everyday operations, it will die without attacks from those who are threatened.
In addition, the necessity to keep up with emergency communications demand in the 21st century has become an issue with the ARRL, and rightfully so. So, now there is an Amateur Radio digital system (Winlink) that will allow de facto email to be sent from the email programs normally used on the desktop computers of those in their workplace offices, seamlessly, without invasive software, and through the use of Amateur radio. Should a mail server go down or an Internet link be lost during a disaster, Amateur radio now has another tool in its toolkit to add some value to community agencies who deploy it, both on HF and VHF/UHF Packet. Tactical addresses may be assigned and sent through a control operator oriented station. Email hubbing may take place without any Internet connectivity whatsoever. Again, if it is of no value, it will not be deployed and die a natural death.
It is interesting to note that those who seem to generate the most vociferous complaints and resort to Goebbel’s like insinuations against the character of those they opposed never seem to have anything positive to suggest…They do not propose practical alternative solutions or systems. Yes, I have seen some less than practical suggestions that we regurgitate obsolete, 300 Baud HF Packet for EMCOMM…But nobody takes these suggestions seriously when systems Winlink are already using protocols that are more than 10 times faster. So their only recourse seems to be to attack through Goebbel’s like character insinuations against the people who are developing systems such as Winlink 2000, or protocols such as SCAMP. or any organization which attempts to propose a flexible schema for developmental change.
I have been a ham long enough to remember the wars between SSB and AM on HF and later FM and AM on VHF. Much of the same Goebbels Character Assassinations tactics were used by the AM proponents… They made the same suggestions about placing SSB in a separate narrow sub-band because of their inability to copy the identifications.
They attempted to assassinate the character of those who proposed its use
and those who did the actual development. What would have happened if SSB
had been placed in some narrow sub-band spectrum, and how long would it have
taken to undo such regulation? Needless to say the Luddites lost then and they will lose this time as well….
My suggestion to those who are upset with the present systems and processes supporting them is to propose an alternative system and process to implement it. This is much more productive than what I am seeing now. The world is always waiting for another 100 percent error correcting data transfer protocol and system to deploy it. In fact, if you could come up with a faster, smaller bandwidth protocol than SCAMP, I am sure the Winlink Development Team would embrace it…
So in summary…. this Goebbels allegation of Winlink conspiracy theory about the mysterious “Ad Hoc Committee” is just.. Nonsense…
Lets not waste our time talking about it further… or pandering to the egos of those who do…
Quote[/b] ]As I was not a member of any of the committees and had no personal involvement in any of these matters...
Quote[/b] ]So in summary…. this Goebbels allegation of Winlink conspiracy theory about the mysterious “Ad Hoc Committee” is just.. Nonsense…
Nice try at obfuscation. I have heard from both of the members of the Committee who resigned and know what went on. Yes we know the committee is no longer together, a nice try at misdirection, though. It matters little whether they are, it still does not change what happened. Who was on the committee and what their leanings were have been discussed here on the previous post concerning the ARRL Bandwidth Bandplan proposal. Their actions go toward motive for what they attempt to foist on us all.
Quote[/b] ]Lets not waste our time talking about it further… or pandering to the egos of those who do…
Actually the subject had about died until you and your buddies came over and decided to defend the honor of WinLink. Since I actually think SCAMP is a neat thing, and the original article said that using SCAMP removes most objections to WinLink, that leaves one motive for you and your friends. Instead of discussing what happened on the committee and helping us all understand the other side of the story, the choice is to wage a name calling campaign. Personally, I hope the folks who read your message know you are an alpha tester for SCAMP and therefore knee deep in the WinLink crowd.
I hope Amateurs who read this can do as I try to do, honestly appreciate the potential of SCAMP while ignoring the people involved. You don't make it easy.
As someone who is part Jewish, I will let the Goebbels reference go.
ve3gfw
12-19-2004, 07:34 AM
[QUOTE=Quote ]
As someone who is part Jewish, I will let the Goebbels reference go.
As one who is 100% Jewish I stick by the Goebbels reference and in fact use it to emphatically describe my disgust with this constant baseless diabtribe against the character of the Winlink Development Team (WDT) members.
As per my first post on this topic, I was proud to be asked to be included as an Alpha Tester of SCAMP. From my experience with the WDT, they clearly are working very hard for the best interests of Amateur Radio. This constant barrage of baseless rhetoric against their character does not in any way enhance your case. Is not the repetition of untruths, the technique pioneered by Goebbels?
Yes the bandwidth proposals are not perfect. We in the USA seem to believe that the world revolves around us... it doesn't.... Many countries have already instituted bandwidth rather than content (mode) based regulation. Open your eyes..Look around.... it's already working...
So why don't you stop wasting everyone's time harping back to some nonsensical point about a defunct "ad hoc" committee..
_
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
N5PVL
12-19-2004, 11:05 AM
N5PVL Said:
Quote[/b] ]
All you will accomplish by calling for them to explain themselves will be to bring up another arrogant proclamation or two of their official line of horse-hockey and when you don't go for that, we will be back on the character assassination go-round again.
- And by the time half a dozen posts had gone by, all had happened exactly as I predicted.
I didn't need a crystal ball to predict the behavior of the W2LK folks. - All I had to do was to observe their behavior over the last few months, and describe what I had already seen them do - repeatedly - in situations where amateurs questioned their activities.
They couldn't just summarily ban amateurs who ask questions from QRZ as they do on their Yahoo group, which left them the #"Proclamation followed by character assassination" routine.
It's all part and parcel to the arrogant bullying we saw them bring to the ARRL's ad hoc committee on bandwidth segmentation.
I'll leave readers here to draw their own conclusions about a group whose inappropriate behavior is so deeply ingrained that it has become easy to predict.
The new sneakers are great! - but does it bother you that they were manufactured by children in slave-labor sweatshops under ghastly, inhumane conditions?
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)
KG4ZQZ
12-19-2004, 02:46 PM
Quote[/b] (ve3gfw @ Dec. 19 2004,03:34)]As one who is 100% Jewish I stick by the Goebbels reference and in fact use it to emphatically describe my disgust with this constant baseless diabtribe against the character of the Winlink Development Team (WDT) members.
- whoa! i certainly hope you're not talking about me!
- i appreciate the open specs and docs sent by the author... i certainly didn't mean to piss in anyone's cornflakes... but my questions and observations were concerning the architecture, hosting platform, future plans, and licensing... at no time did i question the motive, character, or talent of the developers...
(although some folks get real touchy, don't they?)
:-)
- as a hobbyist programmer, i can appreciate the talents of highly skilled and knowledgable software engineers... i'm always willing to learn, but will remain steadfast in my conviction concerning the benefits of free software.. see:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- i'd really like to see a good discussion on how new digital modes will be able to accommodate existing modes - hams like to use different modes and the more modes that can co-exist the better?
p.s. the Goebbels reference is heinous and only serves to incite, don't you think?
Quote[/b] ]As one who is 100% Jewish I stick by the Goebbels reference and in fact use it to emphatically describe my disgust with this constant baseless diabtribe against the character of the Winlink Development Team (WDT) members.
So you equate a man who is mostly responsible for the death of millions of Jews, for torture, rape and murder with a few comments bringing into question the motives/actions of the WinLink team members on the former Ad Hoc Committee? That's really sad, Howard.
Quote[/b] ] From my experience with the WDT, they clearly are working very hard for the best interests of Amateur Radio. This constant barrage of baseless rhetoric against their character does not in any way enhance your case. Is not the repetition of untruths, the technique pioneered by Goebbels?
They may have the best interests of Amateurs in mind, but again your statement is obfuscation. The issue is their conduct on the Ad Hoc Committee and our information source is from members of the committee. And this too is relative as we have heard only one side of the story. So as not to rehash old info, you need to go back and read all the bandwidth proposal news items here on QRZ. You will see that the issue is with their ACTIONS, not character. What reflects more on character are your actions here and those of others who have ignored what is actually being said and appeared on QRZ with a contrived righteous indignation. Again on the Goebbels, I'll leave you to your melodrama.
Quote[/b] ]Yes the bandwidth proposals are not perfect. We in the USA seem to believe that the world revolves around us... it doesn't.... Many countries have already instituted bandwidth rather than content (mode) based regulation. Open your eyes..Look around.... it's already working...
Howard, this is your opinion and I respect your right to share it. But there are hundreds of thousands of other US Amateurs who deserve an opinion too. Some will agree with you and past history says most will not. Digital users represent well under 10% of all users...more like 5%. Yet you and the committee want to foist your views on the other 95% of us? I want to see any product like Winlink, SCAMP, Digipan, and any others have bandwidth to experiment and grow. But we have a responsibility to look closely at new products to see how well they work with existing voice, data and CW users. Some here have made the point that WinLink using SCAMP or Pactor will be a bad neighbor to voice. Others (including myself) feel that a bandwidth proposal will hurt other legacy modes like CW by insidiously crowing them out. Some people seem not to care about this. They appear to be filled with the WinLink/SCAMP zeal and want the world to lie down at their feet (my turn for melodrama).
You guys have a good product, it appears. Hopefully many Amateurs will see past the ill will you guys have churned up and use the heck out of SCAMP. Nobody is responsible for negative feelings but the people who perpetrated their actions on us, and those that show up here to defend them. I acknowledge that we only heard one side of the story. Mr. Poor is welcomed to come here and tell his. Hopefully sans the attitude.
ve3gfw
12-19-2004, 05:20 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2004,09:11)]
So you equate a man who is mostly responsible for the death of millions of Jews, for torture, rape and murder with a few comments bringing into question the motives/actions of the WinLink team members on the former Ad Hoc Committee? #That's really sad, Howard.
.
If you remember history and the context of my quote, the Goebbels reference was to the mechanisms he used of "telling a lie loud enough and long enough that it became the truth".
While Goebbels himself was Minister of Propaganda...I do not believe that History has credited him with being "mostly responsible"... I would suggest that Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler own that particular heinous title...If you wish to ascribe other more sinister connotations to your comments, that's your perogative...
It's not my opinion that Bandwidth Based Regulation works in the rest of the world...its a fact..
A very good example of the harm the current Content (Mode) Based regulation causes can be found with the development of image transfer using MFSK in Mixw2 last year. A new technology was invented in the Ukraine.. Amateurs all around the world where they had bandwidth based regulation were able to experiment with the mode. However, we in the USA still lived with archaic Content (Mode) based regulation and could not participate unless we transitioned up into the Phone bands.. where were are not wanted..and should not be...so our experimentation was severly restricted...at best and the US continued to fall behind the technological curve because of excessive regulation...
If you look at history and want to look at other harm... you can start tracing the decline of the US RF electronics industry with the introduction of "Incentive Licencing"... over regulation imposed by the government (with the idiotic assistance of the ARRL) made it more difficult to become a ham...I am an Engineer who taught engineering students during that period..so I have some emperical observations... when they increased the code requirements.. the numbers of my Electical Engineering students who became hams dropped dramatically...and the numbers who subsequently follow a career in RF engeering dropped immediately....
Actually, I for one, believe that we can ultimately come up with digitial encoding protocals which should be able to squeeze the intelligence of the human voice into a 500 Hz digital signal.. Under current laws we cannot test such technology outside of the voice bands...
We are sitting on the cusp of the development of a myriad of new and exciting digital based communications technologies... so while a majority of QSO's are currently SSB, who has the crystal ball to say that in the next few years, digital voice might not take over...
In fact, you are probably holding a digital voice system in your hand every time you use your cell phone which are now virtually 100% digital... Take a look a CDMA voice channel which I believe can squeeze up to 20 simultaneous crystal clear conversations into one FM voice channel...lets see... 15KHz /20 = 750 Hz per conversation...and no interference...
As I will state this for one last time:
Regurgitating some nonsense from a defunct "ad hoc" committee is a waste of everyone's time...and only serves to gratify the egos of those "little people" with too much time on their hands....
You are too smart to waste your time on this...why don't you join those of us who love the experimentation .. and contribute something positive to the hobby...
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
n6kzb
12-19-2004, 07:31 PM
Wow, AG4YO and N5PVL, you do luv a good fight don't you?
By the factual posts I have seen, outnumbering the "emotional" and unfounded ones, I admit you tried to obsure the "issue", to your slant. (As if there was an "issue" to begin with). But you have lost, so time to move on.:p
Gentleman, can we all get back on to the original topic of this thread ? Please refrain from bringing religion or any other sensitive topics into the mix and definitely NO name calling. We are all adults on this website and if you feel the need to bring these things out then do so via email or private messenger. Thank you for your consideration, if you have any questions I can be contacted at ws2l@hotmail.com
Happy Holidays to all
Dave (WS2L)
One of the Moderators at QRZ.com
Quote[/b] ] I admit you tried to obsure the "issue", to your slant. (As if there was an "issue" to begin with). But you have lost, so time to move on
When the question of motive has been answered by the former Ad Hoc committee members, Mike, then we can move on. As far as loving a good fight, you should appreciate that with the commonality of a fire service background.
Quote[/b] ]While Goebbels himself was Minister of Propaganda...I do not believe that History has credited him with being "mostly responsible"... I would suggest that Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler own that particular heinous title...If you wish to ascribe other more sinister connotations to your comments, that's your perogative...
The Goebbels conotations are yours, Howard. You can drag that through the mud as long as you like. LOL
Quote[/b] ]However, we in the USA still lived with archaic Content (Mode) based regulation and could not participate unless we transitioned up into the Phone bands.. where were are not wanted..and should not be...so our experimentation was severly restricted...at best and the US continued to fall behind the technological curve because of excessive regulation...
Howard, you seem to forget a majority of Amateurs here want things the way they are. Inherent in our desire to explore motives is the "rule the world" nature of digital proponents. People on the committee tried to stand up to this notion and were pushed aside. Whether they were one or two people, they represented alot of our feelings and desires. Most of us agree that digital HAS to have room to grow but we simply want to compromise to allow us all to move forward together. Most of us want digital to be its own "mode" and allowed space in the gentlemen's agreement for the bandplan to flourish. We see your side as very unyeilding and domineering. This was reported as conduct in the Ad Hoc Committee and is pretty evident in your opinion. Show me how we can do what you want and ensure the other 95% of amateurs won't be trampled by digital signals. What is so hard about that to understand?
Quote[/b] ]In fact, you are probably holding a digital voice system in your hand every time you use your cell phone which are now virtually 100% digital...
LOL. Would it suprise you to know that I worked with the standards bodies participants when digital cellular was an infant? Lets just say that I am in a prominent role in the industry today. You're preaching to the choir.
Quote[/b] ]Regurgitating some nonsense from a defunct "ad hoc" committee is a waste of everyone's time...and only serves to gratify the egos of those "little people" with too much time on their hands....
As I said to Mike, when we understand the motives of those involved, motives important enough to drive out two members of the committee we can move on. Us "little people" are fellow Amateurs with opinions that count as much as those of you important folks do. Thanks for drawing a line that most regular Amateurs can identify with.
Quote[/b] ]You are too smart to waste your time on this...why don't you join those of us who love the experimentation .. and contribute something positive to the hobby...
Thanks for the compliment, but all I want out of this is to ensure we're not overrun by the zealous charge of WinLink. I think I have made it clear that I want you to experiment and grow. Does it have to be only on your terms? I hope not because you guys are behind some great products.
Quote[/b] ]Please refrain from bringing religion or any other sensitive topics into the mix and definitely NO name calling.
Dave, for my part please understand that I do not take this stuff personally. We are adults and I think we can debate the issue even a little "heatedly" without real animosity. In this instance, no harm no foul.
N5PVL
12-20-2004, 12:49 AM
AG4YO,
For my part, the question of character is only half of the merry-go-round. - I also have serious questions about the WinLink system itself as the sole HF component of a national networking system.
To me, it seems to to be a big step backwards from the networking system already in place, which uses a variety of systems/protocols and so is much more flexible. The present network is also much more robust.
You can stick a wide-mode digital modem on anything. W2LK has no monopoly there, contrary to their claims.
W2LK/ARESCOM #is also less in line with the spirit of the hobby due to its exclusive, non-cooperative nature.
Over and above the question of whether or not to entrust ourselves exclusively to the W2LK "team" or to continue to experiment in multiple directions and foster cooperation among amateurs by upgrading the present network, I have serious reservations about putting large numbers of wide-mode digital stations on the air, for any reason.
I also believe that if a new bandplan gives digital folks more spectrum, it should also give more spectrum to everybody else. As you say, "everybody else" is 95% of the ham population, or more.
Would it be off-topic to go into the nuts 'n bolts end of this here? - It would be no trouble to start a different thread, if that would be best.
Charles, #N5PVL
Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's #Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)
Charles,
I have no objection to your going into as much detail as you like.
ve3gfw
12-20-2004, 09:39 AM
Charles:
Read your bio on QRZ to try to get an understanding of where you were coming from with you visible but subtlety understated opposition to the new Bandplans….
You’re a CW guy who is concerned with losing some spectrum to the newer modes and are especially concerned about the dumbing down of Amateur Radio that somehow would result if CW were eliminated as an entry barrier.
Needless to say if you read my bio we are diametric opposites when it comes to innovation.
One thing I did not understand it is why you keep on harping back to the defunct “Ad Hoc” committee
Quote[/b] ] when we understand the motives of those involved, motives important enough to drive out two members of the committee we can move on.
From my research that I have posted here, the defunct committee is as best now ancient history and ultimately had little relevance to the band plan. #I have been on many committees. People come and go from committees all the time for all types of imagined slights or just plain immaturity when the do not get their own way. #I believe I may have had some dealings with one of the members who resigned. #If this is one and the same person, he is rather brilliant but my observations of his immaturity in dealing with another matter I was involved in would make it impossible for me to blame anyone else as being the cause of his resignation. #Ultimately it is still a dead horse and trying to revive it by blaming the two members from the WDT on the defunct committee for being the source of all-evil in the Bandplan is just plain silly.
Now lets talk about your real concern… CW and how you are afraid that it will die a death of obsolescence unless you fight any and all innovation…
CW as we all know is a pretty inefficient mode of communications. #It takes up a lot of bandwidth from the paltry amount of information it can transmit. #It is not particularly robust in noisy conditions. #Modern digital modes such as MFSK and PSK will get through with 100% copy when you can no longer even hear CW. # Yet it is a legacy mode and deserves to be preserved.
Your First Fear – Bandplan:
The new Bandplan with bandwidth rather than mode and content regulation is clearly scaring the heck out of you. #If it goes through, those modern pesky digital modes will start to take over the CW portions of the bands. #In fact, as many countries all over the world are already Bandwidth regulated, this is already happening. #The inefficiencies of CW do not play well in the digital arena. #I really do not know if I have an answer for you… Clearly CW usage is going to decline whether or not there is a new Bandplan… The digital modes are beating the heck out of it like SSB did a long time ago.. and preserving a special segment of our bands for an ever declining group of people is getting harder and harder to justify…but read onto the next point.
Your Second Fear – No Code
Your real fear is No Code licensing which scares you even more than the Bandplan because in the long run if people are not forced to learn CW, CW is going to die off. #Frankly while I do not see the death of CW as a bad thing, I think you are right. #You are already seeing the first signs of the death of CW… With more and more Silent Keys every day there are less and less people around who know it. #Most countries in the world will eliminate CW as an entry barrier or have already done so. #This means that there will be less and less DX CW operators around which will in turn cool much of the ardor for CW. #I actually believe that the death of CW is inevitable no matter what happens with the Bandplans and the No Code licenses. #It not whether or not, its just when…
I could get into an argument about both of your fears. #But I have stated my positions in previous posts and don’t need to repeat them. #Clearly I am on the exact opposite side of both issues. #
My Fear:
Ham radio is going to die. #I have always looked at the bigger picture. #Our numbers are declining and us Hams continue to do everything possible to hasten our own demise. #You were not a Ham when we had that ARRL induced Incentive Licensing Debacle, which killed the hobby for many people and definitely harmed engineering in the US. #The most recent VEC reports show that there is a steady and sharp decline of numbers of people taking tests. #Every study has shown that the major reason that people don’t become hams is the CW test. #It is just difficult to sell the idea of having to learn CW and take a test just so that you will not be forced to have to use it on the air. #Yet us Hams are doing our darndest to make sure that the USA is the only country in the world that will retain CW as a entry barrier. #Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot…
Will getting rid of the CW barrier keep Ham radio alive? #Not on its own. It will cause a small short-term resurgence in our numbers but in the long run I do not think it will be enough. #The bandwidth regulation Bandplan might also help in that it will open up the bands for new and exciting technologies and again give us resurgence in numbers. #A lot of new hams I see are coming into the hobby because of EMCOMM. #The Winlink ARESCOM proposals clearly are another major step forward to growing our numbers. #It is my hope that all three of these proposals might swell our numbers enough to preserve our hobby.. #or at least keep it relevant into the mid 21st century...
I now that you are well meaning… and you really love your CW… Unfortunately you have let your fears of the inevitable demise of CW drive you into opposing, albeit subtly, the new Bandplans and less subtly the No Codes. #The Unintended Consequence of your Opposition is a decrease in Ham population and the demise of your CW. #
I know this is counter intuitive to you but the best way for you to preserve your CW is to support actions such as the Bandplan and No Code which in the long run may be the only way we actually save ham radio so that you can still do CW..
N5PVL
12-20-2004, 11:25 AM
VE3GFW says:
Quote[/b] ]
Read your bio on QRZ to try to get an understanding of where you were coming from with you visible but subtlety understated opposition to the new Bandplans…. etc.etc. and so on, so forth.
Already back to the character assassination go-round!
Amazing how this talented individual can psychoanalyze AG4YO on the strength of his bio, here on QRZ...
If we could find another Dr. Howard and a Dr. Fine, then we could have "Dr. Howard, Dr. Howard and Dr. Fine's Internet Psychoanalysis Service."
Obviously I am just kidding about that... Where would Dr. Howard find two others who share his talent for reading between the lines of somebody's bio on an internet forum?
I forgot to warn folks here about Dr. Howard... His specialty within the W2LK group is to *attempt* to cast doubt on the sanity or relevance of W2LK victims who are still around after the "Nazi" treatment.
On the W2LK Yahoo group, Dr. Howard cast doubt as my sanity (on the basis of my bio at Yahoo, no doubt) #right after his buddy gave me the "I'm a jew and I disagree with you - so you must be a nazi" - routine.
There really is no percentage in being upset because they do the same thing to anybody who doesn't go for the party line. There's nothing personal about it, any more than there is anything decent, productive, mature or intelligent about it.
In your case, as I'm sure you noticed, Dr. Howard attempted to trivialize you on the basis of an interest in morse code.
Dr. Howard is a poster child for the kind of condescending attitude and elitist behavior that we need a lot less of in the hobby today.
Let's see... The W2LK team is headed by the underhanded fellow who threatens and bullies, backed up by the fellow who specializes in calling people Nazis ( they have another one besides Dr. Howard ) - and then of course there is the insidious Dr. Howard himself, who finds ways to trivialize people and question their sanity simply because they might disagree or question...
Quite a "team" they've got there. - Speaking of posters, I wonder if there is a poster-quality photo of this W2LK group all standing together?
Charles, #N5PVL
This character assassination thing is not necessary. We need to have reasonable debate about the needs of the new digital modes.
I'm willing to say up front that I'm a A1 user, but I do not fear the loss of my favorite mode. I'm willing to change with the times, but I will keep the flame alive. The ultimate in simplicity in communications is still 200A1 emission. The only computer required is the computer between the ears of the operator.
Major concern is that these folks see digital as a replacement for all that ails us. I suspect that they believe that we must all join the digital trend because it will, ultimately, be forced on us.
I will concede, based on the content of local communications content, that there are a number of stations planning to being using digital modes to facilitate there person communications in areas where there is little in the way of access. This will be of interest to sailors, and those in missionary work in addition to those involved in EMCOMM work.
There is still the vast majority of amateurs that are not interested in computers or digital modes. They will continue to use 2k7A3J for the forseeable future. The question then becomes how do we protect these amateurs from the interference potential of the digital users?
There is another question here to be answered. Will the FCC be interested in making the changes outlined in the proposal on the ARRL Board's agenda? It appears from the last such attempt that the FCC will only entertain something that will reduce the limitations on our community and reduces it's work load regulating our service. They would rather see us apportion our allocations in the manner employed on 160mtrs.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those responsible of these advancements in amateur communications for their hard work. As a professional technician and programmer, I'm uniquely in a position to appreciate what has been accomplished.
I think the WinLink developers need to do a better job of preparing the way for the advancement of these developments. The last thing that they should be doing is trying move this forward by plowing ahead with a plan to force the issue. I would hope that the ARRL will open this process up a bit more and encourage more participation. As a member, I will continue to present my views to my representatives.
Ken
ve3gfw
12-20-2004, 05:24 PM
It's amazing how the "Lunatic Fringe" wants you to believe that stating a fact that a person is a CW guy or that when SSB, first came out I was a SSB guy, or when FM first came out I was a FM guy, or now that I am a digital guy is character assasination! Come to think of it I have alway been a "bleeding edge of technology" guy.
I have said previously on other reflectors that I will not respond to the irrational rantings of N5PVL Charles as it is a waste of everyone's time to attempt to have an intelligent discussion with him.
ve3gfw
12-20-2004, 05:31 PM
Oopsss.
AE1X:kes
I do not consider your intelligent response to my post to be part of the "Lunatic Fringe"
I can only say that in 46 years as a ham I have seen the dominant mode change at least 3 times and I would not be surprised to see digitial voice become the dominant HF mode by the end of the next decade...
Things Change or we would still be using the Spark Gap
Quote[/b] (ve3gfw @ Dec. 20 2004,12:31)]Oopsss.
AE1X:kes
I do not consider your intelligent response to my post to be part of the "Lunatic Fringe"
I can only say that in 46 years as a ham I have seen the dominant mode change at least 3 times and I would not be surprised to see digitial voice become the dominant HF mode by the end of the next decade...
Things Change or we would still be using the Spark Gap
This is true Howard. Things change and I can forsee this digital communications revolution is coming. I will try to be a part of it, but I only own one (1) SSB transceiver and that is for 10mtrs. All my station equipment is QRP CW.
I do have one problem with the digital stuff and that is that it requires a computer. Not everyone in this hobby is going to be interested in having computers, but there should always be a place for SSB and CW just as there is for AM now.
I hate it when the discussion breaks done to this person versus that person and what his/her interests and what their personal agenda might be. Personally, I'm in favor that which serves this community the best and that appears to be in transistion and those of us involved must make reasonable efforts to strike a reasonable accomodation for all.
There is one issue here that I feel must be addressed and that is whether the segragation of modes or bandwidth should be in the form of a regulatory mandate by the FCC. My position is that it is time to rid ourselves of this in favor of best practices and gentlemen's agreements. This would be the area in which the ARRL could best serve the entire US amateur community by suggesting a segmation scheme by bandwidth which is a flexible as the Canadian model and then work to develop suitable band plans. This would provide a flexible framework that could be adjusted as needed without having to go through the regulatory quamire that is the FCC. I think a plan such as this would gain quick approval by the FCC and then we would have to be resourceful enough to make it work.
Personally, I'm not threatened by the work that's is being done by WinLink or any of the other groups developing new digital signalling techniques. I welcome them. What I do feel threatened by is the methods being employed to carve up our spectrum to suit these modes within a regulatory frame work.
Ken
ab0wr
12-20-2004, 08:54 PM
VE3GFW:
"A very good example of the harm the current Content (Mode) Based regulation causes can be found with the development of image transfer using MFSK in Mixw2 last year. A new technology was invented in the Ukraine.. Amateurs all around the world where they had bandwidth based regulation were able to experiment with the mode. However, we in the USA still lived with archaic Content (Mode) based regulation and could not participate unless we transitioned up into the Phone bands.. where were are not wanted..and should not be...so our experimentation was severly restricted...at best and the US continued to fall behind the technological curve because of excessive regulation..."
LOL.... You are defending the Ad Hoc committee and the bandplan recommendations they developed and you say that you have to use digital modes in the "Phone bands" where such digital modes are not wanted?
Exactly what do you think the bandplan recommendation had in it? It would put 3khz wide, aggressive, Pactor III signals right in the phone bands where they really are not wanted!
Why do you think so many of us have a problem with the bandplan recommendation and the motives of the people who developed it?
Every statement I have seen, and I mean EVERY ONE, from the people associated with WL2K and/or SCAMP has carried the statement that they want more of the spectrum we have available for digital signals. As pointed out on here, the users of digital modes are probably less than 5% of the total ham population - yet it would be very easy for this 5% of the ham population to tie up the entire 75 meter phone band with wideband, aggressive, digital signals to the exclusion of all other modes. We've already seen the WL2K people spreading out in the CW bands, far beyond what the actual data transmission load requires - primarily so they won't have to share frequencies - because these aggressive, digital modes don't share nicely. They will quite readily stomp on each other as well as anyone else using a frequency. If SCAMP is no better at sharing a frequency that PACTOR, it will just become one more "bad neighbor". If you really are a SCAMP tester, you should take great pains to see if the mode will recognize a CW or SSB signal on the same frequency and recognize the need to not transmit till the frequency is clear. If the mode only listens for another SCAMP signal (Pactor only listens for another Pactor signal, not just for energy density in the spectrum), then you need to ask just what you are defending here.
The reason "motives" have been questioned here is because of already existing practices in use by WL2K. It is kind of hard to hide them on the public airwaves. The bandplan was just a not-very-well disguised attempt at legitimizing what has already been going on and expanding it into the phone bands to gain more available spectrum. This became especially apparent when it became obvious that there were no data load analyses done for either present or future, no analyses done of how digital modes would be handled by equipment already in existence, no usage studies, no "nothing" done by the ad hoc commtttee. That doesn't provide a very good baseline for claiming the recommendations were to do the "best for amateur radio".
tim ab0wr
Thanks to everyone for getting the discussion back on topic. Herr Goebbels is safe in his grave again . LOL.
Howard, you last message made some interesting points and I won't get off track responding to the condecending tone or commenting further on your tendency to try to pidgeon hole people. Lets agree to disagree on the CW issue as we do on the alleged transgressions of the defunct ad hoc committee.
The only problem I have ever had with bandwidth based bandplans are some of the people supporting them, people like you who see legacy modes as an impediment to your goals. Its the simple reason I want mode separation. Personally I think the demise of CW and SSB will have more to do with rude digital users or automatic stations covering up existing QSOs and running off people than by loss of interest. And that is the reasoning behind my opposition to handing over carte blanche to you guys. Why should anyone hand over the keys to HF to 5% of users?
This serious difference aside, your fear about the death of Amateur Radio is real. It's your solution that is wrong. Lets take WinLink for an example.....WinLink is a very useful product for those users like RVers, marine interests, international humanitarian efforts in underdeveloped areas, ECOMM etc. Hats off to you, great work. But younger potential amateurs want music downloads, streaming video, internet access. Even with your bandplan on HF you will be bandwidth limited in doing these things. Why not develop access to these services on frequencies above 70cm where you could match wire bandwidth? And you don't need to pass a code test to access these frequencies today. I am not suggesting we abandon great potential products like SCAMP and WinLink. Of course not. Many users will be out of range of 70cm+ stations wanting something to use. I am suggesting that if your goal is to save Amateur Radio, you're overlooking the obvious.
AND, significant numbers of amateurs could be saved with a little retention effort. Why do we let amateurs get away who have already passed the tests? A simple retention effort by the ARRL could help. Start a database of the reasons why people get a license to begin with and then aim volunteer programs at developing ways to meet those goals. Supposing we take the top 5 reasons people get tickets and work to fulfill expectations through local clubs, do you think we could save amateurs? In many cases it is as simple as "nothing to do" as a reason they quit. Organizing a couple weekly rag chews on a local repeater could be all it takes to keep some folks interested.
My position on CW is the same as it is on the Bandwidth plan. I favor giving Techs HF privleges on most all HF bands. BUT, I favor keeping telegraphy testing for General and Extra classes. With the Bandwidth Bandplan, I favor giving digital users areas within the current band plan for growth and experimentation but keeping the status quo for 95% of all Amateurs. I consistently favor compromise. My trouble with your position is that you you say, "I like CW and I like digital modes, so lets change the entire game for me, and the hell with you!" (Yes I know this is a touch of pidgeon holing on my part...sorry.)
So there are some of us who will fight you tooth and nail who just want a compromise and more than the nod and wink of a few digital insiders that what you propose is best for us all.
KG4ZQZ
12-21-2004, 12:14 AM
Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Dec. 20 2004,09:45)]The question then becomes how do we protect these amateurs from the interference potential of the digital users?
- this seems to be a sticking point, although it's addressed in the SCAMP protocol document [kindly sent to me by the author], i still haven't seen/read about its practical implementation? perhaps a knowledgable user can provide comment about how this may be accomplished as a practical matter (or how it's currently addressed/not addressed by other digital modes)?
ab0wr
12-21-2004, 02:57 AM
KG4ZQZ: "- this seems to be a sticking point, although it's addressed in the SCAMP protocol document [kindly sent to me by the author], i still haven't seen/read about its practical implementation? perhaps a knowledgable user can provide comment about how this may be accomplished as a practical matter (or how it's currently addressed/not addressed by other digital modes)? "
Let me quote from the SCAMP documentation -
1.4 SCAMP Overview
SCAMP is as the name implies a message protocol. It is intended to automatically transfer prepared messages (text with optional binary attachments) exactly without error as quickly as possible freeing the spectrum for other users. SCAMP is not intended as a keyboard or chat mode and keyboard capabilities are generally not supported by SCAMP clients.
2.8 Busy detector
The SCAMP protocol contains several mechanisms to help make it a friendly neighbor in the shared spectrum of amateur radio. One of these mechanisms is a busy detector to determine when a channel is free to use. Fail safe busy detectors for all modes of operation are currently not practical to build so the control operator must also of course listen first to make sure a channel is not in use before attempting a connection. The busy detector SHOULD use a variety of DSP techniques to detect if man-made modulation is present in the SCAMP channel pass band (nominally 450-2200 Hz). As a minimum this detection MUST include detection of any SCAMP related tone bursts REC, DEC, ACK or NAK. This holds off a third station from disrupting an existing forwarding session since both connected ends of the link will emit tone bursts that will trip the third stations busy detector. The ideal busy detector SHOULD also detect other digital modes such as Pactor, Packet, PSK 31/63, MT63 etc but this can take substantial DSP processing and CPU resources so some compromise is usually acceptable.
Let me make two observations. 1) The protocol is not intended for keyboard-to-keyboard operation. While the protocol says users need to listen before transmitting, I'm pretty sure I know how the protocol will be used based on current usage of Winlink. It will be used for automatic operation with NO listening prior to transmtting. 2). The protocol says it should detect OTHER DIGITAL MODES but even this may be a compromise. What about CW, RTTY, and SSB? Based on present operation I can pretty well assure you what will happen - automatic operation will stomp on any cw, rtty, or ssb conversation on the frequency.
You can see from the protocol description that this is an aggressive, ARQ type protocol very similar to Pactor. Yet it is not going to be designed to be a good neighbor to analog modes.
Do we really want to turn loose SCAMP robots in the phone bands? Would the results be any different than turning loose Pactor robots?
tim ab0wr
ve3gfw
12-21-2004, 05:31 AM
Been too busy to join the Anti Digital rantings.. which somehow seem to mirror the Anti SSB rantings and Anti FM rantings I have already lived through...In the long run, the newer more effective modes won out and everyone found a way to live together. #It's going to happen with digital as well and the rantings will be moot.
You might want to look at what I have been doing this week when i was not working on the SCAMP Alpha Team:
# # #Tower Base Construction (http://www.kleega.com/tower)
and
# # #Erection of the Tower (http://www.kleega.com/erection)
I might note that I had a hernia operation last Monday and I was actually physically unable to do any of the lifting... but then Murphy's Law of Towers says that towers are only delivered when it is impossible for you to lift anything...
Still waiting for delivery of my new MonstIR Beam...
Fight On... Go... USC......
ve3gfw
12-21-2004, 06:14 AM
And by the way just after we finished with erecting the tower..
Russ Downer, the President of the Coronado Emergency Radio Operators Inc arrived to present me with their
"2004 Ham of the Year Award" (http://www.kleega.com/erection/109_0955_10368.jpg)
So I guess my efforts to advance Ham Radio for EMCOMM have not gone totally unnoticed...
kb0emb
12-21-2004, 10:47 AM
Tim, AB0WR you always seemed like a good HAM... We have spoke on both 2M and MO Traffic Net. But the traffic here is a bit much.
Quote[/b] ] Let me make two observations. 1) The protocol is not intended for keyboard-to-keyboard operation. While the protocol says users need to listen before transmitting, I'm pretty sure I know how the protocol will be used based on current usage of Winlink. It will be used for automatic operation with NO listening prior to transmtting. 2). The protocol says it should detect OTHER DIGITAL MODES but even this may be a compromise. What about CW, RTTY, and SSB? .
Your first observation is partially correct, it is not a keyboard to keyboard mode. I seriously doubt there is very much 'NO listening' prior to transmission, but then I'm not at every station, niether are you. Does it happen? -probably - Is it deliberate? again I'm not there and niether are you. For you to lump everyone involved in SCAMP alpha testing as creating deliberate interference is not the truth. My experience as a long time PSK/MFSK op (also CW in past years) is that the interference I've had comes from RTTY and sometimes CW ops...
As for #2 - the protocol first states -
Quote[/b] ]The busy detector SHOULD use a variety of DSP techniques to detect if man-made modulation is present in the SCAMP channel pass band (nominally 450-2200 Hz).
SCAMP is still 'alpha' so how it ends up is certainly not a given at this point. I don't know what the final product will detect, niether do you.
See you on the air
Larry - KB0EMB - KC metro
SCAMP Alpha Tester
http://www.qsl.net/kb0emb/
KG4ZQZ
12-21-2004, 11:42 AM
ab0wr & kb0emb:
- thanks for the clarifications!
- i'm starting to see a bit more of the picture on these issues, and i appreciate your comments... from my view, it looks like the only way to avoid QRM is frequency segregation... thanks for pointing out that this problem is recognized in the protocol specification:
"Fail safe busy detectors for all modes of operation are currently not practical to build so the control operator must also of course listen first to make sure a channel is not in use before attempting a connection."
- this also seems to be a problem even with 'human' operators using common modes such as CW and SSB! (i realize that many times it is inadvertent due to antenna nulls and/or propagation)...
- it looks like unless some superior algorithm is applied to any of the newer digital modes (those proposed today or in the future), there will be problems?
- how far will our "Gentlemen's Agreements" go in assuring friendly operations?
- and who should step in to referee? WRC? (i'm not sure the ARRL has the support, nor the authority to dictate band usage?)
ab0wr
12-21-2004, 01:29 PM
A couple of quick observations before I have to run to work.
kb0emb: "Your first observation is partially correct, it is not a keyboard to keyboard mode. I seriously doubt there is very much 'NO listening' prior to transmission, but then I'm not at every station, niether are you. Does it happen? -probably - Is it deliberate? again I'm not there and niether are you."
I run a Pactor robot in the automatic subbands as a Digital NTS relay station. I can guarantee you that there isn't ANY listening before transmitting by these robots - by definition. I can sit here all day long and watch the robots squash each other - including mine. That's why I stay within the automatic subbands.
"SCAMP is still 'alpha' so how it ends up is certainly not a given at this point. I don't know what the final product will detect, niether do you."
If it will "see" SSB, CW, AM, etc then more power to the designers. If they are coming up with a protocol that will co-exist with analog modes then I will wholeheartedly endorse the protocol, up to and including allowing wide-band scamp into the phone bands. I'm not going to hold my breath, however.
kg4zqz: "- it looks like unless some superior algorithm is applied to any of the newer digital modes (those proposed today or in the future), there will be problems?"
It really doesn't need a superior algorithm. Packet tnc's with DCD operation will prevent the packet tnc from transmitting if any signal above noise level is present in the detection bandwidth. It just needs to follow the same guidelines. The jury is still out. Again, I'm not going to hold my breath.
tim ab0wr
Quote[/b] ]Been too busy to join the Anti Digital rantings.. which somehow seem to mirror the Anti SSB rantings and Anti FM rantings I have already lived through... Darn, Harold, you forgot the anti-CW rantings you are part of...LOL I hate to have to correct a man of your eminent stature, but we're not "Anti Digital", we're anti-Winlink Team....remember???
Quote[/b] ]I might note that I had a hernia operation last Monday and I was actually physically unable to do any of the lifting... Did you hurt yourself trying to lift your ego again??? ROFLMAO.
Seriously, congratuations on a fine award. Anyone who serves ECOMM is ok in my book. And wow, what a cool monopole/tower. Tell me more about the Beam. Could not find a link on the internet for MonstiR Beam. Do hope you're recovering from the surgery. I'd tell you about my operation but then someone here would probably tell us we sound like a couple of old geezers on 20m.
ve3gfw
12-21-2004, 04:24 PM
Thanks for your kind words...
Quote[/b] ]Tell me more about the Beam. #Could not find a link on the internet for MonstiR Beam.
MonstIR Beam (http://www.steppir.com)
It's a SteppIR antenna... it is 3 Elements on 40 and 30, 4 Elements on 20, 17,15, 12, 10 and 6 Elements on 6. #34' boom, 70' elements Has a turning radius of 39' which is why it is called a MonstIR... the length of the elements are computer controlled..those pesky computers again... to give one as close to 1:1 SWR on every frequency so that you effectively have a monobander on every frequency... should outperform every other antenna in its class...See Jan 2005 QST for an ad...
Imagine my digitial signals with than much gain....Remember I have been working with only a crummy Alpha Delta DC-CC dipole all these years..and as you may see from the photos I have been shadowed to the East Coast by the house 50' above me... the Beam will get above the shadow...
Quote[/b] ]Darn, Harold, The Names ...Howard... Charlie...Are you having senior moments like I do?....Hi Hi..
Quote[/b] ]we're anti-Winlink Team....remember #At least we got that part straight...
So to boil this long thread down to the basics...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The argument is whether to have a bandplan that is only regulated by bandwidth [my preference] vs. #a bandplan that continues some form of the status quo of being regulated by content or mode [your preference]...
And your demonization of the WDT is that they support the former.
By the way I do think that you are correct in your analysis that with regulation by bandwidth, the space that CW uses will continue to get smaller as the Old Guard dies off.....and especially if CW is removed as an entry barrier to ham radio....and CW dies a natural death with them...So in a way, this refarming of the bands is inevitable...The question is will the FCC do it now... or will they just wait until the old guard dies off... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] (ve3gfw @ Dec. 21 2004,11:24)]By the way I do think that you are correct in your analysis that with regulation by bandwidth, the space that CW uses will continue to get smaller as the Old Guard dies off.....and especially if CW is removed as an entry barrier to ham radio....and CW dies a natural death with them...So in a way, this refarming of the bands is inevitable...The question is will the FCC do it now... or will they just wait until the old guard dies off... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Howard,
I think it will be just this way. 95% of the amateur population consists of those old timers that really believe that we will loose our uniqueness should the radiotelegraphy requirement be dropped from the mix.
Personally, I don't really care about how one becomes an amateur. The FCC sets the standards not us. Should they feel it is time to drop radiotelegraphy, so be it. I use it and I prompt it. I will not be one to use this operating mode as weapon in anyway.
Digital is the future, but I will always recall to mind that radiotelegraphy was the first digital mode and will always remain a true part of amateur radio whether it is legislated or not. One can still put together a minimal station to work this mode.
Ken