Suggestions for echolink log book

[W5MJL]

Since echolink is supposed to be our future, I thought I would propose a new log book design.

Callsign or IM name:

MY Browser: His Browser:

My CPU: His CPU:

My OS: His OS:

Signal strength(circle one) Full Quieting Not full quieting

My IP: His IP: (replaces Frequency)

Mode (circle one) Dsl, cable, dial-up, t-1

Power (circle one): 110 220 battery

On buddy list?(circle one) Yes No

[WZ4I]

Radio (circle one): Desktop Notebook Palm Pilot

QSL Sent QSL Received (circle one)

[W5MJL]

I can't believe I forgot radio. Thank you, that was a major oversight on my part.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ April 04 2005,04:55)]I can't believe I forgot radio. #Thank you, that was a major oversight on my part.
Thats what is wrong with Ham radio today.. Everyone forgets we can do it on the Radio RF Ether air waves etc...

73 jerry

[K7JBQ]

Hey, what about antenna? Power? Clock speed?

Jeesh.

73,
Bill

[WZ4I]

DX Contact YES NO

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ April 04 2005,12:23)]Hey, what about antenna? Power? Clock speed?

Jeesh.

73,
Bill
I did have power. 110, 220 or battery. Antenna will only confuse the situation, but you are right, cpu speed is critical. I will definitely add it.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (kb4qlz @ April 04 2005,12:44)]DX Contact # # YES # #NO
We could put that on there, but I think we would have to fill out the "no", and have it already pre-printed on the form.

[WZ4I]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ April 04 2005,10:53)]Quote[/b] (kb4qlz @ April 04 2005,12:44)]DX Contact YES NO
We could put that on there, but I think we would have to fill out the "no", and have it already pre-printed on the form.
ROTFL

[kj5t]

Echolink is just another mode, it does use the internet to help link repeater, but its a nice add-on to what hams can use. Echolink has proven to be worthy in emergency simulations here, and I think it will be improved and become intergrated with many of the emergency communications. As the internet improves, so will these forms of communication. Of course Amateur Radio will always have a place for big antennas and little keyers. Each to thier own.

[kb2vxa]

Hi land line lubbers,

RADIO? What's a radio? You forgot the most oft used FD power source that can also power a computer, the AC battery. Hmmm, if you use micropower you can run it off the telephone line DC bias.

Oh QLZ, "I will not keep silent because I have different beliefs and opinions than you." WHO is going to argue with the big bruiser in your avitar photo? (;->)

[WF7I]

How about weight level: obese, clinically obese, morbidly obese, or bedridden? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] ]Since echolink is supposed to be our future...
Whoever said that? It's just an addition, not a replacement for anything. Another tool in the tool bag.

[al2i]

From all of the hostility, I guess Echolink is bad?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[kj5t]

2I.. its not bad.. some people see it has a threat, or a fake to the hobby.. but has YCO said, its just another tool we can utilize..

[N5PVL]

There is no one-sided coin. - Of course there is a bad side to EchoLink, and refusing to see that bad side will not protect you or your fellow hams from its effects. What it will do though, is set you up to be caught unprepared, blindsided.

What effect do you imagine EchoLink might have on the number of amateurs who study and go on to upgrade their licenses?

Can you imagine what effect EchoLink might have upon manufacturers of our amateur radio equipment?

Amateur Radio, along with many other communications entities is now in danger of being absorbed by the Internet, to exist no longer as a seperate, independent thing. - Can you imagine what effect EchoLink might have in this matter, by unnecessarily blurring the line between Amateur Radio communications and the Internet?

Amateur Radio is fun, but because there are many of us Amateurs, there are responsibilities that go with our licenses along with the priveleges.

Guys who are looking out for the hobby, and for their fellow Hams are not party-poopers... Quite the opposite, in fact!

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL

Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: USPacket Digital Forum (http://www.uspacket.org/smf/index.php?board=1.0)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's #Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)

[K7JBQ]

Charles,

I doubt that a significant number of "amateurs" would consider Echolink to be a viable alternative to HF. It's a clever use of one's computer, but has as little to do with radio (other than the license "requirement") as the average "reality show" has to do with reality.

73,
Bill

[al2i]

I have never knowingly used Echolink, and might not ever use Echolink, but I just don't feel threatened by it. I have used IRLP, and it was swell to confound friends and family by talking to England and Australia with a little HT. It was also great to rag chew with guys a third of a planet away while not sitting at my ham desk. However, I only felt a passing interest for IRLP. It is an amusing diversion with practical applications for convenient HT-HT communications, and communications when the ionosphere fails.

Echolink sounds like a practical way to link geographically distant repeaters: That doesn't threaten Amateur radio. It also sounds like an amusing diversion: That shouldn't threaten Amateur radio.

There are 3.5 objections to Echolink that were raised by Charles (N5PVL), but each required me to "imagine". OK, Charles is an incredibly bright guy, so I am trying to do as he suggests and "imagine".

<span style='color:red'>Objection One:</span>
Quote[/b] ]What effect do you imagine EchoLink might have on the number of amateurs who study and go on to upgrade their licenses?

I don't know. My imagination fails. I suspect that the effect would be vanishingly small, but that it could be positive as easily as it could be negative.

<span style='color:red'>Objection Two:</span>
Quote[/b] ]Can you imagine what effect EchoLink might have upon manufacturers of our amateur radio equipment?


I don't know. Another imaginative failure here Charles. I think it might be imperceptable, but positive.

<span style='color:red'>Objection Three:</span>
Quote[/b] ]Amateur Radio, along with many other communications entities is now in danger of being absorbed by the Internet, to exist no longer as a seperate, independent thing.

I guess refrigerators are in danger of being absorbed by the Internet, but somehow that doesn't alarm me. I am being absorbed by the Internet right now, and that is a slight problem, because I might be working with ham gear -- learning HF packet perhaps -- instead of posting to an Internet forum.

<span style='color:red'>Objection Three point Five:</span>
Quote[/b] ] Can you imagine what effect EchoLink might have in this matter, by unnecessarily blurring the line between Amateur Radio communications and the Internet?

The Internet has changed the world, and you and I would not be discussing the Internet danger without the Internet. However, I am not feeling blurry about it. See if your monitor has a "Focus" adjustment. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73,
Dave/al2i

[KB9YCO]

You guys do realize that RADIO is still the end result right, requiring RADIO equipment?
To N5PVL and others of the same argument, you are missing that MAJOR fact, you still need a radio at one end utilizing RF, that means equipment and an antenna, otherwise it's just internet chat. So, it still requires more than a license since in most cases it's RF on at least one end. In most cases in my experience it's the linking of two or more radios or repeaters. No different than the landline links of repeaters of 30 or so years ago, still requires radios and radio equipment, and it's not meant to replace any other facet of amateur radio, it just adds to it. Sorry, had to say so.

[n0ov]

I know some older hams who are in homes now that can't have access to a radio. They are using Echolink to maintain radio contact with some friends.

They agree it's not the same as using a key, or a mike to make a contact but on the same note they also like it more than IM because it still involves a radio.

So much for the short note -- carry on.

As for the echo link log-book, what about method of connectivity? Dial-up, dsl, broadband cable, t-1 or satelight?

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ April 07 2005,17:54)]You guys do realize that RADIO is still the end result right, requiring RADIO equipment?
To N5PVL and others of the same argument, you are missing that MAJOR fact, you still need a radio at one end utilizing RF, that means equipment and an antenna, otherwise it's just internet chat.
No you don't and that is the whole point. Echolink does not require a radio at any point in the system to function. #It can be and is done numerous times a day soley computer to computer, no radio involved anywhere.Take a look at the list of stations on the system at any point in time a see how many are computers compared to actual radios.

HT to repeater connected to another repeater via internet to another HT, ham radio. #

Computer to internet to another computer, VoIP chat not ham radio even if Echolink and ham calls are used.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[n9vo]

EchoWAS, EchoWAZ, EchoDXCC, What's next?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Echolink contest. Single OP Laptop, Single Op laptop (less than 500mhz), WIFI Multiop unlimited speed, Singleband HT, DualBand Ht. The possibilities are endless.......

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] ]No you don't and that is the whole point. Echolink does not require a radio at any point in the system to function. It can be and is done numerous times a day soley computer to computer, no radio involved anywhere.Take a look at the list of stations on the system at any point in time a see how many are computers compared to actual radios.
HT to repeater connected to another repeater via internet to another HT, ham radio.
Computer to internet to another computer, VoIP chat not ham radio even if Echolink and ham calls are used.

Actually Mike, you're wrong, the majority of users are still using RF. Some may use the feature of personal chat to one another, but that's not why most people use it or are there.

As of 4/8/2005 14:14 UTC

Total Logged In: 2839

Repeaters (990) - Links (1136) - Users (582)

Single users are the minority, and I'd be willing to bet you that most single users listed are accessing a repeater or a link, most people don't use Echolink just for internet chat to one another. Not that there is anything wrong with internet chat, and I'm sure many people use that feature when they feel the need, but that is certainly not radio, nor are the majority of people using the system for that reason. On that we agree, and I've said just as much previously in this thread. When you log on you're listed as a 'user', that doesn't mean you aren't accessing RF at the other end via your computer, and as I've said that is what most people are there for.
The point is VOIP for amateur radio, for the most part, still involves RF and requires radio equipment, and in most cases is radio in to radio out via the internet. Would I rely on it in an emergency? No. Is it as reliable as traditional radio? No, but it is another tool to access portions of the amateur radio spectrum when you can't do it the traditional way.
The constant comparison of VOIP as a replacement for HF or direct traditional radio is not apt because the reasons for usage are not the same, nor is the type of contact in any way similar to DXing or direct radio contacts. A directed link, via the internet, with an intention to tie into a particular system, is nothing similar to throwing your call out on any given frequency for whatever reason, be it DXing or contacting a regular group of people, etc., one does not compare to the other, nor could one replace the other.

[WZ4I]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ April 07 2005,17:54)]You guys do realize that RADIO is still the end result right, requiring RADIO equipment?
A radio is not required to work/use EchoKlink.

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (kb4qlz @ April 08 2005,09:54)]Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ April 07 2005,17:54)]You guys do realize that RADIO is still the end result right, requiring RADIO equipment?
A radio is not required to work/use EchoClink.
You might want to read the ENTIRE post, instead of just the part you decided to quote:

"...you still need a radio at one end utilizing RF, that means equipment and an antenna, otherwise it's just internet chat. So, it still requires more than a license since in most cases it's RF on at least one end. In most cases in my experience it's the linking of two or more radios or repeaters. No different than the landline links of repeaters of 30 or so years ago, still requires radios and radio equipment, and it's not meant to replace any other facet of amateur radio, it just adds to it. Sorry, had to say so."

I never said there aren't people using it computer to computer, but that's not the majority, nor is it the reason that most people download Echolink. You're right, a radio is not required, but most people use it for the purpose of radio, otherwise it's just an internet chat tool, on that we all agree.

[WZ4I]

Quote[/b] ]you still need a radio at one end utilizing RF, that means equipment and an antenna, otherwise it's just internet chat.

Direct from the Echolink website...

http://www.synergenics.com/


EchoLink

EchoLink is software which allows Amateur Radio stations to communicate with one another over the Internet, using voice-over-IP (VoIP) technology. The program allows worldwide connections to be made between stations, from computer to station, or from computer to computer.

If I'm in error, contact K1RFD.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ April 08 2005,07:35)]Quote[/b] ]No you don't and that is the whole point. Echolink does not require a radio at any point in the system to function. #It can be and is done numerous times a day soley computer to computer, no radio involved anywhere.Take a look at the list of stations on the system at any point in time a see how many are computers compared to actual radios.
HT to repeater connected to another repeater via internet to another HT, ham radio. #
Computer to internet to another computer, VoIP chat not ham radio even if Echolink and ham calls are used.

Actually Mike, you're wrong, the majority of users are still using RF. Some may use the feature of personal chat to one another, but that's not why most people use it or are there.
I made no statement as to the relative numbers of radios vs users, only that there were a substantial number of users and that "no radio" contacts are common. I know many Echolink users who engage exclusively in computer-to-computer contacts on Echolink but that is not the point.

My posting was to refute the false statement that Echolink requires the use of a radio.

At the beginning, IRLP did require the use of radio at both ends, you could not connect to an IRLP node as a user without a radio. I'm not sure at this point if this is still the case with the introduction of IRLP-Echolink links.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[KB9YCO]

I also never said you can't use it computer to computer, that's part of the program, not the initial reason that most people use it though. It really has nothing to do with my point that most VOIP users, in relation to amateur radio, are using it to access RF. If they want to private chat with their buddies that fine too, one really has nothing to do with the other. You can download a zillion different messenger programs to do that, but using VOIP to access RF is different. And using VOIP as a radio tool is nothing like using regular radio. That's the point I was making.

[W5MJL]

I've posted this before, but I will say it again, just as N5PVL has stated.

1. We are supposed to be an independent link. #Echolink goes against that by using an infrastructure that is not within our control. #We are supposed to be a voluntary non-commerical communication service. #The internet is as commercial as you can get. # We are also supposed to advance the RADIO ART, NOT THE INTERNET ART. #

2. The originators of echolink, and their users do everything in their power to show how great echolink can work in an emergency. #If the fcc is convinced of this, our bands will be gone to commercial interests willing to pay for them. #

3. Echolink gets around our licensing requirement. #It is impossible to have clear world communications via vhf. #With the internet we can. #So, if echolink is RADIO, WE ARE GIVING TECHNICIANS GENERAL LICENSE PRIVILEGES WITHOUT TAKING THE TESTS REQUIRED BY LAW. #They have no reason to upgrade to get hf when they can get the equivalent of hf on echolink. #Software changes should be made to prevent this from happening. #We are going to create the largest class of techs that will not upgrade in our history.

Echolink is not a compliment to amateur radio, it is a threat to the existence of amateur radio. #Echolink is not another mode. #There will never be a mode on your radio that says "echolink". #Echolink is the INTERNET. #It just happens to be hooked up to some repeaters. #

This is not about technology. #This is not a car replacing the horse and buggy. #This is about independent radio vs the commercial internet, and the ramifications that very well COULD EVOLVE if we are not careful. We could all be left with a computer and a 5watt ht.

[n0ov]

OK sanity check.

Echolink is a tool. In an emergency, local infrastructure may be down, requiring us to provide communications assistance.

In this case, a local echolink node would be useless.

However, in cases where you do not have a total communications failure, echolink can be used to provide access to amateur radio in EOC that are not within in range.

This is simply another tool in the tool bag. Like CW, packet, PSK31, voice, SSB and ATV -- it is something we have the capability to use in a pinch.

Working actual disasters before the one thing is a fact -- when the crap hits the fan we will have to quickly assess what we have access to/what works/what doesn't and adapt.

My thoughts

de Dan

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] ] I've posted this before, but I will say it again, just as N5PVL has stated... We are supposed to be an independent link. Echolink goes against that by using an infrastructure that is not within our control. We are supposed to be a voluntary non-commerical communication service. The internet is as commercial as you can get. We are also supposed to advance the RADIO ART, NOT THE INTERNET ART.
Yes, you've said it before, it doesn't make it anymore true than the first time you said it though. The internet is becoming commercial, but was not originally commercial, until the government had to put their prying little fingers into it, not to mention corporate America. The users are for the most part still the same users, the public.
As far as advancing radio art, let me say, also once again, as long as RADIO is still involved it is radio. Is it traditional radio, or is it as reliable? No, but it's just another facet to use, not to replace any of the other facets of radio, again. Sometimes it may work in an emegency, and sometimes it might not, that is the reason to stress the importance of traditional radio in all cases. Some of the people you speak of are the same nitwits that think their cell phone will save them when something nasty happens, nothing reliant on powerlines, phonelines, etc., can replace traditional radio. Echolink is just an addition to use when you want to, not a replacement to be relied on or used at all in the same sense as traditional radio.
You're not giving technicians general privileges since were not using it for HF, though I have seen one node that had a link to 10 meters, most are 50MHz and above. Just because it spans a greater distance than standard 50 MHz and above does not mean it is in ANY WAY the same as HF, you don't use it the same way or for the same reasons as you do HF. Talking on a local repeater or simplex node anywhere above 50 MHz is not in any way the same as DXing or conversing in HF. Techs that want to upgrade and use HF will do so, because it's a completely different world than internet linking, not even comprable in scope or usage. As long as people remember the major differences it won't cahnge people's desire to upgrade.
The rest of what you say is your opinion, and it would seem to me based on a paranoid version of the future death or decline of amateur radio. I'm not saying that offensively, but it's been said for as long as I can remember and I don't personally believe it.
Also, Echolink doesn't happen to just be hooked up to 'some repeaters', the majority of the people using Echolink, IRLP, etc., are using them to have the end result be RF. I agree that computer to computer is just internet chat, but that's not what the majority of Echolink, and certainly not IRLP which is repeater links only, is used for.
VOIP CANNOT replace HF, and HF CANNOT replace VOIP, they are there for vastly different reasons, as long as people understand those differences there is no problem.
There, now I've said it again, you've said it again, I think it is time to agree to disagree. This is another amateur 'religious' debate, much in the same sense as code vs. no code. Neither of us is going to convince the other.
I've said what I know to be true, I'll leave it at that. Have fun...

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] ]VOIP CANNOT replace HF, and HF CANNOT replace VOIP, they are there for vastly different reasons, as long as people understand those differences there is no problem.


I will not address each issue because You are right. #We need to agree to disagree. #Nothing is going to change our opinions. #

I quoted you above only for one reason. #Yes, we both agree that voip cannot replace hf. #The problem that I see is WE don't make the decision. #Congress and the FCC makes that decision. #If congress, or the fcc decide that voip can indeed replace hf for MOST emergency communications, it very well may sell OUR frequencies to the highest bidder.

Many don't think that can happen. #I do. #I have watched money take away all reasoning on many things. #BPL was the first warning shot fired over the bow. #The only reason we will win that battle is because the technology is poor. #We may not be so lucky with the internet.

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ April 08 2005,12:51)]Yes, we both agree that voip cannot replace hf. The problem that I see is WE don't make the decision. Congress and the FCC makes that decision. If congress, or the fcc decide that voip can indeed replace hf for MOST emegercy communications, it very well may sell OUR frequencies to the highest bidder.
One of the many reasons we should continue to point out the vast differences in usage and reliability to the public, government officials, and newer licensees. If you feel this strongly about it then it is your duty to make sure people know the difference, on that we can agree.
Thanks for the spirited debate, 73... Brett - KB9YCO

[W5HTW]

I think the Yellow Pages would make a nice logbook. As you work someone, just put a check by it. Well, maybe the White Pages would be better.

Ed

[KC7ATO]

I'm logging all my Echolink contacts on a roll of toilet paper. That way when and if Echolink goes in the dumper it won't be a total loss. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[WF7I]

Quote[/b] (KC7ATO @ April 08 2005,20:22)]I'm logging all my Echolink contacts on a roll of toilet paper. That way when and if Echolink goes in the dumper it won't be a total loss. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
...would go nicely with the "21st century throne" spoken of in the thread over on rag chew central http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif