Is it RADIO?

[KC2JCA]

The excitement was growing, the buzz was in the air. I got an email asking me if I had a chance to download and install iLink as of yet? It's "kewl", said the email. So, I downloaded it, logged my call sign and waited the obligatory few hours for my call to clear. (Some have told me it takes but 3 minutes... uh-huh, sure...)

Anyway, I logged in and was immediately in contact with a local ham. We QSO'd for about 10 minutes I suppose, then off I went. Later in the evening, I signed back on and connected to a repeater (so it said) in Florida, gave my call, hung around, ID'ed again, hung around, then off I went. Later I was back on iLink and was called by a ham in San Diego and we chatted for about 10 minutes and off I went.

See here's the rub, I've been working on computers since the old BBS days. One or two modems humming constantly in the back bedroom as hundreds of users fought for precious on-line time just to pass a few messages around to each other. Later, things like FIDOnet took over the message handling jobs and gateways were established to pass messages from BBS's to other protocols such as TCP/IP.

Then along comes AOL and the Graphical User Interface for TCP/IP, soon upgraded with a browser and blah, blah, blah. Eventually someone invented Voice Over TCP/IP and programs like FireTalk and iPhone were all the rage. Even today MS Netmeeting is a favorite, and if you look around long enough you can find websites that offer videophone.

My problem is I don't find iLink any more exciting that using iPhone. Hey, maybe that's my fault. But maybe it's just that I see Voice Over TCP/IP as something that Ham Radio has finally caught up to, and not the other way around. I'm glad to see the technology cross over into radio, don't get me wrong, anything that comes out of the hobby in a positive direction is what we are all about, right?

It's just "it don't feel like radio" to me.

73, Jim - kc2jca

[n8avx]

I also wonder if it is "radio". Sure, it is a neat technology, and one of the purposes of the Amateur Radio Service is to further the technical art, but let's not forget, it is just a different way of communicating.

There is little practical difference in iLink and IRC/chat rooms. We just have VoIP connected radio systems rather than text based systems. We could conceivably create VoIRC (Voice over IRC) and accomplish the same thing as iLink. without having to bother with radio interfacing!

I guess what make Ham Radio unique in my eyes is the ability to commuicate without requiring a wired infrastructure.

When I can iLink with my PDA to other iLink PDA users using frequencies that I do not have to pay a fee to use, that is universal in service availability, with multiple frequency bands to accomodate short and long ranges, then I might consider it "radio".

That doesn't mean I'll belittle any for using it or playing with it, it's just that I can't take it with me up north camping! There are no LAN jacks I can use in Harrisville State Park in Michigan... I welcome the technology, just don't expect everyone to embrace it. Believe it or not, there are some hams who still use PAPER LOG BOOKS! Imagine that...

73, and have fun! It IS a hobby, after all...
Jim N8AVX

[flyslow]

Just my 2 cents . . .I do not see ilink as true radio. This is merely computer chat using Ham calls to try and eke some legitimacy out of it.

IRLP on the other hand is a true meld of Radio and internet technology and a great use and combination of 2 different mediums. This to me is a logical step forward.


73s

Mike KG4RNB

[KE6ALV]

I've used iLink (wasn't exciting at all), and I've played around listening on eQSO. #Neither of those can compare to the joy of listening to 25 stations from around the world compete on IRLP Reflector 2 (central hub computer in Denver, CO) to make contact with Johannesburg, South Africa a couple weeks ago!

I agree, IRLP is a logical step for our hobby and I for one really enjoy the heck out of it. #Just remember, it is but _one_ of the many flavors of our hobby.

73,
Mike Levy, KE6ALV

[ke4pjw]

I saw a post that I think was much understated in a previous thread. I will paraphrase. "We are to a point where radio can be done easily, what we need to do now is make it easy to interface systems." Interfacing phone on the Internet to phone on radio is a great place to start! There are lots of other systems that could be interfaced, think about it. Think killer apps.

Terry
KE4PJW

[K1ZC]

I don't like IRLP for a host of reasons, mostly technical. eQSO is a fun way to stretch the capability of 2 meters to achieve Dx. This weekend, I listened in on a mobile station driving around Massachusetts talking to a mobile station in South Africa. Yes, the two gateways were connected via an Internet link, but otherwise it was RF all the way.

I would agree that if you are just connecting Internet to Internet using your call sign, you might as well be on Yahoo Chat. If you are using the Internet to reach an RF gateway, I feel differently. Still, not like the real thing.

[w7uy]

i-Link is certainly radio if you connect to a repeater. I like it.

< flame retardant suit >Whatever happened to HF though? IRLP et al are nice, but it goes back to the "use it or lose it" phrase. < /flame retardant suit >

[N3HGB]

ILink can be connected to a radio or just be computer to computer. Computer to computer isn't any different then hams calling each other on the phone for a QSO, but the radio link part of it is cool. What is bad about calling CQ on a 2 meter repeater in Australia from the USA?
73
Joe

[jwillmore]

Ok, I'm a ham newbie and someone is going to ream me for saying this...but that's ok...I am entitled to my own opinions and poor spelling!

I think that I-Link is a good thing for newbies. It enables people to learn proper etiquette and techniques, without using up valuable repeater time. Yes, it is a novelty and it is very similar to Netmeeting and other programs, but this one is specifically designed for amateur radio users.

Also, many of us can't drop a dozen c notes on a new rig and antenna farm...just to DX...this allows us to *enjoy* the hobby without divorcing our wives and pawning our fishing boats...

Old timers...I respect you and appreciate your help and the energy and $ that you have put towards your hobby...but if you want this hobby to stay viable, accept the fact that new people and new technology are going to pop up all of the time...

Ok...enough whining...

73's my friends....

KC9BIX...clear and monitoring

[MAB2003]

i dont think ilink is true radio http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[scream]

well i enjoy ilink a lot and i enjoyed the many contacts its nice for the ones who don't have a lot of space for radios

[KC2JCA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (jwillmore @ April 11 2002,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that I-Link is a good thing for newbies. #It enables people to learn proper etiquette and techniques, without using up valuable repeater time. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Only if the people you are communicating with are using proper operating techniques.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Also, many of us can't drop a dozen c notes on a new rig and antenna farm...just to DX...this allows us to *enjoy* the hobby without divorcing our wives and pawning our fishing boats...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Three words:

Cue Our Pea.

$5 worth of electronic parts, 2 hours of soldering, $7 worth of 14 gauge stranded wire and you are on your way. Anything more than 5 watts is a waste of energy.
You don't need brandy-new radios, amps and huge antennas to work DX. That's just more of the "Bigger is Better" myth.

73, Jim - kc2jca

[ab8lq]

Is it radio? Well, the one time I've actually used it, it certainly was. I answered a CQ on a 440 repeater. It was exciting to me because it was the first "DX" contact I'd ever made. I guess it can be argued that it wasn't a true DX, and I guess I can understand their point. For me, in Ohio, talking to England, it felt like DX.

Sean.
www.qsl.net/ab8lq

[kb1flr]

I don't have anything against I-Link or IRLP, but what fun is making a contact if no technical accumen is required. The interesting aspect to DX'ing, IMHO, is working hard to snag the DX station by using the capabilities of our radios, our antenna systems, and our minds.

The poster who mentioned QRP hit the nail on the head. It doesn't take a $4000 rig, a kilowatt, and a tri-bander at 150' to work DX. All that stuff helps, but my station is extremely modest. It takes more effort this way, but each contact is that much more gratifying.

If I can stand in my backyard with an HT and work a DX station by connecting to a radio (repeater, whatever) connected to the Internet, what have I accomplished? I haven't worked any DX, because the only radio I contacted with RF was a local one. It is only slightly more difficult than simply connecting to a Ham only Netmeeting server.

And to squelch those who might label me an Internet Luddite, I make my living as a Web programmer. I'm not saying these technologies don't have a place, they just aren't very technically interesting.

73 de KB1FLR, Rick

[W5HTW]

I agree this is advancing technology, but I am not certain in what direction the advance is heading. I can recall being in a position where my skills as a radio operator were needed, but at least some of the time I was sending traffic via a leased-line link. To me, that was disappointing, as (to coin a phrase!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif "it wasn't radio." It was a Teletype machine hooked to a land line.

On the internet, in email, for example, we really can't identify the path our message packets take to reach their destination. And if it gets there, we don't really care.

On our VHF/UHF repeaters, again we may not, on major linked systems, particularly care about HOW the contact is made, but simply that it IS made. So if I sit in my home office, with an HT running 500 MW, and talk to a ham in Los Angeles, who is also running a 500 MW HT, through a major southwestern repeater link, what have I accomplished? I turned on a radio and contacted a local repeater. That's all. The rest of it was done by many 'someone else's' who built and installed the link. On my part, no technical ability and no operating skill was involved, to talk nearly 1,000 miles away to another ham. To me, even THAT "ain't radio." There's no challenge. I can do it twice an hour, every hour, if I choose, and the only things that will hold me back will be (1) the link is down, or (2) the link is busy. Like a busy signal on my cell phone.

Does that make the linking systems bad? Of course not. We have to determine the goal of "operating." Is it to just talk to someone in Tokyo, or Sidney or Montreal, using my computer, and someone else's radio? If so, then the ilink stuff is OK. But if I get on the computer, I can, as already pointed out, do the exact same thing in Instant Messenger, in dozens of live chat rooms, and never touch a radio, or have anyone else touch a radio on my behalf. And I won't know the difference at my keyboard!!! But if that is my goal, to simply "make contact," without caring that dozens, hundreds, or thousands of others, are doing the technical work for me, then fine, go for it.

From my end, though, when I crank up the radio, it is my own operating skill that allows me to chat with that person in Tokyo, Sidney or Montreal, direct from my house to his. Sure the radios were made by commercial manufacturers, and in some cases, so were the antennas. But I am the one determining if I can hear that fellow or not, and how well, and how well he hears me, and when you get right down to it, there are just the two of us. No links, no cell phones, no internet, nothing but two radios in the night, far apart, and depending up the abilities of the guys/gals at the controls.

That's radio.

73
Ed W5HTW

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ab8lq @ April 11 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it radio? #Well, the one time I've actually used it, it certainly was. #I answered a CQ on a 440 repeater. #It was exciting to me because it was the first "DX" contact I'd ever made. I guess it can be argued that it wasn't a true DX, and I guess I can understand their point. For me, in Ohio, talking to England, it felt like DX.

Sean.
www.qsl.net/ab8lq[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But you weren't "talking to England." You were talking to your local repeater, or your local ISP access line. You were actually "talking" only a mile or so.

If that makes you happy, then there's nothing wrong with it, honestly. (See my other posting) But you weren't "working DX" per se. You were working a local repeater. Maybe someday there will be certificates for DXCC for that kind of operation. (Whew!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Work All States (WAS) through your local ISP access line.

For many, this is fine, and I don't begrudge them that activity. It is just the reality is, the VAST majority of the link is via telephone and fiber optics lines, and radio comes into play only in the first and last mile of a many-thousands mile long contact.

The "DX" depends upon how far you were from your repeater.

Enjoy your day, and 73

Ed

[jwillmore]

KC2JCA~

I apprecreciate your "non-flaming" responce and also your influence as a fellow member of the ham world, but if you would take the time to read my post, I mentioned that I am a newbie, much like many others and have not learned CW yet and are not ready for QRP yet. #Please be my mentor, not someone who keeps me away from this hobby...that's my wife's job. #Thanks KC2JCA!

---the rest of my post...not directed toward KC2JCA---

I have inhaled more than my share of solder fumes and am fully capable of soldering circles around most humans, but the fact that QRP exists is not a reason to refame the use of the internet as a means of communications transport...how did your message get posted? #Did you CW it through your $12 QRP rig to a lone DX station would sent up smoke signals to god to used a miracle to jam it into this board?
Technology and it's continuous change has been a part of this hobby since it's inception and will continue until the FCC pry's my HT from my cold dead fingers...embrace technology, use your energies to make it work for you...not against you.

No...iLink is NOT radio...but it is damn cool and helps me and my other neophyte friends stay interested in the hobby and communicate with people all over the city/county/state/nation/world/universe.

alright...i'm done now...back to you KC2JCA for a retort.

KC9BIX

[kb1flr]

jwillmore - How do you know you are not ready for more challenge in Amateur Radio? The great danger in using an internet transport to speak to a distant station is that you have little incentive to further yourself in the hobby. It would be far more interesting (and cooler) if you worked the same station through an Amateur Satellite. You probably have a lot of the equipment you need on hand already. Your license permits it. And you could still use the computer to track the satellites.

Now that's radio!

73 de KB1FLR, Rick

[w1pmc]

I recieved my Tech license about 4 months ago and live in a below-ground level apartment. While I study for my General class #ticket (and until I move to a better location #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) I've found that iLink has been fun and interesting. iLink isn't anything that I'd use for the long term, though. As some of the other posters have stated, iLink is half 'real radio' (linking to repeaters) and half not (talking PC to PC). I don't understand why the 'not radio' part of iLink is even included in the iLink program. I've talked to a few hams on iLink, computer to computer, and I don't see the point. We sit and carry on a 'QSO' like we were actually on the air. Afterwards, I feel kind of stupid.
One part I do like about iLink is the possiblity of talking to other hams outside of my local area on a local repeater via my VHF/UHF rig. It would make for a nice change to the sometimes boring ragchewers that are on some repeaters day-in day-out.

An argument as to talking from your radio on the south side of town, thru the repeater, to someone on the north side of town (to me), is not to far from talking from your radio on the south side of town,thru iLink, to someone on the north side of town in England.

You're still playing on 2 Meters - having fun meeting someone new.......Except for the group that was just talking and would'nt come back to the visitor from the next state who wanted to chit-chat while on their travels (but, that's another subject)

It's just another way to have fun meeting new people thru a repeater around the world.

Have fun,

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

[kb1flr]

Sorry to all for obsessing on this, but just to indicate how unchallenging this technology is, I would like to describe similar soultion requiring no custom programming. It is a simple-minded approach, but it will illustrate the point.

1. take 1 HT and use it to talk either simplex or through a repeater to ...

2. ... another HT that has its line out connected to a computer line in.

3. The computer line out is connected to a circuit (Rigblaster type of device) that feeds the audio back into the HT and keys the mic using VOX. The computer is running Netmeeting.

4. A second such setup is established, well, anywhere else.


5. Done. The challenging part was figuring out Netmeeting.

Of course, the HT connected to the computer would have to periodically ID, but I hope the point is clear.

I guess that what I'm saying is that I don't see this as an advancement in technology (certainly not radio technology). It isn't even an interesting application of technology, because virtually all of it is already done for you. Its the same as microwaving a TV dinner and then saying you cooked dinner. Doesn't count.


73 de KB1FLR, Rick

[jwillmore]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1flr @ April 11 2002,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">jwillmore - How do you know you are not ready for more challenge in Amateur Radio? ....Your license permits it. And you could still use the computer to track the satellites.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am not ready...yet...just no time...but believe me...I *WILL* be ready in a few short months. #Raising 3 kids and working full time doesn't permit a ton of free time, but I use every second to further my knowledge base and my education.

I am still infatuated with local simplex and duplex conversations...but now my efforts are focused on starting a new repeater group for 2 meter in my area.

Only time and energy hold me back. #I'll be QRP'ing in no time...

Thanks for the input and the mentoring!

73's

KC9BIX....monitoring....

[KG6GOK]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree this is advancing technology, but I am not certain in what direction the advance is heading. #I can recall being in a position where my skills as a radio operator were needed, but at least some of the time I was sending traffic via a leased-line link. #To me, that was disappointing, as (to coin a phrase! "it wasn't radio." # It was a Teletype machine hooked to a land line.

On the internet, in email, for example, we really can't identify the path our message packets take to reach their destination. #And if it gets there, we don't really care. #

On our VHF/UHF repeaters, again we may not, on major linked systems, particularly care about HOW the contact is made, but simply that it IS made. #So if I sit in my home office, with an HT running 500 MW, and talk to a ham in Los Angeles, who is also running a 500 MW HT, through a major southwestern repeater link, what have I accomplished? #I turned on a radio and contacted a local repeater. #That's all. #The rest of it was done by many 'someone else's' #who built and installed the link. #On my part, no technical ability and no operating skill was involved, to talk nearly 1,000 miles away to another ham. # To me, even THAT "ain't radio." # There's no challenge. #I can do it twice an hour, every hour, if I choose, and the only things that will hold me back will be (1) the link is down, or (2) the link is busy. #Like a busy signal on my cell phone.

Does that make the linking systems bad? #Of course not. #We have to determine the goal of "operating." #Is it to just talk to someone in Tokyo, or Sidney or Montreal, using my computer, and someone else's radio? #If so, then the ilink stuff is OK. #But if I get on the computer, I can, as already pointed out, do the exact same thing in Instant Messenger, in dozens of live chat rooms, and never touch a radio, or have anyone else touch a radio on my behalf. #And I won't know the difference at my keyboard!!! #But if that is my goal, to simply "make contact," without caring that dozens, hundreds, or thousands of others, are doing the technical work for me, then fine, go for it.

From my end, though, when I crank up the radio, it is my own operating skill that allows me to chat with that person in Tokyo, Sidney or Montreal, direct from my house to his. #Sure the radios were made by commercial manufacturers, and in some cases, so were the antennas. #But I am the one determining if I can hear that fellow or not, and how well, and how well he hears me, and when you get right down to it, there are just the two of us. #No links, no cell phones, no internet, nothing but two radios in the night, far apart, and depending up the abilities of the guys/gals at the controls. #

That's radio.

73
Ed W5HTW

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ed, W5HTW said it for me! I agree with him 120% (or more!) . # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #73 to all and THAT is radio,
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #Andrew KG6GOK

As far as whether this is "Radio..." I am not sure this is the right question.

The question should simply be whether ILink and its step-cousin, IRLP, are useful.

Like many, I didn't see much use in ILink at first. The idea of chatting on a repeater in Midland, Texas while sitting in my office in Tennessee just didn't seem like a great thrill. But, then I noticed there was a gateway in Mobile, AL. "Hey," I thought, "My brother lives there." Many has been the day that I have chatted with Chris, WA4CB, on his long drive to work. Nothing important to talk about -- just nice brotherly chat. Yes, "Kewl."

Further, when I am on the road, I can put my mighty 300mw Icom HT in a carry-on (Gosh, it only weighs 6 oz) and HE CAN chat with me while I walk down the street in an unfamiliar city. Kewl, indeed.

Is ILink DX? 'Course not. Should it count for DXCC?! Don't make me laugh... But it is USEFUL (as my 4-year old would point out -- just like Thomas The Tank Engine) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif So, just enjoy it, and don't spend so much time and energy arguing.

Just a thought.

Peter Baskind
AG4KI

[AE0AL]

I can't call it real radio, not in the strictest sence.
Seems to me there was an idea of a reverse auto patch that would allow someone to access the repeater. This Ilink dose it from the internet. Yes it is kind of cool, But not exactly the same.

#My point is that for someone in a nursing home or retirement center or assisted living or has an antenna restriction covenant this could allow many hams to be active again I'd like to see it grow and become more wide spread to other repeaters. #I think it could have some real possibilities.
73
AE0AL

[kf4vgx]

Ilink is part of the future of ham Radio! We can turn our back's and ignore it ! Or we can use it and learn from it .Hay were Hams lets experiment !You can link repeaters with ILINK the same as IRLP,YES thay both use the internet . You can be flying on a airplane where radios are not permitted ,but bring your laptop and still talk to your ham contacts around the world !But even better you use DTMF tones to link around the world ( By your Radio ) break out the old Handie Talkie's Folk's
Computer to computer is like a chat room. But useing radio to computer to link is amazing !Hard of hearing someone tunes up on HF your gone to much noise http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif . Emergency Use ? Well yes ! your in an accident No cell phone? No one on your two meter repeater? Thank God for the ham that put Ilink on it. you will get helped. Not to leave out World disaster's! Most of the hams useing ILINK are good operators .You have to be valadated !The person linking the Ham to repeaters see's his or her call sign Good Cuts out a lot of qrm problems. Good teaching tool for the begining ham's 73 DE KF4VGX / John

[GJ7JHF]

I believe N0AX expresses my opinion better than I can :

"I don't care what people use their radios for
or how the communications is accomplished, as
long as they find a path to the essential
magic of the hobby. The phone system and the
internet attempt to make communications as
reliable as possible - that's their whole
point. Not much magic there. But if making
an HT-repeater-internet QSO gets somebody
excited, then more power to them and to the
technology. They will eventually discover
magic in other parts of the hobby and expand
their scope. It might be DXing, it might be
moonbounce, it might be some odd hybrid that
nobody has thought of yet. The magic of Radio
lies somewhere in the notion that there is
still variability and chance in the
interactions with the Real World out there.
The ionosphere may or may not be reflecting,
there might be an odd tropospheric opening,
you might stumble across an unexpected QSO.
If adding a little technology to a repeater
makes it cool for someone to chat to a place
far away in an unexpected way, terrific. The
proper response to that enthusiasm is not,
"So what" but "That's cool - how would you
like to try it directly?". It's about the
magic, guys. We need to be more enthusiastic
about the magic and take a less parochial
view of the hobby.
73, Ward N0AX "

If anyone wants my views, they're on my i-linking page
at http://www.geocities.com/gj7jhf/ilinking.html

Andy GJ7JHF #73

[Phineas]

iLink = Equalizer.

Its funny how some people dont consider this to be true radio, even though commercial radio stations have used ATM(The Telephoine Company part of the internet) to link up with their transmitters. Some people may argue about PSK31 being real radio. Whats the difference?

Other than the fact that you really need a good connection to really enjoy it, I think it gives HF a run for the money. A person can even setup their own link without much of a hastle, or much expense. It makes a good substitute for people who travel, and want to yack from a hotel room. No dreaded Pileups. No band limitations. The band is almost always open.

Phineas
KC0LSC

[kb1flr]

N0AX makes a good point about any means for fostering interest in the hobby being good. It would be extremely sad, however, if the ease of use of this technology kept hams from ever using HF or any other mode than FM. The Internet based technologies are safe and easy without much chance of failure.

Maybe because I'm an Internet programmer I don't see the allure of this technology. I would much rather sit at my radio and think about Solar Flux, MUF, and propagation paths. It takes a lot of things going right to make an HF contact, including operator skill. I'm not very skilled, but I am learning a lot.

As N0AX suggests, to each his own. I apologize if my remarks in previous posts were "over the top".

73 de KB1FLR, Rick

[N3SOZ]

Ilink is "real radio" when the other half of the link actually utilizes RF, whether its a repeater or a simplex station. #I've had QSO's via both on Ilink. I also had an interesting conversation with a ham in Ohio, using the VoIP feature. #It was fun to meet someone new, although the 'magic' wasn't there since we could have been using Netmeeting. #I'm still a Tech (but have a goal to upgrade this year), so for me Ilink provides a window to "DX" of some sort. #I'm sure it will build a following, but for me nothing compares to the thrill of a real DX contact. #The sheer randomness of 6 meter DX makes it fun, and I suppose the utter predictability of Ilink is kind of a turn off for me. #For those that dislike the technology, its probably best to remember that what makes the hobby good for you isn't necesarily good for everyone.

Matt n3soz

[KG6ITC]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif OK I know that this should be easy but where is I-Link do download? I don't seem to find the site diong a search on google for i-link.

73,

KG6ITC
Craig

[K1ZC]

There are a bunch of Internet linked technologies, several are discussed here:

http://www.geocities.com/gj7jhf/ilinking.html

and links to download sites are provided. I prefer eQSO myself.

[KT4EB]

Okay yall got me on my soap-box now!! NO IT IS NOT RADIO. Just as someone else posted, you are NOT MAKING A DX CONTACT. To me, the definition of a DX contact is when the signal from my antenna reaches DIRECTLY to the station I am working. If my signal only goes to my local repeater, through internet, to another repeather, the only signal that is DX is the internet satellite signal to the distant station.

I am only 21, and have been licensed since I was 15. When I first started in the hobby, I quickly learned the since of satisfaction I got when I knew that my CW skills and patience paid off as I logged down a DX QSO. I have made countless Rare DX QSO's with only a dipole and 5 watts of power.

If you are going to use the internet to make --and I use the term loosly-- DX contacts, you are only defeating the purpose of earning that license!! AND I AGREE USE IT OR LOOSE IT !!!!! When we start using the internet to replace HF, that's when we loose HF.

[kf4lne]

Its not radio in the traditional sense - but although this is a service it is still an enjoyable passtime. If someone enjoys making contacts in another state or country then let it be so. I enjoy ilink, and i use it to make contacts in other states and countries. its also a great way for no coders to catch the DX bug and maybe motivate them to upgrade. Its also great for the ham who cant afford a rig or the youngster who recently got his ticket but has no radio, they can use their parents computer to take advantage of their call. Same applies to using APRS over TCP/IP, I cant afford gear for an APRS station right now and even so I don't think there is a APRS node in radio range of my location.

[KD5SYH]

Wouldn't it be cool if the CW requirment was dropped, so hams that are otherwise technically capable and inclined can use HF instead of iLink to talk DX! Just a thought from my 14-year old self! No, I don't Hate on CW, becasue I have to rely on it on 2M since my puny SSB signal won't reach much further than a grid square or two (to me, 100 miles is some real DX!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Yes, I tried 6m and no matter what I did, it tore up anything and everything, even with 1 watt CW, so obviously my parents and neighboors wouldn't live with that. Yes, I am taking my CW test on April the 22nd hopefully I will pass. Yes, I believe that the CW requirement will have to be dropped in order for newcomers to get into this hobby (especially people my age); trust me, I would know, I've only tried to elmer many of my friends. I used to shoot skip on 11m QRP (less than 5 watts), CW, AM, SSB, and FM, and it worked great; thankfully I didn't have to know much code to do it (at least there was no code test!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. The CW requirment is killing the HF population, and if you are happy with that than there is a problem, because you don't care about the advancment of HAM radio!

The Basic Point Is: If we didn't have the CW Reqirment, alot of people that have great difficulty learning CW could still be on HF talking DX instead of cheating by using iLink.

I used to be one of those people with difficulty learning CW, it took me 4 years to learn it halfway. And not everyone will overcome it like I did. BTW I took my General test and Extra test without studying one bit and passed the general hands-down and failed the extra by 5 questions (not bad considereing this was after the restructering where the Extra test combined the math & electronic theory-intensive calculations of the Advanced Exam!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Wish me luck on my CW exam on April the 22nd!

TNX & 73's,
Fabian C.
KD5JDG

[ab8lq]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5HTW @ April 11 2002,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
But you weren't "talking to England." You were talking to your local repeater, or your local ISP access line. You were actually "talking" only a mile or so.

If that makes you happy, then there's nothing wrong with it, honestly. (See my other posting) But you weren't "working DX" per se. You were working a local repeater.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I was in Ohio and the person to whom I was talking was in England -- if I wasn't talking to England, it sure seemed like I was. I understand your point, but for me, it was a first contact with an amateur outside the US.

Was it DX? I know it wasn't, not really. I know I was talking to a local repeater. None the less, it was still neat for me. Regardless of my license, it's hard to work much DX without something other than a 2m/440 radio. (We're putting up the dipole for my new 706 tonight, so I can work "real" DX stations.)

On the other hand, it may also be that this is exactly the sort of thing needed to get newcomers into amateur radio. I know my son -- already interested in a license -- is even more excited by the possibility he might be able to work other countries even with a Tech license with 2m or 440. Yet it's limited enough so that if people are interested in DXing, they might well upgrade to get rid of those limitations.

Sean.

[N2KF]

I've listened to it on a local repeater, and have not participated. Somebody said I need to "contribute" to the repeater and/or it's group to get the tones...

Hmmph. Reminds me of early bbs's that the other guy mentioned.

I do see one advantage, in light of the "what ever happened to HF" comment.... Just imagine how many Tech classers will want "real" dx once they get their first thrill on one of those "things". That's got to get some grins. So, that's what I try to bear in mind while I hear guys working dx like "shootin' fish in a barrel".

73's, Franz N2KF http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KG4OWE]

Well, being a person who does not have much cash on hand due to family and food and payments and such, I use I-link to be invovled in the community. Its either that or my ticket just sits in its frame and collects dust.

For those who despise I-link and dont think people should use it. I will gladly accept any rigs you don't want or use. Give me a radio and I will gladly not use I-link.

KG4OWE

[KT4EB]

I know this is off the topic, so I will make it quick. To the young man that want's the code dropped...One thing to keep in mind, if you really want to work DX, CW is your best shot. #The best rare DX stations I have worked are on CW, and I never hear them on SSB. I am sure they are there on SSB, but you would probably need a few thousand dollars for a 200 foot tower and the best beam you can afford. #Morse Code is a part of the History of our hobby. Just tossing it away is like schools not teaching about the american Indian's in History class. #Each license class you earn helps you advance farther in knowledge about our hobby. #Never stop learning no matter how much you dislike it.

No, it's not radio.. It's a system for linking repeaters via the Internet.

Right now, it's being used to link distant repeaters, giving amateurs who wish to QSO with distant hams an alternative to using Amateur Radio to bridge that distance.

In the bad old days, this situation ( wanting to QSO with distant Hams ) might have motivated some of these Hams to learn more about Amateur Radio so that they could upgrade thier liscense, and then get to know the local hams and cobble together some equipment and an antenna... Now these hams have a ready alternative to that time consuming, tiresome process of self advancement, education and fellowship.

Later though, I expect to see the system used for linking repeaters located across town, and even for repeaters located at the same tower site. This advancement will give Amateurs an alternative to the Ham Radio linking systems currently used for that purpose, thereby advancing the art of amateur radio communications.

I have heard that software already exists to take this exciting advance in the field of Amater Radio communications to it's final and most benificial step. Microsoft's Netmeeting will allow Hams who are irked by the effort necessary to learn the morse code to QSO around the world, without having to bear an unreasonable burden in having to advance thier knowlege of radio in order to pass an exam, or the get to know the local Hams, or build or buy anything.

Any hobbyist with a computer with a soundcard can participate, and this will bring thousands of new Hams into the hobby who were previously put off by the irksome requirement to learn something about radio before they could experience the thrill of worldwide DX contacts.

By the way:

Ten years ago, packet radio / internet gateways were severely restricted, but in the U.S., they were allowed to set up at will.

Today, the European packet radio net has nodes that pass 10MB of packet data a day, with high-speed "backbone" RF links that allow all-Ham Radio QSO's with Hams located 600 miles away and more. 9600 baud access is most common.

The U.S. packet net never advanced beyond the point it was at when packet / internet gateways were introduced into the network, and now U.S. packet radio is #almost nonexistant.

We started off with the most advanced, most extensive packet radio net in the world, and ten years later we were a distant second weenie to the Europeans. We allowed packet / internet gateways that provided a ready alternative to Ham Radio links, and the Europeans didn't. Thier infrastructure continued to develop and grow, and ours briefly stagnated, before falling apart.

Any hobby has persons who put thier own personal desires above what would be best for the hobby. There are also always persons who want the benefits a hobby has to offer without putting out the effort required in order to participate. They are always whining about the requirements, and wanting expanded priveleges without putting out any additional effort on thier part. I have heard about how an influx of such persons would be a great boon to the hobby for years now, but personally, I have my doubts.

Charles, N5PVL

[n0vld]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1flr @ April 11 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't have anything against I-Link or IRLP, but what fun is making a contact if no technical accumen is required. The interesting aspect to DX'ing, IMHO, is working hard to snag the DX station by using the capabilities of our radios, our antenna systems, and our minds.

The poster who mentioned QRP hit the nail on the head. It doesn't take a $4000 rig, a kilowatt, and a tri-bander at 150' to work DX. All that stuff helps, but my station is extremely modest. It takes more effort this way, but each contact is that much more gratifying.

If I can stand in my backyard with an HT and work a DX station by connecting to a radio (repeater, whatever) connected to the Internet, what have I accomplished? I haven't worked any DX, because the only radio I contacted with RF was a local one. It is only slightly more difficult than simply connecting to a Ham only Netmeeting server.

And to squelch those who might label me an Internet Luddite, I make my living as a Web programmer. I'm not saying these technologies don't have a place, they just aren't very technically interesting.

73 de KB1FLR, Rick[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not sure what you mean by having no technical accumen. It takes quite a bit of technical expertise to get an IRLP node up and running. I know I have learned a lot doing it, and it's been an enjoyable experience. I also love working DX on the HF bands. I think they both have their place.

Jack
Owner - Reflector 921
Admin - Node 427

[kc9ahs]

Well I have to agree with the operator dow the list a ways, Ilink is a good thing for new guys, now i know some of you more hardcore(for lack of better terms) hams don't agree with the voice over the internet but i see some of you like IRLP well irlp is internet as well. Ilink can be connected to a radio link in fact i am in the process of setting one up in my area. I have and use Ilink, eqso and IRLP and all are fine programs, it gives you a chance to make dx contacts without having to buy expensive equipment.
Dave
KC9AHS

[w4pqk]

I-Link means Internet Link, an interface between ham Radio and the Internet. I-Link is similar to an Auto Patch - both rely on commercial communications which may be wire, fibre optic and well maybe even radio (satellite), but its not Ham Radio.

My concern is that new hams will be tempted to bypass upgrade and concentrate on someone else's HF and miss the experience of true ham radio. On the other hand it may be an I-Link HF experience which becomes the incentive for a new ham to upgrade and go HF. There are Pros and Cons. With each new mode that comes along I like to look at it and ask what advantages does it have for emergency communications? I-Link can provide some advantages perhaps but its dependence on telephone systems is a definite limitation.

I doubt that I will ever use I-Link extensively, with the possible exception of talking (computer - computer telephone like) with family hams on the west coast.

HOME BREW I-Link caution: The QST article or web sites it references say that LED DS2 (Power) must be disconnected when programming the PIC. The QST schematic was redrawn and it is LED DS1 (Activity) which must be disconnected. Check out www.g4cdy.co.uk web page. It uses different component symbols but specifys that it is the ACTIVITY LED which must be disconnected.

Happy Hamming! (and Internet Interfacing)

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

[zurcher]

ha..am amused at the pro/con...is it radio?..this I-link stuff...the old timers ( I am 67 )...clinging to thiere old fashioned H F SSB radios...what a struggle to dig an old man out of the static/qrm -pileup...while I 'm having armchair copy with the same "bloke" in aussie land for over an hour!...with a recycled PC..retrieved at the city dump ...with JUNO...no less...read free pc..free internet service..all I'm paying for is the electric!...radio will never die...emagin the guys fiddling with billions of miles per giga watt out to spaceships around neptune?..and isnt lots of radio in use to get my voice out to that chap in aussie land..like satelites and stuff...dont think my message is packed thru thin wires all the way across the pacific!
73, herb n1kwv

[KE6MGB]

I signed up the other day, still waiting for my callsign to be validated with them. Seems like an interesting concept, however I can already tell that the client software is not all that stable. It crashed on me several times, and I'm running WinXP (2000). I'm sure there will be more releases. Anyways, seems interesting. Looking forward to trying it out (if they ever validate my callsign)...

[n7ji]

Not to forget, so long as someone else is responsible for providing the medium, we're not in control.

While most of us do rely on commercial mains for electric, alternatives are available. But if you're chatting on the web, you're using someone else's lines and not relying on fickle mother nature. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.

And it does not require expensive equipment to get on HF - just the will to do so. I remember a group of older hams going through hamfests and seeing who could put together the most inexpensive yet functional HF stations - then they'd give the stations to new hams.

Scott N7JI

Wonderful posts, really covers both sides of the debate!

Is eqso and illink radio? Its still up in the air, and a yes or no answer is probably not sufficient, (maybe comes to mind).

However, its excellent fun for newcomers, those without equipment, and those operators who cant use "real" radio... I think of it like a baseball farm system, learn how to communicate without using some of the precious HF space. With luck we'll be able to do CW on eqso and ilink as well...

Im not sure if its real or not, but its great fun, and Im hooked!

73
Paul G-
KC8SQC

Ilink and Phone Patches:

In the course of this discussion, several folks have said, "Well, it's just like phone patches..."

Well, it's not.

When a MARS operator, for example, uses a phone patch so that a U.S. serviceman can talk to his family, the telephone network is only accessed and used to provide access to non-hams. The actual job of linking across the world is done by a pair of Amateur Radio operators, using Amateur Radio equipment. The phone system, from a practical point of view, is not involved in this. Instead, Amateur Radio is used. Because of this, the link is referred to as an "Amateur Radio communication".

In this situation, it is true that the last few miles of several thousand ends up traveling via the telephone lines. This is a miniscule percentage of the total distance covered, and then is only necessary because non-Hams are involved.

With phone patches, you are primarily communicating via Amateur Radio, but non-Hams can pretend that it is the telephone.

With I-link, you are primarily conmmunicating via the Internet, but Hams can pretend that it is Amateur Radio.

In light of the recent upsurge of interest in emergency communications, Hams should be developing independent, all Ham Radio communications systems, not figuring out new ways to develop a dependency upon non-Ham systems (Internet) that are likely to go down or become unavailable in the course of an emergency.

In the light of increased interest in our bit of spectrum by commercial interests, Hams should be developing systems that put the airwaves to use, not developing an unseemly dependency upon non-Ham communications systems.

We should remember that the hobby is not "Amateur Communications", or "Amateur Telephone"... It's called "Amateur Radio", instead. The focus is on Radio.

If Hams are dumb enough to say, "We don't need Radio to communicate as Ham Radio operators." then congressmen, senators, and FCC people might very easily end up saying and thinking the same thing.

Good way to shoot our own foot off. - Fostering an impression that Radio is not strictly necessary to the hobby... Dirt stupid, too.

Imagine what might have been accomplished if all the energy and expertise that went into Ilink had gone into Amateur Radio comminucations instead...

That would have been a lot better for the hobby.

Charles, N5PVL

[K5GMR]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif If you don't like Ilink, try the new software from M0ZPD. it supports conference rooms, so there can be an unlimited number of people qso'ing each other on repeaters, or off, all at the same time. This is just like talking on your local repeater, with multiple hams at one time. Plus, #there are also multiple rooms for many different interests. Info below......


There are now a couple of new software programs (FREE!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif for connecting ham radio to the Internet.
One of them is the "M0ZPD Internet Gateway" software. #You can download this program at http://www.qsl.net/m0zpd #Look for the "Download" link. If you are not planning to link a repeater or simplex frequency to your computer then you will need the "PC User's" Version.

The other program is called "ILink" and you can download this one at http://www.aacnet.net/radio.html # Both programs are still being developed and will feature lots of nice capabilities when finished.

[W8RDH]

I guess I just don't get it. #If it isn't direct communication between your radio and the other guys radio, it simply isn't much of an accomplishment. #If you were able to communicate from the east coast to the west coast via 20 repeaters, it might be cool, might be fun, but it would not be the same as bouncing your signal off of the ionosphere. #All of these technologies are of interest and I don't blame new Hams for finding them stimulating, but to accord a contact via the information highway infrastructure the same value as a direct contact is absurd. #To the extent that such activities stimulate the interest of new Hams, I think they are great. #The problem develops when new people equate such assisted contacts with traditional direct communication.....they are not the same.

Rick
W8RDH