The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
The "simple" implementation to which I refer would require ZERO equipment at the receiver, and would improve intelligibility in low SNR environments. #It would be 100% compatible with every SSB transceiver.


I guess I missed your "simple" implementation. The only one I see that you mentioned used "tactical scramblers".

Is this another one of those hidden "things" of yours?

BTW, I am well aware of the noise contribution. I never said a station running higer bandwidth won't have to run higher power as well in order to get good SNR. By the same token, I've never said this would be for general use on the ham bands either - only when high intelligibility speech is needed in conjunction with operability with the vast majority of the amateur equipment on the ham bands.

tim ab0wr

[K1MVP]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Feb. 14 2006,19:24)]Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Feb. 14 2006,11:12)]To, KB1SF,

And just how much did Canada contribute to the "war
effort" during WW II?( not that much if I recall correctly)
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
Well, Rene, I think you might want to go back and re-do your history homework.

Canada was VERY MUCH a major player in the WW II, commensurate with its population and industrial base at the time. #

For example, Canada’s total deaths in the war were .3% of its population (some 34,000) as compared with about .4% (some 500,000) for the USA. #Another source shows Canada’s war deaths were more on the order of 42,000, which might actually put it on par with the USA using the same "percentage of population" yardstick. #

But, either way, it would seem that Canada, just like the USA, made major sacrifices in that war, commensurate with its population.

So, Rene, next time, please do your homework before you launch into baseless (not to mention disparaging) remarks about your friendly neighbors to the north.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Ok Keith,
Looks like to me you like to "troll", IMO and "bait"
and "get the "last word", IMO.
By the way,--I do know a bit about the Canadian Military.
I spent some time near Halifax, N.F, with the VTANG
on a deployment,--What has been your experience with
the military,?--if any,--also did some research in the
history of the canadian military.
Got to go,
Rene

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Feb. 14 2006,11:12)]To, KB1SF,

Seems to me that for someone who DID NOT even bother to file comments on this issue to the FCC,--you have had,a lot to "say" here on this QRZ forum.

Makes me wonder,--if you might just enjoy injecting
comments rather than really file where it "counts".
Oh,--yes,--I know you have already determined that
it does not matter,(to file) and that the FCC will do what
it wants.(Maybe,--maybe not)


# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
I’m continually amazed at how many people still regard the FCC with an almost God-like reverence, believing they must continue to ask them for “blessings” and not EVER anger or raise their collective ire lest those “blessings” no longer continue to “flow”.

And, certainly, in times past, the FCC was staffed with many knowledgeable engineers and skilled electronic technicians. #Many were also Hams themselves and were in a unique position to look out for the best interests of Amateur Radio during their day-to-day government staff work.

However, today, all we have to do is look at the BPL fiasco to see that the FCC has, like most other government organizations headquartered in Washington, now turned largely into a politicized gaggle of lawyers who are increasingly more interested in covering their own bureaucratic rear ends and marching to their own policy agendas “from above” rather than looking out for the needs and best interests of Amateur Radio.

Washington has become a town where, increasingly, money talks. #And, beyond the few thousand dollars collected here and there for vanity call signs (as opposed to their multi-million-dollar-generating spectrum auctions) Amateur Radio generates no significant revenue. #

What’s more, even the few dollars generated from issuing vanity call signs doesn’t necessarily flow back to the FCC. #It all goes into the general Treasury fund where it’s Congress (not the FCC) that ultimately decides who gets what. #

Unfortunately, even in Congress, Amateur Radio has no clearly defined constituency beyond a single, poorly funded lobby organization called the ARRL, an organization that even many people here continue to gleefully vilify. #

So, in many ways, Amateur Radio has now become an orphan’s orphan in Washington.

On the other hand, the cost for the “care and feeding” of all the regulatory gobbledygook in Part 97 continues apace. #That is, despite what some of us may otherwise think, administering government regulations costs a LOT of money. #And the funding to do all that must still compete with all the other political and other mandates now on the FCC’s plate. #

So, right now, my guess is that the FCC is under tremendous political pressure from above to simplify their operations and cut their staff by removing any language and procedures from their regulations (spelled “Morse testing”, “incentive licensing” and “regulating by mode”) that absolutely doesn't need to be there by international law or treaty and/or creates an open invitation for class action lawsuits. #

So, I think it should be quite obvious that pouring your little hearts out to the FCC in their regulatory proceedings is a HUGE waste of everyone’s time (both yours AND theirs). #They are clearly marching to their own agenda.

However, I would not be at all surprised that, in the eyes of the FCC, the Amateur Service in the United States has also now become little more than a pimple on the rear end of progress, sorely in need of a good “spanking” if not a good-sized dose of “grow up” as well. #

No doubt, that perception has become ever more apparent from all the whining the FCC is now receiving in their rulemaking replies from crusty curmudgeons doggedly resisting giving the emerging technologies now brewing in our hobby the necessary “elbow room” for continued experimentation.


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 15 2006,06:05)]Quote[/b] ]
wa5ben:
This is the most outrageous argument that I have ever seen. #Clearly, you do not understand BOTH HF propogation AND how to interpret test results.

Ed's statements and the test results posted clearly show superiority of P-III. #How on earth could any intelligent person claim otherwise?


It is not outrageous at all. The fact that you think it is says volumes about your priorities for the ham bands.

You are in the same place the ARRL and Winlink are.

The issue is spectrum efficiency, primarily the metrics of "users satisfied" and "time spectrum is denied to other users" - the primary metrics for a service that is not channelized and must *share* spectrum.

While Pactor III may be *faster* it has a lower spectrum efficiency.

Why you, the ARRL, Winlink, and all the other supporters are so enamored of advocating for making the ham bands *less* attractive for others is beyond me.

That's not to say there isn't a place for Pactor III. Whether it should be pushed as the primary protocol over Pactor II is certainly questionable.

tim ab0wr
http://www.ecjones.org/_uimages/CloseUp.gif

Tim,

AE4TM's graph definitely shows that Pactor-II and Pactor-III converge at poor signal to noise ratios. It does not necessarily show Pactor-II outperforms Pactor-III, but that is not what you stated anyway. You made a performance comparison that included spectrum efficiency. WA5BEN needs to brush up on his English comprehension!

Pactor-III reduces the number of tones according to the achievable speed level (http://scs-ptc.com/pactor.html), with two tones used for the bottom speed level, speed level 1 (I assume it is the upper tones that are not used, the tone spacing stays the same, and the emitted bandwidth reduces, but there are no bandwidth numbers stated by SCS). Anyway, at this point, Pactor-III probably resembles Pactor-II to a great extent and may just barely outperform Pactor-II, although there is insufficient data on the AE4TM graphs to be sure of this.

However, Pactor-III requires #a 2.4 kHz IF filter, because it varies bandwidth with speed (i.e. number of tones), but, if you use only #Pactor-II, you can use a 500 kHz IF filter, and in that case, the S/N will be improved for Pactor-II and the throughput will increase accordingly, putting Pactor-II ahead of Pactor-III under very poor receiving conditions.

The Winlink numbers suggest that POOR conditions are the norm #for Winlink users (50 watts, compromise, rocking, backstay antennas for the most part, and far away at sea ), and that is probably why Pactor-III is not more than 50% faster than Pactor-II on the average .

What we do not know is the speed comparison between Pactor-II using a 500 Hz IF filter and Pactor-III using a 2.4 kHz IF filter under the same propagation and signal strength conditions (i.e. in the same locations). It could well be that Pactor-II would actually be better than Pactor-III under those conditions, regardless of spectrum efficiency considerations, and it could be that the throughput of Pactor-III would be zero when Pactor-II was still printing.

Just ask any CW man how much the S/N improves between a SSB filter and a 500 Hz CW filter. He will tell you that the difference is dramatic!

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] ]NL7W
Please don't preach to me, sir.
Well said sir!

Quote[/b] ]WA5BEN
This is the most outrageous argument that I have ever seen. Clearly, you do not understand BOTH HF propogation AND how to interpret test results.

Ed's statements and the test results posted clearly show superiority of P-III. How on earth could any intelligent person claim otherwise?
Your remarks are similar to someone who does not have any facts in their favor.

If one examines what has been said here by DL6MAA and what the winlink data shows, an explanation of what is occuring becomes obvious. DL6MAA thinks the data from winlink is wrong because P3 should perform better and you obviously do also. Yet the published data, which I have no reason to doubt, shows that the performance is closer to P2.

Why would you think that is so? Do you also agree with DL6MAA that the data is wrong? Perhaps you could enlighten us on just how the data is wrong!

The training I have had over my career trying to troubleshoot telecom switching machines has taught me to look at ALL the information and attempt to correlate diverse information. The conclusion I arrive at is that the average SNR for winlink connections is closer to what AE4TM found at 20+ miles where the average transfer of P3 versus P2 are almost similar. I have included the graph AE4TM place on here for your reference.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f257/jg6164/Baud_dist.gif

Sir, I DO understand HF propagation. Perhaps YOU should review how HF works. I DO understand that Pactor connections are dependent upon the SNR at BOTH ends. As I have stated, sailboats and RV's with less than optimum antennas will control the speed at which data can be sent and received, not the PMBO end!

If you have other data, or can explain why the correlation between the winlink data and AE4TM's graphs is not correct WITH FACTS, then please do so! If, as the winlink folks say, 93% of the connections are with P3, I do not see any other valid conclusion.

Sir, people would think more highly of your comments if you did not flaunt your obviously high intelligence and tell folks they are stupid or lack understanding! The use of facts and figures means much more to most of us. Your statements to me certainly make you appear petulant and unable to support your conclusions with facts. Like my mother told me, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all!

Jim
WA0LYK

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
kb1sf:
No doubt, that perception has become ever more apparent from all the whining the FCC is now receiving in their rulemaking replies from crusty curmudgeons doggedly resisting giving the emerging technologies now brewing in our hobby the necessary “elbow room” for continued experimentation.

Keith,

Giving a spectrum inefficient, trunked, internet email service access to ever more spectrum is not facilitating "experimentation". It is facilitating wanton disregard for other amateurs wanting to share the spectrum and only rewards inefficient operation.

In just the past few messages, the Winlink people have been given at least three suggestions which would make their operation more than efficient enough to live within the current automatic subbands. These suggestions aren't anything new, either. They have been known to trunking engineers since they began installing sewers in Paris, France. My guess is that Winlink will implement none of them.

The only whining going on is from those who are being held accountable for taking the more difficult path of designing efficient systems instead of taking the easy path of just wildly spreading out horizontally over the available spectrum without regard for other occupants.

As far as other experimentation - there are so many new digital modes on the bands that the software designers of MixW and Multipsk can barely keep up. There doesn't seem to be any dearth of experimentation there. Yet while so many modes are being developed it is difficult to find people to converse with on most of them. Why is that? #(hint - it is a sociological thing, not a spectrum thing)

Digital voice? The system that AOR uses was developed in 1998/1999. It is now going on EIGHT years old. Yet it has never reached more than a few users - primarily because it is *so* expensive and offers no advantages over SSB.

You want to see where the real experimentation is taking place? Look inside the new $10000 Icom and Yaseu rigs. Better ways to make that old SSB mode more efficient, more usable in noisy conditions, and more enjoyable to use. That experimentation will pay off in cheaper, better rigs in the next decade as the cost is amortized.

I have built a receiver that uses a DDS chip for freq control that is itself is controlled using a Microchip PIC computer. A few more glue chips and it could be interfaced to a laptop/desktop computer for frequency control. When I get the transmitter done it will be the same. I can program in my schedules and the computer can turn the rig on, set the frequencies, and in the case of CW or psk, even start copying what is happening on the frequency - all with me not being there. Once the tranmitter is done, it will even be able to automatically send any messages I want if the station I want is on frequency. Since the DDS chip has bpsk functionality built right in, I may not even need to use the sound card in the PC to transmit, just send the bits to the transmitter DDS chip. Heck, there's no reason why I couldn't add in a little IR receiver and control the whole mess with my Radio Shack all-purpose TV/Stereo/DVD/VCR control unit.

Aren't you the fellow that was so involved in amateur radio satellites? You should know better. Experimentation with using the ham bands for internet access or for digital voice is just a very small part of the experimentation going on in amateur radio.

If the FCC doesn't recognize this then we will be regulated out of existence sooner or later no matter what we do.

tim ab0wr

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 15 2006,06:05)]Quote[/b] ]
wa5ben:
This is the most outrageous argument that I have ever seen. Clearly, you do not understand BOTH HF propogation AND how to interpret test results.

Ed's statements and the test results posted clearly show superiority of P-III. How on earth could any intelligent person claim otherwise?


It is not outrageous at all. The fact that you think it is says volumes about your priorities for the ham bands.

You are in the same place the ARRL and Winlink are.

The issue is spectrum efficiency, primarily the metrics of "users satisfied" and "time spectrum is denied to other users" - the primary metrics for a service that is not channelized and must *share* spectrum.

While Pactor III may be *faster* it has a lower spectrum efficiency.

Why you, the ARRL, Winlink, and all the other supporters are so enamored of advocating for making the ham bands *less* attractive for others is beyond me.

That's not to say there isn't a place for Pactor III. Whether it should be pushed as the primary protocol over Pactor II is certainly questionable.

tim ab0wr
The important part is that even if you buy the ECOMM arguments for HF email, and the Winlink need for wideband Pactor III, there is nothing that justifies access to all HF spectrum. Using the Pactor and Dr. Ed figures, they ought to be able to handle the entire email load for ECOMM, the saliboaters and RVers, and the Ministries in 20 seconds on one frequency. I say, lets give them 3.5kHz of spectrum and let them have at it. Clear out 3.5kHz (plus guardband) in the data segments today and let them go.

No change to CW, narrowband modes, and Analog voice needed.

[K1MVP]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Feb. 15 2006,07:15)]Quote[/b] (K1MVP @ Feb. 14 2006,11:12)]To, KB1SF,

Seems to me that for someone who DID NOT even bother to file comments on this issue to the FCC,--you have had,a lot to "say" here on this QRZ forum.

Makes me wonder,--if you might just enjoy injecting
comments rather than really file where it "counts".
Oh,--yes,--I know you have already determined that
it does not matter,(to file) and that the FCC will do what
it wants.(Maybe,--maybe not)


# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, K1MVP
I’m continually amazed at how many people still regard the FCC with an almost God-like reverence, believing they must continue to ask them for “blessings” and not EVER anger or raise their collective ire lest those “blessings” no longer continue to “flow”.

And, certainly, in times past, the FCC was staffed with many knowledgeable engineers and skilled electronic technicians. #Many were also Hams themselves and were in a unique position to look out for the best interests of Amateur Radio during their day-to-day government staff work.

However, today, all we have to do is look at the BPL fiasco to see that the FCC has, like most other government organizations headquartered in Washington, now turned largely into a politicized gaggle of lawyers who are increasingly more interested in covering their own bureaucratic rear ends and marching to their own policy agendas “from above” rather than looking out for the needs and best interests of Amateur Radio.

Washington has become a town where, increasingly, money talks. #And, beyond the few thousand dollars collected here and there for vanity call signs (as opposed to their multi-million-dollar-generating spectrum auctions) Amateur Radio generates no significant revenue. #

What’s more, even the few dollars generated from issuing vanity call signs doesn’t necessarily flow back to the FCC. #It all goes into the general Treasury fund where it’s Congress (not the FCC) that ultimately decides who gets what. #

Unfortunately, even in Congress, Amateur Radio has no clearly defined constituency beyond a single, poorly funded lobby organization called the ARRL, an organization that even many people here continue to gleefully vilify. #

So, in many ways, Amateur Radio has now become an orphan’s orphan in Washington.

On the other hand, the cost for the “care and feeding” of all the regulatory gobbledygook in Part 97 continues apace. #That is, despite what some of us may otherwise think, administering government regulations costs a LOT of money. #And the funding to do all that must still compete with all the other political and other mandates now on the FCC’s plate. #

So, right now, my guess is that the FCC is under tremendous political pressure from above to simplify their operations and cut their staff by removing any language and procedures from their regulations (spelled “Morse testing”, “incentive licensing” and “regulating by mode”) that absolutely doesn't need to be there by international law or treaty and/or creates an open invitation for class action lawsuits. #

So, I think it should be quite obvious that pouring your little hearts out to the FCC in their regulatory proceedings is a HUGE waste of everyone’s time (both yours AND theirs). #They are clearly marching to their own agenda.

However, I would not be at all surprised that, in the eyes of the FCC, the Amateur Service in the United States has also now become little more than a pimple on the rear end of progress, sorely in need of a good “spanking” if not a good-sized dose of “grow up” as well. #

No doubt, that perception has become ever more apparent from all the whining the FCC is now receiving in their rulemaking replies from crusty curmudgeons doggedly resisting giving the emerging technologies now brewing in our hobby the necessary “elbow room” for continued experimentation.


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Ok Keith,

To use an old military term,--lets cut through the chaff,
from the enemy`s aircraft. No more "blah, blah, blah".

Lets stick to the FACTS,--the Canadian military, which
incidently,(I do respect) does NOT have the resouces
to get the "job done".

They fly mostly #reconnaissance ,protecting their coasts with the "Aurora" aircraft which if nothing more than a #submarine "chaser".

If they did find an enemy submarine,they would probably depend on the U.S. to come to their "aid".

Same situation,--as when the twin-towers were attacked,
We, in the U.S of A, had to defend ourselves,--Canada
was not about to help the U.S. nor were they equipped
to to do so.

So the net of it is, we(here in the U.S.) got very little if any,-- support from Canada, in the war against terror.

Oh I know,--we are the "bad guys" ,-- we made
the terrorists "mad" cause we fought back.

Well there is a real "basic lesson",--that many "liberals"
forget(or maybe don`t even know) and that is,--
"appeasement" #DOES NOT work,--ya can`t make a
"deal" with the "devil" and expect to "win a war", IMO.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 73, K1MVP
,
P.S, the Canadian military does have "old" USAF
# # # #trainers( T-33) aircraft which were used for
# # # #training our pilots(here in the U.S) back in the
# # # #50`s.
# # # #A lot of these T-33`s have been sold to "third
# # # #world" countries in South America, as well as
# # # #your "adopted country" of Canada.

# # # #Hmmm,--you may be right,--the U.S. MIGHT be
# # # #headed to "third world" status in Ham Radio if
# # # #the FCC has "its way".
# # # #I DO NOT deny this "possibility", but if you think
# # # #this is, or will be good,--maybe you have been
# # # #living up North too long.

# # # #Ah,--but you could aways "go south" to Cuba
# # # #for a vacation,(also third world status).

[WA3KYY]

Good Folks,

Go take a look at the comments on RM-11306 on the FCC web site. There is an absolutely hilarious one from Hiram P. Maxim. A read of it might be good for everyone's blood pressure.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 15 2006,08:12)]
quote]

Keith,

Giving a spectrum inefficient, trunked, internet email service access to ever more spectrum is not facilitating "experimentation". It is facilitating wanton disregard for other amateurs wanting to share the spectrum and only rewards inefficient operation.

In just the past few messages, the Winlink people have been given at least three suggestions which would make their operation more than efficient enough to live within the current automatic subbands. These suggestions aren't anything new, either. They have been known to trunking engineers since they began installing sewers in Paris, France. My guess is that Winlink will implement none of them.

The only whining going on is from those who are being held accountable for taking the more difficult path of designing efficient systems instead of taking the easy path of just wildly spreading out horizontally over the available spectrum without regard for other occupants.

As far as other experimentation - there are so many new digital modes on the bands that the software designers of MixW and Multipsk can barely keep up. There doesn't seem to be any dearth of experimentation there. Yet while so many modes are being developed it is difficult to find people to converse with on most of them. Why is that? #(hint - it is a sociological thing, not a spectrum thing)

Digital voice? The system that AOR uses was developed in 1998/1999. It is now going on EIGHT years old. Yet it has never reached more than a few users - primarily because it is *so* expensive and offers no advantages over SSB.

You want to see where the real experimentation is taking place? Look inside the new $10000 Icom and Yaseu rigs. Better ways to make that old SSB mode more efficient, more usable in noisy conditions, and more enjoyable to use. That experimentation will pay off in cheaper, better rigs in the next decade as the cost is amortized.

I have built a receiver that uses a DDS chip for freq control that is itself is controlled using a Microchip PIC computer. A few more glue chips and it could be interfaced to a laptop/desktop computer for frequency control. When I get the transmitter done it will be the same. I can program in my schedules and the computer can turn the rig on, set the frequencies, and in the case of CW or psk, even start copying what is happening on the frequency - all with me not being there. Once the tranmitter is done, it will even be able to automatically send any messages I want if the station I want is on frequency. Since the DDS chip has bpsk functionality built right in, I may not even need to use the sound card in the PC to transmit, just send the bits to the transmitter DDS chip. Heck, there's no reason why I couldn't add in a little IR receiver and control the whole mess with my Radio Shack all-purpose TV/Stereo/DVD/VCR control unit.

Aren't you the fellow that was so involved in amateur radio satellites? You should know better. Experimentation with using the ham bands for internet access or for digital voice is just a very small part of the experimentation going on in amateur radio.

If the FCC doesn't recognize this then we will be regulated out of existence sooner or later no matter what we do.

tim ab0wr
Well, Tim, the examples of your own personal experimentation (and that of others) are certainly admirable.

But, it's not the "efficiency" or "inefficiency" of any particular operating mode that's on the FCC's radar screens right now.#Rather, it’s the ever-growing human and technical costs of administering unneeded regulation (and the avoidance of same) that are firmly driving the train at the FCC.

There's simply no longer ANY justifiable need based in international law or treaty to keep all the artificial, license and mode-based sub-band barriers in place in the Amateur Service in the United States. #

What's more, my guess is that the cost savings they'll get when they ultimately simplify things has now become particularly irresistible when the FCC looks to other countries that have long since de-regulated their Amateur Services (or skillfully refrained from over-regulating them in the first place!) and see that the sky has yet to fall.

So, far from “regulating us out of existence”, I believe the FCC is now proceeding apace to do exactly the opposite. Which means that the all the whining from the Luddites among us for yet more regulated "protection" from ourselves is going to continue to fall on deaf ears down at 445 12th Street SW, in Washington.#

Maybe a far more productive approach to addressing this issue would be to now start developing some (gasp!) voluntary HF band plans to accommodate both the existing and emerging modes in the Amateur Service in the United States for the time (in the not-too-distant future) when that whole, regulated sub-band “lid” finally comes off.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WA3KYY]

Keith,

What are the costs associated with administering the current regulations? The cost of printing them up? The cost for the computers for the database for the different license classes? It can't be enforcement since there is barely any of that going on and the proposed changes in regulations will have no impact on the kinds of violations that are receiving enforcement action. It is rare indeed to see a Notice of Apprarant Violation for the mode based segregation currently in the regulations and only slightly less rare to see one for license class based violations. The vast majority of enforcement issues would be completely unaffected by adoption of either RM-11305 or RM-11306. So where does this massive cost savings come from that you think is driving the FCCs actions?

I think you are correct that there is a move to deregulate or to somewhat simplify the regulations but that is largely overall administration policy and not a specific objective with respect to the Amateur Radio Service.

IARU Region 2 with each member society getting one vote is the place for a bandplan to be worked out. With due consideration to what is happening in Regions 1 & 3. With an FCC statement similar to what is done with repeaters that in cases of conflict, the onus for resolving conflict is on those not operating according to the bandplan we might work it our among ourselves. I'm not so sure that we can leave the auto and semi-auto operations unregulated however.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe a far more productive approach to addressing this issue would be to now start developing some (gasp!) voluntary HF band plans to accommodate both the existing and emerging modes in the Amateur Service in the United States for the time (in the not-too-distant future) when that whole, regulated sub-band “lid” finally comes off.



"Whose" bandplans, Keith? The ARRL's? They now have a vested, and conflicting, interest in Winlink, since they have selected Winlink to replace ARESComm and the NTS system. Because of their conflict of interest, any "bandplan" from ARRL will favor Winliink (less than 1% of the hams in the US) over everyone else, just as their petiton did.

If there is going to be a bandplan, it will have to be produced by an intenational body so IARU regions 1 and 3 will not be ignored in the process (as ARRL just finished doing!), and ARRL cannot dictate to everyone where WE all have to move to so Winlink (including ARRL ARESComm and ARRL NTS) has ALL the HF frequencies they want to dominate at will for their own narrow interests. 83% of the hams in the US apparently do not want that to happen. This has just been established, hasn't it...

In the interim, we must have FCC rules to prevent the tail from wagging the dog.

So, what is YOUR suggestion on how to proceed?

[n4qa]

Fellows, fellows...

Some things in life should just remain the same!

The way a man puts on his pants at the start of his day.

Availability of 'house balls'(and shoes) for non-league bowlers.

Wide-open spaces for the pleasure of CW and classic RTTY enthusiasts.

ARRL 'representing' a small fraction of US hams.

The seniority system...

to name but a few...

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 15 2006,07:43)][QUOTE=Quote ]
wa5ben:
This is the most outrageous argument that I have ever seen. Clearly, you do not understand BOTH HF propogation AND how to interpret test results.

Ed's statements and the test results posted clearly show superiority of P-III. How on earth could any intelligent person claim otherwise?


http://www.ecjones.org/_uimages/CloseUp.gif

Tim,

AE4TM's graph definitely shows that Pactor-II and Pactor-III converge at poor signal to noise ratios. It does not necessarily show Pactor-II outperforms Pactor-III, but that is not what you stated anyway. You made a performance comparison that included spectrum efficiency. WA5BEN needs to brush up on his English comprehension!

Pactor-III reduces the number of tones according to the achievable speed level (http://scs-ptc.com/pactor.html), with two tones used for the bottom speed level, speed level 1 (I assume it is the upper tones that are not used, the tone spacing stays the same, and the emitted bandwidth reduces, but there are no bandwidth numbers stated by SCS). Anyway, at this point, Pactor-III probably resembles Pactor-II to a great extent and may just barely outperform Pactor-II, although there is insufficient data on the AE4TM graphs to be sure of this.

However, Pactor-III requires a 2.4 kHz IF filter, because it varies bandwidth with speed (i.e. number of tones), but, if you use only Pactor-II, you can use a 500 kHz IF filter, and in that case, the S/N will be improved for Pactor-II and the throughput will increase accordingly, putting Pactor-II ahead of Pactor-III under very poor receiving conditions.

The Winlink numbers suggest that POOR conditions are the norm for Winlink users (50 watts, compromise, rocking, backstay antennas for the most part, and far away at sea ), and that is probably why Pactor-III is not more than 50% faster than Pactor-II on the average .

What we do not know is the speed comparison between Pactor-II using a 500 Hz IF filter and Pactor-III using a 2.4 kHz IF filter under the same propagation and signal strength conditions (i.e. in the same locations). It could well be that Pactor-II would actually be better than Pactor-III under those conditions, regardless of spectrum efficiency considerations, and it could be that the throughput of Pactor-III would be zero when Pactor-II was still printing.

Just ask any CW man how much the S/N improves between a SSB filter and a 500 Hz CW filter. He will tell you that the difference is dramatic!
Your post shows rather obvious technical misunderstanding.

The graphs relate ONLY to lowered signal strength (attenuation) with distance from the transmitter and the presence of noise in an HF environment. This is typical of a groundwave path. An ionospheric simulator would also add simulations of multipath ("selective fading"), by using variable delays and amplitudes of the delayed signals. While the ionospheric simulator better imitates the HF environment for long-range signals, it is not necessary for the type of test described.

The test accurately measures the ability of each protocol to pass traffic versus the attenuation and noise. If noise is held constant, at some point the signal level will match the level of the noise. While I dislike the calibration of the graph in miles (or km), the data is quite accurately presented as decreasing signal strength versus noise.

COMMENT: One of the things that I find interesting (somewhat puzzeling, in fact) is the inability of PSK31 to function past 20 miles. My "top of the head" thought was that either the input bandpass filters for the tones (or spectrum) are/is not well implemented, or that the detection is not optimized in the PSK31 implementation.

"CONVERGENCE"
Regarding the so-called "convergence": Each and every protocol "converges" near the limit of SNR. If a channel basically does not exist, all modem (and voice) communication will fall to zero. The FULL graph (see page 45, middle of page) shows that PSK31, RTTY, and PACTOR I "converge" to zero at much higher SNR that either PII or PIII.

The graph clearly shows higher throughput for PIII than for PII -- or any other mode shown.

NUMBER OF TONES
Regarding the number of tones "issue": The very URL that you listed has a technical description that fully explains EXACTLY what tones frequencies are used at each speed level, the modulation, the 1/2 convolutional code with the constraint length, the interleaving, and the crest factor. The packet headers are defined there, also -- as are the control signals and the CRC. The Huffman and Pseudo-Markov codings are described, as is the FSK initial link setup. In other words, EVERY piece of information that is/has been alleged by you to be "undisclosed" is -- and has been -- readily available.

FILTERS
Clearly, you do not understand modem architecture. In a well-designed modem, there is a bandpass filter for EACH tone. (That was even true of the very early Kantronics UTU, and remains true in the KAM, by the way.) The bandwidth of the modem filter for the specific tone sets the noise bandwidth for that specific tone.

The IF filter in the radio has minimal impact upon the noise threshold of the modem. For that reason, your assumption regarding IF filters is invalid. Note that the graphs bear this out, as the PIII protocol throughput drops to near PII levels in extremely low SNR. That is precisely because it is essentially emulating PII at that level. Also note that only PII and PIII are functioning at that level of SNR.

"POOR" CONDITIONS
Winlink numbers do NOT suggest that poor conditions are the "norm". To the contrary, ACTUAL tests and experiences indicate that a PBMO is always available that will provide very good signal quality. The choice of location of the PBMO provides a choice of good signal. There is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind to back your assumptions about antennas and/or users. This is just more deliberately inflammatory garbage.

Your last two paragraphs highlight your lack of understanding of modem architecture.

I would suggest that you avail yourself of the wealth of literature that offers details on modem design. Clearly baseless "technical" statements do not aid understanding.

[kh6ty]

Sorry, folks, but I have already said I will not discuss anything with someone as uncivil and verbally abusive as WA5BEN, and I will not. You can form your own opinions why the Winlink numbers say Pactor-III, on the average, is such a lousy performing protocol for the Winlink user, and certainly not capable of "high-speed" data transfer under typical HF conditions. The good news is that 83% of the commenters (a pretty good sample of what the average ham thinks) rejected Winlink's attempt to get more space to waste using Pactor-III Email robots at the expense of space for communications.

My suggestion is that we all ignore WA5BEN and maybe he will crawl away.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]SF: There's simply no longer ANY justifiable need based in international law or treaty to keep all the artificial, license and mode-based sub-band barriers in place in the Amateur Service in the United States.

Actually, there is simply no justifiable need based in ANYTHING to adopt a bandwidth bandplan. No cause has been shown to do so. No reasonable need identified. If not for a couple dozen self centered Digital Elitists, this would not even be an issue.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 14 2006,20:36)]My suggestion is that we all ignore WA5BEN and maybe he will crawl away.
Maybe Cheney will drop by on his next hunting trip to Texas and take Larry along for a lesson.

Call Ed's chart anything, but it clearly shows throughput verses S/N ratio. As you, me, and many others looking at the chart have concluded, for reasonably rough copy situations, Pactor III slows way down to be the same as Pactor II.

Perhaps Larry can devise a "hot-air analogy" for Ed's data.

Lee
W6EM

BTW, W6NJ's Reply Comments to AH6QK-Hacker's comments are quite well written. Worth a look.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
wa5ben:
FILTERS
Clearly, you do not understand modem architecture. #In a well-designed modem, there is a bandpass filter for EACH tone. #(That was even true of the very early Kantronics UTU, and remains true in the KAM, by the way.) The bandwidth of the modem filter for the specific tone sets the noise bandwidth for that specific tone. #


If you are going to take other people to task for their technical knowledge perhaps you should take yourself to task as well.

First - #where are the 500hz and 2800hz filters in the receive chain?

Second - what impact on the receive chain do these filters have that will impact the ability of the modem to properly decode the tones?

Third - when you have answered these then you can publically whip yourself in the same manner you enjoy whipping others.

Oh wait! We all know you are too smart to do that, don't we? I apologize for being so stupid.


Quote[/b] ]
The IF filter in the radio has minimal impact upon the noise threshold of the modem. #For that reason, your assumption regarding IF filters is invalid. #Note that the graphs bear this out, as the PIII protocol throughput drops to near PII levels in extremely low SNR. #That is precisely because it is essentially emulating PII at that level. # Also note that only PII and PIII are functioning at that level of SNR.


Then why bother having any IF filters in the radio, Larry? What DO the filters have an impact on, Larry. You are so smart you should know this.


Quote[/b] ]
"POOR" CONDITIONS
Winlink numbers do NOT suggest that poor conditions are the "norm". #To the contrary, ACTUAL tests and experiences indicate that a PBMO is always available that will provide very good signal quality. #The choice of location of the PBMO provides a choice of good signal. #There is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind to back your assumptions about antennas and/or users. #This is just more deliberately inflammatory garbage.


You don't even bother to read what others post do you? You are so interested in whipping others in order to boost your ego, you just ignore what people actually say.

Perhaps you would like to use your vast experience and explain to us how antenna systems on sailboats and RV's are as fully efficient as full-size dipoles mounted high in the air at fixed sites. Perhaps you could explain to us where these "users" are and how their stations are so efficient that they are NOT the determining factor on SNR ratios and ARQ repeats.


Quote[/b] ]
Your last two paragraphs highlight your lack of understanding of modem architecture.

I would suggest that you avail yourself of the wealth of literature that offers details on modem design. #Clearly baseless "technical" statements do not aid understanding.

I would suggest that you avail yourself of the wealth of literature that offers details on HF receiver design. Clearly baseless "technical" statements that IF filter widths will not impact the ability of baseband modems to detect signals do not aid understanding of HF operations.

tim ab0wr

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] ]Many more users can have access to amateur radio services using fast ‘get on and get off semi-automatic modes such as are offered using Pactor and Winlink than by keyboard, SSB, or CW modes.

Does anybody know if the ARRL is now accepting copies of Winlink emails exchanged with DX stations as credit for DXCC? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 15 2006,19:57)]Quote[/b] ]Many more users can have access to amateur radio services using fast ‘get on and get off semi-automatic modes such as are offered using Pactor and Winlink than by keyboard, SSB, or CW modes.

Does anybody know if the ARRL is now accepting copies of Winlink emails exchanged with DX stations as credit for DXCC? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
The only foreign country they accept now is Texas.

[N5PVL]

That's the Republic of Texas, not just 'Texas'.

[k5rks]

The XYL and I are going down to Dallas this weekend for
a soccer game. (Well, actually it is in Frisco TX).

Do we have to get a passport to go down there?
Will we have to stop for customs at the border?

73 K5RKS #Okla City

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Feb. 15 2006,08:11)]Do we have to get a passport to go down there?
Will we have to stop for customs at the border?

73 K5RKS #Okla City
1. Only if you're gonna shoot something besides quail.

2. Not exactly stop, but you'll need to change your 'customs' to "ready, fire, aim."

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Feb. 15 2006,13:29)]Keith,

What are the costs associated with administering the current regulations? The cost of printing them up? #The cost for the computers for the database for the different license classes? #It can't be enforcement since there is barely any of that going on and the proposed changes in regulations will have no impact on the kinds of violations that are receiving enforcement action. It is rare indeed to see a Notice of Apprarant Violation for the mode based segregation currently in the regulations and only slightly less rare to see one for license class based violations. #The vast majority of enforcement issues would be completely unaffected by adoption of either RM-11305 or RM-11306. #So where does this massive cost savings come from that you think is driving the FCCs actions? #

I think you are correct that there is a move to deregulate or to somewhat simplify the regulations but that is largely overall administration policy and not a specific objective with respect to the Amateur Radio Service.

IARU Region 2 with each member society getting one vote is the place for a bandplan to be worked out. #With due consideration to what is happening in Regions 1 & 3. #With an FCC statement similar to what is done with repeaters that in cases of conflict, the onus for resolving conflict is on those not operating according to the bandplan we might work it our among ourselves. #I'm not so sure that we can leave the auto and semi-auto operations unregulated however.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Well, Mike, as I’ve already noted (many comments ago) in this and other QRZ forums, I freely admit I have absolutely NO hard evidence to back up any of my claims, other than some “scuttlebutt” from an anonymous retired FCC staffer friend of mine as well as the FCC’s own documented actions to date.

I’m also basing my comments on my 20 years of working in the big US Government bureaucracy as well as my nearly ten years interfacing with both the ARRL and the FCC when I served in AMSAT's leadership.

So, I’ll be watching and waiting right along with the rest of us to see which ”shoe” the FCC decides to drop next.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[kh6ty]

For purposes of discussion, here is a comparison between the current 97.221 FCC subbands to the current IARU Region 2 bandplan.

Note that with elimination of Winlink's useless scanning and resonable sharing of frequencies, ALL Winlink, ARRL NTS and ARRL Emcomm traffic needs only 10 kHz per band, which is more than satisfied by the current 97.221 subbands, with the exception of those on 40m.

COMPARISON OF FCC 97.221 SUBBANDS TO IARU REGION 2

IARU Region 2 HF Band Plan
97.221 subbands shown in bold
PLAN DE BANDAS HF PARA IARU REGION 2

(This BAND PLAN was approved by the XIII General Assembly of Delegates of IARU Region II held at Porlamar, Margarita Island, Venezuela from September 28 to October 2, 1998)

(Este Plan de Bandas HF fue aprobado por la XIII Asamblea General de Delegados de IARU Región II realizada en Porlamar, Isla Margarita, Venezuela del 28 de Septiebre al 2 de Octubre de 1998)


1800 - 1830 CW, Digimode #
1830 - 1840 CW, Digimode #(DX CW window) #
1840 - 1850 Phone (DX Phone window) - CW # # # # #
1850 - 2000 Phone - CW

3500 - 3510 CW (DX CW window) #
3510- 3525 CW #
3525 - 3580 CW, (Phone permitted, non interference basis) #
3580 - 3620 Digimode, (Phone permitted, non interference basis), CW
#
3620 - 3635 Packet Priority, (Phone permitted, non interference basis), CW #
3620 - 3635 15 kHz wide
3635 - 3775 Phone, CW #
3775 - 3800 Phone (DX Phone window), CW #
3800 - 3840 Phone, CW #
3840 - 3850 SSTV, FAX, Phone, CW #
3850 - 4000 Phone, CW

7000 - 7035 CW #
7035 - 7040 Digimode with other Regions, CW #
7040 - 7050 Packet with other Regions, CW #
7050 - 7100 Phone, CW #
7100 - 7120 Digimode, Phone, CW
7100 - 7105 5 kHz wide
7120 - 7165 Phone, CW #
7165 - 7175 SSTV, FAX, Phone, CW #
7175 - 7300 Phone, CW

10100 – 10130 CW #
10130 – 10140 Digimode, CW #
10140 – 10150 Packet Priority, CW
10140 - 10150 10 kHz wide

14000 - 14070 CW #
14070 - 14095 Digimode, CW #
14095 - 14099,5 Packet, Digimode, CW
14095 - 14099,5 #,5 kHz wide
14099,5 - 14100,5 IBP/NCDXF #
14100,5 - 14112 Packet, Phone, CW
14.1005 -14.112 11.5 kHz wide
14112 - 14225 Phone, CW #
14225 - 14235 SSTV, FAX, Phone, CW #
14235 - 14350 Phone, CW

[PE1RDW]

I kinda wonder when the first winlink pmbo in europe will be taken off air.
unlike usa it is only legal in region 1 to transmit 3th party trafic in emergiancy and all pmbos pass 3th party trafic daily, that is afterall what winlink was designed to do.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Feb. 15 2006,17:52)]I kinda wonder when the first winlink pmbo in europe will be taken off air.
unlike usa it is only legal in region 1 to transmit 3th party trafic in emergiancy and all pmbos pass 3th party trafic daily, that is afterall what winlink was designed to do.
Perhaps it will happen first in Germany.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Feb. 16 2006,14:52)]I kinda wonder when the first winlink pmbo in europe will be taken off air.
unlike usa it is only legal in region 1 to transmit 3th party trafic in emergiancy and all pmbos pass 3th party trafic daily, that is afterall what winlink was designed to do.
Is this true for all countries in Region 1 or does each country have different regulations, some of which may allow it?

Thanks,

Jim
WA0LYK

[kh6ty]

Is it third-party traffic if a Winlink sailor links with PA3DUV and sends a personal message home via the PA3DUV PMBO?

If not, then Winlink is not only used for third-party traffic.

If the Winlink sailor sends a message for someone else, then it must be third-party traffic.


PA3DUV is very strong over here. He runs 400 watts to a 15 db gain beam. He is a good example or how non-domestic PMBO stations are just as strong as domestic ones.

http://winlink.org/stations/pa3duv.htm

K4CJX is always careful to say 24 "domestic" PMBO's could not possibly cause so many problems, but Frank Fallon told the RTTY reflector that there will be a total of 75 PMBO stations (I assume 50 for Emcomm), and all of those would be domestic. So, the total Winlink stations is around 100, and many non-domestic ones are as strong as domestic ones over here.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 16 2006,17:30)]Is it third-party traffic if a Winlink sailor links with PA3DUV and sends a personal message home via the PA3DUV PMBO?

If not, then Winlink is not only used for third-party traffic.

If the Winlink sailor sends a message for someone else, then it must be third-party traffic.
How about return email from a non-ham? Wouldn't that be third party traffic?

Jim
WA0LYK

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 15 2006,17:36)]Sorry, folks, but I have already said I will not discuss anything with someone as uncivil and verbally abusive as WA5BEN, and I will not. You can form your own opinions why the Winlink numbers say Pactor-III, on the average, is such a lousy performing protocol for the Winlink user, and certainly not capable of "high-speed" data transfer under typical HF conditions. The good news is that 83% of the commenters (a pretty good sample of what the average ham thinks) rejected Winlink's attempt to get more space to waste using Pactor-III Email robots at the expense of space for communications.

My suggestion is that we all ignore WA5BEN and maybe he will crawl away.
I am indeed sorry that you find clear, plain, unadulterated, VERIFIABE technical facts from a person who has actually designed an HF modem "verbally abusive".

On the Rockwell-Collins HF Simulator in Cedar Rapids, IA, my (literally) pocket-sized HF modem tested within 1% of a $3,500.00 Frederick Electronics modem that was (at that time) commonly used in U.S. military communications. Several hundred of my modems were placed in service with our (fatigue) pocket MIL-810D/E qualified tactical secure message terminal by various military organizations -- including U.S. military/special ops.

I actually responded in far less caustic language than you have used against me, and I only remarked about your clear lack of knowledge because you have continuously attempted to pretend that you have expert-level knowledge. I thought it time that the simple technical facts should speak to illustrate just how lacking in knowledge you truly are.

I don't know if you actually have some technical knowledge, and have chosen to deliberately "twist" the details to suit your obvious agenda, or if you actually believe the stuff you put out. (I do have an opinion.)

This is a typical tactic of yours. When irrefutable evidence is presented, you pretend to be insulted and blame the person who presents the facts. Then you try to reference some ALLEGED "fact" to divert attention from the fact that your "technical data" is absolute hogwash. Sorry. Your problem, not mine.

When you can match my qualifications -- even just by studying -- we can discuss technical points as equals. Until then, please do everyone who is trying to understand the actual technical operation of an HF modem a favor and keep your false "technical data" to yourself.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 16 2006,17:30)]Is it third-party traffic if a Winlink sailor links with PA3DUV and sends a personal message home via the PA3DUV PMBO?

If not, then Winlink is not only used for third-party traffic.

If the Winlink sailor sends a message for someone else, then it must be third-party traffic.


PA3DUV is very strong over here. He runs 400 watts to a 15 db gain beam. He is a good example or how non-domestic PMBO stations are just as strong as domestic ones.

http://winlink.org/stations/pa3duv.htm

K4CJX is always careful to say 24 "domestic" PMBO's could not possibly cause so many problems, but Frank Fallon told the RTTY reflector that there will be a total of 75 PMBO stations (I assume 50 for Emcomm), and all of those would be domestic. So, the total Winlink stations is around 100, and many non-domestic ones are as strong as domestic ones over here.
Part 97.3(a)
46) Third party communications. A message from the control operator (first party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control operator (second party) on behalf of another person (third party).

According to U.S. definitions it would be third party traffic if the receiving party is not an amateur station/control operator.

If the regulations where PA3DUV resides prohibit third party traffic then I'm not sure how they get around the restriction.

DELIVERY method does not determine if traffic is third-party traffic as far as the delivery end is concerned.

The examples shown as legal on the Winlink site are carefully constructed to be within the legalities. I'm not sure the typical user will understand the distinctions. And since no one is monitoring the traffic, who is to say what is going on anyway?

I'm sure it also gets fuzzy when there is no actual control operator at an automatic station but I suspect the FCC would read the regulations in such a manner that regular traffic is between the control operators of two radio stations regardless of control method. Anything else is third party.

tim ab0wr

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Feb. 16 2006,17:45)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 16 2006,17:30)]Is it third-party traffic if a Winlink sailor links with PA3DUV and sends a personal message home via the PA3DUV PMBO?

If not, then Winlink is not only used for third-party traffic.

If the Winlink sailor sends a message for someone else, then it must be third-party traffic.
How about return email from a non-ham? #Wouldn't that be third party traffic?

Jim
WA0LYK
Jim, seems like it would be. If I want to send an email to a Winlink sailor, I just address it to "sailorham@winlink.org". If sailorham decides to use PA3DUV to retrieve his mail, then PA3DUV must be passing third party traffic.

The way Winlink got our Part 97 regs written, PA3DUV is not responsible for breaking the rules, or even for passing illegal message content, but don't know how the Region 1 rules govern.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 16 2006,18:44)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Feb. 16 2006,17:45)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 16 2006,17:30)]Is it third-party traffic if a Winlink sailor links with PA3DUV and sends a personal message home via the PA3DUV PMBO?

If not, then Winlink is not only used for third-party traffic.

If the Winlink sailor sends a message for someone else, then it must be third-party traffic.
How about return email from a non-ham? #Wouldn't that be third party traffic?

Jim
WA0LYK
Jim, seems like it would be. If I want to send an email to a Winlink sailor, I just address it to "sailorham@winlink.org". If sailorham decides to use PA3DUV to retrieve his mail, then PA3DUV must be passing third party traffic.

The way Winlink got our Part 97 regs written, PA3DUV is not responsible for breaking the rules, or even for passing illegal message content, but don't know how the Region 1 rules govern.
PA3DUV would be subject to his rules if he is outside the U.S.

It is not illegal for a U.S. ham to accept third party traffic from a ham in another country. So no U.S. station would have a problem accepting third party traffic from PA3DUV.

However, just as it doesn't matter how a third party message is delivered as far as determining status, the method in which a message is received for transmittal is not a determinant in whether it is third party traffic or not. So whether PA3DUV can retransmit messages received over the internet from non-hams is dependent on the rules where he is.

I don't know what the rules are at the PA3DUV location. Perhaps someone on here does?

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 15 2006,17:36)]Sorry, folks, but I have already said I will not discuss anything with someone as uncivil and verbally abusive as WA5BEN, and I will not. You can form your own opinions why the Winlink numbers say Pactor-III, on the average, is such a lousy performing protocol for the Winlink user, and certainly not capable of "high-speed" data transfer under typical HF conditions. The good news is that 83% of the commenters (a pretty good sample of what the average ham thinks) rejected Winlink's attempt to get more space to waste using Pactor-III Email robots at the expense of space for communications.

My suggestion is that we all ignore WA5BEN and maybe he will crawl away.
Skip,

I wouldn't worry about what Larry says. He may be a modem expert but he apparently knows little about RF design. I noticed he has never answered my questions about what IF filters prevent that will keep a modem from operating at maximum. My guess is that we never will hear an answer from him.

Narrow filters will help. It gets a little complex but it has to do with slope factors on the filters, phase noise in the LO's, and mixing products in the IF mixers and product detector. Suffice it to say that the noise the modem will see at any specific modem tone frequency will be less with narrower filters in the IF. That's part of the problem with doing laboratory tests on modems using simulators for the radio channel. The radios we use, which may or may not be aligned well and which may or may not have good LO oscillators in them, many times don't provide optimum results.

Larry likes to run and hide behind the modem design. As with Winlink, however, what must be considered is the overall system, not just the individual pieces in isolation. That's why the determining piece for throughput *is* the weakest link. It is *always* that way. That's why the 8foot whip on an RV with a poor ground and vertical orientation will determine how many ARQ repeats are done, not the 105 foot dipole at 100 feet at the PMBO. Larry and the Winlink folks just seem to be unable to understand that and, again, run and hide behind modem design specs and laboratory tests that do NOT emulate the real world.

So it isn't you that doesn't understand the technical side, Skip. It's the people that don't even understand killer trunks or the need for control channels as well as data channels on a trunked system that need to go study up on things.

tim ab0wr

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 15 2006,18:39)]Quote[/b] ]
wa5ben:
FILTERS
Clearly, you do not understand modem architecture. In a well-designed modem, there is a bandpass filter for EACH tone. (That was even true of the very early Kantronics UTU, and remains true in the KAM, by the way.) The bandwidth of the modem filter for the specific tone sets the noise bandwidth for that specific tone.


If you are going to take other people to task for their technical knowledge perhaps you should take yourself to task as well.

First - where are the 500hz and 2800hz filters in the receive chain?

Second - what impact on the receive chain do these filters have that will impact the ability of the modem to properly decode the tones?

Third - when you have answered these then you can publically whip yourself in the same manner you enjoy whipping others.

Oh wait! We all know you are too smart to do that, don't we? I apologize for being so stupid.


Quote[/b] ]
The IF filter in the radio has minimal impact upon the noise threshold of the modem. For that reason, your assumption regarding IF filters is invalid. Note that the graphs bear this out, as the PIII protocol throughput drops to near PII levels in extremely low SNR. That is precisely because it is essentially emulating PII at that level. Also note that only PII and PIII are functioning at that level of SNR.


Then why bother having any IF filters in the radio, Larry? What DO the filters have an impact on, Larry. You are so smart you should know this.


Quote[/b] ]
"POOR" CONDITIONS
Winlink numbers do NOT suggest that poor conditions are the "norm". To the contrary, ACTUAL tests and experiences indicate that a PBMO is always available that will provide very good signal quality. The choice of location of the PBMO provides a choice of good signal. There is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind to back your assumptions about antennas and/or users. This is just more deliberately inflammatory garbage.


You don't even bother to read what others post do you? You are so interested in whipping others in order to boost your ego, you just ignore what people actually say.

Perhaps you would like to use your vast experience and explain to us how antenna systems on sailboats and RV's are as fully efficient as full-size dipoles mounted high in the air at fixed sites. Perhaps you could explain to us where these "users" are and how their stations are so efficient that they are NOT the determining factor on SNR ratios and ARQ repeats.


Quote[/b] ]
Your last two paragraphs highlight your lack of understanding of modem architecture.

I would suggest that you avail yourself of the wealth of literature that offers details on modem design. Clearly baseless "technical" statements do not aid understanding.

I would suggest that you avail yourself of the wealth of literature that offers details on HF receiver design. Clearly baseless "technical" statements that IF filter widths will not impact the ability of baseband modems to detect signals do not aid understanding of HF operations.

tim ab0wr
First: answered under "The IF filter"

Second: For a well-designed modem, and assuming reasonably decent filters -- practically none. A well-designed modem uses frequencies above the low roll-off, and below the high roll-off. A well-designed modem can also handle some roll-off from marginal filters. Because it uses the "sweet spot" of the bandpass, phase characteristics of even a fairly poor filter (by modern standards) will not impact a well-designed modem. For instance, a TS-520 or a KWM-2 will work fine with a well-designed multitone modem -- as will a 1960's vintage 400 Watt Russian transmitter in a Russian communications van in Egypt. (Been there, done that -- at 2400 bps full-duplex.)

Third: Point not in evidence.

RE: "Why bother .... IF filters". Selectivity.

RE: Antennas and sailboats and RV's (and other immaterial nonsense).
The point is that the "user" (a.k.a. "Joe Ham") may be in any location, using any type of antenna, and will most probably choose the PBMO that has good signal to his/her location. The "sailboats and RV's" nonsense is just more deliberately contrived and inflammatory ****.

CASE 1:
Even IF a sailboat is used, any sailboat big enough to spend the night on has enough backstay to have a large percentage of a quarter wave -- even at 7 MHz. The probable efficiency is better than 50%. At 50%, we are down about 1/2 of an "S" unit versus a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

CASE 2:
Even if we take a 20 percent efficient antenna, we are just over an "S" unit down from a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

An example of a 20% efficient antenna is an 11 foot mobile whip with a coil located about 6 feet above the base (with a fairly poor coil: Q = 150) and up to 10 Ohms of ground loss at 7.2 MHz. (If ground loss drops to 2 Ohms, this antenna is 35% efficient.)

CASE 3:
With a 6 percent efficient antenna, we drop just 2 "S" units below a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

An 11 foot mobile whip with a coil located about 6 feet above the base (with a fairly poor coil: Q = 150) and up to 10 Ohms of ground loss at 3.9 MHz is just below 6% efficient. (If ground loss drops to 2 Ohms, this antenna is 8% efficient.)

Once again, simple facts that are verifiable by anyone.

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 16 2006,19:49)]Skip,

I wouldn't worry about what Larry says. He may be a modem expert but he apparently knows little about RF design. I noticed he has never answered my questions about what IF filters prevent that will keep a modem from operating at maximum. My guess is that we never will hear an answer from him.

Narrow filters will help. It gets a little complex but it has to do with slope factors on the filters, phase noise in the LO's, and mixing products in the IF mixers and product detector. Suffice it to say that the noise the modem will see at any specific modem tone frequency will be less with narrower filters in the IF. That's part of the problem with doing laboratory tests on modems using simulators for the radio channel. The radios we use, which may or may not be aligned well and which may or may not have good LO oscillators in them, many times don't provide optimum results.

Larry likes to run and hide behind the modem design. As with Winlink, however, what must be considered is the overall system, not just the individual pieces in isolation. That's why the determining piece for throughput *is* the weakest link. It is *always* that way. That's why the 8foot whip on an RV with a poor ground and vertical orientation will determine how many ARQ repeats are done, not the 105 foot dipole at 100 feet at the PMBO. Larry and the Winlink folks just seem to be unable to understand that and, again, run and hide behind modem design specs and laboratory tests that do NOT emulate the real world.

So it isn't you that doesn't understand the technical side, Skip. It's the people that don't even understand killer trunks or the need for control channels as well as data channels on a trunked system that need to go study up on things.

tim ab0wr
This latest nonsense is answered in my post above.

Just FYI: I have solved issues related to HF voice, data, and fax communications in more countries than most people have seen, and have probably interfaced more different types of equipment to more radios -- including some with schematics in Cyrillic. (No, the schematic symbols are not the same.)

The Rockwell-Collins HF simulator allows REPEATABLE "real world" tests. We would not have spent $5,000.00 per hour plus a couple of tickets, hotel expenses, and meals if there would not have been a proven return. (That test followed tests on our HF simulator, which I co-designed as the HF SME.)

[ky5u]

YO: Here comes the train, better get off the track!

BEN: As an expert on trains, I recognize that it is a diesel electric locomotive.

YO: Yes but it's going to run over us!

BEN: If you were a qualified engineer like I am with 15 certificates, you'd know that it has a top speed of 30MPH!

YO: UH, I'm getting off the track, you can stay if you want.

BEN: My PHD is Train Science at the University of Budapest lets me comment that the.......

SQUISH!

Good discussion of the merits of various technical subjects and a "lay it on the table" measurement of electrical manhood, but all people really need to know is that a few Digital Elitists want to take over Amateur Radio frequencies. Yep, they're smarter than we are if you don't believe me just ask them. But a Digital Elite smart man QRMing my SSB QSO with a Pactor Modem is the same as "dumb as a post" CBer tuning up and whistling over my QSO. It's all QRM.

[w6em]

Classic example of distance equals the product of velocity and time. And, the ghost said, "Oh, but the maximum velocity was 30MPH, and they didn't tell me how to convert velocity into how much time I had left."

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Feb. 15 2006,22:55)] RE: #Antennas and sailboats and RV's (and other immaterial nonsense).
The point is that the "user" (a.k.a. "Joe Ham") may be in any location, using any type of antenna, and will most probably choose the PBMO that has good signal to his/her location. #The "sailboats and RV's" nonsense is just more deliberately contrived and inflammatory ****.

Once again, simple facts that are verifiable by anyone.
Interesting.

Having sailed a bit myself, here's some food for thought.

1. Masts are solidly grounded via attachment to the keel.

2. Stays are ususally stainless steel cable, and attached with stainless hardware directly to the top of the mast. Hence, grounded at the point of attachment to the mast.

3. Stays are under considerable strain. Probably up to several hundred pounds in a strong wind. Doubtful that the average sailor ham is going to be able to find strain insulators that can safely be inserted in the stay(s) to effectively insulate them from the mast(s).

4. Having a grounded mast very close to a radiator, if one can be effectively fed, would affect the efficiency and SWR rather markedly. But, I'm sure Larry has an answer for that one.

Perhaps Larry should cart a suitably-equipped 40 foot sloop, ketch or yawl over to a DOD anechoic chamber and tell us what it looked like.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
First: #answered under "The IF filter"


Nice try, Larry. You didn't answer anything. I didn't expect you to.

Quote[/b] ]
Second: #For a well-designed modem, and assuming reasonably decent filters -- practically none. #A well-designed modem uses frequencies above the low roll-off, and below the high roll-off. #A well-designed modem can also handle some roll-off from marginal filters. #Because it uses the "sweet spot" of the bandpass, phase characteristics of even a fairly poor filter (by modern standards) will not impact a well-designed modem. #For instance, a TS-520 or a KWM-2 will work fine with a well-designed multitone modem #-- as will a 1960's vintage 400 Watt Russian transmitter in a Russian communications van in Egypt. #(Been there, done that -- at 2400 bps full-duplex.)


Wrong again, Larry. It doesn't have anything to do with phase characteristics of the filter.

Quote[/b] ]
Third: Point not in evidence.


Oh, it's very much in evidence to just about everyone but you.


Quote[/b] ]
RE: "Why bother .... IF filters". # Selectivity.


*YOU* said the selectivity is in the modem, Larry. You said the level of selectivity in the IF is immaterial becauseof the selectivity in the modem.

Nice ropa-dope, Larry. But I didn't expect an answer from you. I wasn't disappointed.

Quote[/b] ]
RE: #Antennas and sailboats and RV's (and other immaterial nonsense).
The point is that the "user" (a.k.a. "Joe Ham") may be in any location, using any type of antenna, and will most probably choose the PBMO that has good signal to his/her location. #The "sailboats and RV's" nonsense is just more deliberately contrived and inflammatory ****.


ROFL! #It's inflammatory and immaterial because you can't argue against it? Nice shuck and jive.

Quote[/b] ]
CASE 1:
Even IF a sailboat is used, any sailboat big enough to spend the night on has enough backstay to have a large percentage of a quarter wave -- even at 7 MHz. # The probable efficiency is better than 50%. # At 50%, we are down about 1/2 of an "S" unit versus a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.


Oh, Larry. A S-unit is typically 6 to 9db in most receivers. So a 1/2 unit is 3-4.5db. And you think that isn't a significant impact?

And why don't you tell everyone what the disadvantage of a vertical is? Those yachts using one already have a disadvantage to begin with. Do you know what it is?


Quote[/b] ]
CASE 2:
Even if we take a 20 percent efficient antenna, we are just over an "S" unit down from a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.


Yep, a full 6 to 9 db down. And we are expected to believe that is not significant? Did you think you were going to fool anyone by using S-units so the numbers would be smaller?


Quote[/b] ]
An example of a 20% efficient antenna is an 11 foot mobile whip with a coil located about 6 feet above the base (with a fairly poor coil: Q = 150) and up to 10 Ohms of ground loss at 7.2 MHz. #(If ground loss drops to 2 Ohms, this antenna is 35% efficient.)

CASE 3:
With a 6 percent efficient antenna, we drop just 2 "S" units below a quarter wave vertical over perfect ground.

An 11 foot mobile whip with a coil located about 6 feet above the base (with a fairly poor coil: Q = 150) and up to 10 Ohms of ground loss at 3.9 MHz is just below 6% efficient. #(If ground loss drops to 2 Ohms, this antenna is 8% efficient.)

Once again, simple facts that are verifiable by anyone.


Like 12-18db is pocket change, right? Again, did you think you were going to fool anyone by using smaller numbers?

Skip -- I told you we wouldn't get an answer. We didn't. Narrower filters are better for noise performance in the overall audio passband. Larry is just blowing smoke and breathing fire because he doesn't have anything else to offer.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
This latest nonsense is answered in my post above.

Just FYI: I have solved issues related to HF voice, data, and fax communications in more countries than most people have seen, and have probably interfaced more different types of equipment to more radios -- including some with schematics in Cyrillic. #(No, the schematic symbols are not the same.) #

The Rockwell-Collins HF simulator allows REPEATABLE "real world" tests. #We would not have spent $5,000.00 per hour plus a couple of tickets, hotel expenses, and meals if there would not have been a proven return. #(That test followed tests on our HF simulator, which I co-designed as the HF SME.)


You didn't answer anything in your post above. It's obvious you have no clue as to noise contributions to audio noise in a receiver. You may be a great modem man but you can't answer the simplest questions concerning a receiver.

Your simulator may provide repeatable tests and may provide a return on your money. They are most definitely *NOT* real-world. And you don't even understand why.

Is it any wonder why dl6maa and you just can't understand why the throughput on Winlink is so bad? Get a clue, Larry. Your bragging doesn't mean anything. If you can't even list out the noise contributions in a receiver, how do you expect to know what the real-world even is?

tim ab0wr

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 16 2006,18:54)]I don't know what the rules are at the PA3DUV location. Perhaps someone on here does?
We are in the same country so we have the same rules.

Our version of FCC called AT has repeatedly told us that linking to any public network is passing thirth party trafic.
We can use closed networks to pass trafic from one ham station to another but not open networks like email gates.

[kh6ty]

Tim,

Thanks for your support, but I really don't care about what blowhard, WA5BEN, says, and the best thing is to do is to just completely ignore him from now on. As you can see, he uses this forum mainly to brag about how "smart" he is and how "wrong" everyone else is!

Isn't it just unbelievable how arrogant and nasty these Winlink promoters all seem to be!

I was engineering manager and chief engineer for shortwave radio design for General Electric Company in the late 60's. At GE, at that time, those without a 4-year college degree or with only a technical school degree were "technicians" and only those with a full 4-year college engineering degree were hired as engineers (in addition to those with a state P.E. license). It is possible that his self-exhaulted creditials do not include an in-depth engineering education - thus his often misinformed, relatively shallow, understanding of radio design.

On the other hand, there are many excellent and capable radio designers without a 4-year degree that are just as capable, or more so, than graduate engineers, but most just don't brag about how smart they are or pretend to know more than they do, and then go on to make so many obviously incorrect statements.

If what he posted recently on another thread is correct,

Quote[/b] ]
I worked on the GE and Motorola radios as a radio technician in the 1970's. #GE had a group in Land Mobile that specifically dealt with hams at that time. #(The tube divisions of RCA and GE also published Ham Notes.)
and he was a radio "bench technician" in the 70's, his theoretical understanding of RF design may not be as complete as that of many graduate radio engineers, and that may be why he makes so many obviously misinformed statements.


The GE Mobile Radio division was in Lynchburg, VA, and the consumer radio division (where I worked) was in Utica, NY. Both divisions cooperated technically, but neither division "specifically" dealt with hams. Hams just liked to convert some of the land mobile units to ham use, and I knew plenty of hams at both divisions.

I do have more than just a few years of radio design under my belt ( http://www.qsl.net/kh6ty #)

and understand a little about RF design, but nevertheless I am always open to constructive #criticism and more learning. I am NOT open to statements such as WA5BEN makes, like, "that is beyond stupid!" He obviously just does not possess the communications skills to intelligently debate an issue without putting down whatever anyone else offers.

The more he opens his mouth, the more everyone is additionally convinced that Pactor-III really does not perform in the real world as Winlink and SCS claim, so we have to thank him for that!

The more you argue with him, the more he will continue to bore all of us bragging about his superior knowledge and understanding! Just ignore him completely and he will eventually crawl away. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Feb. 16 2006,21:48)]Skip -- I told you we wouldn't get an answer. We didn't. Narrower filters are better for noise performance in the overall audio passband. Larry is just blowing smoke and breathing fire because he doesn't have anything else to offer.

tim ab0wr
I happen to be the one who is blamed by Winlink and a few others for promoting the concept of using wide filters for narrowband signals, letting the narrow DSP filters in the software do most of the S/N job, and for DigiPan, which does work (up to a point). But, in the end, switching in a narrow IF filter does improve the S/N and the print somewhat, and DEFINITELY cuts out some interference in the passband (adjacent to the desired signal, but not on top of it).

We are not sure just what is causing Pactor-III to have such poor throughput on the average Winlink Email exchange, but we do know, as you point out, that conditions on a sailboat are usually relatively poor compared to a land station with a high dipole and that any QRM in the passband will result in more NAK and force more repeats of blocks, which puts Pactor-III at a disadvantage compared to Pactor-II because it is impossible to use a narrow filter with Pactor-III just when it is needed most.

AE4TM's graph shows Pactor-III performance approaching the "50% better than Pactor-II" point at around 15-20 miles. Here at Charleston, sailing is a very popular hobby, and most offshore cruising and fishing is done about 15-20 miles out where the Gulfstream brushes our coastline.

Anyway, the point is that Pactor-III is eating up five times the bandwidth of Pactor-II, for only an average of 50% greater speed in actual practice on HF, for whatever unsure reasons.

As a result, the FCC should only allow unattended operations to have enough spectrum to use 500 Hz-wide signals, not 2100 Hz-wide signals or 2400 Hz-wide signals in the false promise of "high-speed" data transfer or multimedia transfer on the HF bands.

Currently, except for a 5 kHz-wide subband on 40 meters, the 97.221 subbands satisfy that condition easily. Let Winlink/ARRL petition for an increase in the 40m subband width, IF they can justify it to the FCC with believable numbers.

Hey, should we suggest to Newington for ARRL to change its name to "ARRLlink"?

Or, perhaps, instead of their latest moniker, "National Association for Amateur Radio", perhaps it should be ARAW, "Amateur Radio Association for Winlink". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I wonder what (Rotten Digital Mode) Hiram Perry Maximum would think of that! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ky5u]

I attend meetings every day where problems go unsolved while co-workers argue arcane points of engineering testosterone. You want to get slam dunked in one of my meetings? Just get into a acedemic pi$$ing contest in front of me. I'll let it go until I see it get off subject and into "my whatever (degree) is bigger than yours".

All the qualifications in the world are no good if you don't use them to solve problems. Real problems. Not WL2K has spectrum and isn't satisfied so they want it ALL.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 17 2006,10:26)]I attend meetings every day where problems go unsolved while co-workers argue arcane points of engineering testosterone. #You want to get slam dunked in one of my meetings? #Just get into a acedemic pi$$ing contest in front of me. #I'll let it go until I see it get off subject and into "my whatever (degree) is bigger than yours".

All the qualifications in the world are no good if you don't use them to solve problems. #Real problems. #Not WL2K has spectrum and isn't satisfied so they want it ALL.
Yes, that is precisely #what the ARRL/Winlink petition, RM-11306, says!

It is so sad that ARRL is now mainly the "ARAW". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

It is high time for the members to take back control of the ARRL, but how can it be done?

[wa4dou]

I believe it can be done by every member writing to Dave Sumner and advising him that there will be an about face in the way the organization is run, that it will be run to represent the membership, that there is going to be greater respect for membership desires, that there will be interactive membership involvement in issues of great importance and that if there is not a clear movement in that direction in ,say, the next 6 months, the member will allow their membership to lapse. I intend to communicate this to Dave Sumner and my division representatives over the weekend. No if's, no and's, no but's! It will take interactive involvement to avoid the elite telling us that "here's where the membership stands on this or that issue".

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (wa4dou @ Feb. 17 2006,11:17)]I believe it can be done by every member writing to Dave Sumner and advising him that there will be an about face in the way the organization is run, that it will be run to represent the membership, that there is going to be greater respect for membership desires, that there will be interactive membership involvement in issues of great importance and that if there is not a clear movement in that direction in ,say, the next 6 months, the member will allow their membership to lapse. I intend to communicate this to Dave Sumner and my division representatives over the weekend. No if's, no and's, no but's! It will take interactive involvement to avoid the elite telling us that "here's where the membership stands on this or that issue".
Good idea, but Sumner will probably tell you just to wait for an ARRL bandplan. However, that is totally unacceptable, because ARRL now has a vested, conflicting, interest in Winlink for ARRL ARESCom and NTS, and the ARRL petition bandplan is already riddled with bias in favor of Winlink and ARRL, and complete disregard for IARU Region 1 concerns, at the expense of everyone else. There is no way ARRL can be trusted to formulate an unbiased bandplan under these conditions.

You might as well also say that only an IARU Region 2 bandplan (in which the US has only one vote to everyone else), is the only one that will even be considered by the membership and get that over with right at the start!

73, Skip KH6TY

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 17 2006,01:17)]Tim,

Thanks for your support, but I really don't care about what blowhard, WA5BEN, says, and the best thing is to do is to just completely ignore him from now on. As you can see, he uses this forum mainly to brag about how "smart" he is and how "wrong" everyone else is!

Isn't it just unbelievable how arrogant and nasty these Winlink promoters all seem to be!

I was engineering manager and chief engineer for shortwave radio design for General Electric Company in the late 60's. At GE, at that time, those without a 4-year college degree or with only a technical school degree were "technicians" and only those with a full 4-year college engineering degree were hired as engineers (in addition to those with a state P.E. license). It is possible that his self-exhaulted creditials do not include an in-depth engineering education - thus his often misinformed, relatively shallow, understanding of radio design.

On the other hand, there are many excellent and capable radio designers without a 4-year degree that are just as capable, or more so, than graduate engineers, but most just don't brag about how smart they are or pretend to know more than they do, and then go on to make so many obviously incorrect statements.

If what he posted recently on another thread is correct,

Quote[/b] ]
I worked on the GE and Motorola radios as a radio technician in the 1970's. GE had a group in Land Mobile that specifically dealt with hams at that time. (The tube divisions of RCA and GE also published Ham Notes.)
and he was a radio "bench technician" in the 70's, his theoretical understanding of RF design may not be as complete as that of many graduate radio engineers, and that may be why he makes so many obviously misinformed statements.


The GE Mobile Radio division was in Lynchburg, VA, and the consumer radio division (where I worked) was in Utica, NY. Both divisions cooperated technically, but neither division "specifically" dealt with hams. Hams just liked to convert some of the land mobile units to ham use, and I knew plenty of hams at both divisions.

I do have more than just a few years of radio design under my belt ( http://www.qsl.net/kh6ty )

and understand a little about RF design, but nevertheless I am always open to constructive criticism and more learning. I am NOT open to statements such as WA5BEN makes, like, "that is beyond stupid!" He obviously just does not possess the communications skills to intelligently debate an issue without putting down whatever anyone else offers.

The more he opens his mouth, the more everyone is additionally convinced that Pactor-III really does not perform in the real world as Winlink and SCS claim, so we have to thank him for that!

The more you argue with him, the more he will continue to bore all of us bragging about his superior knowledge and understanding! Just ignore him completely and he will eventually crawl away. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Skip,

Nice to see you retreat to the "He has me on the facts, so I'll try to smear his character and qualifications" gambit. Most of us recognize it, and we rather expect it from you. Sorry, but it won't work.

Your "technical data" has repeatedly been proven incorrect, your "technical explanations" inaccurate, and your examples (in most cases) unrelated. Your obvious bias prevents you from engaging in any sort of meaningful technical dialog. Those who have taken the time and effort to investigate have found that you have totally and completely "misunderstood and/or mis-stated" just about everything.

Everyone who disputes your obviously false "data" is accused of having a personal stake and/or a pecuniary interest in Winlink, or SCS, or whatever other "demon" you can manufacture to fit into your smear campaign.

Just for the record, I do not have a Winlink station at this time (and have not had one), have not used Winlink at any time, do not own shares of SCS or any related company, do not work for SCS or any related company, do not own a boat, and do not own an RV.

Why, then, am I interested in (relatively) high speed data over HF for ham radio?

I am interested because we need to develop new modes and techniques, because there is significant opportunity for improved digital communications, because experimentation with modes constrained only by bandwidth limits can produce some modes and techniques (both digital and analog) that we cannot yet envision, and because MANY, MANY of us do not believe that "ragchewing" and DX are the SOLE reasons for amateur radio to exist. These have ZERO to do with Winlink.

Why do I dispute your "facts"?

1. Because they are very obviously NOT facts. In most cases, they are a gram of technical truth diluted in a pound of nonsense carefully concocted to lead the reader to a false "technical" conclusion.

2. Because I am one of a relatively small group of hams who have "real world" experience with multi-tone HF modems in daily service carrying traffic on "real world" HF circuits.

3. Because I have designed and successfully implemented the HF multi-tone modem interface for a variety of transmitters and receivers to make them work at optimal levels on these circuits.

4. Because I believe that hams on BOTH sides of the bandwidth issue have both the RIGHT TO and the NEED FOR accurate information about the ACTUAL characteristics of multi-tone modems, and the possible amateur uses for these modems.

5. Because HF modem design constraints, philosophy, and methods should be understood by today's ham. One of these guys or gals may be the one who develops the technique that will make "high speed" and "narrow band" somewhat synonymous.

Your bias and intent is quite evident even in the heading that you chose for this thread. The topic heading is a falsehood, and you knew it to be one when you chose it.

[kh6ty]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/obeyWL2K.jpg

ARRL
Winlink
SCS
AE4TM
K4CJX
W5SMM
WA5BEN

[KN9D]

All hams are equal,but some hams are more equal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KN9D]

PhD=Piled Higher and Deeper


Gosh,I wish I had a set of letters to append to my name so that everyone would know how smart I am,and that they should all unquestionally accept my OPINION as the final word. Should we all post our Stanford-Benet scores ?
What have learned pompous experts told us before ?
There was the guy in charge of the patent office who wanted to close it about 1900 because everything possible or useful had already been invented;and don't forget it was proven that bees can't fly,"they" will never dare attack us, ......
ANY one who has an idea for a new way to communicate may bench test it,and if it requires rf ,he may apply for Special Temporary Authority from the FCC to conduct on air trials.
The only modes being held back are those which might exist in the minds of researchers too paranoid and greedy to disclose their methods or those modes which are disruptive of the existing order. It is all very well to fantasize about some new breakthrough,but the world seldom welcomes a newcomer who leaves suffering and ruin behind while intent only on his own goals. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 17 2006,17:29)]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/obeyWL2K.jpg

ARRL
Winlink
SCS
AE4TM
K4CJX
W5SMM
WA5BEN
I am beginning to feel strangely weak.... my brain is beginning to swell.... I have a strange desire to snooker people into giving away spectrum to the "Master".

Narrowband Data BAD!! SSB/CW BAD!!! We serve you MASTER! We hear only your words.... WinLink...Pactor.... ARRL.... The holy word chant forms on my lips.....

Winininininininininininininininin-LINK!
Winininininininininininininininin-LINK!
Winininiininininininininininininin-LINK!

[W0GI]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 18 2006,14:19)]Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 17 2006,17:29)]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/obeyWL2K.jpg

ARRL
Winlink
SCS
AE4TM
K4CJX
W5SMM
WA5BEN
I am beginning to feel strangely weak.... #my brain is beginning to swell.... I have a strange desire to snooker people into giving away spectrum to the "Master".

Narrowband Data BAD!! #SSB/CW BAD!!! We serve you MASTER! #We hear only your words.... WinLink...Pactor.... ARRL.... The holy word chant forms on my lips.....

Winininininininininininininininin-LINK!
Winininininininininininininininin-LINK!
Winininiininininininininininininin-LINK!
No, that is Johnny Sack in the photo.

Tony Soprano will wack his ass in Season 6.

So don't worry.

73 - Bob

[W3MIV]

The ARRL has filed reply comments on RM-11306.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 21 2006,16:57)]The ARRL has filed reply comments on RM-11306.
Yes, they have. So too, have Charlie and Skip.

The ARRL once again chosen to ignore the vast majority of comments and request a withdrawal of the Petition.

At this point, it is crystal clear that the ARRL elite think they know what is best for the service, irrespective of what the majority of its membership and the rest of the amateur community want.

Actually, it was rather funny to see Imlay's dance around Pactor III as an issue, by saying that Winlink is mode-independent. Nice try.

[N6CRR]

Anyone wonder why the ARRL membership is down 2 percent this past year, and going down even more after this debacle?

The ARRL comments in reply to RM 11306 nothing short of unmitigated "We know what's best" pap.

[w6em]

KA1ZGC, Tom Rounds, really blasted the ARRL's Reply Comments. #And, rightly so.

Here's the URL, but it doesn't seem to work. You can find it easily at ECFS by searching under RM-11306 for anything filed since February 21.

http://gullfoss2fcc.gov/prod....8329488 (http://gullfoss2fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518329488)


Then, there's the famous Dr./Dr. Ed. #AE4TM. #I didn't copy his URL, but suffice it to say, it was a good treatise on why Pactor Robots should continue to be confined to a small piece of spectrum. #To protect their supposedly vulnerable, weak signal connections. #And a tutorial/derivation on why and how HF signal propagation is different than VHF.

Don't think that was his intention, but it sure reinforced keeping the boogers confined. Not just for the interference they are capable of producing, but for the interference to any of their own weak, unreadable-by-analog-means signals.

[WA3KYY]

There are numerous, well thought out and written reply comments to the reply comments of ARRL and Winlinkers. The FCC is , andgoing to have a very hard time siding with the proponents on this one.

Oh, and for more ARRL hubris and failure of W1AW to follow the ARRL Considerate Operator's HF Frequency Guide, look where they are moving the 160M CW bulletins and practice to. 1807.5 KHz, right in the digital window smack on top of the PSK frequency. Sheesh!!

Mike WA3KYY http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Feb. 24 2006,14:21)]Oh, and for more ARRL hubris and failure of W1AW to follow the ARRL Considerate Operator's HF Frequency Guide, look where they are moving the 160M CW bulletins and practice to. #1807.5 KHz, right in the digital window smack on top of the PSK frequency. #Sheesh!!
I hope that is not an exsample to how some americans that find them more important then others deal with volentairy bandplans.

(I remember something about 160 meters being the only band with no fcc envorced bandplan in the usa)

[k5rks]

I looked over the reply comments to RM-11306 as well as the recent comments on the ARRL website.

The ARRL just posted a news note on their website regarding their take on the "900" comments that were
filed with the FCC.

The ARRL continues to think that their proposal (which became RM-11306) was thoroughly vetted. They did publish some editorials about it and they also sought input at "bandwidth@arrl.org". However, they really only made cosmetic changes and didn't respond -- and still
have not responded -- to the two basic problems
with RM-11306.

1. They have not owned up to the fact that any proposal affecting carving up the bands into various subbands must be the result of collaborative input from all aspects of ham radio -- ragchewers, contestors, DX guys, public service guys, Winlink guys, AM, SSB, CW, RTTY, PSK31, etc. They have still not even agreed in principle to this.
They still think that the whole justification of RM-11306 is to assist digital modes to have room to flourish (while not doing anything too destructive to everything else in ham radio). Implicit in their thinking is that the growth of digital modes is essential to the continuation of ham radio.

2. They admit that a bandplan is necessary but they did not -- and still have not -- put a bandplan on the table for consideration by the ham community.

I continue to support the 90% of all the stuff the ARRL is doing on many fronts. However, they obviously did not take their membership into consideration when coming out with this proposal. Even now -- in view of the 900 comments -- they are still intransigent. They have not made any gestures to remove the objectionable stuff.

I think many who objected would probably come on board with only "relatively minor" tweaks involving keeping robots separate from other operations. The crux of the argument is not "digital" vs "analog" or "regulation by bandwidth" vs "regulation by mode". It is keeping robots separate.

Hopefully, the FCC will either deny the ARRL petition outright or at least do something to separate robots from other operations.

In any case, the ARRL should go to work now on the bandplan. Hopefully, the board of directors will learn from past mistakes and actually draw up a draft bandplan BASED UPON PARTICIPATION FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS. No more back room comittees with a narrow agenda recommending changes for the "good" of all of ham radio. When the draft bandplan is being drawn up there better be key guys in the room from ALL the various ham radio consitituencies -- not just digital guys and not just Winlink guys.

How can an organization continue to remain viable when it ignores the input from a majority of its members? [While giving the impression that it is "listening" to them].

73 Roger K5RKS

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Feb. 23 2006,17:53)]I hope that is not an exsample to how some americans that find them more important then others deal with volentairy bandplans.

(I remember something about 160 meters being the only band with no fcc envorced bandplan in the usa)
Unfortunately, this is but one MORE example of a clique in control of an organization that is not taking what the majority of its dues-paying membership wants seriously.
The first one I can recall was Incentive Licensing fiasco back in the '60s. #I left the ARRL and didn't come back for a long time because of that one. #I will remain a member as I felt this is the best way to effect change.

Perhaps QRZ.COM and EHAM should be used as a means to gather those members together who want the clique removed and replaced. #To discuss how to go about same.

Some have already suggested legal action. #That's possible. #A class action lawsuit to acquire control of the ARRL from the clique on behalf of the majority would be quite interesting.

Lee
W6EM

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Feb. 24 2006,15:06)]In any case, the ARRL should go to work now on the bandplan. Hopefully, the board of directors will learn from past mistakes and actually draw up a draft bandplan BASED UPON PARTICIPATION FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS. No more back room comittees with a narrow agenda recommending changes for the "good" of all of ham radio. When the draft bandplan is being drawn up there better be key guys in the room from ALL the various ham radio consitituencies -- not just digital guys and not just Winlink guys. #

How can an organization continue to remain viable when it ignores the input from a majority of its members? [While giving the impression that it is "listening" to them]. #

73 # Roger # K5RKS
Roger,

The ARRL can no longer ethically participate in the bandplanning process!

Because ARRL has adopted Winlink for NTS and AREScomm, they now have a conflict of interest in producing any #bandplan from now on, and if you pick apart the RM-11306 bandplan very carefully, you will see it is just riddled with bias toward Winlink, which now means bias to ARRL activities for NTS and AREScomm. This bias extends to the choices from the bandwidth segment boundaries (favoring current Winlink stations) to their rewrite of 97.221 (opening ALL HF frequencies to "semi-automatic" operations which ONLY Winlink and ARRL use), to totally ignoring the IARU Region 1 bandplan restrictions on digimode activity.

The ARRL is attempting to use REGULATIONS to control where everyone else can operate in order to make more room for Winlink and ARRL activities!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

K4CJX keeps harping on the fact that there are "only" 24 Winlink PMBO stations, but there are 25 more non-domestic ones, many of which can be easily copied over here and easily interfere with QSO's over here, and another 25 or so Emcomm PMBO stations what used to be listed on the Winlink website, but somehow are now left off the list - probably to make the threat look smaller. In addition, ONE county alone in Tennessee (I think it is), has 19 Winlink-equipped Emcomm stations already active. There may even be more.

In other words, you can expect Winlink Pactor-III stations in your own backyard if ARRL gets their way and can use "semi-automatic" operations over ALL the HF frequencies. Just why are they fighting so hard for access everywhere? The obvious reason is that they intend to go everywhere!

Based on firm legal principles, the ARRL should voluntarily recuse themselves from all bandplanning and if they do not, the rest of us should insist that their bandplans be ignored. The problem with ARRL "voluntary" bandplans is even if they appear satisfactory at the outset, because they argue for bandplans instead of "rigid" rules, their bandplans can be easily changed. Can you guess in what direction they would be changed in the future! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

ARRL has already shown their hand, and if the rest of us are smart, we will never give them a chance again to trick us with false promises, secrecy, and "trust us" enticements.

I don't know just where that leaves us http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif , except perhaps following an IARU Region 2 bandplan where ARRL has only one vote, but with major restrictions controlled by RULES issued by the FCC "AFTER" the open comment and NPRM process which is exactly opposite to the secretive way the ARRL has behaved recently.

As an avid ARRL supporter for over 50 years, I am greatly saddened by their current behavior... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Their intransigent behavior regarding the comments to RM-11306 suggests that only a complete "house-cleaning" at the top and on the Executive Committee will return the ARRL to an organization representive of the members wishes, and that can be trusted.

73, Skip KH6TY

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (kh6ty @ Feb. 24 2006,16:18)]Quote[/b] (k5rks @ Feb. 24 2006,15:06)]In any case, the ARRL should go to work now on the bandplan. Hopefully, the board of directors will learn from past mistakes and actually draw up a draft bandplan BASED UPON PARTICIPATION FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS. No more back room comittees with a narrow agenda recommending changes for the "good" of all of ham radio. When the draft bandplan is being drawn up there better be key guys in the room from ALL the various ham radio consitituencies -- not just digital guys and not just Winlink guys.

How can an organization continue to remain viable when it ignores the input from a majority of its members? [While giving the impression that it is "listening" to them].

73 Roger K5RKS
Roger,

The ARRL can no longer ethically participate in the bandplanning process!

Because ARRL has adopted Winlink for NTS and AREScomm, they now have a conflict of interest in producing any bandplan from now on, and if you pick apart the RM-11306 bandplan very carefully, you will see it is just riddled with bias toward Winlink, which now means bias to ARRL activities for NTS and AREScomm. This bias extends to the choices from the bandwidth segment boundaries (favoring current Winlink stations) to their rewrite of 97.221 (opening ALL HF frequencies to "semi-automatic" operations which ONLY Winlink and ARRL use), to totally ignoring the IARU Region 1 bandplan restrictions on digimode activity.

73, Skip KH6TY
"This bias extends to the choices from the bandwidth segment boundaries (favoring current Winlink stations) to their rewrite of 97.221 (opening ALL HF frequencies to "semi-automatic" operations which ONLY Winlink and ARRL use)"

TRUTH

These "semi-automatic" modes are among those that currently exist on HF, and that have existed on HF for at least 20 years:

AMTOR ARQ (CCIR 476-1)
HF Packet
RTTY BBS

All of those used published frequencies, and at least some of them scan more than one frequency.

TRUTH
The remainder of your post consists of repetition of PROVEN falsehoods and "half truths with a deliberate twist". A prime example is the "one county alone in Tennessee..... has 19 Winlink stations". When I equip myself to go mobile with Winlink (as you have helped convince me to do), I will have a Winlink CAPABLE station. That does NOT mean it will be on HF, and it does NOT mean that it will be a PBMO (PMBO?). It MIGHT mean that it includes the capability to be established as a PBMO if needed, but not necessarily so.

The FACT remains that MOST Winlink EMCOMM activity is on VHF/UHF, (TELPAC or PACLINK) and that the HF is put into play for traffic that has no other means of carriage.

Of course, facts that don't fit your bias and obvious motives mean nothing to you.

TRUTH
And then there is that small, nasty FACT that MANY other types of digital operations and modes would fit within the proposed bandwidth. Winlink is ONE use of an HF modem. It is NOT the only use. It will NOT be the only use.

TRUTH
The SCS is NOT the only HF modem that can run 2400 bps or faster in a single voice channel bandwidth on HF. (It is just the only relatively inexpensive one AT THIS TIME. I hope that will change relatively soon.)

TRUTH
The ARRL leadership is making an honest effort to balance the "change nothings" with the real need to keep ham radio viable into the next century. There will NEVER be 100% agreement with ANY leadership of ANY organization.

TRUTH
That with which you disagree is not necessarily incorrect, and that with which you agree is not necessarily correct.

[w6em]

Larry, you honestly sound so much like Rush Limbaugh that you might be related.

In any case, have your hearing checked frequently. Rush lost his. Probably from all that shouting TRUTH

[ad4mg]

TRUTH
The majority of amateur radio operators obviously oppose the ill-conceived and heavily biased ARRL bandwidth proposal (based on the percentages shown by comments to RM-11306). #What else need be said?

The majority will rule, the rest of you can just go pee up a rope.

It's all so very simple when you think about it.

[k4cjx]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Feb. 25 2006,05:03)]TRUTH
The majority of amateur radio operators obviously oppose the ill-conceived and heavily biased ARRL bandwidth proposal (based on the percentages shown by comments to RM-11306). #What else need be said?

The majority will rule, the rest of you can just go pee up a rope.

It's all so very simple when you think about it.
TRUTH:

There are well over 7700 people with US licenses