ad: CQMM-1

Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KH6TY, Mar 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    The entirety of the conversation between myself and Steve is outlined in this thread. Nothing in that conversation answers any of the questions I've raised...

    To this point, there is no evidence that anyone outside the Winlink organization is monitoring any Winlink transmissions. The person least likely to report a violation (the PMBO operator) is also in many cases the only one actually looking at messages. No third party vetting of messages actually transmitted is taking place.


    If you can point to a third party that is doing monitoring of Winlink transmissions, please let me know who they are. It isn't the ARRL, unless my Director is misinformed.


    Software that scans for suspicious content will not catch someone using Winlink for commercial uses. Only people will.


    And I'm not *pretending* to want an answer. I encourage you to read that thread, in it's entirety. I have no stake in either side, since I'm not involved with Winlink or any of it's 'competitors'.

    I *do* want an answer. So do many others.
     
  2. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Really? Seeing as how I had no involvement in that committee, nor Winlink, nor any other email mode... or any of the involved parties.

    It's amazing how you can tell *me* what *my* motivation *really* is...
     
  3. KH6TY

    KH6TY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Larry, please save us! You are our only hope! We desperately need more modern technology because you say old SCS-technology Winlink is not good enough! [​IMG]
     
  4. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    "Mobile EOC" ? Obviously, you do not know what an EOC actually is. You can relocate the PEOPLE and the SERVICES of an EOC, but it really cannot be "mobile". A Command Post may be (and should be) mobile. An EOC is not, because we need too many people.

    For a city EOC (smallest type of EOC)
    Mayor
    City Manager
    City Council Members (about 10)
    Police Chief
    Deputy Police Chiefs (at least 1)
    Fire Chief
    Deputy Fire Chief for Fire Operations / Rescue
    Deputy Fire Chief for Medical (EMS) Operations
    Emergency Management Director
    Finance Director
    Personnel Director
    Procurement Director
    Aviation Director
    Police / Fire / EMS Communications Director
    Public Information Director
    City Attorney
    Hospital Liaison
    Streets
    Sanitation
    Code Enforcement
    Animal Control
    State police
    Red Cross
    FEMA
    FBI
    ATF

    That is roughly 35 people, not counting the EOC staff and the necessary staff members for several of the people. Basically, we are looking at a minimum of about 40 people to as many as 70 people who are NEEDED in the EOC in a normal sized city. Each FUNCTION needs a phone at HIS/HER dedicated desk, with adequate external lines to allow simultaneous use. Ample phones and lines must be provided for staff to allow them to IMPLEMENT the decisions made by the CITY LEADERS, and to provide their supported FUNCTION with input to guide those decisions.

    I have no doubt that your "eoc" / "command post" will be manned AFTER a disaster strikes. The real questions remain: "HOW did it get manned ?", "How long did it take to assemble the team ?", and "HOW did it function before the team was assembled ?"

    I am far from dumb. I am certainly not dumb enough to question the experience of a person who has performed SAR, EMCOMM, and Disaster Relief; has been internationally published by Public Safety Communications on the subject of Emergency Preparedness / Disaster Communications; and who has spoken (with invitation) at disaster planning conferences.

    Remember one CRITICAL point: Unless the EOC itself is the site of the disaster (in which case, it CANNOT function as the coordination site), the EOC must be TOLD that the disaster struck by someone who is ACTUALLY ON SITE, or by someone who is in communication with someone who is actually on site.

    AFTER that, the EOC must MAN UP before it can PLAN, and it must PLAN before it can RESPOND. It cannot PLAN until it receives "INTEL" -- the "ground truth" from someone on site. (And, if it is a state EOC, it cannot respond until it is REQUESTED by the leaders of the affected town / city / county / parish.) The EOC is the "tail of the dog".
     
  5. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    The PMBO operator CAN and HAS made reports of misuse, and is VERY likely to do so. He/she has NOTHING to lose, and everything to gain, by reporting clear violations to the FCC. Under the FCC rules, The PMBO operator (or packet station operator, ....) is exempt from prosecution IF he/she takes steps to ensure that the violation is not repeated.

    Banning the operator from Winlink and reporting the violation to the FCC are pretty good demonstrations of "take steps to ensure that the violation is not repeated". On the other hand, failing act, and/or failing to report clearly and plainly puts the license of the PMBO operator (or packet station operator, ....) in jeopardy.

    The FCC and some other enforcement groups have been granted access to any Winlink message. Want to monitor ? Decode the plain language FSK ID. No investment required. Or buy a modem....
     
  6. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Again, the REAL target of wrath is ANY DIGITAL MODE that does not conform to a very narrow view of "should be" that is held by a very narrow segment. If that narrow segment would stick to FACTS, we could have a rational discussion, and probably arrive at a rational agreement. Because they refuse to discuss FACTS, we are left with responding to "postulates" that differ from FACT by the width of the Amazon.

    Most of those commenting against the RM have clearly (sometimes almost comically) shown by their comments that they have no understanding of the FACTS. (Cases in point: Several comments objected to 100 kHz wide PACTOR signals ......)

    What is utterly amazing to me is that the people who keep claiming that all of the EMCOMM uses of Winlink can either fit into a tiny slice of spectrum (that handles THREE signals) or "provided by other services" have ZERO experience with EMCOMM and/or Disaster Relief. What part of NO BASIS FOR AN OPINION is difficult to understand ?

    The SCS modem ADAPTED some techniques. There is ample room for improvement in the modem -- but we CANNOT do it in a 500 Hz slice of spectrum. The PROTOCOL (PACTOR) offers much room for improvement (i.e., replacement) -- but we NEED a ONE VOICE CHANNEL OF BANDWIDTH to employ effective protocol and modem design that will shorten transmission times even further.

    Be a part of the SOLUTION. Offer ideas about the specs for the ARRL modem. Create a protocol. Find a way to detect tones/phases closer to the noise. DO SOMETHING INNOVATIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. That is what we are SUPPOSED to do. Repeating "half-truths" and outright falsehoods is NOT helping ham radio.
     
  7. KH6TY

    KH6TY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Apparently your "boss" does not agree with you!

    K4CJX statement, published in CQ Magazine, March 15, 2005 on page 15:

    "The only difference in any emergency is that the content changes. I suppose there may be more outbound third-party information, or more recipients per message, but really no user increases that are noticeable. Unlike other types of systems set up for Emcomm, this system is used with or without EmComm daily by 6384 Winlink users to approximately 81,000 e-mail recipients. It takes a HUGE difference to be noticeable."

    Posting by K4CJX on QRZ.COM:

    "FYI, P3 is about 92 percent of the Winlink activity, and the P3 is getting larger while the P1, P2 (out of the auto-subbands is getting smaller."


    Sounds like moving the other 7% to P3 is going to break the system unless Winlink gets control of the RTTY/Data/CW or phone bands!

    Oh, I forgot - K4CJX says it takes a HUGE difference to be noticeable! 7% is a HUGE difference?

    The issue is not whether Winlink is good or bad, but whether Winlink can do the Emcomm job entirely in the subbands using P3, and according to previously published public pronouncements by the Winlink Network Administrator, it can.
     
  8. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm still waiting to hear what non-FCC non-Winlink third party is currently doing any monitoring, or even able to monitor, Winlink transmissions utilizing Pactor II or III.

    To have a violation, there must be an accusation. For the FCC to investigate an accusation, recorded evidence of some sort must be provided. You must assume that violations have occured, since there is nothing different from the general ham population (that break the rules) and the subset that are Winlink users (that presumably also break the rules).

    No one outside of the FCC or Winlink is in a position to make any sort of recording of data sufficient to even start an investigation.

    It's a catch-22. The FSK ID only gets you the call of the station, not the data transmitted.

    Larry, you've said "or buy a modem". Since Winlink is a system (not just a modem), will the Winlink administration staff be willing to demonstrate to the amateur community exactly how one would monitor a Winlink PMBO operating on Pactor II or III? This would be a wonderful gesture of good faith, so that any amateur (or group of amateurs) who was/were considering purchasing one of these devices solely for monitoring isn't stuck with a device but no actual ability to monitor?
     
  9. KH6TY

    KH6TY Ham Member QRZ Page

    ARRL headquarters has a PTC-III modem, I think. Ask the ARRL to translate a day's worth of emails from a busy Winlink station and make them available on their website.
     
  10. WA5BEN

    WA5BEN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Please cite the "federal law". The FCC has stated that it will not act on requests to set aside frequencies, although it has acted "unofficially" to request stations to move farther away from some frequencies.

    Also, EMCOMM is a worldwide issue. In many, many countries it is difficult to impossible to get a SATCOM device imported and approved for use. (It took DAYS -- and much $$$$ to get SATCOM into parts of the tsunami zone, for instance.) Why ? Many governments do not permit SATCOM, because it controls the TELCO (PTT), and SATCOM bypasses that. Can you pay $25,000 to $50,000 UP FRONT to the local government to get your SATCOM gear imported and approved for you to use (often PLUS the salary of a PTT "watcher" to be with you) ?

    HF is already there. Add a modem and a laptop, and you have a worldwide connection -- even from the most devastated area, and even in the middle of the event. Even if you take your own HF gear in, you probably will not need to make a "deposit" to ensure export -- and you will pay no fee for bypassing the TELCO (PTT).
     
  11. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    I know that Steve Ford WB8IMY has made the same inquiries I have about listening to WinLink2000 transmissions. I will email him to see how it is going.

    73,
    Mark N5RFX
     
  12. KH6TY

    KH6TY Ham Member QRZ Page

    The regulations for emergencies are here: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/

    According to K4CJX, it does not matter, Winlink can handle emergencies as normal traffic, "The only difference in any emergency is that the content changes. I suppose there may be more outbound third-party information, or more recipients per message, but really no user increases that are noticeable. Unlike other types of systems set up for Emcomm, this system is used with or without EmComm daily by 6384 Winlink users to approximately 81,000 e-mail recipients. It takes a HUGE difference to be noticeable."

    The only difference a HUGE increase in traffic makes is in the waiting time for a clear channel. Since it usually takes me 20 minutes to even connect, and an unknown amount of time until an Inbox is checked for email on the other end, the waiting time for a clear channel is insignificant in the overall picture, especially since P3 is a "fast on, fast-off" mode as claimed by Winlink.
     
  13. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Be interesting to see if the ARRL will be willing to assist in any monitoring efforts...
     
  14. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    I contacted Steve and he said
    Nick N2QZ got back with me and sent me a PERL script and some suggestions. Nick told me the PERL script would need some work, and he is right. I am going to play around with it and see if I can learn anything.
    73,
    Mark N5RFX
     
  15. VE6WTF

    VE6WTF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well we could get alot more active on the CW, and data part of the bands, and when the Pactor comes over the air, its possible it will just plow over all of us.
    We all make complaints about lawful interferance.
    And they get a nice little fine?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1