Just say NO! to Winlink expansion!

Ok, Scott,

Can you answer the question why Winlink PMBO's are scattered all over the band instead of staying in one continuous place, and why Winlink asks to be allowed to do that?

Everyone else congregates in one area with their own kind. Why does Winlink not do that, or why should they not do that?

I'd appreciate honest answers, minus the inferences that we don't really want to find a solution that everyone can live with.

 

This discussion is NOT about adding new modes or mode bandwidth.

This discussion is about the unattended use of any mode, interspersed with person-to-person communications. When man is forced to compete with a machine, the man comes out the loser every time. "Deep Blue" finally convincingly demonstrated that, just as Winlink does now.

Lets keep this point in focus, please...

 

These modes are indeed "cutting edge" when viewed through 1950 glasses and people are not lining up to use them. 95% of Amateurs use CW, SSB and AM. Don't see the big hole in your logic here? The only target group the ARRL has identified are "young people". Young people could care less about slow email over Winlink, and crappy sounding digital voice on HF. Oodles of spectrum exists mostly unused over 50mhz. Where are all the cutting edge applications? You could put up wide band data access nodes on frequencies above 440mhz. Where are they? Where are the digital voice repeaters and cellphone-like applications young people want? Where is the "cutting edge"?

The answer is that the ministries, traveling RVers, and sail boats want long distance email and to provide this you need more spectrum on HF. So this isn't about technology is it? This idea is a big fat pig, and the "public service" and "cutting edge" arguments are lipstick and panty hose. A plan to benefit less than 5% of current users, nebulous "future" users, high heeled boaters and RVers, at the expense of all the others is a BAD PLAN. It is a special interest plan. This is a plan we should NOT adjust to.

 

You misunderstood. Wider utilization means larger interference potential.

No red herrings, but if you folks want to keep reading that into every statement made, have at it. I spent too much time on here.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com

 

Fellow hams,
I strongly SUPPORT the ARRL's band-plan proposal, and Winlink's proposal for occasional emergency use of HF Pactor to allow the Winlink servers to coordinate traffic. The opponents of the Winlink system have been using inuendo, half-truths, and outright fabrications to scare hams into opposing the plan. Regular Winlink mobile user access via HF has been ongoing for nearly a decade without any serious problems. Most hams haven't even known they were there!

Winlink's new use of one or two frequencies for automated server coordination will have almost NO day-to-day effect on other users. The ONLY time the Winlink servers would use these frequencies to talk to each other, other than for occasional testing, is when one or more of the Winlink servers has an Internet failure! This almost never happens. However, this backup capability is essential if Winlink is to be a viable emergency traffic handling system.

Some of those opposed to Winlink are NTS diehards who think that NTS can still meet the modern needs of served agencies. As an SEC, I can tell you that this just ain't so. Agencies now need and expect us to handle longer, more detailed messages on ICS forms, almost instantly, and in greater volume. NTS was never designed to handle this type of mission, and has always had difficulty doing what it was intended to do. NTS, while a good concept, has never been able to fully staff its nets, or to get messages accurately to their destination with a high degree of certainty. It will still and always serve as the ultimate backup should all the faster and better systems fail in a rare Armagedon scenario, but it can no longer be our first-choice solution.

Our Section is testing and learning more about the Winlink system and how best to implement it, and will be discussing the full roll-out of Winlink as our top-layer digital emcomm system. This is happening in other Sections across the country, and some have already managed a full implementation.

When AM was introduced, the CW crowd protested.
When SSB was introduced, the AM crowd protested.
Some folks just don't like change, no matter what it is.
Please don't listen to the fear mongers. We need Winlink - badly. Please contact your ARRL representatives and tell them you support this plan.
73,
Dave Colter WA1ZCN
SEC NH

 

The ARRL will absolutely not listen to you if you are not a member. I have the e-mails to prove it. I however will not join until I have proof the will listen to me first! There you have it, te classic catch 22.

Minton

 

Skip,

I'll disclose that we once emailed one another because neither of us felt Winlink was a good idea BUT that was BEFORE Sept 11! Since then, I've learned how powerful Winlink is at saving human lives. It even saved one of my patients when I had no other means of emergency communications available, including satellite phone! I would prefer to not take your attacks personally but your escalating comments now make me wonder if something is going on in your court.

Ed

 

Ed,

Winlink does not save lives! Ham radio helps save lives - Echolink, SSB, CW, Winlink, whatever is available. Winlink was not available onshore during the tsumani disaster, and because hams on the scene were on battery power, they even had to go QRP to conserve energy! A laptop battery for Winlink, plus the modem power drain, would have expired batteries long before the ones powering the CW rigs. Winlink needs to accept that EVERYBODY is important.

Winlink is admittedly a very useful network, and brilliantly designed, but that is no excuse for trying to dominate the majority of the ham bands using ARQ.

I am sure you are aware by now that Winlink can only use HALF the frequencies they claim to need, because of the scanning they do, which keeps others from using half of the spectrum they dominate.

If you can convince Winlink to operate on each band on a single, continuous, space, like CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV, SSB phone (by regulation, of course, but still grouped together) ops do, then maybe an amended petition will pass. Otherwise, it will most likely be killed by the 99% of hams that will never use Winlink.

Sorry to disappoint you, but sit back and think again how important it is to preserve ALL ham communications by not letting a single system dominate it all, and run everyone off, because those in trouble need EVERYONE, and all modes, not just Winlink!

Let me say also that I have never, ever,  thought Winlink was not a good idea! IN fact, it is a hell-of-a-good-idea! I just think it should not be used as an excuse to run everyone else off the bands, and lose interest in ham radio, for the benefit of less-than-1% of the hams in the US and only 0.3% of the hams worldwide.

So, use your vast knowledge and closeness with Winlink to get them to simply agree to work in one place and STOP WASTING SPECTRUM BY SCANNING!

Scanning does NOTHING to shorten connect times! When the PMBO that is scanning two frequencies on the same band is busy on one, he cannot possibly handle traffic on the other, so anyone calling on the other frequency is just taking up bandwidth FOR NOTHING!

With scanning, instead of one PMBO monitoring one frequency without scanning, the client also has no way to listen to see if the PMBO is busy. He listens to the alternate channel and it is clear, so he thinks the PMBO is available, and calls, and calls, for him in vain, if the PMBO is still busy passing traffic on the other channel. His wait to connect is the SAME as if he were listening on the only frequency the PMBO is passing traffic on, because until the PMBO is finished passing traffic, he will not resume scanning to even find out a client is calling on the alternate channel! No other PMBO scanning the alternate channel is going to answer either, because his callsign is not being called!

Perhaps you can use your above-average intellectual ability to explain this to K4CJX, who cannot comprehend this simple principle. Your own work is exemplary, and I am sure you can find a way to explain this to him in a way he can understand and let's stop this incessant fighting, which is totally unnecessary, only because Winlink does not understand that everybody wants them, but not ONLY them!

Thanks for writing. Now, please go and try to build some bridges of understanding. Please...

73, Skip KH6TY

 

If we ignore the FACTS, we distort the discussion. The simple fact is that in the U.S. HF Winlink is, in general, a back-up to VHF/UHF - which are normally a back-up to commercial services. The other areas where Winlink is used on HF provide SERVICES NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE to significant portions of the planet - especially in time of disaster.

Frankly, if someone uses it to send a message from his boat, it tests the system

WRONG! My mailer provides nearly all the convenience of Outlook Express, for example.[/quote]

That works for one user. How do you take the entire functioning e-mail server and let the people use their own e-mail addresses without intervention?

OK, it was not correct for me to talk about VHF/UHF, but to argue your point it's OK ?? That aside, here are the technical reasons. (I might point out that I am the person who created the concept that became GTOR, and have developed tactical modems, so I do have some standing.)

PACTOR, is a modified version of TOR/ARQ. The signal tones are not optimally spaced to support the best probability of detection. Therefore, PACTOR and HF packet both require a much higher than necessary signal-to-noise ratio for correct detection. The improper spacing also contributes to difficulty in detecting the correct tone. (For FSK, the optimal spacing is equal to the baud rate - which equals the bit rate for FSK.) "In-band diversity" (heard the "one" tone last, don't hear it now, therefore the "zero" tone must be on now, so output a "zero") that is commonly used for FSK detection is compromised by the close tone spacing, as selective fading has a greater probability of simultaneously impacting closely spaced tones.

In other words, PACTOR and HF packet suffer from "designed in" factors that require a higher transmitter power (ERP) in order to be correctly detected than a system using optimally spaced tones. Higher S/N requirements indisputably mean higher error rates on a deteriorated channel, which very obviously means higher repeat rates, which means longer channel occupancy.

FYI: I had Kantronics provide *standard version* KAM predecessors - but modified with my specified tone set. We took them to Cedar Rapids and ran them on the Collins HF simulator against a $5000.00 rack-mounted military modem. The KAM predecessor with my tone set was within 1% of the performance of the military modem. (Without, it was nowhere close.) My company provided several hundred *pocket sized* KAM predecessor based HF modems with my tone set to various U.S. and foreign military organizations for use with HF manpack and Special Forces radios.

The modems used for Winlink use a technique of sending multiple bits per symbol, permitting a large level of error detection and correction without repeat.

FYI: In 1985, I set up a demo of 2400 bps digital full duplex HF communications in Egypt - using a 400 Watt Russian transmitter (WIDE noise signature - even without modulation) and a Watkins-Johnson receiver in the desert, and a Collins HF-80 with microwave linked split site in Cairo. (8 MHz range, 1 MHz spacing - per MUF/LUF constraints, separated dipoles at the desert end, no post filter on the TX, and no pre-filter on the RX. Try it sometime - it AIN'T easy !)

The baud rate? 75 Baud. How? Signal 75 Baud on each of 16 orthoganally spaced tones in a bandwidth that is compatible with any HF transceiver.

It's just a heck of a lot CHEAPER now. (My modems cost $50,000 each !)

Yeah, I think I can support with facts - and experience - that PACTOR / packet take longer to transmit a message.

 

wa5ben:

Statement 1:

"Packet actually takes a longer time to transmit a message than does Winlink, as it uses a primitive modulation technique. It also has a higher probability of requiring repeats."

Statement 2:

"Yeah, I think I can support with facts - and experience - that PACTOR / packet take longer to transmit a message."


I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that Winlink is faster than PACTOR/packet?

tim ab0wr

 

Thom you state that at least 2 members of this commitee had some affiliation with the company that makes the equipment adopted as the standard.

This is a very serious charge and I believe you should state who they were and their connection.  I don't doubt you but that info could make a difference in how people look at the bandplan and beyond.

I am also against Pactor II and III because of the proprietary nature of it and question it's legal use on the ham bands.  When Olivia was being developed the biggest question on use was that the FCC required posting of the protocol so that amateurs could read it.  As far as I know Pactor II and III have not meet this requirement and that is the reason why you need the overpriced modem.

One other problem that I see with this bandplan is AM will only be allowed on 160 meters from what the ARRL bandplan is showing.  I am sure this will make the Collins Radio Group real happy.  There is no provision in the plan to cut off digital modes above a certain frequency in each band there by opening up the whole band for their use.

I do agree that we need to change to a bandwidth bandplan but this is not it!  It smacks to heavy of possible corruption with a few to stand to make a neat profit off it.  If the ARRL wants to do a bandplan then they should be looking and asking for input from all Amateurs not just the 20% they represent or a 10 or 15 member board.

I for one will send in my objections to the FCC if this is proposed to them in a Docket.  And again Thom please post that information as I am sure the FCC would like to know about it if it comes to that.

73,
Mike

 

Occasional use?  This system has, by its own record, now passed internet e-mail that numbers in excess of a million e-mails.

Those digital op's who have had their QSO's stomped on by pactor would disagree about the "no serious problems" statement.

Sir, how do we know Winlink will only use 1 or 2 "new" frequencies?  The bandplan immediately grants access to 75% of all MF & HF spectrum to 3 kHz digital.  In today's terms ... that means Winlink, WL2K, Pactor II, and Pactor III.

I'm not an NTS diehard, and that argument is just silly.

Only the ARRL needs Winlink badly, because they now have all of their Ecom eggs in that one basket.  Facing declining membership, this appears to be a desperate stab at gaining new members by getting the computer savvy folks interested in amateur internet e-mail.  If this is the best they can come up with, maybe their time has arrived.  Do you read the committee reports?  Declining membership is really hurting the League.  Why is the membership declining?  Because members are leaving in record numbers, fed up with League policy that does not consider member opinions.  Members do not feel represented by the League anymore.

I'm not sure you comprehend the proposal at all.  If you even read it, your understanding of its effects on the amateurs that do not want to spew internet e-mail all over the MF & HF spectrum are minimal.  But its in line with the rest of the ARRL popular opinion, you just don't care about anything "outside" your box.

You add nothing new, and sound like a "sound bite" for an ARRL commercial.  Reading your post was a waste of my time.  At the very least, you could have brought SOMETHING new to us in your post.  Blindly following what the ARRL thinks is not always a good approach, OM.

All of the above stated as "in my opinion".

Sigh...... did someone say that progress was being made here?

 

WA5BEN writes:

If the above is true, it is the busiest backup system on the planet, and there are serious technical problems with both VHF/UHF and commercial systems.  How else do you explain the huge volume of e-mail that the Winlink network boasts of passing monthly???

Frankly, a legitimate ISP is most likely being cheated out of their service fees.  I wasn't going to visit this e-mail angle again, but since you brought it up...

150,000 e-mail a month more than suggests what the primary system function is.  This system is designed to provide internet e-mail utilizing amateur radio frequencies.  Many amateurs are not in agreement that our service should become an internet e-mail provider.

This is not a backup system for anything.  Go to the Winlink web page and read it.  The intent is clear.  Actually, the ugly truth is coming out here in Virginia.  Virginia ARES has declared the VDEN packet network as a backup system to Winlink.  They understand that if the internet is not available then the Winlink network is useless.  Why else do they have a functioning packet network as a backup system?

I don't dispute your technical discussions, and I was already aware that other technologies perform better than packet on HF.  What I am sick of are the lies about what this Winlink network was designed for.  The history of this communications system is on their web page.  Even the Winlink participants acknowledge that it's all about passing internet e-mail over amateur radio frequencies.

By the way, congratulations on your work with GTOR.  The TOR styled protocols have obviously enhanced communications in all sectors.  I sincerely mean that, as I have great respect for those who really contribute to the advancement of the communications field.

On the other hand, I cannot grasp the importance of casually passing internet e-mail over amateur radio spectrum.  Emergencies are different.  No person associated with the ARRL or Winlink has ever even attempted to explain the importance of casual internet e-mail on the amateur bands.  I have been told that more than 90% of traffic on the Winlink network is simply that ... casual internet e-mail, 95% of which I charge could have been sent via existing ISP's through various services.

Reviewing the last few posts indicates no consideration of my suggestion to compromise.  Heck, it hasn't even been addressed at all.  I guess we're back in "war mode".  Whatever, I can play either way.  I'm sure I have plenty of company.

Sigh ... SSDD!

 

Dave,

Can you tell us exactly how many frequencies Winlink NEEDS for both ordinary and emergency communications?

This IS the question regarding the ARRL proposal, and if unanswered, will probably the main reason the proposal is rejected.

It has recently come to light that HALF, yes, HALF of the frequencies listed by Winlink are not needed, because Winlink PMBO's use a single transceiver to scan two frequencies on each band, BUT THEY CAN ONLY OPERATE ON ONE FREQUENCY AT A TIME!

So, if you want support for Winlink, which I agree is an excellent system for radio text emails, using Pactor-II, not Pactor-III which is wasteful of the spectrum for text emails, then please point us to an independent, professional analysis of how many frequencies Winlink actually needs.

Please act responsibly, and as a thinking person, and do not just believe everything you are told from Winlink. We support, and are grateful for your efforts, but along with that support is the requirement that our limited ham radio spectrum is used responsibly and shared with other users and modes that are just as important as Winlink.

Where I live here in the hurricane area of South Carolina, often the SSB-voice mobile ham is the only remaining communications link to the outside world for several days when we get hit badly enough. There are usually many phone-equipped mobiles to help out when there may be no Winlink-equipped units avaialable. I am sure you have read of the $100,000 ham radio communications van ordered for Aiken, SC, and that will be equipped with both Winlink 2000 and direct Satcomm email capability. Aiken is 100 miles from here, and even if Charleston, SC had a similar van, those multiple, independent, battery-operated, mobiles will be the first on the scene to offer disaster communications.

The ARRL proposal again allows Winlink Pactor-III to operate anywhere in the phone bands, along with SSB phone, seriously damaging the appeal of SSB phone due to the unavoidable QRM caused by a phone-width Pactor-III signal, three times more powerful than the equivalent SSB station (because the average modulation percentage is 90% instead of 30%).

We must all share the bands in proportion to our needs and relative amateur radio population size, and EVERYONE is needed, not just a single system like Winlink, but ALL possible communications systems.

So, please insist on a professional, independent analysis of the number of frequencies Winlink actually needs, let us know where to find it, and please do not blindly support any system without knowing all the facts or its adverse impact on other important parts of the emergency effort.

Thanks,

Skip, KH6TY


We anxiously await your findings!

 

WA1ZCN from NH writes:

The Winlink network is crying that they need more spectrum to operate.  Winlink servers (I suppose you mean PMBO's) are in almost constant communication with "client" stations of all sorts.  I guess you want us to ignore that.

The arguments being provided are contradictory.  It was stated previously that all Winlink traffic has been comfortably passed using only 16 kHz of spectrum.  You suggest that PMBO's operate only for "occasional" testing.

The proposal opens up 75% of all MF & HF spectrum to stations in the Winlink network.  But you say only 2 or 3 "new" frequencies are needed.  But Winlink cannot (apparently, nobody will address my questions about this) stay in one part of the band, away from all other modes.  Why does this network require access to all of this spectrum?  Answer that ... if you care to accept that challenge.  You would be the first to do so.

Is this a freakin' ping-pong match or what?  What is it?  Do you need more room, or is the 16 kHz being used now enough?

Do you or any of your "associates" understand that if you get this proposal passed that you will tear this service apart?  Has your beloved ARRL conducted studies that will consider the implications of the proposal, especially since it will go hand in hand with the effort to open up HF access to more and more amateurs?

Answer is NO.  Why?  Because the ARRL does not care about the implications for the 99% of the worldwide amateur community not interested in becoming an internet e-mail provider.  And, based on committee reports about declining revenue, they probably don't have the money to do so.  So what about the implications?  Do we just plow ahead and see what will happen?  This is what you people are asking of us ... no, I'm sorry, its more like shoving this down our throats.  I keep forgetting that you folks just don't listen to those who do not agree with your agenda.

Since you are geographically close to Newington, why don't you have your buddies there tell us about the comments they received from the amateur community concerning this proposal.  Sumner proudly boasts of soliciting comments on this proposal twice.  So far, the results of these solicitations remain secret.  But I've been "corrected" on this... I was told that "everything is on the web page if you care to look".  I looked, and I do not see the results of those two solicitations for comments, nor do I see the results of any studies performed on the possible effects of this proposal.

All I see from the ARRL/Winlink Alliance is the following motto:

Contradiction, not Compromise.

History will show that the Winlink Network, being created primarily to pass internet e-mail, as being the entity that set back digital communications 20 years in the amateur radio service, in my opinion.