SCAMP, Win Link,  and Black Helos?

Uh, Oh!

We're back to the "WL2K pronouncement from on high" mode again... From past experience, that must mean the WL2K folks will be back in their character-attack mode soon.

First they sully their own character, then they attack others when the "big lie" doesn't go over.

(Yawn)

Charles,  N5PVL

 

Charles:

You may be correct on this point.. as I have not researched it...and have not done any weak signal work...and frankly have little interest in it at this time...

However you know as an engineer that the physics of communications are such that many digital protocols such as PSK and MFSK will get through for ordinary communications when CW is no longer copyable...I seem to recall that PSK has a 3db advantage over CW and MFSK has a 6 db advantage over CW...I may be off on the exact db advantage.. but these protocols do have some advantage over CW...

I concede that there are times that CW may make sense...such as when there are no mikes or sophisticated technology available... however in the world of EMCOMM those times are occuring less and less often...as voice and digital technologies take the fore...

.....As I know from our mutual emails that you are too intelligent to believe the rantings of the "Lunatic Fringe"

.....Again I still do not understand basis of your fears for the future.

 

You are asking the human to do something that is impossible. How does the human operator check the to make sure the frequency is clear at the unattended station?

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

k4cfx: "Give it a break! The reason that there are several frequencies for each Participating Winlink station is so that if one is busy, another may be chosen. "

Goodness, gracious. THIS is exactly my point. The WL2K pactor robots can't even share frequencies among themselves. They have to spread out and operate like a trunked telephone system with enough available slots to handle peak traffic loads. That means at any one time non-pactor operations are subject to interference from the aggressive pactor robots. As usage grows the need for more robots and more frequencies will grow right along with it - and so will the odds for interference to occur at any one time on any single frequency.

The sad fact is that the growth in the number of trunks is not even truly related to the load on the system, it is more closely related to the number of people with robots on the system - with more and more spreading out so they don't stomp on each other.

And no end in sight.

That is why it is my contention that all pactor operations with a robot on both ends or on either end should be restricted to a sub-band set up just for that kind of operation (i.e the automatic sub-bands). They certainly should not be given carte blanche access to the phone bands for the use by wide-band pactor III operation.

If SCAMP turns out to be as bad of a neighbor as Pactor then it should be restricted in the same way. If its busy detector listens only for known and designed-in digital modes and not for ANY non-random energy source (e.g. SSB, CW, newer digital modes), then it will NOT be a good neighbor.

tim ab0wr

 

ae4tm:" Are you also aware that PSK-31 selected this middle part and busiest portion of this ARQ band to squat? Before claiming pactor is sitting on PSK-31, please educate yourself on who actually decided to sit upon who? We decided to move to either side to allow ample room for other digital modes to develop!"

And whose bandplans were these? Certainly not FCC bandplans. The automatic sub-bands on 20m were 14.0950-14.0995 MHz and on 40m were 7.100-7.105 MHz. The prior used ARQ freqs not in the automatic sub-band were 14068 and 14069. 14070 was just above these freqs and below the prior use 14073.5 freq. It was not until the wide-band pactor III came into use that so much interference began occuring to PSK-31.

This is all a red herring argument anyway. Pactor did not have any RIGHT to 14070Mhz. Squatters rights are not recognized on the ham bands. If pactor was a good neighbor protocol it would not cause interference to existing conversations anyway - especially since operations on these frequencies SHOULD be manual to automatic and the manual operator should be able to hear operations in existence on the psk31 frequencies before firing up - at least most of the time.

The big problem is that most manual-to-automatic operation by WL2K is NOT manual-to-automatic. It is purely automatic operation. When the WL2K people are touting that they can hook up an AUTOMATIC station to the email router in an EOC that operation should be restricted to ONLY operate in the automatic sub-bands. But you and I both know that is NOT the case. You and I also know that most operations are not manual anyway. Someone types an email into the Airmail client and then lets the system make the connection and pass the email. There is NO listening to see if anyone is on frequency first. Such operation should be restricted to only occur in the automatic sub-bands under current regulations.

If there are ANY automatic operations occuring in the WL2K system today then they are NOT in compliance with existing regulations. And we all know that is case. As WL2K gets bigger there will be more and more of this. If the system can't be a good neighbor today and is involved in operations outside current regulations then why should we expect anything different if the new bandwidth regulations go into effect?

tim ab0wr

 

ve3gfw: "An old latin teacher of mine used to say "Non urinarum contra ventum" which unfortunately describes your current rants against Winlink..."

I think you are the only one getting some on you.

"Fact: There are only about 40 Active HF PMBO's in the world..."

And they have spread out rather than sharing freqs.

"Fact: Winlink uses Pactor 1, 2, 3"

red herring

"Fact: All Pactor stations are not Winlink"

Another red herring. Most do.

"Fact: Winlink communications must be initiated by the remote (mobile) station which means that it is not a robot but rather a human has to initiate the email...."

ROFL!!!! Sure the human has to initiate the email. That doesn't mean the human listens on frequency to see if they are going to interfere with someone else when the email is sent!

"Fact: It is Winlink Policy that the Human initiating the email check the frequency before initiating the transmission."

Fact: It is obvious from the amount of interference that this IS NOT THE CASE in actual operation - you know it and I know it and just about everybody else knows it.

It is Yellow Freights policy that their over-the-road drivers stay under the posted speed limits on I-80 and I-70. Guess what the actual real world is?

"Fact: In spite of sending more than 150,000 messages a month which is more than twice the traffice the NTS, MARS and all other ham systems, Winlink on air bandwidth consumption is tiny compared to all other modes... and the traffic per bandwidth consumption is miniscule compared to all other modes... "

And the amount of interference they cause is more than twice that caused by the NTS, MARS, and all other ham systems. So what is your point? That doesn't make them any better neighbors. Just another red herring argument.

tim abowr

 

k4cjx: "If all your digital "Neighbors" were conversational protocols of similar bandwidth, you wouldn't have anything to comlain about. Your issues would be mute. Why wouldn't you push for such a band plan by bandwidth?"

Where do I start? First, the bandwidth proposal would allow the robots to proliferate in the current phone bands so it is not just existing digital neighbors being discussed. You and ve3gfw must be collaborating. This is really just a red herring argument.

Since more than just existing neighbors will be affected by the proposal I, and everyone else, certainly have something to say about the proposal. What we have to say are not *complaints*, regardless of how they seem to you. The WL2K system has no overriding right to any spectrum in the ham bands. Others opinions based on operational characteristics of the various modes are just as valid as yours concerning spectrum use.

Second, if the existing conversational digital modes are good neighbors and the pactor robots are not then why do you think the other modes don't have anything to complain about regardless of bandwidth? You seem to have the same blindspots as ve3gfw. WL2K has no right to any frequency regardless of the bandwidth of the modes using the frequency.

k4cfx: "How many digital data transfer services do you see that are all in real-time? It would have to be only those that are at typing speeds. Why wouldn't digital voice and digital image go the same route as your own digital services. This would allow you the opportunity to take advantage of propagation rather than worry about your transfer agent being there on the other end to receive real-time typed data."

Now you are making my point for me. If the data transfers being done by the WL2K system are NOT realtime then they should be done ONLY in the automatic sub-bands. If the users of the WL2K system can't abide by the regulations today then what makes anyone think they will abide by them once access to the phone bands is granted?

Non-real time transfer of data IS the best way to make maximum use of the spectrum. BUT, and this is a big but, the systems doing this must be good neighbors. It isn't sufficient to say that the system is being efficient and some interference to others must be accepted. That is building in a bias for the automatic systems that is not allowed under current regulations and which I hope will never be allowed. That is what would spell disaster for the ARS.

tim ab0wr

 

This is a very disturbing attitude. I wonder if this is the prevailing attitude in the WinLink community? If so, they have a public relations nightmare, not to mention a clear diversion from the mandates of Docket 94-59 which I have posted for your review.

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

Best I can figure out, you were aiming that comment at the N5pVL who's name is Charles. I am Charlie, AG4YO. I believe you. Maybe its just too hard for you guys to tell one "Lunitic Fringe" from another....ROFLMAO.

This is true to a point. In instances where the signal is below a certain point, PSK and MFSK lose their advantage, hence the use of QRSS. That's both good news and bad news. The good news is that CW gets through. The bad news is that QRSS is less than 1 WPM so any meaningful use for info transmission takes alot of time. The other thing to remember is that the broadcast CW message contains intelligence that can be read by eye on a scope or ear in the case of fast playback. The PSK or MFSK broadcast bits have to be decoded. Finally, experiments with PSK, MFSK etc. have shown that below a certain signal level, phase shift issues exist for these modes rendering them unusable. There are alot of smart folks trying to improve digital modes to match QRSS CW performance, but they have not done it yet.

My logic is simple....

1. If you have a pure bandwidth based band plan without any other regulations, digital stations will eventually kill off legacy modes. There will be all out war on the airwaves.

2. Beware of people pushing a self serving agenda such as we have seen from the now defunct ad hoc committee.

3. Users of these digital modes are less than 5% of all amateurs. As such the spectrum allocated to them should reflect this.

There is absolutely nothing in this logic that prevents experimentation in all modes or growth of Winlink.
Remember, "Medio tutissmus ibis".

 

Tim,

You are mis-informed. There is absolutely NO automatic operation initiated with Winlink 2000 below 144 Mhz. All HF operations are initiated by someone who will hear at least one end of any two way communications.

Again, there is no machine-to-machine operations with Winlink 2000 on HF.

Steve, k4cjx

 

I am not misinformed. Maybe you can mislead other people but I've used the system. And I know how others use the system. You can load an email, fire up the system and initiate a connection all without anyone actually listening to the frequency. You don't even have to have any email to send, you can do the same thing for getting your email.

From the Airmail help files:

"Finally check that the frequency is really clear. A Pactor connection is a one-to-one connection, not a shared frequency. If two different stations try to connect on the same frequency then neither will have any success. This seems like an obvious point but misunderstood by many VHF packet users, where shared channels are the norm. So be sure no one is already using the frequency. (With PTC-II family modems, the "Connect" button will be yellow when digital signals are detected on the frequency, but this only works when Monitoring mode is disabled)."

In other words, who cares if there is a CW qso on the frequency, if the PTC-II modem doesn't hear any other Pactor stations, assume the frequency is clear and go ahead. It really only matters if you interfere with another Pactor conversation.

Do YOU see anywhere in here where it says "Unplug your modem and listen to the frequency by ear to see if anyone is using the channel before you transmit?"

I sure don't. And most people using the system DON'T do that.

That makes the system an AUTOMATIC system since no human actually HEARS anything. That means there is no feedback loop providing a human any control over the establishment of communications. It is a machine talking to a machine. The human only determines the time the connection is attempted. The system controls the rest of the process. That makes it machine-to-machine by definition.

Your own documentation shows HF Pactor as one of the automatic routing paths for the Paclink system (albeit one to be added in the future). Please tell us how that is going to be under human control.

tim ab0wr

 

Here is a new quote to entertain the "Lunatic Fringe"  

 

Charlie:


"Taking the middle course" ....No one would mistake you as a member of the "Lunatic Fringe".. sometimes your responses actually make sense..or at least deserve a considered response...

We already have pure bandwidth based band plan in many countries in the world... Canada for instance.. and any form of war just did not happen...yes legacy modes like CW will die a natural death with time... but don't blame digital for their death... they just got old and slow like you and me...

Lots of people, such as myself and many digital experimenters, who had nothing what to do with the ad hoc committee have been pushing for bandwidth rather than mode regulation... Mode is too restrictive and prevents experimentation... A good example was sending images by MFSK... illegal in the US even though it fits within about a 300Hz bandwidth.. but legal almost everywhere else..

75% of all amateur traffic is now carried by digital modes such as Winlink.. by your convoluted logic... does that mean that digital modes should have 75% of bandwidth? Obviously both logics are flawed...

Yes.. it does... Us digital experimenters are constantly running into legal roadblocks because we have to worry about the content and mode of our transmissions rather than just the bandwidth we occupy...

I keep on harping back to MFSK.. but last year the US Experimental community became a real joke on the air especially when the rest of the world was using Mixw to send images using MFSK and we in the USA could not legally participate in the experiments..because the US still clung to an archaic system of regulating bands...

 

ve3gfw: "Yes.. it does... Us digital experimenters are constantly running into legal roadblocks because we have to worry about the content and mode of our transmissions rather than just the bandwidth we occupy...

I keep on harping back to MFSK.. but last year the US Experimental community became a real joke on the air especially when the rest of the world was using Mixw to send images using MFSK and we in the USA could not legally participate in the experiments..because the US still clung to an archaic system of regulating bands..."

What you fail to see here is that what you are really asking for is a change in CONTENT regulation, not in bandwidth regulation.

You say yourself - "A good example was sending images by MFSK... illegal in the US even though it fits within about a 300Hz bandwidth.. but legal almost everywhere else.."

That is a CONTENT issue, not a bandwidth issue.

A change by the FCC on the way it rules about content will be all that is needed to correct this. Changing to a bandwidth regulation without some protection against the proliferation of aggressive, ARQ digital robots won't fix anything. It will only result in a race to see who can develop the most aggressive protocols with the most repeat cycles and the longest timeout values.

Saying we need bandwidth regulation in order to change content regulation is a non sequitor - another debate fallacy. Your premises aren't logically connected to your conclusion. You are using a true problem to justify a totally unconnected action.

tim ab0wr

 

Howard,

Regulation by bandwidth is not going eliminate the modes that authorized is it? Regulation by bandwidth will only open up space for experimentation with authorized modes and for permitting multi-media activities such as switching modes to coordinate experimentation.

There is one thing that seems to be missing in this, would it make more sense to experiment up on the VHF/UHF allocations and get the stuff working and then move it to HF once it clearly works and a case can be made to have it tested on HF? This would eliminate the need for multi-media activities on crowded bands.

Ken