The Baud Rate Race...

Getting back on topic....

Many Hams interested in packet radio today believe that our slow (compared to the Internet) data transfer capabilities are severely limiting our move to the digital world.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "moving to the digital world"...

If your concept includes Amateurs building digital systems of any significant size or distribution that are "competitive" with networks built, controlled and developed by governmental and commercial entities, then I have a news flash for you; Hams will NEVER be able to effectively "compete" with outfits that control resources of that type, level, and depth.

Hams do not have the physical resources to do so, and do not have the intellectual resources, (funding, laboratories, equipment, personnel, universities, and so on) to "play" at anything approaching that level. - And they never will.

On the other hand, Hams are in an excellent position to pursue digital technology and infrastructure that governmental and commercial entities have no interest in, or are not pursuing, themselves.

This is simple reality, and is in no way a bad reflection upon Amateur Radio, which was never intended to "compete" with other services in the first place.

Traditionally, Hams have provided communications in those instances where governmental and commercial communications systems have broken down or have been pre-empted, because in these cases, "competition" simply does not exist. What we then have to offer is MUCH better than the alternative, which is nothing whatsoever. These are the times whem Amateur Radio "shines".

Beyond that, Ham Radio communications are primarily a "hobby", and are done on a recreational basis. Again, "competition" with non-Ham communications does not enter the picture here. For most of Ham Radio's history, non-Ham communication systems have been faster, more reliable, and more generally useful than the recreational communications between Hams. There is nothing new about this. It is simple reality and is highly unlikely to ever change, for reasons that are obvious.

This is why Hams who do not worry about "the baud rate race" and concentrate instead on building up viable medium/slow speed packet radio infrastructure are so much more successful than the clique who insist that only "competitive" networking is worthwhile, and so end up achieving very little if anything. Their vision of digital Ham Radio is only as a minor parasite, hanging off of the Internet and completely dependent upon it in order to function at all. - And so by definition becoming useless in times of disaster or emergency. No wonder they do not get wide-spread support or intertest from Hams!

Ham Radio digital networking does not need to be as fast as the Internet in order to be viable and functional, but it does need to be completely independent of the Internet.

In this instance, it is NOT better to say "If you can't beat them, join them", but that is precisely what many frustrated high-speed digital Ham Radio devotees end up doing... They connect to each other on the Internet, and dignify the pretense by calling it "Advanced Packet Radio(?) networking. They do this after discovering that widespread high-speed packet is not yet practical. I've always appreciated the irony of that. - The non-Ham links take away your emergency communications capability, your independence, they discourage the study, advancement and even the use of Radio, (including high-speed systems) but they are characterized as a great advance in Amateur Radio technology.

The most crippling limitation that Hams are currently experiencing in their move into the digital world is the perception that we must somehow "compete" with governmental and commercial agencies that possess resources far beyond those available to Hams. Part of this crippling perception is the erroneous idea that we must compete in the "baud rate race".

A good deal of the negative, "Can't do" attitude that has hamstrung digital Ham Radio in the U.S. for over a decade now has stemmed from this bogus "baud rate race" concept. If it's not high-speed, it's not worth doing. - But high-speed stuff is expensive, not standardized, and difficult for most Hams to set up and operate. So Hams generally throw up thier hands and do nothing, rather than do something they have been told is "not worth doing".

What a terrible waste, and how utterly unnecessary.

We knew that slow/medium speed digital Ham Radio worked well ten years ago, and we still do. The only thing standing between us and having a viable digital network again today is the bogus perception that to do so is not "worthwhile" because it is not high-speed or IP.

As it stands today, high-speed packet is best suited for network backbone links, and emergency systems. ( I consider 9.6kb to be medium-speed, not high-speed ) The low and medium speed stuff that we have so much of, and is so easy (comparatively) to set up and use, is the obvious choice for home stations and user access to the network.

Remember that backbone packet links need to be at least eight times faster than user access, in order to handle multiple QSO's without bogging down. In Europe, most user access is 9.6kb, and backbone links are typically 19.2kb, fullduplex. They never abandoned or tore down thier old 1.2kb network as we did, so they had something to work on, advance and improve.

The unfair advantage the Europeans had over is us was that introducing non-Ham links into the network there was forbidden, period. They just stuck with Radio, and respected what they were doing, so now they have something to show for it. We didn't stick with Radio, were told repeatedly by our "experts" not to respect what we were doing, and so our network evaporated.

It seems to me that a lot of Hams here in the U.S. miss having a digital network. I wonder how many of them are ready to ignore the negativity, the "can't do" attitude, and the disparagement of any practical effort that is suggested, and just go ahead and enjoy Packet Radio anyway.

When you hear a Ham saying that we must use IP and "compete" in the baud rate race with the Internet in order for any digital Ham effort to be worthwhile, you can be sure that you are listening to the very attitude that has limited and discouraged the development of digital Amateur Radio in the U.S., not one that has brought it forward or enhanced it's ability to fullfill its primary purpose.

Alternate communications during times of emergency/disaster, and recreational communication among Hams so that independent infrastructure will be there, and ready when needed for emergency use. Experimentation/education in order to advance what can be done with Radio... That's what we are about.

Let's stop letting the "baud rate race" discourage us from providing service, and enjoying our hobby. Fire up your old packet rig, and if there's nobody out there to talk to, get together with the local Hams and chances are that you will find others who miss having a digital network as well. Tell them it's time to dust 'em off, and fire 'em up. Hams who USE Radio have no reason to allow themselves to be discouraged anymore by people who do not.

That's what it is going to take. We're just going to have to start ignoring our "experts", if we want to have a functional, physical packet network again, here in the USA. Every Ham who gets back on the air, who encourages others to do so will be taking us one step closer to having a network again. - Something to be proud of!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0FPF @ May 20 2002,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Check out higher speed modems and data radios:

http://www.symek.com/g/index-g.html
TNC3's, radios that were designed for data, 140,220,440

http://www.d-d-s.nl/menu-en.htm
a data radio for 1.2Ghz...

Have fun![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, Europe is definately the place to find decent equipment.

Software, too.

Charles, N5PVL

 

I think we've pretty well established here that the limiting factor in amateur digital communications going forward has not been IP. The problem has been the community's lack of willingness to embrace new technologies -- specifically those that have been created as a result of the boom in commercial wireless technology and the Internet.

802.11b has already proven that TCP/IP is a robust and efficient protocol when layered over wireless capability. See this article for more WIFI success stories: http://news.com.com/2100-1033-918439.html

As we move into the wireless age, hams must be ever cognizant of emerging technology, for it is our willingness to embrace new technology, not reject it because of old grudges as the author does, that will enable us to move forward.

 

Quote (n5pvl @ May 19 2002,04:41)

-----------------------------------------
This is because TCP/IP just doesn't work well with radios. If this were not so, then why would amateur TCP/IP devotees be alone in the amateur radio community in trying to legitimize "radioless ham radio", and in promoting dependence upon Internet links for all of our long-haul digital communications?

This is not true.  TCP/IP works just fine over 802.11b, which is most definately radio.  

--- Yep, right up until you try to communicate beyond your local area. Then Amateur TCPIP falls on its face and refuses to be functional.

Put bluntly, AX.25 is wholly unsuitable for use as an amateur radio internetworking protocol.

--- That's a good one. The AX25 stuff has basically covered the planet, and no amateur tcpip net has so far been able to cover much more than a medium sized county. - That's what I would call "unsuitable".

Quote  
Devotees of TCP/IP know that if hams continue to use Radio to communicate, ( Duh! ) then amateur TCP/IP will be dead in the water. Even "Radioless Ham Radio" advocates know that saying " My telephone is faster than your radio " is not an impressive brag among amateur radio operators

When your layer 2/3 protocol consumes 250% of available bandwidth overhead, not counting the TCP/IP overhead, of course it's going to be dead.  AX.25's overhead is horrid compared to Ethernet or PPP, the latter of which can employ header compression to alleviate its own X.25 heritage.

--- In other words, you have no arguement for what I said, and believe that if you roll off a lot of technical-sounding B.S., you will sound as if you know what you are talking about anyway. Sorry, it didn't work. Results are the best yardstick for these things, not flights of theory.

Quote  
In comparasin to a genuine, global amateur radio digital network such as hams have built over the last decade or so, amateur TCP/IP with it's abject dependence upon the Internet for the bulk of it's communications is laughable. Amateur TCP/IP devotees are painfully aware of this fact.  


The reason wired backbones are employed for this application is simple -- it's cheap.  Dirt cheap.

--- Yes, it certainly is, Cheap, and stupid too, within a community of Amateur Radio operators. A good way to cut your own throat, and take Hams off the air.

The last time I saw (the only time, actually) a 56kbps link for 2m in QST magazine, it cost $2500.

--- Amazing. The most expensive 56kb setup I was previously aware of cost 500 bucks a pop. (GRAPES modem) - And that was several years ago.


This brings me back to my previous comment -- the root of the problem is money.  

--- Nope. The Slovenian 1MB systems cost around 200 bucks, last I heard. Would appreciate an update from users of this system. Money has nothing to do with it.

Higher speed links are a necessity for a true RF internetwork implementation.  

--- Of tcpip. That's why tcpip does not work for large-scale Amateur Packet Radio networking.

OK, maybe the nodes are all 1200 or 9600bps in speed.  But as you get any more than 10 to 20 users, you must use a higher throughput backbone in order to efficiently handle traffic.

--- My rule of thumb is the backbone links MUST be at least eight times faster than user access. Faster is better of course, but a factor of eight is a minimum for decent performance.


Quote  
Rather than expend their efforts in building up their own network, these "hams" prefer to destroy the work of others.


I've encountered this myself, and I have to admit, your denigration of amateur radio TCP/IP, and that it always implies a relationship with the commercial IP network, is an example of this.

--- Nope. Amateur tcpip is useless for long-haul networking, as you know. A piddly little local tcpip LAN is not a large-scale packet network. It's a parasite, hanging off of the non-Ham stuff.

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to denigrate, but frankly, that is exactly what that was.

--- You are right, I had no intention to denigrate. - But performance is performance. Results are results. Amateur tcpip does not deliver. That's what I look at. - Results.

Quote  
The "Internet Forwarders" are not there to help the Ham digital BBS net.. They are there to undermine and eventually destroy it

I completely disagree with this.

--- I sat and listened to Greg Jones outlining the destruction of the HF forwarding network with non-Ham links in Austin TX, the late 1980's. The rest of his career in TPRS and later TAPR were dedicated to furthering the plan he outlined at that time. It was deliberate. Make no mistake.

Assume, for the moment, that I wanted to establish a network connection between myself, in Oceanside, Californa, and KF4FSE (something we've talked about many times in the past).  How are we going to do this?  Are we to solicit people along the southern edge of the USA to establish a network just for us?  No way.

--- For long-haul links, you use HF. This works fine for AX25, falls on it's butt when you try to use tcpip. Sorry, that's how it is.

The commercial Internet is a viable alternative in this case.  And this is continuing to occur largely because of the following factors:

--- The commercial Internet is not Ham Radio. Depending upon non-Ham links means that your network is useless during emergencies. Also, it appears that Hams rapidly lose interest, as soon as they find out that the "Ham Radio digital RF network" includes non-Ham, and non-RF links. Dunno why, but that's how it is. I judge things by actual results encountered, not theory. Everybody has a theory. They are a dime a dozen, but results do not lie.

1.  The commercial Internet offers ungodly fast connection speeds for incredibly cheap rates.

Real Hams do not whine about expense as an excuse to avoid using Radio. They find cheaper ways to utilise Radio.

2.  The IP protocol is routable.  AX.25 is not routable.

--- Never heard of FlexNet? It covers all of Europe. Routing is much more sophisticated ( optimized for Radio ) than anything tcpip has to offer. This is because tcpip routing is used, along with several other routing systems, used as needed. FlexNet is an AX25 stack, by the way.

3.  AX.25, being a protocol inherited from the big telecommunications industry, depends on the "dumb terminal, smart network" concept.  This model is proven to be exhorbitantly expensive in terms of cost and man-hours alike, and yields a substantially less reliable network cloud than the IP model, which assumes "intelligent nodes, dumb network" philosophy.

--- That statement doesn't hold water. If IP worked better, we would have a global, a national, or at least a state-wide tcpip net- somewhere. Nothing like that exists. - But there is AX25 all over the planet, with several networks that have footprints of over 600 miles in diameter.

As you indicate in another one of your posts, this is a hobby, and as a hobby, we don't have commercial grade funding to build the infrastructure people apparently want.

--- No, we have non-profit grade funding. Less strings attached, much less overhead. More flexibility.

However, AX.25 by design complicates these problems.  The solution is two fold: make higher speed connections cheaper, and replace AX.25 with a networking model that supports less infrastructural cost and less required manhours to maintain.

--- If there were some significant tcpip infrastructure, you might be able to prove your point. Unfortunately....

Quote  
If it's moved by amateur radio, an amateur TCP/IP station will appear to route that traffic over the telephone instead.

This is no accident.  The IP networking layer is designed specifically to seek out the fastest route for any data it needs to transmit.  Only if such a route is not reliable enough will IP will resort to the slower links.

--- Radio route? Don't forget, they don't call it "Amateur Communications", they call it "Amateur Radio". There's a reason for that. Non-Ham systems are irrelevant in a discussion about Amateur Radio digital networking, because they are not Amateur Radio. ( Duh! )

Quote  
This represents the most serious threat to Amateur Packet Radio in it's short but impressive history and in the U.S., where the problem is most severe, the network soon ceased to exist.

I blame the hackers for not continuing to drive the costs down.

I blame the Amateur tcpip folks, who actively worked to destroy the packet radio network, then replaced it with - nothing.

This is why the Linux soundmodem support is so incredibly attractive

--- Been using soundcard TNC with FlexNet for a little over three yerars now. Up to 9.6kb, which is about as far as you are going to push a soundcard. Works great, for slow/medium speed stuff. (User access) Absolutely reliable.

Quote  
competition from the Internet is often put forward as being our main problem, but actually that isn't the case. As long as we have "leadership" who is more interested in dismantling the amateur radio network than in building it, it really doesn't matter what other problems we may face, does it?  

--- Reference my earlier comments about WD5IVD and TPRS, TAPR. I used to edit TPRS's quarterly report. I know those folks well, was there when it all happened.

The competition from the commercial Internet comes from its price structure, as I've clearly detailed above.

--- The Internet is not Ham Radio competition, it is non-Ham links used to avoid using Radio. Totally different.

However, you also have a valid point in that hams really haven't demanded lower prices from their equipment manufacturers.

--- When TAPR suceeded in destroying the packet net, thousands of Hams went off the air (digitally, at least) The manufacturers lost most of thier revenue, and that is why they have not been able to do much development. They were gutted, cut off at the knees by "Amateur Telephone".

Just to keep the record straight.

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I think we've pretty well established here that the limiting factor in amateur digital communications going forward has not been IP.  The problem has been the community's lack of willingness to embrace new technologies -- specifically those that have been created as a result of the boom in commercial wireless technology and the Internet.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


( Yawn ) More of that "IP or nothing" stuff.  Hate to break it to you, but other, more robust, generally better protocols for use with Amateur Radio exist, such as AX25 for example.

Everywhere that commercial and military RADIO technolgy has proved to be RELEVANT to Amateur Radio, Hams have been great about utilising it. - But it has to be relevant to the hobby.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
802.11b has already proven that TCP/IP is a robust and efficient protocol when layered over wireless capability.  See this article for more WIFI success stories:  http://news.com.com/2100-1033-918439.html
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds great for local use. You'd have a heck of a time using it to move data any appreciable distance. It's a moot point anyway, as they do not operate on the Ham bands. Using non-Ham bands is stupid, irresponsible in this era where Ham Radio spectrum is in jeapordy. Don't hold your breath until it sees widesprerad use by Hams. Most of them are too intelligent for that.

"Use it or lose it"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As we move into the wireless age, hams must be ever cognizant of emerging technology, for it is our willingness to embrace new technology, not reject it because of old grudges as the author does, that will enable us to move forward.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In Amater Radio, it is the Amateur RADIO technology that is relevant.

Another news flash - Hams have been in the "wireless age" all along. It is only the "Amateur Telephone" folks who have managed to drift outside, losing revelance within the hobby.

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc5tja @ May 20 2002,22:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree with your well put comments. Best to discontinue discussion as N5PVL is obviously got a thing against moving forward, and/or with TCP/IP. People like him deserve the silent treatment. TCP/IP has proven sucessfull over the internet and over RF with 802.11. Many commerical outfits have proved it's sucess, how many commercial outfits do you see useing X.25 now days... few and next to none. Anyone should be able to see this, except those who choose not to such as him.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- Yep, right up until you try to communicate beyond your local area. Then Amateur TCPIP falls on its face and refuses to be functional.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Please provide proof (GPS coordinates) of trees, hills, buildings, coax and antennas, etc. that can pass alternative network protocols but block TCP/IP.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- That's a good one. The AX25 stuff has basically covered the planet, and no amateur tcpip net has so far been able to cover much more than a medium sized county. - That's what I would call "unsuitable".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That is because we are waiting for everyone else to catch up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- In other words, you have no arguement for what I said, and believe that if you roll off a lot of technical-sounding B.S., you will sound as if you know what you are talking about anyway. Sorry, it didn't work. Results are the best yardstick for these things, not flights of theory.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- Yes, it certainly is, Cheap, and stupid too, within a community of Amateur Radio operators. A good way to cut your own throat, and take Hams off the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Except very few in that communnity are even interested in amateur packet radio. Glenn, N6GN, ran into this same problem with his networks, and he's in a big city - San Diego.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- Nope. The Slovenian 1MB systems cost around 200 bucks, last I heard. Would appreciate an update from users of this system. Money has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

True, in fact the RF hardware cost can be even lower than that. The most expensive part is the RF power amplifier - $60 US. The rest of the parts are really quite trivial. The only problem is the RS-232 interface side. The RF hardware needs to see a Manchester signal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- Of tcpip. That's why tcpip does not work for large-scale Amateur Packet Radio networking. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It works fine. It's not our problem you can't configure dynamic routing protocols (BGP, OSPF) or QoS on your network.



</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- Nope. Amateur tcpip is useless for long-haul networking, as you know. A piddly little local tcpip LAN is not a large-scale packet network. It's a parasite, hanging off of the non-Ham stuff.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- For long-haul links, you use HF. This works fine for AX25, falls on it's butt when you try to use tcpip. Sorry, that's how it is.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

SHHHhhhh... NATO HF modems use TCP/IP. Yes, the military likes IP (Don't tell anyone!&#33

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">( Yawn ) More of that "IP or nothing" stuff. Hate to break it to you, but other, more robust, generally better protocols for use with Amateur Radio exist, such as AX25 for example.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


On Jan 5, 1998 N5PVL wrote:

I think that TCPIP has been pretty ineptly handled within the amateur radio community, I have nothing against TCPIP itself. I use it every day. It's great, ain't it?

Please explain this statement.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds great for local use. You'd have a heck of a time using it to move data any appreciable distance. It's a moot point anyway, as they do not operate on the Ham bands. Using non-Ham bands is stupid, irresponsible in this era where Ham Radio spectrum is in jeapordy. Don't hold your breath until it sees widesprerad use by Hams. Most of them are too intelligent for that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


You do know you can transvert the frequencies and lower the data rate to increase sensitivity? You can even drop a off-the-shelf 802.11b card down to 1200 bps.

Oh BTW, they DO USE amateur radio frequencies: 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. Older models used 900 MHz.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another news flash - Hams have been in the "wireless age" all along. It is only the "Amateur Telephone" folks who have managed to drift outside, losing revelance within the hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Yep - It's those Land Line Lids I tell ya... (yawn)

 

Fifteen years.. That's just about how far "high-speed / IP only" has set the U.S. packet net back.

Because of this, packetradio.com is an excellent place to find info on the low/medium speed packet stuff that DOES work, and is workable for large numbers of Hams who already have the equipment, but no network to use it on. That makes it a great place to start, in putting things back to rights and once again advancing the hobby.

I will mention here that "high-speed / IP only" pedagogs appear to have much more of a "problem" than I do.

I'm suggesting that Hams do what is proven to work... They are suggesting that we do the "high-speed/ IP only" thing, and are obviously just raring to discourage anybody who suggests anything different.

Yes, I am aware of what has held back U.S. hams from having a packet network, the last ten years. Thier attitude, and others like it.

The attitude is not worthy of Amateur Radio. A good Ham does not deliberately lessen the enjoyment of other Hams.

Since building low/medium speed networking will in no way slow down implementation of high-speed packet, and can in no way hold them back , this rudeness and active discouragement of other Hams with other ideas has no excuse. None whatsoever.

The low/medium stuff all happens on 2m, 440Mhz, and 6m, along with the HF bands. It is impossible to do high-speed on those bands due to bandwidth restrictions, so low speed / high speed are not even competing for spectrum. The
'high-speed / IP only"  attitude is indefensable, there IS no excuse for that kind of rudeness to your fellow Hams.

The "high-speed / IP only" paradigm has provided zero results, even after ten years of being "politically correct", hawked at Ham-Com, Dayton, and in Ham magazines. Lots of publicity, lots of support, lots of enthusiasts that have produced zero results. No network.

I'm pushing what works, they are pushing what has consistently failed for over a decade...

Who has the problem?  Hmmm?

Somehow, thier arrogant, rude posts do not make me feel like I have a "problem".

Another few hams demonstrate the essential negativity and intolerance that is an essential part of the "high-speed / IP only" paradigm. - Along with a heavy dose of senseless, unnecessary rudeness.

(Yawn) It's OK, I've heard hundreds of "high-speed / IP only" rants. There are only four or five of them that are parroted over and over again,  so the rude and ugly reaction to the idea of Hams doing things in a different way than your own are quite familiar to me. It comes from fear, and insecurity. Can't blame "high-speed / IP only" pushers for that.

The ironic part is that my suggestion will eventually produce a high-speed (but maybe not IP) network, and thiers, just like it has for ten years, will produce precisely nothing.

The idea here is LARGE SCALE packet radio networking, not those pitiful little NOS LANS, hanging off the Internet like a parasite in order to have "connectivity", because when you try to link them with Ham Radio, they don't work.

Of course I may be wrong, and there may be a mysterious NOS LAN that uses all Ham Radio, and has a 600 mile footprint.

Show me your network, or step aside for somebody who DOES know how to achieve critical mass.

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The low/medium stuff all happens on 2m, 440Mhz, and 6m, along with the HF bands. It is impossible to do high-speed on those bands due to bandwidth restrictions,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Except I've already done so-called high speed packet on both 2m and 440 MHz, using modern spread spectrum techniques to avoid interference.


... N5PVL has been around for a long time making his attacks to stir up trouble, and you let him get away with it by reacting to him. There is nothing that you can say to change him. By trying, you only get upset and turn yourself into someone just like him.

Ham radio is a hobby and is supposed to be fun. Don't let Charles lessen your enjoyment of ham radio. If you don't react to his attacks, you give him no reason to continue them. So, let's not take all this so seriously and have some fun again.

August 1996 TPRS

 

Those who cannot argue with facts - resort to personal attacks.

By making personal attacks, screaming TROLL, etc.., the "high-speed / IP only" folks here have proved my point here abundantly.

The fact that these folks accuse me of being a Troll, when it is they who have attempted repeatedly to disrupt this discussion shows where they are coming from, and what can be expected of them.

On the other hand, thoughtful Hams who have made positive replies here appear to be universal in thier understanding and agreement with some of the points I have made.

One reasoned, resonable reply counts more than a dozen screaming attempts to disrupt the thread.

Reasoned, reasonable Hams will have no difficulty, upon reading this thread, in picking out which parties are interested in discussing the issue, and which ones are desperate that the discussion should become lost in the negativity and noise they generate.



Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By making personal attacks, screaming TROLL, etc.., the "high-speed / IP only" folks here have proved my point here abundantly.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

On 3-11-2000 N5PVL wrote:

Notice who attempts to denigrate a post (over a typo) that spoke about Amateur Radio in a positive fashion? One of the Amateur tcpip crew. Standard, typical behavior.

On 11-23-2000 N5PVL wrote:

(Are there any products that generate radio noise interrupting all radio signals), much like 'white noise' with sound? Thanks.)

Yes, they call it "Amateur tcpip".

Check the TAPR web site for more info.


These past statements can easily be interpreted as "trolling".

Ending your post with an emoticon which is sticking out its tongue can easily be interpreted as "trolling".

This entire thread has gotten so way off-topic it's not even funny. Transport and network layer protocols do not cause the downfall of amateur radio. This is a free country, do as you please.

 

Precisely my point.

I am advocating that what has proven to work be done, instead of what has proven not to work.

I knew that some would feel threatened by the concept, particularly those who support what does not work.

Hey! Ten years is a fair test! Go back to the old TAPR posts, and you will find TAPR folks pushing your "paradigm", almost word for word. Ten years of that kind of thinking, with zippo results.

Hard to argue with a track record like that.

Here's a much better one, quoted from another post here on QRZ.COM:


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As for PC/FlexNet ... we've been doing it here in the Northeastern US since 1998. It's a significant portion of the former NEDA (North East Digital Association) network (and some new areas). It basically extends from New Hampshire to Maryland and from near Boston to (soon to be) Pittsburgh (PA).

More info can be found at Northeast FlexNet Network

We're currently looking for interested Node-Ops in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Western New York, Western Pennsylvania and Ohio who would like to connect into the rest of the network.

We also have the 3-Land SatGate (NR3U) connected in along with a number of HF forwarding gateways.

This is a network comprised of mostly dedicated point-to-point links (with a few 3-ways) with redundant paths. We are a general purpose network - we handle and encourage everything from keyboarding to message/bulletins to DxCluster spots. Basically ALL interested parties working TOGETHER to a common goal. We also have quite a few TCP/IP routers installed in the network.

And yes, we'd like higher speeds on the main trunks (feeds to the regional DxClusters, PBBSes, the HF Forwarding Gateways, and the SatGate) and we have been looking into equipment from Europe to increase the speed of the backbones from 9K6 (when required and when affordable).

The good news is that since September 11th the Amateur Radio Community of the Northeastern US & Canada has been re-awakening to the need for upgrading and re-connecting the networks back together again. We are putting out the call to our fellow hams - Join with us by connecting their nodes into the network and grow the network back better than it was in the past.

For more info, please e-mail flexnet@unyrepco.org
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Let's face it... These people have accomplished more in four years that the "high-speed IP/only" paradigm has returned in over a decade.

...And they do not incorporate non-Ham links into the network there. None.

Get with the program.

It's not "hardware hardware hardware"... It's "people people people" that gets things done. To get people, you start off with whatever the largest number of people WILL use, as opposed to what you might LIKE them to use.

Figure it out. Results count more than anything else. Period.

Charles, N5PVL

 

Precisely my point.

Large scale amateur radio packet networks need the development and support of fast, low latency data radios and networking protocols which will handle the dynamic routing, collisions, noisy radio links and congestion problems which are encountered in a heavily used data network.

We (amateur radio operators) need to continue this development or our networks (and ultimately our airwaves) will be taken away from us.

The technology exists today to do this, it just needs to be encouraged, documented and rolled into place. There are 802.11 user groups around today that are larger and more organized than some amateur packet radio groups.

 

We have pockets of organization here in the U.S. , most fading and a very few growing. Am not positive, but assume the Puget Sound tcp group is the most extensive tcpip net here. My info on that group may be out of date, as I have seen several instances where a digital group's web-site outlives thier actual network, sometimes by several years. I look for recent site updates, and sometimes just find out by asking.

If you go to the TexNet web site, for example, it gives all the appearances of being in good shape, despite the fact that the network has been dead for years, and TPRS (TexNet folks) are no longer on the Ham-Com presentation schedule, even though they were instrumental in Ham-Com's existence in the past. Everything is gone except the web site.

(Ham-Com is a big Ham Radio show, at a convention center near Dallas, TX)

The only active, growing large-scale U.S. Packet network I am aware of the the northeast flexnet group. I'd be glad to hear about others.

See my article here on QRZ, "Large-Scale Packet Networking" to see some of the pitfalls networkers face and a few suggested places to start in fixing those problems. Were you aware that we came within just a couple of hundred miles, at one point, in having a 9.6kb backbone bisecting the U.S., from the southern tip of Texas to Chicago?

What is amazing there is not the 9.6kb speed, it is the fact that node-sites (tower sites) were in place. Once in place, slow networks can be fairly easily upgraded to higher speed. If you have no physical network (node/tower sites) to work with though, you are starting off from scratch, a much more difficult proposition. Tower sites are not always easy to gain access to.

When I look at the "wish book", I generally look at high-speed stuff. When I look at getting network in place, the low and medium speed stuff is what I look at, because that is what is most likely to be supported by the largest number of Hams. You know... People.

As far as I am aware, we have had only one decent sized high-speed net here in the U.S., and that one used the GRAPES modem and transverters, an expensive deal if there ever was one. Haven't heard about it in years though, generally a bad sign. Why no large networks using the newer, cheaper stuff has never appeared since is one of life's mysteries.

Knowing that existing network is easier to upgrade than nonexistant network is to build up from scratch, (tower space is the main consideration here) I am indifferent about speed, or protocol, instead putting most emphasis upon obtaining the basic infrastructure again. Something to work with.

If some group wants to put up 50 nodes with 1200 baud modems, that would be fine with me. All those tower sites, ready for upgrade. My theory is that low/medium speed will get you going quicker than trying to "do it right in the first place". The reason why? People, not equipment.

You've noted I suppose, the frustrating tendency Hams have to overlook high-speed packet?

The very first thing that the last decade of frustration, despite the existence of numerous high-speed packet solutions should tell you is that we have been as clumsy in our handling of people as we have been adept at designing and testing new equipment and software. Even 9.6kb never really got off the ground, cheap and easy as it is.

Noting that what we have been trying to do the last ten years has not produced any network, I decided to look around and see what the successful folks have been doing, taking special note of how they deal with people.

Charles, N5PVL