The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

Steve you did ask the 1100+ members of the wl2kemcomm mailing list to give comments in favor of the proposal repeatedly.

looks to me like most of the users of winlink in that group found it not even worth to respond for whatever reason.

 

Lee, do you suggest suing the ARRL? How about the FCC? How about anyone else attempting to promote new technology in the amateur bands?

Ed

http://ecjones.org/

 

The problem with your post is that there are NO "robots" involved. Absolutely EVERY contact to which you refer is initiated by a licensed ham.

 

Do you really want us to believe that you fail to understand? I think you actually fully understand and just want to play silly games.

First of all, why would all of the users want to become PMBO? The FACT is that if they did, they could not use the system. PMBO cannot originate traffic. They can only respond and accept traffic.

Secondly, the client software is rather drastically different from the PMBO software.

Thirdly, many of the HF users mentioned have KAM. These are capable only of PACTOR I. Others have only PACTOR II.

Lastly, compared to the AVERAGE cost of a 2000 bps plus HF modem, $1000.00 is a relatively cheap price. (The average price is well over $20,000.00 USD.)

 

There is a time when the truth must be stated. When great lies are being put forth, I think it is appropriate to state the truth.

Unlike Limbaugh, I have no desire to be perceived as "THE TRUTH". Even when I find myself (rarely) in general agreement with him about something, I still think he is the South end of a North-bound horse.

The horse's rear with whom you may agree is still a horse's rear!

 

Larry, 'BEN:

Get real Larry.  Are you going to tell us that the ficticious "semi-automatic" WL2K method of initiating a session does not involve a robot?  A PMBO is a robot by definition.  Supposedly, a human at the other end must initiate the session to the PMBO.  The PMBO is nothing more than a computer, a machine.

I know you are not going to deny the "hidden transmitter" effect.  This is flawed technology, and coupled with the spectrum wasteful "scanning" that these PMBO's use, it is a system with built-in arrogance and total disregard for others.

In my opinion, you normally report only the facts as you see them.  Why deviate now?

The idea of regulation by bandwidth seems to be something that could be acceptable to the masses.  QSO-stomping Pactor robots are not acceptable to the masses, unless regulated to a specific area of each band.  The sad fact that the two ideas are included in the same proposal to the FCC is entirely the lunacy of the Newington Boy's Club.

Get off the Winlink bandwagon, and return to addressing the facts.  You are much better at that.  Just a suggestion!

73,
Luke

 

Hi, Luke,

Certainly the hidden transmitter problem exists for all HF communications. There is no valid solution for that. There is also the problem of changing band conditions -- like "lengthening" in the evening and "getting short" in the mornings. Two sets of stations may be in QSO without hearing each other, but when the band changes, they experience mutual interference. There is no valid solution for that, either.

I disagree that scanning is wasteful of spectrum. Normally a PMBO will scan two published frequencies (? some up to two per band, on two different bands ?). The scanning is strictly receive, so no transmission is made by the PMBO. When called, the PMBO replies on the frequency on which the call was received. The net impact is a single channel.

There are AMTOR stations that scan different input frequencies, as well as packet. Some RTTY BBS used to scan inputs, but I cannot say whether they still do so. I see no difference between those operations and a Winlink PMBO.

FYI: The Scan Control output of the KAM is a result of my specification. When I was developing the State of Texas Operation S.E.C.U.R.E. HF Emergency Communications System, I paid Kantronics to create special firmware for the KAM. One of the functions that I specified was the scan control output that allowed the KAM to listen for its SELCALL and stop the scan of the radio if and only if its specific SELCALL was heard. Phil Anderson refused to sign my non-disclosure, and most of the features that I designed later became a part of standard KAM firmware.

FYI: The same meeting was when we discussed my next enhancement -- Huffman coded 300 to 600 bps channel rates and up to 1200 bps compressed data throughput rates, with memory ARQ, CCIR 476 compatible set-up, and a few other features. Imagine my surprise when GTOR -- an EXACT implementation of the base concept (minus a few of my BEST specifications) -- was announced about 6 months later. It was shocking to find that my name was not even mentioned, even though it was CLEARLY my invention! (Yes, Phil, I am still p*****d about that!)

I believe the FCC should remove all unnecessary artificial segmenting that exists in the rules and regs. It takes a HUGE amount of time to change the rules. Technology moves too fast to have to authorize each potential new mode, and the STA process (that some have suggested be used) is both wasteful of scarce resources and costly. The STA process also severely limits the participants in any experimentation.

I agree that some modes may not "play well" with others, but I believe the adopted bandplan approach is the best way to address separation.

One difficulty with "voice" and "data" segregation comes when we begin to see "real" digital voice. (The only product now on the market uses a very primitive modem, which CANNOT operate on a multipath-impacted or fading channel.)

Is digital voice "voice" because it is transmission of speech, or is it "data" because the "speech" is actually a data stream output by an algorithm? If we do not set up a band plan so that digital voice experimenters know where to contact other digital voice experimenters, the mode will fail.

Then, there are the narrow bandwidth voice experiments that I would like to see. Where can we test 1 kHz wide or 1.5 kHz wide voice -- with 3 kHz wide content?

 

Larry,

At least in the case of live operator at both ends QSOs, the parties involved can work it out. One QSO can stand by while the other one establishes a clear frequency near by to move to and then both QSOs continue (in the ideal case where everyone plays nice). That is not possible with any of the automatic responding stations regardless of the protocol employed. The live operator QSO has no chance against the automatic responding station and connot ask it to QRX while the live operators establish a frequency to QSY to. Keeping the automatic stations in a spot where they can use busy channel detectors because compatible modes are in use seems the best solution at the present state of development.

I can live with a segment that is easily changed outside of the FCC rule making process if adherence to it is enforced in the manner of repeater coordination. A station operating outside of the bandplan is responsible for elimnating any interference caused to a station operating in accordance with the bandplan.

But again, how does a live operator, in real time, deal with an automatic station that responds to a query on top of an existing QSO? How can the live operator identify the interfering automatic data mode station operating outside the bandplan limits?

Although I cut your comment on digital voice I will point out the following. In Region I, digital voice has been defined to be a data mode. As such it is expected to operate within the data segment of the Region I bandplan. This solves one problem but creates another. The current crude state of digital voice on HF almost always necessitates the establishement of communications first by another mode, usually analog voice, then a switch to digital voice. If digital voice is declared a data mode, then that is no longer possible. Once possible solution in a bandplan is an overlapping segment where both modes are permitted just for such experiments.

There may be other solutions such as coordination using another data mode if both stations are so equipped. I would bet most stations who are experimenting with digital voice also have other data mode capabilities instantly available.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

 

The region 1 bandplan solved this by making the data segments allmode, this means that you can use ssb to setup the experiment and switch to the datamode on the same frequentie.
Being on an allmode segment you know before hand that you can run into a non voice mode if you are using voice, this is a choice you make when operating on an allmode segment.

 

If you believe this tripe, I have some prime oceanfront property in Montana for sale...

Pure, unadulterated bovine byproduct

Doug, KB7RKY

 

WA5BEN has been right on since the start. Get over it, its here to stay and grow.
Technology moves on and forward and so shall WinLink2000.
Used in conjunction with the SCS pactor 3 modem is does great.

And Mike, still have my Kantronics Kam Plus, still do some Gtor connects with Airmail.

Met Phil and he sold our county 20 KPC-2400 for our 31.18 mhz packet system. It actually worked with early packet BBS software.

Wow how time marches on..

 

I work CW, AM, SSB, AMTOR, GTOR, CLOVER, PACTOR, and ALL IN BETWEEN. Please inform Howard where you disagree.

 

WinLink 2000 is a great service and it is allowed and legal in the US, as it is in rest of the rational world.

Pactor 3 is a fantastic HF protocol, and hope to see more stations use it. It is the best available to the amateur today.

It use is not a "robot" service, and RF operation is always under an amateurs control.

God bless the fine voluntary team of the entire Winlink group.

The complainers have no basis for argument except disparate facts jumbled with hysteria.

It is not going away, and it is growing every day, and will continue to do so.

There is room for all to enjoy whatever facet of the service they desire.

God bless the fine voluntary team of the entire Winlink group.


   

 

Thanks for calling region 1 unrational here as wel