|
Just exactly what is the "Problem" with Pactor
Being of course the only regular ham poster who is memebr of the Tech
Class. I frankly don't undersatdn the "Problem" being discussed with Pactor. Are Pactor stations not obeying the rules? Or is it that the rules are so loose as to permit very bad usages of the Mode? please forgo the flaming after all as Far as I know Pactor is little used (if at all) at VHF, and of course VHF with its wider bands (generalyly shorter ranges) and fewer users at any given momnet doesn't have these "problems" |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Being of course the only regular ham poster who is memebr of the Tech Class. I frankly don't undersatdn the "Problem" being discussed with Pactor. Are Pactor stations not obeying the rules? Or is it that the rules are so loose as to permit very bad usages of the Mode? please forgo the flaming after all as Far as I know Pactor is little used (if at all) at VHF, and of course VHF with its wider bands (generalyly shorter ranges) and fewer users at any given momnet doesn't have these "problems" The concern/fear/issues being raised by many are that the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal will result in practically all of the HF CW/data bands being "over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots," that those stations don't "play nice" with real-time human to human modes, that PactorIII takes a lot of bandwidth for a non-proportional gain in throughput, and that Winlink and PactorIII are closed, proprietary modes that are only available through the purchase of some rather expensive, sole-source hardware and software. There seem to be rather widely held views that "robot" stations that "don't play nice" with conventional human-human modes should be restricted to limited sub-bands because otherwise they will cause considerable interference problems, that they don't need to be able to take over huge swaths of the bands, and that closed, proprietary systems should not be "pushed" in the ham bands. (conversely, the feeling seems to be widespread that modes used in the ham bands should be "open source" - both h/w and s/w) I hope that answers your question about what's the (at least perceived) "problem with Pactor." 73, Carl - wk3c |
Carl:
Exactly, why would arrl back such a system? Amateur radio should not allow any PROPRIETARY hardware/software to become a standard. We are not about supporting monopolies, we are about the free experimentation, development, testing, construction, use, etc. of equip. and methods/protocols, even that equipment encompassed by the homebrewer. We need some more linux people in amateur radio for the software and more computer hardware people for the hardware... it would be a mistake to support companies holding a monopoly, there are already commercial stations for that... besides, windows software just ends up enriching bill g. John On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:59:53 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Being of course the only regular ham poster who is memebr of the Tech Class. I frankly don't undersatdn the "Problem" being discussed with Pactor. Are Pactor stations not obeying the rules? Or is it that the rules are so loose as to permit very bad usages of the Mode? please forgo the flaming after all as Far as I know Pactor is little used (if at all) at VHF, and of course VHF with its wider bands (generalyly shorter ranges) and fewer users at any given momnet doesn't have these "problems" The concern/fear/issues being raised by many are that the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal will result in practically all of the HF CW/data bands being "over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots," that those stations don't "play nice" with real-time human to human modes, that PactorIII takes a lot of bandwidth for a non-proportional gain in throughput, and that Winlink and PactorIII are closed, proprietary modes that are only available through the purchase of some rather expensive, sole-source hardware and software. There seem to be rather widely held views that "robot" stations that "don't play nice" with conventional human-human modes should be restricted to limited sub-bands because otherwise they will cause considerable interference problems, that they don't need to be able to take over huge swaths of the bands, and that closed, proprietary systems should not be "pushed" in the ham bands. (conversely, the feeling seems to be widespread that modes used in the ham bands should be "open source" - both h/w and s/w) I hope that answers your question about what's the (at least perceived) "problem with Pactor." 73, Carl - wk3c |
John Smith wrote:
Carl: Exactly, why would arrl back such a system? SOUNDS like a good system. Sounds modern and up to date. Amateur radio should not allow any PROPRIETARY hardware/software to become a standard. Agreed. We are not about supporting monopolies, we are about the free experimentation, development, testing, construction, use, etc. of equip. and methods/protocols, even that equipment encompassed by the homebrewer. We need some more linux people in amateur radio for the software and more computer hardware people for the hardware... Here is a cool Linux thing for Hams: http://hamshack-hack.sourceforge.net/ It is a hack of the Knoppix Linux distribution. Lots of Ham radio goodies. Make a disk image, and you can boot your computer up in Linux. then switch back to Windoze. Works prefect on my desktop 8^), but needs a few tweaks on my Laptop. - Mike KB3EIA - |
.... dual boot here, slackware & xp ... John On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:40:37 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: Carl: Exactly, why would arrl back such a system? SOUNDS like a good system. Sounds modern and up to date. Amateur radio should not allow any PROPRIETARY hardware/software to become a standard. Agreed. We are not about supporting monopolies, we are about the free experimentation, development, testing, construction, use, etc. of equip. and methods/protocols, even that equipment encompassed by the homebrewer. We need some more linux people in amateur radio for the software and more computer hardware people for the hardware... Here is a cool Linux thing for Hams: http://hamshack-hack.sourceforge.net/ It is a hack of the Knoppix Linux distribution. Lots of Ham radio goodies. Make a disk image, and you can boot your computer up in Linux. then switch back to Windoze. Works prefect on my desktop 8^), but needs a few tweaks on my Laptop. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: Exactly, why would arrl back such a system? If they, indeed are, I don't think they should be ... Amateur radio should not allow any PROPRIETARY hardware/software to become a standard. We are not about supporting monopolies, we are about the free experimentation, development, testing, construction, use, etc. of equip. and methods/protocols, even that equipment encompassed by the homebrewer. We need some more linux people in amateur radio for the software and more computer hardware people for the hardware... it would be a mistake to support companies holding a monopoly, there are already commercial stations for that... besides, windows software just ends up enriching bill g. While I have experience with linux I am forced by the need for a number of applications to use Windows XP on most of my machines. I think there are a lot of people in the same boat, so I don't think that you're going to get an overwhelming majority of hams to abandon the Windows OS and move to linux exclusively ... HOWEVER, open source ham APPLICATIONS can be ported to both operating systems so the users don't have to be locked out by their choice (whether they're "forced" to use Windows for other reasons or not) of OS. 73, Carl - wk3c |
Carl:
I can't say the lack of anything in linux forces me to use windows... however, the lack of commercial video games written for linux forces me to revert to windows to run them... "Neverwinter Nights" is an exception, and is ported to linux, however, the game is now a few years old and I went on to others and this is the main reason my private computers sport windows also... The only factor truly forcing windows on me is other windows users, and I am paid 85%+ of the time to develop on the windows platform because of them, and almost exclusively for NT these days (thin clients like cell phones are an exception)... Anything windows can do--Linux can do, Linux can just do it better... windows on the other hand cannot do all which linux can--mostly this is because of MS having to hold the source secret and pursue proprietary ends... what is good for MS pockets is not good for the consumer--generally... John On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:42:12 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: Exactly, why would arrl back such a system? If they, indeed are, I don't think they should be ... Amateur radio should not allow any PROPRIETARY hardware/software to become a standard. We are not about supporting monopolies, we are about the free experimentation, development, testing, construction, use, etc. of equip. and methods/protocols, even that equipment encompassed by the homebrewer. We need some more linux people in amateur radio for the software and more computer hardware people for the hardware... it would be a mistake to support companies holding a monopoly, there are already commercial stations for that... besides, windows software just ends up enriching bill g. While I have experience with linux I am forced by the need for a number of applications to use Windows XP on most of my machines. I think there are a lot of people in the same boat, so I don't think that you're going to get an overwhelming majority of hams to abandon the Windows OS and move to linux exclusively ... HOWEVER, open source ham APPLICATIONS can be ported to both operating systems so the users don't have to be locked out by their choice (whether they're "forced" to use Windows for other reasons or not) of OS. 73, Carl - wk3c |
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:42:12 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
While I have experience with linux I am forced by the need for a number of applications to use Windows XP on most of my machines. Ditto. I think there are a lot of people in the same boat, so I don't think that you're going to get an overwhelming majority of hams to abandon the Windows OS and move to linux exclusively ... HOWEVER, open source ham APPLICATIONS can be ported to both operating systems so the users don't have to be locked out by their choice (whether they're "forced" to use Windows for other reasons or not) of OS. I used to trumpet the same thing about IBM's Warp-OS/2 OS, which remains my main system. If and when my favorite text editor gets released in a version for Linux (it's allegedly in beta) and I find a mailer and newsreader that I like, I may migrate the whole shebang to Linux and bid Warp a reluctant farewell. For ham use, I'm running XP for APRS and Win 98 for Packet (the DOS program that I use doesn't run well under XP). Those "data" modes which don't run on a TNC are on the XP machine. Three machines next to my operating console - don't need to turn the heat on in this room during the heating season. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Phil:
I never could figure IBM dropping os/2, they dropped the ball twice, once when they didn't purchase DOS directly from bill, second when they let bill out-market 'em with windows (an idea he stole from apple.) OS/2 was a much superior os to windows, warp was a true contender to linux. Shows you that the power of marketing can beat any superior product... John On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:46:23 -0700, Phil Kane wrote: On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:42:12 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: While I have experience with linux I am forced by the need for a number of applications to use Windows XP on most of my machines. Ditto. I think there are a lot of people in the same boat, so I don't think that you're going to get an overwhelming majority of hams to abandon the Windows OS and move to linux exclusively ... HOWEVER, open source ham APPLICATIONS can be ported to both operating systems so the users don't have to be locked out by their choice (whether they're "forced" to use Windows for other reasons or not) of OS. I used to trumpet the same thing about IBM's Warp-OS/2 OS, which remains my main system. If and when my favorite text editor gets released in a version for Linux (it's allegedly in beta) and I find a mailer and newsreader that I like, I may migrate the whole shebang to Linux and bid Warp a reluctant farewell. For ham use, I'm running XP for APRS and Win 98 for Packet (the DOS program that I use doesn't run well under XP). Those "data" modes which don't run on a TNC are on the XP machine. Three machines next to my operating console - don't need to turn the heat on in this room during the heating season. |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: Exactly, why would arrl back such a system? If they, indeed are, I don't think they should be ... They aren't. Amateur radio should not allow any PROPRIETARY hardware/software to become a standard. We are not about supporting monopolies, we are about the free experimentation, development, testing, construction, use, etc. of equip. and methods/protocols, even that equipment encompassed by the homebrewer. We need some more linux people in amateur radio for the software and more computer hardware people for the hardware... it would be a mistake to support companies holding a monopoly, there are already commercial stations for that... besides, windows software just ends up enriching bill g. While I have experience with linux I am forced by the need for a number of applications to use Windows XP on most of my machines. I think there are a lot of people in the same boat, so I don't think that you're going to get an overwhelming majority of hams to abandon the Windows OS and move to linux exclusively ... HOWEVER, open source ham APPLICATIONS can be ported to both operating systems so the users don't have to be locked out by their choice (whether they're "forced" to use Windows for other reasons or not) of OS. Right. The huge majority of us don't "choose" our operating systems, we choose our apps for our own particular purposes and use the O/S needed to run the apps. As is the case in just about all fields, including ham radio, Gates has a virtual hammerlock on us because the vast majority of the apps we need are written for Windows and not for Linux or OS X or O/S2. Yes it's a vicious circle, the momopoly from hell. Reality is what it is. Take my own primary operating interest which is HF dxing and dx contesting and the current leading edge software used by the tens of thousands of us dxers and contesters. Writelog, DX4WIN and TRLog and others, almost all Windows apps. There are a few legacy DOS loggers like CT which are still widely used and a few MAC and rudimentary Linux loggers floating around but they're all but invisible in competitive contesting. Consider the N1MM contest logging program which is very much a collaborative, open source program. It's *huge*, the manual alone is 350 pages. It does stunts like variable speed keying CW via the printer port, a mouse click on an onscreen 2M packet spot will bandswitch just about any brand/model HF xcvr to a specific freq on any band almost instantly and on and on. Maybe it can be ported to Linux, I wouldn't know. What I do know is that I utterly fail to understand why anybody would even think about porting this beast over to Linux when it's obviously so much easier to simply run it in Win 98 or whatever in some surplus $100 Winbox and be done with it. 73, Carl - wk3c w3rv |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The concern/fear/issues being raised by many are that the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal will result in practically all of the HF CW/data bands being "over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots," that those stations don't "play nice" with real-time human to human modes, that PactorIII takes a lot of bandwidth for a non-proportional gain in throughput, and that Winlink and PactorIII are closed, proprietary modes that are only available through the purchase of some rather expensive, sole-source hardware and software. I'd state the first part somewhat differently: One concern is that the proposed rules would/could unleash "robot" stations of all kinds anywhere in the non-voice/image parts of the bands. There would be no way for the typical PSK31, RTTY or Morse Code operator to know they were on a frequency used by a "robot" until the robot fired up on top of their QSO. A human operator who fires up on top of an existing QSO can be in violation of the rules. What gives robots an exception? PactorIII and Winlink are indeed proprietary, which goes against the grain of open-sourcing and freeware. Compare those modes to, say, PSK31, with its wide-open software and hardware. To most of us there's nothing wrong with hams using propietary software or hardware - until it becomes an endorsed standard. IOW, 'buy this particular piece of hardware and software from this particular company or you cannot play the game' doesn't sit well. There seem to be rather widely held views that "robot" stations that "don't play nice" with conventional human-human modes should be restricted to limited sub-bands because otherwise they will cause considerable interference problems, Yup. Makes sense, too. that they don't need to be able to take over huge swaths of the bands, and that closed, proprietary systems should not be "pushed" in the ham bands. (conversely, the feeling seems to be widespread that modes used in the ham bands should be "open source" - both h/w and s/w) Exactly. It is my understanding that Winlink has become the method of choice for some folks with boats to send and receive their email. This raises the question of commercial/pecuniary content as well - how are such things filtered? Add to the mix that it's ARRL pushing the Winlink/PactorIII thing and you can see the opposition rising... What's your take on such 'robots' on HF, Carl? Should they be treated just like any other station, or should they have some special restrictions based on their unattended nature? Should ARRL endorse/standardize/push modes requiring the purchase of proprietary hardware and software from specific providers? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor? No, CW does *not* "always get through". Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem. A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is illegal. One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes around it's frequency before transmitting. There's one for you code-writers to chew on. w3rv |
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor? No, CW does *not* "always get through". then the proceder have been teling another lie Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem. then the problem is a lack of enforcement not a rules issue at all A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is illegal. One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes around it's frequency before transmitting. There's one for you code-writers to chew on. Or for it just to listen a bit for a signal first w3rv |
wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor? No, CW does *not* "always get through". No mode always gets through. There are some times when Morse Code gets through and other available modes do not. This plain, simple fact has been misquoted and perverted by some. but can't you read the CW signal though the noise? Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem. There's also the issue of what constitutes "listening". A robot may listen for another Pactor III signal, yet not for a PSK31 or Morse Code signal. so your issue is one that the robot doesn't do a good enough job of listening How much of a listen is long enough, and on how much on either side of the frequency? Isn't pactor relitively wide compared to CW and PSK 31? so if they are lsitening across thier bandwidth they should detect a signal wether they can read or not and how long would satify you? A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is illegal. There's also the 24/7 nature of the robots. Why is this a problem? indeed if they are doing thiss al thetime then you could avoid them esierly enough again if the they are lsitening One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes around it's frequency before transmitting. Yup. And maybe sends "QRL?" in Morse Code before it opens up. why should it favor Morse code over PSK 31? There's one for you code-writers to chew on. The situation is somewhat like the dawn of the FM repeater era on the ham bands. A typical ham FM repeater essentially takes over two frequencies (input and output)in its coverage area. There was a time when a ham repeater required a special license with special callsign, and the application for it involved a pretty detailed description of the setup, its operation, etc., with things like HAAT specified. Even today we have repeater coordination. and today things seem to go enough without specail licenses Why should Morse Code receive specail breaks that PSK 31 and RTTY don't get? But VHF/UHF coverage is fairly predictable and consistent. A typical ham VHF/UHF repeater covers a few hundred square miles except during unusual conditions. Even a moderately powered HF station can cover millions of square miles. that is the story you folks tell gues you haven't dealt with 6M repeaters and the coverage is more viable than I think you accept Jim, althought they are generaly smaller than HF I grant you The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework. Indeed I am not certain why everyone is keying in this discussion on the ARRL's regualtion by bandwidth proposal or is there only a real problem with pactor when that proposal is discussed 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: I can't say the lack of anything in linux forces me to use windows... however, the lack of commercial video games written for linux forces me to revert to windows to run them... "Neverwinter Nights" is an exception, and is ported to linux, however, the game is now a few years old and I went on to others and this is the main reason my private computers sport windows also... The only factor truly forcing windows on me is other windows users, and I am paid 85%+ of the time to develop on the windows platform because of them, and almost exclusively for NT these days (thin clients like cell phones are an exception)... Anything windows can do--Linux can do, Linux can just do it better... windows on the other hand cannot do all which linux can--mostly this is because of MS having to hold the source secret and pursue proprietary ends... what is good for MS pockets is not good for the consumer--generally... John John, I don't disagree ... there are applications (CAD programs and others) that I *must* use, and running dual-boot and having to shift back and forth and not have "everything in one place" is just too annoying for me. I had a Linux box running Fedora Core, but had to repurpose it for something else and haven't gotten a new machine yet to run Linux on ... but I will. 73, Carl - wk3c |
wrote in message ups.com... [snip] What's your take on such 'robots' on HF, Carl? Should they be treated just like any other station, or should they have some special restrictions based on their unattended nature? Jim, et al, I don't think that unattended stations should be allowed to "set up camp" anywhere they choose in the HF bands ... at least until someont *proves( that they have solved the QRM problems that such stations can and do cause do to the "hidden terminal" problem. For now, at least, I think the only reasonable solution is to confine them to a (reasonably sized - YMMV on what that means and I would need more data on the "requirements" to pick a number) sub-band so that the machines don't pound the human operators into submission with their (effectively) relentless attempts to get a message through. (Let them figure out how to "play nice" with the other machines first ...) Should ARRL endorse/standardize/push modes requiring the purchase of proprietary hardware and software from specific providers? I do not believe so ... I think that proprietary modulation techniques and protocols are "bad" for several reasons: 1) It locks out the expermenters who could, in an "open source" model provide enhancements, additional features, etc. 2) It prevents people from building their own compatible unit if the want to and have the necessary level of technical knowledge and skill 3) The lack of competition amongst vendors of compatible hardware artificially inflates prices to the detriment of the user community. (I am big on "open consensus standards" - something I do in IEEE 802.) 73, Carl - wk3c 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Carl:
Slackware has zipslack, and if my understanding is correct, you can boot it right off windows and go into linux, when done with zipslack, you just terminate like any other app... I am sure you also know about wine and you can run most any windows software on the linux boxes with it... I have never toyed with zipslack even though I have a bunch of zip drives here, and I think you can install zipslack on any spare partition (or hd) you have... I run slack 9 with an updated 2.6 kernel... That would fit most hams who are windows only users, but wish to run a open source linux app or two for some experimentation... http://www.slackware.com/zipslack/ http://www.slackware.com John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:13:22 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: I can't say the lack of anything in linux forces me to use windows... however, the lack of commercial video games written for linux forces me to revert to windows to run them... "Neverwinter Nights" is an exception, and is ported to linux, however, the game is now a few years old and I went on to others and this is the main reason my private computers sport windows also... The only factor truly forcing windows on me is other windows users, and I am paid 85%+ of the time to develop on the windows platform because of them, and almost exclusively for NT these days (thin clients like cell phones are an exception)... Anything windows can do--Linux can do, Linux can just do it better... windows on the other hand cannot do all which linux can--mostly this is because of MS having to hold the source secret and pursue proprietary ends... what is good for MS pockets is not good for the consumer--generally... John John, I don't disagree ... there are applications (CAD programs and others) that I *must* use, and running dual-boot and having to shift back and forth and not have "everything in one place" is just too annoying for me. I had a Linux box running Fedora Core, but had to repurpose it for something else and haven't gotten a new machine yet to run Linux on ... but I will. 73, Carl - wk3c |
wrote in message ups.com... an_old_friend wrote: wrote: and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor? No, CW does *not* "always get through". Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem. Brian, Most of the "robots" *do* (at least make an attempt to) listen before transmitting ... however the vagaries of propagation and the highly dynamic nature of usage in the HF bands cause a serious "hidden terminal" problem and that results in interference (it's unintentional, but still there - and it happens more with "robots" because their "listen before talk" is not as effective as a human sending "Is the frequency in use" and being appropriately patient before blasting away). A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is illegal. One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes around it's frequency before transmitting. There's one for you code-writers to chew on. Solving the hidden terminal problem on HF for automated stations is a difficult nut to crack ... in addition to the propagation issues and the dynamics of usage, there are so many modes that a "robot" would have to sense/detect/recognize to optimize the "clear channel assessment" and it would have to do it quasi-continuously ... I'm not saying that it's a permanently insoluble problem, but for now the mechanisms aren't up to the level that's needed. My working group, IEEE P802.22, (http://www.ieee802.org/22) is working on "cognitive radio," but in response to the FCC's NPRM on license-exempt devices using geographically unused TV channels ... this situation makes the "incumbent detection/avoidance/protection" a more soluble problem because there are a limited number of incumbents, they are high power transmitters at generally fixed, stable locations, they use the same standards (NTSC, which will be going away, and ATSC the new digital TV standard), the spectral characteristics of their transmissions have "features" that are easily detectable (the NTSC carriers or the DTV "pilot carrier"), etc. However the "detect and avoid" problem becomes much more difficult in an environment with many lower powered stations that come and go, whose locations vary, and who use a wide variety of different modulation techniques ... again, these problems will likely be solved in the future, but we're not there yet. 73, Carl - wk3c |
wrote: The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework. 73 de Jim, N2EY I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work with the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that it will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It will require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus. If a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably reached the best possible solution. We're not there yet ... 73, Carl - wk3c http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c |
Carl:
Damn man, you are beginning to sound like a professional politician! While yesterday I would not have given you a pharts chance in a windstorm, today I am rethinking that analysis! Can you suck eggs though a straw too? friendly-grin John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:48:25 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote: The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework. 73 de Jim, N2EY I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work with the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that it will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It will require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus. If a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably reached the best possible solution. We're not there yet ... 73, Carl - wk3c http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c |
John,
Not a professional politician, just an RF engineer with a lot of experience in negotiating and brokering compromises, both in the international regulatory arena and in IEEE standards development. 73, Carl - wk3c "John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: Damn man, you are beginning to sound like a professional politician! While yesterday I would not have given you a pharts chance in a windstorm, today I am rethinking that analysis! Can you suck eggs though a straw too? friendly-grin John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:48:25 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote: The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework. 73 de Jim, N2EY I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work with the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that it will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It will require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus. If a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably reached the best possible solution. We're not there yet ... 73, Carl - wk3c http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c |
Carl:
You sound like a progressive thinker... good luck John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:46:50 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: John, Not a professional politician, just an RF engineer with a lot of experience in negotiating and brokering compromises, both in the international regulatory arena and in IEEE standards development. 73, Carl - wk3c "John Smith" wrote in message ... Carl: Damn man, you are beginning to sound like a professional politician! While yesterday I would not have given you a pharts chance in a windstorm, today I am rethinking that analysis! Can you suck eggs though a straw too? friendly-grin John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:48:25 +0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote: The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework. 73 de Jim, N2EY I agree completely ... If I am elected to the ARRL Board, I will work with the various interest groups to find ways to modify the proposal so that it will better address the issues and concerns that have been voiced. It will require some reasonable compromise to arrive a plan that at least a significant majority of people can accept. It's probably totally unrealistic to believe that it's possible to please 100% of the ham population, but the goal should be to achieve a MUCH broader consensus. If a preponderance of hams from the various interest groups can say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can sign up for that." we've probably reached the best possible solution. We're not there yet ... 73, Carl - wk3c http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem. Brian, Most of the "robots" *do* (at least make an attempt to) listen before transmitting ... however the vagaries of propagation and the highly dynamic nature of usage in the HF bands cause a serious "hidden terminal" problem and that results in interference (it's unintentional, but still there - and it happens more with "robots" because their "listen before talk" is not as effective as a human sending "Is the frequency in use" and being appropriately patient before blasting away I realize that the things are advertsied as "listening before transmitting" but from any practical point of view they simply don't to any even half-decent extent, they're deaf as rocks. It's just advertising hype. A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is illegal. One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes around it's frequency before transmitting. There's one for you code-writers to chew on. Solving the hidden terminal problem on HF for automated stations is a difficult nut to crack ... in addition to the propagation issues and the dynamics of usage, there are so many modes that a "robot" would have to sense/detect/recognize to optimize the "clear channel assessment" and it would have to do it quasi-continuously ... Depends on how "optimum" is good enough to get the basic job done well enough within the Part 97 hobby spectrum. I don't see why it would be necessary for the algorithms to actually decode any of the modulations, all they need to do is tune up & down 500Hz or so from their center freq and sum the total level of signal activity/energy over some reasonable short period of time vs. some threshold and make the decision to transmit or not. Nor do I see why they should have to listen continuously either. Once an acceptably intelligent robot decides the freq is "clear enough" it's *his* and the devil can take the hindmost. Which is exactly what human ops do. As far as optimization goes how many times have you watched a development effort die because the engineers hung too much gold plate on it? I'm not saying that it's a permanently insoluble problem, but for now the mechanisms aren't up to the level that's needed. Mmmm . . I dunno . . I'm working on a project right now which is giving me a good look at what neural network technology can do these days and it's pretty impressive and it's not just academic pushups, it's fully commercialized. I can easily visualize even simplistic implementations of NNT giving robot stations ears which actually work to a useful extent. But somebody has to actually quit talking about it and actually DO it which is the ultimate tough nut to crack. Like actually getting spread spectrum running on any ham band . . heh. Sorry, had to do that for old time's sake Carl! My working group, IEEE P802.22, (http://www.ieee802.org/22) is working on "cognitive radio," but in response to the FCC's NPRM on license-exempt devices using geographically unused TV channels ... this situation makes the "incumbent detection/avoidance/protection" a more soluble problem because there are a limited number of incumbents, they are high power transmitters at generally fixed, stable locations, they use the same standards (NTSC, which will be going away, and ATSC the new digital TV standard), the spectral characteristics of their transmissions have "features" that are easily detectable (the NTSC carriers or the DTV "pilot carrier"), etc. .. . OK . . makes sense here . . However the "detect and avoid" problem becomes much more difficult in an environment with many lower powered stations that come and go, whose locations vary, and who use a wide variety of different modulation techniques ... again, these problems will likely be solved in the future, but we're not there yet. Agreed. In the meantime in ham radio however we have the current flap over the ARRL proposal to deal with. My bet is that in whatever any final form the ARRL comes up with and submits the FCC will toss it back at us to muddle through because the general public has no stake whatsoever, for instance, in Pactor stations being rude. 73, Carl - wk3c w3rv |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I don't think that unattended stations should be allowed to "set up camp" anywhere they choose in the HF bands ... at least until someont *proves( that they have solved the QRM problems that such stations can and do cause do to the "hidden terminal" problem. For now, at least, I think the only reasonable solution is to confine them to a (reasonably sized - YMMV on what that means and I would need more data on the "requirements" to pick a number) sub-band so that the machines don't pound the human operators into submission with their (effectively) relentless attempts to get a message through. (Let them figure out how to "play nice" with the other machines first ...) I agree 100%, Carl. Give them a nice usable chunk of each band to work with, but not the whole enchilada. Should ARRL endorse/standardize/push modes requiring the purchase of proprietary hardware and software from specific providers? I do not believe so ... I think that proprietary modulation techniques and protocols are "bad" for several reasons: 1) It locks out the expermenters who could, in an "open source" model provide enhancements, additional features, etc. 2) It prevents people from building their own compatible unit if the want to and have the necessary level of technical knowledge and skill 3) The lack of competition amongst vendors of compatible hardware artificially inflates prices to the detriment of the user community. (I am big on "open consensus standards" - something I do in IEEE 802.) All reasonable and I agree 100%. But there's mo 4) If the proprietary company decides to stop supporting the hardware or software for any reason, hams can be left high and dry, with a "legacy system". (Example: Win95 was left unsupported by Microsoft after less than 10 years. Their advice was to migrate to a newer Windoze version.) 5) Standardization on proprietary stuff acts as a disincentive for other manufacturers and individual hams to even get a good understanding of how the system works. Why should they bother if they can't do anything to it? 6) It's traditional in amateur radio that standards be determined conceptually, with many ways of realization. For example, hams standardized on LSB below 10 MHz and USB above decades ago, but used all sorts of methods to get there - LC filters just above the audio range, phasing, crystal filters in the ~455 kHz region, mechanical filters, HF crystal filters, even the "third method of SSB" were all used by hams. Nowadays HF crystal filtering is almost universal, but other methods are still usable if someone wants to bother with them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always be widened if there is sufficient call for such. A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in an emergency or otherwise situation. I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to all... John On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:15:41 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor? No, CW does *not* "always get through". No mode always gets through. There are some times when Morse Code gets through and other available modes do not. This plain, simple fact has been misquoted and perverted by some. Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem. There's also the issue of what constitutes "listening". A robot may listen for another Pactor III signal, yet not for a PSK31 or Morse Code signal. How much of a listen is long enough, and on how much on either side of the frequency? A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent design is illegal. There's also the 24/7 nature of the robots. One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes around it's frequency before transmitting. Yup. And maybe sends "QRL?" in Morse Code before it opens up. There's one for you code-writers to chew on. The situation is somewhat like the dawn of the FM repeater era on the ham bands. A typical ham FM repeater essentially takes over two frequencies (input and output)in its coverage area. There was a time when a ham repeater required a special license with special callsign, and the application for it involved a pretty detailed description of the setup, its operation, etc., with things like HAAT specified. Even today we have repeater coordination. But VHF/UHF coverage is fairly predictable and consistent. A typical ham VHF/UHF repeater covers a few hundred square miles except during unusual conditions. Even a moderately powered HF station can cover millions of square miles. The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always be widened if there is sufficient call for such. A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in an emergency or otherwise situation. I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to all... John Hey Jim, does this ring a familiar bell . . . ? Node clashes . . |
|
N2EY:
I like to think I gauge each and every man and woman on their merits. How broadminded they are, how current they are, how adaptive they are, if their pursuits are near mine, if they don't take themselves too seriously, if they can communicate on the complex, the unique, if they are not hampered by too many preconceived notions, if they are interesting, if they are fun, if they are educated (and a few have done a darn good job of educating themselves with little formal education--and a discussion with them quickly will disclose that), etc, etc... I have found about 3-5 out of a hundred are worth a persons time, out in the general world--usually, at work that ratio comes close to a 50-50%. I think that is a fairly accurate take on it--a person mileage may vary with location and type of employment, of course in heaven I suspect this ratio would be much higher, and in hell it would drop to zero... John On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:46:18 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: If there are going to be fully automated nets run by automatons, then practical "open" protocols and hardware need to be established. Wide experimentation of many different protocols needs to be experimented with and the best one or two adopted--and, the ease which "newbies" can participate should be given a substantial weight in this endeavor. A narrow range of freqs would best be established for robots, it can always be widened if there is sufficient call for such. A protocol where a "control robot" to be chosen, and adaptive procedures so the control can change as necessary. A protocol where a robot requests entrance in the net and its' traffic logically queued and handled in a "ring" approach. Also, a protocol which allows for a human operator (with the correct software/hardware) to get info and interact in an emergency or otherwise situation. I find discussion of these matters highly exciting and believe amateur radio should help foster such directions, seems it would be beneficial to all... John Hey Jim, does this ring a familiar bell . . . ? Node clashes . . "Everything old is new again" It's really funny to see the neophiles ignore history and what has already been learned as "old stuff", then go out and try to solve the same problems all over again. Then when you try to Elmer them, you get called a dinosaur. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: I like to think I gauge each and every man and woman on their merits. How broadminded they are, how current they are, how adaptive they are, if their pursuits are near mine, if they don't take themselves too seriously, if they can communicate on the complex, the unique, if they are not hampered by too many preconceived notions, if they are interesting, if they are fun, if they are educated (and a few have done a darn good job of educating themselves with little formal education--and a discussion with them quickly will disclose that), etc, etc... I have found about 3-5 out of a hundred are worth a persons time, out in the general world--usually, at work that ratio comes close to a 50-50%. I think that is a fairly accurate take on it--a person mileage may vary with location and type of employment, of course in heaven I suspect this ratio would be much higher, and in hell it would drop to zero... snicker Keep it up "John", we all enjoy the gigglers you toss out. John w3rv |
Kelly:
I have long suspect the majority of the people are your superiors, after all, you are one who thinks a hobby license is a great achievement, I find it akin to graduating kindergarten... have you always missed when educated men smirk and laugh behind your back? Think about it man... you didn't ever really fool anyone--they were just trying to be nice... John On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:39:22 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: I like to think I gauge each and every man and woman on their merits. How broadminded they are, how current they are, how adaptive they are, if their pursuits are near mine, if they don't take themselves too seriously, if they can communicate on the complex, the unique, if they are not hampered by too many preconceived notions, if they are interesting, if they are fun, if they are educated (and a few have done a darn good job of educating themselves with little formal education--and a discussion with them quickly will disclose that), etc, etc... I have found about 3-5 out of a hundred are worth a persons time, out in the general world--usually, at work that ratio comes close to a 50-50%. I think that is a fairly accurate take on it--a person mileage may vary with location and type of employment, of course in heaven I suspect this ratio would be much higher, and in hell it would drop to zero... snicker Keep it up "John", we all enjoy the gigglers you toss out. John w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com