Unattended Digital Stations
Charles Brabham (N5PVL)
on
January 6, 2010
View comments about this article!
Unattended operation has been codified into PART-97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet.Org:
=====
Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves.
We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe.
To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art.
=====
The original Packet network that the new sections of PART-97 and the automated sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with existing communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by the FCC.
The Internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to Internet services where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links ( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly opposite to the model that wired networks like the Internet are built upon.
That last factor, the way that the relationship between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that of existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as many amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any basis that is not identical to the internet (wired) model. Because of this, various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio networking fit the procrustian bed of IT. (Internet technology)
We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio spectrum, where we are expected to self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham communications resources (Internet gateways) to route around and exclude amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' by taking the radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its place.
By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts of thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the globe.
Some of that has gone away in response to widespread Internet access, no more ARRL hype, abortive attempts to repeal the laws of physics, and the inclusion of non-ham links which only served to retard the advancement of the art instead of bringing it forward. Still, a large part of what once was is still in operation, though at a reduced level of traffic and coverage.
The good news is that we are now approaching a turning of the tide as amateurs once again approach the concept of a global amateur radio digital network with a new understanding of the pitfalls we face, along with the advantages we enjoy over traditional wired networks. We have had a good start, a serious setback and now, a new beginning.
The reason that anybody would want to operate an unattended digital ham radio station is that to do so allows you to participate in the greatest adventure ever undertaken by amateur radio operators... An adventure and an international accomplishment that only we as ham radio operators may realistically aspire to.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by G0OTT on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I remember in the early 90's, connecting through the nodes.In the early hours of the night you could access the wormhole from London to New York and proceed to visit the bbs and nodes around America. I think the wormhole was piggybacked on a cable link for one of the big tv companies in the states?
This type of operation was fascinating, as well as time consuming.
I still have my packet tnc somewhere?
The internet pulled me away from amateur radio for over 7 years, I returned just over 2 years ago with new enthusiasm.
The reason for my return, NO BROADBAND for a month!
My wife was not happy with the aerials going back up, together with me spending time in the shack hi hi.
Thank's for the article, brought back some memories and I just might get the tnc out and see what activity is in the area?
73 es HNY
Darren g0ott
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K5END on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting article. Thanks for writing it. In my experience the acronym "IT" usually refers to "information technology," but I suppose it works just as well in the manner you have used it.
Thanks again for the time and effort you put into this article.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WX7K on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I, too, remember the nodes and BBSs and being able to send messages across country on VHF packet. There were scores of stations on the air when I went QRT in 2002. If I couldn't reach a station, I could digipeat using one I could to make the connection. Imagine my consternation when I came back in 2007 and found only four other packet users in my area and no operating nodes within reach.
I strongly feel that packet communications will be a valuable tool in times where the power grid is down and there is no internet. I know here in Washington State, the various emergency centers are setting up pactor capability just for that reason.
My 2 cents.
73
Newell
WX7K
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W3DBB on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem with all unattended digital operation in the ham bands it immediately puts the operator on the slippery slope. Now I suppose I shouldn't have a problem with Packet as long as it stays in it's box, but I have to tell you that packet station I hear on 7108 kHz really pisses me off.
The slippery slope aids with the transformation from one thing to another. RM-11306 was the League's big shot at getting back into the traffic game to increase their relevance, raise their profile, get new hams licensed and more members- all that good stuff. If you read ARRL's bandwidth proposal they wanted to accomplish this by unleashing Pactor III email robots all over the bands. Much worse than one little packet station operating out of it's subband, but you get the idea.
Here's a novel concept:
Let's keep the Amateur Radio Service a radio service for radio amateurs without a pecuniary interest in the traffic being passed, excepted only in the case of a bona fide emergency.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AI2IA on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is the amateur radio service for licensed radio operators, or is it for automated equipment?
Should automated equipment continuously occupy specific frequencies excluding live amateur operators from their use?
What kind of information content would really justify the setting up and maintaining of such a network?
Once established, how easy would it be to preserve flexibility in the changing of protocols?
Should this really be the "new direction" for the amateur radio service?
Do we really need this?
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by NA7I on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sheesh - a really, really dumb idea. Who needs yet another 'global' anything? Give us a break, loonies.
To those who say my stance is 'political' - yes it is - it opposes the outright political initiative that this represents.
Americans, at least, should have enough common sense to see the dangers in this very foolish idea. Of course, it will probably get laughed down like Nopenhagen.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WG7X on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Packet radio is dead.
Has been since the late 80's.
Get over it already!
I for one, cannot understand why the packet radio folks are so attached to this mode. Sure, it filled a niche at one time but it has been superseded by other modes.
Well that is a silly question, most legacy modes have their adherents, but the packet folks take it to another level all together.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against packet as a mode, no not at all. What really killed packet radio around here were all the "empire builders" who wanted us insignificant user types to do everything their way.
At one point, I was told by an empire builder that I was to use his gateway only a certain way, and not to use it any other way.
For some reason, he got upset when I told him to take his packet gateway and stuff it up where the sun doesn't shine...
That one episode pretty well summed up the attitude of the packet community around here: "My way or the highway!"
Well I for one took the highway, and will never go back to packetville again.
Now we have another empire builder trying to start the same stuff again?
No thanks!
Charles, you really need to find another song to sing, this ones getting pretty stale.
73 Gary
PS: Good luck with the empire, you're gonna need it!
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N8KOM on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I might be off base - but I thought one of the packet radio or unattended digital station "killers" was lack of control over some of the content being passed through the nodes by the control operators, but the control operators are held responsible for that traffic. So if some licensed or unlicensed goofball sent questionable material through your digital node, you (as the control operator) are still held responsible. On the other side of the coin, once an automated digital station is up and in place, it is sort of boring (from a radio / hobby point of view).
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The failure to keep up with commercial technology, and particularly in the case of digital communications, seems to be the main problem.
I agree that attempting to use HF links is a silly and resource-inefficient way to attempt to make a worldwide broadband Amateur Radio-based network.
However, getting together with AMSAT and designing a satellite-based broadband network running in the UHF/microwave region would be a more impressive goal. It would be a much better place to focus our energies, and one that would return Amateur Radio to the forefront of technology.
Packet radio was the 1980s solution to low speed data. It is of little value when we can get multi-megabit per second WiFi radio links virtually for free, to the Internet which itself embodies various wired, optical, and radio network technologies.
Maybe the author and a few others need to be reminded that we participate in Amateur Radio primarily because it is fun. Technically interesting, challenging, rewarding - yes, it's essentially just a form of entertainment. We likewise participate in our own specific favourite forms of communications because they are entertaining. Public service too, but self-entertainment is by far the biggest reason.
The greatest adventure ever undertaken by Amateurs is a matter of personal opinion. I think there are some who would say making the first OSCAR satellite was greater. Others would prefer more personal goals, such as multi-DXCC done point to point, without the aid of worldwide networks to make it easy.
Given a cellphone and a 10 Mbps internet link, we can get the job done reliably and perfectly almost everywhere on the globe. Wilderness camping needs something else, and HF can do that. GPS is already there.
We use CW because it is fun. We use SSB, or FM, or PSK31, or packet, or satellites, or QRP, or whatever, and we contest and go after certificates and QSLs because they are fun for us. We enjoy the medium, the challenges, the achievements. We help in emergencies or service when needed, but we do Amateur radio mainly for fun. We don't do it to replace the home telephone, the broadcast radio or TV, or the internet - they have their uses.
We all use Amateur Radio mainly for fun. You do too, just admit it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W9OY on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Here's a novel concept:
Let's keep the Amateur Radio Service a radio service for radio amateurs without a pecuniary interest in the traffic being passed, excepted only in the case of a bona fide emergency. >
AND let's keep Ham radio, Ham radio without the friggin pecuniary interest of the ARRL and QST always steering the boat.
73 W9OY
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N4UM on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IMHO unattended digital (or nondigital) stations on the amateur bands are a royal pain in the ass regardless of their legality or how their existence is justified.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K5END on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm just curious why there is opposition to this facet of the hobby.
Is it affecting other aspects of the hobby adversely?
If not, why not let those guys do what they enjoy?
From my day job I've had enough data radio to last me several lifetimes. To me it is a tool and not a "hobby." But if someone else enjoys it, I say, "knock yourself out."
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AI2IA on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm just curious why there is opposition to this facet of the hobby."
The problem is just how big and how spectrum consuming do you want this boring monster to grow?
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K5END on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<ahem> An effort in subtle point making. Here goes...
:-)
========
Based on the comments on this article, I think the next eham article should be about vacuum tubes and how absolutely "worthless" they are.
I mean, geeeze. They are so old and outdated. They are expensive and not easy to find, making them a hassle to replace!
And what a pain to tune! That takes up way too much time in this day and age!
Plus they are current hogs, they heat up my shack in the summer, and by golly anything using voltages that high should be outlawed, or at least require a license that includes a code test, plus a liability insurance policy!
So all you Borkham-Riff-tobacco-pipe-smokin,' flannel-shirt-wearin,' solder-gunnin,' crew-cut OM stuck in the past need to get with the program and start using solid state only. Ozzie and Harriet are dead, as are "The Honeymooners," Ed Sullivan and "The Life of Riley."
Otherwise you will be despised, ostracized and cast out of the hobby, provided you don't SK from old age first!
(I hope you all enjoyed this attempt at semi-dry humor.)
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K5END on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The problem is just how big and how spectrum consuming do you want this boring monster to grow?"
Based on what seems to be an obvious lack of interest by most hams, I doubt this will ever be a problem.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by NY7Q on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with you. But lets keep ham radio, ham radio.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K1DA on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can hear it now: "Don't you know you are interfering with a with a 'world wide digital data link' which is on this frequency EVERY DAY! Go somewhere else, we have DATA to pass".
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by KF4HR on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The reason that anybody would want to operate an unattended digital ham radio station is that to do so allows you to participate..."
To "operate" an "unattended" station to "participate"...
Now there's an interesting statement.
KF4HR
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WB4M on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Is it affecting other aspects of the hobby adversely?"
In some cases, yes. I remember when the 20 meter "RTTY band" was 14.080 to 14.100. The ARRL decided that HF Packet should now operate from 14.090 to 14.100, causing direct interference to RTTY stations. So those RTTY stations were forced down, which crowded the Pactor/Amtor stations further down, etc. For a while it seemed like everyone and his brother were setting up a HF Packet station all over the place. And the ARRL, enamored with WinLink, wanted those WinLink robots from one end of the bands to the other. Thank the lord that idea did not prevail,
Additionally, why do some hams want to allow non-hams to use our frequencies for their email?
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N6CRR on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me try to answer your question :
"I'm just curious why there is opposition to this facet of the hobby."
First, let's make sure we on a nice open frequency, yes we are nobody here....So now where BAAAA w BAAAAs BAAAA BAAAA whoops OH, sorry, looks like Mr. Pactor III is cran BAAAA BAAA BAAA BAAAA now where was I...OK...now BAAA BAAA BAAA BAAA never mind.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WG7X on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyone who has actually tried packet radio over HF knows that it is a most unfavorable mode.
At the data rates legal on HF, it would take forever to pass a simple radiogram. That of course, would only be true if there were no real world conditions like fading and QRM.
With real conditions the packet station keep sending NAK signals back and forth until forever and no actual data ever gets passed all the while taking up 3kHz of valuable hf spectrum.
IS this really a good use of HF? Interestingly enough the original poster is a vehement enemy of HF winlink.
Looking at his proposal, I see little if any difference, except that this was HIS idea...
73 Gary
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I appreciate the replies here. Some are interesting, some are funny and a few of them are informative.
One interesting thing I have noticed is that for every negative response here, at least one other amateur has taken the trouble to sign up at hamradionet.org and so display some level of interest and support for the concept.
Considering the fact that just about any article here will attract some negative comment, often from a small group of amateurs who apparently have no other function in life, I consider the overall response here to be highly favorable, and this is greatly appreciated.
I will look over the responses here tomorrow, searching for serious questions that warrant an answer. I will try to answer those questions as best as I can. Malicious or stupid questions will of course be ignored as this is all that they deserve.
This evening I am too tired to answer anything, I have been busy all day and intend to get to bed early.
I will note however that the best place for additional information is at hamradionet.org in the forum there. Lots of issues not mentioned or covered here can be found at there. You don't have to register at the forum to read the posts there. This eHam article was necessarily kept fairly brief, so that it would be more readable.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WS4E on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is already being done.
See PSKMAIL....
Its a free alternative to Winlink that provides email etc over HF with central stations all over the world.
http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W0FAA on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"One interesting thing I have noticed is that for every negative response here, at least one other amateur has taken the trouble to sign up at hamradionet.org and so display some level of interest and support for the concept."
Signing up may indicate interest, but not necessarily support. Some may just wonder what you are up to.
"Considering the fact that just about any article here will attract some negative comment, often from a small group of amateurs who apparently have no other function in life, I consider the overall response here to be highly favorable, and this is greatly appreciated."
Why sully your response with that personal attack? I read every response and I certainly did not consider the "overall response here to be highly favorable". If anything, just the opposite.
"I will look over the responses here tomorrow, searching for serious questions that warrant an answer. I will try to answer those questions as best as I can. Malicious or stupid questions will of course be ignored as this is all that they deserve."
How very generous and incredibly patronizing of you.
While I personally don't consider it to be stupid, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the interference objection. Automated stations have a habit of transmitting on an occupied frequency. I don't consider them entitled to ownership of a frequency, so that is deliberate interference in my view. Simple as that. Really, make them non-interfering and I'll be all for it.
73
...
"73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL"
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by NA4IT on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe a lot can be done, but until we "kick the sides out of the box" we aren't going to develop technology enough to do it.
One such idea is packet radio on VHF. Take a look at some of the newer softwares, such as Outpost PMM. The older packet digis and nodes can still be used with the newer software, (and I know Charles hates this) we can use the internet to "bridge" longer distances.
I personally don't think a digital "network" perse will ever exist on HF. To many people "own" their frequency. And yes, I've heard the argument about digital stations QRMing other stations, but I'll hazard to say for every unintentional digital QRM, there is an intentional one that comes from the other station.
Just my take...de NA4IT
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K5END on January 6, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After having played devil's advocate I must confess.
You guys are preaching to the choir as far as I am concerned.
If I NEVER hear another RTTY QSO interfering CW on the HF bands, it will be too soon.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by ZENKI on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its amazing how many hams want to professionalize the ham radio service.
Its bad enough having to deal with the Pactor LIDS.
The current band plans work well. Giving exclusivity to any one part of the bands just will create wars and QRM. Look at the mess that was caused on 14.195, the so called dx frequency. Its so heartening to see that Dx'peditions are now work anywhere on the bands without so called fixed frequencies. The mess on 14.195 has now largely disappeared.
Every man and his dog wants an exclusive bit of the ham band for this and that. 14.300 is guarded continuously by certain individuals who run everyone off 14300 regardless if there is net activity or not. They seem to think that its the international distress frequency. I have even heard them try and get stations to move even if they are close to 14300
I would not be surprised if the next call will be to channelize the ham bands like the commercial HF services. This would include channel guard zones so they scan these channels with the squelch on.
The many distress calls on the ham bands in the past, most of these never called for help on these emergency nets or "special" frequencies. They always break into existing everyday ham traffic and thats the way it should be. Its waste of a wonderful resource tying up a frequency for something that has less probability of occurring than a meteor hitting you on the head.
We had a good opening into the Pacific the other day. I was calling CQDX on 28.490. Some idiotic VK6 tried to run me off 28.490. He started telling me that it was a "call channel" I politely informed the gentleman that I only recognized international band plans and that the amateur bands are shared globally. This joker must have been a CB'er. He wanted me to call CQ and then nominate a frequency that I would be QSY'ing too. I just about fell out of my chair laughing. When did the HF hams ever work this way?
Lets keep ham radio a hobby without everyone turning into groupies and tribes with their own fortress on every hill.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AB7E on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5PVL: "The reason that anybody would want to operate an unattended digital ham radio station is that to do so allows you to participate in the greatest adventure ever undertaken by amateur radio operators... An adventure and an international accomplishment that only we as ham radio operators may realistically aspire to."
I can understand local or regional digital networks for potential emergency communications, but I can't think of any reason why an amateur global digital network is needed or useful. What is such a "great adventure" about it when the backbone data rates are so slow that it is merely a curiosity? And if the backbone gets upgraded to a satellite or similar high speed link, it become dependent upon non-amateur resources anyway. It's like resurrecting the Pony Express and trying to make it sound relevant simply because the riders are volunteers. If the idea is simply to play with it for the sake of the experimentation, fine ... but otherwise I don't get it.
Apparently I am one of the stupid ones that N5PVL so derisively dismisses, which I guess means he won't respond anyway.
Dave AB7E
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N3YZ on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unattended digital stations are a logical evolution.
For instance, in the case of CW, we have a plethora of decoders that run on PCs.
CW Skimmer is one excellent example. AI and Bayesian logic with many separate decoders running simultaneously.
It is no great leap of that computer technology to software that receives a call (we do that now, and often unattended), generates a response (reads your call, reads his/her call) sends a response, creates a log entry, and all unattended.
Makes sense.
Is is right? Aren't decoders popular!
Is it ham radio? Yes, in today's ham radio.
Will it sell? You bet!
Look for it in a year or two.
73!
John
Annapolis, MD
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WG7X on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Every man and his dog wants a slice of the HF spectrum"
Boy isn't that the truth?
All the grand pioneers and their demands for an exclusive slice of precious spectrum just so that they can pursue their own interests, usually at the expense of the amateur community as a whole.
If HF packet worked sufficiently well to warrant such activity it would already be there as a dominate mode.
So yes, I'll just join the ranks of the "stupid" non-believers and shut the heck up already.
It won't make any difference anyway, since some folks are on a mission...
Or as one dedicated fellow with blinders on said: "I'm on a crusade!"
Save us from ourselves!
73 Gary
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K3GAU on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK,so what is the difference between unattended digital stations and unattended FM repeaters on HF (10 meters) and above bands??
Someone commented on a digital network being a useless activity, what is the difference between that and all the contests that clutter up the bands on weekends? They absolutely prove nothing and don't move the state of the art foward one bit! Most of them use modes like SSB, CW and RTTY all of which have been around for more than 60 years! In the last month there were two week ends when you could hardly get a digital mode or CW signal in the bands sideways for all the RTTY contesters calling "CQ TEST".
Now don't get me wrong, I DO NOT want the bands overrun with unattended digital stations!! But I do think they can and do serve a useful purpose at times. With that in mind, why not designate a 25 KHz. portion of each band as the place to put them! After all the Extras still have 25 KHz CW only segments assigned. That doesn't mean you couldn't use some other mode there, but you do so at your own risk. It would clear up the rest of the bands for other modes and eliminate most of the QRM problems we all experience from the unattended operations.
The FCC recognized the incompatibility issue years ago on the VHF bands and created "repeater subbands" and it by and large has worked well to separate combatents. There were 'screams and howls' when they did, BUT in the end, IT WORKED!
Dave K3GAU
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AF3Y on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We sure do have a LOT of STRANGE people in this hobby. 73, Gene
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N9AOP on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent topic. Too bad Wayne Green isn't still around to rant about how the mean ol ARRL ruined everything.
I do agree with the post about shoving the digital modes into their own 25 or whatever bandwidth.
Art
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K7LRB on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with VE3WGO. When ham radio ceases to be fun, I will be out of it.
Probably the best post so far, with the possible exception of AF3Y!
73 and HAVE FUN!
de Larry
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AF6IT on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree in part & disagree in part. Calling this "the greatest adventure" is way over the top. There have been and will continue to be many great adventures in developing technology related to radio. RF networking is just one more and really not all that special to me at all. Indeed, it is downright obnoxious when it comes to the more broadbanded sorts as the article does hint at. I am tempted to declare that there remains no excuse for Pactor any longer, although perhaps I should cut Pactor operators a little slack. The bigger underlying problem IMHO is the amateur community's ongoing failure to work out a functional bandplan. Where bandplans exist they have been worked out without getting all involved to the table. This is particularly problematic to the growing number of digital mode users where one "gentleman's agreement" usually conflicts with another. For example, Pactor is where it is "supposed to be" on 30m- which is right in the middle of narrow weaker signal modes. One unattended pactor station can and has very often taken out dozens of ongoing QSO's all over the continent. What sense does this make? How is this even legal?
I call for a moratorium on unattended stations until we can figure out where to put them where they will not offend others. I further call for more a effective listening protocol for these unattended stations. Once this is accomplished, let them have at it.
Stu AF6IT
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AI2IA on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Two things to dislike:
UNATTENDED
DIGITAL
Amateur Radio Service is for HAMS, not for "unattended" whatevers.
Digital? Data saturation! What the heck digital garbage needs to be sent continuously? How much digital do we need? When is enough enough?
You can do Digital now with some intelligence monitoring it. No need for more.
Why not have another service called Amateur Robot Service just for machines, no ham radio human operators allowed, and they can send binary garbage all day and all night to each other. Geeks can watch the little LEDs winking on their automated digital devices and maybe have little bars to wink on their cell phones, too!
You can poke fun at old timers, but they built this service from scratch and they continue to finance it, and build it with the latest and the greatest. What is more, when the lights go out and the computers go off, they can use pencils and paper, and slide rules and design circuits and antennas without programs. While most juniors still have respect, for those who don't, old timers can do anything you can do, but you can't do everything they can do. So old timers still stand head and shoulders at the top of amateur radio, and don't forget it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by KC8RWR on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VE3WG0: "we can get multi-megabit per second WiFi radio links virtually for free,"
I suppose that is true if you want to camp out in or within a few hundred feet of a local coffee shop or restaurant and pretend to be a customer. Or maybe if you neighbor doesn't know/care how to set up their router you can steal it. Otherwise, where is this free WiFi of which you write?
Maybe you are thinking of cellular networks like GSM and CDMA? They work in most places but I'd hardly call the $40-$50 / month they cost here in the US free.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really think packet can/should replace commercial internet access. Both the bandwidth limitations on HF (physics) and the commercial limitations of ham radio (law) would get in the way of that. I'm not for changing the law either b/c that would probably lead to an influx of packet users who were really only looking for free internet that would completely use up our bandwidth.
I just don't see how internet access of any kind really replaces packet. It's either less available, more expensive or both depending on where you are at. It's usually a fairly bland commercial product, all packaged and shiny for the consumer with nothing to build, no knobs to turn, nothing to learn and nothing to be proud of.
As for the value of a Packet network? I would say the author struck that one right on. It's a mountain for us to climb. A technical mountain, something for us to tinker with. It might not offer much for hams whom are only interested in ragchewing or contesting but it could be very rewarding for tinkerer's. (Or maybe deaf/mute ragchewers). The emergency people seem to think it's a good thing for them too. I'll take their word for it.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with not taking an interest in this one area of Ham radio. When I turn the dial up and down the bands and hear nothing but packet with no room for voice or cw I'll believe I was wrong and packet is bad for ham radio. Until then I think the opposite is more likely to be true but finding plenty of empty room for us all is far more likely yet.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Charles thanks for yet another great article on packet. I love packet despite all of the new modes of which I use as many as possible, being possible means finding another person using that mode. I am sad that packet sees such minimal activity as it really is a practical mode that has it's place in the world of ham radio, just like anything else you can't compare apples to oranges - packet is not a substitute for internet and vice versa. I miss my days on packet and really wish that there were some activity in our area besides APRS.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by RHETTDUKE on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is room in my humble shack for a Mic, Straight Key and Keyboard. A time and place for all modes for all Ham's.
KI4OVO
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W7ETA on January 7, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art."
Maybe you are confusing your opinion with a factual statement?
My view is that contesters are the ones who engage in "true advancement of the radio art." Dxpedetioners, two thumbs up. People who write software for amateur radio. They sure qualify for advancing the art of radio.
Setting up a station that goes bleeeeeap? Radio art!??
Guess you think people who set up ditters and maintain those useless things so people can find out if a band is open are advancing radio art?
"The reason that anybody would want to operate an unattended digital ham radio station is that to do so allows you to participate in the greatest adventure ever undertaken by amateur radio operators... An adventure and an international accomplishment that only we as ham radio operators may realistically aspire to."
Greatest adventure!! Seems to me Marconi and those who first made contact across the pond were part of the GREATEST adventure.
First maned mission to the Moon. Now that was a great adventure!!!!
Bob
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AA4PB on January 8, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I know many people have a thing against combining ham radio and Internet in any way. However, Internet generally goes out during emergencies only in the affected area. Once you get your traffic outside that area why not put it onto the Internet for delivery to its ultimate destination? Why would you send it across the state, or across the country, on a 300 baud HF packet radio backbone that is dependent on propogation when the Internet is available? It seems to me that for emergency backup communications we should concentrate on high speed ways to reach outside the affected area. Things like transportable microwave links and UHF links. One problem with Packet has been that most have been stuck on 1200 baud when the capability has been around for many years to run 9600 baud. To go beyond this in any great numbers is going to take someone to develop the network and manufactures to provide "off the shelf" equipment because most people do not have the capability to build this stuff in their garage. The other part of the problem is that it is difficult to get many people interested in developing a capability that they do not personally use on a regular basis. Most people's time and dollars are limited so they don't want to expend a lot of efford developing a microwave link that sits in the "go box" 90% of the time. PSK31 with a computer and their HF rig gets used daily so that's where they concentrate their effort. Ham radio often works in an emergency simply because of the people and equipment that are already distributed around the affected area when disaster stikes.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WG7X on January 8, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA4PB...
Exactly!
Too many of these "special interest" folks around.
Your message summed it up perfectly.
Some get it, some don't. That's always the way isn't it?
73 Gary
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by NO6L on January 8, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by ZENKI on January 7, 2010
>"...I was calling CQDX on 28.490. Some idiotic VK6 tried to run me off 28.490. He started telling me that it was a "call channel..."
Oh yes, I will keep this frequency in mind, just for a little DX fun for me, too.
As for an HF digital network, It could be possible, but to keep it from being abused and used as a replacement for "normal" direct hookups. PSK31 could be used to keep "on air" times short with message "length limiter" and filter software in the way to keep message lengths down to what would be found in an ARRL Radiogram, or maybe a little longer, and only allow 7 bit ASCII through. With a little more software, it could be "trained" to recognize if a frequency is in use and auto QSY up or down a few khz at a time or to prearranged frequencies. The software would send "keep alive" bursts, callsigns, say every two minutes or so to let the other link know it's there. If a burst is missed, or if the frequency becomes busy, they'd frequency hop until they found each other again. "Normal" amateur traffic would have priority and they'd always stay in contact. That way, the emergency infrastructure would be in place, and it would not, or would interfere so little that no one would notice. We have the technology, both on the software and hardware side, there would just have to be an interest.
I could not implement it, I don't have the knowledge, or, to be honest, the interest. But if by some chance someone does, mention that it was my idea or call it the "NO6L Protocol", I guess. Just for my little fifteen minutes of fame.
Any thoughts?
/end of line
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by KL2DN on January 8, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find this quote by "N8KOM" very interesting:
"On the other side of the coin, once an automated digital station is up and in place, it is sort of boring (from a radio / hobby point of view)."
I think that things that many of you now take for granted may be completely intriguing to someone new to the hobby. Yes, once you have conquered something, it does get boring after a while, but isn't that why we keep seeking more?
AB7E: "What is such a "great adventure" about it when the backbone data rates are so slow that it is merely a curiosity?"
Sure, but you have to start somewhere. And then you can take your curiosity further, and see what else you can do with it. And aren't there GHz of bandwidth just begging to be used?
So, how about a list of suggestions of what one could do with a ham radio digital network?
Distributed Signal Processing with a small group of people in the same area, all set to receive on the same frequency on their own radio, trying to pull in and decode signals in the noise by collaborating via a digital network?
"I thought one of the packet radio or unattended digital station "killers" was lack of control over some of the content being passed through the nodes by the control operators, but the control operators are held responsible for that traffic. So if some licensed or unlicensed goofball sent questionable material through your digital node, you (as the control operator) are still held responsible."
So, what ideas have been proposed to solve this problem?
How about attaching some sort of digital signature to each message, and if your node gets an invalid signature, it doesn't get passed along.
If has a valid signature, you can track who sent the message. Use the a signature similar to LoTW. (or even use that signature!) Add filters ... similar to a SPAM filter.
And don't think that I believe that digital is the only answer ... building the SW+ 20m was very enjoyable.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WN9HJW on January 9, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm kind of puzzled by N5PVL posting this. It seems kind of hypocritical. This is the guy who has been on a holy war against unattended Pactor operations (Winlink) for years, but Packet networks are a "great adventure"?
PacTOR is evil incarnate but PacKET is holy and pure?
Sorry. I dont follow the logic, if there is any.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 9, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More great replies, and the usual run of off-topic and malicious stuff to ignore.
The trend I noted earlier, that for every nastygram here, one or more hams have taken the trouble to register at hamradionet.org has continued. - Hams from around the world have done so, indicating that there may be more generalized interest in an all-ham global digital network than one might guess from the responses here at eHam.
Those of you who have stopped by at HamRadioNet.Org and followed up on the information in the article here can see that I am not talking about the Packet network, or even of any kind of spinoff from the Packet net, but instead of a new, separate network that operates by a different set of rules in order to achieve a different purpose.
This fresh start will allow the mission to be re-defined to some extent, and will also allow new technology a chance to show what it can do. Sure, there will be Packet radio included but as a starting point, not as a stopping point.
A deeper dig will reveal that it's not all going to be digital, that other modes of operation are included in the overall concept. I talk the most about digital because that is my personal area of interest, not because it is the only type of operation being contemplated. The HamRadioNet concept is exclusive in that it is all ham, with no non-ham components or linkages allowed, but it is also inclusive regarding the many legitimate amateur radio activities we have at our disposal, to work and play with
Some of the posts here have been especially insightful, bringing up points that merit serious consideration. Even some of the nastygrams have included ideas that are worth a look, once the wheat has been separated from the chaff.
What seems to stand out the most for me is that apparently there are many amateurs around the world who would like to play a part in something unique to amateur radio, that brings all of us together in a common effort to achieve something that no other group of individuals can reasonably expect to accomplish. - An independent, all ham radio network that reflects the efforts of amateurs around the globe.
Being part of something larger than yourself has a certain appeal, but there is also plenty of room in the HamRadioNet concept for individual expression, achievement and accomplishment. There are aspects of the HamRadioNet that are pretty basic and obvious, and are already worked out but there are many other aspects of the network and a thousand details which have yet to be imagined.
A lot of the posts here take the form of questions, not all of which can really be answered at this time. - I see this as a very positive thing, not a liability as it highlights the fact that this is something new and different, something that is not boxed in, not set in stone.
Definitely a adventure - for the those who are up for that kind of thing.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on January 10, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Digital modes on HF?
A resounding YES!
Unattended digital stations on HF?
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! ........
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N8EKT on January 10, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Our bands have been used for high speed internet for years now.
I've installed dozens of APs and 40 mile links on 900mhz, 2.4ghz, and 5.8ghz ham bands.
We can easily and legally use this same commercial wifi equipment at full legal limit instead of the meager 1 watt limit for secondary users.
If we as hams fail to use these bands,
we WILL lose them forever.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 10, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I could not agree more. Those are the bands that we are most likely to lose if we do not start to utilize them more thoroughly.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W4KVU on January 11, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You can poke fun at old timers, but they built this service from scratch and they continue to finance it, and build it with the latest and the greatest. What is more, when the lights go out and the computers go off, they can use pencils and paper, and slide rules and design circuits and antennas without programs. While most juniors still have respect, for those who don't, old timers can do anything you can do, but you can't do everything they can do. So old timers still stand head and shoulders at the top of amateur radio, and don't forget it."
AMEN------
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 12, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Packet radio is dead...
HF is NOT the medium for data...
Problem is amateur radio hasn't come up with anything to replace packet. The world took packet, adopted its' usefulness & improved upon it to develop 802.11.
Anyone ever look at a config screen for any 802.11 equipment? If you worked with AX.25, most of the same parameters are there!
The "Bitter Clingers" seem to have become the majority in ham radio today [after 28 years in the hobby]. What was once a spirit of "Hey, let's try this" has now evolved into "Hey, you can't do that."
Many of us, who started out building TNCs in early 1980's, have now migrated to Part 15 wireless for these reasons. I can do far more without a license on PArt 15, than I can do with a license under Part 97.
Look at the responses on an unattended station & you will quickly realize it all revolves around C-O-N-T-R-O-L of others...
Raf
rt85.net
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K3GAU on January 12, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO: AI2IA, W4KVU and others,
I am not sure when you cross the line from being an OT to become an OF but clearly some have.
Shortly, I will celibrate my 65th birthday and I have been playing with ham radio over 50 years. I think that qualifies me to be an OT and I am that proudly, BUT, I never want to become an OF.
The difference is that an OT has been around a while and has spent time in amateur radio but still embraces new things or new challenges and looks for better ways to do things, whereas, an OF may or may not have spent the same amount of time BUT IS STUCK IN THE PAST!! He's "been there and done it all" and there can't possibly be any better way or any new thing that is worthy of his time or investigation.
My question is which are you?
Respectfully,
Dave K3GAU
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 12, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like someone to point me to the specific paragraph in Part 97 where *UNATTENDED* operation is allowed!!!!
Part 97.109(d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point.
That doesn't say the station can be *unattended*. It only says the control operator need not be at the control point.
There still has to be a CONTROL OPERATOR!
An unattended station has no control operator!!
I *know* that we have set up packet stations as unattended stations, even I have done that.
That doesn't meant they are specifically provided for under Part 97 -- only that the FCC hasn't hassled anyone for setting them up.
tim ab0wr
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W9IQ on January 12, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles,
I like the intent of what you are trying to do. I assume you really meant "automatic" digital stations instead of unattended. Part 97 provides for this type of operation for digital retransmission.
Maybe you have already thought of this but keep in mind that you must technically address 97.109 (e) that states:
"No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled."
This means any station in your backbone that is retransmitting a message and under automatic control must ensure that the message meets the origination conditions.
You also need to provide for 97.115 (a)(2) the latter part of which states:
"No station shall transmit messages for a third party to any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has not made such an arrangement. This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station."
Neither are these are insurmountable if they are addressed up front in the architecture and operating procedures.
Have fun!
- Glenn W9IQ
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 12, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I haven't really given third-party communications much thought, Glen. Mostly I tend to think in terms of point to point communications from one ham to another, or of bulletin type communications addressed to all hams.
It may be that my concept of third-party communications is off-kilter. I tend to think of stuff like emcom links set up for the benefit of non-hams and non-ham agencies as third-party, or about sailboaters utilizing the ham bands to communicate with their non-ham business associates because they are too cheap to cough up twenty bucks a month for SailMail.
If my idea of what third-party communications consist of is not too far off the mark, I would be content to see them eliminated altogether, leaving the ham bands to the ham radio operators and shutting all others out.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by AB0WR on January 14, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any message whose signature is NOT that of the control operator of the first station in the chain is a third-party message -- period.
Amateur communications are from the control operator of one station to the control operator of another station -- period.
If the communication being transmitted does not originate in the brain of the station control operator pressing the ptt switch then it is a third party communication.
Even a message from a licensed amateur is a third party message if that amateur is not the station control operator at the first station in the chain.
I like your idea of limiting access to only amateur communications. The problem is going to be in how you enforce that restriction. It is not enforced today on winlink, I doubt it can be enforced on any network today.
tim ab0wr
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by K0RGR on January 14, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The biggest issue with a global, national, or even regional high speed digital network is the horsepower required to route the data.
The mainframes that run the Internet are not there for show.
A fast backbone would also help. I'm sure ICOM would love to sell a lot of their 10 Ghz. DSTAR linking modules.
A geostationary satellite with some real microwave data horsepower and multiple transponders could form the hub for something that would actually work.
But, I'm afraid we'd spend the next 30 years trying to explain it and argue why it's a good thing.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 14, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On the other hand, if we round-file the alleged 'need' for high speed and/or volume of data, all of a sudden it is quite do-able.
If you wean yourself off of the 'competing with the internet' teat and start thinking in terms of "what can be done with and for amateur radio", all of a sudden you find that it's not so tough after all.
That's what I am working on.
Competing with the internet is a non-starter, it is not even remotely possible. - So why consider it at all?
Personally, I am more interested in what we CAN do. - Anything else is just a waste of time, a tired old excuse for doing nothing.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 15, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know...this whole "internet" and "cellphone" thing is a fad.
I'm sure of it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by N5PVL on January 17, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And of those two, the internet and cell phones, which do you see as being part of amateur radio, and thus relevant to a discussion about amateur radio?
Hmmmmm?
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 17, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unattended DIGITAL STATIONS????? Hmmm...I can great abuse potential.
I remember people setting up cross band rptrs with a simplex phone patch.
Cell phone service was over a dollar per minute back then. A bunch of non frequency coordinated automatic simplex private phone patches litered 2M.
It was a way to have cell phone like service.(less coverage area, but free talk time.) One talks about pecuniary interests....Illegal. I heard countless of commercial like communication on 2M and 440 duing the simplex autopatches hayday(1985)
While remote/computer control can be fun, it is an open channel for abuse. It is worse enough to be the secondary user of the 2.4gig hamband./WIFI DEMAND MADE THAT HAPPEN.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 17, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unattended DIGITAL STATIONS????? Hmmm...I can great abuse potential.
I remember people setting up cross band rptrs with a simplex phone patch.
Cell phone service was over a dollar per minute back then. A bunch of non frequency coordinated automatic simplex private phone patches litered 2M.
It was a way to have cell phone like service.(less coverage area, but free talk time.) One talks about pecuniary interests....Illegal. I heard countless of commercial like communication on 2M and 440 duing the simplex autopatches hayday(1985)
While remote/computer control can be fun, it is an open channel for abuse. It is worse enough to be the secondary user of the 2.4gig hamband./WIFI DEMAND MADE THAT HAPPEN.
|
|   |
|
Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by WA7VTD on January 21, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In this hobby/service, every epoch produces both passing paradigms and ones that form the foundations for expanded fun and technology. One may proselytize until the cows come home in favor of some particular concept such the one at issue here, and even do so cogently, but in the end it is mass appeal to individuals seeking to experiment and fill a niche without excessive time and expense, that drives the expansion and acceptance of such things.
VHF FM repeaters on 2M were exciting in their day, when they were not everywhere yet, one could always try to make contact on one's sole crystal pair of 34/94. At the same time, the rise of repeaters raised the hackles of those who had played for years with direct AM operation. Because of their utility and mass appeal to the user, particularly those desiring easy mobile amateur communication, repeaters multiplied to the point that relatively few places in the US are not within repeater range. The ARES continues to place most of its resources into repeater operations as well as 2M FM simplex, although 2M SSB would in most cases be far more efficient and effective. Linking repeaters across the country became vogue and there were those who decried that effort as a waste of money and as not being real DX. But it was not intended to be "real DX" and was simply a cool accomplishment that provided yet another meas of communicating across long distances entirely by ham radio, of meeting interesting people and accessing systems for that purpose that were constructed by fellow amateurs...making it fun.
The packet networks of the 80's truly were cool. No one has yet mentioned that in those days, it was not merely HF that provided gateways; low-orbit packet satellites were really something...your message was automatically uploaded from a packet server to the satellite, and automatically downloaded on the other side of the world. That might be accurately labeled the among ham radio's greatest technical achievements. The decimation of the big VHF packet network is largely a result of the time, money and effort required of individuals, in order to maintain it, in the face of massive user defection to the Net.
As a long-time emergency communications volunteer, I have been amazed at the extent to which cellular and internet-based digital modes have continued to be accessible for coms out of Haiti. But it seems to me that we tend to place too much emphasis on whether a mode of communication will be accessible vs. how efficiently it can be used to coordinate relief and health & welfare, etc.
Radio will, for the foreseeable future, continue to have distinct advantages in that regard. It has no upper limit to the number of stations that can be "connected" simply by receiving on the same frequency. More importantly, it operates according to protocols that help to ensure that coms transmit information in the most efficient manner. Many of the same issues are faced regardless of the mode or service utilized, be it radio or Internet or cellular, etc.: zillions of individual calls/emails/messages inundating disaster zones form outside, overloading what little communications infrastructure remains in the affected zone and rendering relief coms very problematic. Uncoordinated, haphazard individual-to-individual coms resulting in unnecessary repetition and slow conveyance of important information to widespread recipients.
The Internet could be used much more effectively in these situations, if a few protocols from the Amateur Service were implemented. For example, web pages/message boards organized for health & welfare by listing last name of persons in alphabetical order, posting information from such persons coming OUT of the zone, thereby obviating many more messages sent into the zone. Etc., etc., etc. In other words, the fact that hams will have technology that lags behind the commercially-driven interests is offset by the manner in which we utilize our technology. That is, the difference is that between a paradigm ultimately existing to generate profit, vs. one ultimately existing to do the most good for the most utilizers.
As far as FUN, one of the most fun things I did in fairly recent years was to set up 2m packet radio skeds with an old buddy in another state via the late Mir space station packet digipeater and BBS! Something about that simply exhilarated me. It was that sort of thing about which one could tell a non-ham friend, and have the friend respond with "Huh? You did WHAT? How could you do THAT? I call B.S.!! You mean to tell me you sent radio signals to the Russian space station and they were re-sent to someone else you know? Are you KIDDING?"
(Then, of course, the next question: "WHY would you do that when you could use your cell phone?")
Digital voice modes WILL make inroads into, and ultimately dominate, HF voice coms and we also will have versions of SELCAL. D-STAR and refinements thereof will eventually provide efficient and ubiquitous routine and emergency coms, owing to the already-prevalent FM repeater sites in operation, waiting for deployment of such systems. Price will be the major impediment for the time being, but price of major manufacturer gear will slowly drop and talented amateurs will develop means of deploying the technology that are cheaper.
As long as we are able to cogently argue for our relevance, we will have our fun and do amazing things, also. While the degree of amazement may be greater for us than for the general public, there is something democratic and healthy about amateurs doing such things. And occasionally such things are still the spark for invention.
These innovations will not be the result, however, of political-style movements, but rather of applications that fit a niche and are not excessively time/energy/money-consuming in their maintenance.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by KC8RWR on January 26, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KL2DN> "How about attaching some sort of digital signature to each message"
Digital "signatures" require encryption. Although if used properly I'm not entirely sure this would be against part 97 rules but it would definitely be controversial.
The reason for this is that if you simply pick some code and send that as your signature then anyone can receive the code then send packets using the same code themselves. There is no security there.
Digital signatures use a special kind of encryption that has two keys, a public key and a private key. If one of the keys is applied to encrypt a message the opposite key will decrypt it. To implement a digital signature you create a pair of keys and keep one for yourself, the private key. The other key is your public key and you make that one publicly available.
You sign a message by encrypting it using your private key. Anyone can decrypt your message because the public key is public. This is how I think this might be ok with part 97. I would suggest actually including the public key, unencrypted as part of each message so that no one can say you are deliberately obscuring the meaning of your message.
any messages which decode properly using your public key must have been encoded with your private key. Therefore, so long as you continue using the same pair of keys and you are the only one with a copy of your private key the message must be from you.
Does anyone know if this interpretation of the rules have been tested before? I wouldn't want to test it myself but it makes sense.
You can't possibly be obscuring the meaning if you are giving the public key in the header of the packet. You could even repeat the data unencrypted since the purpose is identification, not hiding the meaning. This would effictively cut your bandwidth in half though.
Maybe instead of signing the whole message you could just throw in a timestamp and sign that. Then you could include the public key and the original unencrypted timestamp to prove you aren't obscuring the meaning of anything. Of course, then it only proves you sent a message at that time. Someone else could alter the unsigned data and resend it pretending to be you for that moment.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W0JAB on January 26, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Could I point out that there is a very small part
and I'll say it again "small part" of each band for this
type of operation. Just as there is a part for
CW and SSB all be it larger them that set aside
for the digital section. Don't kid yourself
you know right where to go for SSB and AM as well
as CW QSO. I have ask myself many time when people
start in on something like this if the *real* understand
what they are doing. What's to old saying
" if you can't play with the big dog's, stay on the
porch ". Look at it this way. If you don't know CW
your not going to go the the low end of the band.
I really can't understand how some think. Or maybe
they don't.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W0JAB on January 26, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What really killed packet was better faster modes
came along. Look at RTTY not near that many as
there was 20 years ago.
|
|   |
|
RE: Unattended Digital Stations
|
|
|
by W0JAB on January 26, 2010
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess you can really blame the packet BBS
system that was started back in the early 1970's.
Then better modes came along. APLINK and the rest
of them. each time it just get better and better.
As you *should* know there is just a very small
slice of the band that you can use. Having said that
why would you operate there with another node?
You don't walk down the interstate do ya?
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|