The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
Charles Brabham (N5PVL)
on
August 13, 2004
View comments about this article!
Check this out, in order to understand what is being discussed, here:
Reference: http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0407/
The ARRL set up a committee to look into digital communications for ARES last year.
Talking to one of the committee members early on, not long after this digital group was assembled, I was told that two or three affluent and powerful members of the committee had already decided the group's final conclusion, to utilize the Winlink 2000 system for ARES HF communications.
The six months or so that the committee "studied and discussed" the matter were a formality, a sham.
I know of three persons who attempted to inject a note of sense into the issue, but all attempts to suggest that anything other than Winlink2000 be used were rejected by the committee, often rudely and in one case the rejection involved name-calling and ridicule of fellow Hams that was entirely uncalled-for.
A note of sense? -- As a digital experimentor, I know that finding space anywhere on the Ham bands to operate the new wide digital modes like PACTOR II and PACTOR III without interfering with other Hams is extremely difficult.
A PACTOR III signal is six or seven times as wide as a Packet signal, for example, and fifteen times wider than PSK-31. -- This proposal calls for dozens and dozens of these stations operating from NWS EOC's around the country -- if the committe were being honest about its intentions.
The committee was not being honest about its intentions though, which may explain why repeated attempts to talk sense to this committee failed.
Not being honest? -- Take a look at the .pdf file describing the committee's plans: http://winlink.org/Emergency.htm
While you are there, do a word-search on the word "future" in the article. -- You will find that as often as not, the word 'future" is used in the article to describe the HF links in this system. These "future" links are the ones I mentioned earlier, the ones that knowlegable hams tried to warn the committee as to the impracticality of. -- The impossibility of getting that many wide-mode digital stations on the air for any purpose without causing massive interefence of every other ham-related activity on the air.
The thing is, you see, that the cynical members of this committee knew that they could ignore warnings about the chaos that multiple wide-mode digital signals would cause on our bands -- because the comittee never intended for this system to use Ham Radio in the first place.
That's right; This is another one of those "Amateur Telephone" scams, where Internet junkies put Amateur Radio traffic on the Internet and call it "Ham Radio" because the data was taken from Hams. They lied about it because they knew that if they told the truth, thier non-ham ideas would be laughed right out of the hobby. Winlink2000 is another one of those "ham radio digital modes" that could not exist or operate without Internet linkages.
Yes, the ARRL actually decided that we as Hams should back up the Internet -- by using the Internet. ( Duh! )
In other words, these people have no clue whatsoever about emergency communications -- but they are going to force their ingorant, anti-ham policies upon the Amateur Radio community anyway - with the help of the ARRL. - The result will be that all Hams will look like idiots, not just the members of this "committee".
What has this got to do with the ARRL's decision to "take over" ARES, it's logo and all of it's operational issues? -- It is so they can cram this cynical non-radio solution down the throats of Amateur Radio operators who are really more interested in trying to use Ham Radio.
ARRL: The hobby is "Amateur Radio", not "Amateur Telephone"... Get it?
Take-overs like this are usually motivated by a desire to force something upon people against their will, and this shameful takeover attempt on ARES by the ARRL is no exception.
I call it an "attempt" because ARES members across the country are already up in arms over this ignorant, cynical and destructive crap.
If you know any of the great Hams; The real Hams who pass emergency traffic every day on HF, please send them a copy of this via E-mail. That way, when they have been pushed aside to make room for "Amateur Telephone" operators who do not even use radio, they'll know how it all happened, and why.
It's another attack on the hobby by cynical Internet junkies, aided and abetted by the ARRL, as they did with Packet Radio. We all know how Packet Radio ended up after this treatment... Now the same "wisdom" is being applied to ARES.
Isn't that "special"?
Hey, the ARRL is made up of humans, and is not by any means "all bad"... Why not give the president of the ARRL, Jim Haynie the benefit of the doubt and let the gentleman know how you feel about this matter? His E-mail address is: w5jbp@arrl.org
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket
http://www.uspacket.org
n5pvl@uspacket.org
Administrator: HamBlog.Com
http://www.hamblog.com
admin@hamblog.com
Director: Texas Southmost Amateur Radio Club, Inc.
http://www.tsarcinc.com
n5pvl@tsarcinc.com
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PSK-31 in theory may be 31Hz wide, but the overall systems have such very poor dynamic range we can't fit nearly as many stations as the BW implies in a given area.
Digital operators almost always forget to consider dynamic range limitations when they consider economy of spectrum.
Something 15X wider than 31Hz would be less than 500Hz wide. Depending on the dynamic range of that system, it might be many times better than something 31Hz wide with very poor dynamic range when we consider problems from stacking stations next to each other.
All that aside, I'm also worried about the ARES system. Listening to ARES HF nets, they are like a large collection of pee-weak signals. Many people can't hear each other on fixed stations. Antennas must be very poor.
I think the whole system needs serious technical work in the area of improving radio systems.
Operating isn't too sharp either. Here in Georgia, they say "this is", pause, and then say "this is W1ABC" when checking in. What the hell good does adding a useless meaningless "this is" do?
If basic SSB and FM voice procedures and signal quality makes no sense, why should advanced modes be expected to be better planned?
Just roll with it, and do the best you can. It's a changing world. Common sense is evaporating and you can't stop it.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N3HKN on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I contunue to believe that the use of "PSK" like modes, with ARQ, (settle on one) are the best use of the spectrum. Power hungry wider modes are not the answer when the world is "burning". Add ARQ and message number protocols and a simple, but robust system can be developed. Yes, it is a good idea to be able to place the traffic on the Internet once outside of the affected area. The issue is how to you get the traffic to/from the incidence arena?
New all digital radios (except for RF conversions to audio) will have the proper capabilities built-in, Yes you need a battery hungry laptop at the incidence scene. However, all these schemes seem to depend upon a computer in some way. Why not design the system to accept that fact and then make the tools a simple as possible.
An all digital radio is simply a black box with no knobs or meters - nothing but cable connections to the computer and microphone. I have one running in the background on the Hurricane Net as I type this message. They can use ANY mode at ANY bandwidth that is appropriate for the environment. In other words they are adaptable!
Focusing on creating email style messages at a forward incident base seems nice if the person operating the equipment is a responder. However, they usually have better things to do than to sit in front of a computer and type messages! Perform the email stunt outside of the area. Use straight-forward procedures that the majority of Hams are comfortable with to get traffc to/from the hot area. Trying to create a "commercial like" system that a responder can operate seems like something for Collins Radio to do, not Amateur Radio.
N3HKN Dick
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by NA4IT on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very good article, and I agree. Someone at ARRL has dropped the ball when it comes to emergency communications. And I am a local ARES EC.
One of the things that most ARES members do not know is that when they respond to an emergency, they have to provide their own liability insurance (which most DON'T have) and fall under the "good samaritan" laws. Really good way to get sued for trying to help out.
On the other hand, groups such as RACES or groups structured like them that work directly with and are activated by their served agency usually fall under the agency's insurance plan.
Something to think about for sure.
I think Homeland Security would be better served by a reactivation of the RACES program, and I would support a background check of a responders.
As for digital, Charles...you 'da man! I don't figure there is any need to try WinLink because what I know about APRS & Packet would fill a very small thimble!
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by G3RZP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In terms of throughput, ARQ should be looked as at the 'last resort' Taking into account turn round times from tx to rx, the use of a really good FEC is usually far more efficient than the the use of ARQ. A concatenated code can handle a bad channel with less effective overhead.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KZ1X on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you know any of the great Hams; The real Hams who pass emergency traffic every day on HF, please send them a copy of this via E-mail."
Ahem. E-mail? You mean, via the Internet?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WY3X on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>QUOTE W8JI: Operating isn't too sharp either. Here in
>Georgia, they say "this is", pause, and then say "this
>is W1ABC" when checking in. What the hell good does
>adding a useless meaningless "this is" do?
This is a MARS procedure. When you say "this is", then
unkey, you are making sure you aren't speaking
at the same time as someone else. (Works 80% of the
time).
This is the first I've heard of any moves towards
PACTOR III or Winlink for ARES. Even though we have
a huge ocean here (the Atlantic) I don't think that
boat will float here.
Some maritime mobile stations seem to be using Winlink
successfully. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I'm
just making a statement.
My personal take on it? I don't think that hams should
depend on internet links for emergency communications.
I back that up based on the experience of a 25 year
career in emergency services. If internet linking
was so wonderful, you'd see police and fire departments
switching so fast your head would swim. This is one
subject where "amateur" radio should take a hint from
the "pros", and leave the internet to the internet
junkies.
Internet linking is a fun mode of communications, but
it doesn't deserve any serious consideration for use
in a disaster situation.
-KR4WM
Horry County EC, South Carolina
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL didn't "take over" ARES®. It was theirs to begin with.
ARES® is owned by the ARRL. Always has been.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Call me silly but isn't the idea surrounding emergency communications based on the idea that you utilize the simplest & most reliable method available to get a message through?
Seems like some are trying to add more complicated cogwheels, gears and other fluff to the emcomm system lately.
I feel that the more technology you pile on top of this idea, the more likely you will experience communication problems.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why... Reply
by KR4WM on August 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
>QUOTE W8JI: Operating isn't too sharp either. Here in
>Georgia, they say "this is", pause, and then say "this
>is W1ABC" when checking in. What the hell good does
>adding a useless meaningless "this is" do?
This is a MARS procedure. When you say "this is", then
unkey, you are making sure you aren't speaking
at the same time as someone else. (Works 80% of the
time). >>>
It may be a MARS proceedure, but it is absolute stupidity to use it in any system including MARS.
Adding a needless phrase that is always about the same length to the beginning of every random call in cannot in any way stop or reduce collisions.
It would be more effective and make much more sense to give call letters ONE time and ONLY call letters and pause.
Call letters would be random length, so the common even of equal length needless "this is" transmissions followed by a long transmission "this is W1ABC Fred EC in Putnam county no traffic and good evening to everyone on the net" would vanish if the systems were run properly.
During any given GA ARES net on 75 meters, I can count about 10-15 double transmissions where the initial needless "this is" transmissions are perfectly synchronized.
Of course much of this has to do with net controls allowing or encouraging wasteful long transmissions without even confirming they copy the guy.
As for digital modes, the fastest and most energy efficient way to get a message through is voice. CW is a close second. Modes like PSK have a VERY slow information throughput while the carrier is on consuming full power. You have to have a computer at each end also.
The radio sits there sucking up power while someone types (or sends a message that was pre-typed), and the computers run at both ends of the system.
Can you imagine the extra time it takes when Sheriff John wants to know how many people are at shelter A, and the operator has to type it all in instead of picking up a microphone and just asking?
Common sense has left the system, because many people just don't take the time to think about how the system works.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KC8VWM on August 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Call me silly but isn't the idea surrounding emergency communications based on the idea that you utilize the simplest & most reliable method available to get a message through?
Seems like some are trying to add more complicated cogwheels, gears and other fluff to the emcomm system lately.
I feel that the more technology you pile on top of this idea, the more likely you will experience communication problems.>>>>>
Awww come on now VWM!!
This is supposed to be an overcomplicated system full of easy-to-break and hard to setup add-ons.
Why use voice or CW and a pen or pencil when there are more complicated and time and power consuming methods with potential field reliability problems are available?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W4PC on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real problem with this is Pactor II and Pactor III licencing to other TNCs. It's only available on the SCS PTC line and they are unwilling to licence the protocol to other TNCs. (I know of one TNC manufacture that asked them directly and they said no).
Also, 3 members of this 'AD HOC' committee were part of the Winlink group. Peter Martinez resigned from it and Skip Teller didn't agree with the recommendations and his doing his own recommendations to the ARRL.
Basicly, if you want to use this system, you HAVE to buy a German TNC (The PTC II) with can be anywhere from $600-$1000, rather than using a Kantronics or Timewave TNC, which are around $400 new and less used.
Do we really want to be tied in to one band of TNC? Think Microsoft here.
Rick - W4PC
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N4VOX on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARQ modes like all the flavors of Pactor from SCS and even old Amtor mode provide almost 100 percent copy of text across an HF link. I say almost as there is a chance that a quirk of the protocol will allow mangling of a letter or two here and there, I have only seen this happen a few times sense I have been operating Digital modes from August 1990. For Key2Key QSO's this will allow copy under very poor or crowded conditions. Even intentional interference will not prevent text from flowing in the case of ARQ Amtor mode as it has Automatic re-linking capability. ARQ is an extremely powerful HF communications mode when done properly. The only problem is when stations set up and operate unattended. No operator on duty to control when the station transmits. If you want a good example of the havoc this creates just listen between 14.065 and 14.080. You can monitor on going QSO's as some LID-O-MATIC (unattended Pactor BBS/MBO) cranks up right on top of them and most of these stations use Pactor I mode which has a 200 Hz shift and is not much wider than old RTTY mode at 170 Hz shift. Pactor II and Pactor III modes are extremely wide. So wide in fact that they should be operating in the phone parts of the band like SSTV is forced to do. These stations operate above 14.090 if you would like to monitor them. It won't do any good to try and talk to them, there's no one there! Worst of all they do not care if they cause interference, all they say is they have there frequency listed somewhere and you should avoid using "there" frequency like they own it. To get right to the point all the problems these LID-O-MATICS are going to cause is to simply eliminate all unattended operation like it was before Packet came around except for a limited number of special authorizing licenses for Packet nodes (digital repeaters). The second is to eliminate direct amateur to Internet operations (TCP/IP protocol) like in Europe and other places around the World. All problems will be solved and you my still operate any digital mode you like for whatever entity you're affiliated with, you just need to be there to do it! One other note is that to monitor Pactor II and III stations you must have a $1000 or more SCS Pactor controller. It has almost become a commercial enterprise on Amateur radio and if you check their Internet site you can see why.
http://www.scs-ptc.com/news.html
Do we really need this on Amateur Radio? Should we simply outlaw Pactor II and III from the Amateur bands and let the commercial services supply Internet service to the people who want it?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N3HKN on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that there has to be a "re-think" of emergency communications. As someone else said the responders do not want to wait for keyboarding to get a message through. On-the-other-hand there are longer messages that require high accuracy of the info. Here keyboarding it over some digital link makes sense. The question is - what is the percentage of messages that need digital services versus those that need only voice, or CW, communications. Please let us not forget CW if you really want to get out from a 1 watt station at a forward post with a wire antenna and a battery!!!
Complex stations in basements around the world seems like a high probablility for embarASSment. TOO MANY POINTS FOR FAILURE with not sufficient return to justify them. The watchword in emergency communications is reliability. Remember the NY Emergency services that could not receive the word to "get the hell out now" and were lost in the Twin Towers!!!!! Stop trying to find someplace to use complex "amateur" systems when simple voice will work. You stand a chance to do more harm than good.
Dick N3HKN
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KT8K on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting topic. N5PVL sounds a bit angry, but I did read the presentation at the link, and I certainly don't see where A. the committee considered any alternative systems, B. where the potential for interference among numbers of stations is analyzed, or C. where the presentation shows in-depth technical knowledge or experience in the use of digital HF communications. What bothers me most is that it reads like a sales brochure for Winlink 2000.
<soapbox on> I agree with Tom on "this is". I still don't understand how the practice prevents "doubling". All it appears to do is ensure that the net control hears lots of stations transmitting "this is", doubling with each other, instead of hearing callsigns. When I was net control on a 2 meter net I got good at picking out 2 or 3 callsigns at a time, and "this is" would have just been time-wasting garbage (100 nets in 2 years with up to 75 stations checking in over a 30-45 minute period - most at the start).
I keep asking myself "Am I missing something?" but I see no evidence that "this is" adds anything positive to net operations. I have asked my ham friends over the years, and most have just said "that's the way they want it" and accepted it. Nobody has given me any good reason as to why it helps. If "this is" is as ineffective (meaningless?) as it appears (and as I hear on the local ARES/RACES/Skywarn nets), I begin to think it was initiated to prove to some bureaucrat that they had the power to make people do (dumb) things -- a sad reflection on MARS, ARES, or any organization that insists on such a practice.
<end soapbox> 73 de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by NY7Q on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is just another example of the "downgrading of Ham radio" Radio, electronics, CW, CW, CW, CW, experimenting with electronic circuits, components, development of radio, NOT THE INTERNET, is Ham Radio. Folks, face it, the new guys/gals are just too plain lazy to do ham radio stuff. We have thousands of lazy no goods in Ham Radio now that should just be on the internet, or Public service radio, even CB is better than they are, and I am not never was a CB op, but I know lots of them that experiment with electronics and have decent radio nets. The internet is fine, as long as you keep it out of "RADIO" AND "RADIO ELECTRONICS". I strongly believe the ARRL is and has always been on the wrong track for "RADIO". You people will never justify with any remark or statement that Internet is Radio, or the need for internet to be linked to radio. You stupid people wouldn't have any part of radio electronics if it hadn't been for Ham electronic experimenters in the past...CW "IS" HAM RADIO, AND YOU JERKS ARE RUINING IT. It's my two cents and how I feel after 49 years......
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The use of "this is" is one of my pet peeves...
By the time someone keys and says "This is", another station could have already sent his/her complete call. The use of "this is" reduces net check-in efficiency and by at least 50% if not more once one considers VHF repeater courtesy tone/dropout time considerations.
Hearing, identifying, and correctly recording callsigns and traffic is one of the fundamental duties of a net control. If your net control can't handle the check-in rate without "this is", get a new net control. Net operations should be brisk and concise, not labored and drawn out.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KD5UJX on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"By the time someone keys and says "This is", another station could have already sent his/her complete call. The use of "this is" reduces net check-in efficiency and by at least 50% if not more once one considers VHF repeater courtesy tone/dropout time considerations."
Well said, and this is in the EMCOMM Level 1 & 2 online training! Why do we still do this?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W4PC on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One other comment.
I had tried to do a version of my software for the SCS a while back. When I started working with their extended WA8DED hostmode, I found it would only do the Packet and Pactor modes and didn't support any other mode.
When I wrote SCS about it, the reply I got was:
"We still think about adding full hostmode control for all text modes (AMTOR, PSK31, RTTY) but as this is mainly an Amateur feature, it has low priority."
This is from the SCS firmware developer, in Feburary, 2001.
Rick - W4PC
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9NWO on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARES has always been a part of the the ARRL. What is more likely is that ARES, and the ARRL, seem to be taking over RACES. The problem is that ARES is more in tune with disaster relief than actually being part of emergency management.
As a MARS member, I find most amateur operators lacking in the discipline required by public safety organizations, governmental agencies or the military. This discipline is one reason that many hams do not want to be part of MARS. Americans in general these days seem to avoid anything that requires high levels of commitment. However, given the willingness to sue by the American public, the law enforcement community will not tolerate a bunch of amateurs who are more into ego and playing games rather than following orders.
MARS makes more sense to take over the RACES mission. Disciplined nets and intensive training provide the nation with skilled volunteer communicators who are part their state's homeland defense (much like Civil Air Patrol). Also MARS frequencies are the only place that civilians (hams), the military and governmental agencies can all share spectrum and communicate with each other. MARS makes a good backup communication system.
As for WinLink, the many problem is that one would have to the STS TNC. There has to be a better mode. PSK31 does have pluses, given its military heritage. However, with so many digital modes, it is hard to really select a good standard.
Greg Dean
N9NWO/AAV5ZO IN
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W6TH on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI
"This is or from" is to be used when signing your call. FCC rule and regulation. Many received pink slips from the FCC for not using the "this is or from".
"W8JI this is W6TH", or "W8JI from W6TH". Today it does not seem to be enforced as along with many other broken rules and regulations.
Also "W8JI DE W6TH" is in the rule book. Today the "DE" for cw use is not being put to use and can cause a pink slip from the FCC. For proper identification the (DE, this is and from) is required, but doesn't seem to be enforced in these trying times.
Often wonder if the new FCC reads their rules and regulations? Or is ham radio cared less about?
.:
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by G3RZP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A ham who was an air traffic controller at Heathrow said that he could talk down three jets while the 'offical' procedure used by the amateur emergency group was establishing communication.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why HF?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Widescale deployment of HF as any network is impractical. The ARRL ARES "crew" just don't get it is 2004, not 1974...
Having spent many a day installing 100's of antennas atop hospital roofs & other public 911-related facilities, I am dismayed that the entire EMCOM Empire fails to get out of the meeting room & get a birdseye view of the practicality of installing an EFFECTIVE HF antenna in or on any of these public facilities.
While I understand there is unbridled resentment toward the unlicensed 802.11 crowd, as shown by the irresponsible ARRL "HSMM" squatting, they have 54MBPS solar access points solutions as "experiments", we have 50 year thinking that simply doesn't work IN PARALLEL to public Emcom channels...
I don't care how you slice it, ARRL ARES/RACES is old, stale meat in shiney new packaging. It still stinks...
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Pactor 3 mode was selected for Winlink for the same reason that it is heavily used by the overwhelming majority of the current NTSD stations. It was selected because there is not any other hardware nor software presently available for use on the HF bands that provides ARQ (as does Pactor 1, Pactor 2, Clover, and AX.25 packet) at a higher data rate (about 6,000-8,000 bytes/minute).
Pactor 3 has a bandwidth of about 2.2 kHz, which is the same as MT63 2K. MT63 uses FEC, making it unsuitable for message forwarding, but fine for keyboard to keyboard operating. The FEC of MT63, especially MT63 2K is so strong that it has been cited by some as a source of substantial interference to other users of HF digital sub-bands. Unlike NTSD HF forwarding stations that are usually operating only on a single frequency and do not move, MT63 users are free to initiate QSOs on any available frequency.
MT63 2K has a maximum data rate of 1,200 bytes per minute. If MT63 were to be available with an ARQ wrapper, which it is not, the data rate would be about 75 percent slower because of the ARQ overhead, or 900 bytes per minute. Same bandwidth, 8,000 bytes per minute versus 900 bytes per minute. If the objective is to move as much information in the shortest possible time, there is no other choice, especially on the HF bands that must be shared with other users. The less time spent actually moving messages, the better everyone can share the same space.
For reference, Pactor 1 has a bandwidth of 500 Hz and an average data rate of 500 bytes per minute. Pactor 2 has a bandwidth of 500 Hz and an average data rate of about 2,000 bytes per minute.
The existing Winlink system NEVER automatically forwards messages on HF. The existing 44 Winlink HF stations can ONLY respond to connect requests that are initiated by someone physically sitting in front of their HF transceiver. The prescribed practice is, as it is on all Amateur Radio frequencies, "listen first." However, unattended, automatic message forwarding on HF IS the current practice with the existing NTSD stations, as permitted by Part 97.219 - Message forwarding system.
The ARRL board of directors endorsed expanding the existing Winlink system specifically to support ARES because it is the best system that is immediately available for deployment. All the software exists, and is free. This system has a long history of successful operation, and it was fully developed and implemented at zero cost to anyone except those who wrote the code, and those who purchased the equipment to make it work. Those same men are making that proven system available for use by ARES at no cost. The Winlink system was endorsed by the ARRL because it is the best system available to meet the needs of ARES and those that they serve. Endorsing a system is not a mandate for anyone to use it. It is just another tool in the toolbox, and one that has been strongly embraced by emergency managers, as well as the National Traffic System leaders.
For those who object to the high cost of the SCS Pactor controller, simply don't buy one. Owning one is not a requirement to access either the current Winlink system, nor it's future extensions to support ARES. There are less than 50 HF access points into the Winlink system, each of which can support one connection, and maybe two or three. On the other hand, there are over 280 existing VHF or UHF access points, each of which can support at least ten simultaneous connections at 1,200 baud or faster. http://www.winlink.org/status/TelpacEx.aspx
Here is a challenge. Bored with APRS? Then put your TNC into service for your area by becoming a Winlink system TelPac VHF/UHF gateway station. All it requires is a VHF or UHF FM transceiver, a TNC (Kantronics preferred, but not required), a computer, any type internet connection (dial-up, cable, dsl, 802.11, etc), and the FREE TelPac software: http://winlink.org/Client.htm
Portable VHF/UHF Winlink stations have the same hardware requirement, but they use the FREE Airmail software: http://www.airmail2000.com/ Airmail also allows point-to-point messaging between similar Airmail stations, either on VHF/UHF or HF, as well as connects to the TelPac gateway stations.
I have observed that some of those who are most vocal in their opposition to the Winlink system being used for ARES purposes have never used the system, sometimes not even any of the (free) programs. Here it comes. Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Jerry Reimer, KK5CA
Author, "Winlink for ARES"
August-September 2004 QST Public Service column
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why HF?
|
|
|
by N3EVL on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF said:
"...as shown by the irresponsible ARRL "HSMM" squatting..."
I understand that this refers to High Speed Muliti-Media, but for those of us not familiar with this issue, can you please explain what this means?
Pete
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by W6TH on August 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI
"This is or from" is to be used when signing your call. FCC rule and regulation. Many received pink slips from the FCC for not using the "this is or from".>>>
Nonsense. Section 97.119 covers identification. Nowhere in that section does the FCC require I give YOUR callsign or send "de" or say "this is".
They ESPECIALLY don't say or imply I should say "this is", drop transmission, key again, and say "this is W8JI".
Read the rules, and give me the section that requires what you claim.
"W8JI this is W6TH", or "W8JI from W6TH". Today it does not seem to be enforced as along with many other broken rules and regulations.>>>>
That's becuase it is not a rule.
Also "W8JI DE W6TH" is in the rule book. Today the "DE" for cw use is not being put to use and can cause a pink slip from the FCC. For proper identification the (DE, this is and from) is required, but doesn't seem to be enforced in these trying times.>>
Where at in the rule book? It isn't in my copy.
Often wonder if the new FCC reads their rules and regulations? Or is ham radio cared less about?>>>
Maybe your book is out of date, and other people read and use the current rules?? Otherwise, point me to the rule.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why... Reply
by KD5UJX on August 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"By the time someone keys and says "This is", another station could have already sent his/her complete call. The use of "this is" reduces net check-in efficiency and by at least 50% if not more once one considers VHF repeater courtesy tone/dropout time considerations."
Well said, and this is in the EMCOMM Level 1 & 2 online training! Why do we still do this? >>>>
Please tell me where!! I have benn trying to get locals to STOP this silly stupid "this is" stuff for years now, and I would like to quate the exact training area.
Thanks!!! Tom
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why HF?
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some people complain about the interference caused by automatic message forwarding NTSD HF stations that are simply doing what the FCC authorized them to do around 1994. They point out how these stations use wide modes such as Pactor 2 (same bandwidth as Pactor 1 and slighly wider than RTTY) or Pactor 3 (same BW as MT63 2K). Automatic forwarding of messages on HF has been permitted for over ten years. The NTS complains of not enough help, so I doubt there are a lot more NTSD stations than there were a few years ago. What changed? Perhaps it is just that more people are now active on HF using digital modes, especially wide ones, like MT63 2K.
Others comment how the ARRL committee members have "an attitude" because a March 2003 report recommended eliminating all unattended, automatic, message forwarding, and adopt demand based connects such as is used by Winlink.
IF the automatic message forwarding NTSD HF stations are a source of interference, then is not eliminating them, perhaps using the Internet as a primary route (with HF as a backup) a "good" idea? Not if your Amateur Radio rice bowl is operating one of the few NTSD stations. Interestingly, the three area chairpersons that run the NTS have endorsed the increased use of Winlink.
While others complain about the high cost of the SCS Pactor 3 controller, demanding a high performance, sound card based, program for free. Will not a free sound card program operating at high data rates (bandwidth is directly related to data rate) increase co-user interference even more?
If it is cheap and wide, then everyone will get one and there goes the neighborhood. The high cost of the SCS controllers has a tendency to limit the interference because not everyone has one.
These contradictory complaints confuse me, especially when they come in the same posting.
KK5CA
W.A.S. RTTY #320 (1998)
beta tester, ARRL HF Digital course
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6TH,
Please reread the rule books; especially 97.119. You are never required to give the callsign of the other station. You are never required to open a communication with your callsign, let alone 'this is'.
You are required to give your callsign at the end of every communication and every 10 minutes during a communication.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KK5CA provides us with an excellent example of carefully selecting your benchmark to maximize the apparent advantage of your product.
As an antidote, one recommends "A Comparison of HF Digital Protocols" in the July, 1996 QST.
However, none of this is relevant, as it is focusing on minutiae and missing the big picture. Two points to ponder: The whole ARES proposal is based on a hypothetical future implementation of Winlink underlying protocols. KK5CA is providing figures measured in thousands/minute but neglecting to mention that the existing infrastructure typically measures performance in millions/second.
Also note that a protocol does not a high-availability network make, and the Winlink folk have no experience in wide area highly available emergency communication networks.
Having pondered those, consider this: The current communications infrastructure in the United States is such that the sort of 'out-of-the-area' communications network being proposed is simply not needed.
If the ARRL wanted ARES to return to relevance, it would focus its energy on improving the sort of communications that ARES does provide: in-area VHF/UHF and adjacent-area health-and-welfare.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by G3SEA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Last night I was monitoring the VOIPWX and EchoLink WX Conference activities centered on the Hurricane approaching Florida.
These EchoLink/IRLP systems are a valuable resource in such times. VHF/UHF simplex pick up where the Internet is lost in the immediate diaster area.One of the scheduled NC's was actually in Australia for redundancy.
Why some technically minded folk knock the internet
as a valuable addition to hybrid communications makes no sense. It ( like all modes and systems ) should be embraced :)
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An ARRL Division Director explained, in a public meeting on August 7th, the ARRL board took action to formally register ARES because one group was maligning elected officials on their letterhead and web site containing the ARES logo and name. This jeopardized the IRS 501(c)3 status of the ARRL. When the group was asked to remove the ARES logo from their political materials, they refused, saying "you don't own ARES." The ARRL board made it clear to everyone, oh yes they do!
======
ARRL didn't "take over" ARES®. It was theirs to begin with. ARES® is owned by the ARRL. Always has been.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks! I could not have written this better my self! Well said! I firmly believe that there is not ANY available "system" that can quickly send a message from one coast to the other, nor any place in between, using exclusively HF circuits. Not even the Fed's outrageously expensive ALE system ($4,000+ per transceiver) can do it, reliably and quickly, and under all possible atmospheric conditions and threats.
The majority of the attention surrounding Winlink is on the HF component. YET, the overwhelming majority of disasters and incidents affect a "local" area. And, this is where the value of the extension of Winlink to support ARES shines best! WONDERFUL! Thank you.
The "new" concept of extending Winlink to support ARES, especially on a local level, is to provide multiple layers of redundancy, primarily supporting VHF and UHF packet, at either 1,200 or 9,600 baud, or faster.
From a practical standpoint, we will never have "too many" VHF/UHF TelPac gateway stations, and never have enough ARES operators who have portable digital message capability. That capability can be provided by using off-the-shelf, low cost, TNCs, FREE software such as Airmail, or Paclink AGW (wait until the beta testing is complete on that one).
One feature of the new Paclink AGW is five levels of user defined connection priorities, should the first one fail, it automatically tries the second one, and so forth, using a connect script so it can go across selected packet digipeaters or nodes to get out of the local area, if that is what is necessary. Another feature of the new program is support for tactical call signs.
Paclink AGW uses hardware controllers, or computer sound card emulation (AGW Packet Engine). It is configured as a different user account on existing e-mail programs such as Outlook, Outlook Express, Netscape, Eudora.
If not Winlink, what is the alternative that we can immediately deploy?
KK5CA
AE6IP wrote:
Having pondered those, consider this: The current communications infrastructure in the United States is such that the sort of 'out-of-the-area' communications network being proposed is simply not needed.
If the ARRL wanted ARES to return to relevance, it would focus its energy on improving the sort of communications that ARES does provide: in-area VHF/UHF and adjacent-area health-and-welfare.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I contunue to believe that the use of "PSK" like modes, with ARQ, (settle on one) are the best use of the spectrum
------------------------------------------------
Pactor *IS* PSK with ARQ. Pactor I and II is only 500Hz wide. WinLink stations using the PTC-II can link with PK-232, KAM, or other stations using Pactor I. As a matter of fact, all links are established in Pactor I and then proceed to II and III if both ends of the link have that capability. As far as I know there is nothing keeping you from linking to a WinLink station using a KAM, PK-232 or any other Pactor I controller.
|
| |
|
BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by KD5JDG on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Emergency Communication Station Checklist:
1. VHF/UHF HT with good antenna(s) and Power supply (120VAC and 13.8VAC attachments)
2. HF radio with microphone and key
3. Generator
4. 120VAC to 13.8VDC power supply
5. Power inverters 13.8VDC to 120VAC
6. Multimeter
7. Dipole antenna(s) with supports, coax, and rope
8. Antenna tuner/SWR meter
9. DSP/noise filtering speaker (optional)
Thats all one should need. Can't everuybody agree that this would be easier and more productive and efficient than arguing over TOR modes and foward error correction and BPS? Experimenting with digital modes is fine, but suring emergency operations simplicity is simply the way to go.
Just my 2 cents worth...
TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Experimenting with digital modes is fine, but suring emergency operations simplicity is simply the way to go. KD5SYH
That's a good start on a Field Day list.
Let's play what if.
The disaster reservist group sends you down SPID to standby at an evacuation center for people coming off the island. Their phone quits working. They want to send a list of everyone who has checked in at their facility to the Red Cross chapter on Brownlee street. How do you do it?
You quickly transcribe the names off of their check-in sheet into an excel spreadsheet, then send it as an attachment to an e-mail you prepared using the Airmail program. You compose your message "off-line," save it on the laptop hard drive, and only THEN connect to the destination station and transmit it.
It goes at 1,200 baud, or a little faster because the B2F protocol compresses it about 40 percent. It is sent binary, meaning no one who is monitoring your frequency sees anything other than who sent it, who it is going to, and the subject line.
The only additional equipment required to accomplish this, beyond what is already on your list, is a TNC and a laptop computer running the free Airmail program. Oh yes, someone at the ARC also needs the same thing. No need for HF.
Or, you prepare the message as above, except you connect to a TelPac gateway station installed on top of The Heart Hospital. Your message is addressed to a physical person at the ARC chapter (disaster-desk@coastalbendarc.org?), and the message appears in their e-mail, yet a ham is not yet down to the RC HQ because their first need was to send people to the evacuation centers.
But, wait, the person at "disaster-desk@coastalbendarc.org" is not the right person to handle the information. In their e-mail program, they click "forward" and send it to the right person. All you needed to know was just one e-mail address.
This requires someone to install a computer, TNC, radio, and the free TelPac program at the heart hospital, and connect it to the internet (even outside the hospital router's firewall).
Assume that ALL internet is out in all of Corpus Christi, and you must get that long list to somewhere else, say to San Antonio. Now what do you do? This is where HF may be useful, even Pactor 1, because it allows you to easily bridge out of the local failure area and to someplace that may still have a functioning link that can reach San Antonio. Or, you could send it point-to-point to a similarly equipped station in San Antonio.
As stated, a common Kantronics KAM Plus or PK-232 supports Pactor 1, and the message you composed in Airmail can just as easily go by HF Pactor as you sent it by VHF Packet. Of course, now you need the HF rig. ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI,
>> Why use voice or CW and a pen or pencil when there are more complicated and time and power consuming methods with potential field reliability problems are available? ..>>
Gee, Tom you DO seem to have a good point there.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W4PC on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<As stated, a common Kantronics KAM Plus or PK-232 supports Pactor 1, and the message you composed in Airmail can just as easily go by HF Pactor as you sent it by VHF Packet. Of course, now you need the HF rig. ;-) >
But the recommendation says that the Winlink backbone will only be Pactor II or III. It will lock out Pactor 1 signals since SCS is unwilling to licence the protocol to other TNC manufactures.
So you can only use the PTC line of TNCs.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP,
You *are required* to give the call sign of the other station in one (exceptional) case: when you are involved in a third-party communication with a station in a foreign country. And that's at the end of the contact. See page 1-19 of "Now You're Talking", 4th edition.
73TomAB5XZ
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Thanks! I could not have written this better my
> self! Well said!
I'm glad you agree. Especially with the part where I wrote that there is no need for *any* amateur HF emcomm system.
> I firmly believe that there is not ANY
> available "system" that can quickly send a message
> from one coast to the other, nor any place in
> between, using exclusively HF circuits.
And there's no need for one.
> [...] YET, the overwhelming majority of disasters
> and incidents affect a "local" area. And, this is
> where the value of the extension of Winlink to
> support ARES shines best! WONDERFUL! Thank you.
Um, no. Winlink fails rather miserably as a solution in the local area. There are already existing packet networks that don't require the expense of proprietary TNCs, and that give more than sufficient performance for the amount and type of traffic that amateurs handle in the local area.
They come with the advantage that any amateur station using a soundcard can participate at no cost, and they have sufficient reliability for the purpose.
> The "new" concept of extending Winlink to support
> ARES, especially on a local level, is to provide
> multiple layers of redundancy, primarily supporting
> VHF and UHF packet, at either 1,200 or 9,600 baud,
> or faster.
I'd work on getting what's already there working before I added a layer. Also, 'redundancy' doesn't mean multiple systems that don't interoperate, so adding yet another untested feature to the mix isn't adding redundancy.
> From a practical standpoint, we will never have "too
> many" VHF/UHF TelPac gateway stations, and never
> have enough ARES operators who have portable digital
> message capability.
And you wish to make this growth of resources more unlikely by adding a system that requires purchase of expensive proprietary single source hardware.
> That capability can be provided by using off-the-
> shelf, low cost, TNCs, FREE software such as
> Airmail, or Paclink AGW (wait until the beta testing
> is complete on that one).
Notice the disclaimer. It's rather an important one. The Winlink proponents will tell you that it is necessaray to use Winlink because it's the only thing ready to deploy. Except that it's not ready yet.
Meanwhile, people without amateur licenses are deploying 20mb/s point to point wireless networks that rely on technology that has been used by literally millions of people and were developed by literally hundreds of developers over a twenty year period.
For the same 700 dollars that a pactor TNC would cost, one could equip four or five stations with 2.4 ghz wifi capable of long range point-to-point operation that are easily deployable, use the IP protocol suite and provide multi-megabit/sec transfer rates.
> One feature of the new Paclink AGW is five levels of
> user defined connection priorities, should the first
> one fail, it automatically tries the second one, and
> so forth, using a connect script so it can go across
> selected packet digipeaters or nodes to get out of
> the local area, if that is what is necessary.
Of course, all of this falls apart if the table isn't up to date. There is a reason why that sort of routing has been abandoned by most distributed systems for nearly 20 years.
> Another feature of the new program is support for
> tactical call signs.
Oh yeah, that's a big one. Seems the current winlink system can only use amateur call signs. Adding "tactical" is seen as a big deal. do not ask how it will deal with ISO directory services.
> Paclink AGW uses hardware controllers, or computer
> sound card emulation (AGW Packet Engine).
But "ARESCOM" requires Pactor, which is only available in expensive TNCs from one manufacturer.
> It is configured as a different user account on
> existing e-mail programs such as Outlook, Outlook
> Express, Netscape, Eudora.
The thing that fascinates me the most about discussing "ARESCOM" with its proponents is the way they keep trying to change the focus of the discussion. Here you were going on about Pactor performance, but as soon as that's challenged, you abandon it and take up an entirely different tact. I wonder what's next.
> If not Winlink, what is the alternative that we can
> immediately deploy?
Well, given that even you admit that the "local area" version of Winlink isn't yet ready for use, I guess the answer is nothing.
But since you ask, what's wrong with the VHF/UHF packet net that's already deployed? Why not just use one of the IP-over-radio implementations that exist and get the full benefit of 25 years of internet software developement, along with the economy-of-scale benefit of wifi's popularity?
OK, now for the hard part:
Do you have any hard data on the amount and kinds of traffic amateurs are asked to transmit that would be suitable for digital?
Do you have any hard data on whether those amounts are increasing or decreasing?
As far as I can tell, the amounts were never very large, and they are declining. And, as far as I can tell, "ARESCOM" pretty much qualifies as a solution looking for a problem.
Hardly what I'd want if I were trying to meet the ARRL's stated goal of relevance to the served agency.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You *are required* to give the call sign of the
> other station in one (exceptional) case: when you
> are involved in a third-party communication with a
> station in a foreign country. And that's at the end
> of the contact. See page 1-19 of "Now You're
> Talking", 4th edition.
Yes at the end of the exchange -- see 97.115(c).
But I figured anyone who followed my pointer to 97.119 would realize that; and the discussion was in the context of a net, where 3rd party international traffic is uncommon. ;)
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The cool thing about 'what if' scenarios is that they always seem to be designed to make the poser look good.
So let's take a jaded look at KK5CA's "what if" and see how it goes.
(BTW, the first "what if" comes right out of the ARECC manual ;) )
What if their phone is down but their fax machine is up. (Yes, this happens a lot.) Why you just fax them the list.
What if you enter the data into a text file instead of a spreadsheet? Why you just saved yourself transmittiing a chunk of overhead.
What if nobody bought the $700 TNC for pactor II/III for the guys you're trying to send the list to? Whoops.
What if you've got excel 2004, but they've only got excel/98, which can't read your spreadsheet? Oops.
What if the person you email to has an anti-spam program that decides to toss any email with attachments? Oops.
What if someone forgot to pay the bill for the internet service to your installation at the heart hospital and the ISP cuts you off? Oops.
What if you can't get out on HF because the 145mph winds have just taken down all of your antennas, and no one is feeling like going out there just now to fix them? Oh well.
By the way, out of curiosity, when was the last time that the entire internet capability of Corpus Christi went dark?
or, for that matter, when was the last time that emergency services centers in Corpus Christi were completely unable to communicate to San Antonio?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I gave up on ARES, RACES and EMCOMM in general many years ago because it gave me a headache. Listening to "nets," the procedures sound ridiculous.
The average EMCOMM guy can't leave a proper voice mail message on someone's telephone answering machine. I tested every single member of an ARES net years ago and had the laugh of my life. My simple question was, "Let's hear you leave a brief, thorough and efficient voice message after you hear the beep. The problem is there's someone choking in your kitchen and the first aid you've tried hasn't worked. Go."
Every message was much longer than needed. Not a single net member left his telephone number as the first piece of data. Some forgot to leave it at all. Almost every member didn't leave their address in the first part of the message. Five didn't leave their name, and tried to add it as an afterthought, after the <beep> sounded to indicate the 30-second timer had run out on the answering device. It was a mess.
Those were the "trained semi-professionals" who participated in countless training nets.
"Include me out," as Yogi Berra would say.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What if someone drops a nuke on the place - ooops.
Seems to me like this article is producing the same comments from the same people as one just a couple of weeks ago. Looks like all that discussion did no good because nobody has changed their mind :-)
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K2WH on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess I'm out of the loop somewhat, but what is WinLink?
K2WH
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by NG3F on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really hate to say this, but most of the comments, and I'll admit I haven't read them all, are from people that have know idea what Winlink 2000 is when incorparated into the EmComm/ARES®/RACES/NTS context.
I know I just p***** a lot of people off but it is true. It's true, not because you disagree with what Winlink 2000 is or if it should be used in this context or not, but the fact thay you comments clearly show you don't understand it's intended used or it's present use.
What is the primary role of ANY EmComm group, ARES®/RACES/NTS or whatever it's called?
It is to serve the SERVED AGENCY. That does not mean
you walk up to them and say "here is our bad of tricks that we can use to help you, if you like great if not too bad".
What is the main form of communications, everone including this Forum uses today to communicate? The Internet and Email. Only Cell Phones over land-line telephone service comes a close second. When you go into an EOC or some other location that is already busy and confusing do you want to add to that confusion by using modes of communications (we love as hams) that just add more confusion or would you rather give those you SERVE a "backup" to THEIR normal, everyday form of communications, that requires almost NO change in the way they work.
I pick the second choice. And that is what the Winlink 2000 option provides.
And what are some of the basics of Winlink 2000?
1) It utilizes everyday 2m/70cm radio's and 1200or 9600 baud packet to provide a link from a location without internet service to an area that does have internet service.
2) It interfaces with normal Email software everyone uses, Outlook, Outlook Express, Netscape and Eudora.
No new software for served agencies to learn to use.
3) ALL the software is free.
4) Equipment is not, but surplus/older VHF/UHF radios and normal TNC's are not out of the range for most hams and many already have them. If the served agency supports you, they will probably foot the bill for new quipment. They have here !!!!!!!!!
5) Software will run on any pentium computer, Windows 2000, XP and even Windows 95/98 but not as well. Who does't have one of these in their home???????
6) Expensive Pactor Modems are NOT required to provide this service, it is optional and in fact not widely recommend by the ARESCOMM or Winlink 2000 people.
7) Recommended out of area links for Winlink 2000 for EmComm use is via Packet backbone networks!!!!!!! Hey, maybe this would actually help to encourage greater use and upgrading of PACKET!!!!! Hmmmmm!!!
8) Everthing is straight forward to set up for anyone, on their own, who understand a little about networking. Or with assistance for those that don't.
9) You can talk directly with the Winlink 2000 team every Wednesday on an Echolink conference. Ask them questions, give them suggestions and in general just learn more about the system.
BTW: Winlink 2000 and it's predicessor Winlink has been in use world-wide by RVers, Mariners, and even the US Government for OVER 10 years. It is a world-wide network alread in place on HF. The NEW EmComm component is to provide the same benifits RVers and Mariners have had for over a decade, to Served Agencies in a local setting. I don't know how you can find fault with that. But some will!!!!!!
Please, if you really what to understand WHY the Winlink 2000 system is being recommended, read the ARES® presentation on the link N5PVL provided.
And read it with an open mind and look for it's potential from someone in a served agencies perspective, not from a ham's perspective with his own biases and likes and dislikes.
Then if you still disagree with it, fine. But understand it first. If anyone want to contact me
with questions or concerns I'll be glad to talk with you. But, I don't just want you comments, only honest discussion pro or con.
Thanks for reading.
Chris NG3F
Snyder County, PA EC/RO
ng3f@arrl.net
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It really is worrys me when I see how complicated and fragile people want to make emergency communications systems.
But on the positive side, at least it sounds impressive. I guess it is OK, as long as we have regular voice or CW systems in place that people are trained to use.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NG3F,
No, you haven't pissed me off. Even if you knew what you were talking about, and had said anything that contradicted what I wrote you wouldn't piss me off.
But before you go accusing others of not knowing what they're talking about, you might take the time to find out what's up.
You write, for example:
> It is to serve the SERVED AGENCY. That does not mean
> you walk up to them and say "here is our bad of
> tricks that we can use to help you, if you like
> great if not too bad".
But that's precisely what ARESCOMM is. It's an unsolicited offer by interested parties in finding a solution to a problem that served agencies don't have.
If the goal is backup transmission paths for served agencies in the local area, as others have suggested here, then the answer is to use an IP-over-radio protocol. This would provide all of the services that they are used to, in an exactly compatible form. It would not be a cobbled-together extention of an ARS program that has only been used by a tiny community for a short time.
I've read the ARES presentation. I've also discussed Winlink with its representatives on this webboard. All of that has been factored into my comments into this thread.
Among other things where you are wrong is the need for "expensive pactor modems." If you go to another thread on this web site, you will find the Winlink people arguing aggressively that the HF portion of the system *must* use Pactor III to be usable.
Look, If all that is wanted is email on the UHF/VHF local area, then the software already exists in the form of the IP-over-radio protocols, that run fine on sound-card mode. And it's not something in beta that's going to be available really soon now. It's an IP stack that has billions of hours of use in the field.
But I'm still waiting for one of the proponents to produce evidence that served agencies want, or would use, a system such as described here.
Perhaps you've got a pointer to that evidence?
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So we are heading back to 1200 baud VHF/UHF Packet? Good luck on getting that set up and going again! Back in it's popular days there were very wide gaps in coverage even with HF forwarding support. Then there is the problem with all that traffic being forwarded and overloading the system even with backbone and trucked systems in place. You find you need more speed really quick which needs more bandwidth and higher cost equipment. Even with 9600 baud it was still choked up. Then you get these nasty people that also want to play the game only on there terms and dump all kinds of trash on the system choking it out of existence. Been there and done that a few years ago! Fool me once shame in me…….In the mean time the Phone and CW nets keep plodding along and working fine. Not only that I don't really need to go sailing about and support a business via email using the Amateur bands to do it. Yes, check the SCS site! Winlink is listed along with the commercial systems. I wonder how many ARRL members have a business interest with SCS? Lets also not forget the problem of where all these Packet nodes will be set up. FM phone repeaters also shared most all the Packet node sites and the owners were very happy when they got rid of that Amateur digital crap that caused all kinds of noise problems with other users of the tower site. If you ask any of these people about installing a digital setup they just hurl foul language at you!
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Winlink is a global system for Amateur Radio operators to send and recieve text messages and attachments anywhere, at any time, for free. It uses a combination of HF, VHF, UHF and the internet, and the user software is all free.
The original version was used by the military during Gulf War I. The second version is still being used by NTS-Digital and MARS. The third version, released about 1999, is used by over 5,000 licensed Amateur Radio operators around the world, sending over 150,000 messages (typical size 1,500 bytes, 2.5 minutes per delivery on HF), to over 75,000 individual e-mail addresses, operating at less than 20 percent of system capacity.
For more information: www.winlink.org
For July 2004:
HF Messages Received or Delivered 116,688
HF Minutes Air Time (All Stations) 279,473
HF Average Minutes Air Time Per Message 2.40
HF Average Message Size (Characters) 1,543
Total Messages Received or Delivered 131,648
The current NTS-Digital system forwards and delivers but a sliver of this volume, primarily on HF, with some VHF and UHF outlets.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
But I'm still waiting for one of the proponents to produce evidence that served agencies want, or would use, a system such as described here.
Perhaps you've got a pointer to that evidence?
+++++++++
Is one sufficient, or how many is required?
Houston, TX, Harris County emergency management:
QST magazine, August 2004, page 82
QST magazine, September 2004, page 74
There are others, such as Western Pennsylvania where they just approved $100k to link five towers with Icom DStar data radios (1.2 GHz), each tower hosts a Winlink TelPac gateway, providing VHF or UHF access via packet.
Houston (TX) Red Cross hosts a TelPac gateway.
Pasadena (TX) emergency management hosts a TelPac gateway.
Ask any served agency for a show of hands:
How many have sent or received a "telegram" in the past year?
How many have sent or received a "telex" in the past month?
How many have sent or received a "e-mail" in the past day?
"E-mail" is the modern standard for written communications. Winlink provides that capability when conventional systems have failed, or not.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by NG3F on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP,
Glad I didn't P*** you off, that means we can have a honest discussion.
First I want to say Winlink 2000 is not the answer to all needs. Neither is packet or hf traffic nets or vhf fm.
It is simply, IMO, a great tool with a lot of potiential that we can provide to served agencies.
what I meant by:
> It is to serve the SERVED AGENCY. That does not mean
> you walk up to them and say "here is our bad of
> tricks that we can use to help you, if you like
> great if not too bad".
is that, whenever a new mode or way of providing communications to those we serve is available, we need to do the best we can to make sure that is available as well, and let ourselves think out of the box. And not just stay where we are because that is what "we" are comfortable with and "like".
Also, ANY EmComm group, including RACES, if they really want to be active and provide the best service they can, must GO to the served agency and show them what they have to offer. They are going to come to you. So, yes they are ALL unsoliceted.
you say
>But that's precisely what ARESCOMM is. It's an
>unsolicited offer by interested parties in finding a
>solution to a problem that served agencies don't have.
I hope you are not saying that served agencies, don't rely heavily on email and that they never loose their internet connection. Personaly, I don't know of anyone that has never lost their internet connection, and especial during severe weather events. Maybe you do?
You also ask (in an earlier message)
>...when was the last time that emergency services
>centers in Corpus Christi were completely unable to
>communicate to San Antonio
I doubt they have ever "completely" lost communications with San Antoinio. But, what about their email access?
If only internet access was lost in the 5 block area around the EOC they've lost email capability and the ablity to send files and confidential information.
What if their internal network went down, the server crashed or the router failed. They are still without email. Occasionally, this happens in our EOC (due to network issues they are working on), and the internet is working fine, they just can't access it.
VoIP and Echolink are great tools too, in fact we are instuting that in our EOC as well. But the same scenario exists. What if the "EOC" looses internet access.
Or how about the EMA Director, or the EC or RO for that matter having the ability to receive "REAL" email in the field where there is no internet connection. You can provide this ability with Winlink 2000.
This is where Winlink 2000 fills the gap. For the local area, and that's what ARES® or RACES or whatever really needs to be worried about, is what you design you Winlink 2000 network to be a backup for. For the "Last Mile". Remember, just like politics, everything is local.
If the EOC only needs a bridge out 5 blocks to retain email capablity, Winlink 2000 provides this.
Yes 1200 baud and even 9600 baud Packet is slow compared to regular internet access, but in an emergency access is what counts if you don't have it, and the speed is not overly slow.
HF Pactor is used if, well say in a situation that may
be occuring in Florida right now. If the internet links go down, even just for a few hours, and VHF/UHF is out to (for longer haul comms) due to damage, an HF Pactor bridge keeps the system running.
I'm not saying the HF Pactor is not recommended at all, only the in the local setting, it is not recommended for everyone all the time. But, that local areas should plan their network so that they have "access" to an HF Pactor bridge.
The main point I want to come back to is that Winklink 2000 for the "Last Mile" backup coverage is a great tool to be able to offer. Using local VHF/UHF packet networks you can provide your served agencies with a "backup" to their regular email communications, using the software they use everyday. I know the people at our EOC really liked the idea of having that as a "backup" So, I for one am giving you proof that a County EOC like this idea and is supporting it with $$$$.
Not every served agency will need or want this. I for one am not cramming down their throats. I am making it available. And making it available with current equipment. They are providing the funds to expand it and improve what we start.
As EmComm personnel, IMO, our job is to help served agencies keep communicating when their normal means are down or overextended. We've got many ways to do this. Winlink 2000, for EmComm, is just the newest one on the block. It works, and works well so why wouldn't I offer it.
But, I haven't put all my eggs into the Winlink 2000 basket either. We are still developing regular packet capabilities, installing Echolink in the EOC, practicing VHF and HF traffice and emergency communications proceedures, building up a VHF SSTV capability and even starting to try to build ATV capablities, etc.
Winlink 2000 is just a very good, IMO, technoloy that we can provide.
Chris NG3F
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC0LET on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>This is a MARS procedure. When you say "this is", >then
>unkey, you are making sure you aren't speaking
>at the same time as someone else. (Works 80% of the
>time). >>>
>It may be a MARS proceedure, but it is absolute >stupidity to use it in any system including MARS.
Actually, as a MARS operator, I would like to make a correction here. The proper procedure is to say "This is" unkey, listen, then key up and say your callsign.
You should not say "This is" twice.
After being a MARS member for only two months, it is hilarious, yet very sad, to go back to the ham bands, and listen to the very poor procedures of some operators.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WJ2L on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The winlink system delivers traffic quickly and reliably to the ubiquitous internet. Hence non hams
can be reached stat in this regard. For the present Pactor2 or 3 is used in the system linking to the internet.Maybe psk31 has improved narrow feature. But the most important thing is to get the traffic to the nonhamwith what ever technology is ubiquitous. Hence the internet is the logical choice-because it is a "world-wide-web" of both hams and nonhams alike. A technology will evolve but we have to start somewhere. So that is how I see it. Bill Hopkins WJ2L/4
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> so adding yet another untested feature to the mix isn't adding redundancy. <<<
Marty, think about that comment for a moment.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K4JRB on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARES has replaced Civil Defense in most areas of the United States. FEMA is moving toward relying on one group (ARES). I think ARRL is trying to push PSK31 and the internet links as an extension of providing this support. I think the real problem is that there is friction between several of the digital modes and
I agree that we need to standardize on a mode.
Tom, W8JI, correctly points out the problems with the expected width of PSK31. Most amateur transceivers run PSK31 in sideband mode so the amateur has the choice of several PSK31 signals in the passband. However, I was surprised that in my PSK31 experience
that often the signal I was working was not even in the noise level and unreadable to the ear or earphone. Plus the power levels for successful QSOs are quite low. Contrast this to RTTY where the signal has to be reasonably strong for good copy.
Regarding the operating practices Tom points out, I seem to remember "this is" comes from MARS practice.
I and my Dad were both <ARS members in the 1960's and this was the proper procedure for checking in to nets. You signed off with "out". I agree that as an experienced contest and emergency operator that this
is not really necessary. Top contest operators use cut numbers on CW (such as N and T) and many use cut words on SSB. I think using good operating practice makes more sense in emergencies such as Hurricanes. In 1969, I was running the Mississippi RACES station, W5IZS, during Hurricane Camille. All the operators decided to dispense with the military and RACES protocol and we ran it under tight control. We only wanted your call and only if called for unless you were in the area affected.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K0RGR on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Based on what I've read and discussed with others who are involved with both ARES and at least one served agency, I think the current plan has some real merit.
I don't expect more than one or two of those HF links to ever be found here in this county, and I am certain that somebody other than an individual ham will pay for the gear, too. So, while I'd like something for nothing just like anybody else, you gotta pay for your throughput - there is no free Internet lunch.
We can come up with all kinds of 1200 baud gear, because we have some very active APRS'rs here who can probably reconfigure some of their stuff to do this in a hurry. MN ARES have also rebuilt a statewide packet network recently, largely funded by the hospitals in this state who are counting on hams to provide part of their emergency comms.
We need to look at various scenarios and see how they might be handled.
The most common disaster involving the Red Cross is fires, ranging from single dwelling fires to apartment fires to forest fires. Forest fires are the only ones where there may be a need for hams.
In a forest fire, Red Cross would have a command post established, and probably one or more shelters to provide services to people rendered homeless by the fire. They would also provide one or more Emergency Response Vehicles (ERV's) to provide outreach, food and refreshements to the public and firefighters.
Red Cross HQ would need communications with the shelters and the ERV's primarily for administrative traffic. This is where a good email system would shine.
Normally, Red Cross personnel have pre-established arrangements for shelter locations in places where telephone service can be quickly provided. 'Quickly' is usually in 24 hours. Where landlines aren't available, Red Cross can usually get a pallet load of cellphones flown in from National in less than 24 hours, and get the local cell company to turn them on immediately. But what about the time it takes for this to happen? An independent email system capable of sending traffic between the RC locations in the county would be a major improvement. Even after the cell or landline services are up, the email system could continue, and when landlines are available, you can just cut the users over to that system, and go home.
The focus needs to be on building the local VHF/UHF capability. It looks to me like 9600 is preferred, and in reality, I think that will soon prove to be too slow - those agencies will soon start using the system to attach .PDF files because they're easy to use for electronic signatures. Then, maybe ICOM's new digital system will get another look - who knows. It will be up to the individual county ARES.
Some of us are really going out and working with these agencies and letting them tell us what they want. And be sure - the Red Cross still looks at ham radio as the one and only system that can be relied on to work in any situation. I see this plan as a way to improve our service to those agencies.
Will it always be needed? If Wi-MAX technology gets established everyplace in the next few years, maybe not. But I still think it's worth building.
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The cool thing about 'what if' scenarios is that they always seem to be designed to make the poser look good. "
Let me tell you Marty.. After 15 years of seeing more blood and guts in one of the busiest ER's in the country than most people in this forum care to imagine... Trust me, you are graded on performance.
Most "Scenerio" training I ever was involved in was very specific in assesing and evaluating your field performance using a point system.
Simply put, like the show "American Idol", If you don't measure up to the grade.. you don't qualify.
Charles -KC8VWM
BCLS, EMS Instructor
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI Says;
"It really is worrys me when I see how complicated and fragile people want to make emergency communications systems."
Worries me too because you need to establish "fail safe" communication protocals if the intention is to provide "emergency" communications.
The addition of high tech solutions might look good on paper, but they are likely to be problomatic at best in "real world" scenerios.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charlie,
Apples and Oranges. You're talking about training scenarios in real emergency services. I'm talking about the 'thought experiments' used by amateurs to justify their romantic view of the ARS in emergency communications.
Marty
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We can come up with all kinds of 1200 baud gear, because we have some very active APRS'rs here who can probably reconfigure some of their stuff to do this in a hurry."
Who needs APRS to tell a person where you are located at? Simply key up the microphone and indicate where you are located...
Who needs high tech tracking equipment for that?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> so adding yet another untested feature to the mix
>> isn't adding redundancy.
> Marty, think about that comment for a moment.
I've though about it for three decades. It's as true now as it was when I started developing distributed systems in 1975.
There are two ways to achieve redundancy. The one used by the telcos and by most simple designs: two of everything, with no single point of failure -- and even that's hard to accomplish well; or the one used on the shuttle where you specifically build systems out of unrelated technologies to dramatically reduce the risk of pathological failure.
You don't get redundancy by throwing untried technology at a problem.
In the case of a local area UHF/VHF network, I'd go with multiples of the simplest most widely available already deployed technology. Why? It's been nearly 20 years since the Internet was fragile enough that the whole thing came down at once. IP-over-radio would leverage all of that expertise and technology.
ARESCOM, as envisioned, with a 20 year trailing time, would be an attempt to reinvent everything learned in those twenty years.
You tell me. Would you rather build an amateur emcomm system out of the most widely used and tested protocol suite in existance, or would you rather beta-test some software that's still under developement and a system that relies on proprietary hardware?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And be sure - the Red Cross still looks at ham radio as the one and only system that can be relied on to work in any situation."
Heard on the hurricaine net tonight, on 14.350 around 03:30 zulu: "I just heard in the chatroom that Tampa says they've got no propogation. Do you think we should shut the net down"? The net was then shut down.
Somehow, I think the Red Cross, which has a pretty realistic view of the universe, and a pragmatic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the tools available to them, has no problem understanding why the reality of tonight's hurricaine net belays the myth of "one and only" ARS solution
I'm sorry for the ARRL if ARES does not.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> ARES has replaced Civil Defense in most areas of the
> United States. FEMA is moving toward relying on one
> group (ARES).
Um, no. ARES is an organization of radio amateurs that, in some areas, provides auxiliary communications to its served agencies.
Civil Defense was (and hasn't been for a very long time) an agency that prepared to respond to disasters in the event that first response agencies were overwhelmed.
If there's any parallel to CD these days, and it's a loose one, it would be Citizen's Corp and CERT.
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Marty,
You said;
"You're talking about training scenarios in real emergency services. I'm talking about the 'thought experiments' used by amateurs to justify their romantic view of the ARS in emergency communications."
ARES is a very real and critical component to emergency services. I was made aware of ARES,Red Cross, and similar services in my emergency services training.
What I am concerned about Marty, is the fact that it may be considered like you indicate: a view of a "Romantic type of experiment."
In the "real world" of emergency services it is hardly an experiment. In my experience, not too many people can actually step up to the plate when it comes to peoples lives. When I need assistance from an ARES member, I would fully expect that they know what they are communicating and to do so as accurately and as quickly as possible.
In the emergency services field we are actually trained using 3 very critical components in emergency field communication. They are the following:
1) Message
2) Sender
3) Reciever
Hence, it is more important to focus on the accuracy of your communication than the actual method or mode you use to establish the communication.
Instead of focusing on technology, perhaps ARES should better focus on the "how to" components.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Heard on the hurricaine net tonight, on 14.350 around 03:30 zulu: "I just heard in the chatroom that Tampa says they've got no propogation. Do you think we should shut the net down"? The net was then shut down."
Duh!!!! Local communications on 20M after dark on the Eastern Seaboard?? It ain't gonna happen!!
Why do we wring our hands about digital comms when we can't even choose our frequencies correctly? (But I bet the message was in the correct format...even including "This is..")
And why aren't we using 60M for this? Isn't it what it was specifically designed for?
We have gotten so wrapped up in procedures, protocols and organizational/situational management, we've forgotten to learn about radio!!!
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty says;
"The one used by the telcos and by most simple designs: two of everything, with no single point of failure -- and even that's hard to accomplish well"
True, Marty.. I will give you credit on that point. In actuality there is no such thing as a 100% "fail safe" communications system.
Why?
Because we introduce commucation variables. The more variables we involve or introduce in communications, the likelihood of failure increases likewise.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by GHOSTRIDERHF on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm just waiting for the onslaught of stories in the next couple of weeks of ham radio operators that somehow will have miracously saved Florida singlehanded from the Hurricane using nothing more then their HT to relay critical comms to the rest of the world when every other form of communication will be apparently down except for theirs...
I figure we should get our first "There I was" story on Monday....
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N0FP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is so tragic about this discussion is that the ARES comm methods are not focused on served agencies. In my area, we cannot find an agency that wants to be served! Why? Because we cannot provide any service they need using FM and SSB.
What most agencies want is to be able to send traffic. Yes? They want to send more complex messages than "send food for 200 to the gym." They want a delivery system that is reliable, and extremely accurate. They would like a system that is also "private" without the added burden of having every news team on the planet monitoring their traffic.
As far as I can tell, the WIN2000 arrangement is a proprietary algorythm. Any adoption of this method on a wide spread basis is going to simply line the pockets of whoever owns the algorythm. I had a discussion with Haynie via telephone about the need for a reliable data transmission method for ham radio many months ago, and he assured me they were working on this. Now I see the results of their "work."
What I talked with Jim about is a Ham Radio linking system. Yes, computer-to-computer (via radio) with all the added complexities that it entails. This is not for simple activities, like an relatively small area devistated by a Tornado. But for wide area area activity, like the state of Georgia taking a multiple thermo nuclear disaster or the state of California with a bio-terror disaster. Large volumes of complex traffic needs to be passed in such an arena.
W8JI talks about using simple SSB and FM. Amen brother Tom! And the system we need to put in place would need to be supported via just such methods. However, in a wide area disturbance, a central comm center needs to be able to push LOTS of traffic in and out of the area. Think about it. How long would it take to deliver a message with 14,000 first and last names via SSB? Quite a while I'm afraid.
I'd like to hear alternative proposals before I torpedo the WIN2000 notion. But I think the ham radio community can do better.
Ford-N0FP
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0FP:
As far as I can tell, the WIN2000 arrangement is a proprietary algorythm. Any adoption of this method on a wide spread basis is going to simply line the pockets of whoever owns the algorythm.
KK5CA:
Winlink uses RFC822, approved in 1982. This is the common standard for moving e-mail messages via the internet. Without this, we would be addressing e-mails to people using this form: 44.119.235.316
There are presently 44 Winlink HF stations, over 280 Winlink VHF/UHF stations, and over 5,000 individual Amateur Radio operators using this software and system. Total income to those who wrote the software or operate these stations: $0.00
ALL the Winlink server and client software has been developed at no cost to anyone, except those who wrote it. ALL the Winlink server and client software is available for free, some of it for nearly 18 years.
1986 - ApLink (DOS), followed by Winlink Classic (Win 3.1) - still used by NTS-Digital and MARS - used by military in 1990 Gulf War (watch "The Last Voice from Kuwait")
1997 - Winlink Classic adopts SMTP addressing (RFC822) and adds internet linking. Airmail client program (free to hams only) available
Feb 1999 - Winlink 2000 server software
Sep 2002 - "TelPac" VHF/UHF gateway software introduced at TAPR/ARRL digital conference
Jan 2003 - "TelPac" released for beta testing
Sep 2003 - "Paclink" introduced at TAPR/ARRL digital conference
Aug 2004 - "Paclink AGW" released for beta testing
Sep 2004 - "SCAMP" high speed ARQ sound card mode introduced at TAPR/ARRL digital conference
With the exception of "Paclink AGW" and "SCAMP," all the software has been available for use by hams for over one year, and some (such as Airmail) for many years.
"Paclink AGW," released for beta on August 2, includes enhancements that were identified by those who used the "Paclink" client program in exercises and incidents over the past year. Those needs included tactical addressing, and multiple levels of automatic, backup, routing should preferred routes fail. Unlike the "white pages" and other routing tables of packet in the 1980s, these route scripts are defined by the user, and can be updated as routes change. Primarily, this automates connections within existing packet networks, which often have unique connect requirements, such as with BPQ nodes.
ALL the user software is available for FREE, and it all works. Download from here: http://www.winlink.org/Client.htm
NO ONE who has written any of this software (W5SMM, KN6KB, KE6RK, K4CJX, N8PGR) is "getting rich" from making it available to Amateur Radio operators for free.
There has not been any money spent by the ARRL, ARES, RACES, nor NTS to develop or deploy any part of this system. Every bit of this system has been funded out of the pockets of extraordinarily dedicated Amateur Radio operators, both those who have written the code, those who helped test the code, and those who have spent thousands of dollars of their own money to set up and maintain Winlink HF/VHF/UHF stations as a public service.
This system exists today and it works. It has a multi-year history of reliability, efficacy, and progressive improvement. ALL the user software is FREE. In my opinion, that is about as good as it gets.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ever hit the post button by mistake? :-|
N0FP:
As far as I can tell, the WIN2000 arrangement is a proprietary algorythm. Any adoption of this method on a wide spread basis is going to simply line the pockets of whoever owns the algorythm.
KK5CA:
The HF and VHF/UHF modules in Airmail, and Paclink's VHF/UHF module use the B2F protocol. This was developed in the 1980s for packet BBS to BBS message forwarding. Since this is in the public domain, no one derives any income from it's use.
B2F sends binary and compressed (about 40 percent). This is NOT "encryption" but it does provide some security when compared to non-B2F traffic.
There is not any available HF or RF system, at any cost, that can always move high volumes of written messages quickly across long distances. Since that perfect system does not exist, someone must first define the performance expectations and constraints, then a system developed to meet those expectations.
- Must the system be strictly RF?
- What is the traffic volume to be moved?
- How quickly is the message required to be delivered?
- How much are you willing to spend for software and hardware?
- How soon does this sytem need to be available?
- How much redundancy is required?
The proposed NTS standard is delivery within one-hour of origination anywhere in the U.S. Is this always an acceptable time standard? What about true emergency messages?
What is the alternate route when the A index soars to 150+, as it did recently, and shuts off all HF propagation, even NVIS?
The Winlink system has an evolutionary history of over 18 years. It works. It is immediately available. It is capable of delivering messages by multiple routes, with average delivery in under three minutes on HF, based upon a monthly volume of 150,000 messages, each consisting of 1,500 bytes. It uses off-the-shelf hardware, some of which (VHF/UHF modems) are very low cost and readily available. Message length is not restricted to 25 words or less. Messages can go to anyone anywhere in the world with an e-mail address. Messages can be sent to multiple addresses, including any combination of radio or internet addresses. Messages can include attachments such as text files, spreadsheets, or photographs (executable files are blocked). It is as easy to use as your e-mail program, and it is immediately available. NOTHING needs to be developed.
In early 2002, Jim Haynie was in Washington D.C. at meetings reviewing the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on our country. Jim was asked: Can Amateur Radio send a message across the country quickly and accurately? He had to answer: I'll get back to you on that. A performance test of the NTS and NTSD system in 2003 found the existing long distance network was marginal for the task on both speed and accuracy. Hence, the need to find other solutions, so the ARRL board appointed a committee in July 2003 to do just that. To find out what is available so Jim, on behalf of the ARRL, can go back to FEMA (or whomever) and say: yes, we have a system. Failure was not an option. That committee was composed of some of the most knowledgeable people on this subject within Amateur Radio. They looked at what was available, and they reported back to the board in January 2004 with the recommendation to use Winlink. In July 2004, less than one month ago, based upon the work of the committee and the live, end-to-end, demonstration of the system, the board endorsed the committee's recommendation of Winlink.
We are less than one month from the third anniversary of those attacks, and we still do not have a suitable system fully deployed. We that are committed to supporting emergency management, public safety, and disaster relief with backup and supplementary communications have an immediate need. That need that pre-dated 9/11/2001. A need that can be satisfied by deployment of what already exists, the Winlink system.
An existing system has been recommended for ARES purposes. Some continue to argue over the specifications for such a system, striving for perfection, when perfection is impossible. The best system deployed today is far superior to the perfect system that won't be available until after the next storm comes ashore.
I too await reports from Florida on the performance of their layered packet network and the Winlink system components they have already deployed.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by CASPER669 on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KK5CA Wrote:
"An ARRL Division Director explained, in a public meeting on August 7th, the ARRL board took action to formally register ARES because one group was maligning elected officials on their letterhead and web site containing the ARES logo and name. This jeopardized the IRS 501(c)3 status of the ARRL. When the group was asked to remove the ARES logo from their political materials, they refused, saying "you don't own ARES." The ARRL board made it clear to everyone, oh yes they do!"
The information you received from the ARRL is inaccurate. I know the group involved. The ARRL tried to sue the group for the website simply because the 'ARES' name was part of the website's URL. The person who created and purchased this URL paid for it out of his own pocket - never requesting or receiving any reimbursement for this cost. At that time, he was also the DEC for an area (which shall remain nameless, as there are still pending legal issues) in ARES. If you've kept up with other law suits, Madonna attempted to sue someone for the same reason - her name was in the URL. The court dismissed the case. I don't recall the exact reasons why it was dismissed, but it was something regarding the inability to sue someone for a URL they paid for.
My experience with this type scenario doesn't end there, however. The organization I work for attempted the same thing for the purposes of obtaining that URL for business relations. They did not succeed. The only thing that can be done in any of these cases is a cash offer is made to the owner. The owner can either accept it, or reject it. That's it.
When the ARRL sent the newsletter explaining their copyright scenario, I nearly fell off my chair in laughter. They did this as a result of their failing attempts to remedy the situation in a legal fashion.
The ARRL is falling out of favor with me. They have illegally removed someone from office and allowed the ARES group to be led by someone with less than a year experience in Emergency Communications. This person now holds the DEC position. Although I don't have any personal gripes with this person, I do believe that this person does too much micro-managing and doesn't allow himself to 'let go' of the former DEC.
I could go on and on about the situation in my area, but that would take most of my day. Like other folks, I have a life to lead as well!
The ARRL and ARES have their priorities (in my opinion) misplaced. They are concentrating on the wrong things and allowing the 'right' things to slip past them. Training, experience, loyalty, and the will to not just do the job, but do it with quality and as error-free as possible seems to be escaping their minds, as well as their priorities. NUMBERS! That appears to be the ARRL and ARES current goal. It doesn't matter what kind of training they have, if any at all! Just bring 'em in! We'll worry about quality later... Would you buy from a company that does business this way? Think about it...
Thank you and 73!
Chris KC2KFW
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom wrote, "It really is worrys me when I see how complicated and fragile people want to make emergency communications systems." Like everything else in life Tom, when the grits hit the fan, the real talent shows up to take over and make things work.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing I don't quite understand about using internet email and Winlink for emergency communications.
It seems every person in the field will need an "emergency email address" that is used to receive responses. If eoc1@eoc.gov is a regular email address I understand how email can be routed to that person using regular smtp via Winlink access to the internet. But if the response is supposed to go back to deputy1, using their normal email address of deputy1@eoc.gov won't work because it will end up on their desk at their regular email station, not out in the field where it is needed. This means that deputy1 will need an email address of deputy1xxxx@eoc.gov that can be routed thru Winlink to the proper node and on out to the correct field location.
Am I missing something about email routing in this situation?
An example above was an em mgr asking about how many people were at a given location. I understand how this can be routed to a central location but how does the em mgr receive the response via email?
Will the winlink field nodes need to handle all the email destined for personnel at the emergency location? Will all emergency personnel in the field have access to that station to read their email? What happens when they begin to move around to different locations. Can winlink handle roving destinations for email? Will all email need to end up at several winlink stations so roving personnel can have access? Or does winlink provide direct access to an email server? How do you handle the person that left their desktop pc on that removes email from the server?
Maybe I have fallen behind in how email routing takes place via the internet and how Winlink can be used to handle it. Would someone enlighten me?
Thanks
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KB9TMP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think Homeland Security would be better served by a reactivation of the RACES program, and I would support a background check of a responders." NA4IT
Really since 9-11 FEMA and SEMA (Indiana) have been very active in getting the R.A.C.E.S. back into action. Believe it or not R.A.C.E.S. is alive and well in the USA. If you are interested please contact your local EMA office and offer your services.
W.W. Warren - KB9TMP
R.A.C.E.S. Officer 59-605
Orange County Emergency Managment
http://epics.co.orange.in.us/page.asp?pg=OrangeCoEmergencyManagement&page=HomePage
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AG4HY on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
just read all this and: hmmmmm! no wonder i feel that they can "all" put it in a sack, and shake it.
from all this i'm "Still" not the least bit interested..
dang!!
willie
ag4hy
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W7WIK on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everybody sure likes to jump to conclusions about this.
There are just a few Winlink stations that won't accept Pactor I, but most Winlink stations will still work with it, and any brand TNC that supports it. My $60 (bought used at a hamfest) PK232 works great.
I really don't think that the ARRL/ARES wants to replace SSB, CW, FM, or other modes with the Winlink system. Winlink is merely TOOL (one of many) that can be used by served agencies to get email reports, supply lists etc. to higher headquarters (or whoever) when there is no other internet access. It's a very small part of the picture.
The whole idea is the ability to send and receive emails when there is no other email option available, meaning a remote location, telephone lines down, etc.
ARES, and ham radio in general, needs to keep up with the times. Otherwise the percieved value of ham radio in emergencies will diminish.
Marco, W7WIK
|
| |
|
ARES Takeover -- FREQS and Why...
|
|
|
by K4RAF on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Even the FCC sees through this charade of 'saving the world via HF' by reading the following:
"FCC Emergency Communications Declaration Policy Prefers VHF-UHF"
Anybody else notice what it says?
Even while a hurricane levels Florida, I can see how important public service is to the general ham community, as I tuned around the HF bands & all I hear contesters.
The FCC has it right, mentioning the 5 NTIA 'simplex' channels on 60 meters as a preferred band for any HF. This is a long overdue decision, but progressive, for the FCC.
The only ones who are stagnant thinkers are obviously the ARRL by adopting a mode NOT allowed on 60 meters?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K4JRB on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The old Civil Defense regional office in SW Georgia is now FEMA. Officials there tell me FEMA is replacing Civil Defense. Civil Defense was geared to cold war threats and reacted to emergencies such as Hurricanes and Earthquakes.
FEMA and the individual states organizations (GEMA in Georgia) have a much wider charter than Civil Defense.
The guys at FEMA Regional HQ in SW Georgia said that there is an EMA in all the states but Civil Defense in only about 20. There is no Civil Defense in GA altho I found some of the old RACES calls.
Since Divil Defense is going and FEMA has a broad emergency charter it only makes sense that ARES step in to take that roll. ARES can still serve other groups. With that said I understand the concern with ARES and you see some of that in the messages here. No one can decide on what bands and modes to use. Packet, UHF/VHF, HF (75 and 60 meters) even the internet are all represented. All have some limitation that requires a comprehensive plan that only the ARRL Field and HQ organizations can put together.
We all need to pull together to put such a plan in place or FEMA will go elsewhere.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
RE: ARES Takeover -- FREQS and Why...
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only ones who are stagnant thinkers are obviously the ARRL by adopting a mode NOT allowed on 60 meters?
----------------------------------------
Where did the ARRL say that you cannot use any mode other than Pactor? As a matter of fact, SSB is used all the time. Take a listen to 14.265 and 14.330 today. Plenty of stations participating in the emergency and for the most part they are not being QRMed by those who are not participating.
I fail to see any problem with ARES using anything available to them including WinLink, Pactor, SSB, and CW. As soon as KE6IP gets his nation-wide VHF/UHF high speed IP network on line they'll probably use it as well.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC0ARF on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings,
I would like to see a simple development of a UHF (440 or 1.2 GHz) along the lines of Icom's D-Star product to transfer data over RF at speeds of 56 Kbs or faster. Furthermore, I would like to see the FCC spell out in writing permission to use encryption over the air to enhance security of these transmissions.
We did a lot of research on the Icom D-Star (http://astro.gmtc.net/dstar) and we like the solution a lot. The D-Stars work to make a "virtual wire". No special intelligence to the units -- they just hook into ethernet, and give us about 90 Kbs throughput speeds. We have downloaded DVD (4 GB!) binary information, and the product works well. The units perform very very well... but I would like to see the price drop so that they are affordable for you and me.
An assumption was made earlier that everyone has Windows laying around. That is not the truth, and it invalidates all the comments of free software out there. Windows costs, both in terms of support costs, and license fees. I would never put one of those boxes in a remote environment and expect it to work in this scenerio, even if the POPE mandated it. Those who understand networking know why.
The solution should be Linux driven, and be open to cross-platform porting and incorporation. Linux is truly free, and offers superior flexibility. If you are afraid to try linux, are you afraid of other things? Learning does not end when you get your General, OM.
I went to the suggested download page to try it out. No linux client. No Mac client. So no testing, and thus no support from this amateur.
I find it amazing that a new TNC 1200 baud device still costs around $100 new, and for 9600 baud, we have to get into the $300's for a unit.
We do not need a big hardware-software specialty package to be sent down our throats. We need a few manufactures (Alinco, Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu) to develop a high speed data radio at a modest cost. This radio doesn't need 200 memories or SSB listening capabilities, or Wideband FM reception. Simple data radio. 5 memories. Possible remote control (to DTMF tell it to change frequencies or channels in the event it needs to be managed remotely). Fans to keep it cool. 30 Watts of transmit power. Target 128 Kbs or faster data rate. Encryption (FCC make it legal please!). Give us the hardware so that locally we can define what we need to do with it.
In the ideal emergency where we need digital communications, I can see some robust Linux servers in place with email and web functionality, and simulated dialup speeds of access. That would be so cool.
In the meantime, I'll keep doing 1200 baud TCP/IP on 2m, and sending emails, and browsing the web (using lynx, a text browser).
I envision the day where a small kit may be made -- a Linux server (can be a laptop!), a couple radios, some ethernet cable, and a few beams, and your digital solution is complete. It will be cross platform, utilizing 802.11 for local communications, and the amateur radio UHF frequencies to link sites together. I know how to setup the computer end of it -- if some digitial / homebrew radio guys have an answer, let's talk. ARES / ARRL will be too slow and too late.
Christian KC0ARF
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KK5CA on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Christian KC0ARF:
I envision the day where a small kit may be made -- a Linux server (can be a laptop!), a couple radios, some ethernet cable, and a few beams, and your digital solution is complete.
++++++
Christian, the vision you have exists TODAY (except for the Linux part). Over the past year, three very experienced and knowledgeable Linux people have been GIVEN, for FREE, the TelPac gateway source code, to port to Linux. So far, not one single functioning spec of it has been returned in Linux.
In February 2004, ten Amateur Radio operators each hand-carried a portable Winlink HF station into isolated villages in Honduras to support 150 doctors, nurses, and dentists. Most of the stations consisted of a laptop computer with Airmail, Pactor TNC, IC-706, G5RV junior antenna, tuner, and small gas generator. These villages do not have any electrical power. They do no have cell phone access. They do not have running water, except for the stream or nearby river. These villages do not have roads, and are only accessible by foot or single-engine planes. For ten days these teams exchanged e-mail with other team members in-country, and with friends and family in the U.S. and other countries. Some of those e-mails were medical consultations.
No phone, no cell phone, no electricity, no running water, no air conditioning. Hmmm, sounds similar to the current conditions in parts of Florida.
Supporting the ten field stations was an "elaborate internet infrastructure" that was a hand-carried Winlink PMBO station. It was installed in the hotel during the few days we had there pre-field. It consisted of a laptop running Windows 2000, Winlink PMBO server software, Pactor TNC, IC-706, tuner, G5RV Junior, deep cycle battery, and a battery charger. Internet connectivity was through a 802.11 and the hotel's WAP.
At the mission's conclusion, we each hand-carried our portable stations home with us, including the temporary PMBO.
An article about how we used this existing technology to support the mission has been accepted by QST magazine for publication. A date of actual publication date has been provided.
You can see pictures here: www.ihsofmn.org
Picture #24 is the portable PMBO
Picture #39 is the outhouse for my team
Been there, done that.
Had the closest "city" of 3,000 had internet available to us, we could have accomplished the same task with a TelPac gateway station, and each of the teams in that area using VHF/UHF FM transceivers and 1200 or 9600 baud TNCs.
The system you envision already exists. It is called Winlink.
|
| |
|
Get Real
|
|
|
by WPE9JRL on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Get a microphone and talk to somebody.
That is real ham radio: talking and conversing.
Digital dots, dashes and blips are not real radio. You can do that stuff on the internet.
Grab your PTT and make an old buzzard or two. You'll forget all about your troubles and woes with this nonsense!
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Winlink uses RFC822, approved in 1982. This is the
> common standard for moving e-mail messages via the
> internet. Without this, we would be addressing e-
> mails to people using this form: 44.119.235.316
No it doesn't, and the Winlink site specifically documents that it doesn't.
Nor does 822 address DNS, and, in fact, does allow emails to people usng the IP address of the destination; although this use is discouraged.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 1997 - Winlink Classic adopts SMTP addressing
> (RFC822) and adds internet linking. Airmail client
> program (free to hams only) available
RFC 822 has nothing to do with SMTP. Nor does Winlink, even today, use SMTP as its transport. One of the features lacking from Winlink 2000, required for ARESCOMM is that as it now stands, Winlink can only deal with email addresses in a very specific format, requiring the callsign of the amateur being contacted.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> This system exists today and it works.
The system is in beta. The beta is less than two weeks old.
> It has a multi-year history of reliability,
> efficacy, and progressive improvement.
The IP protocol suite has a 24 year history of reliability, efficacy, and progressive improvement. The total amount of experience with Winlink, to date, amounts to less than 10 *seconds* of world wide usage of the interenet.
> ALL the user software is FREE. In my opinion, that
> is about as good as it gets.
The entire IP protocol suite, originally developed at the University of California at Berkeley, and since modified by thousands of experienced network developers is available for FREE. In addition, it has litterally billions of man-years of testing and application.
There is a linux-based IP-over-radio link layer for the IP protocol suite, as well.
In my experience, *that* is about as good as it gets.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> In actuality there is no such thing as a 100% "fail
> safe" communications system.
> Why?
> Because we introduce commucation variables. The more
> variables we involve or introduce in communications,
> the likelihood of failure increases likewise.
Nope. Claude Shannon is probably rolling over in his grave.
There's no such thing as a 100% "fail safe" communications system because it is impossible to eliminate noise or entropy.
Even something as simple as flashing a mirror fails on a cloudy moonless night.
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARES is a very real and critical component to emergency services."
Not really. Here in northern California, including the Loma Prieta earthquake and some pretty impressive wild fires, the ARS has never provided anything more than occassional health and welfare traffic. Nothing it does is critical, and, frankly, given the local ARES organization, I sleep better knowing this -- and I'm an ARRL certified ARECC instructor.
Once amateurs understand what this means, they can start working on making ARES relevant to EMCOMM.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I doubt they have ever "completely" lost
> communications with San Antoinio. But, what about
> their email access?
OK, what about it. Any documented incidents in which they've lost email access during an emergency and then needed to use it?
> If only internet access was lost in the 5 block area
> around the EOC they've lost email capability and the
> ablity to send files and confidential information.
Um, no. Internet access doesn't necessarily work like that. First, if you are relying on email for emergency services -- which you shouldn't, but that's a whole other discussion -- then you set up your internet connection using two or more different modes and different connectivity providers -- even small companies will do this.
> What if their internal network went down, the server
> crashed or the router failed. They are still without
> email.
And you're not going to be able to get any to them by other means either. All those nice scenarios where spreadsheets turn into reports on emergency manager's computers require that the computers be up and able to operate on the lan.
> Or how about the EMA Director, or the EC or RO for
> that matter having the ability to receive "REAL"
> email in the field where there is no internet
> connection.
I'm guessing I'd equip them with recent generation cell phones, and work really hard with my cell provider to put some COLTs in.
> You can provide this ability with Winlink 2000.
Nope. although once the 2004 beta is up, you *might* be able to provide it with the various additions.
Winlink 2000 has no provisions for roaming, or for disconnected computing. How do you *find* that EMA Director if he's in the field?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Is one sufficient, or how many is required?"
One would be sufficient. Do you have any?
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What if you've got excel 2004, but they've only got excel/98, which can't read your spreadsheet? Oops. "
What happens when they try to send you a reply to let you know they only have excel/98? How does the winlink system route the reply back, especially if the reply address is NOT the telpac node but the Outlook Express account name that was used to send the spreadsheet?
The whole email thing just went down the tubes cause communications require TWO WAY paths!
OOOOOPS!
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Winlink is a global system for Amateur Radio
> operators to send and recieve text messages and
> attachments anywhere, at any time, for free.
> The original version was used by the military during
> Gulf War I.
Nope. While the ARESCOMM presentation implies this, a check of the actual history shows that "the original version" of winlink didn't even exist, and that the famous example of GWI -- which, by the way, was a very impressive act of heroism, -- was unrelated.
> [...] or more information: www.winlink.org
I didn't ask how much traffic Winlink currently handles, although I did get a lot of resistance from the Winlink people when I tried to get more useful information from them on retries and message sizes.
> The current NTS-Digital system forwards and delivers
> but a sliver of this volume, primarily on HF, with
> some VHF and UHF outlets.
This also doesn't answer the question, which was about the use of amateur digital com to move data for served agencies.
It is my understanding that this volume was never very large and that it has been declining. Are you aware of any statistics that would show otherwise?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<<<<<What is the main form of communications, everone including this Forum uses today to communicate? The Internet and Email. Only Cell Phones over land-line telephone service comes a close second. When you go into an EOC or some other location that is already busy and confusing do you want to add to that confusion by using modes of communications (we love as hams) that just add more confusion or would you rather give those you SERVE a "backup" to THEIR normal, everyday form of communications, that requires almost NO change in the way they work.
I pick the second choice. And that is what the Winlink 2000 option provides. >>>>>>>>>>
Really? If I put a telpac node in the State EOC, Emma Doe can send an email to the FEMA HQ in Washington, DC from her desktop PC and get a reply back in minutes?
Or does it require her to build a new account on the PC ahead of time, register the account with the Winlink system ahead of time, and then remember to change to the emergency account when the Internet is down? How does she know the internet is down and she needs to use the new account? Her PC just sends the message to a SMTP server in the EOC which is where the internet failure occurs?
Sending outgoing emails via the WL2K system is easy, getting replies back is HARD. Emcomm requires 2-WAY communications, not just outgoing.
Existing special networks (using voice, packet, etc) such as the NTS and ARES nets have this capability built in via the FROM and TO addressing on the NTS message form. The smart processor (i.e. the human) on the end can figure out how to deliver the message.
I just don't see where WL2K has this.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<<<<I hope you are not saying that served agencies, don't rely heavily on email and that they never loose their internet connection. Personaly, I don't know of anyone that has never lost their internet connection, and especial during severe weather events. Maybe you do?>>>>>
I know of at least one that has been working on installing physically diverse, duplicated fiber rings for intrastate communications for over seven years plus have plans for satellite backups plus already have HF and VHF backups in place maintained by the National Guard. They have basically told us they DO NOT NEED amateur radio as a backup for anything.
They want us to provide two basic things.
1.Eyes and ears until trained first responders get on site. Tactical vhf and hf nets meet this need just fine.
2. Help in pushing out Amber alerts and other bulletins to the public. We haven't figured out a way to help much with Amber alerts yet.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
Winlink
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm looking over the Winlink software and it looks like everything runs on Windows, no Linux/BSD. Worse yet, some of the stuff requires the .Net framework. Is there Linux versions of the software? I can't imagine an emergency network being based entirely on Windows software. Someone please tell me Linux users aren't left in cold with this system.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N0FP on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KK5CA
I wrote:
N0FP - As far as I can tell, the WIN2000 arrangement is a proprietary algorythm. Any adoption of this method on a wide spread basis is going to simply line the pockets of whoever owns the algorythm.
To which you responded:
KK5CA - The HF and VHF/UHF modules in Airmail, and Paclink's VHF/UHF module use the B2F protocol. This was developed in the 1980s for packet BBS to BBS message forwarding. Since this is in the public domain, no one derives any income from it's use.
*******************
I was under the impression that WinLink2000 is built on the proprietary Pactor III protocol and the equipment is only available from one manufacturer in Germany.
Is this true? If so, then I guess we all get to pony up to the pump with our VISA cards in hand huh?
Ford-N0FP
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KD4TOQ on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As someone who has been through a couple of disasters,(several hurricanes in Eastern North Carolina) I am puzzled as to how we are going to use the internet or computers after a major disaster? After hurricanes Fran, and Floyd, the heavily damaged areas were without power in some cases for 30 days! The TV cable system (think cable modem) was down for 6 weeks. Forget cell phones, they went down the first night, and even when sporadically on, they were jammed with calls from all over the world. These areas of NC were so badly hit that Hams with old fashioned radios provided a significant amount of communications for many days after the storms. I feel that emergency communications must be as reliable as possible and use as little energy resources as possible as there are problems you will find that you haven't thought of. Such as, you can't get fuel for your generator because the power is off. What little fuel that is available in the disaster area goes to emergency providers, not Hams usually. Look at the multi million dollar digital radio system New York was using that collapsed during 9/11. The key to real emergency communications is the equipment must survive the disaster intact and ready to go. That makes the reliance on fixed infrastructure to provide disaster communications suspect at best. There is no guarantee the infrastructure will be there after the disaster. That by definition is what disasters do, destroy the infrastructure, and make any normal communications difficult or impossible. Moves that would take us to relying on computers, software, modems, would be suspect to me as they all require resources that may not be available. Don't get me wrong, I love computers and the internt and using them in Ham radio. I have five laptops and one desk top and enjoy using most of the digital modes. I just feel that at least in the first few days of a major disaster, the man with a HT or emergency low power radio set, will be well prepared for emergency communications assistance to authorities, I have two complete pick up and go radio sets, HF-VHF-UHF, one built around an FT817 and the other around an FT897. These include a modest battery pack. I have a further 275 amp hours of backup battery power. I am not trying to be argumentative about this, but what amazed me most about the first disaster I was in was the things that occured that were never planned for. Especially when they occur in metropolitan areas. Well thats my 2 cents worth.
Mark
KD4TOQ
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> I am puzzled as to how we are going to use the internet or computers after a major disaster? <<
Mark,
I was thinking that we could deploy local 801.11 Wifi repeating networks for data communications.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<<B2F sends binary and compressed (about 40 percent). This is NOT "encryption" but it does provide some security when compared to non-B2F traffic. >>>>
This provides exactly the same security that rtty, packet, or cw does. In fact, in today's world I would suggest that high speed cw provides more security. Nothing special about B2F at all.
<<<<<The proposed NTS standard is delivery within one-hour of origination anywhere in the U.S. Is this always an acceptable time standard? What about true emergency messages? >>>>>
What about true emergency messages? True emergencies requiring quick message delivery almost never require more than local coverage. If a terrorist set off a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles tomorrow, exactly what long distance communications (e.g. to Washington DC) do you foresee needing less than a 1 hour delivery time by amateur radio?
<<<<<<A performance test of the NTS and NTSD system in 2003 found the existing long distance network was marginal for the task on both speed and accuracy. >>>>>
This test was doomed from the start. The existing NTS and NTSD system is NOT a 24/7 system. It is setup so that most areas of the country run only Cycle 2 and Cycle 4 formats. Even the NTSD uses the NTS nets for end link delivery. So while the message may get across the country in less than an hour, it may be as long a 12 hours before the next NTS net meets for delivery purposes. People available in the NTS nets on any specific day are limited as well. The NTS nets just don't have the participation they used to - for good reasons.
In an emergency, this changes drastically. Many NTS nets will (or at least can) run 24/7 and will have many more volunteers available for immediate message delivery.
<<<<Hence, the need to find other solutions, so the ARRL board appointed a committee in July 2003 to do just that. To find out what is available so Jim, on behalf of the ARRL, can go back to FEMA (or whomever) and say: yes, we have a system. Failure was not an option. That committee was composed of some of the most knowledgeable people on this subject within Amateur Radio. They looked at what was available, and they reported back to the board in January 2004 with the recommendation to use Winlink.>>>>>>
In other words, the existing system didn't fit with the agenda of the people on the committee - the answer was ordained the minute the committee was formed.
<<<<We are less than one month from the third anniversary of those attacks, and we still do not have a suitable system fully deployed. We that are committed to supporting emergency management, public safety, and disaster relief with backup and supplementary communications have an immediate need. That need that pre-dated 9/11/2001. >>>>
You will never have an acceptable system under the auspices of the Amateur Radio Service. We priced out a system that would meet YOUR requirements and the state EOC requirements. This included duplicated equipment, self-contained power backup, and commercial-rated antenna systems. The price tag came out at over $3000 for a basic setup. Not too many amateurs I know are willing to donate $3000 for setting up a station - AND spend the time each month for testing the station and doing routine maintenance such as testing the batteries and keeping a maintenance log (also a requirement if the state EOC is going to depend upon it).
<<<<<A need that can be satisfied by deployment of what already exists, the Winlink system.>>>>
Even packet coverage in the central US is spotty at best today. I don't know of *ANY* WL2K systems in use. There are NTS and NTSD links in operation with, admittedly, minimal coverage - but it is coverage. So saying the Winlink system exists is a smoke screen. Yes, there is a Winlink system in the NTSD, but there is no WL2K system as proposed by the ARRL. I have my doubts there ever will be because of the cost of a system that will be rarely used.
This is a HOBBY folks. If the US Government wants to start paying me for my ham license - in the form of donated equipment I would be more than happy to help them set up a WL2K system anywhere they want it. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC8OFR on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have had a problem with winlink's implemantation here in the great state of Michigan. Aproximently a week before a drill that several counties on the west side of the state were taking part in the State Emergency Operations Center's Packet Buliten Board System which most people around here know how to use if there are involved in ARES/RACES was replaced by Winlink without consultation of the volunteers in the field, warning, or training how to use it. We were notified of the change 4 days before our drill. We were just lucky it was a pre-drill.
After many emails between section, state and district leaders letters to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division we finally had it switched over to the packet system again a seperate winlink system for a period of three months so all the field volunteers can get a chance to learn the new system. This was a uphill battle.
The quick implementation of winlink has angred many around my area.
73
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I heard the presentation on this system. When they said it would include the MS Outlook software, that did it for me. I will not mess up my system by actually using that little bit of purposeless junk software.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When they said it would include the MS Outlook software, that did it for me. I will not mess up my system by actually using that little bit of purposeless junk software.
------------------------------------------------
That probably leaves you in the 2% range. The other 98% use Outlook.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K4JRB on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I got my September QST yesterday. If you read the ARRL Board Meeting story in the magazine its very clear that what is recommended is to adopt winlink 2000
as "an additional emergency capability provided to agencies served by ARES."
I see no reason to believe that this is being recommended over any other capability. I do see the League pushing a pet mode/project. When I was first licensed in 1957 the ARRL pushed "CW forever", home brewing, and the 5763 tube. The people at ARRL and the Board are just hams...so get to ARESCOM, the ad hoc committee on this matter and give them your opinion.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K4JRB on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I got my September QST yesterday. If you read the ARRL Board Meeting story in the magazine its very clear that what is recommended is to adopt winlink 2000
as "an additional emergency capability provided to agencies served by ARES."
I see no reason to believe that this is being recommended over any other capability. I do see the League pushing a pet mode/project. When I was first licensed in 1957 the ARRL pushed "CW forever", home brewing, and the 5763 tube. The people at ARRL and the Board are just hams...so get to ARESCOM, the ad hoc committee on this matter and give them your opinion.
Dave K4JRB
|
| |
|
RE: BACK TO SIMPLICITY FOR EMERGENCIES!
|
|
|
by KX7ID on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What are your suggestions for making ARES relevant to Emcomm? Isn't WinLink 2000 a step toward greater relevance to served agencies even with the limitations discussed in this thread?
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I was under the impression that WinLink2000 is built
> on the proprietary Pactor III protocol and the
> equipment is only available from one manufacturer in
> Germany.
The existing system is based on Pactor. The HF portion of the proposed ARESCOM system is based on Pactor III. Elsewhere on this web board, you can find proponents arguing that it must be so for performance reasons. And yes, the PACTOR-III implementation is only available from one manufacturer.
The part of the ARESCOM that's not yet debugged is based on a VHF/UHF gateway for winlink that allows it to operate VHF/UHF with other protocols. This system should interoperate with various sound-card protocols, making it usable by any PC equiped ham who is doing digital now.
|
| |
|
RE: Winlink
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I'm looking over the Winlink software and it looks
> like everything runs on Windows, no Linux/BSD.
This is correct.
> Worse yet, some of the stuff requires the .Net
> framework.
I do not believe the existing system requires .Net framework. Given the way Winlink is designed to operate, there is no reason why it should.
> Is there Linux versions of the software?
No. Nor is the source code available. I've asked the authors to put the source under GPL and make it available, but have had no luck.
> I can't imagine an emergency network being based
> entirely on Windows software.
I can. The Navy uses it.
> Someone please tell me Linux users aren't left in
> cold with this system.
Linux users are left out in the cold.
|
| |
|
The EMAIL as EMCOM is STUPID rant
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We've all gotten used to nearly instantaneous email delivery. Most of us take it for granted.
However, the internet email system is *NOT* designed to accomplish that, and makes no guarentee that it will happen.
In fact, the internet email system uses store-and-forward routing and is designed so that email can take UP TO A WEEK to deliver.
More than that, the internet email system does not even guarentee delivery AT ALL. Doesn't even guarentee notification of failure to deliver.
It's a Very Bad Idea(tm) to rely on email in an emergency.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WB8WKA on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KK5CA wrote on August 14, 2004
-----
Over the past year, three very experienced and knowledgeable Linux people have been GIVEN, for FREE, the TelPac gateway source code, to port to Linux. So far, not one single functioning spec of it has been returned in Linux.
-----
Hmmm... that is interesting, only thing I found was:
http://lists.twinslan.org/pipermail/tlan/2004-June/000122.html
Which says the "student" who was assigned to this failed, and then another third party offer was made just in the last two months.
I did check freshmeat and sourceforge, both for instances of telpac and winlink, and came back with no hits.
What I would suggest to those you say want to give the source to the Linux community, is to just start a SourceForge project. Opensource is not just limited to Linux, plenty of Windows projects are managed that was as well.
http://sourceforge.net/index.php
73
Jeff wb8wka
|
| |
|
RE: Winlink
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Is there Linux versions of the software?
>No. Nor is the source code available. I've asked the authors to put the source under GPL and make it available, but have had no luck.
Uggh. The League should make open source a requirement. I'm not a Linux zealot or an OSS nut, but you have a network of machines with basically the same OS and the same application software. One buffer overflow hole in the application software, perhaps used in conjunction with an OS exploit and you have a network brought to its knees with compromised machines or at the very least a denial of service attack.
>> I can't imagine an emergency network being based
>> entirely on Windows software.
>I can. The Navy uses it.
That's scary.
>> Someone please tell me Linux users aren't left in
>> cold with this system.
>Linux users are left out in the cold.
Again, I'm not a Linux zealot (I use Windows, Linux and BSD daily) but on the surface this whole thing sounds like a bad idea from what I'm reading. Closed source software, monoculture OS and application software, ties to particular hardware, and little or no reuse of standards such as Internet RFCs.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Over the past year, three very experienced and knowledgeable Linux people have been GIVEN, for FREE, the TelPac gateway source code, to port to Linux. So far, not one single functioning spec of it has been returned in Linux.
I'd suggest you open this up to the community and find a team that will develop it, not just three people working privately. If you're concerned about the code getting out into the public, I'd have to ask why? And about "FREE" comment -- should people be expected to pay for the code?
|
| |
|
TelPac and Linux, now
|
|
|
by WB8WKA on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I did a little reading about TelPac, and IMHO a Linux box, running kernel ax.25, coupled with one of the xNOS'es would do it. If I understand correctly, TELPAC is just a ax.25 to telnet gateway?
Been a few years since I ran NOS, but it could be set up to allow connects on the AX.25 port, and ALIAS connects (hit a command button or phrase) to telnet out to the internet.
Of course, once you are on a NOS Linux gateway, you don't have a need to use Winlink, but I guess that isn't the point ;-)
Sounds like a no brainer with Linux, or heck, even DOS, to run a "TELPAC like" server.
More info:
http://ka1fsb.home.att.net/abtjnos.html
http://www.fwarig.org/home_whatinet.html
And here is one live:
telnet://KF9UG.REXNET.NET/ ('NASA' on this one is a alias as is DX)
A ALIAS could be set up, called 'WINLINK' that when the user typed it from a AX.25 connect, would automatically telnet to a WINLINK server. The user then would need to login as normal.
What am I missing here that this shitstorm is all about?
Here is a example login of the above NOS server:
-----
JNOS (leogate.kf9ug.ampr.org)
Welcome to the Fort Wayne Amateur Radio Internet Gateway (FWARig)
If you are new to FWARig, you'll need to register
at http://www.fwarig.org/access.html before using the system.
Enter your callsign and password to login.
login: wb8wka
Password [412015db] : xxxx
[JNOS-1.11f-IHM$]
Welcome wb8wka,
to the leogate.kf9ug.ampr.org TCP/IP Mailbox (JNOS 1.11f (Linux)).
Currently 7 users.
FORT WAYNE AMATEUR RADIO INTERNET GATEWAY (FWARig) located in NE Indiana, USA
LEOGATE.KF9UG.AMPR.ORG, BBS.FWARIG.ORG & KF9UG.REXNET.NET
EN71lc (41.1192N, -85.0632W)
http://www.fwarig.org
You have 0 messages.
Area: wb8wka Current msg# 0.
DX,NASA,?,A,B,C,CONV,D,E,F,H,I,IH,IP,J,K,L,M,N,NR,O,P,PI,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Z >
Area: wb8wka Current msg# 0.
NASA
Trying... The escape character is: CTRL-T
Area: wb8wka Current msg# 0.
DX,NASA,?,A,B,C,CONV,D,E,F,H,I,IH,IP,J,K,L,M,N,NR,O,P,PI,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Z >
b
Thank you wb8wka, for calling leogate.kf9ug.ampr.org JNOS.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I'd suggest you open this up to the community and
> find a team that will develop it, not just three
> people working privately.
It turns out it's noot "three people working privately." The "highly expert" linux person turns out to be a student, who didn't follow through.
> If you're concerned about the code getting out into
> the public, I'd have to ask why? And about "FREE"
> comment -- should people be expected to pay for the
> code?
In a different thread on this topic, I asked that the developers put the source code on sourceforge. The developers refuse, and the only answer I got, (not from winlink) was
>> The crap that they need the Winlink source code is
>> just that. The protocols are all public and that's
>> all potential programmers need to start.
The only comment Steve, K4CJX, made in response to the post containing the request was to whine that he'd been 'taken out of context', concluding with "End of discussion."
I wouldn't hold my breath on the Winlink folk giving telpac to anyone capable of porting it, or of making their source available via sourceforge.
I also wouldn't take too much the proponents on this thread have to say at face value. They're well intentioned and well meaning, but they're not software people.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> As someone who has been through a couple of
> disasters,(several hurricanes in Eastern North
> Carolina) I am puzzled as to how we are going to use
> the internet or computers after a major disaster?
Last night, the HF hurricane watch net went off the air because amateurs in the path of the storm had no propagation out to the net.
How did the net discover this? Someone in the path of the storm in a chatroom told someone outside the path of the storm (out here in 6 land) who told the NCS, who decided to shut the net down.
Yes, there are phone and power outages throughout the storm path. When last I heard 1 million people are without power in Florida.
And HF propagation out of the area still sucks.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After going back and reading most of the comments some things occured to me.
A linux version of this would be very nice.
The ARESCOM solution actually ecompasses two very different things. It seems the team has mixed together providing a backup solution for internet access and a backup for email.
I understand that Winlink does a very good job of handling email today, but moving the current implementation into providing a backup for an enterprises email server is very, very complicated without requiring the users have separate email addresses for the backup system.
Providing backup internet access is also complicated but there are various ways to do that via ham radio that don't include Winlink.
Does this proposal need to be split into two different goals?
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WB8WKA on August 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said:
---
I also wouldn't take too much the proponents on this thread have to say at face value. They're well intentioned and well meaning, but they're not software people.
---
Me? Actually I am a software person (well, firmware technically). But even so, from what I read about TELPAC, it is a ax.25 packet to telnet gateway. And as such, Linux xNOS PBBS with the "ALIAS" function would literally work out of the box to emulate TELPAC functionality. You do a AX.25 connect to the box on AX.25 packet, get the prompt, then type "WINLINK" assuming it is set as a alias, and then it would telnet to a predefined IP address.
But hey, tell me I don't understand TELPAC... never run it, just read it was a AX.25 to telnet gateway.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N0FP on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0FP wrote:
> I was under the impression that WinLink2000 is built
> on the proprietary Pactor III protocol and the
> equipment is only available from one manufacturer in
> Germany.
AE6IP responded:
The existing system is based on Pactor. The HF portion of the proposed ARESCOM system is based on Pactor III. Elsewhere on this web board, you can find proponents arguing that it must be so for performance reasons. And yes, the PACTOR-III implementation is only available from one manufacturer.
*********************
So let me get this straight. In order to participate in future ARESCOM via WeakLink 2000, everybody has to run out and buy a new $400+ Pactor III modem? And you have to buy it from one manufacturer in Germany? And you expect the typical ARES volunteer to participate?
Either I'm confused, or I missed a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor and invest in some German stock.
Ford-N0FP
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0FP:
Almost. To participate in the HF part you need a $700+ pactor-iii modem. To participate in the UHF/VHF part you only need whatever it takes to get your pc to do soundcard modes with your rig.
The best part is that when you press the proponents, they back away from the HF part very quickly, (ignoring the fact that the HF part is the only thing the Winlink folk have experience with,) and hype the local VHF/UHF part.
Problem with that is that their local VHF/UHF part isn't debugged yet, and it's duplicating already existing packet based solutions.
So, in the end you get people with experience with a low volume HF net pushing a vaporware solution to a local problem.
I'd suggest getting the VHF/UHF stuff that ARES already has working. That would be pretty novel in and of itself.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8WKA,
Didn't really think of you as a winlink 'proponent' when I wrote that comment.
As I understand telpac, from the winlink web site, it's a protocol bridge, meaning it runs a double-ended state machine to translate packet traffic between an ax.25 packet net on one side and a *Winlink* telnet server on the other.
Given that it relies on the AGW packet engine, how hard it would be to emulate it -- or port it to linux -- would depend on how hard it would be to provide a thin layer converter from AGW's UIL to Linux ax.25's UIL.
This can vary from trivial to "it's faster to rewrite it".
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N3NNF on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI Wrote:
Operating isn't too sharp either. Here in Georgia, they say "this is", pause, and then say "this is W1ABC" when checking in. What the hell good does adding a useless meaningless "this is" do?
The hell good that adding a couple of meaningless word unto the beginning is that those of us who have less than perfect hearing (like me) have a moment to "tune" our ears to match the unique sounds each operator makes.
When an operator simply spits out their callsign, I usually must ask them to repeat the prefix of their callsign. When a courteous operator prefaces their callsign with a "This is" or "I am" or even "My callsign is". I am able to "lock in" on their specific tonal qualities, and understand what they are saying.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WA0LYK on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3NNF wrote:
"The hell good that adding a couple of meaningless word unto the beginning is that those of us who have less than perfect hearing (like me) have a moment to "tune" our ears to match the unique sounds each operator makes."
Hear! Hear!
There are some procedures that seem stupid but have developed over the years to take into account those of us who have hearing problems. As most of us get older, hearing ability decreases and some of these so called superfluous items are advantageous.
Also some of them do work to minimize confusion during hectic operation in noisy and distracting environments. During normal operation they may seem ridiculous but if they aren't used continually then people won't use them during emergencies either.
Jim
WA0LYK
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Using the "this is " proword is also NTIA and ITU procedure.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FYI relevant to the discussion
Subject: FCC changes declaration process
http://tinyurl.com/62o44
Important changes here:
1) Requests must come from Emergency Manager or someone who has designated by the Emergency Manager
2) No longer will you see a declaration for any High Frequency radio channels (except 60 meters). Requests will be for VHF or UHF channels only and those five frequencies in the 60 meter band.
3) The request must come AFTER a communications disaster has occured.
What does this mean?
1) Emergency Management Radio Officers will need to know how to file and to whom to file the requests. Before, the requests have generally been handled by the American Radio Relay League official in the Section impacted by the event. Now there appears to be a specific format.
2) Amateur Radio operators need to beef up their 60 meter capabilities. While the fine print says we can use other frequencies "under the provisions of Section 97.101(c)", I would find it illogical to grant a 3.900 mHz request when there are five channels in the 60 meter band capable of being used.
3) Gone are the days when the declaration was issued before the hurricane struck. Now you know why the declaration for FL for Hurricanes Bonnie and Charlie were not done before hand.
This may mean you will see fewer HF nets established, you may see a greater use of the 60 meter band for Emergency Communications, and an even more meaningful use of amateur radio operators by emergency managers.
This may mean you will see fewer declarations, period. Since the EM should have a good working relationship with the ham radio operators in
his community, it could be that the local hams would just voluntarily help with the disaster and, as gentlemen will, keep the repeater free for disaster communication. There's no need to declare if the job's getting done.
Along the east coast we have the Mid Atlantic Emergency Net see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/60Meters_EmCom/ which meets twice per month for drills for 30 minutes long. We've been getting folks on board, even before this change happened.
Other sections should follow suit. If they don't, IMO, the role of civilian ECOM may, by default, fall to Military Affiliate Radio System operators with their modified radios and channelized HF operations emphasizing digital modes.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ATTN Tom, W8JI..
The local twits do the same thing here too.... during check in they will key up, say "here is", unkey, count to 10, then key up with a call...
I do not play that way, so I have been known to check in between the "here is" dead air and check in with all my info.
The reason they do this is simple, the net lasts 5 minutes without the dead spots, and 15 if they all leave a long pause.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WB8WKA on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP wrote on August 16, 2004:
--->
W8WKA,
Didn't really think of you as a winlink 'proponent' when I wrote that comment.
---<
Well, I just wanted to make that perfectly clear. If you want to catagorize me, I'm a proponent for as much interoperability as possible.
AE6IP wrote:
IP---->
As I understand telpac, from the winlink web site, it's a protocol bridge,
------<
As I understood it as well, and that also in essence describes Linux xNOS'es ax.25 to telnet bridge.
AE6IP wrote:
IP----->
Given that it relies on the AGW packet engine, how hard it would be to emulate it -- or port it to linux -
...
This can vary from trivial to "it's faster to rewrite it".
----<
It is less then trivial, it already exists. See my earlier post on xNOS and the ALIAS/TELNET redirect. In the DOCs for TELPAC, it lists both the IP addresses for TELPAC backups and port numbers, I tried it manually and it behaves as expected, although wasn't able to log in (said something about transparent mode, which I assume means 8 bit binary). Worst case, a little tweaking and it would go.
But in my opinion, these guys (opensource vs. closed source) just don't want to work together to develop compatible systems, and that doesn't matter whose camp you are in. And it is really ashame, as interoperability should be the primary goal, not promoting one (existing) system over another yet to be coded system. There should be room to expand beyond the orginial applications, much as there where PBBS'es beyond the original W0RLI PBBS, which was closed source, but who documented it well enough for interoperability.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N6OFY on August 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well;
As a part of ARES leadership in San Francisco,
I would like very much a simple digital system, and to me, packet, pactor, aprs, and psk13 seem to work fine.
I see one very big problem with winlink, mainly, depending on the internet for em. comms.
There are ...
a. the internet might not be up in my area, say a major quake hit, all landline comms, including most internet access will be down, we plan for that.
dsl, is via landline.
cable internet, come on, how often does your cable go out. a power outage will knock it out.
so what left, sat internet, well the ARC has that, but no one in my group has the bucks for that.
b. the cost factor
c. OK, our team members now have in their go kits, items that can go anywhere, if and when the call comes. having to worry about your laptop, software, power, tnc's, ect. ect. come on.
simple is BETTER!
How often does your computer at home crash?
How about a laptop in the field? at a brush fire, flooding, ect.
In the field I want a trained communicator, with a HT, or mobile unit, a mic, or a key, not someone spending 20 minutes trying to get their computer running right.
I do feel the digital comms, does have a important part in comms.
Digital between the local eoc amd the outside world, yes.
winlink? I don't know.
give me a mic, a key, a pen and paper, I'll get the traffic out.
a computer, well maybe, if everything work right.
73 all
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC0ORP on August 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I feel so humble, just having an HT, spare food, water, batteries, etc.
Wally.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
the internet might not be up in my area, say a major quake hit, all landline comms, including most internet access will be down
------------------------------------------
Isn't that the purpose of the HF Pactor side of WinLink? You get the e-mail to a WinLink node outside the affected area and then put it back on the Internet.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N6OFY on August 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that for HF, this will be of great use, but for vhf and uhf, in our area, it most likely will not work well enough to ask ARES people to take their laptops, tncs, ect. to a shelter after a quake.
One area we are checking out is having several of our ARES/OES station setup for this.
Shelter traffic handling after a major quake here in the bay area, will still be a pain however we deal with it.
4 or 5 counties, in SF alone, after a major quake, we figure on 10 to 20 shelters. and remember the same thing will be happening in the nearby counties.
as it stands now we will most likely go to a 'node' arangement ! OES station dealing with say 5 shelters, than relaying via digital to the eoc.
got to go for now
|
| |
|
ARES Needs a break
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on August 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
With all this disaster stuff going on. After all is said and done, buy 'em a beer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover and FLA
|
|
|
by K4RAF on August 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"you may see a greater use of the 60 meter band for Emergency Communications"
I seem to remember that was the sole purpose behind pushing the NTIA to release allocation of the 60 meter band as an experiment.
Sorry but as for the "Ground Zero" reports from ARES Florida, I find the claims made in the newsclip @ARRL to be incredible with regard to the trunk system when compared to reports I have heard & read revealed:
- T-Mobile USA offered free wireless Internet connections through Monday at the roughly 300 Wi-Fi hot spots it operates in Florida in the wake of Hurricane Charley.
- SBC Communications Inc. in San Antonio said the company has not yet decided to offer free Wi-Fi service in Florida, but said, "it is something we would consider." SBC provides paid Wi-Fi service at just over 200 outlets in Florida.
- Nextel is providing more than 1,900 free handsets to emergency response teams and armed some 40,000 workers with a high-priority version of its Direct Connect "push to talk" service.
- Cingular Wireless in Atlanta said in a statement that it has Cellular on Wheels Systems (COWS) , on scene to provide extra call capacity or to restore communications in an area with downed or knocked-out cellular towers.
- Sprint Corp. in Overland Park, Kan., said in a statement that its Sprint PCS division has also set up COWS in Florida to help with network recovery efforts if needed.
- Verizon Wireless, in Bedminster, N.J., said it also has its own fleet of COWS and Cells On Light Trucks that can be quickly rolled into a disaster area to provide extra network capacity. Verizon Wireless, in a statement , also noted that it conducted a nationwide disaster preparation drill earlier this year which simulated how it would handle a Florida hurricane. Verizon Wireless said more than 80% of its transmission sites in Florida have their own back up generators. It also has mobile generators available, should they be needed.
That's when COWS and COLTs ("Cell Sites on Wheels" and "Cell- on-Light-Truck") come to the rescue. They are self-contained cellular sites with generators, cell antennas and a microwave backhaul.
AT&T has a fleet of 150 tractor-trailers placed around the country that can be anywhere in the United States within 24 hours. They contain every piece of equipment needed to re-establish network connections in the event of any kind of disaster.
Add FEMA, State & National Guard efforts, then ask yourself: HF email? 9600baud packet?
Game over & the FCC has telegraphed once again that they see through whole circa 1974 traffic game...
Sorry folks
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by KO6RP on August 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to comment on RACES background checks. I recently began participating in a Southern California RACES group. It is a fine group with many long time mebers. They gave me a package of forms the county requires to apply for membership.
I don't mind providing basic information, and I know that with that information a fairly exhaustive search of my background can be made. (I have worked on Homeland Security databases.) However, the depth of this check including interviews with references is beyond reasonable. I am not applying to carry a gun or issue citations. I am applying to facilitate communications in an emergency.
When I received my government clearance for the old AEC, they required about the same level of information and the site was working on weapons not fighting floods and forest fires.
So I will remain a visitor and support the RACES group as I can.
Steve H.
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The last company I worked for as a full timer had a 'security firm' doing background checks, mainly to verify employment history and degrees earned, as the number of padded resumes has gone way up.
The 'security firm' reported back that they were unable to verify my employment at one previous employer.
Because they "could not find a phone number or address" for that employer.
Which was on the form I'd sent them.
I wonder how hard Fortune-50 companies are to find in the phone book, anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AE1X on August 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve H.
You have to remember that you are now becoming a part of the Homeland Security function of local government. You have to meet the same strict standards for a police officer. In the past, this wasn't an issue. Since 9/11, it is the issue.
Personally, I can no longer be a part of ARES or RACES despite the fact that I did 20 years of that type of work. I'm a chronic depressive and got a into difficulties with the law because of it. I'm now considered unreliable.
You see, you will have access to systems that can connect to critical databases within government and they have to be sure you are okay. You will be getting the same type of check that you received for your AEC clearance and in fact maybe even a bit deeper.
It has come down to this because of our enemies around the world and will never change.
Ken
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on August 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Never mind the problem, fix the blame!
Maybe one of you that do get involved with emergency traffic, Mars, or who ever expalin this one to me please.
When 9/11 happend in NYC, I volunteered within hours.
I live 3 blocks from the Salvation Army that was being used for HQ. They set up a special computer there.
They kind OM took my name, address, and call. He said he would call back with a time slot for me to
work. I told him I was available 24/7.
24 hours past, no phone call to come in. I called and got the same guy. He said the sheer volume of hams from other states filled in the roster for that week.
Got a call a week later, and was given a shift to work. The OM said we may not need you.
He also commented how the computer really screwed up.
I live walking distance from the SALVATION ARMY, Chealsea peers, and one block from ST vincints hospital.
I know it is off the subject, any idea's what the SNAFU was?
What came to my mind.
1) All the dispatch positions were filled by MARS/RACES hams first, because they have regular training drills.
2)The computer simply had a software glitch.
3)They thaught New Yorkers that live 1 mile from GND ZERO, would not be in the best shape to work?
The OM said they were going to look into it for next time. I HOPE THERE IS NO NEXT TIME!
I have had secret service clearence and other press clearences when I worked for a local VHF-TV in NYC.
I had EMT training.
Anyone have any idea's? Did they find the software glitch?
I mobilised a group of people in my block association on FRS instead, and helped out where needed. Gave P.F.A. when needed.
What gives???????
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You have to remember that you are now becoming a
> part of the Homeland Security function of local
> government.
Not.
> You have to meet the same strict standards for a
> police officer.
Not.
> In the past, this wasn't an issue. Since 9/11, it is
> the issue.
Not.
Most jurisdictions *still* consider amateur radio operators to be _volunteer_ disaster service workers. No organization requires the same level of scrutiny of its volunteer workforce as it does of its full time professionals.
It's about time that hams quit kidding themselves about their importance to "homeland security".
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH,
What gives is that hams simply weren't required or used in large numbers for 9/11 emergency communications.
Desipite what the ARRL would like us to believe, the communication infrastructure did an amazing job under the circumstances, and where it didn't work, amateurs couldn't have helped.
Example: You'll hear a lot of hams talk about how jammed the cell phone system was, and how hard it was to get a call out. It's easy to conclude that meant that the cell system went down in large parts of New York. However, the reality of the situation is examplified by one cell provider: instead of their usual 1 billion calls per day in New York, they handled over two billion calls. sure, a bunch of calls didn't go through on the first try. But the system stayed up.
Also, the Red Cross shelters weren't needed in any large number. An unfortunate consequence of the nature of the disaster was that the vast majority of people either got out unscratched, or died on the scene. There just wasn't the kind of casualties that we usually associate with disasters.
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> You have to remember that you are now becoming a
>> part of the Homeland Security function of local
>> government.
>Not.
If you are going to perform within the purview of the Homeland Security auspices, you must now meet the requirements of Homeland Security.
>> You have to meet the same strict standards for a
>> police officer.
>Not.
Sorry, friend, but you do. If you are going to qualify for an ID to enter our state EOC (which is the main RACES operating position for our state) you must have a full background check - just like for a police officer or owner of a fully automatic weapon.
>> In the past, this wasn't an issue. Since 9/11, it is
>> the issue.
>Not.
Sorry, friend, but that is the case. Our EOC now has a full concrete barrier established with an entry gate over 300 feet from any structure - manned 24/7 by armed National Guard and police. They *do* check ID's and you must have one sufficient for Homeland Security or be meeting with someone already inside who can vouch for you.
>Most jurisdictions *still* consider amateur radio >operators to be _volunteer_ disaster service workers. >No organization requires the same level of scrutiny of >its volunteer workforce as it does of its full time >professionals.
I agree that most jurisdictions consider us 'volunteers'. But they do require the same scrutiny of the volunteer workforce as of the full-time professionals - at least if you are going to have unescorted access to the same areas.
>It's about time that hams quit kidding themselves >about their importance to "homeland security".
This I agree with fully. We have been basically told that we are surpurflous to their communication needs.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems to me adding complicated bells and whistles and gadgets to a so called emergency station just invites more failures. Why not simply use a microphone and talk like a human being? All this takes is a rig and an antenna, no computers, fancy interfaces and extra gee gaws to fail on you at the worst possible time.
All you need is a pad and pencil to write info down and your good to go. All that power hungry trash running when your on emergency back up power is frivolous and wasteful and can be used on much more important things in times of crisis.
Example, your in the middle of critical health and welfare traffic on winlink or some other digital mode when your computer decides to crash.....what then? When peoples lives are at stake, the last thing you need is equipment failures,it can be fatal.
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim, AB0WR
The background check for unescorted restricted-area access has always been a requirement, and is definitely not the same level of scrutiny as the background check for a police officer. The requirement isn't any stricter now than it was before, it is merely more likely to be followed completely.
The background check for a gun permit is pretty trivial, as background checks go. It amounts to a check on the DB for priors that disqualify.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HAMDUDE,
There is a valid reason for using keyboarding, rather than paper and pencil.
First, remember that keyboarded lists are material that is not time critical, such as lists of names and addresses of people at a shelter. Also, such lists may be transfered several times before reaching their destination.
There is always the chance of error at first transcription, but once in electronic form, the chance of additional error is much less than the chance of a transcription error in taking a list via voice and writing it down.
Also, a packet system can operate nearly unattended, freeing up the operators to handle the time critical voice traffic.
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The background check for unescorted restricted-area
>access has always been a requirement, and is
>definitely not the same level of scrutiny as the
>background check for a police officer. The requirement
>isn't any stricter now than it was before, it is
>merely more likely to be followed completely.
A DNA swab that can be checked against existing databases is now done. That *is* a lot stricter than it used to be.
>The background check for a gun permit is pretty
>trivial, as background checks go. It amounts to a >check on the DB for priors that disqualify.
I'm sorrry, I guess I wasn't clear. The process for obtaining a permit for a fully automatic weapon is *much* more than a DB check for priors. It is similar to the checks done to get a Federal Firearms License. A *much* more intensive process nowadays.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Um, no. The Federal requirement for a firearms purchase was set in '98, and hasn't changed. It consists of a request for a NICS check. The sale may be completed if the check hasn't been done within three days. A wide range of firearms sales require no federal background check at all.
And no, a DNS swab does not constitute a background check. Rather, it is a dubious form of ID.
|
| |
|
RE: RACES Background Checks
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ooops. My bad. I misread your comments and mised *fully-automatic*. But no, the rules for the type III Federal Firearms License haven't changed either.
You file an ATF form 7; pay your $30; and wait.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on August 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Why? It's been nearly 20 years since the Internet was fragile enough that the whole thing came down at once.>
I'll take your word on it. But in 1997(?) there was an Amtrak derailment on the boswash corridor, and "the entire internet" went down as far as anyone in the northeast US was concerned. When the trains derailed, they took out the primary fiber optic trunk--and there was no redundancy on the primary trunks for the internet.
And I think it was one or two years later that a backhoe in NJ literally cut the fiber trunk running over a highway bridge, and blacked out a large piece of the NY-NJ connection out to anywhere on the "mainland". These incidents were not unique.
Back then you could pull up a diagram of the entire backbone very easily, and see just how simple it was to cut off large parts of the US (think 500-1000 miles in diameter) with one backhoe.
Now...with the Homeland Insecurity initiative it is harder to see if there is any redundancy, much less where the backbone is.
I still think using the internet is making good use of the best available resource, but people should note that "the entire internet" still can and does go down, as far as the users in large areas are concerned. You can expect it to be repaired within 4-24 hours, sure. If anyone can access the break.
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N7RX on August 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We dropped ARES at the county Department of Emergency Management following the ARRL board action. It's one thing to provide a field organization and training base, it's another to enforce management control. We're in the process of stripping all the ARES logos and designations out of the department.
I have to say that after 30 years of hamming, this is about the dumbest thing I've seen the ARRL do.
73 Neal N7RX
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by G7IGG on August 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP wrote:
<snip>Having pondered those, consider this: The current communications infrastructure in the United States is such that the sort of 'out-of-the-area' communications network being proposed is simply not needed. </snip>
I've been watching this debate with interest, and I have had an uncomfortable feeling that the debate is discussing solutions which do not match well with the typical needs of government agencies.
What is being discussed here is ham radio wanting to offer emergency data carrier services and trying to find ways in which this might be provided at a technical and operational level.
When any organisation - business-related or governmental agency - looks at emergency data carriers for suitability, there are a number of questions that will be asked. As someone who has specialised in this topic, I can say that there will be a number of killer issues that will be need to be satisfied before putting a carrier on a short list for selection. The questions will mainly centre around the issue of security.
In this context security means "confidentiality, integrity and availability". This translates into "is the system strongly encrypted?", "is the system free from errors and deliberate or accidental corruption?" and "can the system be relied upon when I need it?"
Other factors further down the decision making process would include "how easily can my staff plug my systems into this thing" and "what would be the performance when my staff in an emergency area need to update my missing persons database in Washington?"
Those issues above will, in my humble opinion, make or break any attempt to provide data carrier services by means of ham radio.
Quite honestly, if the above issues cannot be addressed by ham radio systems and operators, government agencies will buy from somewhere else.
Tony Wells
G7IGG
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by PA3DUV on August 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While the dogs are barking we keep on transfering the messages from your Servicemen in Iraq, your countrymen on board their vessels, your missionaries in the bush, your scientist on the poles.
While the dogs are barking the guy in the North Atlantic gets his e-mail out to the coast guard concerning his broken mast or damaged engine.
While the dogs are barking the Winlink PMBO operators maintain and improve the infrastructure and invest money on equipment.
While the dogs are barking our Development Team spends countless hours on the software and continuously improves the Network.
Where is the alternative??
Regards, Dick Knol
PA3DUV, Winlink 2000 PMBO operator
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W7IJ on August 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said Dick. Seems like there are always the nay sayers, but the doers get it done.
73,
Bill - Winlink 2000 PMBO
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by PA3DUV on August 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Bill,
Gotta go, got work to do....
Regards, Dick Knol
PA3DUV
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>While the dogs are barking we keep on transfering the
>messages from your Servicemen in Iraq, your countrymen
>on board their vessels, your missionaries in the bush,
>your scientist on the poles.
But the county EOC director during last nights storm, who doesn't have a ham license, and doesn't have a pre-registered WL2K email address, didn't get any email delivered to him via WL2K.
>While the dogs are barking the guy in the North
>Atlantic gets his e-mail out to the coast guard
>concerning his broken mast or damaged engine.
But the local National Weather Service director of forecasting, who doesn't have a ham license and doesn't have a pre-registered email address on the WL2K system, didn't get any email delivered to him via WL2K.
>While the dogs are barking the Winlink PMBO operators
>maintain and improve the infrastructure and invest
>money on equipment.
But the local 2m TNOS gateway to the ethernet was working and provided for emergency telnet sessions with EMAIL access - both sending AND receiving - for the emergency personnel.
And it doesn't require the investment of thousands of dollars of equipment and software.
>While the dogs are barking our Development Team spends
>countless hours on the software and continuously
>improves the Network.
And the local people keep on working providing INDUSTRY STANDARD solutions using NON-PROPRIETARY software and equipment.
>Where is the alternative??
It's being used everyday by those who aren't part of the affluent - and it has been available for over a decade and has a proven track record.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by PA3DUV on August 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No Ham ticket nor pre registration are needed to receive e-mail from WL2K users.
Please check http://winlink.org for all information concerning WL2K.
Dick
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> No Ham ticket nor pre registration are needed to
>receive e-mail from WL2K users.
>Please check http://winlink.org for all information
>concerning WL2K.
Really? From the winlink.org site:
"Winlink 2000 is available to any properly licensed Amateur radio operator. As such, you simply log into one of the participating network stations (PMBOs) using the client software, AirMail, and you will have established yourself as a registered Winlink 2000 user. After you have become a "registered" radio Winlink 2000 user, you may also then take advantage of the Telnet and WEB-based email facilities."
Sure sounds to me like a ham license is needed and registration is required.
Does your site need updating or do you need a ham license and need to register?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by PA3DUV on August 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems that my knowledge of the English language is insufficient to make myself clear, apologies for that.
I repeat:
No Ham ticket nor pre registration is needed for the county EOC director or the local National Weather Service director of forecasting in order to receive e-mail from a WL2K user.
No Ham ticket nor pre-registration is needed for the county EOC director or the local National Weather Service director of forecasting in order to reply to a message originated by a WL2K user.
In order to protect the WL2K Network against spam and crap mail WL2K only accepts traffic from trusted (SMTP e-mail) sources. Once a WL2K user sends a message to an SMTP e-mail address that e-mail address is automatically registered as a trusted source.
Dick Knol
PA3DUV
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>No Ham ticket nor pre registration is needed for the
>county EOC director or the local National Weather
>Service director of forecasting in order to receive
>e-mail from a WL2K user.
Really? How does your software know where to send the email addressed to director@noaa.ks.gov in order to get it to a telpac node that can deliver the email to his local POP server since the internet connection between his regular POP server and the world is dead?
Remember, it is HIS internet link that is down, not the regular W2LK user.
>No Ham ticket nor pre-registration is needed for the
>county EOC director or the local National Weather
>Service director of forecasting in order to reply to a
> message originated by a WL2K user.
Really? Since there are no TELPAC nodes or WL2K nodes within 100 miles of here, I would have assumed he would have to establish one himself. Otherwise he isn't going to have anything to use.
>In order to protect the WL2K Network against spam and
>crap mail WL2K only accepts traffic from trusted (SMTP
> e-mail) sources. Once a WL2K user sends a message to
>an SMTP e-mail address that e-mail address is
>automatically registered as a trusted source.
I guess I still fail to see how two-way email communications can be easily established to a non-ham who only has an email address. Being able to send mail is not sufficient, assuming someone is willing to donate equipment and a call-sign to establish a telpac node for him to use. If he asks for 4 units of a resource and only 2 are available, someone needs to be able to get a message to him that says only two are available. Messages sent to his email address are going to die - either the messages hit the down internet link since the internet system cannot know to reroute the traffic for his email address to the WL2K system or they will die in the WL2K system since it obviously wouldn't know what to do with the email address once it got it anyway.
This is why our EOC people don't even want to discuss the issue. They would rather spend their Homeland Security dollars on physically diverse, protected fiber rings and on satellite service that will provide full replacement of downed internet links.
That way they don't have people running around asking "does anyone have that sheet that darned ham passed out with addresses and passwords we are supposed to use to get our email?"
You can call me a naysayer all you want. It won't change the issues our EOC are concerned ab0ut. They are more interested in how we can help get Amber Alerts out to the public than in us providing outgoing email backup via ham radio.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by K4CJX on August 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>You can call me a naysayer all you want. It won't >change the issues our EOC are concerned abOut. They >are more interested in how we can help get Amber >Alerts out to the public than in us providing >outgoing email backup via ham radio.
>tim ab0wr
Tim, I noted your profile:
"I am most proud of the following accomplishments in ham radio...extra class license, VE, Kansas Section CW net ncs on Tuesday Session 1 and Thursday Session 2. Digital NTS station handling TEN and 9RN traffic."
I also note the ARRL NTS Performance survey results quoted as
" Results:
1. 80 percent of the Sent messages were Delivered. “Lost” messages were sent to Alaska,
California, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ontario, Wyoming (1 cw each),
Massachusetts (1 pactor), Quebec (2 cw, 1 pactor), Texas (1 cw, 2 pactor), and Washington (1 pactor). A Service Message regarding the problem of delivery was received for only 1 of the 17 “Lost” messages. 59 messages were able to be “scored”.
2. The median Travel Time was 35 hours. Half of the messages traveled faster than 35 hours; half traveled slower than 35 hours. The average Travel Time was 52 hours."
NTS/D still uses the old Winlink Classic which was developed for Windows 3.1 and was used in this survey. Winlink Classic was developed back before there were any Internet links and does automatically forward over HF and it is initiated by an unattended automatic station. Unfortunately, it does not provide for legal identification when it calls and makes no connection. Because of this and its 16 bit code written in the earlier versions of Borland C++, it was shelved by the Winlink development team, its authors, in 1996 in favor of the newer developed Winlink 2000 which became publicly available in January, 2000. In the interim period, a kluge called "Netlink" was developed to interface Winlink Classic into the "new" Internet email system, which was becoming the de facto standard for written messaging over distance.
Noticing what happened to the diminishing Packet community, it should be no surprise that we decided to embrace the Internet or die as a hobby. Fortunately, we were not alone. Let's face it, we are now viewed as antiquated by your Topeka, Kansas EOC. And to think, they have an NTS/D "radio all the way" station nearby.(However, it is not too late to work on your other served agencies in Topeka. But, I bet they still use SMTP mail more than any other means of written communications. If not, it is surely a close second.)
So rather than fight this big gorilla enabling technology, we did embrace what we could within Winlink 2000 to now provide the IETF RFC 2821 standard for SMTP mail.
Now, how it is transferred is up to each individual client, and it IS a challenge and an opportunity for those who wish to get involved. It is also a a target for those who wish to complain and produce nothing.
Winlink 2000 now supplies several avenues for user access: VHF/UHF Packet, Telnet, HF Pactor, a WEB Brower Access, and any other TCP/IP link including an ARES PMBO in Colorodo using Satellite, another using WI Fi in Oahu, Microwave in Panama. This is continuing to develop as individuals and groups move forward with their plans.
So the Amateur community now has a tool that will dynamically route SMTP mail to and from the Internet over the Amateur HF/VHF/UHF Spectrum using a publicly listed binary compressed format that several ARQ protocols can wrap around it to provide SMTP mail for those who otherwise do not have affordable Internet options available to them. It does this by just adding another email account on the existing email programs of the desktop computers of those who work in Servered agancies, and it does so without any invasive software on these desktop computers. It puts a small mini-email server in front of their firewall and allows SMTP mail to continue to flow should their own links break or become jammed with traffic. And, it works, regardless of opinions expressed by those who think otherwise, but have never used the system.
As we move forward, we do expect to use better developed digital protocols to deliver SMTP mail over radio to multiple recipients with multiple binary attachments, and at an ever increasing rate for any given bandwidth. To date, the ARQ protocols are our best avenue, but no one knows what will be developed for the future. In September, two of the Winlink development team members are presenting papers at this year's ARRL/TAPR DCC. One will present a soundcard protocol that will carry the B2F format at fairly decent speeds. The point is, we all have an opportunity to enhance our position with the community served agencies who perhaps cannot afford the Satellite hand phones, and fiber optic rings.
Your comments illustrate (to me, anyway) that you have not taken a good look at the Winlink 2000 topology, or some of your "fail to see" issues would be resolved. Also, Jerry, KK5CA, has presented a very accurate accounting of many of the current implementations of Winlink 2000, at least for the ARRL ARES®.
Telpac is only one option..a simple bridge. Paclink is also one option that now has five levels of priority of alternate routing. Telnet could be the first, but so could satellite communications. The lower levels of priority may even look like 9.6 KB Packet. Have you looked at mobile deployment of Airmal?
But with the attitude of "what the hell" it won't work, anyway, we may as well just put our "stuff" on EBay and wait for BPL. Because when it comes, we certainly won't have any organized support from those we don't think we can assist.
What is a mystery to me is why you are involved with traffic handling and at the same time, saying that it is of no interest to those who receive it? Not to worry, NTS/D is about to join the 21st century, too.
If you have difficulty understanding how mail flows within the system, I am sure that you can receive assistance just by asking.
Lastly, the ARRL field organization is not married to Winlink 2000. It is just another anhancement to the tool in the toolkit that you, yourself, say you are proud to use. Hopefully, there will be many others that will keep this toolkit current. If not, we are all going to need to find another hobby. The vultures are flying overhead watching us fight, laughing and waiting. Haven't you noticed? If not, wait until you see the responses to this message.
Steve, k4cjx
Winlink network administrator
Winlink development team
Member, ARRL ARESCOM Committee
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by AB0WR on August 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I also note the ARRL NTS Performance survey results >quoted as
>" Results:
>1. 80 percent of the Sent messages were Delivered. >“Lost” messages were sent to Alaska,
>California, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New >York, Ontario, Wyoming (1 cw each),
>Massachusetts (1 pactor), Quebec (2 cw, 1 pactor), >Texas (1 cw, 2 pactor), and Washington (1 pactor). A >Service Message regarding the problem of delivery was >received for only 1 of the 17 “Lost” messages. 59 >messages were able to be “scored”.
>2. The median Travel Time was 35 hours. Half of the >messages traveled faster than 35 hours; half traveled >slower than 35 hours. The average Travel Time was 52 >hours."
What else did anyone expect of the survey? You seem to be suprised and dismayed by the results. That shows that you really don't have any understanding of the NTS as it is comprised today. The NTSD still relies upon the NTS voice and cw nets for delivery and most section voice and cw nets only meet once per day. The Region Nets only meet on Cycle 2 and Cycle 4. Even then over 60 percent of the traffic I receive for Region 10 gets cancelled because of no outlets at the section and local levels.
When required in an emergency situation, this gets turned around pretty drastically. It is much easier to find stations to deliver messages to important points. The NTS nets can also be manned as required to handle the traffic, up to and including 24/7 operation.
If you believe that political polls can be genned up to get any answer that is wanted, this "poll" of the NTS certainly falls into that category.
Winlink Classic still works well. The only limitation today is that so many NTS sections do not have NTSD representation forcing those stations handling the traffic to do yeoman service to get it dumped into the Region and Section nets.
>Noticing what happened to the diminishing Packet
>community, it should be no surprise that we decided to >embrace the Internet or die as a hobby.
You see, this is what is really interesting. We just had a emergency drill using packet to communicate among emergency locations in the Kansas City and Topeka area this weekend and had more participants than ever before.
Your statement seems to be quite at odds with what we are actually seeing on the ground.
>Fortunately, we were not alone.
In this area you are.
> Let's face it, we are
>now viewed as antiquated by your Topeka, Kansas EOC.
>And to think, they have an NTS/D "radio all the way"
>station nearby.(However, it is not too late to work on
> your other served agencies in Topeka. But, I bet they
> still use SMTP mail more than any other means of
>written communications. If not, it is surely a close
>second.)
Unless you can provide 100mb service on an uninterrupted basis, the EOC won't be interested in anything you can offer. This includes fault tolerant equipment (i.e. automatically tested for operation and automatically switched when a failure mode is detected) and battery backup with a minimum of 24 hour operation and, preferably, 72 hour. Your offering won't meet any of these requirements. In fact, even our County EOC has been putting in the same equipment as the State EOC, mainly funded by Homeland Security federal money. This includes physically diverse, protected fiber rings. That is pretty hard to compete with.
Most of us don't have $5000 to $10000 dollars to donate toward putting together an operation that will compete with what Homeland Security federal money can compete with. I'm glad you have deep pockets to buy the equipment needed.
>So rather than fight this big gorilla enabling
>technology, we did embrace what we could within
>Winlink 2000 to now provide the IETF RFC 2821 standard
> for SMTP mail.
Again, unless you can meet the fault tolerant, battery backed up requirements, you are wasting bandwidth even proposing anything.
>Now, how it is transferred is up to each individual
>client, and it IS a challenge and an opportunity for
>those who wish to get involved. It is also a a target
>for those who wish to complain and produce nothing.
This is a HOBBY, fer pete's sake. My budget for this year for ham equipment is about $300 and most of that got spent this spring on upgrading antennas.
If you would like to donate $10000 dollars to me, I will put together a WL2k system that *might* meet the EOC's requirements and see if they will allow us to put it in their hardened site.
Oh, did I mention that they also require someone with proper clearances has to be available to operate and maintain the equipement on their site? There is only one ham in the whole state of Kansas that I know of with the proper clearances to get into the building when it is locked down during emergencies. Perhaps you can also provide me a way to get the proper clearances from Homeland Security and the state Adjutant General along with the $10000?
>Winlink 2000 now supplies several avenues for user
>access: VHF/UHF Packet, Telnet, HF Pactor, a WEB
>Brower Access, and any other TCP/IP link including an
>ARES PMBO in Colorodo using Satellite, another using
>WI Fi in Oahu, Microwave in Panama. This is continuing
> to develop as individuals and groups move forward
>with their plans.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that I told you there are no WL2K sites within 100 miles of Topeka. You might add another $10000 to your donation for me to get an Icom 7800 to use in accessing an HF PMBO site. I can probably convince them that the 7800 will meet their fault tolerance requirements.
>So the Amateur community now has a tool that will
>dynamically route SMTP mail to and from the Internet
>over the Amateur HF/VHF/UHF Spectrum using a publicly
Which will be a total waste when the director of the noaa site can't get to the weather site because the streets are flooded. But he could call a ham friend via cell and get messages passed into the weather office via 2m fm.
> It does this by just adding another email account on
>the existing email programs of the desktop computers
>of those who work in Servered agancies, and it does so
> without any invasive software on these desktop
>computers. It puts a small mini-email server in front
>of their firewall and allows SMTP mail to continue to
>flow should their own links break or become jammed
>with traffic. And, it works, regardless of opinions
>expressed by those who think otherwise, but have never
> used the system.
I don't know whe exactly you are working with but I would like to know what security reviews they do. Do you know what we heard when we brought up using APRS to help the EOC track units? The Natl Guard protecting the site absolutely, no way, wants a security risk letting enemies target their locations using APRS data accessible via the internet.
Do you know what they are going to say about us wanting to stick in a *mail server* in front of their firewalls?
You do understand that with Homeland Security requirements today that much of the networking used by these agencies actually have very limited interworking with what the general public knows as the "internet"?
I can just hear their network security people when I tell them that I want to stick a Windows XP box running some kind of private software in front of their email server that will have links to the public internet. Oh, and did I mention the proprietary hardware using proprietary software, both from a company in GERMANY?
>As we move forward, we do expect to use better
>developed digital protocols to deliver SMTP mail over
>radio to multiple recipients with multiple binary
I guess I'm just not getting my point across. This isn't an argument about protocols, it isn't about using SMTP, it isn't about any of that.
Even if you were to donate $20000 to me there is no way I could put a system together that would meet their requirements. I don't have the security clearances, your software won't meet their security requirements, and we can't compete with federal money.
>The point is, we all have an opportunity to enhance
>our position with the community served agencies who
>perhaps cannot afford the Satellite hand phones, and
>fiber optic rings.
Tell me again who these community served agencies are? When a small rural county in the Central USA is getting enough Homeland Security money to put in physically diverse, protected fiber rings interconnected with government networks, I'm not sure just who we are looking to serve.
>Your comments illustrate (to me, anyway) that you have
> not taken a good look at the Winlink 2000 topology,
>or some of your "fail to see" issues would be
>resolved. Also, Jerry, KK5CA, has presented a very
>accurate accounting of many of the current
>implementations of Winlink 2000, at least for the ARRL
> ARES®.
Actually, I have. Your solution might work well for the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. It might even be useful with the local Ironman competition in communicating participant status. The problem is going to be the cost of playing. Not many hams around here are going to cough up that kind of money - not even the clubs. Especially when the re-emergence of packet will serve just as well at a MUCH cheaper price.
> Have you looked at mobile deployment of Airmal?
Have you looked at a mobile packet setup with something like an old Informer 213 (portable vt100 laptop) with a mfj tnc2 clone? Mine cost me $60 total, and it works fine to connect into the Topeka/KC packet network. Plug in an old bubblejet and I can get hard copy of anything I need to save.
>But with the attitude of "what the hell" it won't
>work, anyway, we may as well just put our "stuff" on
>EBay and wait for BPL. Because when it comes, we
>certainly won't have any organized support from those
>we don't think we can assist.
Waaaahhh!!!!! It isn't a question of it working. It is a question of it working in the niches we have available at a cost anyone can afford. If I were to invest $10000 in a setup for our EOC, what would happen if I leave the hobby - or should even die? Regardless of what you say, the station has to be licensed to a ham in order to operate. Would you like to guess how many hams in this city are going to be willing to invest in a station like that? I sincerely doubt that my family is going to let an investment like that just sit idle, they will either sell it whole or in parts. Unless someone wants to buy it whole and put it back into the same use - the operation just went belly up.
>What is a mystery to me is why you are involved with
>traffic handling and at the same time, saying that it
>is of no interest to those who receive it? Not to
>worry, NTS/D is about to join the 21st century, too.
Nice job of putting words in my mouth. Do you always use strawman arguments? Any high school freshman debate coach would lower your marks for this tactic.
If the NTSD is going to join the 21st century by requiring the participants to spend even one thin dime, then good luck on finding a region level liason for Region 10 to the NTSD.
>If you have difficulty understanding how mail flows
>within the system, I am sure that you can receive
>assistance just by asking.
Ad hominem attacks are typically proof that the one doing the attack has no facts to present.
Son, I spent 30 years working in the telecommunication industry. I run my own network with my own domain, domain name servers, ldap servers, nis servers, smtp/pop servers, etc. I *know* how email works and how easy it is to break and how hard it can be to administer.
I also know that any network administrator with any -ANY- security training at all is going to ask some very hard questions about someone wanting to put a Windows system associated with proprietary hardware running proprietary software ahead of their servers. I would actually guess that the even the local Salvation Army people might look askance at this kind of proposal.
>Lastly, the ARRL field organization is not married to
>Winlink 2000. It is just another anhancement to the
>tool in the toolkit that you, yourself, say you are
>proud to use. Hopefully, there will be many others
>that will keep this toolkit current. If not, we are
>all going to need to find another hobby. The vultures
>are flying overhead watching us fight, laughing and >waiting. Haven't you noticed? If not, wait until you
>see the responses to this message.
I see you use the word "hobby". How many people do you know that can drop $1000 for what is really nothing more than a fancy modem? Especially when I can get one for $40 that will do everything the expensive one will - just not as fast?
It is obvious that this is all being pushed by someone with an agenda - whatever that might be. It becomes obvious when the same text shows up over and over propounding the advantages of the new system - regardless of what the people on the ground are saying.
Never any answers - just the same smoke over and over. You still haven't answered how the network is going to know how to route traffic *back* to an originating point. If your "front end server" is playing masquerading games with the envelope and address entries, then I would really like to see the arguments you are going to present to a security concious network administrator on how this can be protected against hackers when it resides on a Microsoft Windows system.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on August 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To dispell the BS about why you must USE PACTOR ... 73 Jerry
Jerry - I have not seen Jims question of why we can't use semi-automatic forwarding but:
I assume the semi automatic forwarding he purposes for us to use is what all the other failed protocols the league has backed, promoted, and otherwise mislead it's constituents used in the past
a centrally controlled station such as CW Mailbox, RTTY Autostart, AMTOR MBO, GTOR BOX, DIE BOX, APLINK STATION, PACTOR PTO, WINLINK2000 MBO, and the latest winner WINLINK PACTORIII (it's other name is Amateur Radio's final death knell, as it depends on Internet for e-mail forwarding).
These all allow any, and all stations, at any and all times access to these "CHAOS" stations. This is completely uncontrolled, is all full of QRM, collisions, hidden nodes, retry city, lost links, missed disconnects, causing even more retries, tried out signals ademfinitem !!
Thats just under normal conditions, in any emergency, everyone is trying all at one time, and these systems are more than just useless, they tie up the frequencies so that nothing gets thru.
That's why all of these ARRL anointed loosers FAILED, and FAILED BADLY.
I still have a copy of the letter the ARRL sent to Hank Oredson W0RLI, when in 1983 he donated all amateur rights for the amateur version of X.25 protocol (yep thats the protocol for not only amateur packet, but also the protocol still used today by this and ALL Internet messages), this letter thanked him for his donation, but they considered it of no use to Amateur Radio since they had determined that AMTOR/RTTY was clearly a superior mode.
Very stupid then - Even ridiculous now.
The automatic forwarding station provisions of 97.219, and 97.221 which the ARRL fought vigorously against, along with it's predecessor the automatic forwarding STA circa 1985 thru 1989, is a very controlled network framework. Which is what all 65 of the current HF regional Skipnet stations like yours currently run
Only stations which are recognized as BBS members of the formal forwarding network are allowed to connect to any other BBS, so this is a "directed" and very efficient, and frequency conservement technology In addition, the member BBS stations forward ONLY at the time, and frequency that the NET manager authorizes, so the "CHAOS" listed in semiautomatic forwarding above never occurs.
Further, these stations forward to each other using two kinds of data compression (note: since ax.25 is the protocol of todays Internet - Amateur Packet benefits directly from those advances in technology intended for Internet, DSL, phone line, dedicated, and WI-FI technologies.) which cuts airtime (frequency usage) down by 2/3 over other protocols promoted by the ARRL.
Because of this, HF skipnet BBS's transmit at 200 Hz bandwidths with thruputs of 1.35 Kbps.
This is the reason why last month - your BBS was able to forward some 3700 HAM to HAM messages solely on HF, and mine did 4200 + messages just on HF.
Note: All VHF, and UHF ports of these same HF skipnets are completely open, because the are the cell entry, and destination points for the HF Skipnet system (ALL HAM
RADIO) just as is used by
current Cellular Telephone technology in an orderly efficient delivery system.
To compare this to PACTOR III which is the thinly veiled reason for ALL of the current ARRL proposals it's thruput as measured here at TCI labs is 1.40 Kbps, and occupies 2760 Hz.
Thats 14 times the occupied bandwidth for a net gain of 50 bauds - !!!!! WOW !!
Using todays AX.25 packet schemes, we have successfully gotten thruputs of 19,200 bps in those same 2760 Hz bandwidth.
In all my days at Purdue, my 31 years in the communications business, I've never seen a dirtier technology being proposed for use in the United States than PACTOR III, The technology uses complex square, step, and triangle waveforms, rather than analog, or phase modulation scheme, and as such, as recorded on the test labs H-P 8936 Spectrum analyzer, a otherwise clean IC-746PRO running at only 50 watts, transmits spurs, harmonics, IMD, spurious (grass) of the highest orders imaginable.
This is of course why no one but PTC is the sole sole of PACTORIII equipment.
For this reason I feel this technology will never be employed by anything with my callsign on it. It just too dirty for me to put my name on it.
Be aware that the current ARRL digital rules changes are thrusted ONLY at making the Public service approved HF packet system illegal, and making WINLINK PACTOR II/III legal.
It is the put upon the league by the same people (with one vocal objector on the committee) who have mislead (for their own benefit) the league since the early 1980's
Digital Ham radio communications future does NOT lie in requesting changes to widen occupied frequency stations, it lies in narrow band DSP technologies where we have demonstrated thruputs of over 70,000 bps in occupied bandwidths of 64 Hz NOT garbaging up the bands with such dirty technologies as PACTOR II/III, and Internet dependent technologies as WINLINK.
Our experiments with the current FCC approved Frequency Hopping schemes also show us that
1,000,000 bps thuputs are possible today, if only our league would back this technology.
ARRL act in the spirit of your charter, serve to advance Amateur Radio, rather than help destroy it by the proposed digital rules changes.
Mike Baugh P.E., C.N.E., C.Q.E
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on August 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only reasons for implementing the rules change to do away with Automatically Controlled Forwading ON HF.. Is to eliminate the competition...
If they sucsessfully eliminate HF RF Traffic Handling .. They can put all Emcomms on the Inetrnet and do away with the Ham Radio Operators entirely..
If you do not believe this is their agenda.. Ask them.. Steve has told me out right that "All traffic Handling should be done over the internet and nothing done on HF"
Go to their Paclink/telpac newsgroup on Yahoo.. Look in Arhives.. Mid Auguest While I was aksing the tough questions.. That they could not answer. I was finally told to go away...
Regardless... I am a Radio Operator.. not a Telephone Operator..
These guys have no Clue how to do anything on HF... So they must use the internet...
They are not Ham Radio operators... They are Telephone Operators...
They also do not seem to understand ... If the ARRL would remove the proposal for eliminating automatically controlled HF forwarding from the proposal.. these guys could go on their merry way and play Internet Radio Wannabees all day...
But they must kill the competition in order to have a chance in hell.
73 jerry n9lya
|
| |
|
The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by W7ARC on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I must agree with N5PVL. The Winlink 2000 "program" is a way for Amateur Radio to back up the Internet and email because to many "Hams" are not accomplished traffic handlers. It's easier to just point, click and type, than to learn the correct way to handle formal written traffic in NTS format.
Since when are ham operators relugated to only one mode of operation? On most of the Amateur Bands, you have a choice of of modes (except 60 meters).
The ham operator of today is not the same ham operator of yesterday. More people are getting thier tickets than ever before, but the knowledge of the average ham operator has declined at about the same rate as the number of licenses issued.
Most hams licensed for the first time after 1990 don't have the slightest idea of how to operate a radio that is not solid state and menu driven. Give them an old Heathkit or Collins rig and they will be lost as to know how to operate the radio... "dip the grid and load the plate" means nothing to them.
CW is fast becoming a thing of the past and it won't be long before you won't even need to know CW to get an Amateur Radio license.
With the advent of newer, faster digital modes like PACTOR II and PACTOR III the users of these modes are already asking for more bandwidth for thier signals so they can "accomodate" served agencies in allowing anyone with a computer and a word processing software to generate documents to be sent via these modes. Aren't the bands crowded enough without having some digital signal taking 5kHz. to pass the same traffic that is done with 300 Hz. but without all the extraneous formating marks? Who need's BOLD or Itallics in a documnet during a disaster or emergency?
When the "big one" hits, there will be no power grid, no telco infrastucture, no computer backup system. What you will have is the lonely ham in his shack with a "glow-in-the-dark" radio, pounding out messages with a straitght key and hopefully someone will be able to hear him and know what he is sending.
William F. Frazier, W7ARC
STM Wesetern Washington
Brass Pounders League - April 2004
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by KI4HJG on October 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Um, the local police in my area are, in fact, going to the Internet in droves. They are not dropping voice but dispatching, license verification, car-to-car communication is all over the internet.
They use voice as a backup, or in a situation where they feel that it is unsafe to type - such as when there is a non-officer involved - Most of them would type in a license number before they stopped a vehicle - but after they began the stop they would call it in instead to insure that they could keep looking at the person they are stopping.
It is amusing to see them drive with one hand, type with one hand, and talk on their cellphone with their third hand. OK, it isn't amusing, it is scary and someone is going to die, but that is the way it is.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on November 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry it is and always has been a conspiracy...
No opinions were squelched by k4cjx!!! Period...
73 Jerry N9LYA
>>>
you are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on November 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry it is and always has been a conspiracy...
No opinions were squelched by k4cjx!!! Period...
73 Jerry N9LYA
>>>
you are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on November 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry it is and always has been a conspiracy...
No opinions were squelched by k4cjx!!! Period...
73 Jerry N9LYA
>>>
you are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on November 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry it is and always has been a conspiracy...
No opinions were squelched by k4cjx!!! Period...
73 Jerry N9LYA
>>>
you are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on November 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry it is and always has been a conspiracy...
No opinions were squelched by k4cjx!!! Period...
73 Jerry N9LYA
>>>
you are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by N9LYA on November 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry it is and always has been a conspiracy...
No opinions were squelched by k4cjx!!! Period...
73 Jerry N9LYA
>>>
you are pushing your baby, packet or PSK, so anyone that wants to use something else is evil and trying to "take over". This was an open process. People had different opinions on the best practice. Losers shouldn't whine, but should pitch in and make the concensus solution work. Hams are being left out of emergency communications. Your crying wolf does not help, but just gives more reason to ignore what the amatuers have to offer.
|
| |
|
RE: The ARES Takeover -- and Why...
|
|
|
by VE6VQ on December 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm wondering why all of the fuss is going on about Winlink 2000 and Pactor and such. The last time I checked, amateurs were able to do what they wanted to (within regulations and reason). Where does it say we all have to use Winlink 2000, or Pactor, or any other given system? All that is needed to provide _real_ communications are two cooperating end-points and compatible gear and protocols, be it CW or spread spectrum.
I've waded through megabytes of ad hominem attacks and innuendos in ARESCOM and Winlink related posts here, and it's all kind of depressing. What I do not find is any group who are all simultaneously fired up about some (any) truly new technology in the same fashion that they were in the early 80's over AX.25. How about dynamic routing protocols, self-configuring networks, SDR? I know of non-ham groups who are tinkering with these things. The difference? We have the frequencies, they have the technology. Can't we work something out in this regard?
Another irksome "feature" of these threads is the constant tug of war over amateur radio and the Internet. Does anyone know where net 44 (IP addresses 44.x.x.x) came from? Does anyone remember that DARPA was experimenting with interoperable networks using packet radio and satellite links long before the first AX.25 PBBS came up?
To me, amateur radio is a link, or maybe a whole set of links that can be integrated into a larger network, if they are used intelligently. The whole concept of the Internet was to knit together a group of different networks and links into a larger, interconnected network, hence the term "Inter-net". The current Internet has descended from folks who had more money and time to think about it than the amateur community ever has, and its architecture and design has proven itself over and over in terms of reliability and scalability. As they say in software: Don't reinvent the wheel. For the most part, the protocols, applications, formats and so on have all been worked out. Don't bother inventing them again. Focus on providing links where they don't exist, whether it's 10 miles on 2 meters or 150 miles on 80 meters, or 2500 miles on 20 meters. There are multiple solutions for all of these, so it boils down to:
1. What links do you have (here, now)?
2. What plumbing do you need to connect them to the rest of the net?
From an emergency communications point of view, I think it would be more constructive to view amateur radio's fundamental mission from an EC's point of view: "I need to move bits from here to <arbitrary place>, how can you help?" Our discussions need to consider such a request, arriving at the most inopportune time, and without all of the gear we would like. Trying to connect the dots between this starting point and some preordained commercial solutions is ridiculous, IMHO.
Why not have a poll of the people involved? If you, as an ARES/RACES member, were called out in the next 60 minutes to your local EOC to provide digital communications for a disaster, what gear and protocols could you muster (i.e. what kinds of digital links could you set up, and to where)? If we could collect enough answers to questions like this, we could begin to formulate a reasonable, pragmatic and realistic plan for providing emergency digital communications.
73,
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
How to Help in an Emergency...Tools
Other Emergency/Public Service Articles
USA 5 MHz Emcomm, Not Ragchew DX Contests
|
