jay@splut.UUCP (08/31/87)
Here's John's response to my posting, with my comments added: (> > = me, > = John Gilmore) > > There's no real reason yu can't innovate in ham radio, either. If you want > > to experiment, go right ahead - and, as long as you don't cause a real > > interference problem, nobody will stop you. If you want to do something that > > might cause interference, but it's a technical advance, the mechanism is > > there - and the FCC is liberal in granting STAs to reasonable requests. > > What I wanted to do was send computer data through the airwaves. Funny, > a bunch of people wanted to stop me. I wasn't planning to interfere with > anybody, but for some reason they wanted me to learn morse code and apply > to the government for "permission". From your comments, I suspect strongly that you wanted to provide an unlimited bridge between computer networks and the packet network. There are real problems with that approach, and amateur radio is not the appropriate place to set up a common carrier. Learning the code and applying to the government for a ticket are responsibilities that go along with the privilege of reasonably unfettered access to the radio spectrum. There's exactly one radio service that requires no license of any kind to operate. Have you listened on 27 megahertz lately? > We are just coming from opposite points of view; you obviously can't see > how the requirement for a ham ticket is a limitation on innovation. Just > like a curb is no problem for somebody in a wheelchair; if they really > want to get up that curb, they sure can. This analogy is fatally flawed: it's not like a curb for someone in a wheelchair, but it's the wheelchair itself for a paraplegic. Without the ticket, you can't legally get on and experiment, just like a paraplegic can't get around (easily) without a wheelchair. The requirement for a license is written in the Communications Act of 1934. If you dislike it that much, write your Congressmen - but don't expect to get very far. > > There IS a problem with letting the world flow data on an amateur link: > > Amateur radio is a non-commercial service. Hams can use cheaper equipment, > > more frequencies, and higher power than their commercial counterparts. If > > the entire world was permitted to use the packet network to pass any data > > they wished, what would stop GTE from having its employees get ham licenses > > and use the packet network as part of Telenet? > > Good question. Except if anybody could use the packet network to pass any > data they wished, why would we need GTE? Are you out to put GTE out of business? Good luck....the FCC won't sit still for that. > You mention another problem with ham radio as a means for computer data > sharing -- its "non-commercial" orientation. I got the impression that if > I logged into my employer's machine and did some work via packet radio, > some of the "mickey mouse" rulewatchers would "try to stop me" again. > What good is it to build a network if you can't use it for any real work? Because ham radio is a hobby. Pure and simple. That has been built into the very bedrock of the service, from its earliest origins. Using the packet network to log on to your employer's machine puts the packet network in direct competition with the common carriers, and that's illegal and unfair competition. > > ) [They claim to be practicing for providing emergency communications > > ) service. However, if the public was permitted to use the airwaves for > > ) REGULAR communications service, then no EMERGENCY service would be > > ) needed, since the regular service would continue to work in > > ) emergencies. > > I've addressed this one before, but I'll repeat myself: Public service > > agency communications are fine for the normal case. When all hell breaks > > loose, though, their channels fill up rapidly and become unusable. Who do > > they turn to for their enhanced communications needs? Hams. > > I wasn't talking about public service agencies using the airwaves. > I was talking about THE PUBLIC using the airwaves. Certainly in a disaster > all the phones fill up, all the CB's fill up, all the hams get on the air, > everything gets busier. A well designed public radio network would have > provisions for dealing with high congestion -- the same as the phone > company does, or the military phone systems do. The cellular phone systems > also have provisions like this. Public radio networks, no matter how well designed, will fill to unusability during a disaster...or, again, have you listened to 27 megahertz? The public using the airwaves leads inevitably to anarchy and uselessness in times of stress. The phone company doesn't do all that well a job in preparing for heavy network loading during a disaster; have you tried to call into, or even out of, a disaster area? I have. It's no picnic - in fact, most of the time it's downright impossible. This is a nice, motherhood-and-apple-pie argument - but it simply will not work. > > The proposal was very badly thought out. It would have given wide-ranging > > radio privileges to someone based on a simple written test, and did not even > > try to see that they had the minimal technical knowledge to operate their > > equipment within the bounds of the rules. > > I challenge you to find a group of 50 hams where at least 25 of them could > tell if their equipment was operating within the rules or not. Most people > go for the "study for the test then forget it" approach. And few of them > have the equipment to verify correct operation anyway, e.g. spectrum > analyzers. I don't know about the hams in Southern California, but I'll pick any ham club in the Houston area, and let you run that test. You'd lose big. By far and away most hams I know take great pride in emitting a clean signal and following the rules. > > The Morse Code objection is a red herring. Anyone can, with a minimal amount > > of study, learn the code. Are you trying to suggest that computer types > > aren't intelligent enough to do so? > > I've heard this one before, it's not my experience, and I reject the > implication that anyone who doesn't want to waste their time on Morse > is unintelligent. I wasn't trying to imply that they were. I was asking if you were implying they weren't. I repeat my earlier contention: ANYONE can learn the code. All it takes is a minimal amount of time and work. Your whole argument is that anyone should be able to get a ham license, thereby earning the privilege of access to some of the choicest spectrum available, without having to work for it. Then they should be able to use these new privileges to bypass the telephone and other common carrier networks and do whatever they wish. Why? Why should a network of volunteer ham radio operators try to compete with commercial interests? Worse, why should hams allow these commercial interests to take over our spectrum, with all the impact on the public interest that that entails? Hams have a long and shining history of public service. Does GTE Telenet? Would they suddenly get the desire to unselfishly serve the public by going out and passing a written test only? I suggest instead that allowing commercial use of amateur spectrum would result in the death of any public service that the amateur service provides. That service is the ONLY reason we still have the wide range of frequencies that we do. That is what is remembered by the delegates to the World Administrative Radio Conferences. Commercial interests have no reason to unselfishly pursue the public welfare. Amateurs do. I take more pride in the fact that I use my radio expertise to advance the public welfare than in the fact that I hold an Extra class license. The look on a motorist's face as I stand there and call an ambulance with my handheld is worth all the work I had to do to get there. Public service is highly rewarding - but not in the only way that interests a commercial entity: money. Therefore, why should they do it? (Apologies to comp.dcom.modems readers; I haven't seen John respond to any of the comments on this subject posted on rec.ham-radio.packet, so I crossposted to make sure John could read it and respond. Replies have been directed to rec.ham-radio.packet [I think].) -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay "Don't ask ME about Unix... | (or sun!housun!nuchat) CI$: 71036,1603 I speak SNA!" | internet: beats me GEnie: JAYMAYNARD The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.
peter@sugar.UUCP (08/31/87)
I, too, don't see the point to the morse requirement. It's a game. Having to pass some sort of test is one thing, but having to learn a useless skill through boring rote repetition is another. Make the test as tough as you like... but test something useful. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- U <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :->
brian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) (09/01/87)
In article <598@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > I, too, don't see the point to the morse requirement. It's a game. Having to > pass some sort of test is one thing, but having to learn a useless skill > through boring rote repetition is another. Make the test as tough as you > like... but test something useful. While I am certainly one of the people who learned the morse and forgot it, I am happy that the requirement is there. It is probably the one thing that keeps HAM radio from becoming like CB. To make the written test too difficult would only prove to make HAM radio an elitest hobby; only within reach of the technically endowed. KEEP HAM RADIO FROM BECOMING LIKE CB -- KEEP MORSE! It's just not that tough to learn 5 words per minute. If you really want a HAM liscense then take the 1/2 hour a noght for two weeks and learn it ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brian Cuthie (KA3BRZ) CASE Communications Columbia, Md 21046 (301) 290 - 7443
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (09/01/87)
I will just add a little fuel to the fire on this debate, the Zmodem
protocol, heavily advertized in Chuck Forsburg's (sp?) signature, work
*very well* over packet connections, having been designed for just that.
In addition the low volume of reverse channel makes it suitable for use
with half duplex connections. Typical performance is 95+% of theoretical
max, for example 231-233 cps on 2400 baud async half duplex connects
(actual measured on a number of 100k+ file transfers).
I'm told that SEAlink and megalink provide the same range of
performance, but I see little reason to use them other than
compatibility and on very small machines which benefit from the low
overhead of megalink.
I have no idea why the performance of ham packet radio is so poor, nor
why various people on this group have claimed that the use of more than
one (or at most two) repeaters resulted in unacceptable throughput.
Unless there is a legal reason why this protocol may not be used, I
would like to invite one of the interested parties to test it. Source to
several versions of the drivers for the protocol have been posted, I
will supply them on request.
Yes, I realize that there will still be a problem with very small
messages, don't waste bandwidth mentioning it.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{chinet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mepozar@hoptoad.UUCP (09/01/87)
I'll have to agree with the points that Bob McGwier makes.
If John wants to orginize or experiment with some sort of
packet radio link, he can apply for a Special Temporary
Authorization (STA) from the FCC. The Big Boys do it all the
time (eg. California Microwave, Ampex, Motorola, etc.) STAs can
be taylored to allow some pretty sloppy modulation too, so you
can find some sort of old commercial gear to use with it.
John, you are asking to use a NON-commercial meadium to
handle commercial traffic. How would you feel if a commercail
user of the net started to do message bombing runs on the net
through your board. I keep hearing about the "non-commercal"
flavor to UUCP (something that will have to change in the near
future, by the way). Using the net commercially would be like
using ham freqs commercially. There are frequencies set aside
for what you want to do (eg 23GHz). Building equipment for
those freqs isn't that difficult or expensive.
If you are interested in applying, you should contact the
local field office of the FCC at (415) 556-7701, and ask for the
STA forms. I'm not sure what the form numbers are, but if you
ask for one of the officers<?> s/he should be able to guide you
in the right direction. The last time I needed something like
this I tald to a woman named "Amy". Sorry, I don't remember her
last name.
--
Tim Pozar
UUCP pozar@hoptoad.UUCP
Fido 1:125/406
USNail KLOK-FM
77 Maiden Lane
San Francisco CA 94108
PaBell (415) 788-3904pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (09/01/87)
In article <598@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >I, too, don't see the point to the morse requirement. It's a game. Having to >pass some sort of test is one thing, but having to learn a useless skill >through boring rote repetition is another. Make the test as tough as you >like... but test something useful. I wholeheartly agree with the bannig of the morse test, at least for something lower like the "Tech" class. Morse does have it's place, but it is turning away many potential licencse canidates. -- Tim Pozar UUCP pozar@hoptoad.UUCP Fido 1:125/406 USNail KLOK-FM 77 Maiden Lane San Francisco CA 94108 PaBell (415) 788-3904
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (09/01/87)
In article <598@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >I, too, don't see the point to the morse requirement. It's a game. Having to >pass some sort of test is one thing, but having to learn a useless skill >through boring rote repetition is another. Make the test as tough as you >like... but test something useful. >-- >-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter >-- U <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :-> I am not a ham ... I want to be a ham, but that code requirement stops me. On the other hand I can see good reason why the code requirement is there .... If you're in some real-true-blue emergency situation and you have to construct a radio just to be able to communicate, then you're more likely to be able to construct one which can do code than one which can do voice. It's not useless. -- ----- David Herron, Local E-Mail Hack, david@ms.uky.edu, david@ms.uky.csnet ----- {uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET ----- ----- Je parle francais comme une vache espagnole.
elg@usl (Eric Lee Green) (09/04/87)
In article <115@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) writes: >From your comments, I suspect strongly that you wanted to provide an >unlimited bridge between computer networks and the packet network. There are >real problems with that approach, and amateur radio is not the appropriate >place to set up a common carrier. All REAL networks that I've noticed lately have a provision for "broadcast" packets, that is, packets of interest to more than one machine. For example, BSD4.x regularly broadcasts "rwho" data onto our local Ethernet. This doesn't make our Ethernet a common carrier! But if we generalize and substitute "packet-radio network" for "Ethernet" in the above, we get all sorts of bullcr*p about it... apparently, the packeteers are content with a LESS efficient usage of the airwaves (that is, sending the same packet several times to several different machines, as vs. putting it where those several different machines can pick it up). >Learning the code and applying to the government for a ticket are >responsibilities that go along with the privilege of reasonably unfettered >access to the radio spectrum. There's exactly one radio service that >requires no license of any kind to operate. Have you listened on 27 >megahertz lately? I do agree that unlimited access to the radio waves would be a major disaster. I just have some misgivings about the focus of the current restrictions. Instead of focusing on excellence in technology and communications, they seem more designed to turn ham radio into a hobby to rival underwater basket-weaving in usefulness. >> > they wished, what would stop GTE from having its employees get ham licenses >> > and use the packet network as part of Telenet? >> >> Good question. Except if anybody could use the packet network to pass any >> data they wished, why would we need GTE? > >Are you out to put GTE out of business? Good luck....the FCC won't sit still >for that. No, because the FCC is trying to beat us to it! (See FCC proposal to assess a 500% "access fee" on interstate "enhanced services"). >Your whole argument is that anyone should be able to get a ham license, >thereby earning the privilege of access to some of the choicest spectrum >available, without having to work for it. My whole argument is that instead of the current inflexible method of earning the "privilige of access", we should be using criteria of importance to the particular part of the ham radio hobby that the person wants to access. If I am interested in packet radio, sure, I need to know the technical aspects of radio equipment. But morse code???? If I'm aiming for a higher ticket, I can understand the need for morse code, because morse code IS part of amateur radio, and supposedly when you're "expert", your knowledge is about ALL aspects of ham radio... but for novices and technicians? (NOTE THE ADDRESS!!!!) Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg elg@usl.CSNET
len@netsys.UUCP (09/05/87)
The basis behind making people learn Morse code if they want to
access amateur radio frequencies is the only thing stopping the
morons who would destroy it by turning it into another CB free
for all.
The present code restrictions are quite liberal , and have been
watered down from past requirements.
You can call it elitist,snobbish,or anything else,but CW (morse) is
not a DEAD , outdated medium,and is still damn useful when atmospheric
conditions preclude voice contacts.
You will find droves of hams willing to help you get started with code,
and the small investment of time learning morse is well spent.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone,but these are my opinions.
W3VDU.
--
Len Rose , System Administrator 3B2/300
-* NetSys Public Access Network {ihnp4,beartrack}!netsys!lenron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (09/06/87)
This is one of the most absurd comments yet. The problems with using HAM radio has nothing to do with broadcast datagrams. HAM Packet Radio can use datagrams addressed to all receivers when it is appropriate. RWHO packets would fly just as legally on a ham packet system as on your ethernet (which is not a common carrier because you own both the sending and receiving stations and operate the carrier in the middle). HAM radio can not be a common carrier (i.e. send other peoples) datagrams around other than the amateurs themselves) because they convinced the FCC and the other common carriers that they were not going to compete that way. This is why they are allowed to exist at all. Otherwise, HAM's would all be down on 27 MHz with everyone else or would have to fight an even tougher battle than they already do to maintain their portion of the spectrum from commercial interests. -Ron
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (09/07/87)
Having "finished" a debate with megalink's author on Compuserve, I can
add some comments about these protocols. Normally I don't criticize
other file transfer protocols, but I did not care to let false
criticism of YMODEM and ZMODEM by megalink's auhors go unchallenged.
For the record, the fact that my name appears about 9 times in the
latest megalink protocol description does *not* mean I endorse
megalink in any way.
Megalink uses fixed length blocks both for the filename (can't handle
full pathnames) and data blocks. Each 512 byte megalink data block
has a minimum of seven overhead characters. As a result, megalink has
considerable overhead, especially on short files. BTW, the 98.5 %
transfer efficiency "gttutor" reports for an 880k .ARC megalink file
transfer is mathematically impossible.
Megalink does not protect all of the XOX/XOFF and network control
characters that ZMODEM does, so megalink has a theoretical efficiency
advantage over ZMODEM on .ARC files longer than about 20kb. In
practice, ZMODEM's automatic receiver startup and crash recovery
increase the operational efficiency in ways competitive performance
tabluations tend to ignore.
SEAlink uses 128 byte XMODEM style packets with no protection
for flow control or network command characters. A SEAlink receiver
generates an ACK every 128 bytes, impacting throughput on buffered
modems etc.
The only implementations of megalink are those supplied by Meiners
himself. Tests to date show this software to be overly sensitive to
buffer overruns and transmission impairments. Under some conditions,
it is possible to speed up a megalink transfer (as reported by the
transmitter!) by halting the receiving computer at the right instant.
Actually, ZMODEM isn't the fastest file transfer protocol in the
world. YMODEM-g is faster, but its error recovery is worse than
megalink.
ZMODEM is designed to provide user friendliness, high efficiency, and
high reliability in environments that support (or nearly support)
XMODEM. ZMODEM's weakness is a coding complexity greater than XMODEM,
a failing that is more important to Turbo Pascal mavens than to C
hackers and comm software users.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX Author of Pro-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V Northwest Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 VOICE:503-621-3406:VOICE
TeleGodzilla BBS: 621-3746 19200/2400/1200 CIS:70007,2304 Genie:CAF
omen Any ACU 2400 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourlyks@a.cs.okstate.edu (Kurt F. Sauer) (09/07/87)
I beg you to move this discussion away from comp.dcom.modems and rec.ham-radio.packet. I know this is where the discussion started, but the S/N ratio w.r.t. the subjects normally covered by these two groups is growing fast. Further, I think that the general scope of amateur licensing (and testing) deserves the more broad heading of rec.ham-radio. I urge you to move the discussion to rec.ham-radio, which is the place to which followups to this message are directed. Thanks. Kurt F. Sauer Tulsa, OK
randy@oresoft.UUCP (Randy Bush) (09/07/87)
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: >SEAlink uses 128 byte XMODEM style packets with no protection >for flow control or network command characters. A SEAlink receiver >generates an ACK every 128 bytes, impacting throughput on buffered >modems etc. Indeed, SEAlink has no protection for network command sequences or flow control. Although this does give an efficiency gain, one must set up a network connection (e.g. PCP) using a script which negotiates with the PAD. A SEAlink receiver does not necessarily generate an ACK every 128-byte packet. On high speed connections, the version in SEAdog 4.1 goes into 'overdrive', which is ACKless. This greatly improves performance using semi half-duplex modems such as the Telebit Trailblazer. This is not to say that SEAlink is a robust protocol. -- Randy Bush, Compiler Group, Oregon Software, Portland Oregon (503) 245-2202 uucp: ..!tektronix!oresoft!randy Telemail: RBush Fidonet: 1:105/6