ARRL EComms Messaging System...WinLink?

[clayj at nwlink.com]

Well, yeah - there's that...

Also, since no one else is willing to say it; I will - IMHO one of the BIG
issues with WinLink is it's perceived link with SCS and their PROPRIETARY
modem technology (before you flame - notice I DID say PERCEIVED. I
UNDERSTAND that WinLink is MUCH bigger than just HF Pactor, but..).

I've played around a bit with WinLink, and will probably do more, but
Pactor I is pretty slow, and $895 is a whole bunch of $$$ to pay for
something I won't get a lot of 'mainstream' use from; AND, it's hard to
sell an EOC Manager as well.

SCAMP seems to have some promise, as do the OpenSource clients.

And then there's the BIG issue - during an emergency, do we REALLY want to
trust communications to the virus-laden, security-compromised JUNK that
comes out of Redmond?   Even DOS would be better....

(I'll go put some Nomex on now :-)

Clay - N7QNM


> Does anyone want to tell him about what (some) hams where doing in the
> late 80's and early 90's with Phil Karn's NOS?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:00:52 -0600, Harv Nelson wrote:
>>Hi Walt & The group,
>>
>><Begin EmComm Rant #3> 
>>
>>There seems to be a mistaken belief among hams that they will be
>>able to recreate the Internet on the HF and VHF ham bands  (WL2K)
>>... just as soon as they find a power source to run their computers
>>and radios, and get their antennas in the air.   This is just plain
>>BUNK!
>>
>>If it were technologically possible, hams across the country would
>>already have purchased the necessary equipment, and told their
>>Internet Service Provider to "pack it up".   We'd already be running
>>our own version of the Internet, much to every ham's delight ... and
>>it'd be a real reason for kids to get their tickets.  It hasn't
>>happened.  Doubtful, that it ever will.
>>
>>I don't care how wide you make the bandwidth, how high you make the
>>baud rate ... there is no possibility of anyone putting something as
>>common as one page of a "Google" query on my desktop by pushing it
>>thru one of my ham radios!  Just ain't gonna happen in any
>>reasonable length of time.  I will have long forgotten my problem or
>>question by the time the data arrives.
>>
>>There is absolutely NO NEED FOR PACKETED or ENCRYPTED messaging in
>>EMERGENCY communications.  Encrypted messages are antithetical to
>>the very purpose of EMERGENCY communication.
>>
>>EMERGENCY communications rely (should rely) on messages being
>>received and copied by as wide an audience as possible ... that
>>means plain language, plain text, plain (vanilla) transmission modes
>>...  with a minimal amount of decoding necessary.
>>
>>EMERGENCY communications rely (should rely) on messages which
>>require minimal processing and handling, minimal technological
>>inputs, minimal equipment and power resources for their
>>transmission.  The equipment used should require only minimal
>>knowledge and understanding to operate ... at most,
>>
>>1.  Switch it on. 2.  Press button on microphone 3.  Talk! "MayDay!
>>MayDay!" 4.  Release button and listen for response at speaker. 5.
>>If no answer, repeat steps 2 thru 4 6.  When response is heard,
>>follow instructions from the speaker.
>>
>>If the Mayor of this Fair Town, and the Governor of this Fair State
>>(or their EM operatives) demand that their Tactical  messages to
>>each other ... regarding the need for bed sheets, tents, orange
>>juice, gasoline, type B- blood serum, condoms, and cots, etc., etc.
>>... need to be encrypted,  then I think its time to look for a new
>>Mayor and Governor rather than an enhanced messaging system.
>>
>>Once we have reached the level of "tactical communications", the
>>EMERGENCY has passed and the crisis is on its way to resolution, It
>>is now the job of the "normal" and usual communications providers to
>>restore and ensure their data links ... after all, thats what we pay
>>them for!
>>
>>If, in the event, our entire national communications infrastructure
>>is compromised due to some attack by terrorists or other foreign
>>agency, then my time will be better spent setting snares for rabbits
>>in the back yard, securing access to my raspberry patch, and
>>figuring out how to make the neighbor's basement sump pump serve as
>>a well for fresh water.  Any communications I attempt by radio will
>>most probably only serve as further targeting information.
>>
>>Finally!  Ham/Amateur Radio is a HOBBY.  Not the "National
>>Communications System of Last Resort" or the "National Information
>>Salvation Corps".  To think along these lines is sheer hubris and
>>self promotion ... in short Bullshit!
>>
>><End EmComm Rant #3> 
>>
>>Harv Nelson, AI9NL Washburn, WI
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:27:40 -0600, dubose at texas.net
>><dubose at texas.net> wrote:
>>>David,
>>>
>>>The call has gone out to more than just on this list...with the
>>>original call being made back in April 2004.
>>>
>>>The three things that the ARRL needs to settle are the code
>>>requirment for licensing, bandwidth limits and this
>>>problem...without settling these, I fear hamradio is in for a rough
>>>time.
>>>
>>>I do realize that the BPL problem is important, but that's an
>>>external problem.  These are internal problems...something the
>>>League can do something about.
>>>
>>>Walt/K5YFW
>>>
>>>Quoting "David R. Wilson" <david at wwns.com>:
>>>
>>>>Hello Walt, and the group.
>>>>
>>>>If I wasn't swamped with more projects than I could possibly
>>>>handle I would be willing to tackle that.  I agree that something
>>>>needs to be done that is better, or at least will give us some
>>>>additional choices. I think that it is important that some
>>>>operating system agnostic software is developed for this.  It
>>>>bothers me that the only platform their software runs on is
>>>>Windows.  Who on the list has the expertise and might be able to
>>>>find some time to put some effort into this?
>>>>
>>>>Dave WB4LHO
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 09:37, dubose at texas.net wrote:
>>>>>Greetings All,
>>>>>
>>>>>Recent conversations with ARRL Directors concerning the upcoming
>>>>>ARRL
>>>>Board
>>>>>Meeting indicate that some are in favor of taking a new look at
>>>>>the band
>>>>width
>>>>>proposal and committee proposal to use WinLink as EComms Message
>>>>>System.
>>>>>
>>>>>Concerning WinLink, while several directors and vice-directors
>>>>>are
>>>>concerned
>>>>>that WinLink is not the ideal system and desire a much better
>>>>>system, I
>>>>think
>>>>>that they are a little disappointed that someone in the U.S. ham
>>>>community
>>>>>hasn't stepped forward and indicated that they would/could/had
>>>>>started to
>>>>
>>>>>work on a better and more robust system.  I feel the same way.
>>>>>
>>>>>As it stands now, since there is nothing brighter on the horizon,
>>>>>I think
>>>>
>>>>>that WinLink will become the acceptable, for the moment, ARRL
>>>>>EComms
>>>>messing
>>>>>system.
>>>>>
>>>>>IMHO, if this condition exist very long, WinLink will migrate
>>>>>from the acceptable system to the preferred system.
>>>>>
>>>>>There has got to be some open source ham radio programmers out
>>>>>there that
>>>>can
>>>>>provide a better and more robust messaging system than WinLink.
>>>>>But
>>>>where
>>>>>are they?  I hope that the open system hams will find it within
>>>>themselves to
>>>>>make contacts with their opensource peers and find a group
>>>>>willing to
>>>>tackle
>>>>>this important project.
>>>>>
>>>>>When looking at the overall ham software picture, I see more and
>>>>>more
>>>>hams in
>>>>>the U.S. now dabbeling in Linux...but they need an Elmer...a
>>>>>leader that
>>>>will
>>>>>make them strong Linux users.
>>>>>
>>>>>We have offshore developed applications and modes for Linux on HF
>>>>>such
>>>>as
>>>>>gMFSK, HFTerm, MT63, MFSK16, etc. which are really super
>>>>>applications.
>>>>But
>>>>>standing alone, they don't meet the ARRL's call for an EComms
>>>>>Messaging system.  We need some U.S. opensource ham radio
>>>>>programmers to tackle
>>>>this
>>>>>problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now before someone off-shore gets their feelings hurt, I
>>>>>CERTAINLY don't
>>>>mean
>>>>>to exclude our ham brothern in other countries...they are some of
>>>>>the
>>>>best
>>>>>folks in the world...its just the call for an ARRL EComms
>>>>>messaging
>>>>system is
>>>>>basically a call for a U.S. to meet the desires of OUR Homeland
>>>>>Security
>>>>Efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course I fault in part the ARRL for not publishing a
>>>>>specification(s)
>>>>for
>>>>>a messaging system and/or HF data mode.  How fast (throughput)
>>>>>does it
>>>>need
>>>>>to be?  How robust?  How error free?  MUST it interface with
>>>>>Internet
>>>>E-Mail
>>>>>or can it be primarly stand-alone with Internet E-Mail as a
>>>>>backup or add
>>>>on
>>>>>if available?
>>>>>
>>>>>I cenrtainly don't have the skill set to build such an
>>>>>application as is needed...however, I am sure that there are
>>>>>several hams with the skills needed to develop a open source
>>>>>system as described above.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you feel as I do, then please forward this E-Mail on to hams
>>>>>with opensource programming skills who you think might be
>>>>>interested in this
>>>>project.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the bandwidth and 73,
>>>>>
>>>>>Walt/K5YFW
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________ Linlink mailing
>>>>>list Linlink at wetnet.net
>>>>>http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________ Linlink mailing
>>>list Linlink at wetnet.net http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
>>>
>>_______________________________________________ Linlink mailing list
>>Linlink at wetnet.net http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linlink mailing list
> Linlink at wetnet.net
> http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
>