What is the LinLink Project All About.

[Harv Nelson]

Hi Walt,
Hi Rick,

In the absence of a 6 meter opening and decent propagation on 20 and
15 meters, I've been spending my time on these "EmComm" lists and
discussions.

I'm coming to understand just why I view the proposed systems as

1.  A miss-directed use of resources  and/or
2.  An attempt to assign to the amateur service, tasks it was never
meant to handle.

The confusion/dispute for me arises from the definition of "emergency
communications".  What you folks are calling "EmComm", for me is
"message handling"... When I use the term "emergency communications",
I mean something akin to "First Aid communications".

Definitions:

"First Aid": 
Immediate and temporary medical assistance given before a doctor arrives.

"Emergency Communications:"  
Immediate and temporary communications assistance, provided until the
normal, usual, and dependable means of communication can be restored.

My "First Aid" kit (in the trunk of my car) contains the following
items:  Band-aids, assorted gauze bandages, adhesive tape,
Disinfectant wash and cream, lidocaine/lanacaine cream, latex gloves,
"triangle" bandages,  wood and plastic splints, "Spandex" bandage,
assorted antiseptic towelettes,  rubber bands, safety pins, a compass,
a tin whistle, a tweezers, a scissors, aspirin, "smelling salts", a
flashlight and batteries,  two blankets, a plastic sheet, a length of
rope, and a Swiss army knife.  I also carry a small tool kit
containing assorted small tools, a hatchet, and a hammer.

If I were to define "First Aid" in the same manner you folks are
defining "EmComm", I would have to tow a complete operating room suite
behind my car, and I'd be followed by a bus carrying staff to run the
shop ... just to remove a sliver from a kid's finger!

When you propose to build a national "EmComm" emergency messaging
infrastructure, what you propose is a function of GOVERNMENT.    It is
NOT the function of a group of widely dispersed amateur hobbyists who
have widely divergent interests and capabilities ... Nor, is it a
function of their national ARRL organization.

Hardened and secured messaging systems, such as those you envision,
have already been built by our military ... at no minor expense.  They
have several layers of redundancy and even with that, their "up-time",
as a function of the investment in hardware and personnel,  isn't all
that great.  It is doubtful that hams, with their limited spectrum
allocations, will provide  superior systems.

Through the years, I have acquired better than $15,000 (replacement
cost) worth of radios, computers, test equipment, antennas, emergency
power supplies, and tools.  All of it "hobby" related.  I test it all,
maintain it all, and ensure its operability on a daily basis.  I am
quite willing to lend this equipment to "Emergency Communications" as
I have defined it above.   I will continue to participate in bicycle
tours, foot races, parades, the Badger Wx Net ... and if they need me
for a forest fire, I'll join in that as well.  But, I will not
dedicate my time and equipment to use in a system whose functional
necessity is dubious at best.

There is some high order "fear mongering" going on these days.  The
DHS, and its "terrorist alert colors" are prime examples.  I speak as
a person old enough to remember "Duck-n-Cover" in grade school and my
membership in the "Ground Observer Corps" a few years later ... before
my "patriotism" lost its glow and shine in the battle with reality.

There is really little need for your "national emergency messaging
system" (WL2K, or facsimiles).  If it sees any use at all, it will be
only in weekly and monthly testing sessions.  In the intervening
periods, the system will likely be carrying commercial traffic, which
operators won't be able to distinguish because it will all be
encrypted.  There will be a few people who run to the bank with your
sweat and effort,  laughing all the way ... and, when all the
patriotic horse puky finally washes away, they'll sell off whats left
of  your HF frequencies to the highest bidder.

I don't expect to win any converts to my way of thinking.  But, I
suspect there are a good number of people who will decline
participation without voiceing their similar concerns.

I hope this view may give you one more perspective from which to
formulate your plans.

73

Harv, AI9NL
Washburn, WI


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:36:03 -0600, dubose at texas.net <dubose at texas.net> wrote:
> Ok...I am pleasantly surprised at the amount of discussion on the list...some
> really great ideas and information have been brought to light.
> 
> But let me first say that the LinLink project's purpose IS NOT to make an
> open source replacement for WinLink.
> 
> Here is what the LinLink project is all about.
> 
> First WinLink depends heavily on the Internet.
> 
> The DHS/FEMA have told the ARRL that they would like to see them set up a
> national messaging system that did not depend on the Internet.  So WinLink
> doesn't really do this.
> 
> The DHS/FEMA would like the messaging system to be high-speed data (not speed
> specified) and robust (again no specifications).  My question is Pactor the mode?
> 
> So first let me talk to Pactor.
> 
> Pactor I is affordable; however, it is not really "high-speed" and most
> importantly it is not robust.  So now I have to define robust.  no one has
> but let me take a stab at using some U.S. Fed. Standards on HF data systems/
> modes...here robust is the ability to copy at near 100% error free data at
> 200+ WPM or about 1200 baud user throughput...actually 1200 baud is the low
> end and 2400 the objective.  So 200-400 WPM.  This all at a -5 dB SNR on a
> poor CCIR channel.
> 
> Pactor I and II do not meet this specification.  Pactor III and not
> consistently shown that it meets this spec; however, I believe that it does.
>  Pactor I and II on a poor CCIR channel at a -5 dB SNR have a error free
> throughput of less than 200 WPM.  MT63 has a near 100% error free through put
> of 200 WPM at the channel robustness specification.
> 
> I would like to see a 200-400 WPM, or better, HF data modem that runs on a
> computer soundcard that is almost 100% error free (99.99%) and meeting the
> signal robustness as described above.
> 
> I would like to see a message system build on delivery by zip codes since
> this system is being designed to meet the U.S. DHS specification.  Messages
> would include the zip code and receiving stations would specify which zip
> codes they could take messages for.  Auxiliary information would be telephone
> numbers and  E-Mail addresses.  The assumption would be a worse case scenario
> where there is no telephone service or Internet service at the message
> destination.  Message system operators would have the ability to deliver
> routine and H&W messages via phone or E-Mail automatically; however, priority
> messages would be delivered the best way possible.
> 
> Note that so far I have addresses only a basic HF system...however; if the
> modem is independent of the message delivery system, then various modes could
> be used on the system for V/UHF delivery...including delivery to an AX.25 BBS
> mailbox.  That functionality should be built in.
> 
> Also, anyone should have the ability to send/originate a message and any
> registered user would have the ability to receive a message...this would
> require a some sort of Domain Name/Callsign Service module.
> 
> That's the basics.
> 
> More thoughts...
> 
> TCI/IP on HF would add a lot of overhead...so using a simple message format
> that could be converted to an SMTP format is logical...now while the system
> is not primarily designed to Interface with the Internet, not building it to
> do so is foolish.
> 
> I would like to see what might come out of the LinLink project be usable with
> WinLink if possible...there are some suggestion made here and I would like to
> hear from those individuals doing development off list with mode details.  I
> would also like you to keep this list up-to-date with your progress.
> 
> Improving existing open source applications such as HFTerm is also an
> important consideration and I would like to have those individuals doing such
> work keep this list up-to0date on the progress.
> 
> I have to agree with the comment that the ARRL Board is leaning toward
> WinLink not because it is the best or meets the desired goal...its just that
> by default it was the only thing on the table at the time.
> 
> I firmly believe that the ARRL Board of Directors needs to send the EComm and
> bandwidth committee back to do more research or perhaps thank those who
> thus far have worked so hard on the projects and call a new study with new
> membership.
> 
> There was also a comment on how could we (ham radio) with a messaging system
> possibly replace the Internet...we can't and that's not the purpose.  The
> purpose is to channel high volumes of _PRIORITY_ traffic, 10-100 times what
> amount we handle today via HF and distribution on a local level by V/UHF...
> or 10M or 6M as the case may be...IMHO 6M and 1290 MHz are super bands for  this.
> 
> On Open Source...
> 
> We all know the "technical and politically correct" definition of open source
> but to most it means code that will run on Linux or other Nix and be
> transmigrated to a MS OS.  When dealing with ham radio software, I believe
> that we need open source code and that any articles submitted for publication
> in a general ham radio publication that has software available should have
> distributions for both MS,  Linux and MAC.
> 
> On a personal note, I have run Unix since 1985 and Linux since 1991 and had
> not been exposed to MS until I came to my current job in Aug of 1999.  I have
> attended all the MCSE schools and attended many conferences/seminars on MS
> applications and OS's.  And prior to my current job, back in the late 80's I
> attended most of the AT&T Unix schools.
> 
> Now the kicker...IMHO, Linux is much easier to work with or at least make it
> do what I want rather than MS...and also sooooo much less expensive...but
> that's just  MY opinion.
> 
> I do think that there is too much forking in Linux for the general ham so it
> may be that ham radio has to follow the old Debian thought and select a Linux
> distro for ham radio and develop on that one.   Don't flame me on this, its
> just a thought.
> 
> Now I will go back and reread you comments and make some specific comments.
> 
> There are NO wrong thoughts here unless we start abusing the integrity of
> some individual.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> LinLink Progenitor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linlink mailing list
> Linlink at wetnet.net
> http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
>