From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:02:31 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Jul.24.14.02.24.1992.26406@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>As someone who regularly operates in the digital section of the bands
>(mostly AMTOR, occasionally RTTY, almost never packet).  I am
>extremely disheartened by the ARRL digital committees decisions.

I agree.

>First:  The ARRL themselves have been one of the prime offenders of
>contrary to good amateur practice in the 14.07 to 14.15 MHz digital
>zone.  It was only a few years ago that they decided to pay attention
>to the band plan that they themselves proposed and move the automated
>CW transmissions off the AMTOR calling frequency.  They're broadcast
>transmissions still rarely pay much attention to existing
>communications on the frequency.

I'd say they pay *no* attention to existing QSOs, they just fire up
and blare away without regard for prior channel occupancy. Sometimes
the skip is such that they *can't* tell that the frequency is in use,
and that's excusable, but most of the time they just don't listen at
all. That's contrary to good amateur practice.

>Second:  Noticably absent in their statement is the concept that while
>AMTOR and some of the fancier schemes are fine for point to point or
>broadcast links, one station consumes the entire channel.  At least
>with packet you have some pretense of channel sharing.  In automatic
>operation packet stations already are designed to listen to the
>channel first.  When in frequencies with other packet stations
>(attended or otherwise) there is less of a problem of interference
>than with a RTTY/AMTOR station.

It's true that packet is supposed to be CSMA, but in practice most
stations have the P-persistence set so aggressive that it doesn't
work. AX25 is a horrible channel access protocol for HF with way too
much overhead and no FEC. That doesn't mean that automated operation
is wrong, but it does mean that we have work to do to improve the
packet protocol for noisy, skip laden, HF channels. The *worst* thing
the ARRL has done was to get AX25 written in stone in the rules.

>Third:  AMTOR/RTTY HF access from USER->BBS is not a very good
>communications system design, bordering on the silly.  It's already
>been learned on the VHF frequencies when channel sharing through
>packet protocols that you probably want to seperate local BBS
>traffic form long haul BBS-BBS forwarding.  To tie up a frequency
>over a large international area on HF for relatively slow USER->BBS
>traffic is just plane rediculous.  Not only does good design dictate
>that you use BBS closer to you that can be reached with lower power
>and perhaps on V/UHF where more frequencies exist and the effective
>distances are smaller yielding more users in the country on the same
>frequencies, this operation interferes with existing AMTOR/RTTY user
>to user or multicast traffic as well as displacing frequncies that
>could be used for automatic BBS-BBS links for WHICH THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE
>FREQUENCY/MODE THAT CAN BE USED.

Well, to be fair, that's not what the recomendation says. They're saying
that the station *initiating* the connection must be manned. That doesn't
stop the BBS operators from limiting connections to only forwarding stations
that they have pre-approved. What it does mean is that the long haul BBS
operators will have to be present at the radio when their BBS needs to
forward traffic. Since HF propagation doesn't always mesh with work schedules,
that could mean that some traffic would lie on the board until the weekend
before it could be forwarded by an attending operator. He doesn't have to
hand type, however, all he would have to do is listen to the channel, determine
that nothing but packet traffic is in progress, and push a button starting
the forwarding cycle. He would then have to sit there until forwarding is
complete before leaving the BBS unattended again.

>Frankly, in my mind the ARRL recommendation is WORSE than the status
>quo.  I think that the committee should rethink their PR, for I
>believe that they are going to get a substantial amount of negative
>comment when it gets to the public comment stage.

Absolutely. The reason HF forwarding works at all well is that the BBS
systems will keep trying to forward until a path develops between the
sender and receiver. By going to manned operation, the forwarding will
be greatly delayed, and the value of HF gateway BBSs will be reduced to
the point that the system will collapse. If the digital committee's
proposal is adopted, it will signal the end of the long haul network,
such as it is, and will bar improvements to the system like new modem
designs and new, more robust, protocol designs. All we'll have
left for long haul will be wormholes using the telephone network, and
limited traffic moving via amateur satellite. That at a time when the
NTS is finally recognizing the value of packet for rapid *accurate*
relaying of messages. BBS operators might as well forget radio and
start running FIDONET nodes.

Gary KE4ZV