Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Public Digital Radio Service wireless modem proposal
Message-ID: <77@splut.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 10:07:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: splut.77
Posted: Sat Aug 22 10:07:53 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Aug-87 03:41:32 EDT
References: <KPETERSEN.12325781935.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARPA> <2788@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 225
Summary: How can I start debunking this many misconceptions?

In article <2788@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
) > First, he is totally inaccurate and misleading about the dissimilarity 
) > between ham radio and computer 'hobbying.'...
) >                                ...lumping all hams into one "boring" pigeon 
) > hole isn't accurate, let alone fair.
) 
) As a 15-year computerist who got a ham license to experiment with
) packet radio, let me comment.  The ham fraternity is seriously
) reactionary.  Hams work hard to keep others out,

Huh? How, then, do you explain the multitude of ham radio classes that exist
constantly? Every ham club I know of works very hard to attract newcomers.
We think ham radio is great; why should we want to keep it to ourselves?

) so there will be more
) frequency spectrum for them to use, and they actively spy upon and
) report (to the Feds) violations of the mickey-mouse rules they operate
) under.  Everything you do is under control of government regulations
) which take years to update, and the army of reactionary spies makes it
) hard to operate outside the rules.

Ham radio is self-regulating, both by long tradition and FCC wish. Which
would you rather have: fellow hams telling you you're breaking the
(reasonable) rules (which I'll address in a moment), or the FCC sending you
an official citation every time you mess up, even slightly? The system
works.

As for the "mickey-mouse rules": Funny, I see nothing wrong with prohibiting
obscenity, regulating frequency use and power output, or forbidding
malicious interference.

) In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical.  New ideas
) and new people are welcomed.  Experimentation is encouraged.  If you
) get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way
) or do it your new way.  You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can
) plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether
) you are permitted double the speed of your machine.  If you can afford
) to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it.

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.

) I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for
) computer users.  While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio
) Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the
) hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just
) send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that
) THEY had had to go through.  They wanted to use their new, experimental
) packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting
) the bull over the radio).

For all the ragchewers, there are an equal number of people seriously
working on higher-level protocol implementation, wide-area networking (and
the problems are different over unreliable radio links than they are over
(comparatively) reliable phone lines), public service usage, you name it.

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?

) > One sub-hobby of widespread popularity involves relaying messages through an 
) > organized network of stations. This networking concept is going through a 
) > metamorphosis as a result of the introduction of computer technology. 
) > Networking, of course, is what we are talking about with radio modems. 
) > Hence, attracting computerists into ham radio is a 'natural' which will 
) > benefit everyone. 
) 
) What hams knew, or wanted to know, about computer networking in 1982
) would fill a thimble, maybe.  There are a few people like Phil Karn who
) span both computer networking and ham radio, but the rest were
) basically ignorant.  Their "networking" consisted of passing 10-word
) messages from one person to another, by voice or Morse code, down a
) line of humans, on a fixed nightly schedule.  This was (is) mostly done
) by people who have nothing better to do than read other
) peoples' messages over the air.  This has nothing to do with
) computer networking, though these people have finally realized that
) they can automate the processing if they can ever get their packet
) radios to work reliably enough.  So now they want a few computer people
) to come in and fix 'em up so they can do their same old same-old,
) without, of course, letting many new computer users in to crowd the radio
) spectrum.

You're ignoring there the most visible thing hams do: emergency message
handling. The 10-word messages you bemoan are training material, for when
the excrement impacts the rotating air circulatory device...and when that
happens, hams will be there, getting critical (yes, and not-so-critical)
messages into and out of the disaster area.

) [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.  E.g. the cops don't rely on hams, they have their own
) radios for regular and emergency use.]

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.

(BTW, I always carry my 2-meter handheld with me when I'm on an ambulance
call...as an EMT, I want backup communications.)

) >                     Mr. Decker would never have made his suggestion about 
) > putting radio modems on 160-190 khz if he had had the slightest notion of 
) > the mathematics and physics of communication. If radio modems are to be of 
) > any practical use for more than one pair of terminals every 40 miles, they 
) > must use very high data rates. (56,000 data bits per second as a minimum.) 
) 
) That's funny, the hams who are currently doing packet radio are doing
) it at 1200 baud.  It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over
) ham radio in the United States.

Only below 1240 MHz.

) Ham packet radio was started in
) Canada, where the government didn't get nearly as much in the way.
) It took an immense amount of work in the US just to get the use of ASCII
) legalized over the air -- before that, it was Morse or Baudot or
) nothing.

Mainly because of the monitoring problem: since ham radio is
self-regulating, the FCC didn't want to hamper the efforts by allowing
widespread use of a mode that nobody could copy. It had been used for
several well-designed experiments, though.

) 56Kbit modems are a research project at a few places, like
) Linkoping University in Sweden; Stanford; and at Tucson Amateur Packet
) Radio.

Hams don't experiment, huh?

) >                         Mr. Decker suggested extending range by using 
) > digital repeaters. Hams have found that in practice using more than two such 
) > links in a row tends to bog down, although the newer NETROM modification to 
) > the conventional TAPR TNC software seems to be a big help in linking. 
) 
) As explained above, the ham fraternity knows nothing about networking.
) This is why they are using very lossy links, but with protocols where
) acknowledgement and retransmission only happens end-to-end.  This data
) is being relayed at a maximum of 1200 baud -- HALF DUPLEX -- between
) each relay point.  If you connect directly (no repeaters), you might
) get 1000 baud since you have to turn the line around once in a while
) for acknowledgements.  If you use one repeater, divide by more than 2,
) since each packet has to go to the repeater, then, from the repater to
) the destination.  (Each of these hops involves a delay of up to .3
) seconds while switching from receive to transmit, depending on the
) quality of the radio.)  Just going through one repeater, you drop under
) 300 baud; two repeaters gets you say 100 baud, or 10 cps.  That is,
) when all the data gets through error-free.  No wonder it "bogs down" on
) more then two links!

This is a well-known problem. The digipeater function was added to AX.25
(the ham extension of X.25) as a work-around, so that people wouldn't have
to use expensive, high-powered radios to get on and talk; instead, they
could put up a digipeater at some high point and talk to it. With my 25-watt
radio, I can reach all over south Texas with little effort.

Several groups are working on practical, higher-level protocols to get
around the problem you describe. Instead of complaining, wny not lend your
considerable expertise to help solve the problems??

) >                                                           Pressure to end 
) > the Morse requirement is growing even among hams. Also, some influential 
) > people within the FCC are beginning to say publicly that some of the 
) > restrictions now put on hams (particularly the ones on message content) are 
) > unrealistic and unreasonable.
) 
) The pressure may be "growing" but it's sure not grown.  The FCC backed
) a proposal to open up ham radio to computerists

(and anyone else)

) who didn't know Morse
) code, a few years ago, and it was shot down by comments from thousands
) of reactionary hams, guided and spearheaded by the ARRL (American Radio
) Relay League), sort of the AAA of the airwaves.

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.

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 am saying only that computer hobbyists 
) > should not reject the option of pursuing ham radio as a medium for radio 
) > modeming solely on the basis of erroneous statements made by someone who 
) > obviously doesn't know whereof he speaks. 
) 
) How about rejecting the option on the basis of MY statements, made by
) someone who DOES know whereof he speaks.  I tried it.  I still have my
) ham license (KB6DQC, technician's).  I'm gone though.  I'm building
) free software rather than building packet radio networks, because there
) is no government actively standing in the way of building and using
) free software.  I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to
) die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the
) amateur spectrum space.  I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong.

Watch the network grow and improve! You have apparently gotten the wrong
impression from a few minor legalities, instead of seeing the broad horizon
awaiting anyone with a little imagination.

I've been a ham for 16 years (before you ask: I'm not an old fogy...I'm only
27!). I've been involved in a very wide range of different pursuits during
that time: from CW (Morse Code) ragchewing, to VHF-FM and repeaters (I'm
currently serving as president of the Texas VHF-FM Society), to packet
radio, and always answer the call when the public welfare needs it. I'm not
an expert on the design of networking protocols (having been corrupted by
SNA :-), but I can and do participate actively in packet. While you're
complaining, we're innovating.

-- 
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.