[FADCA] Re: Melbourne FPAC & NTS

[bud Thompson]

Deltona
Friday Nov 22

Clayton KA4NHW wrote:

>I want to get this system up and running so I don't have to baby-sit it so
much.
>Then we can start  getting packet activity going again in this area.
>I think we need to start doing packet messages on N.T.S. on our nets.

First, I want to thank you for your baby sitting efforts.. and what more it
will take to fine tune the Melbourne Switch.  With luck, maybe only one more
site visit!  I'm certain it will pay off.

This morning I could use the network from Deland to the N4XEO FBB BBS in Ft.
Pierce while also forwarding to the W4JAX FBB BBS in Jacksonville This shows
the backbones and switching functions between the two end points are
functioning. Once the TNC on the 2M side is back on line everything there in
the Melbourne LAN on 145.09 should work FB.(The network actually works as
far south as W. Palm Beach and likely to Hollywood, but I don't have those
BBSs set up in forwarding scripts.  I manually connected to W. Palm BBS
early this week.)

I want to digress from the baby sitting aspects to the operational aspects
of what we are doing.. and your comment above is well timed.

It is no secret that the NTS has diminished steadily over the past ten
years, mostly due to easy access to the internet and cheep e-mail.
(Remember, in the 1950s when we were designing the transcontinental relay
system (all on CW) it costs as much as $6 ($20+ adjusted for inflation) for
each three minutes of a telephone call across two times zones.  A short
third party message saying Happy Birthday to Aunt Minnie was welcomed -
because it was free!  This was a worthwhile public service as well as
training ground.  I can remember being NCS on regional nets where we
routinely handled more than 20 messages a session, and 2x that many during
holidays.  The NTS is not the only aspect of ham radio that has been hurt by
the internet.  In the late 90s, just as the hams were flocking to buy TNCs
and networks were being developed, it all came to a crashing stop.

For some quick background you are referred to three short articles on the
digital NTS in Florida at www.fadca.org then on the left pane click on
"Packet Articles".  I recommend reviewing them in this order:

 -STATUS OF DIGITAL NTS IN FLORIDA

 - NTS MESSAGES ON THE DIGITAL NETWORKS

 - Whither Goest NTS?

Back to the present - We are building/expanding the Florida Layered Packet
Network fully realizing that there are few hams on packet in the state.  The
basic idea is from the Field of Dreams - "If you build it, they will come."
I'm impatient - we need to grease those skids a little.

One way is to re-introduce the ARES/RACES groups to digital Ham Radio and
demonstrate the value of including digital messaging and networks in their
plans. Another is to counsel what few NTS operators are left into using the
network to their advantage. In fact several of the active NTS operators left
in the state are on HF and vhf digital.  Also, my guess is that a high
percentage of the hams who participate on local FM repeater NTS nets are not
licensed for HF and might take an additional interest in vhf packet
operations to support their traffic activities.

My story:  Daily I check into the Florida Phone Traffic Net on 3940 at 0700.
There is not much NTS traffic, likely averaging fewer than three to five a
day not counting administrative support, and many days there is none.
However, nearly every day when there is traffic listed I hear destinations
where  there are packet LANs on the Layered Network and often there is no
one on the phone net that day to take the message.

Just this past four days I've heard messages for the following cities go
unserviced until later: Palm Bay, Ocalla, Vero, W. Palm Beach, Tampa.  Every
week there are other cities for which there is traffic and where there are
LANS!

Do you sense an opportunity knocking?

What would it take to add this dimension to the dying NTS in Florida?

1. (NTS) operators on packet who would regularly check their LAN BBS for NTS
traffic and deliver it.
2. More LAN BBS.

While desirable, we don't need a BBS on every LAN.   We should at least have
one on alternate LANs.  While it is beneficial to users and the network to
have a full-featured BBS (e.g. FBB), a Kantronics or other TNC with a
firmware-based PBBS would do the job w/o the need for a full-time computer.
(A full-featured BBS two LANs away can autoforward with a PBBS.)

What a service and demonstration it would be if we could take those messages
w/o takers on the phone net and put them on the Layered Packet Network.
Providing, of course, they were serviced to addressees the same day.

I suggest we all push for more use of the network in support of the NTS.
This must be an organized effort for being certain that (1) NTS messages put
on the network end up at the proper BBS (their NTS Home), and (2) there are
active packetters on all NTS Home BBS to regularly check the BBS for
deliveries.

Is this inconsistent with the article above "Whither Goest NTS?"

Not at all - but more on that later.

73,
bud N0IA