[FADCA] Protocol Warrior behavior:

Wed Dec 29 09:59:32 EST 2004

Dave,

Since you know something about protocols and BBSs there is an interesting
parameter you might want to  look at called an RF footprint.  It basically
measures (for comparison) the time bandwidth product of a mode/protocol to
move a message. e.g. if a  PSK 31 signal takes 100 Hz bandwidth(50 Hz + 50
Hz guard band to adjacent signal) to move a message at 4 bytes per second it
has an RF footprint of:
(.1/4) * 1000 or 25 KHz-seconds /Kbyte of message

Calculate that same "RF footprint" for 300 baud HF packet and it is
something like 30-40 KHz-sec

Pactor I is about 28, Pactor II about 14 and Pactor III about 10.

The smaller the footprint the less time-bandwidth product it takes to move a
Kbyte message.

Now these footprints are all for good channels with virtually no errors.
Both Packet (HF or VHF) and PSK31/63 have very weak/no error correcting so
deteriorate quickly in poor conditions. Pactor slows down of course but due
to modulation adaptation, strong FEC coding and Memory ARQ will get through
under even negative S/N conditions.

I have no devotion to any protocol but when you are trying to move messages
(as opposed to keyboard QSOs) in a limited spectrum using the smallest RF
footprint to get the job done is a reasonable and responsible goal. If you
want testimony from the "field" ask the WL2K users in the Tsunami area what
they think about Pactor and its suitability to move critical H&W messages to
friends and family.

Also before you quote Charles' "FACTS" to widely you might want to try
checking them out yourself.

 "SCS is the German company that manufactures the $1,000 PACTOR III modems
that take up fifteen PSK31 QSO's worth of bandwidth."

The reality is the SCS PTC IIex is about $700 (Pactor II) + $150 for PIII.
For comparison A Kantronics KAM98 (about 1/4 the throughput of Pactor II)is
$400. Pactor II is 450 Hz wide @ -30 db. That makes it 9 times as wide as a
50 Hz PSK31 (assuming an unrealistically generous 0 guard band). Pactor II
is also at least a factor of 15 faster than PSK31 after you include any ARQ
overhead required of a BBS system.

"Want to guess what modem and protocol their proposal requires, at the
expense of all other
systems?"

The WL2K system uses Pactor I, II, III, and Packet for RF protocols. It is
compatible with virtually all packet networks. In the past Winlink used
Clover when it was popular. WL2K and the ARES proposal does not "require"
any particular protocol. In the future WL2K will use whatever works best and
uses our airways most responsibly. As you may know I am now experimenting
(alpha testing) a new sound card ARQ protocol called SCAMP that looks very
promising. If interested you can find links to the draft SCAMP spec and RDFT
info at
http://www.winlink.org/Client.htm or I can send you additional details.
There are also other sound card modes like WinDRM that could be adapted to
low cost and low RF footprint protocols suitable for BBSs. At least one ARES
group is building a network based on WL2K and the D-Star technology.

I feel strongly that if our hobby is to survive and hopefully advance we
have to be open to developing and using new technologies. Years ago I had an
AM transmitter and a Model 15 Teletype and while I wish I still had those
antiques I am glad they have fallen out of favor.

73,

Rick Muething KN6KB

-----Original Message-----
From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of David Calder
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 07:57 AM
To: 'Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association'
Subject: RE: [FADCA] Protocol Warrior behavior:

I never agree with much of what he says either but I agree with a lot of
this letter. I didn't think you would agree with him.

The following IS the truth.

"SCS is the German company that manufactures the $1,000 PACTOR III modems
that take up fifteen PSK31 QSO's worth of bandwidth."

I guess only the big boys can play.

Check out some of the yahoo talk groups and you'll see what the California
WinLink guys say about packet. They sure don't like our BBS's on 20 meters
where we have been for 15 years. When it was all they had it was the best
think since fried rice. I'm all for new protocols but don't like being
treated like a red headed stepchild because I won't switch.

I actually had a person on this list tell me a month ago bbs's were still
good to have around to check links. To check links? I just about turned off
the VHF ports right then and there.

I can still pass messages and bulletins without an internet on my backside.

73 Happy Holidays
Dave n4zkf

-----Original Message-----
From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Rick Muething
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:39 AM
To: Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association
Subject: RE: [FADCA] Protocol Warrior behavior:

Thanks Dave,

Even though I don't agree with much of what Charles writes he is s good
writer. Unfortunately he also has a habit of distorting the facts to fit his
own bias and agenda.
	e.g. "A recent proposal to the ARRL concerning ARES emergency
communications had three of the big wheels from SCS communications "packed"
into the committee."...  a total untruth.

Charles also appears to be mostly TALK...and little action and confirms my
basic premise.
"Those that CAN....DO, Those that Can't DO ....Blog!"

73,

Rick KN6KB

-----Original Message-----
From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of David Calder
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 06:08 AM
To: 'Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association'
Subject: [FADCA] Protocol Warrior behavior:

This is lengthy but I though it was well written and some would enjoy.

Happy New Year

Dave n4zkf

Protocol Warrior behavior:

A character flaw common among digital ham radio enthusiasts, where
consideration of a pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol looms larger
in their thoughts than any consideration of the amateur radio service
itself, or of their fellow hams.

Most hams have met or known protocol warriors, and they are easy to
recognize... The protocol warrior is full of certainty that his way, and
only his way is worthy of consideration. - Hams who do something different
are ( ignorant, luddites, lids, troublemakers, ) etc., and so are not worthy

of everyday decency, consideration, respect or cooperation.

To a protocol warrior, it is "OK" to undercut or marginalize their fellow
hams, as long as those hams are doing something different. Since they use a
"competing" product, project, paradigm, or protocol, then they are the
"competition", worthy only of hostility.

More than once, I have heard protocol warriors professing a craven,
shameless eagerness for ham radio's "old guard" to pass away. - Where
ignorance marries arrogance, there you find a protocol warrior.

This, instead of their treating their fellow hams with the respect,
consideration and amity that has marked this hobby since its beginning.

Obviously this attitude has no place in Ham Radio - but it has found a way
into the hobby anyway, and does not appear to be going away on it's own.
Many digital enthusiasts remember packet radio's protocol wars as a note of
discord within the hobby from a decade or more ago, not realizing that this
problem is still with us today.

Just as it was a decade ago, the protocol wars stunt the progress that would

otherwise be possible with digital amateur radio. Protocol Warrior attitudes

have brought digital ham radio in the US to a virtual standstill, making it
almost impossible to evaluate and apply new technology as it becomes
available.

Many hams criticize the ARRL for not taking a lead in developing a digital
ham radio network in the US. - They criticize because they do not understand

that almost every digital proposal the ARRL gets is put forward as a
"hatchet job" on other methods that are proposed or that are already in use
by many hams. Everybody seems to want their pet product, project, paradigm,
or protocol to be given top consideration, at everything and everybody
else's expense.

TAPR's "IP Only" promotion that they had going through Steve Stroh's column
in CQ magazine a few years ago is an example of shameless protocol warrior
behavior. Literally every digital enthusiast who did not care for amateur
tcpip ( the great majority ) were instantly marginalized and left out by
this program.

This organization that sees nothing wrong with policy that excludes the
great majority of hams is looked to for leadership in digital amateur radio.

A recent proposal to the ARRL concerning ARES emergency communications had
three of the big wheels from SCS communications "packed" into the committee.

SCS is the German company that manufactures the $1,000 PACTOR III modems
that take up fifteen PSK31 QSO's worth of bandwidth... Want to guess what
modem and protocol their proposal requires, at the expense of all other
systems?

I have communicated with this group and they have no interest whatsoever in
working with anybody doing anything even slightly different. To them,
cooperation with other hams would be a waste of time. Unprofitable too, I am

sure.

It's precisely this "My way or the Highway" attitude that has made it almost

impossible for the ARRL to act upon the great majority of the proposals they

get. - Most of them are loaded up with this same combination of ignorance
and arrogance, the kind associated with protocol warrior behavior.

Whatever finally is proposed, good or bad, is immediately attacked. In fact,

it is almost impossible to discuss packet radio networking anywhere without
being attacked by protocol warriors. It is no different in the ARRL's board
room, which goes far in explaining the ARRL's general lack of progress with
digital ham radio.

This is a primary malaise of amateur packet radio in the USA. - Protocol
Warrior behavior.

How I Won the Protocol Wars

Perhaps because I am an old hand at digital amateur radio and can remember
how friendly and inclusive packet radio was before the protocol wars, I have

taken an interest in this problem.

Packet radio used to fit in with ham radio a lot better than it does today.
It used to be mainstream, but now most really decent hams avoid packet -
because of the intolerant, often nasty "protocol warrior" behavior that is
so widely associated with amateur packet radio today. Nobody wants discord
and disharmony, or to be run down because of the equipment or software they
use.

My first clue in getting past this problem was that in discussions and
arguements with Protocol Warrior types, they were always outraged at my
unfairness if I brought up the idea of considering their fellow hams. They
reacted this way almost every time... This response was so out of whack with

everything I have ever known about ham radio that I immediately recognized
this as their central weakness, their blind spot; the hole in their internal

logic.

Perhaps the most outrageously anti-ham aspect of protocol warrior thinking,
I discovered, was the recurring theme of the "protocol" somehow being held
in higher consideration than people, ( fellow hams ) especially when those
people use a "competing" protocol. The idea of cooperation with "Joe Ham"
was just too repugnant to consider. If you are not of the alleged "elite",
then of course you are out.

This "Them or Us" attitude, being applied against fellow hams who have done
nothing more offensive than to use different equipment or software is a
recognized hallmark of the protocol warrior. Again, though this behavior is
obviously unworthy of the amateur radio service, still it has crept into our

everyday dealings with each other.

Over and over, I saw a lack of respect for their fellow hams, a cynical
attitude about the hobby, and a basic inability to play well with others as
outstanding characteristics of the protocol warrior. This told me that a
good counter-attitude would be to simply respect our fellow hams, and the
hobby that brings us together to work and play.

As a packet networker, this implied to me that the endless emphasis on
products, projects, paradigm, and protocol are misplaced. - That the most
important network component is people, and people who had built working,
usable network used and enjoyed by average hams are the real experts in the
art and science of amateur packet radio.

I quit looking at what equipment a digital group was using, or what protocol

they were using and looked at the results they were getting instead. I
started looking for people who had discovered how to play well together
because every time I found that, I also found impressive accomplishment no
matter what kind of equipment they used.

I believe my main points have been made, so now I will invite you to look
over the NETWORK page here at USPacket, to see the kind of expertise that
matters in the amateur packet radio world today. - The kind that we need
more of, just as we need less of the kind of thinking that drives the
"protocol warrior" in us all.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org

Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com

Weblog:  http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php

_______________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
FADCA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca

_______________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
FADCA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca

_______________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
FADCA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca