[FADCA] Comments on recent Threads about Packet Networking in Florida

[bud Thompson]

Deltona
Sunday October 27

The following is to clarify some of those issues that I can - either
with facts or references to help clear up possible miss-conceptions.
I have no comments on other items as (1) some of the technical
concerns are above my pay grade and (2) to the extent that some
comments may be bashing, flaming, or otherwise misleading.

I feel I owe this to the SILENT MAJORITY on the sidelines who have not
responded and who, even though interested :  (1) may not have specific
experience to fully appreciate the  various views, and (2) might want
to know the difference between what is pertinent and accurate, and
what may be more esoteric, or in some cases, misleading information.

Some of the references may be of  value to those who have not had
those previous experiences.

The information within the quotes below has been taken verbatim from
several of the e-mails - not in any particular order of appearance or
priority.

I have classified my comments as FACT, REFERENCE, or OPINION.


* * *
"It's seems Bud was wrong when he said "No one really cares" in my
previous RANT. It looks to me as if there are still plenty of people
that care or  they would have not taken the time to contribute to this
thread."


FACT    * * * * * * *
As of Friday October 25th - on these FADCA threads since late
September . . .

I found 20 messages contributed by eight people with subject "[FADCA]
HAMS using Internet." One person who originated 7 messages, two people
with 4 each, and five people with one each.

Prior to that thread one started with subject [FADCA] Fpacnode  and
the next response was titled (E. Central Florida Report).  I found a
total of 13 messages with "RE: those subjects" from 6 people: One
person with 6 contributions, two with 2 each, and three with one each.

Of the total 33 messages thirteen persons contributed; one with 13
messages, two with 4, two with 2, the rest with one.

Three people contributed 64 percent of the messages - and, I'd guess -
90% of the information since several of the singles were simply, "I
agree with . . ." or "I disagree with . . ."  . , . w/o further
comment.

I don't see this as "plenty of people, "  but I'm glad to see the
interest.  I has been a while since we have had 13 people join in on a
thread.

There is, however, a marked lack of contributions by (1) the main FPAC
movers and shakers who have the vast amount experience with FPAC, (2)
FADCA directors of Districts or BOD members, or (3) known promoters of
anything  ". . . other than FPAC  . . . "  . . that could be effected
in the short term  -  until major funding (contributions?) for the
latest and most promising network/protocol/hardware might be
universally available.

I doubt we are in serious danger of thus dying of sudden wealth in the
near term.

Following are some quotes from these e-mails followed by my comments.

* * *
"I'm starting to think we have two different groups here. Some who
want to see a better "ham" radio network and some who want to see a
better network for "EMCOMMS".

* * *
"While I'm all for helping out in an emergency and have done so in
many disasters, I, just as you don't want to spend my weekends
"working" as you call it on a network for just the "general public". I
don't want to help build it just from EMCOMMS and Email. I guess we
all have our alterior motives."


FACT                         * * * * * * *
In one of my original notes I said, "My interest is in building a
local packet network for anyone who cares to use the WL2K SYSTEM for
e-mail for EMCOMMs.  Local in my case is FADCA District #5 covering
five counties in E Central Florida.  In the process anyone who can get
on packet can use the network for anything they want to."

There is no ulterior motive inferred in that statement.

I don't see anything mutually exclusive here.  Why would a better ham
radio network not also be a better ham radio network for EMCOMMs
support   - or a better ham radio network for any purpose?  A ham
network should be available for what ever legit purpose legit hams
want to use it.

Not all hams are interested in actively supporting EMCOMMs.

Not all hams have the same level of interest in the activities in
which other hams are involved.

* * *
"COMPATIBLE! Please define this as it seem you really lack the
knowledge to know what is compatible


OPINION                        * * * * * * *
If a district/area has network sites/nodes interconnected by RF - say
nodes 5, 6, 7, and 8 - and someone wants to add nodes 4  and 9 -
communications through from 4 to 9 should be as transparent as
possible.  That is my simple explanation - for which I have sufficient
knowledge.

***
"My biggest complaint with Rose is that it not self routing like
Netrom or a Flexnet type node. Very seldom do I ever have a need to
add a static route for my Netrom or Flexnet nodes."

OPINION        * * * * * * *
Whether self (dynamic) routing or fixed routing is best depends on the
nature of network that is employed.  This old saw is a moot point for
those who understand the differences between a Wide Area Network (WAN)
and a Layered Network.  Those who need a short review of the two
network types can check it out here:

http://www.fadca.org/n0ia_5.html

I believe a WAN benefits from self or dynamic routing - particularly
over this peninsula.  The primary reason for this is the use of tall
towers with long RF paths and a single frequency throughout the state.
Some path qualities likely change often - even daily I'd supposed as
propagation changes.  I would think a WAN sysop here in Florida would
go crazy if dynamic routing were not employed.

The Layered network ROSE routing scheme is fixed/static and generally
does not need to be changed as backbones are point-to-point on
dedicated frequencies and away from the LAN frequencies.  There is
seldom any need to change / alter routing in this scheme.  Routing can
be changed manually via internet for Linux sites or via RF on DOS or
ROSE sites if needed.  The recent Linux FPAC upgrades are set up for
alternate routing - relieving the sysops of keeping up with any
temporary holes in the network.

However - Problems may come where networks using different routing
schemes meet - a discordance may occur due to addressing differences.
This is the case where FPAC sites are neighbors with Netrom sites.  I
believe that the Netrom portion of FPAC can eventually provide
compatibility where needed.


* * *
'I believe that the most damaging aspect of our hobby is the political
influence of the ARRL. Nothing else even comes close. It has been this
way since . . . . "'


REFERENCE                     * * * * * * *
(While I can't believe ARRL bashing got in to this thread - it does
seem to get slipped into many ham radio threads!)

Here is what Riley Hollingsworth, long time Special Counsel in the
FCC's Enforcement Bureau, who is retiring in February of 2008,
included in his "Advice from Riley Hollingsworth"  (See The ARRL
Letter for this week: Vol. 26, No. 43 October 26, 2007:

"#10. You may not always agree with the League, and that's fine. But
I'm standing here before you tonight talking about enforcement because
they never gave up. Take care of the one voice you have. You must
never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the
world. They just did."


* * *
"The good old days are gone and no one can bring them back  because
most of the guys have moved on .  sedan network  not sure it still
works as planned and it was a
emergency network for long range message movement"

OPINION                 * * * * * * *
Most users moved on (out of packet) in the mid 90s when internet
e-mail became available -  many hams got totally out of ham radio due
to the availability of e-mail and/or the internet.

The operative phrase above regarding Sedan is "long range" as compared
to large file/message transfer.  Moving many 5K to 10K files/messages
among widely-separated points in Florida using only existing or
proposed 1200b/9.6kb packet networks, especially flat networks such as
SEDAN or APRS, is not practical.  So far as I know SEDAN in Florida is
a keyboarding network - and BBS-to-BBS forwarding is not permitted.

We should be building a network that will let us do more than keyboard
from here to there.  For those users who do not need to do anything
beyond keyboard - SEDAN is there now and can be used so far as I know.
That should be a fun place to play if you can find someone on the
network for a QSO or a BBS you can reach.  No need to wait for the
Layered Packet Network to get fully interconnected.

On the other hand -combining slow (1200b / 9.6kb) ham radio LANS with
ready access to the internet as an additional carrier/layer is far
more promising in the now and near-term.  From a Mutual Aid
Communications (MAC) viewpoint the Layered Network concept effectively
extends connectivity across neighboring LANS for BBS-to-BBS type
forwarding.

NOTE: "BBS-to-BBS type" forwarding is used here in generic terms -it
is not from one BBS to another BBS - (which can also be done on the
Layered Network)  - but the efficient method used for message/file
transfers from a WL2K client through a Telpac node on vhf or PMBO on
HF.  A higher level of compression (B2F) is used than is presently
supported by FBB BBS.

Keyboarding also works on the Layered Packet network - with the
same caveat as on Sedan - it takes two to Tango.

* * *
" I'm getting off this soapbox cause I really think when it comes down
to it, it's not going to matter what anyone says it's will only matter
what people do."

OPINION                         * * * * * * *
Absolutely! - The cheapest thing we can do is rant and rave about what
is not being done or what could/should be done - and wait until
someone else does it.  That puts off being able to have fun on packet
or to support EMCOMMs or what ever is wanted.

The least expensive thing we can do is to establish a legacy packet
LAN to support the local Ham Community in place now and move on to
what ever bigger and better things that might come about.

* * *
"I don't think anyone wants to help "EMCOMMS"

FACT                         * * * * * * *
I assume this was not in context!  - There are likely 400-500 active
ARES/RACES members in the state who would disagree with this
statement. That is 400-500% more than one "anyone."  "EMCOMMS" is
EMergency COMMunicaitonS - ostensibly ham radio support of supplying
communications during times of Communications Emergency.

* * *
"Did you forget we are HAMS."

REFERENCE                     * * * * * * *
Well said!

In a QST editorial titled "When All Else Fails - Amateur Radio"-

". . . the traditional role of the Amateur Radio communicator no
longer matches what the emergency management official is looking for.
Replacing their missing telephone is no longer enough. To do their
jobs, they also need email and possibly Web access. . ."  - David
Sumner, K1ZZ ARRL CEO in "It seems to Us;" QST September, 2007 p.9.

OPINION - We must never forget the real meaning of "When All Else
Fails - Amateur Radio."  We need to keep it simple - it is not
practical for us to build a ham radio system to 'replace' - or even
come close to replacing - the tax-based multi-back -up Public Service
and well-funded commercial services when all else has failed.

When left totally in the dark (inside the Last Mile) - two hospitals
that need to communicate or an Incident Command that can no longer
communicate with the EOC will take anything they can get - formal or
informal voice exchange, e-mails over ham radio - even runners between
the two points if within reasonable range.

I doubt when the ship hits the sand that the Served Agency will be
expecting to browse the web using a local ham radio link.  However,
they will expect whatever backup Amateur Radio provides to be
organized - and work.

* * *
"I disagree I am 30 years younger than you, and it's my generation
that going to clean-up this mess later."


OPINION                        * * * * * * *
Later?  - but this is now, not later - why not use your expertise now
for the good of the order?   Why wait?

Thirty years ago my generation was actively participating in 'working'
at developing communications systems/networks for hams to use - we
were not standing by waiting to clean up someone else's mess.

* * *
"There are much better alternative to using ROSE, telpac and Winlink.
One just needs to look at what other states are doing remember Florida
is really the only place in the using US using ROSE."


FACT/OPINION /REFERECE                      * * * * * * *
ROSE is a protocol Telpac is a program and Winlink is a system.

I don't recall seeing a subsequent post suggesting anything else
specific that is a 'better alternative' though I remember someone
asking.

OPINION:  I believe the FPAC/Linux gurus would disagree - and my guess
is they, like I, have been quiet since this started  - busy "working"
on the network we have in favor of actually getting something done for
the hear and now rather than rant about what should/could be done.

FACT: K4GBB has recently helped a guy in VA get Linux FPAC Telpac
going.  A year ago WA1LRL put up a Linux FPAC node in Michigan and
joined in on the "French/Fla" network - I'm sorry to report that this
past summer he became an SK and no one has taken over his node.
TI2HAS-8 is a Linux/FPAC node in Central America on the network.  I
see VK2TV-11 on the network but I have no idea who/where he is - or if
it is active.

FACT: Linux/FPAC and certainly Telpac and Winlink are not restricted
to France and Florida.  Any group may use these that wants to. I fully
expect that as Linux FPAC becomes more stable and the word gets out
more local groups around the country will give it a try.

The Winlink system is the most widely e-mail over ham radio system
employed by EMCOMMs groups in the US and Canada.

REFERENCE http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wl2kemcomm/
Those who are  interested in these concepts could join this group to
see what is happening with WL2K/ECOMMS/Packet around the world and in
'other states.'

It is a Yahoo Group where WL2K users (mostly part of  ARES/RACES
groups in the US) discuss implementation of WL2K for EMCOMMs using
packet/networks and HF.  There is much talk of EMCOMMs support,
including use of packet, outside WL2K-specific applications.  I've not
noticed anyone there talk about packet "network" except in terms of
X1-J/TheNet, NetROM nodes, etc.  I believe some in the NE are using
the PC FLEX network.  I believe that Texnet in West Texas is no longer
viable - but have not heard much about that lately.  What networking
there is otherwise is likely firm-ware based.

That group presently has 1,958 active members world wide.

In my Winlink For Dummies group -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LOADING_WL2K_USER_PROGRAMS/

 I ask new members if there is a packet network within 25 miles:

The purpose is to help someone who doesn't know if there is one to
find out from someone in the group who does know - I've not kept
statistics - but -  Generally many newbees do not know - and we've
been able to steer them to one occasionally - but we don't hear much
on that group about anything but a 'digi' or "node".

That group, started in December 2005, presently has 1,111 members
world
wide who are at some level of learning how to load, configure and use
the WL2K client programs.  More than 450 have unsubscribed - having
completed what ever level of the coursework was desired.

Why are these various groups not using FPAC?  Likely because most are
recent start-ups or recently re-furbishing old packet site/networks
and are satisfied with a digipeater that can get them to a Telpac
node.  There are some places where broader networks are being
refurbished - NY and PA I know of - most likely many others.  It isn't
likely these established networks that are being re-visited will
change network schemes to FPAC.

Likewise it is also not likely the existing FPAC sites in Florida will
change to a older legacy scheme.  Especially with the Linux-based FPAC
there is hope of being able to update to the next,  and after that, to
the next thing that might be of value.

It would not surprise me that a Windows-based networking scheme might
appear on the horizon at some time.

* * *
"If there was something other than ROSE, telpac and Winlink you might
have some more interest around here. "


OPINION           * * * * * * *
If that is the case then someone "around here" should establish
"something other than .  . ."  and find out if any additional local
players join the very few that are using the network now.

* * *
"Look at Telpac... this is a bbs killer."

 FACT           * * * * * * *
? I'm not sure what that means.  Telpac is not a BBS - it is a
bridge/gateway for a packet user to exchange SMTP E-mail with an
internet Central Mail Server.  Telpacs and packet BBSs are devices
that can co-exist on a user LAN.

OPINION - These last two quotes sound like FPAC/WL2K bashing.

* * *
"On the other hand I been looking more at Web base BBS software
like OpenBCM and feeding with FBB."

***
"There won't be any internet in residence home when a storm
hits but we will still have data capabilities in our hardened telpac
sites"

* * *
"Yea, that's what we need proprietary D-Star...I thing your operative
word is "hardened" telpac sites. How many of those are there? Does
every telpac site in Florida have emergency backup?"


OPINION        * * * * * * *
It is not necessary for every telpac site to be hardened or have
emergency backup.

In local EMCOMMs plans it is prudent  to have Telpac nodes out on the
LANS (even at hams QTHs) - in addition to Telpacs co-located with
Linux/FPAC LAN/Switch sites.  This enhances the Mutual Aid
Communications (MAC) concept when an area is inside the Last Mile and
users must traverse the network to get to an area outside the Last
Mile that has Telpac(s) with internet still avaialble. The E-Central
Florida network from Melbourne through to Jacksonville is set up for
MAC support.  That can extend as far as the linked network has RF
connectivity via backbones.

FACT        * * * * * * *
Hardened sites for Telpacs - In my District and nearby we have several
Telpac nodes from Melbourne through to Orange Park (JAX).  All the
Linux LAN/Switch sites have Telpacs.  Here is the current list of
Telpacs and what I know:

Melbourne LAN 145.09
   Melbourne Switch Telpac***
   KN6KB-10 Telpac***
[no RF link to Orlando]
Orlando LAN 145.07
  Orange County EOC Telpac
  Altamonte Springs EOC Telpac
  Seminole County EOC Telpac
  Lake County EOC Telpac
  Orlando Switch Telpac***
[9.6kb RF link to DeLand]
DeLand LAN  144.91, 446.65
    DeBary EOC Telpac* * * 9.6kb 446.65 LAN
    DeLand EOC Telpac 9.6kb 446.65 LAN
    DeLand Switch Telpac
    N0IA-10 Telpac**** (Also tested on Orlando LAN)
[9.6kb RF link to DAB]
DAB LAN 145.050
    Edgewater EOC Telpac (Also tested on Deland and Orlando LANS)
[9.6kb RF link to STA]
STA LAN  144.990
   No Telpacs
   [9.6kb RF link to OPK]
Orange Park LAN 144.93
    OPK Switch Telpac
    WX4J-10 Telpac***
    KC4OUA-10Telpac***

Telpacs on Central Florida LANs not yet linked to the above by RF:
Ocala EOC (or PD)
Gainesville EOC
Lake County EOC
K4GBB FPACSwitch Site***
W5TRW-10***
K4LSB-10***
KC4MCQ-10***

All EOCs and all Switch sites except Orlando have automatic change
over to emergency power.  All EOCs are considered hardened except for
DeBary - but that building has been there since the late 60s so far as
I know.

Sites marked with *** are likely at QTHs or are not otherwise
considered hardened.   The Orlando switch and N0IA-10 are at my QTH.
When the wind is going to blow - down comes the tower until after the
blow - then up goes the tower and on goes the 7500w generator if
needed.  The Melbourne switch is too close to the coast to be
considered hardened.

The Seminole County EOC is the first back-up to the State EOC.

* * *
". . . without having a statewide or regionalwide nonprofit
organization that can take donations and afford to purchase equipment,
tower rents, and personnel to service this type of system a high
baudrate wide bandwidth system will not happen any time soon, we would
be better off all buying a Dstar system for every county and 
installing
it at a mutual aid tower site under the umbrella of interoperability 
with the
state."

OPINION        * * * * * * *
Yes, funding from outside the Ham Radio community is slow to develop
in most places.  Getting D-Star or some other high speed scheme
working may take place in individual areas where some group has
garnered funding - but with so few Ham Radio Communities now on the
packet network at legacy costs - where is this interest and funding
going to be derived for wide-spread application?

One D-Star site does not a network make.

If we continue building the (legacy) network for the now - the sites
will be in place for something like D-Star when the money starts
flowing.

Keep in mind - few Ham Radio repeater sites were established with RF
'backbone" inter links in mind.  So summarily locating D-Star at
analog ham repeater sites will not guarantee RF link capability to the
next D-Star site.  In most cases - with Layered Packet network sites
that are inter-connected by UHF backbones - the sites are already
within reach of each other - Adding D-Star to the Layered Network
sites might just make more sense than adding D-Star to many existing
analog repeater sites.

(When serious digital repeater groups start looking for sites - who
knows what could happen with that funding and Layered Packet Network
sites?)

* * *
"Hi Guys, I have to use telnet and UDP connects to and from my N4JOA
BBS to other BBS's only because our local packet lan network can't
connect to any other BBS's on RF. I don't like the idea of having to
use the internet for packet but I have no choice. I can connect to
only one other packet BBS via RF at no fault of my own"

OPINION        * * * * * * *
I feel your pain.  This is the normal pitfall of building or
rebuilding a packet network locally w/o wide-spread
support/coordination with Ham radio communities/groups.  Devices
(BBSs, LAN/Switches, Telpacs, Digis' etc,) become isolated until
neighbor groups start working toward RF connectivity.  The only
solution is to get with some folks in the adjacent Ham Communities in
several directions to see if they would be interested in establishing
a LAN for that community - and then linking via RF to/through yours.

It is not your fault - you are the leader!

* * *
"These days all PC have Web Browser and everyone at almost every
age group knows how to use them. This is a easy way for people to
login from the Internet and/or RF so they **will** become interested
again. We need users in order to grow our network, users need to see
that Packet is cool and exciting
or they will just continue using the Internet and packet will die."


OPINION        * * * * * * *
I agree that we need many more users.  With users come experience and
suggestions/desire for more capability.  With that comes more interest
among the movers and shakers to provide such - that is the challenge
for the movers and shakers.

As for Web Browser log on via RF - Oh, YES!  I'd sure like that. . .

Let's get someone demonstrating a proof-of-principle over an RF link
between a home QTH and a server/site 25 miles away.   The antenna at
the user site should not be more than 25 ft agl and unless dedicated
to this single purpose should not be a fixed beam.

Once that is effectively demonstrated - Let's find out what the
associated RF cost and associated hardware cost is at the server site
and the cost of the user hardware (radio, feed line, antenna, etc.)
Certainly that can't be anywhere near the cost of a D-Star set up.
I'd guess that the user port for the server could be added to Linux
FPAC sites and work along side the legacy packet user port(s.)

Perhaps this is a first step toward getting more people on the
network.

I'm sitting here wondering if my 13 year old granddaughter who has
known nothing but broadband access will think it is cool using a web
browser when the effective throughput rate might be, say 10KB -12KB
over a local Ham Radio LAN to a server site.  What baud rate will be
required on the RF link to make her experience 'familiar' - how much
will user end gear cost?  Can this be extended to users' tactical
kit-bags and be used with portable antennas, etc?

If the familiarity of using a browser will bring people to packet (and
I doubt it) - the new WL2K user client Paclink MP is supported by a
number of familiar e-mail clients as well as a Web browser-based
E-mail client.  I've not tried the latter yet but it should work FB.
However that is not browser-based to RF - just client browser-based to
the Ham Radio Paclink MP e-mail server on a computer LAN.

-                 SUMMARY                 -

So we do have choices - we can do something now that will work,
improve on it over time as we learn -  or we can wait until someone
else provides something better.

It is one of local choice - local ham radio communities (generally
county-based) can get involved now using legacy packet at 1200b and
9.6kb at minimal expense - or simply wait until later when things are
faster w/o any guarantee of being easier or cheaper.

I suggest that so far as individual ham radio operators are
concerned - the cost of an individual's gear is paramount.

73,

bud N0IA