Eastern Caribbean NBEMS HF Net

SOURCE:  Wayne J73WA

See Wayne’s email announcement below. Good net info to keep in mind for the 2012 Hurricane Season. I’m assuming 7.036 USB dial for 1 KHz waterfall center freq. Or 7.0355 USB dial for 1.5 KHz waterfall center freq which is probably a better approach. “7036″ is a pretty common 40m NBEMS frequency here on the east coast, so it’s a good spot for such a net.

WA4ZKO

—-
To:  All Amateurs
From:  J73WA
Date:  2012-05-27
Time:  1213L
Subject:  EC-NBEMS
 
Hello all
 
We are pleased to inform you of the launching or the new Eastern Caribbean Emergency Messaging System (EC-NBEMS) net. This net will convene every Sunday at 21:00 UTC on 7.036 USB using Olivia 8/500 for general check-ins and MT63-1000 for passing messages.
 
The purpose of the net is to pass amateur radio traffic and act as a training ground for Caribbean amateurs in the use of the narrow band messaging system.
 
For the purpose of this net, the Eastern Caribbean was divided into three sections: Section One – St. Kitts/Nevis to Puerto Rico, Section Two – St. Lucia to Antigua and Section Three – Trinidad & Tobago to Barbados. DX stations are invited to participate and will be called and acknowledged during the net.
 
All information about the net will be posted on the CEWN’s website at http://cewn.net. Please register on the site and be sure to subscribe to the EC-NBEMS mailing list.
 
For the smooth operation of the net and ensure full participation, we strongly encourage all net participants to download the latest versions of FLDigi, FLWrap, and FLMsg from the CEWN website.
 
You are invited to join us every Sunday and participate by checking in and sending a message even if it is only for practice purposes.
 
The EC-NBEMS will work closely with the East Coast NBEMS Net in times of emergency especially during the hurricane season.
 
de Wayne, J73WA
Webmaster – http://cewn.net and http://dpsninc.org
NCS – EC-NBEMS

NNNN

NY/New England area packet radio legend Bob Anderson K2BJG SK

It is with a sad heart I report that NY/New England area packet radio legend Robert “Bob” Anderson K2BJG passed away on Saturday, May 26th.

Bob was one of the leaders in developing and maintaining the New England FlexNet packet network. Even while “retired” in Florida he did what he could to keep both the Florida and the northeastern USA FlexNet packet radio systems going over the years.

His obituary can be found here.

WA4ZKO

—-

SOURCE:  Msg from K1EIC, see below:

Date:  Sun, 27 May 2012
From:  Betsey Doane
Subject:  Bob Anderson K2BJG SK
 
I am deeply saddened to tell you that Bob K2BJG passed away in New Jersey yesterday. Over many years, he has been a great help to the packet community in CT and the northeast designing and implementing the Flexnet network. He was a real help to me both in Amateur radio and personally. He was formerly Section Manager in the NNJ Section. I presented Bob with a  plaque from this Section some years ago when I visited him in Florida for his meritorious work here.
 
I expect that services will be held Wednesday in Oakland; I don’t have any other details at this time.  We’ve lost another phenomenal innovator in Amateur radio.
 
73,
Betsey Doane, K1EIC SM CT

Network 105 leader vents over Winlink QRM

Just noticed this posting from Sholto, K7TMG regarding the sad state of Winlink sourced QRM to Network 105′s decades old and well known frequency. Sholto has lead the Network 105 efforts since Burt VE1AMA passed away in May 2010. Burt founded the Network 105 HF packet network (14.105 LSB) in 1986.

With the ongoing poor frequency choices being made by Winlink leadership and some gateway sysops, I don’t imagine Winlink’s reputation improving. I gather several folks are starting to document it for future FCC action. Hey when you have gateways being assigned frequencies right smack in the middle of the 10m beacon subband, the problem is getting pretty obvious.  I could spend paragraphs detailing recent Winlink foolishness, but I think Sholto says it pretty well.

WA4ZKO

Below is Sholto’s message:

Mon Apr 30, 2012

I’m getting sick and tired of the Pactor 3 QRM we suffer on 14105.

With the recent changes to Winlink – i.e. the use of a “service code” (password) to allow “special groups” closed access and their proposal to reply to the FCC’s request for comments which petitions for the 300 baud symbol rate to be scrapped (so allowing Pactor-4) and incidentally, tacking on encryption (seriously) as a way to “protect sensitive data” in an “emergency situation”…… I can only foresee things getting worse for us.

73
Sholto
K7TMG

6 Meter Packet Frequencies

Since the first of the year I have received several inquiries regarding 6 meter packet radio. The common questions are where to operate or where can existing activity be found. A blog posting with some thoughts and pros/cons on 6 meter packet can be found here.

While it’s not as bad as it used to be, six meter “band plans” vary from area to area and country to country. You take that and add in that 6 meters is a “skip” band with strong and frequent seasonal e-skip openings, TE propagation, meteor scatter, globe spanning F-layer skip during strong solar peaks, and you have a recipe for unintentional QRM at times. As such, take extra care in choosing a frequency, especially when it will have 24×7 activity on it.

For packet, at least in N. America, there has traditionally been four regions of the 6 meter band used for packet radio:

50.600 to 50.800 MHz
51.120 to 51.180 MHz
51.620 to 51.680 MHz
53.490 to 53.590 MHz

The 50.600-50.800 and 51.120-51.180 MHz regions are by far the most commonly used of the four. There has been packet activity in those two regions for decades.

 

50.600-50.800 MHz:

Channel layout within the 50.600-50.800 MHz region is pretty much a free for all.  The only “standard” packet frequency in that region is 50.6200 which WAS probably the most common 1200 baud frequency at one time. Today you will probably find little if any activity there. At one time PropNET was using it for packet beacons, but that faded away years ago. While I don’t think PropNET is dead (on HF at least), today most ops interested in HF/VHF propagation study find the WSPR network and approach far superior.

Some known active six meter packet frequencies in this region are:

50.615 – Arkansas – I think they still have several 1.2k “backbone” sites online. (see Note 1)
50.620 – Packet Calling Freq (1.2k) – doubt you’ll find any daily activity there anymore.
50.640 – Ohio – several 24×7 general use 1.2k sites on the air.
50.680 – Missouri – some 4.8k “backbone” sites in the NE half of the state.  (see Note 2)
50.730 – Kentucky, New York – 1.2k general use in NKY, 1.2k “backbone” use on Long Island NY.

Note 1 – Yeah, odd allocation right up against 50.620 MHz.  Given current state of 50.620, doubt it’s an issue.
Note 2 – Some band plans list this as a SSTV frequency along with 50.950 MHz.

Usage Notes:
On frequencies listed as “back bone” general user access/connects may be frowned upon or rejected by the system.
On frequencies listed as “general use” these are typically frequencies where user access is welcome.

Also 50.700 MHz used to be a common RTTY frequency, but I think most RTTY ops moved down to the area around 50.300 MHz if there is even much 6m RTTY anymore?

 

51.120-51.180 MHz:

Channel layout within the 51.120-51.180 MHz region is usually more structured and with four channels:

51.120 – California, Arizona – old 4.8k “back bone” links. Possibly defunct? (see Note 4).

51.140 – Ohio – 1.2k general use.

51.160 – North Carolina – 1.2k mixed use. (see Note 5)

51.180 – Maine – 1.2k general use.  (see Note 6)

Note 4 – While the info out there is vague, this freq was once used for a major coastal 6m 4800 baud back bone at one time. It used high profile nodes located on mountaintop sites and they covered a lot of territory. I think there was also a 4.8k link from SoCal into Arizona on this frequency at one time. I believe this network is most likely defunct now, but I could be wrong. I was told the Mt Otay (San Diego) site was still there, but I heard no sign of any AFSK or FSK packet on the freq the last time I checked while out there.

Note 5 – mixed info on whether or not this frequency is still active.

Note 6 – Some packet radio movers-n-shakers in Maine have several 1200 baud stations active on this frequency.

  

51.620-51.680 MHz:

I have not noted any activity here since the late 1990′s. This is a region of the band where band plan”conflicts” are more likely to occur.

 

53.490-53.530 MHz:

At one time there was some 1200 baud APRS activity on 53.530 MHz. This is a region of the band  where band plan”conflicts” are more likely to occur.

So as you can see, there is still plenty of 6 meter packet activity out there.

WA4ZKO

(corrections/additions to my callsign @ yahoo.com)

6 Meter Packet Radio

Since the first of the year I have received several inquiries regarding 6 meter packet radio. Interesting since most past 6m inquiries usually revolved around if I knew of anyone active on 6m “DX” modes from EM87 (semi-rare grid). It is nice to see a revival in six meter packet interest. It brings some unique advantages and makes a lot of sense for a variety of scenarios.

I have often wondered why so many packet ops seem to ignore the two VHF bands that are often a better choice for packet radio than 2 meters. Those 2 bands are 6m and 220 MHz.  Yeah some will try to argue that 220 is UHF, but technically it is VHF (30-300 MHz = VHF) although it behaves like a nice mix of both. This fixation on 2m packet made some sense back a couple decades ago. Back in the 1980′s and early 1990′s the typical ham usually only owned a HF rig, a 2m rig (or two), and maybe a 2m HT.  Hams that owned FM gear on any other band than 2m were a pretty low percentage, so putting most packet activity on 2m made sense back then.

As the hobby progressed into the late 1990′s, hams with 440 gear and dual-band mobiles/HTs became very common. Even the limited selection of 220 FM gear faded as several 220 FM “off the shelf” radios became readily available. Today it is a pretty rare ham that does not have both 2m and 440 FM gear! A good percentage probably own a tri-band or quad-band radio.  Today many of the HF rigs now include six meters. So today many hams even have some 6m or 220 FM capability. In short, a lot of the “gotta use 2m for packet” logic simply does not apply anymore and hasn’t for well over a decade.

Moving on….it seems that some folks are figuring out that if you have to deal with the noisier VHF bands for packet then you might as well take advantage of six meters and keep/free up your 2m/440 rig for voice usage. Makes a lot of practical sense when you think about it.

So what are some of the pros and cons of using six meters for packet beyond freeing up your 2m/440 rig?

PROS:

1.  RANGE! – All things being equal, 6 meters will provide you with the longest VHF range. Signals at 50 MHz have a 9-10 dB free space path loss advantage over 2 meters. 6 meters is well suited for rural coverage situations where you need the best signal penetration into hilly or mountainous terrain. Packet network ops in Arkansas found 6m worked well in their terrain for a 6m packet backbone….same for parts of Missouri. Some packet radio movers-n-shakers up in Maine are using 6m packet to get past rugged terrain that was making 2m packet tough to impossible on some paths. Here in my area we find it works well for covering the very hilly terrain in parts of our county.

2.  Cheap – 6 meters is a relatively easy band to get active on. Many of the new HF rigs come with 6 meters (often 100w) included so many hams already have 6m available to them. Alinco makes a reasonably priced 50w FM mobile (DR-06T) that is well suited to 1200 baud packet use. At the end of this posting I have included some prices/links for the Alinco mobile if interested in the Alinco rig. There are even some 6m HT choices out there.  RCI/Ranger has some SSB/FM mobile/base radios available. Plenty of used/older 6m gear available too. Some of the “high split” VHF-Low Band commercial gear can be converted to cover at least the lower part of the 6 meter band.

3.  Plenty of antenna options. The Cushcraft AR-6 and Comet GP15 antennas are just two of many choices for FM usage. If you are into homebrewing/experimenting with antennas, then 6m is a great band for you. Antenna construction tolerances are much more forgiving at 6m compared to the higher bands (especially UHF). While beams for 6m have some size to them, a 2-3 element design is still of reasonable size for many installations and can be handled by a decent TV grade rotor.

4.  Nice band for EMCOMM simplex use.  During portable EMCOMM use you are often unable to use large high gain antennas at heights needed for good 2m/440 simplex range. I have personally seen a simple 3 dB  Cushcraft AR-6 six meter vertical at 15-20′ cover a surprising amount of turf.  The AR-6 easily mounts on top of typical TV mast pipe, is around 110″ tall, but can be collapsed to about 50″ making it well suited to pack-n-go, unpack-n-deploy situations.

5.  Good choice from a self and served agency desense/QRM perspective. In my area most of our served agencies are on VHF-HI and this can create all kinds of QRM problems when 2 meters is used in close proximity. The use of 6m and 220 will usually prevent most of these problems. Why create potential self/served agency QRM if you don’t have to? As hams we have been given tremendous spectrum flexibility/options so let’s use them!

6.  It is easy to “feed” a 6m antenna. Feed line losses at 50 MHz are much lower than 2m and higher.  Even RG-8X is tolerable for many short 6m feed line run lengths.  With a 25′ run of RG-8X you will only loose about 0.5 dB at 50 MHz versus about 1 dB at 2m and nearly 2 dB at 440.  You can do some pretty long 6m feed line runs with good quality RG-8U or RG-213 and loose a tolerable 1.3 dB per 100′ at 50 MHz. You can get  just under 1 dB per 100′ with 9913 or LMR400 coax.

7.  Foliage losses are typically the lowest on 6m versus the other VHF/UHF bands.There is a reason why our military uses VHF-Low for a lot of their simplex needs and have even been known to show up in the 6 meter band.

8.  Tropo/Inversion type openings on 6m don’t seem nearly as pronounced as they are on 2m & up.

9.  E-skip band openings are common during the late spring/summer months (northern hemisphere) with another mini-peak around late December. This can be bad (QRM) or a good (fun) thing if you enjoy working 6 meter DX. Here in KY we share our main 6m packet frequency with a fairly chatty FlexNet packet system up on central and eastern Long Island NY. Since most of us are 6m DX’ers this serves as a handy band opening indicator for that part of New England.

 

CONS:

1.  VHF can be noisy spectrum for data usage and 6 meters is no exception. Power line noise is probably the most common issue, but 2 meters is often just as vulnerable.

2.  Nearby thunderstorm QRN will impact 6 meters more than 2 meters and at a greater range.

3.  6m HT antenna efficiencies are poor compared to 220/UHF. Stock 6m HT antennas are often little short of a glorified poorly radiating resistor. Due to the longer wavelength, 6m HT’s on already compromised stock antennas will perform poorly inside a metal vehicle compared to UHF.

4.  TVI can be a problem, but now that CH-2 TV usage has faded away in most ares this is not nearly the problem it used to be. I have actually had more TVI issues with 2m than with 6m.

5.  Building penetration performance is poor compared to UHF. 6m is great out in the country, but not such a great band choice for urban use!

6.  E-skip band openings are common during the late spring/summer months (northern hemisphere) with another mini-peak around late December. This can be a “con” in that there is potential for unintentional QRM issues on some frequencies.

7.  Getting a good ground plane for a 6m mobile antenna can be a bit of a challenge, especially on a smaller vehicle. When using a trunk mounted antenna, it is usually very important to spend some time and effort getting the trunk lid and hood well bonded to the rest of the vehicle. Ignition noise can be problematic too.

So you can see that like any other band, 6 meters has its share of pros and cons.

A posting on known 6 meter packet frequency usage can be found here.

Some current pricing (as of posting date) and sources for the Alinco DR-06T 50w FM mobile are below:

$269.95 – R&L Electronics (Ohio)

$357.96 – Aero-Smith (Tennessee)

$269.95 – The Antenna Farm (Montana)

$271.95 – Universal Radio (Ohio)

$275.00 – GigaParts (Alabama)

$278.99 – Installer dot com (Texas)

$265.00 – HamCity (California)

$279.00 – AES (Wisconsin)

$270.00 – CheapHam (New Jersey)

When figuring total cost, be sure to see what the shipping costs will be.

I am not endorsing any of the above vendors nor are they the only sources for the DR-06T.

WA4ZKO

WA4ZKO-10 30m HF Robust Packet APRS Digi/I-Gate on the air

March 3, 2012:

As of this evening the WA4ZKO-10 Robust Packet HF APRS I-Gate/Digi officially hit the airwaves on the 30m global RP APRS dial frequency of 10.1473 USB (10.1488 CF).  To the best of my knowledge this is the first full-time 30m RP “R-I-R” I-Gate/Digipeater in North America. It has been in limited testing since late January 2012.

Some details are below:

CALLSIGN:    WA4ZKO-10
LOCATION:   Roughly 5 miles west of Dry Ridge, KY (EM78PP)
HOURS:        Normally available 24×7  (see Note 1 below)
SOFTWARE:  UI-View32 v2.03, Windows 7 Pro, server grade h/w, & backup power.
RADIO:         Kenwood TS-140S
POWER:       50 watts
ANTENNA:    1/4 Wave Vertical, extensive grounding and surge protection.
MODEM:       SCS DSP Tracker in KISS mode
I-GATE:        Yes, 2-way I-Gate  (RF>Inet>RF)
DIGI:           Yes, digipeats WIDE1-1 (1 hop only) frames

NOTE #1:   At times WA4ZKO-10 may be on 10/15m briefly for testing/special coverage needs. I will generally refrain from changing bands when there is a /portable or /MM station out there that would suffer reduced or no coverage.  WA4ZKO-10 may zero-notice switch to 80/40 meters as needed during times of local/state emergencies or drills/events.

FAQ:

QUESTION #1:   Is there much Robust Packet APRS activity in North America?

ANSWER:   Not till the last year or so. You could say that RP APRS in North America suffers from the classic “chicken or the egg” syndrome. Without any RP Digipeaters/I-Gates there was not much incentive for portable/mobile users to use RP for APRS in North America. Now that there is finally some NA RP infrastructure coming online the “no RP I-Gate/Digi infrastructure” excuse is no longer valid.

As previously mentioned, there is a considerable amount of RP APRS activity in Europe. The group behind a lot of this can be found at www.robust-packet.net. Their PDF Manual here is a wealth of info on RP APRS and good “getting started” help for using UI-View32 and the DSP Tracker modems on RP APRS.

 

QUESTION #2:   What are your goals with this?

ANSWER:   First, I wanted to provide some full-time “foundation” infrastructure for the growth of RP APRS in North America.

Second, to help provide coverage to /portable & /mobile APRS users out in remote areas where there may be marginal or no existing VHF APRS coverage. Actually this is WA4ZKO-10′s primary purpose, to serve those users. A 30m RP APRS I-Gate/Digi with a vertical antenna in my area is well located to serve such users in several key areas needing coverage.

 

QUESTION #3:   What was your motivation for this project?

ANSWER:   Someone had to be “first” to get things going here and I had some extra RP gear available. I founded and ran the Yahoo Robust Packet group and had received several inquires along the line of “are there any RP APRS gates/digi’s in the USA” or folks flat out asking if I would consider operating one.

There has been considerable growth in RP APRS in Europe, but getting any momentum in N. America has been a problem. I had the gear available and HF APRS is a good way study propagation over the seasons, make some new friends, experiment with antennas, and help provide coverage to some /portable and /MM stations that operate in remote areas without any VHF APRS coverage.

I am not retired so I am busy wearing many non-hobby “hats.”  As such, I simply don’t have much time for the daily tinkering or babysitting that a lot of this hobby software stuff requires like frequent reboots, endless software upgrades, eternal “beta” testing, and so on. So any approach to this had to be “EMCOMM stable” – capable of  running for at least 30 days without needing reboots or restarts and use mature software. Testing showed UI-View32 and the SCS DSP Tracker was stable and would only require a minimal amount of admin/sysop time .

I also see some potential EMCOMM uses for RP APRS when combined with 80/40m NVIS techniques. The R300 mode of Robust Packet is so well suited to HF APRS usage that it was the no-brainer choice.

 

QUESTION #4:   What is the coverage like?

ANSWER:   30 meters is 10 MHz and it propagates a lot like 40m with a bit more “punch” to it. 30 meters is the highest HF ham band that offers propagation that is fairly consistent regardless of where we are in the solar cycle.  30m behaves like a mix of 40m and 20m. 30 meters has a daytime skip zone but it is not nearly as pronounced as it is on 20 meters. This makes it a better choice than 20 meters for many daytime regional coverage needs on HF APRS.

30 meter single hop coverage is pretty consistent across the seasons. 30m will push your daytime coverage out to about 1000-1500 miles. At night 30 goes “long” similar to 40 meters. Many 30m DX paths are there year round and some improve a bit during the spring/summer months. While still subject to thunderstorm QRN levels, the QRN impact is much less than on 80/40 meters. Since 30 meters is a WARC band you don’t have to worry about a big RTTY or CW contest weekend rendering the digital sub-bands nearly useless.

30 meter mobile antennas are a bit more efficient (compared to the lower bands) and a few watts combined with Robust Packet can give impressive coverage.  Depending on your latitude and where we are in the solar cycle NVIS on 30 meters is not only possible, it is more common than many realize.

Example, a recent mid-afternoon HF NVIS MUF Map from AUIPS  is below:

Below are some HapCap plots for WA4ZKO-10′s typical summertime coverage footprint on 30 meters. It assumes 50 watts and 1/4 wave verticals on both ends:

0400z

  1300z

1700z

2300z

UPDATE  03/16/2012 – While on a recent trip to DM04TC I was accessing it twice daily (around 0030z & 1300z).  Nearly 1900 miles with a pretty mediocre portable antenna setup shooting east between two large buildings. I had a typical S6-7 urban noise floor (if lucky) and often -10′s return packets were decoding right at that noise floor.

 

QUESTION #5:   Are you running “dual-mode”  HF Packet (HFP) & Robust Packet (RP) ?

ANSWER:   RP only. My gate/digi is RP only and I have no plans to add HF Packet APRS to it. While the DSP Tracker’s DSP ability to lock onto & decode off frequency HFP signals could help some on the 30m HFP APRS channel, I just don’t see any real need for it here for 3 main reasons:

1.   For a variety of reasons, Robust Packet is far superior to 300 baud HF Packet for serving remote mobiles, portable, and maritime mobile users. If you have to navigate a curvy road why drive a panel van when you have a Porsche at your disposal? Plus I would rather keep the setup lean, clean, and simple for admin and stability reasons.

2.   I monitored the 30m HFP APRS frequency a lot this winter. I did not see anything there that interested me that wasn’t visible on RP too. IMHO, dual-mode operation makes more sense for the /mobile, /portable, and /MM APRS users.

3.   The eastern United States already has several 30m HF Packet APRS gates/digis. Arguably too many of them! From here in my area the 30m HFP APRS freq is often a bit of a mess with excessive beaconing of stationary objects, VHF-to-HF gating for no reason, bad digi paths, digipeat ping-ponging/looping, Wx & node chatter on freq, and other superfluous traffic that only degrades already limited HF channel capacity/reliability.

 

QUESTION #6:   Are there any other Robust Packet APRS I-Gates/Digi’s in North America?

ANSWER:   K4KAH in Florida is experimenting on 30m at times, but I don’t think he’s running full-time yet.

Update 03/14/2012:   Walter, KB6BT in Portland, OR recently started testing a 30m I-Gate/Digipeater as KB6BT-7.  If he runs full-time, then all we need is a similar station in the middle of the country and we would be in pretty good shape. I am researching the HF feasibility of a southern California site that I have access to.

 

QUESTION #7:   Your map icon seems to be off, is it located out in a field?

ANSWER:   Nope, I just applied a bit of position ambiguity to WA4ZKO-10′s beacons to allow for better visibility on our local maps. It currently shows near one of our Field Day sites. WA4ZKO-10 is physically located nearby with other communications gear at a rural tower site. I run it there so that it can benefit from existing server grade hardware, a very low noise floor, site security, extensive grounding, remote control/monitoring, and long run backup power available at that site. I took a similar approach to the 444.425+ repeater whose APRS object actually plots at a nearby backup site.

There is no real world functional impact from the minimal position ambiguity being used.  Position ambiguity is an accepted APRS practice and many ops use it in their APRS operations.

WA4ZKO

Update – NKY Packet Systems shutdown schedule.

NKY PACKET SHUTDOWN SCHEDULE:
Last Update:  January 21, 2012

KYWIL NODE:
Jan 7th – Take KYWIL RF ports offline. Impacts the 145.530 1.2k and 421.9500 9.6k RF ports.   COMPLETED
Jan 14th – Turn the rest of the KYWIL node functions off. Impacts some AXIP/AXTCP links.   COMPLETED

KYRDG NODE:
Jan 6th – Take HF ports there offline. Impacts both HF forwarding/user ports.   COMPLETED
Jan 8th – Take the UHF 9.6k user port offline.  COMPLETED
Jan 12th – Take the 441 and 223 MHz 1.2k ports offline. Impacts local UHF user access and some forwarding.   COMPLETED
Jan 14th – Take the remainder of KYRDG down. Impacts local 6m user access, BBS, RMS, Chat.    COMPLETED

CTGATE NODE/HUB:
Jan 14th – Take the CTGATE node down. Impacts several AXIP links.   COMPLETED

KYCOR – Corinth ‘fill-in” NODE:
Jan 11th – Take the KYCOR Corinth “fill-in” UHF node down. COMPLETED    May be replaced in the future with a 6m fill-in node/digi.

WA4ZKO

FAQ: WA4ZKO – NKY packet gear shutdown

January 5th, 2012 – an update to my original shutdown message with some FAQ’s to deal with several common questions landing in my inbox:

Q:  Will you be keeping any packet gear on the air?

A:  Yes, the WA4ZKO-15 APRS digi will remain on the air as is, no changes.

I am considering keeping the 6m 1.2k and a UHF 9.6k port in place with a stand-alone TNC acting as a simple dual-port node/digi/mailbox for a basic local packet messaging hub. It would be 100% RF, easy to run on backup power, even offer some very useful solar/battery power options, fully isolated from the internet, no IP network dependency or exposure, and provide a more than adequate mini-PBBS/node for the county.

UPDATE 02/10/2012:  The new “mini-PBBS” is on the bench in testing. It will be moved to the Dry Ridge site for further testing in a few days. I am working towards making it 100% solar/battery powered.

UPDATE 03/24/2012:  After a month of burn-in testing at the Dry Ridge site the new “mini-BBS” is officially on the air. It is 100% solar/battery powered and offers access on both 6m 1200 baud and UHF 9600 baud.  This gives us a local messaging hub and cross frequency/speed gateway and digipeater that are BOTH internet and power grid independent. WA4ZKO-1 is the BBS. WA4ZKO-4 is the KA-Node, and DRGATE is the crossport digipeater. The perks of not having to maintain a PBBS PC at the tower site are nice and even nicer for the electric bills!

UPDATE 04/29/2012:  The new system is working well and proving itself very reliable. We have been running most of our county ARES communications over it using Outpost as the client software.

UPDATE 05/18/2012:  The new system has been on for nearly 3 months now and has proven itself to be rock solid with zero glitches, no restarts needed, and not a second of downtime. Just like with the KPC3+ TNC powering the local APRS digipeater (with uptime measured in years!) the KPC-9612+ just runs and runs and runs!  During the recent COMEX drill we passed several p-mail, NTS, and ICS-213 messages over the system using both 1200 and 9600 baud connections.

PC based packet BBS systems have their pros for sure, but they also come with a lot of cons too. Most of the potentially EMCOMM useful pros come in the form of additional routing capabilities, but ultimately that is very dependent upon having a well configured and maintained BBS network around it which we don’t have.

Historically most “useful” PBBS traffic around here has always been local “sp” BBS mail (aka p-mail).  Without a reliable global BBS forwarding network in place, a full service PC based BBS with a bunch of links is just overkill. A properly designed/maintained statewide packet BBS network could be useful for sure, but clearly that is unlikely to ever happen in Kentucky. Thus scaling back from a PC based PBBS just makes sense for around here. The newest Kantronics TNC firmware feature set provides some compelling reasons to consider the KPC3+ and KPC-9612+ units for a small local only packet BBS.

Out of state or regional messaging can be handled via other means like HF NBEMS. While I have some concerns over NBEMS and other manual P2P approaches for extended duration and/or high message load EMCOMM scenarios, they can be useful for moving non-local traffic if needed. If nothing else, with NBEMS we will at least have some assurance that non-local messages got delivered (or not). This is far better than “pressing send and praying” when using what remains of the very broken national packet BBS network.

The more I look at the evolving internet threat landscape out there, recent EMCOMM events across the country, our local needs, how packet is (and is not) being used for real EMCOMM needs, and how broken the “global” packet BBS scene is, the more I feel the “mini-PBBS” and NBEMS approach is the best for our area.  As such, the BPQ32 BBS is being shut down in favor of a standalone TNC based approach. The Robust Packet HF gear will be put to better uses.

 

Q:  Will my VHF/UHF Winlink nodes remain?

A:  No. I feel without HF as a backup, VHF/UHF Winlink is usually a poor choice for serious EMCOMM messaging use.

The recent failures of numerous VHF RMS Winlink (RMS Packet, etc) sites during Hurricane Irene & the big Halloween snowstorm in the northeastern USA should be more than enough proof. For those watching closely during those two fairly predictable scenarios that became real life events, it quickly became obvious how fatally flawed most RMS Packet Winlink installations are. VHF/UHF Winlink may be fine for day to day tinkering if you wish, but most installations are no where near reliable enough for serious EMCOMM use.

My other issues with Winlink for EMCOMM use can be summed up as:

1. Internet dependencies and security exposure of such a system. P2P capabilities do not address all of these.
2. Software stability issues remain after several years of development.
3. Software development “roadmap” is unclear and spastic at best.
4. Little focus on being cross platform friendly.
5. Poor programming platform choice (.NET).
6. Gateway sysops frankly have little to no idea of what content is crossing over the RF side of their systems. High potential for abuse and rule violations.
7. Fragile and mismanaged internet infrastructure under the system. Several related outages in 2011.
8. System DNS continues to have configuration related issues.
9. Winlink itself has a bad reputation for QRM and poor frequency choices.
10. Winlink leadership is often arrogant or outright hostile when approached with concerns or questions.
11. The HF MARS is the only facet of Winlink that makes much sense for serious EMCOMM needs.

I’m not going to say Winlink has no place in EMCOMM. The problem is the way most folks are going about it doesn’t make a lot of sense if we are really about being “the backup for the backup” when it comes to radio communications. IMHO, the HF side of Winlink makes the most sense for EMCOMM, but only when done right. Plus this is all arguably best suited for the HF MARS spectrum.

Moving on. With ham radio basically being “the backup for the backup” for our served agencies, I am growing more and more concerned about a trend that I’m seeing in too many AR EMCOMM circles. That trend is a growing dependence upon internet links, internet applications, and frankly any IP based transit in general. The rapidly evolving cyber-warfare threat landscape should make AR EMCOMM folks think twice about deploying/relying upon the internet or frankly any TCP/IP transit for critical EMCOMM date or voice transit needs.

Forget the usual “total internet failure” scenarios for a minute. Forget the DDOS attack scenarios that could take out or severely degrade key internet infrastructure. What if the internet is there but far too “hostile” to use due to a nasty terrorist or foreign government “sponsored” worm on the loose that is attacking a variety of operating systems and router/firewall flaws using a collection of zero-day exploits? Now imagine the CAT5 cable on every PC in your EOC or command post has to be unplugged for security reasons and risks from “internal” infected/compromised systems?  Can you continue to communicate in such scenario?

Ham Radio EMCOMM/ARES/RACES folks might want to give these “cyber” scenarios some serious thought. If you think they are just theoretical then you haven’t been paying much attention to the threat landscape lately. These are some of those “when all else fails” scenarios where serious ham radio “help” will be needed. If we are “the backup for the backup” then will your group be ready to help out or have you set yourself up to be just as impacted as they are?

After a recent controversial dictate came down it is clear that even the Army MARS leadership is starting to shy away from Winlink due to internet exposure. There is a ton of spin out there on this topic from many folks with a variety of agendas. A lot of it was pretty comical to watch and was usually just attempts to ignore or distract from the key point in the recent Army MARS HQ memo. That point was the need to transition away from communication links and methods that use or have internet exposure and focus more on RF only approaches and standards.

Sadly most of the Winlink response to this MARS directive seemed more about dodging the point above and preserving the status quo versus an honest examination of valid concerns. I find it eerily similar to the challenges facing the NTS system and how out of touch to downright self-centered versus served agency centered a lot the response has been.

UPDATE:  After a lot of FUD, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from the Winlink user base the Army MARS HQ brass essentially gave in for now. I have it on pretty good authority that HQ folks were appalled at a lot of the response to a relatively simple directive. They finally just said the heck with these guys as we have bigger fish to fry now and just let the “status quo” go for now. I suspect the final chapter of that saga has yet to be written.

Many ham radio EMCOMM folks need to wake up to the new realities of today’s world. The year 2011 was full of “wake up calls” for amateur radio’s current and future relevance in EMCOMM. Changes are coming one way or the other and ham radio can wake up, adapt, or continue losing its relevance. If we are to be the “when all else fails” communications go to guys/gals for our communities then many groups need a huge dose of reality on the threats out there. Unfortunately I fear too many will have to learn the hard way.

 

Do you still think Packet Radio has a future in EMCOMM?

Sure it does. With some of the advances in packet radio client software (Outpost comes to mind) it is more useful than it has ever been. Just a lot of folks/groups out there that need to come to grips with the fact that the failed approaches of the packet “Glory Days” back in late 80’s and early 1990’s are gone. Those days are not coming back and IMHO that is a good thing for those that can learn from history. As I’m noted for saying “Packet radio is not dead, it just evolved.”

I think the folks wishing for a big nationwide BBS network are going to continue to be disappointed. I used to be a member of that group, but at some point you have to face reality. Today the successful packet BBS systems will be the ones that meet a specific and defined goal versus just talk, wasting a lot of airtime moving content few if anyone is interested in, and generally just supporting the local utility company. They will usually be small locally focused BBS systems, maybe a statewide network at best.

 

Q:  Will the KY Packet Network (KYPN) continue to exist?

A:  KYPN has been around since 1992. We have had some form of packet radio on the air non-stop since then and I don’t foresee that changing. KYPN, at least locally, has not been disbanded and I have no plans to do so. It has “evolved” over the years and I suspect it will continue to evolve and adapt.

The KY Packet Mailing List is going away. There simply is not enough interest in a statewide packet network at this time, so it serves no real purpose.

 

Q:  Will you be supporting other packet systems?

A:  Not beyond the remaining Dry Ridge systems and maybe a local node in the south end of the county. I simply don’t have the time to take good care of my own systems plus help everyone else with theirs. Maybe some day when I’m retired

 

Q:  What is this “MSS” you talk about?

A:  As I’ve stated several times in the past few years “it’s time for Sysops to be Sysops or turn their stuff off if they can’t operate and maintain it well.” Poorly ran and maintained packet radio systems (of which we have many across the country) are not an asset. These systems do more harm than good and run off potential new users. I coined a term for the above. It’s called “Missing Sysop Syndrome” (MSS).  MSS has done and continues to do a lot of harm to the reputation of packet radio, especially the global Packet BBS system. If you are not going to do it right, then pull the plug.

 

Q:  Will this shutdown impact the Williamstown node too?

A:  Yes, in fact I will probably turn it’s RF ports off over the weekend of Jan 7/8th.

The Dry Ridge node shutdowns will occur by Jan 20th.

 

Q:  Jeff, I don’t care about EMCOMM use of my Packet BBS?

A:  Great! That’s fine if you have and can keep enough non-EMCOMM users around to justify things. Hint, in most areas I wish you luck. Outside of a few sentimental “old hat” users, EMCOMM is probably your only remaining packet BBS user base. My experience is the “tinkerers” and casual BBS users come and go like the weather. I suspect you’ll just be supporting your local utility company most of the time. Sorry, but reality is what it is.

 

Q:  Are you mad at anyone in particular?

A:  Not mad at all. I guess somewhat aggravated would describe it better. My aggravations are mainly with the “global” Packet BBS scene, the widespread Missing Sysop Syndrome (MSS), and they have been stated for some time now. After a “New Years” review of  where things stood this year I decided it was prudent to shut the full service BBS and Winlink gateways down, take a more sensible approach, and put my limited hobby time back towards my first love in the hobby – VHF/UHF DX’ing.

 

Q:  Are you getting out of KY ARES?

A:  Not at this point. When recruited by my EC, I was abundantly clear that I would not have a great deal of time for day to day ARES stuff. Some months I will have more time for it than other months. I often joke that ARES roles are usually best filled by someone “retired.”  That “time” resource has to be applied to where it does the most good. Around here we have to make do with very limited resources on many fronts and I wear a multitude of “hats” anymore.

 

Q:  You gave up too soon?

A:  Ah come on who do you think you’re kidding?  We gave things here in Kentucky a “2nd chance” starting back in the spring of 2008.  I offered HF access, multiple 1200/9600 ports on a variety of bands, and modern software. I even offered loaner hardware (radios/modems/laptop/PCs) to anyone serious about setting something up and willing to learn something new. Sorry but I would call that nearly 4 years of effort. Next question please.

 

Q:  Dude you are kind of harsh on this topic?

A.  I realize that some in the packet/Winlink world would prefer I not voice my opinions, but that’s just not me. I come from a “unforgiving of failure” background in Public Safety. A communications driven world where “talk” is incredibly cheap and often dangerous. Plus for over a decade now I have made my living by cleaning up IT or communication system related messes. I often find that cleaning us these messes often starts by stating what no one else wanted to say. Some folks appreciate my brutal frankness, some will resent it. Sorry, you can like that approach or not…my paycheck remains the same.

WA4ZKO

Update – ARRL Lab’s BER testing

After seeing the ARRL review of the Kenwood TH-D72 packet/APRS
HT and other recent rig reviews did not include any BER test data,
several have asked what is up at the ARRL Lab. There has been some
speculation that the manufacturers had applied pressure to get this
testing dropped.

After discussions with Ed Hare, W1RFI at the ARRL Lab here are some
facts regarding this situation:

1.  The ARRL Lab BER testing was dependent upon some aging hardware that used DOS software. This hardware/software has been retired.

2. The Lab has NOT received any “pressure” from manufacturers
regarding this testing.

3. The Lab is looking into ways to reintegrate BER testing back into
their testing when time and resources allow.

For now I’d exercise great caution in purchasing a new rig for 9600
packet that doesn’t have both TXD and BER test data available.

WA4ZKO

KYPN suggested node naming/alias standards.

While folks are free to do their own thing, we are much better off long term if we try to stick to some naming standards as much possible. This becomes increasingly important as the network grows in size and coverage.

The following are my suggestions for KYPN packet node/application naming standards:

1.  Node/application aliases should be restricted to 6 alphanumeric digits.

2.  NetRom node aliases should start with the 2-digit state code (KY, IN, OH, WV and so on) followed by a 3 or 4 character abbreviation for the location which can be an airport code or something that makes sense locally. The main thing is that it starts with the 2 digit state code.

3. KYPN packet BBS systems should use the -1 SID.  (eg  CALLSIGN-1)

4. KYPN nodes will normally use a SID of -4 or -7.

If you choose to use an “area” suffix (NKY, CKY, EKY, etc) for the suffix, then you should be prepared and capable of serving that area with a reasonable level of base-to-base coverage via it’s primary user port.

Trust me, it is much easier to adopt standards in the beginning than to go back and rename a bunch of things later on.

WA4ZKO