Since the inbox shows some got worried when we went west early with only the APRS gate/digi project done I guess an update would be a good idea.
We went west for a friend’s wedding while my sister was in visiting Dad. Pro Tip: Few things can compare to a wedding set against the Tetons. Since we spent most of the post-holiday Winter season in 4-land I also had several 7-land biz/personal items needing attention. I flew back and the XYL is driving back as she wanted to stop and visit with her Iowa family.
For the worries about the packet stuff getting done this Spring/Summer? Well I had been waiting on two Liebert UPS systems to come in so I can finish up the power and remote control side of the “packet/HF” rack. They are in and this looks like a somewhat slow weekend/week ahead so we’ll see what gets done this week. completion time = good question. Between work and Dad’s health issues I’m not going to commit to any timelines on hobby stuff as I can barely nail down a work schedule beyond a week out. It is what it is, family and work come first.
What’s going to be put on the air? Well I can say for sure that a 10m RP port and a UHF 9.6k port are coming. Our core occasional EMCOMM needs can be met by a local packet BBS with a 10m RP port plus a UHF 9.6k port. I’m still back-n-forth on spinning up the 2m/220 1.2k stuff. Granted we have lost several local ops in the last decade or so due to SK and job related moves, but I’m frankly more than a little shocked at how dead ham radio seems around here and across Kentucky.
A lot of area packet and voice infrastructure has came and gone within the last few years. “Lack of usage” is often the reason given. Even worse I often hear sysops of existing gear commenting that they really can’t justify keeping unused stuff on the air. Several have said they’ll run it till they take storm damage then it will not be repaired. Use it or loose it folks.
APRS activity for “Dayton” seemed to be down somewhat. On that note, one of the western Kentucky ops emailed me that he came up for Dayton and could not hit a single Winlink packet gateway with his D710. I looked at the Winlink gateway map below and could only ask where are all the gateways? Lexington/Frankfort is a dead zone. Several of the WKY gateways seem MIA. The SE KY gateway doesn’t exist, it’s a misconfigured Georgia gateway.
The other day I was at a tower site and tapped into a VHF-Hi antenna port to a nice true 6 dBd omni up at 210′ AHAG that I can hit repeaters from Lexington/Richmond, Louisville, and up into Dayton/Columbus from. Fired up Winlink Express, pulled the freshly updated channel list below and could not hit anything. Granted I was just using 4-5w from a FT-817 (very possible 25/45w would change things) to a 150-160 MHz optimized antenna. I suspect the Dayton QRG is a misconfigured VHF gateway. Still that’s not much of a gateway selection list compared to a few years ago. Lot of previously active systems around here are gone, misconfigured, or off the air for some reason. Yes I checked for the EMCOMM group.
Past chats with some of the Winlink sysops I know all reveal a common thread. Folks want the infrastructure and it sees a brief burst of interest then activity just fades away. One sysop that shut his gateway down told me it was seven months before someone asked about his gateway’s status LOL.
In fairness this is not just a packet problem, we also see it with the current state of D-Star, DMR, and the analog repeater scenes. I ran our group’s portable analog repeater from a couple sites from October 2017 till early May 2018. I kept it patched into a couple systems so I could both record and monitor any activity on it. Over all that time the repeater’s total transmit time was just over 52 minutes. 99% of that was just the IDer running from lots of kerchunking, only four unique callsigns heard beyond mine, and two brief QSOs. As I told the guys, no need of risking that to storm damage for that amount of activity so it is back in storage till this Fall.
Several have commented that the hobby is dying a slow death. While I’m not going to be that dramatic the hobby is definitely facing some serious activity related challenges in most areas of the country. This even includes areas which used to be hotbeds of activity. We now have a boatload of paper hams and hams that have gone or remain inactive for a wide variety of reasons.
Kentucky has nearly 10,000 licensed hams so “where the heck are they?” is a fair and obvious question. I found it revealing awhile back when the primary ham radio mailing list for the state revealed only about 450 subscribers when they began a move to another mailing list system. I just looked and only around 190 have migrated to the new system after several months. One does not need to be a Harvard MBA to be floored by those numbers. Yes it’s easy to be a Negative Nate on this stuff, but Step 1 to fixing a problem is recognizing that you have one.
When asked about the latest ARRL licensing proposal I can only respond with “I don’t think lowering our standards once again is going to change much. The downsides are many for a hobby of technical pursuits. I do thank the ARRL for the free lunch.” For those wondering about the “free lunch” portion of that? Well I made a lunch bet back in 2016 that if ARRL membership continues to decline then expect another push to lower licensing standards.
To be blunt, the further “dumbing down” of the hobby is not the fix unless the problem revolves around fixing the flow of subscription/advertising money. You know it’s not like passing the current General class test is so difficult. Common to hear stories of folks that take the Tech test, pass it, then be handed the General for giggles and either pass it or barely fail it. It’s not like during the last solar cycle we had Techs pilled up deep on the sweet chunk of 10m spectrum they already have access to. Since chasing “quantity” (ahem money) hasn’t worked out so well maybe it’s time to try focusing on quality? I could go on and on but this post will likely be long enough as is LOL.
So back to VHF/UHF packet…..
Considering all the above I’m obviously going to have to ponder how much 1200 baud VHF gear I want to put on the air. Would it see enough BBS and Winlink usage to justify it? If it wasn’t for already having the gear and putting in the extra rack space for the remote HF-UHF station then it wouldn’t even be on the table for consideration.
My stance on Winlink….
I’ve never been overly warm to the VHF/UHF side of Winlink. It doesn’t make as much sense as the HF side of Winlink does. One of the locals did make a reasonable argument that since the Dry Ridge site serves several counties across a handful of power grids and several ISPs then there are a few EMCOMM scenarios when VHF/UHF packet Winlink access could be useful, especially at 9600 baud.
I’ve never been a huge fan of Winlink for a variety of reasons. Some are security related, the abuse that goes on, software stability, software roadmap stability, and ability to audit what content is flowing over systems under my license. Let’s examine each one of these..
- Security remains a big concern. Moving things onto a certain cloud provider doesn’t help make one feel all warm and fuzzy but I get why they did it.
- The abusive use of Winlink on HF remains a concern. Sounds like it’s gotten worse now that the solar cycle has forced more and more of the HF Winlink folks down onto already crowded lower HF bands.
- Software stability issues remain. Client software glitches are one thing, but gateway software needs to be rock solid. We are now how many years into the development of the RMS software?
- The software roadmap appears as spastic as ever. There is really no reason why the version silliness needs to go on to the degree that it does. I mean come on after all this time surely we can have long term production versions that do the basics and do them well. Then have a beta fork for those that wish to play with whatever new shiny soundcard mode is the current rage. If I put RMS services on my gateway and it’s a never ending PITA of having to upgrade and revalidate new software versions then RMS will quickly go bye bye. I can always use the SMTP functions in BPQ32 for my own limited “Plan D” backup email needs.
- The ability of the sysop to audit content flowing over his/her RMS gateway is a big requirement in my book for detecting abuse and ensuring rule compliance. While it’s not as good as it could be, I will tip the hat to the WDT for giving RMS gateway sysops some ability to review messages flowing over their gateways. Does it need improvements? Yes, but it’s a start in the right direction.
So as you can hopefully see there are many things being considered in regards to what will be reinstalled and what new features will or will not be available.
Packet TNC options…..
Some have commented they would consider saving up for some packet gear if they knew with some certainty about what is going to be available long term. 10m RP (Robust Packet), 9.6k UHF, and maybe 6m 1.2k baud AFSK ports should be around for the long haul. Due to how noisy the VHF band can be in some of our needed coverage locations I may convert the 6m 1.2k port to RP also. If I put the 2m 1.2k and 220 1.2k ports back online their future will be dependent upon their usage levels which I will examine in a couple years to see if they are worth maintaining.
Taking the above into consideration I’d recommend either getting a Kenwood D710 or a TM-V71 w/ an external TNC. While there are many variables in the mix if you are considering an external TNC then I’d go with either a KPC-9612+ or SCS Tracker DSP. If you just want 1200 baud for Outpost use then a KPC3/KPC3+ TNC would be a good choice. Yes you can do soundcard packet and that approach can make sense for some light duty scenarios, but I find the advantages of a dedicated TNC a better fit for my needs. Hint: sometimes you get what you pay for.
In the last year or two SCS has done a lot of work on tweaking the 1200 and 9600 baud portions of the Tracker TNC. You can now get a lot of nice HF and VHF/UHF packet modes (HF Packet, Robust Packet, 1200 AFSK, 9600 FSK, 19,200 FSK) all in one small box well suited to portable Winlink and APRS uses. FYI last I checked you can get a Tracker DSP TNC for right around $300 with EMCOMM discount offerings if you contact your SCS dealer direct.
I have one of my Tracker modems attached to a Yaesu FT-817ND that I have taken all over the place for HF Robust Packet, 1200 baud packet, and 9600 baud packet needs. Yes the 817 does 9600 baud reasonably well. This makes for a compact, easily portable package that just works, sips power, and it travels well. Pic below is from a /KP4 trip in which there were very few times I could not get out on RP if I timed stateside propagation right. It was nice knowing I had some HF backup options for our primary SATCOM & LTE communications. Yeah a small amp would be handy at times, but the beauty of digital modes like RP is you don’t need a lot of SNR to get it done. More than a few times I’ve just hit tune on the car’s 6m antenna and got out on on 30m RP APRS while probably radiating just a fraction of a watt.
The ARRL / ARES Puerto Rico Adventures?
My KP4 trip was months afterwards and unrelated to any of that hot mess. I’ve heard both some first hand accounts and a lot of second hand stuff including the thought provoking interview the HRN crew did with a couple ops that went into post-hurricane KP4 for disaster relief. In short I could write a mini-novel on that topic. I’ll just hit on a few key points here that will be lengthy enough.
First – The ham radio failures in more than a view major drills and disasters of the last couple years should serve as major wake-the-heck-up calls for the EMCOMM folks. I’m around a lot of LMR and EMA folks for my day job. Trust me they are not that impressed by ham radio any more. Many of them are going to call the MARS folks before they call ARES. If ARES wants to sell itself as the ones to call for when all else fails then ARES better be equipped, trained, and well practiced at operating under such conditions. Hint – it takes more than fancy radios and go kits.
Second – Please DO NOT send folks into disaster zones with only soundcard modes for Winlink needs. Yes I concede that it sounded like they had to put that HF gear together quickly (didn’t already have it????) with portability and accountability in mind. Still for the love of Pete equip them with quality Pactor modems that are going to work better under the often marginal conditions of such deployments. Keep the soundcard modems as backups if you wish. That “you get what you pay for” saying has some merit to it. Hint – there are reasons why SCS doesn’t sell soundcard Pactor software when they could make a killing if they did.
PS – SCS would probably deeply discount Pactor modems to such official staged HF disaster go kits if asked via the proper channels. They’ve done similar generous acts in the past. Hint hint hint hint!
Third – Even at this point in the solar cycle, down there, that time of the year, the higher bands will often be your best friends so take an appropriate antenna system(s) with you. This “we’ll do it all on 80/40m” mentality continues to be a recipe for failure. 60m NVIS will be handy and having a good antenna for the WARC bands is a really good idea. Be aware that 15-10 meters may not only be open some during the day but may provide some nice SNR on the link. The propagation predictions within the Winlink software are barely useful for the lower bands and can’t predict all the propagation modes on the higher bands. A good op learns HF propagation, understands both solar cycle and seasonal changes, is aware of single/multi hop short skip possibilities on the higher bands, checks the beacon subbands, and tries to use the highest band available for a particular path.
Forth – It seems time for AMSAT to start dreaming big again. Imagine what could be done with a 9600 baud store-n-forward digital bird or two up there. Yes that is easier said than done, but we also need to think beyond HF.
All the above aside, at least some aspects of the KP4 deployments in 2017 were moments ham radio could be proud of even if it was an ugly year for ARES stateside. We also got a real world lesson on the importance of knowing how to handle formal traffic and the NTS folks have things to be proud of.
I see some latched onto the lack of good ICS over the deployment cycle. Not thoroughly knowing both sides of the problems revealed afterwards I would refrain from bashing that aspect of things. As someone that was a first responder for nearly two decades I can tell you that regardless of what you are told beforehand you need to go in prepared to walk right into chaos. You’re not there because things are going well. You must be flexible, able to prioritize, work as a team, and able to adapt on the fly to various surprises. These are situations poorly suited to those that can only function off checklists in textbook scenarios. Ultimately they got a limited crew in, did some good, and then got everyone out safely. Could it of gone better? Of course it could of. There will always be room for improvement.
Non-ham politics of the Puerto Rico disaster? Well in many ways KP4 was a long neglected mess before recent events put it front and center. It did not get that way overnight and it will not be fixed overnight. I think the bigger question is will the repaired infrastructure be well maintained long term? Can their previously struggling economy recover from all that has happened?