| |
UA9CIR > PACKET 27.08.05 04:19l 71 Lines 3084 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 17294_UA9CIR
Read: GUEST DL1DVE
Subj: IARU bans HF packet?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0IUZ<DB0GOS<DB0EEO<DB0RES<ON0AR<UA6ADV<
RN6AM<RK9CWW<UA9CIR
Sent: 050826/1458Z @:UA9CIR.SVR.RUS.EU #:17294 [Ekaterinburg] $:17294_UA9CIR
From: UA9CIR@UA9CIR.SVR.RUS.EU
To : PACKET@WW
Hello
IARU region 1 General Conference will be held 11-16 Sept. in Davos where
HF committee plans to adopt a recommendation (paper DV05_C4_14) to
"discontinue the operation of packet radio mailboxes and gateways on
HF". The IARU R1 Bandplan (paper DV05_C4_13) additionally recommends:
"The use of Packet Radio is discouraged on the HF amateur bands below
29 MHz."
DARC, the author of this proposal sees the following reasons:
- "packet radio never was an adequate mode for the existing conditions
on HF bands",
- new digital modes (PACTOR, PSK31 etc.) provide "better immunity
against propagation problems, co-channel QRM and a better data
throughput".
The idea to stop using a mode because it is "outdated" is a very
questionable idea in the first place. The same reasons could be
applied to amplitude modulation but nobody plans to ban AM. On the
contrary, the proposed Bandplan recommends the use of AM throughout
SSB band segments.
The statement that "packet radio never was an adequate mode" for HF
does not seem to be true. HF packet has been an adequate mode since
its early days when no other digital mode could provide an error-free
automatic message forwarding. It is still an adequate mode today
because:
1) There are countries where VHF-based nation-wide packet networks can
not exist because their HAM radio population density is low (all
countries of IARU R1 except Central and Western Europe). This makes HF
bands there the only alternative for inter-regional and international
traffic.
2) PACTOR is a closed (ie. commercial) protocol, this prevents radio
amateurs from experimenting. A PACTOR controller can not be "home
made", on the other hand commercial units are too expensive to be
widely used in the countries where they are needed the most (ie.
where national VHF/UHF packet networks can not exist).
3) Other newer digital modes (PSK31, MT63, etc.) can not be used in
the global S&F network because they were not designed for that task.
Looks like no working alternative was suggested capable to replace HF
packet.
4) If we care about spectrum usage then packet mode is the best mode.
It has an inbuilt "channel busy" detection mechanism. In other words,
packet station does not start transmitting on top of other station's
signal. Together with packet's unique ability to allow several
stations share one channel, this makes packet mode more "spectrum
friendly" than any other digital (and analog) mode.
All HF packet sysops I know of, disagree with the DARC's proposal.
As far as I know, none of them had been consulted.
It is still not clear to me (after a couple of emails from DARC and
RSGB officials) what will happen if I shut down my BBS as they
recommend, and if I don't shut down then who exactly do they want to
go QRT and who will move their traffic when they go.
But it is clear to me that the proposal to stop HF packet is a threat
to the hobby for Russia and many countries of Africa and Asia.
At least for Russia, HF packet is vital for the existence of digital
network.
73 .. Mike
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
