[GA ARES] Thoughts on Tunnel vision

[John Kraus KC4ZGQ]

Robert WB4DHC brings up an important point.

Tunnel vision can be a significant impediment to implementing new 
technologies like Winlink 2000 with its use of the internet as a 
backbone.  Tunnel vision can also cause a reverse impediment when the focus 
is only on the latest and greatest with little assessment of their 
suitability for a large scale deployment.  This rejection of tunnel vision 
was the genesis for the Sacred Cows reference in one of my documents.

For the record I have never opposed simple nodes.  Neither do I oppose 
using high-speed modes where they fit the need.

Airmail works fine through simple nodes and digis just as it does with a 
telnet connection.  One problem with nodes and digis is that throughput 
drops by half through each connection.  It will work fine for a single hop 
to a Telpac gateway but without significant backbone infrastructure in 
place it will not go from the coast to Atlanta easily.  I would much rather 
see some HF fly-away kits like those built by Larry K4LED and Burch W4WY 
pre-positioned around the state that could use Winlink and Pactor for the 
same amount of money.

I have recommended from the beginning that every ham in ARES that uses a 
computer have Airmail and Telpac installed on both home and deployable 
computers.  This is the heart of my plan.  Sometimes tunnel vision obscures 
the simple in favor of the complex.  It is the old inability to see the 
forest for the trees syndrome. Let's not forget the KISS principle and our 
good friend Mr. Murphy.

The simple fact is that any Win 98 or Win 2K or XP class computer with any 
TNC that can run in AGWPE can be setup as a Telpac gateway.  This gateway 
can be as simple as a laptop in my car with my cellphone as internet access 
and a beam pointed into the dark area or as complex as the system at my 
house that runs Telpac, Airmail and UI-View simultaneously.  Telpac can be 
deployed on the fly wherever there is existing internet access.  If a UPS 
with safe shutdown is used the Telpac TNC can be left in a working node 
configuration when the computer is shutdown as long as it has its own power 
source.

But let us suppose there is no internet, what then?  Simple, the Telpac TNC 
is just run as a straight digi or as a KA node.  Then use Airmail to 
Airmail in a peer to peer connection either direct or via a digi or 
node.  Or use the packet client or even Hyperterminal. The choice is yours.

Airmail in a peer to peer connection also has the benefit of B2F 
compression which the packet client lacks.  Compare apples and apples.  Any 
time throughput is measured using the same hardware Airmail to Airmail will 
be faster than most other packet programs for the same documents due to the 
compression. This is very important on slow connections.

All of this has been documented by me and others on the Georgia ARES 
digital committee forum.  This is a forum that Stan demanded I create after 
the G-8 summit and has refused to participate in except through proxies 
that he uses to belittle Winlink 2000.  Go back and read the exchanges 
between Ed Woodrick and me.  I asked both of them to document the packet 
client and so far all I have seen is "when its done it will be better".  I 
offered him his own forum dedicated to the packet client and he chose to 
ignore the offer.

The fact that I keep stressing over and over is that Winlink 2000 is a 
system not a mode or piece of hardware or software.

Within the Winlink 2000 system the user client programs can use the system 
or not as the operator on the scene chooses.

The best analogy I can provide is to use the internet as an example.  No 
one says what browser or email program you can use.  It is your choice 
which icon on your desktop you decide to click.  You can easily use 
several, I use IE, Firefox and Opera.  For Email I use Eudora, Thunderbird, 
Outlook and Outlook express.  The choice is mine and all work on the same 
hardware over the same network; often at the same time.

I could not care less what hardware is installed since the Winlink client 
programs will be able to use it unless a concerted effort is made to block 
them.

I will state clearly to you.  I do not oppose any technology or software 
program.  I settled on Winlink 2000 after three years of research simply 
because in my opinion it is the best and easiest to implement right now.

Make no mistake we need something right now!

The debate is not whether Winlink can do the job; it does the job day in 
and day out right now.

See these sites:

http://winlink.org/stations.htm Winlink is global.

http://winlink.org/status/PMBOStatus.aspx

The Winlink 2000 system status is readily apparent to anyone who looks.

http://winlink.org/status/CmsTraffic.aspx

The count of messages is publicly stated here.

How many messages has Stan's client sent via HF this month?  When will it 
be able to equal this?

This is the debate we need to have but it must be a public debate which 
means GAARES leadership must demand that Stan and his proxies demonstrate 
publicly and document publicly their plans and alternative systems.  The 
burden is on Stan and his Gwinnett group to do what I and others have done 
with Winlink.

Explain how it will work for the whole state not just Gwinnett county and 
metro Atlanta.

The question is:

If not Winlink then what?

It is not enough to say: "this would be neat if"

If not now then when.

This is critical.  Give me unlimited time and funds and I can build you a 
network that would make people weep with joy.  But it won't be soon without 
both.

Hurricane season starts in four months.  The clock is ticking.  What will 
be ready in June.  I have shown how a viable statewide network can be built 
in that time frame using Winlink 2000.  If Stan or Gwinnett county have a 
better  STATEWIDE plan  let's have it.

Publicly.

In detail.

I do not have tunnel vision as my review of the leading technologies will 
show.  It can be found here:

http://www.kc4zgq.com/hamfiles/gaares_digital_plan.html

The Alternate Plan that Paul K4UJ authored for Stan was removed from my 
site at his and Stan's request.  Neither seems willing to participate in 
the forum below.

My results with Winlink as well as those of others from around the country 
are here.

http://www.kc4zgq.com/phpBB

I have had the results of one test posted for almost a year.

http://kc4zgq.com/hamfiles/telpac1.htm

The file is available.  How fast can it be sent by the packet client? I 
first asked this question in May 2005 and still have not gotten any response.


73 de John F. Kraus II KC4ZGQ
DIGITAL_COMMS_GA at cox.net
GA-ARES DEC for Digital Communications
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gaares.org/pipermail/ares_gaares.org/attachments/20060214/99eb7db7/attachment.htm