Like many other packet radio enthusiasts, I've been frustrated by the glacial rate of improvement in the AX25 packet network.. Where I differ from many other frustrated hams though, is that I haven't lost heart over the limited, localized success of most innovations. I see the global RF digital network as one of ham radio's most significant achievements, and feel it shouldn't be allowed to stagnate. I'm just frustrated, not discouraged and feel that if what we are doing is not working out, we ought to take that as a hint and look into new and different ways of handling things.
I don't "have religion" about AX25, 300bd HF packet, or 1.2kb/2m stuff... What impresses me about the AX25 packet radio network is that it is already in place, covers a good percentage of the planet plus near earth orbit, and is still growing.
Even a tiny change or improvement which goes network-wide will do more overall good than a larger improvement which only affects a local area, so I'm looking for ANY worthwhile innovation which has good potential for rapid, widespread utilization across the network. This is me trying to take a different tack, not me saying that what everybody else is doing is wrong, or shouldn't be done too!
The big problem with the present packet net is that it's been so successful. It grew beyond our wildest expectations. While it was growing though, TNC and radio design really didn't advance very much. If you buy a new TNC today, it's better than one from five years ago but not by much. Mainly cosmetic stuff. The average packet station today ( 1.2kb/2m ) would fit in just fine if taken back in time ten years. This is not because nobody wanted to make better TNC's.. We settled for a "standard" design ( Essentially the TNC2 ) purposely in order to make rapid expansion of the packet net possible. This worked out very well.
So while we geared our efforts to spreading the network far and wide, we didn't develop very much as we went along. What we have is a VERY well implemented 1980's style packet net to work with, as a result. Since the station equipment and operating practices needed to work packet has barely changed throughout AX25 packet's history, an enormous social inertia has developed concerning these things. I think of this inertia as the 1.2kb/2m cult, a global social entity which grew along with the packet RF net. It's roots are in the old RTTY community, but now it is a seperate, unique group with enormous social inertia of it's own.
This is the price we paid for the rapid growth of the packet network. If we had continuously developed packet over the last ten years instead of concentrating on growth and standardization, the amateur digital net as a global entity almost certainly wouldn't exist.
You can see how the two factors tend to balance. You can develop quickly or you can spread quickly, but you're unlikely to do both. It's like the old problem with the WW2 aircraft designers.. You could have speed and manueverability, or you could have armour and heavier weapons.
Our efforts to advocate higher baud rates and innovative networking have been only sporadically, locally effective on the AX25 net because there is a problem which isn't being addressed.
My theory is that the social inertia I call the 1.2kb/2m cult is the factor which isn't being addressed, and that when we do finally take steps to minimize it's influence, we can expect to see rapid, revolutionary changes across the existing network and with that a surge of innovation among manufacurers. To break past this barrier, what we need to do is to concentrate a lot of effort on discovering ANY network-wide changes which can be realistically expected to fly, no matter how tiny or subtle those changes may be. The focus should be more on building an atmosphere of change in the packet community than on the effectiveness of those changes, strange as that may sound.
In particular, we should look for changes which will alter the overall feel and quality of the 1.2kb/2m packet experience in a fundamental way, globally. -- Start filling in Joe Ham's rut by changing the scenery he has grown so accustomed to, and that will get him on more level ground. He'll be more ready, willing and able to change directions from that position, and an atmosphere for change will have been created. - Globally!
Personally, I don't think we should limit ourselves to playing "catchup" with the landline nets, when setting our goals.. As hams, we ought to innovate, coming up with something new and clever. Isn't that why the AX25 restriction was dropped? We should try to look beyond AX25, and we should look beyond TCP/IP for the same reason. Rather than utilizing yesterday or today's landline and wireline networking protocols, we can now look into developing something more appropriate for the RF environment of amateur radio. RF-based networking protocol is in fact an EXCELLENT area for hams to do pioneering work in.
Remember when hams used to participate in the world's technological advancement, occasionally making a worthwhile contribution? Trying to emulate existing systems won't give us that again, but developing systems of our own, for our own purposes most certainly can.
The current effort to make amateur radio TCP/IP over in internet's image strikes me as being both unrealistic and unimaginative, as it ignores some of the simplest realities of the RF environment. The problems associated with this effort accurately reflect the difficulties inherent in using a landline networking model as a basis for our amateur radio digital activities.
At great expense in cash and/or expertise, we can now use radios to send data at reasonably fast rates over a short distance; A few hundred miles or so.
At longer distances, we find ourselves working with MUCH slower data transfer rates if we use far-reaching HF, or a high level of down-time and network outages/slowdowns if we attempt to string enough VHF/UHF high-speed nodes together to cover a really long haul.
We could, for example put a string of UHF 19.2kb packet nodes, spaced 35 miles apart for reliability, all the way from New York to California. We could do it, but how often could we expect every one of those nodes to be working at the same time? "Never" would be the only realistic estimate.
The reality is that we currently have no way to reliably move high-volume/high-speed data over any great distance by radio.
We won't have that capability for at least ten years, and that estimate is based on almost boundless optimism for AMSAT's future, which in turn is based on almost boundless optimism regarding the future cost of orbital frieght delivery, and global politics.
There is one aspect of high-speed packet radio which is consistently overlooked by most if not all of our high-speed "gurus".. The fact that to simulate the normal performance of a 1.2kb phone link on a shared packet radio LAN, you would have to run your packet LAN at at least 19.2 kb. The reason for this is the fact that several stations will share one freq on packet, and many of the timing slowdowns common to packet radio LANS are determined by the SLOWEST rig on the freq, not the fastest one. Additionally, on a typical packet LAN. you will find new packet ops, ones who have their station parameters set incorrectly, and ones with software problems, ect. It all adds up to 19.2 kb on packet performing about like 1.2 kb on a phone link.
So there is really no reasonable way for packet radio to "compete" with internet, and any attempts to do so will end up being unsatisfactory due to data transfer limitations when using radios to communicate. This is demonstrated by the operating practises of the hams who attempt this makeover of packet radio into internet's image.. They proudly point out thier high-speed local RF nets, but any time they need to move information over any appreciable speed/distance, they have to turn away from ham radio and resort to the telephone instead.
The pressure for high volume/speed "connectivity" over long distances is so great when pursuing the internet model that a large group of hams now regularly use the telephone ( Internet ) as the "backbone" of an imaginary "packet radio" network. These are the first group of hams in our history to seriously suggest the telephone as a primary vehicle for moving amateur radio traffic. That's a pretty radical departure from the traditions, responsibilities, and goals of ham radio.
Hams have used the telephone for years as an interface to allow communication beyond the ham community, primarily in the line of providing a service to the public such as emergency communications, MARS, ect.. Additionally, we have used phone patches on our repeaters for emergency communications and as a convenient accessory for the repeater's users. In all instances, the telephone has been regarded as a secondary communication device used to enhance an amateur radio activity.
It is only recently that some hams have begun to think of amateur radio as an accessory to enhance telephone communications, assigning amateur radio a secondary role. That is the length ( or depths ) which hams have had to go to, in order to try to mimic the Internet networking model. This behaviour is comparable to a DX hound deciding that 20 meters was too crowded, so he'd just get his last few cards for his DX certificate with a few quick phone calls. What makes this wrong is that the telephone is being used as the primary vehicle for those communications, so they cannot be considered amateur radio QSO's.
Using the telephone to enhance amateur radio communications is one thing; When it gets to where the tail is wagging the dog though, there is good reason to question the wisdom of utilizing such setups.
To me, it's hard to miss a hint like that.. Obviously, the internet model with it's required high-speed, long-distance connectivity is not appropriate as an amateur radio application and won't be for a long time, even under the best of circumstances. This misdirected effort has become a drag on amateur TCP/IP, keeping it from evolving properly as an amateur radio application, and is detrimental to amateur radio due to the attitudes it has generated among some of our brightest new hams.
The most outstanding problem with amateur TCP/IP is that the software lacks general appeal. It's a little TOO "bleeding edge" to spread very rapidly or become popular in the *NOS incarnations, being almost impossible for the average ham to understand or even install without LOTS of assistance, and then he has to deal with very complicated routing which is almost never set up and utilized correctly.. There IS NO global amateur radio TCP/IP network and this lack of user-friendliness, along with the misdirected effort to make amateur TCP/IP "compete" with Internet are the main reasons why.
In contrast, AX25 packet suffers from developmental stagnation brought on by the circumstances of rapid expansion, but nonetheless has given us a global digital RF network which works amazingly well and is easy to use. The current move to utilize the features of Internet browsers and E-mail programs for amateur TCP/IP may give us the developmental ( and user friendly ) slack that amateur radio TCP/IP needs to expand as an RF network, in much the way the AX25 net did. Some sort of more usable routing and addressing setup will also have to come into being in order for amateur TCP/IP to take off and fly though.. Again, a step away from landline networking protocol might be useful here.
By the same token, the AX25 net needs a "nudge" toward an environment of accelerated development, with the relaxation of standards and reduced rate of growth that implies. We need to actually RELAX our rigid control of the net for a while, allowing a bit of chaos to settle in. Due to the anarchic nature of the AX25 net's makeup, any widespread upgrade would of course tend to evolve in a very loose, unorganized fashion. We will create the atmosphere for such changes by loosening up a bit.
This strategy goes against the conventional wisdom, but then again the conventional wisdom is not currently getting the job done to our satisfaction for the AX25 net OR for amateur TCP/IP.
To a large extent, our problems are result of our needs and goals having evolved while our actions and attitudes stayed set in a fixed pattern. This is why as hams, we are so great at coming up with dozens of new ideas but are truly pitiful when it comes down to actually utilizing them. Our innovations and new ideas die on the vine with depressing regularity, due to simple social inertia within the packet radio community, and the misdirection of our efforts into useless and even detrimental pursuits.
I've always felt that if what you're doing loses it's effectiveness due to changing conditions, then it's time to shift gears.
I honestly believe that the old AX25 net is worth a second look, and that effective steps to introduce change are possible for it. I feel we should be investigating different approaches to the net's problems, since the traditional approaches aren't getting the job done and many hams are becoming discouraged. With the relaxation of the AX25 requirement, the fact that next-generation TNC's will have more RAM and processing power, the incoming trickle of plug-n-play 9.6kb ( and better ) equipment, and the expectation that the AMSAT net will eventually realize it's potential as space freight grows cheaper, we have a nice background for revolutionary changes on the amateur digital net in the near future. The big holdup for us now is social, not technical or economic. We need to match our attitudes and actions up with our goals again.
Please send comments, suggestions to:
Charles Brabham N5PVL
E-MAIL: n5pvl@tsarc.net
WWWeb: http://www.tsarc.net/pest