|
| |
The Brass Pounders Quarterly
is an Electronic Newsletter of the ARRL National Traffic
System
Richard Webb, NF5B, editor
PUBLISHED BY TRAFFIC HANDLERS FOR TRAFFIC HANDLERS
NTS resources:
http://www.arrl.org/nts
Volume IV Issue 3
Copyright 2010 by The ARRL National Traffic System
Contents
Editor's corner
NTS news briefs
From the editor's email inbox
NTS Training: International third party traffic: DO you know the
rules?
BPQ features: modernization: What and how
How to submit an article
Where to get BPQ
This electronic newsletter is free to all who may wish to
receive it. You may upload it to bulletin board systems; ftp sites etc. so
long as no fees are charged for access to it. Individual articles
retain the copyright of the author.
EDITOR'S CORNER
Challenges and opportunities
I'm feeling more optimistic about the future of NTS than I
have for a long time. We're starting to see some forward
movement in some important areas, and we're seeing newcomers
step up and take responsibility for some key positions, both
in field organization leadership and
in day to day
operations.
Newer technologies allow us to offer expanded services to
the public after a disaster. Such techniques as are employed
using wl2k really enhance our capabilities, but they point
out some challenges as well. AS I see it they present us
challenges on two distinct fronts.
The first challenge is the maintenance of traditional phone
and CW circuits, which are necessary for provision of basic
radiogram services when all other modes are unavailable as
well as operator training. Operators need to learn how to
conduct themselves on organized networks using phone. Along
with this, the techniques used to conduct a disciplined CW
net operation should not be lost to us. I've already beat on
this drum quite extensively in the editorial section of this
publication however, and would be "preaching to the choir"
anyway, so we'll move on to the second challenge.
This second challenge is one that we
in the amateur
community must work to solve by communicating with
the
regulatory agencies. I'm referring of course to
current
regulations concerning international third party traffic.
I strongly believe that the regulations in this area are
obsolete. After all, I can pick up my
satellite phone,
should I have one, anywhere that the footprint of the bird
covers and make a call, depriving the local telecom folks of
their bit of revenue. So, even though I can't legally ask a
station stateside to run that phone patch for me
if I'm
anchored in the Bahamas you can bet that I can dial out on
my satellite phone, and deprive the local telecom entity in
the Bahamas their bit of money. Yes I'm paying for that sat
phone use, but that isn't going to put money in the coffers
of the local telecom providers.
Also, if I'm offering radio by email services how can I be
sure that I'm not violating international
third party
agreements? How do I know that the recipient with his gmail
address isn't accessing his email from a political entity
with which we don't have third party agreements. IF
the
gmail user recipient is in such a country I've violated FCC
rules. It might surprise you to go down a list of political
entities with which the United States has
third party
agreements to not see some names on it. It might further
surprise you to note that others which you'd think restrict
third party traffic internationally do not. You can bet that
folks in these countries use yahoo, hotmail, gmail and other
web based email services however.
Even using traditional radio communications techniques it's
easy to run afoul of the rule book before you know it. A few
months ago while sitting at my operating position listening
to 14300 kHz I heard one of our regular vessels check in and
ask for a phone patch. HE did not sign anything after his
call sign but "maritime mobile region two" which gave me the
impression he was still underway, and in
international
waters. so, I conducted the phone patch for him.
Near the end of his conversation, he mentioned to his sister
that he was in port, and where he
was anchored. I
immediately advised him and the other party that because of
his location we were going to need to
terminate their
communication. I then advised him that when he was again
underway, and in international waters I'd be glad to conduct
further phone patches or handle traffic for him. But, as
long as he was anchored where he was I could not assist him
with third party traffic of any kind.
This fellow was a fairly new ham, and didn't really have a
good understanding of the relevant sections of the rules.
They're barely touched on in question pools I note, and many
U.S. hams have no understanding of them. Along with modern
communications tools and techniques this can lead the unwary
into trouble, as it potentially did for me. I *am* aware of
the international third party traffic rules. Operating in
the way that I do I must be. If an operator asks for third
party traffic services while within the
jurisdiction of
another political entity I always consult the third party
countries list before proceeding. But, because this new ham
didn't have a grasp of such rules, and did not identify his
station properly I walked into a potential trap myself.
I'm just glad no regulatory folks were listening on twenty
meters at that time <grin>.
Along with our continued efforts to maintain our readiness
with disciplined operators to man phone and CW circuits we
need to work with our regulators to promulgate rules and
regulations which actually consider modern communications
tools and techniques without compromising the
basis and
purpose of the amateur radio service. Yes,
we want
intelligent rules and regulations that protect amateur radio
from being usurped by commercial interests. ON the other
hand, we need intelligently formulated rules and regulations
that enable us to provide our services without constantly
worrying about rules violations. Without them, we cannot
safely assume that we are in compliance
whenever we
interface with the normal telecommunications infrastructure,
whether that be conducting a phone patch, or sending that
email via radio links.
********
SYSTEM NEWS!
Region and area net managers, other NTS leaders, send the
editor short items for publication in this space. Welcome
those newcomers; especially new net controls and liaisons!
send in plain text
to nf5b@arrl.net or
bpq.editor@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com for inclusion. Be
sure to make it clear in the subject line you wish
this
included in this space in case I'm too brain dead to figure
it out <grin>.
ON June 7 the area chairs met with Steve Ewald and
Mike
Corey, the new Emergency Preparedness and response manager.
All are probably aware by now that he replaces Dennis Dura
in that capacity at HQ. At this meeting we discussed the
NTSD initiatives and work with the NTS Winlink committee and
other NTS capabilities.
Also on June 24 Central Area staff used ARRL teleconference
bridge facilities to conduct a one hour meeting. We've moved
forward on strengthening NTS activities in Central area, and
the hour spent was felt to be
productive by those who
attended.
One point that was raised at the Central Area teleconference
was the usual discussion regarding bulk book traffic. More
than one conferee suggested that bulk traffic originators
endeavor to change their canned texts
frequently, and
utilize them so as to provide good training as our tools and
techniques evolve. See the feature article later in this
issue for an example of techniques
that should be
emphasized.
###
Pete, k5gm our central area TCC director for cycles 3 and 4
is seeking volunteers to fill TCC schedules. This position
requires a proficient CW traffic handler.
IF the above describes you, please contact him, k5gm@amsat.org and find out
what's still available. You can also, of course, utilize
a radiogram to make contact with him if you don't have
email capability.
Also, keep an eye on the ARRL net directory via the web at
ARRL HQ. Expect to see some changed entries for daytime 5th
region net's cycle 2 session, and possibly other updates.
Net managers have been unable to modify their nets' entries
recently with the implementation of the new web site at HQ,
but that issue should be resolved soon. IF you're
just
becoming active again after an absence of
the last few
months be sure to check the net directory for
nets of
interest to you.
###
Also, although he's yet to be confirmed by a vote of NTS
central area staff, Carl Thomas, wb9ybi is acting as central
area TCC director for cycles 1 and 2.
Carl is seeking
volunteers with good phone stations who can handle daytime
TCC schedule responsibilities. Contact him via
email at
renee.thomas@mchsi.com or, of course, send him a radiogram
if you don't have internet capability.
********
From the editor's email inbox
WE welcome your comments suggestions and items for publication.
The editor reserves the right to edit letters to fit available
space. Even though we're an electronic newsletter, we're not trying to
write a book. Honest folks <grin>.
send your comments to elspider@bellsouth.net and please indicate
in the subject line that this is a letter to the editor.
Now, on with the mail.
Steve, k6jt writes:
Thanks for the interesting article on EMP. I am quite familiar with it and
the effects, having worked on military communication equipment for most of
my engineering career. We are required to use transorbs on all lines in
and
out of the comm equipment for EMP protection.
Something to note is that the former Soviet Union continued to use
tube-based communication equipment in their fighter planes and military
assets just because of the relative immunity to EMP and, more importantly,
nuclear radiation protection. Semiconductor based equipment quickly gets
destroyed by a mechanism causing runaway current flow as a result of nuclear
radiation. Conducted EMP pulses also cause a similar effect.
For those reasons, I still maintain a tube-based receiver and transmitter
should the worst occur, as mentioned in your article. The modern
transceivers are primarily computer-based and will be quickly put out of
service due to EMP (or even a large solar flare as you also mentioned). My
old equipment will support only CW operation, which is pretty much all I do
anyway. The main problem is how to obtain power to run them. I do
have an
inverter that can use car batteries, but I fear the inverter, which uses
switching transistors, will be destroyed. For that reason, a gasoline
powered generator should also be maintained, although it may also be damaged
by EMP, the likelihood is much less.
Lets just hope the use of all these fallback options will never come to pass
in our lifetimes.
Thanks for the note Steve. As you noted, and others have as
well, server farms and other such equipment can be hardened
against these issues, but most folks don't go to the trouble
and expense, including many who should.
As I noted, I've acquired an old Hamarlund hq-129, and plan
to find a transmitter to go along with it. Generators, also
are a problem, as many are microprocessor controlled.
Glad to know somebody out there is reading and paying attention <grin>
********
International third party traffic: Do you know the rules?
Yes they apply to you. IF you let your nonham buddy speak
with a foreign amateur via echolink or IRLP they apply to
you. Sending that radio email? They apply to you as well.
Conducting that phone patch, ditto! Whenever a party without
an amateur radio license is involved it is
third party
traffic. Consider the basics, you and the amateur station
with which you communicate are the first and second party.
The nonamateur is the "third" party. That means that
if
you've sent your grandson an email by radio
that he'll
access from an internet cafe while backpacking
through
Europe you're conducting third party communications.
Here in the United States, and most other places on this
third stone from the sun there are specific rules governing
the handling of any third party
traffic which is
international. Most hams probably have
never really looked at them, so let's have a
look
inside that section of the rule book.
First, you may only conduct third party communications when
the two countries involved have an agreement permitting such
communications. You can, for example, conduct third party
traffic operations with stations in Mexico, or Honduras. You
can conduct communications involving third parties
with
England, but not with many British
possessions in the
Caribbean or north Atlantic, such as the Bahamas, the Turks
and Caicos Islands, etc. After a hurricane or other such
disaster often there will be a temporary agreement in place.
Often this is handled informally by U.s.
and British
diplomats, allowing U.S. amateurs to conduct communications
for relief of the folks in the stricken locale.
Just in case you're wondering, we
have third party
agreements in place with Haiti and the Dominican republic.
Had we not had such agreements already in place, I'm sure
our regulators would have been quickly working
to get
temporary agreements in place.
So, before you proceed, consult a
recent listing of
countries with which the U.S. has third party agreements.
You can find such a list on the ARRL web, or at 14300.net
which you can print out and have handy to your operating
position.
The second thing to consider when conducting international
third party communications is the station identification
requirements. They are a bit more stringent than normal, in
in the rule book, but, you must give the call sign of the
station with which you are communicating. OF course,
if
sending that radiogram destined outside the U.S. to another
U.s. amateur you do not need to adhere to the third party
rules for station identification,
but the station
transmitting your message for that international hop must
do so.
There is of course that overarching requirement that the
messages transmitted be of a personal nature, and be such
that resorting to regular communications infrastructure is
not warranted.
so, to sum up, be sure that third party communications are
permitted with the destination country, or the location of
that other amateur before you put your nonham buddy on the
mike. Then, while you are engaged in communication on behalf
of that third party, identify with your call sign as well as
the call sign of the
station with which you are
communicating.
********
modernization: What and how
When I listen to people discuss traffic handling in general
I hear talk of "modernization" often involving the basic
format of a radiogram message. Hmmm, I'm often struck with
the thought that it doesn't appear to need it.
the radiogram message contains necessary elements to assure
delivery and provide instructions for the
treatment and
handling of that message, including defining its importance,
i.e. the HX handling instructions and the precedence. The
header also contains the requisite information for such an
audit trail, what station originated it, how many groups can
be found in the text, the time and date filed, and the place
of origin.
For handling the radiogram using voice or Morse code its
format allows for convenience and error correction. Even in
these days of computer networks and wide availability of
connections one must assume that a message is going to begin
its journey from origination to destination on voice or CW
circuits.
We all know that some modifications in procedure have been
made to permit the easy interface with digital networks.
There the message must be sorted and handled automatically
according to its destination.
We also know that many are advocating the use of formats
which don't lend themselves well to providing the necessary
information or audit trail for messages that
must be
relayed. It's often suggested that we adopt formats designed
originally for interoffice memos, etc.
This is not
modernization, this is shooting ourselves in the foot. It's
213 anyone?
ON the face of it then you might think I'm advocating that
no modernization is necessary. Don't make that assumption so
quickly however. We know what works, the radiogram has been
proven to be reliable. IT provides the means by which to
maintain adequate records and provide quality control if
used correctly. But, there
are some glaring
deficiencies. Proposals have been made to overcome some
of
these, but have either not reached widespread acceptance, or
have not been utilized enough within NTS to help educate
regular traffic handlers in their use.
What needs to be modernized is the way we transfer
some
pieces of information which might be contained in the parts
of the radiogram message. Those component blocks are just
fine where they are when it comes to utilizing
voice or
Morse to send messages. For digital relaying and handling
the systems we have are proven effective as well. What we
have however is a limitation in the character set, to borrow
some terminology from the world of the computer.
As we all know, some of these limitations have been imposed
upon us by the fact that the radiogram must be able to move
between transfer formats easily. That message might travel
by voice or digital modes for the majority of its journey
from source to destination, but might by necessity need to
make a hop in the chain via CW. Because of this necessity
some characters cannot be sent reliably,
such as the _
underscore character. Until the middle of this last decade
the @ (at) symbol fit into this category as well. the morse
character <ac> has been adopted to indicate the at sign.
But, there comes an even bigger limitation when sending such
common items as internet addresses using Morse. Take the
simplest of the ways to reach me via email, nf5b@arrl.net
and send it on CW. The sending op would usually send "nf5b
at ARRL dot net." IN fact, in tutorials on sending
such
information as part of a radiogram you'll see the @ symbol
spelled out as at, as the <ac> sign for this character had
not yet been developed when they were written.
Now consider an address which will cause an email to come to
me indicating that it's referencing this publication, i.e.
bpq.editor@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com and try sending that
using Morse. "bpq dot editor <ac> 116 dash 901 dot ftn dot
wpusa dot dynip dot com."
Lots of characters there. There is no dash
character in
international Morse. As we all know, punctuation is not used
in radiogram messages as well. This makes
addresses for
email and URLs cumbersome to send if that radiogram must be
moved using the code. Note in this example I utilized the
<ac> character for the @ symbol.
What needs modernization is our ability to move characters
literally between modes. An operator who might be using a
qwerty keyboard to send Morse would need to be assured that
as he strikes the @ that the appropriate sign would be sent
when converted to Morse.
Devising these additions to the possible International Morse
character set and other possible modernizations of procedure
is a necessary part of remaining viable as
an actual
service. This is only a part of what
needs to be done
however. Once these conventions are agreed upon those who
generate messages which are of primary value as training
tools need to cause these additional
characters and
procedures to be used when handling them. Let me
cite a
couple of examples.
A few years ago the handling instruction HXI was devised by
some operators to indicate that the message should make the
transition from radiogram to an email message at the first
opportunity. As conceived, HXI would be followed
by the
internet address of the intended recipient or his/her agent.
A kludge in my opinion. The HXI, like
other handling
instructions should be able to stand alone, with appropriate
provision in the addressee block for the internet address.
But, in either case, the HXI handling instruction was never
formally recognized.
Contrast this with the ARRL numbered radiogram 47
which
indicates that the referenced message was
successfully
delivered. soon after its development ARL 47
came into
widespread use. We can promulgate new signs and procedures
until the cows come home, but unless we promote their use in
day to day training they won't be widely known or accepted.
I'd venture a guess that many occasional CW operators don't
know about the <ac> sign for sending the @ character.
IN our discussions of procedures and buzz words
such as
"modernization" we must not forget that the radiogram by its
nature is designed to:
Provide that reliable audit trail from source to destination, and at all relay
points in between;
be portable between modes; and
be easy to learn and use.
Anybody can learn to compose a properly formatted radiogram
message. It's not difficult. IF the basic format is kept,
it's the same format essentially which has served us since
the earliest days of radio and needs few if any changes.
That means to me that we should be looking at providing a
character set for the most basic mode which doesn't force
operators to resort to kludges and cumbersome workarounds.
********
How to submit an article
Send a file attach of a straight ASCII file to the editor at
elspider@bellsouth.net
for inclusion.
Brief items for our news section should be sent as a regular
plain text email.
Again, attachments of plain ASCII files preferred.
If using MS Word choose the save-as option to save as plain
text, possibly called dos text.
Check your favorite word processor's documentation on creating ASCII files.
NO graphics files, PDF etcetera please!
This electronic newsletter is intended to be machine readable.
This newsletter may be
distributed on packet and other radio systems where system
operators and relay stations wish to closely monitor content of
transmissions. IT is intended to be platform independent which is
not possible with graphical file formats. Even the operator with
the old commodore or Apple II should be able to read this
newsletter, or the fellow using the old dumb terminal. Text to speech
systems etcetera should have no problems reading this newsletter.
IF possible use a file extension of .art for your article. IF it
fits one of these categories use the category name as the file
name. Regular categories for which we seek articles are as
follows:
general : articles of general interest to traffic handlers.
USE a file name of general.art
training : Articles regarding training hints and tips.
AS above, use training.art if possible.
Outreach : articles on ways to reach out to the public and promote
NTS and amateur radio message handling capabilities.
AS with the above examples, outreach.art.
Using these naming conventions allows your editor to auto-
matically process your article.
Type the title twice, the first time at left margin preceded by a * character.
The second time centered as you'd like it to appear. The
line with the * will be used to automatically build a table
of contents and the asterisk removed. Your article will then
appear with title centered.
Immediately below the centered title please place your name and
call sign so that folks will know who authored the article.
If you have an email address please provide it as well. Though
often these can be looked up the information provided in call sign
databases is often incorrect. IF you are a net manager or
hold an ARRL field organization position please provide this
information as well.
IF possible keep line lengths to 70 characters or fewer. Again
remember that we are attempting to be platform independent.
Many of our readers will wish to view this on their screens
instead of printing it out.
IF you cannot save your article as plain text paste the text into
an email and send it. Your editor will do his best to format it
properly for display on most computer systems. IF you do this
state in the subject line that text enclosed in email is an article
for BPQ.
Although you retain the copyright on your work, submission of any
articles implies permission to publish them in BPQ and
distribute said work electronically without remuneration to you or BPQ. NO
fee
may be charged to receive BPQ.
Where to get BPQ
http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/
http://home.comcast.net/~wx4j/
Many fine internet connected bulletin boards also carry BPQ in the hamnews
file area as a zip file using the same naming conventions as
the text files within them. These files are distributed by the ham-fdn and
the
International FIlegate Project. Visit www.filegate.net/
Fidonet: Many fine bulletin board systems available via telnet www
and dial-up can link to the ham-fdn described above. IF you don't see
it on your favorite fido board ask the sysop to link to the hamnews area through
his/her regular files link.
The headquarters of the ham-fdn can be accessed as follows:
Waldo's place USA. modem (919) 774-5930
telnet://bbs.wpusa.dynip.com
http://www.wpusa.dynip.com/
ftp://ftp.wpusa.dynip.com
IF you are the system operator of a BBS (either landline or radio)
and cannot get BPQ through your regular links it can be sent
you via email as either regular email or a file attach.
Send an email to bpq.distro@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com
Provide your email address in the text and tell us how you'd like to
receive BPQ. Also tell us what kind of BBS system you operate, its
frequencies of operation if a packet board or its
dial-up/telnet info etc. Also, please give us your callsign.
we wish to keep the email distribution list fairly small, so
look to your favorite internet dial-up or packet connections first if
at all possible.
Thanks for reading and 73
Richard Webb, nf5b
send correspondence to the editor via email using the following email address:
elspider@bellsouth.net
OR using plaintext only to:
bpq.editor@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com
All file attached article submissions should be sent to the
bellsouth address . See the earlier section on how to submit an
article.
Place BPQ feedback or similar text in the subject line so that it
receives proper attention from the editor.
reproduction of articles in club
newsletters is permitted so long as BPQ and the original author
are credited.
For more information contact the editor.
BRASS POUNDERS' QUARTERLY
Published by
traffic handlers for traffic handlers
Copyright ARRL National Traffic System,
electronic distribution
encouraged.
|
