eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus:

from Janis Carson AB2RA on July 22, 2019
View comments about this article!

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10718632326911/July%2018%2C%202019%20Ex%20Parte%20Filing.pdf

ARRL sponsored meetings failed to reach total consensus on all items.

We therefore decided to move forward with the FCC to implement a separate place for unattended digital store and forward systems, while protecting peer to peer narrow band digital modes and CW. See the band plan attachment #1 presentation slides.

Over the course of the last ten years, beginning with RM-11306, and continuing with RM-11708 and NPRM 16-239, ARRL has continued to insist on wide band HF email signals throughout an entire band segment. In RM-11306, ARRL wanted to place these email systems everywhere in the VOICE/IMAGE segment, and had to withdraw it after outraged comments in the FCC records. In RM-11708, the same flawed proposal was advanced, the only difference being that the wide band (2.8 KHz) signals would be allowed throughout the entire RTTY/DATA segment.

Our proposal, backed by hundreds of supporting comments in the FCC filings, separates the narrow band peer to peer from incompatible wide band automatic modes. This is the only proposal to date that provides detailed band plans, carefully considered for increased ACDS segment size and alignment to the extent possible with IARU band plans. It also incorporates some elements of ARRL's RM- 11759. Separating human to human live operations from "robot" email should reduce interference to BOTH parties. Anything else is simply unsustainable.

We would certainly welcome a change of heart from the ARRL (with its new BOD members and lawyer) that includes separation of peer to peer from automatic modes. ARRL has the unique opportunity to change course to provide for progress in wide band modes, as well as protecting other popular innovative narrow band modes like FT8 and FT4.

We offered observations on practical methods to improve existing Winlink internal procedures, to prevent offensive, commercial, and illegal traffic to countries which do not have third party agreements to allow connecting to USA RMS email stations. This would have included a "buffer file" to allow screening of emails coming from unlicensed users on the internet before transmission by RF. This might have prevented many of these objectionable emails from being transmitted. The "first forwarding station" is currently only able to see his own transmissions after the fact. See the first document in the Ex Parte filing for discussion of solutions for this problem.

Most of the amateur community, as well as the FCC Enforcement Bureau, was not aware of some of the content in these free HF email systems. Some of us filed a complaint with the FCC Enforcement Bureau of over 150 pages length. For the purposes of our Ex Parte presentation, we included a heavily redacted version of that data in attachment #2 at the end of the filing.

While the emergency communication aspect of these systems may be advanced as a justification for their continuation, the data you can now view demonstrates that some sort of Over The Air and comprehensive monitoring systems are essential to prevent this sort of traffic from continuing. You will observe potentially illegal obscene, pecuniary, and commercial content, including business transactions. It is clear that these HF email users considered themselves under a different set of rules than Joe Ham, who is limited in Part 97 as to what he can discuss in an over the air swap net of ham gear. Compliance with Part 97 rules is not optional or burdensome, and the same set of rules must apply to all amateur radio operators.

Had there been practical Over The Air (OTA) monitoring, this could have been corrected before it rose to this level.

Before you make up your mind, please read through the email data in attachment #2 at the end, and ask yourself:

Is this progress, and is this what amateur radio should be about?
Why has no band plan separating peer to peer from incompatible robot operations been advanced before?
We do this with FM repeaters and satellite and weak signal modes on VHF/UHF, why not on HF?
Why can't this HF band plan be implemented to solve the interference problem, to the benefit of ALL parties?
Why aren't Over The Air (OTA) monitoring and other "vigilant control operator" provisions a Part 97 requirement, as proposed in RM-11831?

Member Comments:
Add A Comment
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by LNXAUTHOR on July 22, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
hard to understand the real issues here - i'm going to wait until others more knowledgeable about the back story and some history chime in with some plain English explanation - this 'article' doesn't make sense without context (i did read the .pdf)

what i do know is that the last thing i want is for bitcoiners doing encrypted commercial transactions and porn-trading Winlinkers to join in with the Mexican and S. American drug cartels to crap up the bands

the addendum to the .pdf is illuminating though - this situation appears to be similar to the beginning of the end of USENET, when first porn, then bootleg software distribution, then commercial ads and SPAM infiltrated the news groups

i guess this is where ham radio is headed, with encrypted digital traffic frequency hopping throughout the airwaves? i predict we've seen nothing yet
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W2WO on July 22, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
I am not involved in any of the related activities, but I must point out that any FCC "band plan" only relates to the United States. If there is a larger problem, then perhaps the larger problem should be isolated and addressed. Being an old-timer, I have a rather negative view of ANY automatic forwarding operation, especially if it interfaces to a commercial carrier. It seems to me to be much outside the scope of AMATEUR radio. Perhaps this should be reviewed at the international level. (If automatic operation is really needed, perhaps it should be kept to VHF/UHF.) I realize there are complex issues, but the bandwidth question and the "nature of the traffic" questions appear to me to be separate issues.

Bill - W2WO
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KD7YVV on July 22, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
I'm not exactly an old timer, and I don't have much
experience with packet but doesn't packet already do
some sort of store and forward? Also, isn't it not allowed
for a ham to use the hobby for a pecuniary interest?
There are a bunch of new digital modes now that we
didn't have as recently as 5 years ago and while
keeping up with new and changing technology is a good
thing for the most part, things like frequency hopping
and encryption in my own opinion (which is worth nothing
I know) have no place on the ham bands. You can use
the internet as an example as a previous reply noted
regarding Usenet. Usenet used to be a useful thing before
the spam/porn/commercial ads took over. I guess it's
like robocalling. The callers know they're not going to
speak to anyone, yet it must be profitable so it keeps
happening. There are plenty of commercial companies
that would love our frequencies even if they don't
really need them. They'll want them for "future use."
To me, ham radio is a hobby I enjoy and while I am
trained in emergency communications, when the
plastic wrap hits the sandwich, it's still just a
hobby. One I don't want to see go away.
That's my 2 cents. :)
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by K6CRC on July 23, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Does the hobby have more pressing issues?
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KQ6XA on July 23, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
It has been 3 years since FCC published its excellent Proposal for Rulemaking.

FCC should ignore the bickering and go ahead as they proposed.

Here we are 3 years later, and American hams are still suffering from forced HF symbol rate suppression in a Technology Jail.

USA's Amateur Radio Service operators have been held back by the HF symbol rate limit rules, while the world passed them by.

-Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by K1CJS on July 23, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
With the many varied methods of communications now available, these automatic systems for e-mail and packet should not be thought of as a way to keep the bands occupied. There are too many threats to the bands now, expanding these auto-modes is ill advised. People looking for a cheap alternative to long distance comms should not have been encouraged to look to ham frequencies for that purpose in the first place.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by N4UM on July 23, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
It would be nice if this article were written in simpler language so that the average ham could get some idea of what the author is talking about.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by G3SEA on July 23, 2019 Mail this to a friend!

The ability to exchange emails over HF in Emcomm scenarios is truly valuable but the above issues and concerns have become an unnecessarily complex issue
for the average Ham to digest.
Let's hope for some clarification in the immediate future !

G3SEA/KH6
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by NY7Q on July 24, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with all of your statements.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by NY7Q on July 24, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with all of your statements. kd7yvv is correct.
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W9YW on July 24, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
A lack of historical background makes both the citation and the post difficult to follow and understand for the casual observer.

In a nutshell, an argument is made that the ARRL's position on digital transmission appears to violate FCC rules and regulations, and that digital over the airwaves, unless data is openly exposed in a method that allows monitoring, cannibalizes amateur radio allocations to the detriment of all operators, and international agreements for data communications over amateur allocations.

For what it's worth, and despite the lack of background, it's an issue that amateurs need to be keenly aware of, and it's also my opinion that the ARRL is on the wrong side of this issue--dangerously.

For those trying to make sense of this, it's a rabbit hole, but a very important one to understand. It speaks to core values of what amateur radio is all about and the rules by which we civilly interact with each other in digital modes, and in modes where amateur radio devices interact with the Internet. Grab a coffee and go down the rabbit hole-- you'll be glad you did.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by N4UM on July 24, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Thank you W9YW!
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KG4RUL on July 26, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
IF you are a supporter of digital modes, especially automatic modes, you support the ARRL position. EVERYONE else realizes that it is so deeply flawed it should fade away and never reappear.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on July 27, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
To Bonnie, KQ6XA

You're entitled to your opinion, but no bandwidth limits as 16-239 isn't a techno jail, but open season on our spectrum for wasteful, and in the WL case, abuse and violation of Part 97 by its content.

Not sure if your ALE should be given anymore space either. Perhaps even ALE should be confined to the ACDS segment to protect narrow modes from sudden spectral "explosions" that are automatic in nature.

73.

Lee
W6EM
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on July 27, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
The abuse of Winlink's over the air email system has been awesome. As noted in the filing(s) there has been no control (WL claims otherwise, of course). No control before the fact for what, the last 20 years?

Emails from third parties, including obscene, commercial and pecuniary content, have been blindly sent out by WL ACDS all over the world. Oh, sure, WL does send out "warning" messages after the fact to those it finds, but most have scated by, undetected.

This is due to the fact that WL uses a compressed, almost impossible to copy compression method. Unless an unconnected 3rd party copies exactly every single digital bit of an exchange, it's garbage. Try it sometime if you own an SCS modem. Oh, the callsigns you'll be able to copy as those are sent in pactor 1.

So, that's the jest of it. It first was primarily an issue of essential encryption. About uncopyable content. Then, we discovered, thanks to their opening a filtered, temporary "viewable Winlink Window," we saw the unlawful content. Shocking, if you read through the list.

We were not trying to "kill Winlink." Only make it open and transparent. No one in the Amateur Service, per the FCC, has a right to privacy. As you read some of the filings, there was an expectation of privacy. Who would send what they sent if they thought the world could read it?

If you want content transparency, a reasonable bandwidth limit for digital content, and decodeable digital content, comment in the proceeding RM-11831. It's not too late, even if the official comment window is closed.
 
Stop evolution and become extinct Reply
by VE7JMR on July 28, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Referring to W6EM's comment "but no bandwidth limits as 16-239 isn't a techno jail, but open season on our spectrum".

I have seen the "no bandwidth limits" mentioned now in many places (probably quoting Ted Rappaport), but this does not appear to represent any of the proposals being made and is instead inflammatory rhetoric. It appears the 16-239 proposal is to replace the 300 baud symbol rate limit with a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit. Given that this bandwidth is allocated to single SSB voice in many of the HF amateur bands, why is this controversial?

Ted Rappaport's suggestion that replacing the symbol rate limit with a bandwidth limit will creates a threat to national security is conflating two different issues that should be viewed separately.

Looking at the evolution of communications, we see across the RF spectrum, channel bandwidth previously allocated to single analog voice being converted to digital voice, then subdivided to multiple digital voice/data. Looking at digital modes like PSK31, it is obvious that digital communications can potentially utilize available spectrum much more effectively. It is conceivable that someday soon, a mode such as FreeDV will be available in new HF radios.

I appreciate that Internet Email over amateur radio poses content compliance challenges. Considering there are non-compliant transmissions on SSB voice, we don't discuss doing away with the mode. Certainly the Winlink team should consider blacklisting specific email domains (facebook, ebay, amazon, etc.) to reduce inappropriate content. The conversation around monitoring modems is complicated, as there is plenty of obfuscation due to protocols above the data layer. (Which is why the Winlink log solution seems reasonable.)

US amateurs and the FCC should give consideration that the HF symbol rate limit is not consistent with bandwidth management in other countries. This potentially leaves US amateurs at a disadvantage as technology continues to advance. Isn't an "outmoded" regulatory constraint on progress, contradictory to one of the aims of the amateur radio service to learn and innovate?

Jason, VE7JMR
 
RE: Stop evolution and become extinct Reply
by W6EM on July 28, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Canada is perhaps less regulated. In fact, I know it is.

Here's what the FCC proposed in July of 2016:
"Specifically, we propose to remove limitations on the symbol rate (also known as baud rate)óthe rate at which the carrier waveform amplitude, frequency, and/or phase is varied to transmit information-applicable to data emissions in certain amateur bands. We believe that this rule change will allow amateur service licensees to use modern digital emissions, thereby better fulfilling the purposes of the amateur service and enhancing its usefulness."

Essentially, as I and Dr. Rappaport and others have said, removing the Baud rate and not replacing it with digital bandwidth constraint opens it up to any and all possible outcomes. Sure, an older transceiver with filters won't likely be capable of bandwidths above about 5kHz, but think of a software defined radio. Ah, you weren't thinking about that.

Well, we were. And, a lot of other folks who commented in several proceedings were too. And, most importantly, Ron Kolarik filed RM-11831 to put all RMS where they belong: in a narrow sand box, where they can play "who's going to wipe out who" to their heart's content.

The way that Pactors operate, except perhaps for new P4, is that the modems expand the number of subcarriers and resultant bandwidth unpredictably. With good signal propagation, up to 20 subcarriers and maximum possible bandwidth. So, if conditions are sub-optimal, the P's, except P1, occupy a relatively narrow bandwidth. For example, if a PSK31 QSO were to be ongoing, say 300Hz away, and a Winlink transfer suddenly broadens, wiping it out, well there you have it. A predatory configuration of OFDM. That's how it works and why RMS stations shouldn't be allowed unlimited spectrum on which to operate and with unlimited bandwidth!!!

Lots of digital mode experimentation and progress will continue. I'm a spectrum conservationist. Do it with less bandwidth or don't do it at all.

73.

Lee
W6EM



 
RE: Stop evolution and become extinct Reply
by KQ6XA on July 29, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
.
Jason, VE7JMR said:
"... conflating two different issues that should be viewed separately. "

You're right, Jason.

They know they are conflating two entirely different things. They are doing it intentionally as a posturing and negotiating tactic. It is opportunistic.

The ones who conflate baud and bandwidth just make themselves look silly and uneducated to those with actual knowledge in the field. They certainly aren't fooling any of the FCC engineering staff.

If they can tell the Big Lie repeatedly, and get a lot of people to tell the Big Lie, then they hope to "win".

Truth isn't important in their battle against reality :)
 
RE: Stop evolution and become extinct Reply
by W6EM on July 29, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Trying to hide? Under 300 baud? Nope. P4, if you look at Helfertís signal envelope isnít multicarrier OFDM. Why is that? Because he increases baud rate way above 300 baud, under the presumption the 300 baud limit will go away. As such, he doesnít need 20 or more subcarriers ala OFDM to stay under 300 baud on each and still convey information quickly. As of right now, all he needs is 2.8kHz. And, why would anyone operating peer to peer need such broad digital bandwidth?

If you look carefully, youíll see that weíre willing to increase ACDS bandwidth, so long as all ACDS stay in the ACDS segment. Even in favor of increasing the width of ACDS designated spectrum as well. And, likely, the League will be as well.

What? You donít like the fact that ALE would have to be confined to the ACDS segment(s) along with Winlinkers instead of all over the digital segments if 221 .c.3 is eliminated? Do you have the same issue as Winlink RMSs do with up to 500Hz bandwidth? In other words, not monitoring the frequency for other traffic, and when a distant ALE pops up, you answer and bury the narrow band QSO with an ďaccordion-likeĒ bandwidth expansion just like Winlink does?

I donít know where all of this will end, but a reasonable bandwidth limit is needed so as to prevent SDRs from really clobbering narrow bandwidth digital modes. Maybe you canít conceive of that possibility, but many of us, and hopefully the FCC, can.

 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KQ6XA on July 29, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
.
Ham Radio Freedom!

We are living in the great era of HF digital advancement in ham radio.

But, there are some in America who hate Freedom, and they hate new technology.

They want to freeze Ham Radio like a 20th century museum exhibit.

They want to hold us back, they want to keep America locked in a 300 baud technology jail.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on July 29, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Bonnie, no one wants to keep 300 baud as a speed limit. It only served as one to constrain bandwidth in RTTY.

Did it control bandwidth with either P2 or P3? Nope. No "bandwidth jail," Bonnie. They were wide in bandwidth, yet baud rate was 300 or under.

You live in the "EV jail" state, don't you? Mandate out internal combustion engines even before suitable means to recharge batteries is developed. Wouldn't it be great if CA really came up with a parole first?

Again, moving ALE to where all wide bandwidth autobots should be will be a good solution for all... Hey, maybe in those auto sub bands, how about no bandwidth limits? Who else cares?
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by N1ZZZ on August 1, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
I'm all for segregation. Keep narrow band modes in one area, and then have a segment for wide band applications. Eiminate the 300 baud limit.

My only concern is that those few of us who use wider modes P2P can still use them for data transfer. I don't want the sub band to be limited to robot stations only. I can deal with robot QRM with my P2P work.

Of course this only works if narrow banders, especially RTTY and CW contesters, keep out of the designated wide-BW sub-bands to avoid the whole QRM issue that they have been so vocal about for years.

73
Jeremy N1ZZZ
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KQ6XA on August 2, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
If frequency division is managed properly, the 20 meter band could easily provide spectrum for 200 simultaneous QSOs for communications:

100 QSOs with 500 Hz bandwidth 14000-14050 kHz
100 QSOs with 3 kHz bandwidth 14050-14350 kHz

3 kHz is the ITU standard "HF narrowband channel" unit. It is the basis for HF spectrum management.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by SM0AOM on August 3, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
What is left of amateur radio will quite likely end up in "channelised operations" in a longer perspective, as the old-timers that are accustomed to operating on non-integer frequencies go SK and the few new-comers will carry the channel operations concepts with them from CB or wherever they come from.

Channel plans with 500 Hz raster (Morse, NBDP) and
3 kHz (SSB and data) have been used since the 60s for maritime and aeronautical HF operations, and it is perhaps a "sign of the times" for amateur radio to follow suit.

It may however give some "interesting" side-effects,there will have to be frequency tolerance requirements and "off-frequency" operation could become a violation of the regulations.

Today, it is only considered as a nuisance when amateurs operate on frequencies that not end in a "0" or a "5".




 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KX4Z on August 13, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
It is important to get the facts correct.
1. PACTOR II/III (and possibly IV) are "specified" modes -- which is obvious since competitors have even duplicated readers for them, proving beyond any doubt that the web-published tech data was sufficient. (Ref: http://www.wavecom.ch/content/ext/DecoderOnlineHelp/default.htm#!worddocuments/pactoriii.htm https://www.scs-ptc.com/en/Downloads.html )
2. WINLINK transfer systems are 20 years old, and were first developed by BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS by Jean-Paul Robilat F6FBB. ANy inability to read them is merely a lack of work on the part of one wishing to..... multiple groups have created systems that work within this framework, demonstrating the ready possibility of any monitoring needing. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf Ref: http://www.f6fbb.org/ )
3. The vast levels of "interference" claimed by 97.221(c) stations....when actually measured statistically, turned out to be on the order of hundredths to thousandths of ONE PERCENT of available time/space on amateur bands -- even assuming worst possible. (Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10408063816674/FCCRM11831-2.pdf )
4. The much vaunted "violations" by winlink users turned out to include many items that fell within the "pizza rule" -- but also many items that really should be rooted out -- but the total was only on the order of 1.1% of communications. A more accurate measurement was not possible due to lack of cooperation. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf
5. The claim of "impossible to enforce" was demolished by actual data on fantastic self-policing that soon drove the objectionable email down to less than one very 1300 contacts. (And it may drop further). Reference: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf
6. The ARRL proposal appears to throw a significant wrench in innocent bystanders such as JS8, to fix a non-problem.
7. Although the opponents never took the time to create monitoring systems, KX4O (with a bit of help from me) demonstrated it is quite possible. See: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf

If you understand FACTS here, it is much easier to see more clearly what the real problems are.

Gordon L. Gibby KX4Z
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KX4Z on August 13, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
It is important to get the facts correct.
1. PACTOR II/III (and possibly IV) are "specified" modes -- which is obvious since competitors have even duplicated readers for them, proving beyond any doubt that the web-published tech data was sufficient. (Ref: http://www.wavecom.ch/content/ext/DecoderOnlineHelp/default.htm#!worddocuments/pactoriii.htm https://www.scs-ptc.com/en/Downloads.html )
2. WINLINK transfer systems are 20 years old, and were first developed by BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS by Jean-Paul Robilat F6FBB. ANy inability to read them is merely a lack of work on the part of one wishing to..... multiple groups have created systems that work within this framework, demonstrating the ready possibility of any monitoring needing. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf Ref: http://www.f6fbb.org/ )
3. The vast levels of "interference" claimed by 97.221(c) stations....when actually measured statistically, turned out to be on the order of hundredths to thousandths of ONE PERCENT of available time/space on amateur bands -- even assuming worst possible. (Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10408063816674/FCCRM11831-2.pdf )
4. The much vaunted "violations" by winlink users turned out to include many items that fell within the "pizza rule" -- but also many items that really should be rooted out -- but the total was only on the order of 1.1% of communications. A more accurate measurement was not possible due to lack of cooperation. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf
5. The claim of "impossible to enforce" was demolished by actual data on fantastic self-policing that soon drove the objectionable email down to less than one very 1300 contacts. (And it may drop further). Reference: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf
6. The ARRL proposal appears to throw a significant wrench in innocent bystanders such as JS8, to fix a non-problem.
7. Although the opponents never took the time to create monitoring systems, KX4O (with a bit of help from me) demonstrated it is quite possible. See: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf

If you understand FACTS here, it is much easier to see more clearly what the real problems are.

Gordon L. Gibby KX4Z
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 13, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
*//It is important to get the facts correct.//*

Yes, it is, Dr. Flash. So, let's talk awhile here, where it's not so animated.

*//1. PACTOR II/III (and possibly IV) are "specified" modes -- which is obvious since competitors have even duplicated readers for them, proving beyond any doubt that the web-published tech data was sufficient. (Ref: http://www.wavecom.ch/content/ext/DecoderOnlineHelp/default.htm#!worddocuments/pactoriii.htm https://www.scs-ptc.com/en/Downloads.html )//*

Not quite so fast. Dr. Hans-Peter Helfert acknowledged in a communication to the FCC that not all "trade secrets" of P2 and P3 have been published. Making it extremely difficult for someone to build a software/hardware device to successfully copy P2 or P3. And, I assume P4.

Do hams have an extra $2K around to buy a new SCS Dragon? Most don't. But a few do. One would think that forking out $2K would grant them the ability to monitor the various P versions when used in conjunction with the Winlink application. It doesn't. Oh, it would if ARSFI/Winlink had used the resident packet Huffman/Pseudo Markov packet/frame compression, and the PMON feature of each SCS modem.

*//2. WINLINK transfer systems are 20 years old, and were first developed by BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS by Jean-Paul Robilat F6FBB. ANy inability to read them is merely a lack of work on the part of one wishing to..... multiple groups have created systems that work within this framework, demonstrating the ready possibility of any monitoring needing. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf Ref: http://www.f6fbb.org/ )//*

You keep blah-blahing an old method of compresssion. Fine. Instead of throwing FBB out there, explain for us all how it is done. Is it one packet string at a time that is compressed? Gee, I think I recall that is the case. OTOH, if it is the entire message, that's not good. Makes it nearly impossible to copy if even one BIT of compressed data goes missing for someone monitoring. Several folks have already noted that compressing an entire body of text, as Winlink does, probably has an alternate purpose: to make it obscured to any monitors who miss even a BIT. As is obvious, a packet level compression would limit impact to a scrambled word or two, not an entire scrambled message body.

*//3. The vast levels of "interference" claimed by 97.221(c) stations....when actually measured statistically, turned out to be on the order of hundredths to thousandths of ONE PERCENT of available time/space on amateur bands -- even assuming worst possible. (Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10408063816674/FCCRM11831-2.pdf )//*

Your approach isn't/wasn't so credible. Had you done it when bands were quite active, as in during contests, etc., I'm sure the results would have been different. And, of course, time of day, propagation, etc., heavily influence activity levels as well.

*//4. The much vaunted "violations" by winlink users turned out to include many items that fell within the "pizza rule" -- but also many items that really should be rooted out -- but the total was only on the order of 1.1% of communications. A more accurate measurement was not possible due to lack of cooperation. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf//*

Again, your "study" left a lot to be desired. Yours was made long after the proverbial "cat was out of the sack. Whereas, if Winlink had not publicized its so-called Window, the "dodgers" and "hot pants" dribblers would have been many more in number. If Winlink had advertised that it kept data longer than its "21-day" well-publicized end of life of records, there would have been less abuse. Of course now, they are claiming that they keep them for much longer. Sure. And, if they had taken the time to look before their Window came along as a response to our demand for open copy, would the egregious violations included in our group's Enforcement Bureau complaint have been there? Probably not, as they'd long-ago have been removed from the system as the abusers they were.

*//5. The claim of "impossible to enforce" was demolished by actual data on fantastic self-policing that soon drove the objectionable email down to less than one very 1300 contacts. (And it may drop further). Reference: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf//*

That's really stretching it. If it weren't for independent reporting of folks like Ron, K0IDT, your Mr. Tom wouldn't have known. Apparently, he doesn't do a very thorough job of scanning the database, even now with a Window, does he?

*//6. The ARRL proposal appears to throw a significant wrench in innocent bystanders such as JS8, to fix a non-problem.//*

Oh, it's not over yet. The ARRL attorney hasn't written his letter to the FCC conveying their decision. And, there's still time to yell for more spectrum from Winlink Loyalists like Dick Norton, N6AA. Just like there's time yet for us to yell "effective encryption" for whole-message-body Huffman compression antics.

*//7. Although the opponents never took the time to create monitoring systems, KX4O (with a bit of help from me) demonstrated it is quite possible. See: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf //*

Not true either. KX4O used some Linux based software to process a binary file to decompress it. Not a "system," as you say. He wouldn't need a "system" if Winlink used the built-in packet/frame compression/decompression features in SCS' modems. His use of the PMON feature on the monitored transfer would have yielded clear text. No processing needed. Oh, maybe a scrambled word or two if he missed a BIT of a packet, since he couldn't ask for a resend. Besides, what he was monitoring was a few miles away on 75M, and conditions were excellent......until he missed a BIT or two of ONE FRAME. 80% of message content was then, per his words, garbage!!!


*//If you understand FACTS here, it is much easier to see more clearly what the real problems are.

Gordon L. Gibby KX4Z //*

The REAL problem is the use of whole message body compression. Done for many years and chosen to be that way, IMO, because Winlink wanted privacy enhancement. Missing a bit causes garbage. They understood that would be the outcome from the beginning, with the vagarities of HF propagation, multi-path, etc. Privacy enhancement, plain and simple. Even SCS modem owners who want to monitor an ongoing Winlink exchange have to copy the binary/hex file and use software to attempt decompression, with, as KX4O last demonstrated, with limited success.

Pretty intensive effort, wouldn't you say so, Gordon? Not a "system" by any means. SCS has an excellent "system" of packet/frame compression/decompression built in to their modems. Oh, but Winlink tells everybody to turn it off and use Winlink's method. We know why. Not for speed. With forward and store-on-server methods, who cares?
If it's time critical, do it one on one. Via QSOs. Winlink lovers forgot what those are.....
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 13, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
*//It is important to get the facts correct.//*

Yes, it is, Dr. Flash. So, let's talk awhile here, where it's not so animated.

*//1. PACTOR II/III (and possibly IV) are "specified" modes -- which is obvious since competitors have even duplicated readers for them, proving beyond any doubt that the web-published tech data was sufficient. (Ref: http://www.wavecom.ch/content/ext/DecoderOnlineHelp/default.htm#!worddocuments/pactoriii.htm https://www.scs-ptc.com/en/Downloads.html )//*

Not quite so fast. Dr. Hans-Peter Helfert acknowledged in a communication to the FCC that not all "trade secrets" of P2 and P3 have been published. Making it extremely difficult for someone to build a software/hardware device to successfully copy P2 or P3. And, I assume P4.

Do hams have an extra $2K around to buy a new SCS Dragon? Most don't. But a few do. One would think that forking out $2K would grant them the ability to monitor the various P versions when used in conjunction with the Winlink application. It doesn't. Oh, it would if ARSFI/Winlink had used the resident packet Huffman/Pseudo Markov packet/frame compression, and the PMON feature of each SCS modem.

*//2. WINLINK transfer systems are 20 years old, and were first developed by BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS by Jean-Paul Robilat F6FBB. ANy inability to read them is merely a lack of work on the part of one wishing to..... multiple groups have created systems that work within this framework, demonstrating the ready possibility of any monitoring needing. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf Ref: http://www.f6fbb.org/ )//*

You keep blah-blahing an old method of compresssion. Fine. Instead of throwing FBB out there, explain for us all how it is done. Is it one packet string at a time that is compressed? Gee, I think I recall that is the case. OTOH, if it is the entire message, that's not good. Makes it nearly impossible to copy if even one BIT of compressed data goes missing for someone monitoring. Several folks have already noted that compressing an entire body of text, as Winlink does, probably has an alternate purpose: to make it obscured to any monitors who miss even a BIT. As is obvious, a packet level compression would limit impact to a scrambled word or two, not an entire scrambled message body.

*//3. The vast levels of "interference" claimed by 97.221(c) stations....when actually measured statistically, turned out to be on the order of hundredths to thousandths of ONE PERCENT of available time/space on amateur bands -- even assuming worst possible. (Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10408063816674/FCCRM11831-2.pdf )//*

Your approach isn't/wasn't so credible. Had you done it when bands were quite active, as in during contests, etc., I'm sure the results would have been different. And, of course, time of day, propagation, etc., heavily influence activity levels as well.

*//4. The much vaunted "violations" by winlink users turned out to include many items that fell within the "pizza rule" -- but also many items that really should be rooted out -- but the total was only on the order of 1.1% of communications. A more accurate measurement was not possible due to lack of cooperation. Ref: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf//*

Again, your "study" left a lot to be desired. Yours was made long after the proverbial "cat was out of the sack. Whereas, if Winlink had not publicized its so-called Window, the "dodgers" and "hot pants" dribblers would have been many more in number. If Winlink had advertised that it kept data longer than its "21-day" well-publicized end of life of records, there would have been less abuse. Of course now, they are claiming that they keep them for much longer. Sure. And, if they had taken the time to look before their Window came along as a response to our demand for open copy, would the egregious violations included in our group's Enforcement Bureau complaint have been there? Probably not, as they'd long-ago have been removed from the system as the abusers they were.

*//5. The claim of "impossible to enforce" was demolished by actual data on fantastic self-policing that soon drove the objectionable email down to less than one very 1300 contacts. (And it may drop further). Reference: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10723230403421/IncidenceCalculations.pdf//*

That's really stretching it. If it weren't for independent reporting of folks like Ron, K0IDT, your Mr. Tom wouldn't have known. Apparently, he doesn't do a very thorough job of scanning the database, even now with a Window, does he?

*//6. The ARRL proposal appears to throw a significant wrench in innocent bystanders such as JS8, to fix a non-problem.//*

Oh, it's not over yet. The ARRL attorney hasn't written his letter to the FCC conveying their decision. And, there's still time to yell for more spectrum from Winlink Loyalists like Dick Norton, N6AA. Just like there's time yet for us to yell "effective encryption" for whole-message-body Huffman compression antics.

*//7. Although the opponents never took the time to create monitoring systems, KX4O (with a bit of help from me) demonstrated it is quite possible. See: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808597817982/ExParteCommunicationAug8.pdf //*

Not true either. KX4O used some Linux based software to process a binary file to decompress it. Not a "system," as you say. He wouldn't need a "system" if Winlink used the built-in packet/frame compression/decompression features in SCS' modems. His use of the PMON feature on the monitored transfer would have yielded clear text. No processing needed. Oh, maybe a scrambled word or two if he missed a BIT of a packet, since he couldn't ask for a resend. Besides, what he was monitoring was a few miles away on 75M, and conditions were excellent......until he missed a BIT or two of ONE FRAME. 80% of message content was then, per his words, garbage!!!


*//If you understand FACTS here, it is much easier to see more clearly what the real problems are.

Gordon L. Gibby KX4Z //*

The REAL problem is the use of whole message body compression. Done for many years and chosen to be that way, IMO, because Winlink wanted privacy enhancement. Missing a bit causes garbage. They understood that would be the outcome from the beginning, with the vagarities of HF propagation, multi-path, etc. Privacy enhancement, plain and simple. Even SCS modem owners who want to monitor an ongoing Winlink exchange have to copy the binary/hex file and use software to attempt decompression, with, as KX4O last demonstrated, with limited success.

Pretty intensive effort, wouldn't you say so, Gordon? Not a "system" by any means. SCS has an excellent "system" of packet/frame compression/decompression built in to their modems. Oh, but Winlink tells everybody to turn it off and use Winlink's method. We know why. Not for speed. With forward and store-on-server methods, who cares?
If it's time critical, do it one on one. Via QSOs. Winlink lovers forgot what those are.....
 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KX4Z on August 13, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
1. Your commment on Pactor is irrelevant. Details are published sufficent even for replication --which was DONE! -- which is not even required.

2. Your comment about $2000 is irrelevant to Part 97 and also fallacious

3. Your lack of understanding of "how it is done" could be corrected by READING the reference you perhaps did not.

4. No one has provided ANY rebuttal to my accurate data which have nothing to do with any contest. You simply don't understand the method.....

5. You do not seem to understand encryption, either.

6. You provide no refutation of the published data on reduction of objectionable matter.....and thus it stands.

7. You provide no refutation of the facts of demonstrated winlink reading......which is in the FCC record now.

8 You apparently did not read the work of Roubelat and the GO team either.

9. Persons upset with Jean-Paul had twenty years to create their own readers. You apparently chose not to. Please provide documentation of your experiments, including source code, methods.


I think that handles all of your claims.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 13, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Dr. Gibby, I understand things quite sufficiently, in spite of your shouting denials and deflections. And, I'll make a comment here that your attitude, in disagreement, is not simply, as it should be, "I beg to differ," but an acrimonious series of personal insults.

You have written, thus far, on another forum, material that is probably sufficient for a claim of character defamation. Not so much toward me, but with someone of vastly greater stature and resources than me.

So, take this as a warning: Watch your words. They may come back and bite you. Some of your postings have already disappeared, but they're recorded...

73.

Lee
W6EM
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KX4Z on August 14, 2019 Mail this to a friend!

Shouted denials?

I suspect in order to have defamed someone's character you have to say something UNTRUE.
REFERENCE: https://legalbeagle.com/6324087-defamation-character-slander.html

If you know of anything that I've written that is UNTRUE, please present it now,-- IMMEDIATELY--- so that i can apologize for it.

Saying anything UnTRUE about anyone is the last thing I would want to do.

As far as i am aware, everything that I've written is true, with references in most cases. By comparison, a firm in Germany may well have considered taking more extreme measures, and with good reason.



 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 14, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
By stating that something claimed simply isn't true, is one's right to do so. However, then adding, by extension, remarks meant to attack the person's character simply won't pass muster. Dictionary or otherwise.

By having said that a software application does, in fact, make receipt of communications using a particular code or codes difficult to impossible to receive is certainly not untruthful. An official of a certain German manufacturer, in fact, so affirmed in his public comments.

Given the methodology chosen by Winlink, instead of the vastly superior method used by the German manufacturer's product, makes the probability of unsuccessful monitoring by third parties very likely.

My premise, and that of others, is that this choice was made intentionally, with likely the full knowledge of the "enhanced privacy" that using their method created instead. And with several codes, not just the codes of the German company. And, it was filed into the FCC record as I have repeated.

The "value" of a missing BIT is by far greater in a package of, say, 75 BYTES than in one of 5 BYTES after compression is applied, transmitted, received, and decompressed. The amount of data loss is virtually all both cases. So, by restricting compression to each packet, as the German company provisions in its hardware product, the likelihood of a monitor getting the vast majority of content legibly is very high. The other way, not at all unless every BIT is received perfectly. The paraphrased words of Winlink guru Rick Muething......

I rest my case. Good night.

 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KX4Z on August 14, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
I note that you did not list anything untrue that I have written.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, you appear to be leveling an accusation against the WINLINK development team of roughly the year 2000, which is when that decision appeared to be made. Or maybe you were just accusing Vic poor?

Did you wish to include in that accusation Jean Paul Roubelat ? And also the PAT team? Or do you intentionally leave them out for some reason?

Maybe you can explain it better to me.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 14, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
There were many statements like I describe and at this point, I really don't have the energy to go back through pages of your postings to find them all.

Pretty sure several compression choices were available, since packet had been around a long, long time back then even.

And, at least in those times, packet was easily monitored by others listening, save for tolerance of redundant strings. Probably has a lot to do with why there are to this day so many more Winlink VHF/UHF packet RMS stations than HF ones that use several different codes.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KX4Z on August 14, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
So is it true that you didnít even know Of Roubelatís open source work and how it was adoptedd by WINLINK ?

Did you not know that Roubelat had created the precise compression systems that WINLINK adopted? were you just guessing that there were others ?

Did you not realize that FBB binary file transfers are also difficult to read for the exact same reason? That packet makes no difference?

Did you not know about Pat? Why didnít you attack their identical decision ? Do you intend to attack their gzip usage as well ?
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 14, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Why should I waste my time memorizing names of such people? Of no interest to me.

And, with packet, each frame is processed. Not a "gather it all" then compress it approach. The cat's out of the bag, Gordon. Along with a ton of direct evidence of abuse, based upon a presumption of privacy.

Packet is robust, in that any packet relay can monitor. Oh, if folks attach files that can't be opened and read by all who monitor the connects, then that, too, must change. Any binary file can be encrypted and attached. Perhaps it's time to end allowing any attachments to emails as well.

The FCC has been 'asleep' and has been exploited, apparently, in its slumber, by not vigorously pursuing those whose intent it has been to "enhance privacy." I can still hear Riley Hollingsworth snoring.

One of the Winlink founders, Waterman, has repeatedly asked the FCC to openly permit encryption. As if Winlink hadn't enough "enhanced privacy" already. And, the FCC soundly and firmly poured his namesake on his request......No.

I guess I'll have to monitor a tad bit of packet with my TNC software and see how much I can copy. Especially since there are a whole lot more Winlink RMSs' on VHF/UHF packet anyway. Short haul traffic, I guess, is more important than your HF boat relay near Gatorland.

What, no cheers? Have a few beers!!

 
ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KQ6XA on August 15, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
The cost to build a receive device to demodulate/decode a signal is not the threshold of the definition.

When the first RTTY signals went on the air, the reception equipment was expensive, so few hams had the capability.

Those that couldn't afford a RTTY system simply couldn't copy RTTY.

As the economics of RTTY technology improved, the average ham could afford it.

The fact is, advancement of digital HF technology continues to march forward.

Hams must decide if they are going to march in the front row of the parade, or just tag along behind.
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by KQ6XA on August 19, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL Letter August 15, 2019. The ARRL Board instructed Washington Counsel David Siddall, K3ZJ, to take appropriate steps to obtain FCC approval for several changes to the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service rules:
Automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS).
Digital Communication Issues
- "Require all digital mode stations operating with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz to operate within the ACDS bands, whether or not these stations are automatically controlled."
- "Limit the maximum bandwidth of digital mode signals below 29 MHz to 2.8 kHz."

"What ARRL wants", an Analogy:

- There is a 6 lane interstate highway, but only bicycles and horse-drawn carts can use it.

- Fast cars and trucks are forbidden on this highway.

- All the fast cars and trucks must use a single lane frontage road along side the freeway.

- The bicyles and horse-drawn carts also have the right-of-way when using the frontage road and crossing traffic.

How sneaky! ARRL Board of Directors is now advocating a 40 meter band limit of a single QSO of fast digital data?

Note: the FCC regulated ACDS sub-band on 40 meters is 5 kHz wide (7000-7105 kHz), and that is only wide enough for a single 2.8 kHz narrowband channel.

Let's boil this down to what it really is:
"Regulation By Bandwidth" + "Regulation By Content" piled high upon "Regulation by Absurdity".
...but the absurdity would only apply to digital data signals, and not to anything else.

That is a huge step backwards into the Technology Jail.

In response, I propose the following counter-argument / demand:

The 80 meter ACDS sub-band must be extended to 3575-3600 kHz (9 QSOs)
The 40 meter ACDS sub-band must be extended to 7080-7105 kHz (9 QSOs)
The 20 meter ACDS sub-band must be extended to 14090-14125 kHz (12 QSOs)
The 17 meter ACDS sub-band must be extended to 18103-18110 kHz (6 QSOs)

-Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by W6EM on August 19, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
Why drink ALE if it puts you in Technology Jail? Have a beer instead....

16-239 is a rulemaking already. You're free to comment, Bonnie, even if untimely. I'm sure you're not the only person interested in more spectrum.

Besides, ARRL is about to send a letter, but no sub band suggestions? Weird. Perhaps they'll do a "Revised Rulemaking."



 
RE: ARRL Sponsored Meeting Fails Consensus: Reply
by K0IDT on August 20, 2019 Mail this to a friend!
KQ6XA, Your analogy is horribly flawed.

"There is a 6 lane interstate highway, but only bicycles and horse-drawn carts can use it."

Amateur radio spectrum is a finite resource more akin to a National Park than an interstate highway. A scenic parkway may be a more appropriate description.

"Fast cars and trucks are forbidden on this highway."

Do you really propose to have "fast" cars and trucks racing through your "national park"?

"Note: the FCC regulated ACDS sub-band on 40 meters is 5 kHz wide (7000-7105 kHz), and that is only wide enough for a single 2.8 kHz narrowband channel."

And the IARU Region 2 band plan only allows 6kHz for both wide and narrow automatic (unattended) stations on 40m. Also the same band plan requests limiting usage of those stations.

"In response, I propose the following counter-argument / demand:"

Take it up with ARSFI, they blew the deal. While you're at it ask them to show you what they offered going in to the negotiations. Good luck with that. You really have no idea what could have been but......

Now, back to your original flawed analogy of an interstate highway as opposed to a National Park finite
resource that's supposed to be shared by all. The "modern efficient communications" mantra, of a very
small vocal minority, can be compared to a developer tearing down the Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone
National Park and replacing it with "modern efficient" high rise condos, and while we're at it let's make
it members only to make it more exclusive. Congratulations, you've just destroyed the character and purpose of the park.


Just for the record I hope the 300 baud limit goes away. It's silly in today's world, but will the often heard "it's holding US hams back"
be proved true? I won't hold my breath on that one. One thing that's been missed in all this is, hams are cheap....that's a big clue there for anyone paying attention.

Btw Bonnie, there's still no puppy......yet. :)





 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
Radio Club Makes International Connections from Loop Head:
HARA Event On Courthouse Lawn:
Ham Radio Operators Help Reunite Family:
Ham Radios as Emergency Backup Communications in Rio Blanco County:
WWV Centennial Committee Prepares for Trial Run of WW0WWV Special Event: