*Summary* Ted Rappaport, N9NB, has mounted a vehement campaign against several of the ARRL proposed FCC rule makings, Winlink, Pactor, Radio Amateurs involved in traffic handling, and Amateurs involved in public service. His complaints appear to be based on imagined interference, incorrect interpretations of FCC rules, and fanciful dystopian predictions of future outcomes. Rappaport has garnered a tiny but vocal group of followers, some buying into his misinterpretations of existing law. However, at ARRL convention forums, club meetings, and in correspondence from members, I find essentially zero support of his criticisms or proposed actions. Rappaport's actions have done no good to Amateur Radio and if anything, have done harm. His actions have resulted in discouragement of Amateurs with long-term records of contributing to Amateur Radio's service to society as his followers have even openly demeaned public service efforts. Some well-intentioned Board members attempted to set up a meeting of Winlink technical leadership with Rappaport and possibly some of his followers, to result in some sort of compromise. At the last minute, Rappaport offered only to send an attorney. The meeting was not held. I've heard of no sensible proposed compromise, nor can I come up with one. Without a possibility for some sensible outcome, there is no reason to attempt to set up any future meetings of this type. The appropriate Board action is to evaluate Rappaport's criticisms and proposed actions based on technical aspects, political reality, and impact on Amateur Radio, the ARRL, and society as a whole, and act on and promulgate those views appropriately. The League should continue to advance its proposed FCC rule changes eliminating the symbol-rate limitation and increasing the Technician operating frequencies, as well as oppose the eavesdropping-facilitation proposal RM-11831. *Imagined Interference from Digital Signals* Rappaport has claimed that digital signals are polluting the CW bands, something that does not match my observations. I've asked groups of contesters and DXers, who use the CW bands regularly, and none of them have noticed this phenomenon either. I've even had an e-mail inquiry from a member asking where to find this purported interference. I have seen two reports of single-incident purported interference from digital signals. Almost all users of Amateur frequencies occasionally experience interference, and the two complaints I've been made aware of do not warrant any changes in FCC rules. *Misinterpretation of FCC Rules Regarding Pecuniary Interest* Rappaport has railed against use of Amateur Radio to conduct communication that could be done using commercial providers. Of course, essentially all our communication could be conducted using commercial means. Rappaport has claimed that ordering pizzas or boat parts is unlawful, commercial use of ham radio. In the 1990s, the FCC ruled differently, resulting in an editorial in QST on the subject. In convention forums, participants have independently commented that ordering boat parts can be a matter of safety, something that Amateur Radio should be proud to be able to offer. The fixation on boaters not paying for commercial message services is uncalled for. Boaters are one of the few groups that regularly make use of the Winlink system. Whereas twenty years ago, hams in motor homes made considerable use of Winlink, the build-out and upgrade of the USA cellphone networks have resulted in significantly less use of Winlink today. The ARRL was formed around relaying message traffic. Almost all message traffic handled by hams could have been handled by commercial means. It is inappropriate to push an agenda that demeans the ARRL, NTS, and Winlink, all groups of volunteer hams dedicating their time and resources to assisting the public. *Effective Encryption Prohibition Myth* There is an FCC rule against encryption for the purpose of concealing the contents of communication. There is no rule requiring the transmission of messages in a format that is trivial or easy to decode or understand. There are rules that permit use of communication protocols as long as the methodology is documented. Criticism of the use of advanced communication protocols because they are not trivial to decode by outside eavesdroppers is unproductive and adverse to the ability of Amateur Radio to serve the public. *Pactor-4* Pactor-4 transmits messages at rates up to several times faster than do competing protocols. It utilizes three aspects described by communication theory to reach this level of performance. It is in the interest of Amateur Radio to efficiently process message traffic, and until something better is developed, Pactor-4 use should be encouraged. 1) Pactor-4 transmits fewer characters than competing protocols by using data-compression techniques similar to those used on the internet. Those desiring to see the contents of a message will have to "unzip" the compressed message. Note that the Winlink system does not use the standard Pactor-4 scheme, but uses a well-documented B2F compression scheme. 2) Pactor-4 adjusts the transmission rate depending on how well the receiving station is copying the sending station. Slowing down the rate employs more energy per symbol and results in an improved signal-to-noise ratio at the decoder. Those desiring to decode the message may have to adjust their receive processing rate to match changing data transmission rates. 3) Pactor-4 uses an automatic repeat request, ARQ, to initiate retransmission of data received with errors. Therefore, messages or groups of messages may be bifurcated and transmitted in parts. Some parts may be repeated, and some won't. The ARQ scheme results in minimal unnecessary transmission of data and automatically facilitates the control of the transmission rate. Employment of ARQ assures that the message has actually been received correctly before closing the connection. *Decoding Programs Are Available* Decoding systems are available and have been identified. As the decoding task is non-trivial, the programs are expensive and known only to be used by government intelligence agencies. *Claim of Public Need to Decode All Messages* A claim has been made that because the FCC pays little or no attention to to the content of Amateur Radio communication, it is necessary for curious eavesdroppers to be able to have easy capability to inspect whatever communication they desire to monitor. This claim has no merit. What possible good can arise from such eavesdropping other than satisfying some auditory Peeping-Tom urges? The government has the responsibility to police communication. *Reality and Offensive Language* There have been complaints about use of offensive language in some e-mails. Note that the Mount Wilson repeater on 147.435 in the Los Angeles area has been a cesspool of foul language for forty or more years. Every four-letter word is probably uttered every hour. Although it is offensive to many of us, no harm comes to those of us who do not listen, such as myself. Society has determined that free speech is permitted. To imagine that the police power of the Federal Government should be activated to protect some of us from an occasional Winlink message that disturbs some of our senses is at best naive. Note also that the ARRL Board of Directors recently gave its Microwave Development Award to the AREDN group, an organization of hams that have implemented independent wide-band microwave mesh-networks that can carry video of any sort. These networks can be connected to the internet, allowing transmission of anything on the entire internet over Amateur Radio. The possibility of monitoring everything is zero. To in any way suggest that the Winlink network needs to microscopically police message traffic is totally inconsistent with the ARRL-blessed mesh-network concept. *Summary* Radio Amateurs have served the public by handling message traffic for years. Winlink is the most up-to-date method of providing this service. It is provided in as efficient a way as is permitted by law. Winlink has a record of policing users and content to a degree more than sufficient for the public interest. This is in spite of a recent sophomoric complaint about some content filed with the FCC. There is no public benefit to any of the demands of the eavesdropping-facilitation faction. There has been very negative reaction to these complaints from Amateurs dedicated to public-service as well as government emergency personnel. *What to Do* The eavesdropping-facilitation faction should not be given any idea that any of their railings have any possible support from the ARRL. In fact, their actions have been nothing but detrimental to Amateur Radio, discouraging many public-service oriented hams. The eavesdropping-facilitation faction should be actively opposed by the ARRL. We should continue to attempt to advance the ARRL proposed rule-changes. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA