Hello Dick, Thank you for compiling this thorough discussionof the various issues raised within this set of issues. I completelyagree with your summation and your recommendation to continueto advance the ARRL proposed rule changes. Thank You ! 73, Kermit Carlson W9XA On Friday, June 14, 2019, 1:26:37 PM CDT, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote: Summary Ted Rappaport, N9NB,has mounted a vehement campaign against several of the ARRL proposed FCCrule makings, Winlink, Pactor, Radio Amateurs involved in traffic handling, andAmateurs involved in public service. His complaints appear to be based on imaginedinterference, incorrect interpretations of FCC rules, and fanciful dystopianpredictions of future outcomes. Rappaport has garnereda tiny but vocal group of followers, some buying into his misinterpretations ofexisting law. However, at ARRL convention forums, club meetings, and in correspondence from members, I find essentially zero support of his criticismsor proposed actions. Rappaport's actionshave done no good to Amateur Radio and if anything, have done harm. His actionshave resulted in discouragement of Amateurs with long-term records ofcontributing to Amateur Radio's service to society as his followers have even openlydemeaned public service efforts. Some well-intentionedBoard members attempted to set up a meeting of Winlink technical leadership with Rappaport and possibly some of his followers, to result in some sort ofcompromise. 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 upwith 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 Boardaction is to evaluate Rappaport's criticisms and proposed actions based ontechnical aspects, political reality, and impact on Amateur Radio, the ARRL, and society as awhole, 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 Interferencefrom Digital Signals Rappaport has claimedthat digital signals are polluting the CW bands, something that does not matchmy observations. I've asked groups of contesters and DXers, who use the CWbands regularly, and none of them have noticed this phenomenon either. I've evenhad an e-mail inquiry from a member asking where to find this purportedinterference. 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 railedagainst use of Amateur Radio to conduct communication that could be done usingcommercial providers. Of course, essentially all our communication could beconducted using commercial means. Rappaport has claimedthat ordering pizzas or boat parts is unlawful, commercial use of ham radio. Inthe 1990s, the FCC ruled differently, resulting in an editorial in QST on thesubject. In convention forums, participants have independently commented thatordering boat parts can be a matter of safety, something that Amateur Radioshould be proud to be able to offer. The fixation on boaters not paying for commercial message services isuncalled for. Boaters are one of the few groups that regularly make use of theWinlink system. Whereas twenty years ago, hams in motor homes made considerableuse of Winlink, the build-out and upgrade of the USA cellphone networks have resulted insignificantly less use of Winlink today. The ARRL was formedaround relaying message traffic. Almost all message traffic handled by hamscould 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 resourcesto assisting the public. Effective EncryptionProhibition Myth There is an FCC ruleagainst encryption for the purpose of concealing the contents of communication.There is no rule requiring the transmission of messages in a format that istrivial or easy to decode or understand. There are rules that permit use ofcommunication protocols as long as the methodology is documented. Criticism of the use ofadvanced communication protocols because they are not trivial to decode byoutside eavesdroppers is unproductive and adverse to the ability of AmateurRadio to serve the public. Pactor-4 Pactor-4 transmitsmessages at rates up to several times faster than do competing protocols. It utilizesthree aspects described by communication theory to reach this level of performance. It isin 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 transmitsfewer characters than competing protocols by using data-compression techniquessimilar 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 thetransmission rate depending on how well the receiving station is copying thesending station. Slowing down the rate employs more energy per symbol andresults in an improved signal-to-noise ratio at the decoder. Those desiring to decodethe message may have to adjust their receive processing rate to match changingdata transmission rates. 3) Pactor-4 uses anautomatic repeat request, ARQ, to initiate retransmission of data received with errors.Therefore, messages or groups of messages may be bifurcated and transmitted inparts. Some parts may be repeated, and some won't. The ARQ scheme results in minimal unnecessary transmission of data andautomatically 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 AreAvailable Decoding systems areavailable and have been identified. As the decoding task is non-trivial, theprograms are expensive and known only to be used by government intelligenceagencies. Claim of Public Need to DecodeAll Messages A claim has been madethat because the FCC pays little or no attention to to the content of AmateurRadio communication, it is necessary for curious eavesdroppers to be able to haveeasy capability to inspect whatever communication they desire to monitor. This claim has nomerit. What possible good can arise from such eavesdropping other thansatisfying some auditory Peeping-Tom urges? The government has the responsibility to police communication. Reality and OffensiveLanguage There have beencomplaints 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 foullanguage for forty or more years. Every four-letter word is probably uttered everyhour. Although it is offensive to many of us, no harm comes to those of us whodo not listen, such as myself. Society has determined that free speech ispermitted. To imagine that thepolice power of the Federal Government should be activated to protect some ofus from an occasional Winlink message that disturbs some of our senses is atbest naive. Note also that theARRL Board of Directors recently gave its Microwave Development Award to theAREDN group, an organization of hams that have implemented independent wide-bandmicrowave mesh-networks that can carry video of any sort. These networks can beconnected to the internet, allowing transmission of anything on the entireinternet over Amateur Radio. The possibility of monitoring everything is zero. To in any way suggestthat the Winlink network needs to microscopically police message traffic istotally inconsistent with the ARRL-blessed mesh-network concept. Summary Radio Amateurs haveserved the public by handling message traffic for years. Winlink is the mostup-to-date method of providing this service. It is provided in as efficient away as is permitted by law. Winlink has a record of policing users and content to a degreemore than sufficient for the public interest. This is in spite of a recent sophomoriccomplaint about some content filed with the FCC. There is no publicbenefit to any of the demands of the eavesdropping-facilitation faction. There has been verynegative reaction to these complaints from Amateurs dedicated to public-service as well asgovernment emergency personnel. What to Do The eavesdropping-facilitation faction should not be given any idea that any oftheir railings have any possible support from the ARRL. In fact, their actionshave been nothing but detrimental to Amateur Radio, discouraging manypublic-service oriented hams. The eavesdropping-facilitation faction should be actively opposed by the ARRL. Weshould continue to attempt to advance the ARRL proposed rule-changes. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv