[arrl-odv:28224] Approach to Recent Attacks on ARRL Initiatives
*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
Dick, Well described and very practical points. 73, Rod, K0DAS On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:26 PM Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
*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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I see we have a repeat of RM-11306 in 2007 again. I was really hoping that this time we could be a bit more balanced and respect all users of the bands, but I am really disappointed thet Director Norton has chosen to go down the opposite path. Nevertheless I present the following. "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. " Incorrect. Professor Rappaport has focused solely on a widespread opening up of the HF digital bands to wide bandwidth digital. Nowhere has Rappaport ever said anything against traffic handling or public service. "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." I have also been talking to people at various conventions and forums, online and via telephone, all over the country. My results have been different. I have had some who are firmly in camp WinLink, some who have had QSOs smashed and hammered away by some unidentified digital signal (which they later found out was Pactor/Dragon) and those who really couldn't care less. Saying there is zero support for Rappaport, or rather, zero opposition for 16-239 is not being fully truthful. I have had several maxim society donors tell me that they are disappointed that the ARRL has gone down this path, and support a reasonable compromise "*Misinterpretation of FCC Rules Regarding Pecuniary Interest"* There is no misinterpretation. Even ARSFI has begun warning users that have commercial content in their messages. I also present this statement from the FCC, as a response from a Winlink user: "The rules (both the FCC rules and the ITU rules) prohibit communications in which the licensee has a pecuniary interest. For an amateur to transmit an inquiry regarding commercial services does not violate the rules, because the inquirer does not stand to profit from the transaction. *But a party responding on behalf of a provider of commercial services would be a violation, because it would be in furtherance of the provider’s business.* " Also, there have been communications well beyond the pizza rule. These include soliciting donations (for themselves) and coordinating orders for resale. These fall squarely under the umbrella of pecuniary interest,. "*Effective Encryption Prohibition Myth"* This masquerades an opinion as fact, when in fact it is not. To begin with, there is nothing in part 97 that says anything about encryption. It does say we are prohibited from sending, "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." While it is true that the original intent may have been efficiency and accuracy, some of our own ARES groups have been touting "privacy" as a feature, and ARSFI themselves have been doing the same. In fact, it is understood that Winlink messages are virtually impossible to intercept by third parties. In my communications with ARSFI, they have more or less confirmed that it would be "extremely difficult" to decode winlink messages over the air. "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." The same applies to actual encryption, essentially making ARQ with compression as used by WinLink, almost encryption, but just enough not encryption to stay private and pass muster. "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? " Didn't Director Norton just say that there was no encryption? So how is it that there is now an expectation of privacy? Furthermore, I have serious concerns as to how even our own volunteer monitors will be able to carry out their duties. Since ARSFI made the message viewer public, there have been many, many violations uncovered. I would hope that as hams, that the spirit of self-policing still applies. Does Winlink get a free pass for some reason? "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. " This is an anomaly. Most repeaters are well behaved, and 435 is a rare exception. Two (or more) wrongs do not make a right. Saying that everyone should be allowed to do it because one or two get away with it leads us down a very dangerous path. "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." This is exactly what is NOT being said. It is being said that if everyone had the ability to monitor these transmissions, that Winlink wouldn't have to police, and our VMs and hams in general would ensure that the rules are kept to. As far as traffic handling and interference goes, from what I was told, many traffic handlers do not use Winlink. While they use pactor, they use another software package. As far as interference goes, look at the frequency list of Winlink and they are basically all over the bands. The difference is that Pactor will simply hammer away until it wins. It's different from some lid tuning up at the top of your frequency. They are human, and they go away. The pactor protocol is designed to resist interference, to the point where it keeps hammering away until it wins. When I ran a PMBO in the 1990s this was exactly the type of behavior that made it desired for its intended use - HF email. I would also encourage further reading, the dissent by Skip Teller back when the ARRL was trying to push wideband data into the phone bands. I believe that 16-239 in its current form will unleash a never before seen havoc on the HF CW and digital bands. The kind of expansion desired by the Winlink system will drown out and saturate desirable swaths of the HF bands, for what are a small minority of users. However, I would urge the board to agree to an *acceptable compromise* that *separates incompatible modes. *This is the fairest thing to do that would not only allow Pactor-4 capability but allow others to continue to enjoy other data modes and CW as they have been doing. 73 Ria, N2RJ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:26 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:28224] Approach to Recent Attacks on ARRL Initiatives To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> *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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
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
participants (4)
-
Kermit Carlson -
Richard J. Norton -
rjairam＠gmail.com -
Rod Blocksome