WINLINK terrorist protection

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Aug 2, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    So in your language the "licensed person" is the amateur using the Winlink system, not the control operator, i.e., the licensed amateur controlling a gateway - thank you for the clarification.
    Yes, I understand that the amateur user whitelists the non-licensed person's email which gives that person (or anyone else at that email) permission to send an email to the amateur user.
    I understand that in your view, the amateur user is the one controlling the communications.

    I understand that you seem to be frustrated that I and some others don't agree to that "obvious" notion of control and with some other views of yours.
    I also understand that you seem impatient with "nitpicking" in trying to be careful with definitions of the roles and responsibilities of the people involved, and carefully parsing Part 97.

    Well, that's up to you of course. But one must be able to carefully define the present situation vis a vis the regulations in order to document and discuss shortcomings and justify specific changes to the FCC. The audience there is mostly administrators and lawyers, not radio enthusiasts, after all.
     
    K0IDT and WZ7U like this.
  2. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I would be interested in seeing a link to this organization, and how they define "common carrier", and how winlink or amateur radio could possibly fit into their definition.

    Regardless, this doesn't make winlink a "common carrier". Amateur radio could be looked at as a communications system of last resort, but common carriers are not defined that way. If anything, a common carrier is a communications system of first resort, available to anyone who cares to pay the price. Commercial systems and amateur radio have different goals, but they both can deliver the same message.
     
    DL6MAA likes this.
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT!!! (And Rappaports law firm probably did a stellar job pointing out the issues!)

    Just as in 1991, the regulations don't "fit" very well. You can see that in one of my filings where I explained BOTH SIDES of the control operator issue. It is up the FCC to decide -- (a) shut it all down; (b) continue to ignore it; (c) fix the regulations to make what they really want quite clear.

    I compeltely understand (I think) the arguments that you, and Dr. Rappaport are making. It is pretty obvious. it is just that it doesn't fit --- and you have to either recognize that you are using a concept developed 75 years ago.....and trying to say a person who isn't even home is the "control operator". The FCC tried to get away from those implications with their repeater rulings and regulatorychanges. They may or may not make changes here --- won't bother me one whit. Everyone at WINLINK and myself and any other person will quite immediately do what they say If they make it clear. What is perfectly clear right now is that they haven't cared --- and if everyone would acknowledge ALL these facts, some progress might be made. A lot of time is being wasted here. None of this was done in secret.
     
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Who knew? The NTS is a common carrier!!!!!

    What a lightning bolt.
    Gordon
     
  5. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Just because a station is being operated under "automatic control" doesn't mean that there is not a control operator. But the control op doesn't have to be at the control point 24/7. The FCC does expect some form of control, they discussed this at length many years ago when dealing with automatic control for repeaters.

    The control operator is the person on the license grant for that gateway station. It isn't anyone else, unless that other person has been authorized to act as control operator, and has the ability to perform control operator duties, either locally, or by remote control through a wireline or radio aux link. The person accessing the gateway is NOT the control operator, any more than a person accessing a repeater is the control operator of that repeater. The control operator may or may not be at the physical controls, but that is OK, since both a gateway and a repeater can operate under automatic control. But they can't be absent 24/7, and they still have to ensure that the automatically controlled station is behaving normally.
     
    KX4O and K0IDT like this.
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    I know you don't believe me....but I completely and perfectly understand what you are saying here! That is the way the current set of regulations appear to read. No one is disagreeing with that --- but the ARRL recognized that it no longer "fits" and changed their view of that station to a remotely controlled gateway, instead of an automated gateway. (They are clearly fully automated when doing a radio-only forwarding effort -- are you familiar with those?)

    I'm completely aware of the 2 meter repeater application -- (thanks to some folks here, including Ron, getting me straight on that).

    I'm just trying to point out to you that THE FCC DID NOT ARREST ANYONE FOR THIS IN TWENTY YEARS. So.......someone has to ask..."why?" And the answer is fairly obvious: THEY WERE OK WITH IT.

    So something is going to have to give. And no one will die, no matter which way it goes. We will all go along with our lives. We got an antenna up at the EOC this afternoon -- 3 hours of 95 degree 100% humidity work for 5 of us. THAT is productive. Crew1.JPG antenna1.JPG SWRPlot81119.jpg Crew1.JPG antenna1.JPG SWRPlot81119.jpg
     
  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    An ability to think outside the box is an advantage in life.
     
  8. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    That (and the sink holes) is exactly why I don't live there. :D
     
  9. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I’m not wedded to the current regulations. But I think a lot of thought needs to go into any changes so as not to introduce worse problems.

    It might be very convenient to make the amateur Winlink user responsible for any content or other violations rather than the gateway control operator. But that might make the situation much worse.

    It would remove a relative few points of control which according to you are very effective, and instead rely on thousands of individuals to police what third parties send them in emails and from what countries, according to part 97 regulations. Clearly that would be much harder for them and volunteer monitors and the FCC to police.

    Well, what about doing away with or greatly modifying the content and third party restrictions then? I’m sure we can all think of lots of practical problems and downsides to that including serious corruption of the service by commercial interests and unsavory, even illegal content on the airwaves.

    I don’t think it’s a simple problem.
     
    K0IDT likes this.
  10. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm not a good regulation-writer. But what is used on 2-meters seems to make a lot of sense, however they got there.....

    1. The fellow with the mic in his hand is responsible primarily. [corresponds to the winlink client operator]
    2. The repeater trustee isn't primarily responsible --- but has an obligation to DEAL WITH IT if notified of an issue. [corresponds to the gateway operator, and possibly to the WINLNK development team]

    That system in my opinion works well for the repeater crowd, and the winlink crowd has (with a little prodding from Ron & Co.!!!) moved to a VERY effective education/monitoring/enforcement system. I've already published how effective it turned out to be - and many many times I have pointed out how much CREDIT Ron & Co. deserve for their dogged reporting of objectionable email. That has helped everyone. Keep up the good workk!! I even learned how to do it and reported a few!

    No one wants bad things happening, but we do need to move along to more important things. The winlink people could pioneer adaptive power control and distributed or directed receiver assistance. THOSE would be big advancements and draw researchers to ham radio.

    Cheers,
    Gordon
     

Share This Page

ad: portazero-1