ARRL report - No Consensus Reached for FCC on “Symbol Rate” Issues

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0PV, Jul 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
  1. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    This certainly deserves further research. I'll go ask the sail mail crowd, but I'm not too sure I will find anyone who really knows how stuff works under the hood.
  2. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not just embarrassing... essential. Why? Read on.
    Indeed we have prevailed uncloaking Winlink, but guess what... Winleaked data still carries an expectation of privacy inherited from the Internet side... even if transmitted with good ol' AX.25 in the open. Funny this... after all our discussions.

    Moral of the story... don't expose confidential details even if you receive them over the air or you just might be partly responsible for resulting damages.

    Moral of the story #2... any "Internet" email to radio interface likely places the transmitting station in legal peril and in the liability chain. Ug!
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
    DL6MAA and K0IDT like this.
  3. NL7W

    NL7W Ham Member QRZ Page

    And of course, Amateur Radio to Internet email gateways should be verboten -- kaput.
    Thee end.
    K0IDT likes this.
  4. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sailmail only uses PACTOR. Winlink is a multi-mode system, that is the big challenge for them now regarding compression.
    I well remember the time when LZHUF was not used. Monitoring Winlink even with a plain terminal software was fun.
    But time goes on - and things are generally more complex than they used to be. LZHUF now can be monitored due to latest
    efforts. It is not a perfect solution - but from a pragmatic point of view, it is OK for me now. It's MUCH better than the previous
    situation, ie having absolutely no appropriate software for monitoring LZHUF. Please wait another few days for PMON for
    Raspberry Pi, then you easily can try out if it it is at least sufficient for avoiding abuse of the system and finding out who
    is causing QRM. We just want to settle this issue. I would rather develop new algrithms (it is still my passion, even after 30
    years) than arguing on LZHUF. As I said, I can understand the critics - but the situation has improved, and you should not
    ignore that.

    73 de Peter
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
    W6EM likes this.
  5. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    "verboten" sounds so familiar as well as "kaput(t)". :D
    I would not be such rigorous. But I also think that the direction Internet->HF radio is a critical point.
    Ultimately, however, the radio amateur is still responsible to whom he writes. I use Winlink almost
    exclusively to email other radio amateurs.

    73 de Peter
  6. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for this.
    Interesting NYU document. Excerpt...

    "ARSFI/Winlink refuses to adopt standard signaling codes as stipulated in Sec. 97.309, and relies on automatic-request-query (ARQ) and dynamic compression to provide obscured messages in the Amateur Radio Service. Even if certain protocols are “claimed” to be published, the implementation of Winlink’s ARQ/adaptive compression with its data modes makes it virtually impossible for 3rd parties to intercept messages for meaning (See: McVey, Rappaport). (Sec. 97.309, Sec. 97.113)."

    Emphasis added.

    As laughably ridiculous this statement is in October 2019, at least they added the word "virtually" to "impossible" to not show 100% lack of technical prowess given this year's achievements (See: Huggins, Libby, Helfert). Gone are the words "effectively encrypted" as well. A daring attempt to save face. Too bad as a lot of the non technical points have merit (I'm very concerned about 3rd party traffic for example), but it's clear NYU et. al. are in CYA mode on the technical portion of this debate. Kind of sad really.

    Excerpt two...

    "Where Possible, Winlink International ACDS sub bands should be in Sync with US ACDS Sub Bands"

    Who says we (US) get to drive the world? Why not the reverse?

    Excerpt three...

    "Only when “Over the Air” Data Transparency is clarified by FCC, and Section 97.221(c) is eliminated to keep ACDS “open” and contained within ACDS sub bands (as proposed in RM-11831), would it be reasonable to replace the 300 baud limit with a 2.8 kHz data bandwidth limit in the ACDS sub bands only."

    Holding relief from baud rate antiquity hostage are we... especially when the 300 baud limit limits nothing due to multi-tone modes?
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
    DL6MAA likes this.
  9. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Seems to me that their agenda was quite vague. One of the goals that was approved by the full board and went missing in attorney Siddall's filing was all >500Hz bandwidth digital to be limited to ACDS segments. I'm pretty sure that they found out from staffers that that was one of the goals of the Ex Parte group's meeting correct that "little" omission if the 300 baud limit is lifted.
  10. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    I really wish the FCC would put this top bed.
    I grow tired of the foolishness!

    73 Jerry N9LYA
    DL6MAA likes this.

Share This Page