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: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
  1. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    First you conflate something someone else said with me.
    Then you misunderstood what I did say to make a completely off topic reply.
    Now you’re stooping to insults.

    Clearly you are trying to provoke an argument.

    Mr. Debakey is free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory. Try Mr. Barnard, Room 12A, just along the corridor.
     
  2. W4MHZ

    W4MHZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Poorly played.

    No, sir, I am not trying to provoke an argument. Not at all. I was trying to accomplish precisely what we have accomplished. I wanted you to demonstrate your competence with respect to ECPA, Part 97, and CFR47. I think you have done that admirably well; demonstrate your competence. I had hoped we could have done that more cordially but you precluded that from your first reply. Never the less, I endeavored at every turn to be both polite and complimentary. Sadly, you can't say the same, but that is the nature of communications on "teh interwebz".

    At any rate, now we all know that ECPA does not apply to HAM radio except in as much as communications which are subject to ECPA might find their way onto a HAM radio link.

    That's progress isn't it?

    Have a nice evening.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
  3. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    ARSFI/Winlink is a not for profit Florida corporation. It does openly solicit $25 annual "donations" from those who use the service. Do not for profits run commercial operations? One ARRL is one and does. Even the Salvation Army has thrift stores where they sell contributed goods. I'd say that's commercial.
    Absolutely correct as to encryption. 47USC605(a) says that there is no expectation of privacy to amateur communications. Congress would indeed need to pass a new communications act to change that. And, perhaps ITU regs revised as well. Two Winlink "team" honchos have asked the FCC to allow encryption, though, and were denied a while back. (Waterman and Sherrod)

    The ECPA has civil liabilities as well (for releasing assumed private content). Curious what you think about the liability of a "conduit" like Winlink that stores unsuspecting incoming Internet email content on its servers, waiting for an automatically controlled station to retrieve same and transmit the content over the air. Lots of users refer to Winlink as a "service," so there's an apparent assumption among its members that it does provide a service.......and it's supported by annual member payments.
     
  4. W4MHZ

    W4MHZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Honestly? I am not qualified to speak to this but what the hell this is the Internet and everyone is an expert on the Internet, right?

    If ARSFI was deemed to be a commercial service provider then communications via that medium would be protected under ECPA. Now, we have already seen that commercial carriers often make no effort what so ever to secure communications that are subject to ECPA. The assumption is that ECPA (and prior precedent) is the actual guarantor of privacy. The law is the protector. ARSFI would not be any more required to encrypt than Verizon or the ISP and his EMail service.

    The conflict here is the legal denial of expectation of privacy by FCC regulations and ITU treaties with respect to Amateur communications. In my experience, specifically, our guidance was very clear. If the communication we were collecting touched the wire line it was off limits. For example we were allowed to intercept CB, HAM, and any commercial wireless which DID NOT touch the wire. We were not allowed to intercept mobile telephone (yes it was that long ago). We were not allowed to intercept cellular. We were not allowed to intercept the link between a phone handset and it's base unit. We were not allowed to intercept pager. We were; however, allowed to intercept any conversation on any medium if one party was aware of the intercept and agreed to it.

    Given the same guidelines today I'd say that a wireless connection to an ISP would be protected as would a home WIFI router. Mind you using that unsecured WIFI router and intercepting other people using it are two different things.

    As to WinLink storing content which originated on a medium which offered "reasonable expectation" and forwarding that onto a medium which legally can not offer that protection ... I think that right there is the more important question. Is it a violation of ECPA to forward information which has this "reasonable expectation" onto a medium where the forwarder knows there is no "reasonable expectation"? That seems obvious to me but I am an operator, not a lawyer. I would expect to be charged if I had done that in the legal capacity under which I was operating.

    As for users calling WinLink a "service", well it is a service. However it is decidedly not a service which can offer "reasonable expectation of privacy" because the law has defined it that way. If it were operating under a different license it may well be able to offer that expectation.

    That brings us to the question of liability for breach of privacy. We know only one party needs to wave "expectation of privacy" (in most places, but not all). Does this imply that forwarding via WinLink to a HAM radio operator is not in violation IFF that operator has waved the expectation? It could I suppose but I'd want the assurance of a court decision before I personally would do it for someone who had not authorized me to forward that traffic.

    There is another area which has not been kicked around. What happens when someone forwards an encrypted communication via WinLink to a HAM radio operator? It is perfectly legal to send encrypted attachments via EMail over the Internet. It is not legal to send encrypted communications via HAM radio by treaty and FCC regulations both. What happens when someone who is not aware the communication is going across a HAM radio link sends an encrypted attachment?

    Like I said, these issues are way above my pay grade. Clearly the FCC and the courts are going to have to decide these matters. One thing is certain though, a lot of this rests upon the treaties we have made over many, many years. Those are not going to be changed to accomodate WinLink or ARSFI.
     
  5. WJ4U

    WJ4U Ham Member QRZ Page

    [​IMG]
     
    W4MHZ likes this.
  6. W4MHZ

    W4MHZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Lol, yes I did misspell that didn't I? =)
     
  7. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It’s one pound for a five minute argument, but eight pounds for a course of ten.
     
  8. W4MHZ

    W4MHZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    :cool:If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.;)
     
  9. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would stand to reason then, that no one should have any issue with a 500HZ bandwidth, since symbol rate is, as you say independent of bandwidth.
     
  10. N4QX

    N4QX Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    2.8 kHz is an industry standard on HF for a reason.
     
    KX4O likes this.

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1