Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

Well, well.

My oft-lampooned predictions are beginning to actually come true!

On several threads, I've suggested the next "shoe" the FCC would drop after Morse testing went the way of the dinosaur would be for them to invite comments on ways to begin regulating us by bandwidth rather than license class and emission mode.

It would now appear the FCC has ALREADY begun thinking about ways to eliminate the regulated "emission mode" part as a precursor to regulating us by bandwidth (rather than by license class and emission mode).

All of which means that the day is now not that far off when "Big Brother" FCC will (finally!) get out of the regulated sub-band business entirely and simply leave it up to us as Hams to ultimately decide what goes where.

However, unfortunately, as a Service I believe we are horribly ill prepared to take on that responsibility. That's because many of the Luddites in our ranks are STILL arguing over whether or not such arcane things as Morse testing should remain a part of the licensing structure. Little do they know that what's left of their highly discriminatory, 1950's era "country club" (regulated sub-bands (and sub-sub bands) based on license class and emission mode) are ALSO now poised to eventually go the way of the dinosaur.

That is, even over the inevitable howls of protest from the "Morse testing and incentive licensing forever" crowd, the FCC appears firmly committed to dragging our Service kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

Oh, and by the way…our friends in Canada have been regulating their ENTIRE Amateur Service by bandwidth for decades…and THEIR sky has yet to fall. I invite you all to have a look at Canada's bandwidth assignments for the Amateur Service (Canada's Radio Information Circular (RIC) 2 (in .pdf format) downloadable via the link below) and see for yourself how regulating by bandwidth might also be done in the United States:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf01226e.html

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

A footnote...

In this month's QST, the ARRL Emergency Response Planning Committee released it's report. The emergency "plan" includes the goal:

- develop a continuing education course covering installation, configuration and use of Winlink 2000 for e-mail.


This is in effect a goal of their emergency plan and other than providing for a "publication" that provides resources to ARES and NTS volunteers (I imagine for a price) constitutes the main bulk of the actual "action" of the plan. Normally an emergency plan has a result goal which directly impacts victims of a disaster. Setting up Winlink e-mail seems to be the only one in this "plan". Other goals relate to creating a new position, increased traning for existing resources, developing a database, etc.

Read it yourself and make up your own mind.

 

We don't see eye to eye on many things, Charlie. But on this subject, I am with you.

Comment filed: 2007321819672

 

So guess what this means is I can set up my garage door opener remote to activate a keyer on my transmitter to transmit CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ DE KB0LPI in reverse morse code (dit=dah, dah=dit, and backwards) whenever I want with no regards to other traffic. Yeahhh. Sounds great. :rock:

 

I sent my "NO" Confirm # 2007322882920
After this I won't be re-newing my ARRL Membership next year!

 

I agree 100%--

In 47 yrs plus,--I have always believed in using a
"moderate" to "minimum" amount of power to sustain
basic CW communications with another station.(part of
the regs) as I recall, and have been an avid cw qrp
operator over the years.

This just might all change,--I just might become an avid QRO CW op firing up my linear on CW and just "let er rip"
If these guys want a "fight",--they might just get one.

                           73, K1MVP

 

I sent my "NO" !!!
KT4WO

 

I have sent in my comment. This must be fought. The ARRL seems to no longer care about what is in the best interest of the amateur radio community. Rather they seem only to care about their pocket book.

 

Skip's article is deceptive and misleading.

There simply are no "email robots" on the air.

Every ham station has a human control operator, and there is nothing in ARRL's proposal that takes away human control.

By far, the largest source of QRM on the Ham Bands is CONTESTING.

CONTESTING generates 1000 times more QRM than any digital data operation that has ever existed.

Should contesting be banned?

Automation is a relative term.
Almost every new ham radio these days has some "automation" built into it that hams want.

Yesterday's automation is today's normal feature.

The Vibroplex CW key was considered "Automatic" when it first came out. It upset the straight key status quo. The operators using them had to endure insults from the straight key guys who didn't have one. They called them "Bugs", and the status quo demanded that Bugs be stomped out.

Sound familiar?

Should we do away with Automatic CW Keyers and Iambic CW paddles?

Should we do away with Automatic Notch Filters?

Should we do away with Automatic Antenna Tuners?

Should we do away with Automatic Noise Reduction?

Should all microprocessors and digital components in radios be banned?

The list of Automatic things in ham radio goes on and on.

What's that you say? You don't want to give up your shiny new rig with all its bells and whistles?




<big>
Ham radio must evolve, or it simply will go extinct.





<big>I support ARRL's original actions in this FCC proposal.</big>

ARRL is doing something positive for the future of ham radio. The antiquated FCC Rules have prevented progress. USA ham radio rules are stuck in 1967, while the rest of the world passes us by.

ARRL is trying to break us free from the Technology Jail. Here we are, 7 years into this new century, and the average kids on the street are walking around with more technology in their pocket than most hams have in their shack.

The one aspect of this that does not make sense, is the continuation of mode-based and content-based regulations. FCC should not be in the business of regulating content of our transmissions. Regulate by bandwidth is sufficient. Let hams decide what to do with that bandwidth.

If the early inventors of radio were alive today, they would be using and experimenting with advancements in digital communications technology.

USA citizens like to think of themselves as a beacon of liberty... but the sad reality is, that USA hams are repressed... they have much less freedom than the rest of the world's hams.

ARRL is trying to gain some of that freedom for us, that the rest of the world already enjoys.

Thank you ARRL for standing up for what is right!

I urge everyone to voice your support for ARRL with your FCC comments on this issue.

</big>















.

 

I have sent my comments opposing the allowance of auto-controlled transmission outside the presently allocated sub-bands. I have been a member of the ARRL since first being licensed in 1949. I have rarely ever opposed their actions. However I operate a low power "litlle gun" contest station and I don't want my efforts stymied by "robots". I have a difficult enough time as it is. I don't operate CW in the "robot" sub-bands, I don't want "robots" in the CW bands. Respectfully, Bert H. Cook, K6CSL, Riverbank, CA

 

We ( as hams ) should NOT allow automatic stations permeate the HF bands PERIOD....

If the bots wish to work their wonders , they should stay above the HF spectrum ...

This " e-mail " structure is a dumb no-brainer ....

Trash VHF-UHF not HF......

I filed mine also .... It won't make any difference .... This is already written in stone ... It will pass the FCC's registers .... Look what happened to the code-no-code debacle .....

It is a done deal ...


Sorry ....


JB

 

In response to the whole situation about the plan by the League to do this in regard to the digital modes and operators, I would say the best thing for everyone involved to do is to ask why the ARRL needs this? After all, with email being virtually free or part of your internet providers service, why do we need their Winlink system cluttering up the bands.

Also, hams in general need to get on the air and talk about this up and down every band that way the word gets out through your friends. Whether you operate all of the bands or one band, you need discuss this with your friends and colleagues because this idea is pure nonsense.

Furthermore, it would also be important to ask another question. Why should an organization with only a membership of around 200,000 be involved with dictating communications policy to the rest of us. I didn't elect them as a representative of my views. Furthermore, like a friend and I were discussing of why have a membership anyway.

When I see a national organization pull a boneheaded move like this, then that makes me not to want to be a member of their organization. Furthermore, you can print this nice article and make sure your amateur friends know what is going on. I certainly don't appreciate it when I want to operate RTTY and to be stepped on by their robots. What happened to the simple and courteous act of asking if a frequency is in use. Instead, they will be polluting the airwaves.

In addition, why should the league be able to send their garbage all over the airwaves that are meant for non-proprietary usage. If they are interested in their business agenda, I say that they should be like every other news organization in America and purchase satellite phones and other items to pursue their communications needs. Amateur radio is not the place for their pecuniary interests. If I recall correctly, doesn't part 97 prohibit stations from using the airwaves for pecuniary interests.

After all, wasn't certain amateurs and groups in the past chided about using the airwaves for their pecuniary interests. You will not see me utilize the airwaves for my own personal affairs or business interests nor should anyone else be allowed to do so. Amateur Radio is a service and a hobby, not something to be used for the enrichment of the League especially as stated in the rules.

 

Unfortunately, the business prospects for WinLink are exactly what made it attractive for the group in Newington.

Winlink, the sales pitch
Cite (from WInlink page):

 

Cathy / K4CDM -- where you said:

WinLink is not the sole focus of the FCC proceeding and the overwhelming opposition comments being filed the past two years. It is the method being used by the group in Newington to promote the category of "digital" communications, and, incidentally, a proprietary mode their club has endorsed to the practical exclusion of other, rising protocols.

A sub-set of the opposition targets WinLink's inability to avoid transmitting on existing communications, and its lack of mandatory identification by means that can be decoded by someone who has not purchased their system.

You participate in emergency preparedness, right ? It follows that there must be a protocol to avoid conflict with other participants and bystanders. On that basis alone, today's version of WinLink fails and consequently should be removed as an authorized activity in the Amateur Service.

I should also point out that our communications are deliberately NOT secret as part of a comprehensive philosophy of not making ourselves vulnerable to commercial exploitation. The message-handling function of WinLink, and its encryption, creates the risk of our spectrum being used for all manner of email from the internet.

I hope someone is preparing a Petition to accomplish controls or a ban on any such systems for the reasons described.

Paul/VJB

 

Filed my comments...but somehow i dont think it will do much good. but worth a shot.

And Bonnie, i am a CW op and i usually run low power and indoor antennas, if these things pop up on me, im screwed...so i dont see how this is good for ham radio.

What if i dont want to go all digital? am i slowly finding no choice in the matter? im a league member, but im only a member for DXCC and the buro...neither one has been a big impact on my life, and QST is ok but im not entranced with it. but this kind of thing makes me a fringe member even more...who do we turn to now? this is why i have always said we need to quit fighting amongst ourselves, look at whats happening. anyone else agree?

73...Adam, N7YA