Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

If the intention of modifying 97.309 is to allow encryption, the ARRL forgot to delete 97.113(a)(4)

The only exception to the obscuring clause that I am aware of is 97.211(b)

To allow a station to transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning, it must be specifically authorized. My guess, and this is only a guess, the ARRL is not looking to allow encryption as much as it is trying to get away from the requirement to enumerate specific codes that are authorized. Pactor III immediately comes to mind.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

I see, and having summarily dismissed any comment that disagrees with your opinion, you pound your chest and declare victory. Small matter to you that the comments against this proposal far outnumbered those supporting it.

Larry, arguing with you is fruitless. No matter how much the amateur community says they do not want this, you will assure that it is forced down their throats anyway, becaue you are always right. Always. You have credentials, experience, etc.

You are the perfect example of the P.R. problems that will doom this petition to failure. Many, including myself, support the concept this petition proposes, that is spectrum allocation by emissions bandwidth, but we have issues with it. Instead of allowing these issues to be addressed, you solidify the brick wall barrier to debate and discussion, and insist that only you are right, and everyone who dares disagree with you is a fool. You've done it over, and over, and over again.

Honestly, ask openly here who still considers and respects your opinions. I don't, and I used to consider everything you wrote. You are far more versed in the technical matters of the discussion than many of us, but you must be right, always, without exception. Your attitude and boisterous manner have destroyed your credibility here, not your technical arguments.

Take it for what it's worth, but few, if any, pay attention to your rants any more. It's useless to read your posts, because you're always right and everyone else is an idiot.

Look at your post above. Again, you must be right, always. Only YOU know what's "in the BEST INTERESTS of Amateur Radio", everyone else is a moron.

Rant on Larry, but your audience has disappeared. Have you noticed that many of the really sharp guys here who used to debate you on technical points now ignore you? There's a reason for that you know.

Lighten up, discuss without telling everyone how smart you are, and how many qualifications you have, and how much experience you have, etc. We know your entire life's history now. Repeating any of that is just redundant.

For what its worth. I seriously doubt you consider any of that, because you're always right, and everyone else is a fool.

 

We still haven't gotten a "lies! lies!" post out of him in almost a week. I mean, I'm sure that only Larry's version of the 'truth' in Bogalusa was reality, and that all those AT&T people that 'thought' they showed up were 'mistaken'.

Anyway, the ARRL is doing the bidding of the Winlink community. They've petitioned for open access for wideband digital modes in vast swaths of amateur radio spectrum, and they've also asked for the FCC to remove language which prohibits message obscuration (encryption). The developer of the protocol and device Winlink uses to transport their messages (emails) has stated that he will not open the protocol, because no one has the right to read anyone elses email.

But of course, I'm sure there's no pattern here...

Lies, right Larrrrry?

 

Anyone who hasn't already filed opposition comments to RM-11306... or hasn't filed an updated one with the latest findings about the encryption changes also present in RM-11306, I invite you to visit the ECFS and peruse a few of the comments users of the Winlink system are putting up.

Apparently the word has gone out to everyone on the Winlink system, and they're putting up very similar, sometimes identical messages, supporting the ORIGINAL RM-11306, not the latest ARRL updated 'erratum' one.

RM-11306 is important. Every amateur should learn exactly what the ARRL is proposing, and some history on why this proposal came to be.

 

The truly sad part is that the original RM-11306 will put Winlink right smack dab in with SSB. If the Winlink people think the flack they catch today from the RTTY/data/CW people is bad when they generate interference, just wait until SSB begins to see it as well.

The Winlink people may think this proposal is their salvation but that is only because of the echo chamber they live in where everyone agrees with them.

My guess is that if they get what they want it will ultimately doom them. Cie le vie!

tim ab0wr

 

Who cares about other countries for United States hams? This is what we are talking about Larry. Let the hams in those countries worry about their emcomm and we worry about ours. You keep saying that SATCOM is not available in other countries but I bet you it is in ours. You keep dodging the issue of other modes being more efficient then your precious winlink. The problem is winlink is duplicating efforts of other commercial offerings and that is in direct violation of Part 97.

Here is the part in case you forgot it.

§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this Part;

(2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;

(3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer. Amateur operators may, however, notify other amateur operators of the availability for sale or trade of apparatus normally used in an amateur station, provided that such activity is not conducted on a regular basis;

(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;

(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

Now if that does not show that winlink is breaking the rules then I do not know what is. Also look at #4 as well. How are we to know this stuff is being transmitted when we cannot monitor it because SCS refuses to open up their protocol?

Larry I am not making up these rules but you seem to be making up a lot of things here that make no sense what so ever. Quit talking about other governments and worry about ours for a change.

 

How does it work ? Does the ARRL run the membership or do the members run the ARRL?