ad: UR5CDX-1

Forward Error Correction

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 11, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
  1. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow, we are making a LOT of progress!! You just have to look closely at the statements....

    Ron Kolarik's most recent posting with the FCC [https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1071758880862/Reply to Gibby comments.pdf ] actually indicates that he agrees with me in many ways! He just didn't appear to completely understand the difference between the goal of Chapter 1 [which is essentially identical to the demand he makes in his most recent filing -- the chapter explains one potential means of doing exactly what he asks, under current regulations]

    and the goal of Chapter 2 [which was a very simple proof-of-concept that demonstrated beyond any doubt that there is no encryption in WINLINK (or pactor for that matter) and thus the goals of Chapter 1 are quite reasonable Engineering Project goals, likely achievable.] See: https://www.qsl.net/nf4rc/2019/SpyingOnWINLINKV2.pdf

    He gets them slightly jumbled up in his list of qualifiers, which muddies it a bit....but he already made the point. He is basically now agreeing with the goals of Chapter 1 of "Spying on Winlink", which basically just is an elaboration of the information provided by Hans-Peter Helfert.

    [And by the way, when i make an amateur radio communication with Ray Cook in Florida as part of our net, it is all out in the open, completely unencrypted.... the person wishing to MONITOR it is the person doing the snooping (which is fine, this is amateur radio!) -- not sure if that is understood! We demonstrated that is fundamentally possible. There is nothing fundamental that prevents it. We didn't prove that it was easy, but i explained a possible way to build a robust, working system that could read LOTS of messages one right after the other -- and if you added enough horsepower, you could read ALL of them, just like an FT8 screen....but that will take some development. Rome wasn't built in a day. ]


    Over and over I have been trying to help people realize that the monitoring goals of Ron's petition are merely an engineering project even under current regulations-- against all kinds of deceptive opposition which attempted to claim they were completely impossible to achieve without regulatory changes. We have now conclusively proven that there is no fundamental reason why it is anything beyond an engineering project (and W6EM basically pointed that out in his comments earlier today!] What mystified me is why those who were so concerned about this.....didn't embark on that engineering project? Had they moved forward we might have been much farther along this trail, and Ron would have had his desires met far earlier.

    maybe the bright people will take the challenge and start to build it?
    Cheers,

    Gordon KX4Z
     
  2. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Gordon,

    I appreciate your position trying to remain apart from the mediation fray. FYI to put some separation from the technical Discussion here I just started a new thread in this forum under the headline from the ARRL news report.

    73, John, WØPV
     
  3. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    It's simple; they don't believe they should, but rather that it should be provided for their use by the Winlink development team, or those who have been developing software that works with Winlink. It doesn't matter that much of the work is already done and simply needs a fancy GUI to display the stuff being sent; they don't want to do it themselves and hide behind the STEM argument and how an apparent lack of the things they want will "hurt" future hams.
     
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    yeah.....this will be interestig to see how the common amateur sees this. You have a group providing ALL the communications, perfectly presented. The FCC could easily make that a REQUIREMENT. That would avoid all the unpleasant accusations that some here have leveled at WINLINK -- remember, they did this on their own dime. (and did they get thanked?)

    These are all volunteers.

    My money is that no one is willing to do the work to build a radio capture monitoring system....when they see it is already done on freely available web pages. That wasn't the case 3 years ago when a certain person claimed this was a national security threat. Why it wasn't done then? I don't know. Must not have been that serious a threat to THEM?


    I do believe there is some very interesting work to be done with the distributed radio system. That could be used for all kinds of goals. i don't know if it would be legal in a contest -- but it would give you a VERY big advantage there. Perhaps the FCC already has it? Who knows, maybe someone will develop that just to allow winlink gateways to receive better? There is no telling what innovative things people will develop....if they are allowed to!

    For my money, I'd like to see a 100-200 Hz version of a winlink protocol precisely for low signal work. Something a bit faster than FT8 or JS8, but still with a boatload of weak signal, and perhaps the synchronous timing advantages. JS8 allows you to set your time off other stations, a VERY cool technique for emergencies.

    Gordon
     

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1