Huggins Did It!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-3
  1. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    My kinda guy, we would get along just fine. Send this to him in case he hasn't discovered it yet, I've got a couple boards all kitted up waiting for me to get some shop time, neat little SDR, full duplex too.

    I'm not worried about this part, it just tells me I need to work on my presentation for newbies to the topic.
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi folks -- just got out of the conferencce for today. Fabulous lectures by surgeons and nurses and security people about what it has been like to provide care for people in disasters, or just horrible countries, or war areas. These people fought real death, and often at risk to their own lives -- with ISIS or others sayiing they would be killed.

    Since Ron is not listening to me, I can point out some areas that confuse me. I just don't think they are worth arguing over!

    1. He is upset with me for dealing with Winlink: "1. The recent round of comments and ex parte filings from Gordon Gibby,1 2 3 4 on RM-11831 demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what the RM is intended to address— interference reduction and open amateur digital modes. The filings have absolutely nothing to do with the intent of RM-11831, with a single exception where the filing gave no evidence against removal of 97.221(c)1 , other than demonstrating elimination would have"a vanishingly insignificant impact" on stations operating under the rule. The proceeding has nothing to do with Winlink system compliance, " [emphases added]

    ....which I guess means he missed my first sentence in the Executive Summary,,,,where I said exactly the same thing:

    "Although RM-11831 specifically addressed techniques rather than systems, as has been pointed out repeatedly by its author, the debate was obviously broadened to include systems, specifically the WINLINK messaging system, by multiple filers, some of whom claimed to be experts." [emphasis added} and obviously explained why I had to answer more than just HIS statements. So why get on my case?

    2. You have to realize that Ron uses the word "mode" where the FCC seems to use "technique". I understand exactly what he MEANS, but the FCC does not use the word "mode" anywhere in Part 97. This is no big deal, but you need to understand he dealt with things like "pactor" or "ardop" in RM-11831..."per se" Obviously the debate went far from that, so I'm not getting why I'm not OK to respond?

    3. The most confusing part, however is that Ron states in his latest filing, "The proceeding has nothing to do with Winlink system compliance...." [which he states isn't even regulated by the FCC...?] but then adds SEVEN PAGES OF LETTERS IN APPENDIX REGARDING HIS LETTERS TO THE WINLINK PERSONS ABOUT THEIR SYSTEM. In the same filing where he said the above!

    But here on QRZ he said his issue WAS about the compression [of WINLINK} -- here is his quote:

    "I’m not aware of any modulation that’s encrypted, in the classic sense of the word, encoded yes but, it’s not the modulation method, it’s the payload carried by that modulation. Pactor, the modulation, can be copied by anyone with the modem, or certain software, but, a linked, compressed payload transmission is almost impossible for 3rd parties to copy. It’s definitely a feature that “obscures” the meaning of the payload. " 1 [emphasis added]


    (That quote from him is on pp31/32 of the filing that he says so badly missed the point.....}

    4. Meanwhile, the rest of us are VERY aware that WINLINK has been the focal point of huge parts of the discussion.

    5. What I wrote now clearly paves the way for Ron to have almost everything he wanted --- because the interfaces to WINMOR and ARDOP [i just don't know much bout VARA, can't keep mine working] are published -- and my decoding routine will work FINE for those modes also, if you capture the transmissions similarly to how i captured PACTOR. But haven't I done enough? Lets have SOMEBODy ELSE do some code writing for a change!!!

    6. The principle that Ron clearly was addressing INITIALLY was the openness of techniques -- but then others, and he also, expanded it to the openness of SYSTEMS. Ron is correct that the FCC doesn't (yet) regulate Systems --- but he completely misses the fact that SYSTEMS have the right to set their TERMS, and there is absolutely nothing awkward, or inappropriate in one of their TERMS requireing adherence to Part 97....and wouldn't we all celebrate rather than be upset by such a requirement by a SYSTEM??

    7. His foray into common carrier has been completely demolished by others here who simply pointed out the true characteristics of real common carriers....I hope he doesn't get lost in THAT nonsense. But it is his right. There's another fellow here who advances the view of that group which DOES NOT accept all a "common" carrier. Fascinating

    This gets weirder and more confusing, but the simple facts are:

    a) SCS is working to make the only technique that is at all difficult to read....readable by a PC. Check.
    b) There never was any "interference" from 97.221c stations, and Ron tacitly accepted my original research proving that. Check.
    c) Ron and others really really wanted WINLINK readable -- and I paved that way with gold for them....Check.
    d) Ron and others apparently missed all the OTHER systems that use compression.....OOPS.

    Such is life. I think we're finished....all except for the acknowledgements. Ron got (or is about to get) just about everything he wanted, (that was real anyway)....and now all we need is for people to admit that there was never anything illegal about WINLINK despite their claims, as the ARRL pointed out, it is NOT encrypted at all..... and the only thing that stood between them and what they demanded, was a few hours of code writing, and since they never did that....I did it for them. (say "thank you!')

    This is mostly an argument about who gets forced to write the code. So when NONE of the "experts" were willing to do it, for months, and Huggins had clearly shown it could be done.... I just went ahead and did it. (Ah, yes, "you're quite welcome!")

    Gordon KX4Z
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    DL6MAA likes this.
  3. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Nothing is so hard as man's ingratitude.:)
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's great that he likes Raspberries. I wrote the first code to read winlink on a raspberry. It is sad that he doesn't understand the issues. Most of the hams in Alachua County do. I'm starting to get more congratulatory emails. Ron wanted to be able to read anything. People worked on it for him. Ron should now be happy.
  5. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I did try. Ignore list active again, sorry.
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Oh, HI! Good to see you. Thank you for what you wrote, it does give some insights into how you are addressing the issues. The confeence is going very well. I just had the chance to talk to one of their IT guys and learned a TON bout how smaritan's purse uses satellite connectivity.

    They basically use a satellite signal about 1/4 the bandwidth of a home wifi, and to get it cheaper, they split it with 3 other consumers. He explained their latencies and quite a bit about satellite that I never knew before. Very slick.

    Then he surprised me! They actually take along HF radio as well to their far-flung hospitals and disaster relief emergency emplacements -- and use 3G ALE, with CODAN and BARRET radios -- on commerial frequencies. They may have some hams among them as well. So that end of the technology isn't at all dissimilar with the ALE on 97.221b and other frequencies on ham bands....just less interference where they are.

    Satellites are INCREDIBLY could buy my entire station with what it costs them to operate 1 day. Wow!

    Fantastic information. The satellite deployable systems for my county's EOC and for the FL Bapt Disaster relief--- neither one works to my knowledge last that i heard. Must be tough to keep those VSATs going.

    So much fun to learn things so I can put them in proper perspective.

    Cheers --- get to hear Dr. Brantley tonight, survivor of Ebola.
  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK, so now I am learning about BBS systems. I've never rreally used them, but Jerry RUNS ONE and they are on 97.221(b) space,and ---guess what-- I'll wager you that they do compressed file transfers. I already have some BPQ systems running at home and (despite the fact that Ron stoutly maintains 50% of the time that he cares only for techniques; and the other half, he rails against SYSTEMS!!!!) perhaps i can get it to do a file transfer to me, which I strongly suspect will be in B1 protocol using exactly what Jean-Paul wrote 30 years ago.....

    if anyone here KNOWS, go ahead and enlighten me!

  8. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Too bad. I'd like to find a compromise that will allow SCS to continue to sell modems - and yet nobody has to be afraid of QRM. I thought PMON_LZH would at least go in the right direction...

    73 de Peter
    KX4Z likes this.
  9. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Peter, you did everything possible. Some people can't be pleased. Even when you/I write precisely the software they demanded. There =should have been REJOICING. They got what they (said they) wanted!!!!

    Except...maybe that WASNT what they wanted? Perhaps what they really wanted was just some way, to destroy WINLINK (and anything that replaced it?) -- and they thought the lack-of-reading would be the argument that would resonate with the average ham?? And then comes along HUGGINS, and GIBBY and HELFERT....and blow their plan to smithereens. Which propbably explains why they are STILL not happy, and are STILL not concedinng, and are STILL suspicious instead of joyous.....

    But....others aren't like that. yOu notice no one is left here. Everyone figured the "jig was up" long long ago....and left THey all learned WINLINK can be read! Huggins did it brute force, i did it with crappy initial code, you brilliantly turned the entire game around with real time decode. The jig is up. Their major argument is gone.

    And then.....I started showing how they failed to test OTHER systems....and asking politely for retractions. That pressure is likely to go more and more intense as time goes by, and more and more peopple learn the truth.

    Writing Chapter Three
    But now, FINALLY, I have actually started writing CHAPTER THREE on my 2nd Edition of "SPYING ON WINLINK." In years to come, all of the shenanigans that went on here will be read by many people with significant amusement. The things we all accomplished will be preserved in a small paperback book. I'm always amazed that what I write continues to sell, month after month, but people are curious and they like to learn.

    You are going to sell A LOT OF MODEMS. This is going to make more and more people know about your excellent systems. People will always hear of "that guy that made it decode on the fly!" Evetually I'm gong to save up some more $$$ and buy a newer model to replace the ancient ancient one that runs my primary Gateway. Florida Baptist Disaster Relief is about to get one. A fellow in my county just bought one. Lots more people are learning.
    DL6MAA likes this.
  10. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Fascinating little system there. I guess he’s not listening, but that’s an interesting little receiver, I poked around several places trying to learn a little more about it. That somewhat explains why he’s beginning to be more and more open to people owning hardware I guess? Here he is using specialized hardware to form his receiver, an FPGA array, built by other people.

    Pretty cool system! And illustrates precisely how special hardware is often required; If it’s OK to purchase a special raspberry pi FPGA hat to make a receiver, what is the principled difference with purchasing special purpose hardware from SCS to handle their modulations? Raspberry pi was unable to be a receiver by itself? Required the special hardware?

    While one group may be willing to give away their intellectual property, does that mean that everyone has to? Is that good for development?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page