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: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
  1. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I wasn't addressing you in my post, yet you seem to have taken umbrage and feel the need to defend even though my comments were about far more than one particular system. Nevertheless I'll spend the time to walk through your list:

    Hogging frequencies:

    I don't know what else to call it when ACDS stations squat on particular published frequencies and will interrupt any other QSO in progress, perhaps another ACDS station, when they wish (other digital and CW signals are allowed in the ACDS subbands). There is nothing in part 97 to justify this on HF, inside or outside of the ACDS subbands.

    Now, long ago the FCC recognized the special nature of repeaters which have no frequency agility at all and must stay on their particular frequencies in order to be useful. Accordingly they implemented the "coordination" of repeater frequencies, which does give a measured amount of exclusivity to the repeater frequency. Perhaps this should be extended to ACDS on HF, however no such special accommodation presently exists.

    Blocking objectionable Content in Real time:

    As I said, I appreciate that Winlink has of late been attempting to police this which is admirable. But my comments were in general for any ACDS station especially handling large amounts of traffic from unlicensed people on the internet who have no idea what is and isn't allowed. I am very skeptical of the claim that Winlink or anyone else except perhaps a Google, can in real time assess the content of an email to determine if it has prohibited content such as a commercial message. I would like to see a "challenge" test for Winlink (and other such systems) where violative messages are attempted to see how many get through rather than rely on the present Winlink data which probably doesn't include violative messages which escaped their filters since they don't know about them.

    Digital vs. Analog:

    My statement was: "And also, in a general sense, with the conflict of digital modes vs. traditional analog modes", meaning that the concern over Winlink is just a part of a larger issue which is a type of "old vs. new" conflict. It isn't just about ACDS subbands. Many data transmissions are now common and even digital voice (which the FCC considers to be a subset of phone, not data) is becoming more popular in the phone bands. There is real concern among many about how to preserve room for traditional modes especially if wide bandwidth digital activity is approved and becomes popular.

    Intended for commercial...:

    At this late date I don't think it can be seriously disputed that Winlink was and is used routinely as a substitute for paying for commercial email and sending messages that are more properly handled by such a commercial service in violation of part 97.

    Ok, enough of that, life is too short for more point - counterpoint.

    As I have said, I have no horse in this race. I try to see both sides of the issues which have been raised, and there are good arguments to go around.

    There's no doubt in my mind that systems such as Winlink will be used - there is no turning back the technology clock. The question is how to adjust them to fit them into the regulatory scheme, or how to change the regulatory scheme to accommodate them while still preserving other legitimate uses and avoiding commercialization and corruption of the amateur service. SM0AOM says these are non-issues where he is from, so perhaps another approach would be to loosen the regulations substantially and see what happens.
    NN4RH and KX4O like this.
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, that was very nice of you to take the time to further explain your view. I appreciate that, my hat is off to you for taking the time, and it helps give me more understanding of your concerns .

    However, i'm concerned that people just aren't dealing with the existing data, or are applying logical fallacies. I've presented quite a bit of data --- but did you address it? i missed it if you did.... so could you help me by addressing the data issues and logical fallacies that I percceive? If I'm wrong, and the data exist or are adverse, I'd appreciate your explaining them.

    1. On "frequency hogging," You just don't seem to present any objective data other than anecdotal statements. We need some real data. ACDS stations (at least mine) are preset to detect other contacts. With the currently available software, they don't have real frequency agility, and thus they are somewhat like repeaters. The rules require "good engineering practice" and that is what is happening until someone comes up with some objective study otherwise. Everyone knows where the 5 kHz is on 40 meters --- there are scores of other kHz in which to hold any contact. I have only rarely experienced what you speak of -- some interference happening in the middle of a connection. I think someone needs to do some real objective measurement here. With current technology, ALE, BBS, WINLINK and Beacons do just fine most of the time in very, very few kHz. What is the real problem posed by 5 kHz on 40 meters? Used by scores and scores of stations without any issue. I've been doing this for about 4 years, and I've really never had a lets get some objective data instead of claims. Beacons provide ZERO accomodation to others. Beacons transmit 24 hours a day and no one seems to complain about them..... what is the real goal here? There are no data here other than 19 years where amateur radio survived.

    Wikipedia: "The International Beacon Project (IBP), which is coordinated by the Northern California DX Foundation and the International Amateur Radio Union, consists of 18 high frequency propagation beacons worldwide, which transmit in turns on 14.100 MHz, 18.110 MHz, 21.150 MHz, 24.930 MHz, and 28.200 MHz"

    2. I never claimed (to my knowledge) that WINLINK has any automated system to detect ALL objectionable content. What is true is that a person can ONLY reply from internt to the ONE person who has authorized them, thus making the responsibility quite clear, wouldn't you say? Furthermore the issue is now in the 1:15,000 class. Do you really have an argument here? You did not address the proven data that demonstrate a miniscule issue. This looks like the logical fallacy known as Sippery Slope, where a minor item is blown out of proportion.

    3. "There is real concern among many about how to preserve room for traditional modes especially if wide bandwidth digital activity is approved and becomes popular." I think this could at some point be very reasonable concern. . However, I've been doing CW for now FIFTY years....and I am still able to find PLENTY of room for my signals. So, I just don't quite understand the issue, having published an objective study demonstrating there is NO real issue from 97.221(c) stations. NO ONE has refuted that study, and I didn't see you address the implications of its DATA. If I coudn't find a place for my CW would have a far better argument. The logical fallacy here is called "Slippery Slope" -- claming that some major problem will result from a small step. (See: ) Further, Free DV is *narrower* than SSB, suggesting that MORE room would be left for normal SSB.

    4. It is an obvious logical fallacy to assume your own conclusion rather than address the Data. That is what you did when you wrote "At this late date I don't think it can be seriously disputed that Winlink was and is used routinely as a substitute for paying for commercial email and sending messages that are more properly handled by such a commercial service in violation of part 97." This is such a fallacious argument, I'm surprised that you made it. It seems to be known as "Begging The Question" (Ref: ) Further, I can make exactly the same argument against SSB by merely citing Verizon or ATT.

    Unless people address the data, or provide data, arguments really just spin in circles. That is precisely how this went on for 19 years. Perhaps it will go for another 19 years. I had now done at least five objective studies....and if people are unwilling to deal with the data....then there is little that can be done, and Karl-Arne's dire predictions grow closer.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, I re-wrote that entire thing to take the personalities out of it....but the 30 minute timer stopped me....This isn't about any one person. The need is to look at the DATA, no matter who you are, and provide DATA that show what the real issue is. Data do not demand any certain policy; Ron has used my own data to advance his own suggested policies AND THAT IS FINE!!

    But Data can prevent people from going off in fallacious ways. Thus, actually looking at the data, can be very helpful. I tried in the rewrite, to explain that there was no demand for N0TZU to reply....but i ran out the clock on it..... If anyone wishes to look at one of these sections and address the data, that would be appreciated. Policy suggestions that are based on real objective data can avoid interminable arguments.

    That's one reason i wrote the software to read WINLINK. That act provided real DATA to counteract 19 years of people arguing back and forth "it can't be read!" "It can be read" and so on forever. Do the software, and its OBVIOUS.

    Now take up the next honest concern, look at the data, and come up with a policy.

    you think there is horrible interference from MT-631K? Show the data.
    you think WINLINK walks all over CW up and down the band? Show the data.
    You think WINLINK is full of illegal operation? Confront the 1 out of 15,000 published data and tell us why you disagree or think that SSB or FM is far, far more compliant (even tho there is NO such data).

    Providing DATA does not make you arrogant. Completely the opposite! It means you are willing to see what is really there.

  4. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I stand by my comments.
  5. WJ4U

    WJ4U Ham Member QRZ Page

    wow, this thread wore me out!
  6. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Do you have any data to support that assertion? :D

    Enough, it's time to engage the ignore filter again after those last few exchanges.
    ND6M likes this.
  7. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Enforcement Bureau TICKET # 3184322

    Are you saying that "this" data does not exist?
  8. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, I read Lee's filing, but there's hardly anything new in it. There are some false statements included, for example LZHUF
    is not a Huffman compression algorithm, but essentially a compression based on a dictionary. Only the indices in the table
    (ie the values that actually need to be transferred) are Huffman-compressed again, unlike the normal LZW, because their
    frequency is not uniform. You can assign shorter values to the more frequent numbers, saving you more transmission time.
    Nevertheless, the essence of LZHUF compression is dictionary compression, not the (additional) Huffman encoding.

    Lee is right that LZHUF works adaptively. This has the disadvantage that one loses the "late entry" ability. So you can
    not start eavesdroopping in the middle of a transmission, but must read along from the beginning.

    Lee is completely wrong when he implies that you have to receive the entire file to be able to read anything at all. LZHUF generates
    readable output until the first missing radio packet
    (PACTOR or ARDOP or whatsoever). Only then does illegible "gibberish"
    come out of the decoder. (There is not yet a "resume" algorithm available.)

    This means that it is very likely that you can at least read the beginning of a message. The longer the message gets, the more likely
    it is that you lose a packet and cannot read the rest. With normal, relatively short messages and good SNR you can almost always
    read everything! That has nothing to do with "encryption"!!! SNR is the limiting factor for eavesdopping in general,
    independent of mode.

    Lee is also wrong in saying that the LZHUF compression would not work efficiently because the (Huffman) tables had to be transferred anyway.
    That is not right. The tables are never transferred, but automatically updated by the data stream itself. And it's amazing that LZHUF
    usually already achieves significantly better overall compression than the packet-wise compression built into the PACTOR modes
    with an average 1000-character message...

    And Lee certaily knows that SCS will realease a free PMON for Raspberry Pi soon. So I wonder why he still writes about the cost for
    setting up a monitoring station.

    BTW, the LZHUF algorithm is "open source", and there already exist some plain language descriptions how it actually works...

    I am not sure if just another description of LZW (the basic compression algorithm applied by LZHUF) makes much sense here...

    As a summary:

    LZHUF is a easy to implement, benign and efficient file compression algorithm - really suitable for ham radio applications.
    It also yields good compression already on relatively short files.
    It can be read / decoded "on the fly".

    No late entry capability
    , i.e. you can only decode a message up to the first missing data packet.
    Somewhat more complexity required for eavesdropping (e.g. free software PMON_LZW).

    All other stuff contained in the 16 pages is more or less redundant - and LZHUF could yield a very good compression factor.;)

    73 de Peter
  9. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I can verify the existence of that document, but it may not be enough data for some, even with a redacted portion posted publicly. The big problem with that complaint is no one can get it from the FCC, it's an EB matter now, and certain parties are not happy something is being kept "secret". Plenty of data to back up the last statement, it's all in footnotes in FCC documents in the form of massive whining that "they won't provide the data", and I asked 4 times. 4 times!!
    KX4Z likes this.
  10. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    It seems very evident that the "purity" and conduct of amateur radio is an "issue" in the US, and a "non-issue" in other parts of the world.

    For most global regulators, issues like licence class sub-bands, prohibited message content or language, segregation of modes and bandwidths, baud rate restrictions, interference between amateurs, "ownership of frequencies" and enforcement or lack thereof really are "non-issues".

    There are occasional "outliers", but the general picture in Region 1 is that amateur radio itself has in reality become a "non-issue" also for the regulators.
    This also has the unfortunate side-effect that official support also has become the same "non-issue".

    Despite some quite desperate attempts by some amateurs to appear "important", the regulators still regard us as "unimportant".

    The question is then if making amateur radio procedural matters "important" or an "issue" among US radio amateurs also makes it an "issue" among the regulators.

    My own picture of the current operation of the FCC, albeit from an outsider's view, is that it also regards amateur radio as the same "non-issue" as their foreign brethren, but are somehow forced by the animosity and divisiveness shown between the in-fighting factions, to attempt to navigate through the mine-fields created.

    As radio amateurs we are expected to "play nice" and to be reasonably competent and well-behaved. This may be seen as one of the conditions for granting our vast spectrum privileges for free.

    The vast majority of amateurs probably live up to this, but the "select few" that do not may make an impression among the regulators that stains all aspects of amateur radio.

    One of the crucial issues for the future for amateur radio has become the relations to the regulators. Should they find on a more general scale that radio amateurs have difficulties to "play nice" or are incompetent, they may withdraw all support in the future.

    If the regional and cultural differences really are so large that the FCC has to enact byzantine complex regulations just to keep order, then there may very well be the case that US amateurs have the rules they deserve.

    However, one of the real "sure-fire" ways to undermine compliance and confidence in a regulatory system is to have inconsistent, extensive and complex regulations that are not enforced.

    KX4O, DL6MAA, YO3GFH and 1 other person like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page