New Digital Petition at the FCC -- RM-11831

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K0IDT, Mar 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Newly released Rule Making impacting CW/DATA HF band segments:

    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=RM-11831&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

    Please read and comment. It's a chance to clean up some of the ongoing interference issues on the

    HF RTTY/Data sub bands, and bring some much needed transparency to digital modes.

    Full disclosure, my name is on it. How-to-file comments on the AA5AU and wireless-girl web pages.

    http://wireless-girl.com/HowToFile11831Express.html

    https://www.rttycontesting.com/


    Ron K0IDT
     
    AC0OB, NL7W, K8BZ and 1 other person like this.
  2. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I like the basic premise of Ron's proposal, it is a problem that has been ongoing for years. There is one flaw in his logic that may get noticed, the requirement for Identification by some means that can be universally decoded by amateurs. For as long as there have been repeaters, the standard for identification, regardless of the primary information format, has been CW. I have heard a few repeaters with voice annunciation, but most identify via CW.

    The problem with Ron's proposal is thus, given that a large number of amateurs can't copy CW, the only universally translatable form of ID in today would be voice. So his proposal states that FT8 and FT8 Call stations must ID using some other mode. Probably won't happen since RTTY operators ID in Badot and not everyone has RTTY capability.

    I do understand the need to regulate ADCS and weed out those who are using the amateur bands as a means to circumvent pay for commercial services. That has been going on for years in the maritime community and no one has solved it yet. All I can say is, I wish him best of luck with his proposal, it is the best one yet.
     
    KX4O likes this.
  3. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's not what Ron's asking for, as far as I can tell; he's asking that whenever a new mode is developed, that there be a comparable decoder made available so people can decode what is being sent.
     
    K8BZ likes this.
  4. KT1F

    KT1F Ham Member QRZ Page

    Where it says "and the protocol used can be be monitored, in it’s entirety, by 3rdparties, with freely available open source software" ...

    Okay, I get the intent but what about hardware? Here's my free open source software but it only works with a $5000 piece of hardware that anyone who can afford it is free to buy. Would that be acceptable? If not then what do you really have in mind as acceptable criteria?
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
    KX4O and ND6M like this.
  5. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There are plenty of decoders around that can copy well-formed (as in machine-generated) Morse very reliably. As long as the requirement isn't that anybody can decode the ID in their head, it shouldn't be a problem, technically anyway.

    Edit: I would think that the bigger problem from a regulatory standpoint would be how to positively identify a misbehaving station based on its identification when the ID is sent using a fundamentally different emission designator than the payload data. It would seem that the requirement requested that all emissions be publicly documented via software source code should make the ID issue moot, and certainly easier to enforce(*). After all, the parity, FEC, and other error correction features of modern data modes should help identify a station that sends its call as part of the payload.

    (*) ...should we find ourselves at a future date when Part 97 enforcement actually happens again.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
    KG4RRH and KA4DPO like this.
  6. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ron's not talking about just the ID, but being able to actually see what's being sent by modes such as Winmor or Pactor as used by ACDS stations.
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  7. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    I commented in support of Ron's petition.
     
  8. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Lets get to the REAL issue.

    The real problem is not FT 8 signals being unidentified, every FT 8 transmission sequence can be and are being decoded and identified with FREE software that operates on nondescript computers . Nothing hidden at all in the FT 8 operation or identification process.

    The REAL problem is using Amateur frequencies to send ENCRYPTED e-mails with NO provision for free , readily available software that will ALSO operate on nondescript equipment and will also completely "decode" the contents and openly ID the sender.

    Let the Winlinker attacks begin,........
     
    WD4IGX and K4AGO like this.
  9. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ron,

    Could I trouble you for a summary, of a paragraph or three, as to what you see as the problem an why you proposed as your solution? I’ll gladly publish it in my club newsletter, but better to have it in your own words rather than my interpretation.
     
  10. KB1PA

    KB1PA Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Its not JUST winlink. It should be applied to ANY MODE used on amateur radio. HF and VHF.
    The rules are clear, and this will make the rules crystal clear (as clear as a crystal can make them :) ). ANY mode that requires use of a proprietary, undocumented encoder should not be allowed (like the AMBE vocoder).
     
    WQ4G, NY7Q and N0NB like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page