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: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    To be fair, I think the term "proprietary" as used here describes systems that are not fully and publicly documented. Baudot and RTTY have long been fully documented, so they are not proprietary. I doubt they ever were, as even when they were patented I suspect the air interface (the character sets and the way they're sent) was publicly documented.

    The only part of Winlink/Pactor that is proprietary by this definition is the Pactor 4 modem. But it is not the only proprietary air interface on the ham bands; the ABME codecs in DMR, D*Star and Fusion are also undocumented (and patented). You can buy a black box from SCS that does Pactor 4 and use it to monitor Winlink (or anything else using Pactor4). And you can buy a black box from DVSI that does ABME and use it to monitor digital voice. Both require appropriate "glue" hardware and software to form a complete monitoring system, the functions of which are not proprietary, i.e. they are openly documented. This includes the compression scheme in Winlink.

    Personally, I strongly dislike proprietary (ie., undocumented) air interfaces on the ham bands. But that ship has sailed. Were they to be banned now, not only Pactor4 would have to go, but also all three digital voice modes. There's no way to distinguish them legally. The best way to beat proprietary air interfaces on the ham bands is to beat them at their own game: produce something better and put it out as open source.
     
  2. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, I didn't ask for an encrypted message on the system. I asked for an element of the Winlink/Pactor system itself that provided encryption. Encryption added external to the Winlink/Pactor system does not count, because that can be done with any communication system.

    I've already explained this several times, citing as examples the historical use of CW and even voice to carry messages encrypted outside those systems. Since I can't believe you don't understand the difference, I now suspect you are arguing in bad faith.

    I ask again: do you understand the concept of "layering" in a communication system?
     
  3. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Your exact request in your words. English is my first language and the question you posed is perfectly clear, the word "system" is right there.

    Yes, I'm painfully aware of the layering concept.
     
  4. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    I never said otherwise! I've been repeatedly citing it as one of many examples of how increasing efficiency inherently makes a communication harder to monitor. That's exactly why the rules have long said that "intent to obscure" is the key factor. Make "monitorability" the prime factor and you won't just kill dynamic data compression; you'll kick ham radio down a slippery slope where nothing will pass muster. I'll be required to buy a linear amplifier (for the first time in my ~50 year ham career) and I will always be required to use it, just to make sure you have a strong enough signal from me in case you want to monitor what I'm doing. Would that be efficient? Of course not -- but you said it wasn't important, right?

    Actually, not even a linear will guarantee that you can hear me, and that's precisely my point! You won't won't achieve what you claim you want, because what you want is simply impossible. But you'll destroy ham radio trying.

    After much prodding from me, even Ted Rappaport saw the light. His FCC reply comments specifically state that dynamic compression should be allowed as long as the algorithm is public.
    Try not to be so nearsighted. The amateur rules are full of requirements to be efficient, even if they don't use that precise word. We have bandwidth and power limits, including a much-ignored rule to use the minimum power needed to effect a given communication. We have rules that require us to operate in accordance with good engineering and amateur practice. And we have a rule right up front that mandates that we develop our skills and contribute something to the art. There are fewer issues more important in the communications world than the efficient use of radio spectrum, and it's one of the things we can contribute.
     
  5. N8ZI

    N8ZI XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Let's just dump the Robot Radio modes and solve the issue. After all Amateur Radio is supposed to be a human social hobby utilizing RF energy. There is nothing social about it when today's digital modes (FT4-FT8) require no human involvement.
    What fun is staring at a computer screen or listening to digital modes squeal? Real radio is hearing the accent of a foreign stations voice or the sweet music of CW.
    Robot Radio is nothing more than turning equipment on, pressing "play" and coming back later to see who's computer your computer talked to.
    DXpeditions can press play then go tour the location, lay on the beach, sleep, get drunk and pass out. As long as they wake up in time to refil the generators with fuel, no one will know. Then the money you sent to help fund the DXpedition merely funded someone elses vacation, just like the failed 3Y0Z disaster. But hey.... the guys got an all expense paid trip to South America, and South Africa with a voyage between at your expense and you received zero in return.
    Damn I hope that is not the future of this once great hobby.
     
  6. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    There are some hell bent on turning the amateur bands into a really bad version of the smart phone, not the voice capabilities either, or an extremely sloooow clone of internet email. Some mythical thing called "data transfer", whatever it is, is very important for emcomm. If you could see the "emergency" emails coming out of the recent Mexican fires you would see the big lie in both emcomm and HF emails. A very small car with multiple occupants comes to mind here,
    big shoes and all.

    (For N9LYA and 4Z, I know you're out there)
    Hey Jerry, add emcomm to the list of things I hate.
     
    N8ZI likes this.
  7. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    There are others trying very hard to destroy amateur radio, I'm only trying to save it from turning into a smoking pile of private messaging that no one outside of the link can understand.

    You won't need a linear Phil, the FCC has already stated "an amateur station hearing a message being able to determine whether message violate the amateur service rules". Even the QRP guys are safe if no one hears them.
    There is nothing in the petition that even suggests all transmissions must be heard, that's NSA stuff.

    How is it contributing to the art to produce a protocol that isn't fully documented, closed or proprietary source not available to those that want to learn what makes it tick? Is putting a 10+ year old commercial protocol on the ham bands,
    to duplicate existing services, contributing to the art? No one can contribute if they can't see code to understand it.
     
  8. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you really want to play games, there's no proof that the message you cited used the Advanced Encryption Standard. In fact, it's not any conventional encryption application I've ever seen.

    That said, I'm tired of playing games with you. The meaning of my challenge was crystal clear, and your misinterpretation leads to the absurd conclusion that CW and voice must also be outlawed on the ham bands because they've also been used to carry user-supplied ciphertext.
    Good. Then you have even less excuse for not understanding my perfectly clear request, and you are clearly unable to discuss this in good faith.
     
  9. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    So lets dump everything and go back to Spark Gap.
     
  10. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ah, but that's exactly what you said when you protested the need for perfect channel state in decoding a dynamic compression protocol!

    As long as you can hear the transmitter, you'll have the channel state you need to decode the compressed data stream.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page