ad: Schulman-1

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: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    What systems? What groups? If you're referring to amateur radio it's been a concern expressed, and ignored, by respondents to an ARRL survey, produced in 1992, for the first ARRL Digital Committee.
    Here's the link to it again http://www.redwaveradio.com/10_2219707392a36152_1.htm

    Pactor 4, one guy, with 20 man-years of support, 3 years.

    Turn down the volume Gordon, breathe, think, type, unless you're going for a lock or another timeout.
    Oh, go back to post #1807, see if you can use anything in there, and I must apologize in advance because I left out that I also hate emcomm.
     
  2. KG4OPX

    KG4OPX Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is an encrypted MARS message. MARS uses keys like this and Index 5 represents MAY.
     
  3. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks, I knew that already and the problem was handled. It got on to the "system" because of one email address in the cc: list, lousy scanning and security.
     
  4. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    The only record I require is as follows:

    1. The statement by SCS that their modems can operate in a Pactor 4 monitor mode.
    2. The fact that everything in the Winlink system that rides on top of P4 (or whatever modem is in use) is openly documented and published.
    3. That there are no explicit encryption algorithms in either P4 or Winlink.

    As a person experienced in digital radio communications, this tells me everything I need to know to conclude that Winlink can be monitored off-air. I don't have to actually do it to reasonably draw this conclusion. I have more important things to do with my time. (I'd have even more time if I didn't have to shoot down ill-advised FCC rulemakings that seriously threaten the future of ham radio..sigh...)
    So you agree with me: it can be done. (Note: it's a common misconception that secret 3-letter agencies are immune to the laws of physics and mathematics the rest of us must obey. They aren't.)
    You just agreed that monitoring is not only possible, that it in fact almost certainly already exists. And you say you're not looking for a free handout. So what's your problem? If you don't want to do the work, there already is a free alternative (a network message log available on the web) that you must admit works far better than any off-air monitoring station that couldn't possibly hear all the traffic simply because of propagation.
     
  5. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    So it wasn't even a real problem, huh?
     
  6. KA9Q

    KA9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    My main retirement project is helping high school and college students into the hobby. I teach them the basics, show them what's out there (and what could be out there, if they'd like to create it) and let them choose. I'm not going to tell them how they should or shouldn't use ham radio. Personally, I'm not particularly excited by contesting or DXing. They just turn the amateur bands into extremely sloooow clones of the Internet "ping" command. It's just high tech stamp collecting -- and "high" is a bit of a stretch. I can "work DXCC" in a few seconds on the Internet. Boooorrrrrrring!

    But seriously, a lot of hams like DXing and contesting, and they're as legitimate as any other ham activities. All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to those ham activities you don't find personally interesting. There's plenty of room for all of us.
    "Data transfer" is more than just email and bulk file transfers. In fact, it's everything we do, including real-time voice and text chatting.

    As for emcomm, I point out that it is still the one ham activity that the FCC gives precedence over all others. Personally I keep going back and forth on whether ham radio can still play a meaningful role in this area. But we won't have a prayer of doing so without also aggressively pushing the state of the art in amateur digital communications.
     
    N4QX likes this.
  7. K1YYI

    K1YYI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Is there a petition to have Trump send a cruise missile to China to destroy the propaganda transmissions that bleed into the upper end of 40 meters?
     
  8. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

  9. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    It would have been nice to tell the whole story about what happened. None of the participants were willing to sign the agreement, NONE! There's more to it than what's in the letter. Short version, last minute changes and additions to the participants, the confidentiality agreement was sprung at the last minute after one participant was already on the way to DC, and another with scheduled flight arrangements, probably non-refundable. Some were trying, the League not so much.
     
    KA9Q likes this.
  10. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm probably with Phil on this. I don't have a problem with those who are "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" as Ron puts it. The main reason is those folks will always be out numbered by the older group who have little interest in that sort of thing. I see nothing wrong with anyone trying to modernize or clone some sort of every day technology to the ham bands. I am all for experimentation and promoting ones ideas. To successfully achieve anything like what Ron said at any major level (read: outside of personal pet project/experimentation), would be a fairly big undertaking with a lot of commitment. Anyone willing to fight the regulations and naysayers, and engineer it deserves a cigar.

    However, I do have issues when it's the League promoting one technology over another. I don't feel that is appropriate at all. They are supposed to be representing all amateurs. I don't have a problem with conveying a vision (I don't see them do this much), but they need to base it on logic, and then let the community do the work, etc. Bruce Perens refers to this as evangelizing, Wayne Green did the same, etc.

    I was part of a technology based ham radio club in high school, that we managed to keep afloat for some 15 years afterwards. So that was the basis of our ham radio activities (building stuff and dreaming up new ideas), with a mix of traditional ones. So that explains my above bias.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: GNOHF-1