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: abrind-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
  1. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    You avoided the part about MARS. They use STANAG. No more Winlink, except I think AF might still for some health and welfare traffic. To join MARS, and participate, would mean a $2K investment for each volunteer otherwise. Besides, they need interoperability, not "border walls" to make membership difficult.

    SHARES has been infiltrated by Winlink ARSFI, and ARSFI has a definitive conflict of interest. It solicits annual "donations" which it banks and gives its directors annual awards. Nice.
    AB2RA likes this.
  2. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have a problem with the words "open source software" being used in the petition. That could stifle future developments.
    KX4O and WU8Y like this.
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    I didn't "avoid' anything. I simply told you plainly that I didn't know about eaverything on which you commented. I can't answer things I don't know.
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page are making a lot of accusations. If you really relieve in them....go find a distric attorney, my friend. I'm not sure I know enough to comment on our i shouldn't.
  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    So I switched to a real COMPUTER and worked my way through 305 307 309 type paragraphs. I see how the petitioner could come up with his interpretation.....but in watching government for a bunch of years, i'm not at all convinced that they will say they are constrained by the way he interprets their language. Clearly they HAVENT iinterpreted it his way, because for the last 20 years he could have made a complaint and had people shut down. here are some of the areas that might be looked at differently:
    97.309 lists several "specified" codes -- including ASCII. Since I don't know the innards of ANY of the pactor, I have no idea if they don't have one of those "specified codes" as one of their levels....and whether or not that would suffice. You need a lawyer smarter than I.

    Then there is the problem that whiile they used the word "specified" in that sentence, it is not defined in their definitions....

    so then in (4) they state (in part):
    "data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly"

    I don't think they define "technical characteristics" either -- so is knowing the BANDWIDTH and other characteristics such as frequency or phase modulation a fulfillment of the requirement to document "technical characteristics" ? I don't know -- and again you're going to need a lawyer smarter than I, because that is a LOT of wiggle room for the FCC.

    I *get* where the petitioner notes that "unspecified" "digital code" in 97.309(b) become acceptable on the higher bands -- but you have another big problem because they haven't defined "unspecified" -- does it mean one THEY didn't specify in (a) or could it be broader?

    So I understand where the petition is coming from -- but i think you will find that the government will make those printed words "mean" what they want them to mean -- and they have done so for 20 years now and you apparently did not succeed in changing their mind ..... so again, I think you have a real uphill battle against 20 years of "possession is 9/10th of the law".
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Lee -- yes, this petition is intended in large part to wipe out one or two decades of development which the Petitioner does not like. He bascally appears to have an axe to grind and he has a right to petition.....but I think he is attempting great harm to the Amateur Service. And perhaps a good number of people will see where this goes. i dunno..... If intellectual property right were obseved world wide, then the german firm with this development could simply PUBLISH their entire code -- and no one would steal it and copy it and sell it from China or somewherre else -- but that is foolishness because we all know that isn't going to happen. So the owners of the intellectual property (SCS) are going to point to their patent application (or whatever they have if they have something) and claim that THAT is sufficient public technical documentation. And if a government gave them any sort of protection....that is going to be a pretty strong argument in a court. And if you try to take it away...then you run into the Takings clause not only for the users, but for the company as well. So I think this is fraught with therefore the FCC is unlikely to touch it with a 50 meter pole. Just my opinion! Cheers, gordon
    WU8Y likes this.
  7. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not really, since the vast majority of new modes in use on HF in the past 20 years have open source implementations now, and some have never been available any other way.
    AB2RA, N7TWM and KK5JY like this.
  8. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    That may be true, however, why would the software need to be "open source" if it is only there to provide a decoding mechanism? Couldn't a "proprietary software" that is available for free do the same thing? For example, Adobe Acrobat is a proprietary software, but it is available for free. It allows a user to read a PDF file. Why would the source code need to be made available?
    KX4O, KO4MI and WU8Y like this.
  9. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    So that people can see the internals of how something works, among other reasons. Not everyone wants to simply read a plain text description of how a mode works with only small snippets of code sprinkled throughout the document, as is the case with the various documents that describe how the various versions of Pactor work.
    AB2RA likes this.
  10. WE4B

    WE4B Ham Member QRZ Page

    Acrobat is not free.
    K4AGO and AB2RA like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page