NYU Files Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify 97.113(a)4 of the Commission's Rules

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W6EM, Oct 25, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
  1. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Two things were provided by SCS:
    • The Windows program that interfaces with their hardware modem and additionally decodes Winlink payloads on the fly;
    • The R-Pi solution that performs the modem function as well.

    I finally have a free moment so am going to set up my DR-7400 with the SCS Windows program and see what happens. I know the Windows/modem solution isn't a solution for some of you, but still worth a test. Stay tuned.
     
  2. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Jerry, afraid your bubble is already perforated and losing gas quickly. Pactors 2, 3, and 4 are not adequately documented. An expert in communications system theory is in the process of explaining just how and why that they aren't adequately documented. Before this is over, my prediction is that P2 and P3 will have to be completely documented, including what Peter has said he's held back. Possibly even a temporary ban until documented thoroughly. So that competitors can build equivalent or close to equivalent modems. Of course, if licensing is necessary, that's a different topic.

    Peter's been very gracious in his offer of a free decoder, but it gets back to the complete public documentation to qualify as specified, which is lacking. Sorry to have to send you such a present for Christmas, but.........
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2019
  3. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    If the VM's operate like the old OO's then they 'run what they brung'. OO's were only reimbursed for envelopes and postage. I'm not sure how the new VM program is going to work but if I remember right the OO's only had to put in a certain number of hours to stay in the program. There is no way HQ is going to spring for a couple hundred SCS modems, and I seriously doubt many VM's, if any, will.
     
    KX4O likes this.
  4. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Geez, I thought I was on your ignore list Jerry. If I was to take on of my RPi's, run 10 trials or so under average band conditions, videoed the whole session, and they all failed, published the results for all to see the Winlink koolaid drinkers would howl to no end. It was rigged, you didn't do it right, you used the wrong RPi, it was Tuesday. I've already caught ARSFI flat out lying to the Commission in multiple instances, wait for it, you'll hate it, but it will give you something to yell about later. The new excuses to cover for the BS they fed the FCC should make good reading.

    Footnote scavengers, you'll just have to wait too. Here's a tip: replies to replies usually hit the burn barrel, don't waste your time.
     
  5. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    As long as they change no rules.. Nothing in the rules TODAY require any free decoder.. and just because you have insufficient knowledge to run hat is free means little.. Go buy a used Pactor modem.. Stop wanting everyone to give you FREE STUFF...
     
  6. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Never give up against tyranny. Regardless how hopeless they try to tell you things are.. Things are not hopeless! Positive power from Positive thoughts.. And I am positive!
     
  7. KB9MWR

    KB9MWR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well think about this. There is software to decode the traffic with nothing more than a sound card/fob. I am sure transmit could also be done without the need for the pricey proprietary modem.

    There are plenty of talented folks in the spirit of hobby who do write computer programs and code for nothing. Most do it as open source because that allows other folks to learn from it, adapt it, and improve it.

    Then there are a few folks where when you need a hand taking down a tower or help putting ends on a cable that expect to be paid. Similarly there are folks who write programs for money.

    Its every persons personal choice to select the first group, or the second group.
     
    K0IDT likes this.
  8. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    In regards to these particular comments...
    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1207314104118

    "El Chapo is in prison today because the FBI were able to "turn" his Encryption Specialist, Christian Rodriguez. Had El Chapo used point-to-point PACTOR modems, Rodriguez would have been unable to betray him, even had he wanted to. Likewise, the FBI-Apple Encryption dispute over the cellphones of the San Bernardino terrorists is a complete non-issue once you use PACTOR modems point-to-point. You could record them over the air - under standard operating conditions, and never be able to break the effective encryption."

    Emphasis added. There's that "never" word again. Even NYU and Rappaport have backed off the "absolutely cannot be done" mantra given the obvious demonstration otherwise...
    And yes Lee and Ron when I performed this test I did select a frequency with a WL server station nearby in the hopes of hearing anything at all. Remember, I was attempting to disprove the "never" and "cannot be done" notions first to get past them. How repeatably I can decode over the air remains a legitimate question as I've certainly not had 100% success based on band conditions, but anyone who, today, suggests it's impossible can be safely ignored as not keeping up with developments.

    Since the FBI is mentioned, it's worth noting NYU and Rappaport have wisely backed away from their early November 2018 "FBI" reference...

    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1111110314487/FCC EX PARTE 16-239 Eric Burger Nov 11 2018.pdf

    "In my personal conversations with FBI and FCC officials, they admit they also are unable to readily decode these types of transmissions."

    The FBI is a big organization. Just because person A in one office admits they are unable to readily decode Pactor/Winlink, doesn't mean person B in the radio office cannot. His original statement was good for cheap shock value, but I'm pretty sure Ted has figured out he was talking to the wrong FBI people concerning FBI capabilities and has quietly stopped referencing this point. Prudent. Hey Ted, my email address is in your inbox should you want to discuss.
     
    K7JEM likes this.
  9. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    No Ron did not say that, exactly...
    The Deadline for Reply Comments to NYUs BS filing is Dec 15th. TOMORROW... The Comment window closed on Dec 2nd...

    I am sure since they yielded no NOV letters... That's a moot point. Everything must be considered...

    Sure I can send you one.. What kind you like. I have a few old Phone modems that do 56k.. Maybe even an older 1200 baud...
    On the Ham radio side I could send you a pair of Cans and String...

    73
     
  10. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Jerry, obviously, your pencil isn't very sharp. In fact, the graphite crumbles...... Here's the official notice with the official cutoff dates. Now, will the FCC jettison all of the wedge head RRI filers you encouraged that flooded the record after the comment cut off? Probably.
    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1101131173138/DA-19-1130A1.pdf

    NYU's Petition does have several excellent comments by noted communications systems experts. And, likely will have several more replies from experts before the deadline. But, they didn't allow Replies to Replies, so when you and the crowd have a look on the 17th, too late to do anything but pout......
     

Share This Page