Suppressed Report Becomes Public

Skip:

Thanks for pointing out that any legal action mentioned is NOT from the ARRL. I am informed of all and any litigation that the League may be involved, and not once has your name been brought up at any time or for any reason. I want to make this clear.

I thank you for your work on the committee and also for your view as published. It is informative and also helpful.
As far as all the other "blue sky" stuff about people making millions, "forced" to buy expensive equipment, no comment. Y'all are having too much fun.

My challenge still stands....come up with something better that will work with sound cards. As Skip knows there is work being done on new systems that look pretty good so keep up the good work. EOM

 

Wow, that is the answer from SCS?

>>>>>>>>>
"Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow".??
>>>>>>>>>

I think that the FCC, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security might have a different take on that.

Ham radio is not a private service.  Ham radio is a public service.  If you have something to hide, you should not use ham radio.

Did Hans-Peter Helfert happen to miss out on what happened 9/11/2001.  His answer is irresponsible at best.

Due to the proprietary nature of the modes, they are really skirting the encryption rules.  At the very least, SCS should supply software to allow monitoring of their modes.  2 way users would still buy his boxes.

I wonder if Helfert would change his mind, if the FCC happened to outlaw Pactor II / III in the US?

A few letters to congress, might start that ball rolling. A ball could run over the entire hobby.

The SCS position, or any position that creates a dark unmonitored area of communications on the ham bands is big trouble.  It is not in the best interest of safety or ham radio.

This is the perfect weapon to give the BPL lobby, to shut us down and get us out of the way.

Headline:

"Terror cell uses ham radio to coordinate attacks"

Guess what happens after you see that on CNN

I wish some folks would think things through, and stop thinking about their bank statements.

Hello, there are a bunch of creeps out there that want to kill us.  Let's not make it any easier for them, please.

The ham bands need open communications, easily monitored by anyone.  That's just common sense.

73, Bob

 

Very interesting. So I can sell "black boxes" for use of an undocumented digital mode over the ham bands. Mmmm, does not seem to be in the spirit of ham radio to me. I am an Internet weenie and I expect protocols to be published for the purposes of interoperability. I suppose you don't have to be interoperable so long as you are not attempting to obscure the meaning of the message.

Someone needs to "fix" that nebulas part of the regulations.

 

Jim (JBP),

Glad you joined us and perhaps you can confirm the status of the proposal. Has it been withdrawn as ST reports above?

Thanks and your input is always welcomed. Keep us straight!

 

Hi Jim

Thanks for posting here...  My reply does not require a reply of any kind.

I wish to thank you for being open minded about the alternate proposals being developed..

Their are indeed plenty of people  working to do just that.. An RF Means to do what you ask...

Please make the right choice at the Oct ARRL EC Meeting..


After reviewing Skips Dissenting Recommendation...
I have a question or two for you to consider..

Look at the first page near bottom under Introduction..
What is to prevent these commercial interests from suing the heck out of (Amateur Radio Ops, the ARRL, the FCC, the Ad Hoc Committee, WINLINK.. ETC...) us for directly competing against them...? What's the FCC rules concerning such stealing of business from such  commercial interests..?  What's to stop Winlink users from passing business traffic across their system, that should have went out over the commercial carriers.. ?

Regardless, of the obvious to all of us or not Winlink/SCS financial interests that are obvious and not just "Blue Sky" fantasies.....

This is a serious possibility.. I know if, I owned one of these commercial interests or were holding stock in such a company.. I would be beating down the door of my nearest lawyers office seeking a remedy. And based on SCS reply to open sourcing enough code to decode PII or PIII ... Who would ever know... Maybe the plan was .. Who would care... I am sure someone will be up in arms over this...

Please save the ARRL from further embarrassment and do the right thing on Oct 16th.... End this conspiracy.. Save our ARRL from this Daft Proposal (Not miss-spelled).

We need our ARRL to come back down to earth, with the rest of us..

Just some food for thought...

73 Your friend in Indiana..
Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section.

 

Hello Jim,

Thank you very much for the assurances. I have done my best to be completely honest and unbiased in my evaluations and observations, and I hope you still find that to be true after all the dust settles.

I still believe the ARRL desires to represent the average radio amateur, even though mistakes might be made along the way. Those who feel differently might wonder why the proposed petition was floated out for comment in the first place. To me that definitely indicated a desire on the part of ARRL to listen to the members first before casting something in stone.

You asked us to come up with hard data to support our reasonings, and I have tried to do that, as included in the Dissenting Recommendation. This effort is not over, however, as I am having a network traffic analysis worked up to determine just how much space is needed by a store-and-forward system. I have already completed my own preliminary study which shows that the current FCC-allocated subbands for automatically controlled digital stations are more than adequate to handle even double the current traffic. I am having this additional workup done in order to justify my claim that those subbands are already sufficiently large enough, and that if the email Pactor robots would only relocate to those frequencies and manage them efficiently, the QRM problem would be solved in an instant! I'll forward the results to you when they are available.

BTW, I have also generated a CD-ROM that contains a new German program, called hfterm, that will receive AND send Pactor-I on the soundcard! Steve Ford has already personally received a copy, but had some trouble getting it going. I have sent him some suggestions and am just waiting for his further tests after his family room remodel is finished and he again has access to his home computer. You might want to talk to Steve about that program and let's see if it can be made to work.

The communications CD runs on any Windows computer, or even any computer without Windows, because it runs Linux (which is free!), totally in RAM, only saving data to the Windows hard disk. It can also be totally installed on a hard disk dedicated to Linux, or on a double-boot system (requires more technical prowess). There are literally hundreds of reliable IBM 400 MHz retired computers on eBAYavailable for $50-$60 each that I have certified to run the CD. I have purchased six of them myself and every one works reliably and plenty fast enough for ham radio use.

I think hfterm is well worth pursuing as an alternative to Pactor-II because it is a free, open source, program. One should be able to carry around the CD in a coat pocket and just run it on any computer equipped with a soundcard interface and pass traffic using Pactor-I.

While Pactor-I is not as fast as Pactor-II for the same bandwidth, since we are talking about a store-and-forward email system, it might not make much difference if it takes a little longer to pass traffic, as there will probably often be a much longer delay getting around to reading the email on the receiving end anyway. For emergency traffic that requires more immediate response (and immediate acknowledgement!) a store-and-forward system is probably not adequate compared to other options that are more immediate.

For example, I understand that Australia requires offshore vessels to carry radio equipment for safety-of-life communications and not depend upon a store-and-forward system, such as Winlink, which is one reason why Winlink was not approved by the Australian authorities, or at least it used to be that way. Another reason given is that it gives access to anyone to the public-switched network, which is not allowed.

This might be a problem with Winlink also. Using only my computer, I recently tried to send a dummy "commercial content" email through the Winlink system to a cooperating remote Winlink user, and got a rejection message saying the system was for ham use only, and I was not a registered Winlink user. However, a web site on which to register was also given, so I went there, registered in 5 seconds, and successfully sent my dummy commercial message over the air to my cooperating remote user!

Hmmmmm...looks like anybody can do this, even if he is not a ham operator (I used my wife's email account for this test!), but I think there has to be a cooperating ham operator on the receiving end to log in to the Winlink system over the air. Still, the implications of this are worrisome. Note that the "commercial" message was transmitted over the airways using ham radio frequencies, to my cooperating Winlink remote station, once it left the PMBO station, and would have been in violation of the regulations if it really had been a commercial message.

Anyway, take a good look at hfterm and see what can be done with it as an alternative to Pactor-II. Meanwhile, as you know, there is another effort underway, so it may be best to just wait a little longer for these developments to mature more.

Thanks for being so understanding, and rest assured I will continue to try to be the same.

73, Skip KH6TY

 

No Charlie, nothing to withdraw, as nothing has been filed. I continously scratch my head when observing the amateur community. We put a story out a bandwidth proposal for comment and it is damn if we do and damn if we don't. We have over 500 comments now and it is virtually all over the map. It really comes down to the individual's interest. That is fine, as we did ask for input.

I felt that Skip's comment earlier was very accurate and to the point. One poster stated that the committee should have been made up of people from all parts of the amateur community. On the surface this looks good, but as Skip said, a digital committee should be made up of digital people. You would not ask a truck driver to do cardiovascular surgery.

This is not a band plan. Many think that it is. It is band width by emission. Make no mistake, sooner or later this or something similar will be done. Communications techniques are moving at a very rapid pace. We need to at least keep up. Think about digital voice, sooner or later we will be using it. Just like single sideband when it came out. The emotional cry that would be the down fall of amateur radio. Many of the old AM'ers refused to even recognize SSB.

We have gotten many good comments and ideas. Will everyone be pleased? No, of course not, but as a special interest group we must come to grips with the fact that change is always going to happen.

Jim

 

Interesting post and comments, all around.

Thanks Skip for developing Sound Card technology for HF radio.

Thanks Jim for answering in a public forum.

My thoughts:
I have several older ham friends who basicly feel "left out" by the advancements in amateur radio, and the ARRL in general. They seriously DO NOT renew the memberships simply because they feel there is nothing of value for them. For years, they were the experimenters / homebrewers who have given us some of the equipment and ideas we have now. And I for one, treasure their knowledge.

Some folks who are not as technically minded as software developers and digital equipment manufacturers feel "left out" as there is nothing at their level presented, except very simple ideas. (Yea I know, someone is going to scream UPGRADE! Some just don't have time because of job, familiy commitments, etc. but they still want to enjoy the hobby.)

I feel in all seriousness, we all need to back up, and take an indepth look at amateur radio. We need to include everyone, and we need to make sure we are not going to totally change amateur radio to the point it dies or winds up being a high tech CB band, with operators operating illegally, just because they don't understand a bandplan or digital comms.

I for one, enjoy good old fashioned rag chewing and technical discussion time. And the mode being SSB voice. I don't do CW because of arthritis in my hands. And I can promise you, when digital encroaches on that enjoyment, I will assume I am no longer welcome on the bands. And, folks, that is sad, but a lot of operators feel that way already.

And yes, I do operate digital...PSK31, SSTV, RTTY, and I hope to buy a TNC soon...but I will promise you, it will not be a $800 to $1000 unit that is a Cadillac. If I had that kind of funds, I would own the Icom 8000 or the Yaesu 9000. It would be interesting to see a survey of just how much an operator could afford if required.

Just something to think about.

My dad had a saying: "We're making progress...STRAIGHT BACKWARDS!" Are we? Or are we seriously moving forward with the greater amateur population in mind?

I have watched the happenings over the last two years in amateur radio with great interest. And I will be perfectly honest...I have strongly considered resigning all positions I have that require ARRL membership. But I haven't...yet.

 

Jim,

I think confusion has arisen because the proposal basically rearranges CW, digital, wide-digital, and phone just as a bandplan would. In addition, phone operations of the same width as wide digital are prohibited in large segments of the bands, so again, this is bandplan stuff, and bound to confuse people. It is actually still separation by mode, not only by bandwidth.

I think you are quite correct in that we eventually will have to migrate to a bandwidth-segmented plan, but since that involves more than just digital interests, such a plan does need to involve experts from all facets of the hobby if it is to be negotiated fairly, and it will have to be negotiated!

What went wrong with the committee, made up entirely of digital interests, is that majority went outside the charter and essentially created a bandplan for the rest of us, which is completely unacceptable.

Also, the removal of basically all restrictions on where unattended digital operations can can operate (for example, to be mixed with SSB phone, even when the two modes cannot understand each other in order to negotiate for the use of a frequency) is obviously an ill-conceived plan if there are no other protections. An expert representative for SSB phone on the committee would have prevented this from happening, or at would have least tried to.

Yes, a digital committee should be made up of digital people, but then it's work must be limited to digital issues only, and not include any bandplan issues without proper representation.

We'll get there - we have to eventually - but I'm sure, not with the current proposal or any variation of it, but with a fresh start. I hope we can make a fresh start and put this one behind us.

73, Skip KH6TY

 

Thanks Jim for the prompt answer.  I guess it begs the "clarifying" question: Does the League Plan to file a petition from the plan as outlined?

And, yes, change does happen and I know everyone will not be 100% happy.  I have gone personally from being fiercely opposed to a bandwidth based plan to being more open minded to the idea.  Personally I am optimistic that a concensus could be reached.  You just hamstring yourself when different ideas are not encouraged, and in the case of the committee, muted.

Why not ask ARRL members what they want, keep score, and report the results?  So you end up with 100 different suggestions.  Some of them will be supported by a larger group than others and if the margin is better than 60/40 then they go into the "hot" pile.  Those that are better than 50/50 go in a "warm pile", and those with little support go into a "cold" pile.  Have a committee (as Skip suggests) review the piles and put together a 5 year plan and a 10 year plan. (Could be 3 year and 7 year since things change so fast). Publish the plan and the support numbers backing the ideas.  Ask for final comments from the members and move on.  

When an organization moves closer to its membership, the temptation is to look at the "good ol days" when something could be done without asking.  If you see the input from folks on the plan as an (for lack of a better word) "excuse" to maintain the clarity of the past (translated as one or two folks making decisions for everyone), then you're missing a big point.  Times do change and these times require more member input into decisions.  Your goal as a leader is to reach into the 500 comments or 50,000 comments and draw a concensus. Is it easy?  Nope.  But that's why you get paid the big bucks  

 

"However, two years ago, our DigiPan coding genius, UT2UZ, asked SCS for additional information to enable us to do that, and so did I, and Hans-Peter Helfert's (SCS) reply was simply, "...not to be disclosed." And, he added, "Nobody has any business reading another's email anyhow"."


Although I had previously believed the Winlink system to be a great way for Hams to communicate with family, etc. while they might be anywhere in the world via e-mail, I find the comment by Hans-Peter Helfert to be irresponsible and ignorant of the purpose of the very public frequencies granted to us.  I think Hans-Peter needs a wake up call as to who those frequencies belong, because they sure don't belong to SCS...  While I consider e-mail at best, semi private when I am sending from home, etc., the bottom line is whatever I say or type over the air is available for anyone to read.  I sense an arrogance from SCS that really needs a reality check...

 

Jim,

Thanks for your input.  Certainly there needs to be change to keep up with technology.

However, after hearing the comparison yet again, that the change from SSB to digital voice is the same as the change from AM to SSB, I need to comment.

I have worked with sampling / digitizing audio since the 70's, when North American Rockwell started digitizing audio with NASA.  So, I'm not against digital audio technology.  It is in place almost everywhere at this point.

The technology has come a long way in that time.  I now have all of my recordings on an MP3 player with 60GB hard drive, that fits in my shirt pocket.  Many wonderful improvements.

Technology moves forward, but the available bandwidth on HF is a limiting factor, as is the noise on HF.

That digital voice will replace SSB, while using only 3k of bandwidth, is just not something that I would bet on at this time.  I certainly won't pay $550 dollars to AOR to play with it.

The technology has to fit the transfer medium, and HF is not a very good medium for digital voice.  50 MHz and above is another story if costs are reasonable, but we may find that SSB will be hard to replace on HF for a very long time.  

Converting from AM to SSB required extra circuits in your transmiter and receiver, and not the addition of external equipment that costs more then your transmitter and receiver.  The argument is Apples and Oranges.

I'm sorry, but I think this is a radio hobby, and not a computer hobby that has radios involved.

Computers are a part of the radio hobby.  Digital is a method of creating new modes, but may not be better then analog modes on HF for a long time.

We don't need to change just for the sake of change.

73,  Bob

 

Please explain this amazing statement.

 

The implication is obvious.  Abandoning the ARRL over some single issue, or even a huge group of issues, makes a $39 statement that cannot be measured by the ARRL.  Going from 173,462 members to 173,461 (or whatever the numbers are) would go completely unnoticed.  As a group, a rush to flee the ARRL would cause significant damage to those of us (members) who care enough to participate in the dialogue and work to make the ARRL's purpose efficient and effective for all involved.

Chosing to abandon the only game in town, for any reason, is beyond all logic.  If all dissenting views disappear from the dialogue by becoming non-members in an attempt to "make a statement," how in the world can these same dissenters expect any favorable outcome to their goals?

 

I think that the head scratching is a result of not understanding the amateur population. I too was baffled at the opposition to bandwidth segregation until I started looking at the prosecutorial history of many of the sections of part 97. Once you look at the history of how we ended up where we are today with respect to part 97, one can understand the opinions and "conspiracy theories" that exist.

Most of the controversies in the amateur community that I hear about today are the result of poor public relations. For the ARRL the task is to understand your membership and understand the "rest of the amateur population". Making decisions based on the consensus of the population will lead to more marginal “technical” solutions, but the trade off is that the solutions will be more democratic. The latter seems to be the course that the FCC wants to travel today. To their credit, they want to find consensus in the amateur radio community. I think it is the job of the ARRL to find that consensus.

One comment on bandwidth vs. mode segregation in the 80 through 10 meter bands. The current part 97 rules are very generous when it comes to experimenting with a particular mode on a particular frequency. A problem surfaces when you try to mix modes on a particular frequency during a QSO. Where mode mixing has been very successful for many years is during SSTV QSO's. Why not allow mode mixing for other modes and frequencies? Communicaitons today is moving toward a mixture of modes (multi-media) to provide complete messages. How do we move toward this type of communication in the 80 through 10 meter bands?

73,

Mark N5RFX