Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W6EM, Dec 25, 2018.
Just as a radio setup fills a hole in the ionosphere
I do not care if you agree or not. Any court and jury would agree with me. Every Digital Mode and even CW is encrypted. It takes training and special equipment to decode it.
That is NOT what the word encryption means.
Sounds like someone who has swallowed Ted Rappaport's cool aid...
Nonsense. Encryption is encoding a message or information. CW uses Morse CODE. D-Star and like are all encrypted, allowed, and require special equipment to decode and receive it. Then we have Spread Spectrum which is completely encrypted.
It is KOOL-AID.
Encryption in a basic sense involves "encoding", but the traditional definition includes "...especially to prevent unauthorized access." Pig latin can be considered encryption, but it provides no "unauthorized" access in any real sense. Same with CW, RTTY, etc. The encoding into ASCII or Baudot, for example, allows a cypher to be applied to get "encryption". This is what is not allowed by the FCC, in the practical sense. Using obfuscation codes is the same thing. It's about the intent - I could speak French on the radio - that's not "encryption" if I am not using it to obscure meaning.
Apparently the FCC has rejected the proposed bandwidth limitation of 2.8 kHz, and is considering no limitation on bandwidth. Will the wider data streams be automatically controlled? If so, how do they refrain from interfering with narrower, probably weaker modes, like CW, PSK31, FT-8, JT-65, etc? Can ordinary hams see the data as it passes, or will that require purchase of an expensive modem? Let's assume this petition was NOT written for sailors who want to send and receive email. Let's assume it's written to enhance the ability to experiment with data modes. Are there not still inherent problems, when placing wide, automatically controlled data streams next to weak signal data streams? Isn't that what caused ARRL to withdraw the regulation by bandwidth proposal, back in 2007?
" 'The petition, in fact, had nothing specifically to do with Winlink or any other particular data mode. It was, rather, a means of facilitating data experimentation, which is somewhat stifled under the current rules' that were written almost exclusively for analog modes"*
"A major distraction in the public debate related to automatically controlled data stations, and assertions that adopting the League's petition would permit such facilities to run roughshod over CW and other traditional modes. Sumner says automatic control is not even an essential component of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals"*
To repeat, "Sumner says automatic control is not even an essential component of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals."
So, are there similarities in Regulation by Bandwidth, to the current proposal? It would seem, one similarity is the concern that wide, automatic, data streams could obliterate narrow, weak data streams... which would lead to a call for... Regulation by Bandwidth... yes?
No not part of the proposal but the REASON for the proposal. The original committee report cited the need for bandwidth change to use the Pactor 4 modems pretty much ONLY used by Winlink. ARRL has been trying to chip away at bandwidth limitations since they had to remove their Regulation By Bandwidth proposal to the FCC due to opposition a few years ago,
exactly correct,............... Pactor IV modems WILL create havoc on the bands.
Just WHY do the yacht people need to get their a little faster?