WINLINK terrorist protection

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Aug 2, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Really? You cannot Google "Common Carrier NCTA"? Gosh... you must be aging or something.
    I worked as a telecom engineer designing CO's and a 2.5G and 3G cellular network for a small group of for-profit companies that were and are a LEC, an ISP, a broadband cable company and a cellular or wireless carrier. We were members...

    Still winlink is NOT a "carrier" of last resort. It is used everyday by all stripes and flavors -- it is NOT limited to certain customers as is Sail Mail. It is used by amateurs, with governmental, non-governmental entities and private persons' email traffic transiting through under the guise of "third party traffic."

    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  2. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    You're kidding, right? This link is your argument?

    It clearly talks about common carriers in the first part using words like "rates", "money", "companies", etc. In other words, commercial endeavors that are aimed at the general public.
  3. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Telecommunications Services are being offered to the public. Winlink has NOT sufficiently limited its carriage of email. It transits emails from all over the Internet to its designated users. And, those designated users are NOT just hams, they include governmental and non-governmental entities, met with MOU's and verbal contracts.

    And we're back to that "profit" bit again -- that which you cannot put aside. "Earning a profit does not make one a common carrier. However, the court dismissed 'the suggestion by petitioners that the FCC has made profit a test of common carriage,'" per the paper I had you read.

    Your repeating your opinion doesn't make it true.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  4. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think you have a very skewed definition of "public". The public consists of everyone, not a very, very, limited subset of people. If 99.7% of the population is not even eligible to get authorization to use Winlink, how do you say that they are offering services to "the public"? Do you not understand this very simple concept?

    And neither does yours. From your latest link:
    What are Common Carriers?

    Put simply, common carriers are private companies that sell their services to everyone on the same terms, rather than companies that make more individualized decisions about who to serve and what to charge. The term originally applied to companies that carried goods or passengers (like railroads or shipping companies), but after the invention of the telephone, it also included phone companies. Congress created laws to make sure that phone companies provided basic phone service to all customers on a non-discriminatory basis and at reasonable prices, and created the FCC to regulate them. For phone companies, common carrier regulations included strict pricing rules that determined how much they can charge, while also ensuring that the companies made enough money to stay in business. These common carrier principles are also typically applied to utilities, such as electric and water companies that provide a basic service. But common carrier regulation discourages infrastructure investment and network enhancements. When a company’s return on investment is dictated by the government, there’s little incentive to re-invent or improve the system, which is why copper phone lines are still prevalent, water main breaks are an all-too-common occurrence, and the electric grid is in need of serious repair.

    In reading through the document, I think this is the part you are trying to invoke as justification for calling Winlink a common carrier:

    “Telecommunications services” transmit a user’s information from one designated point to another without changing the form or content of that information. For example, a phone call transmits the user’s voice from one point to another without changing the content of the voice message, similar to the way a shipping company would deliver a package that you hand to it.

    But telecom services also are a business, and they charge a fee for message delivery. Using strictly the definition above, almost all of ham radio would be classified as a "telecommunications service" since we can readily transmit messages from one point to another without changing the form or content. That is pretty much what every amateur repeater does. Do you also think that they are "common carriers"?

    This whole argument is ludicrous on it's face. You want to totally ignore the stated definition, while grabbing onto some minor part of a smaller definition, which would also encompass all of ham radio as we know it.

    For some reason, you are very, very, very, very determined in your whacky idea of this common carrier nonsense, ignoring the damage that it would do to our hobby if every instance of ham radio got classified as a "telecom service".
  5. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Do you speak from experience?
  6. NL7W

    NL7W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I've quoted you what the courts have said. Law is nuanced, as is the FCC when it wants to be.

    The fact remains thus: Winlink and its users supply connecting Telecommunication Services by providing exacting email and small attachment data transit to and from the Internet (interconnecting with ISP's and Common Cairrers) for beneficial use of governmental and non-governmental private entities. Hams and or their organizations have entered into verbal and or written MOU's with said entities.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  7. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here is the definition of "Telecommunications Service" directly from the Telecommunications Act of 1996:

    `(51) TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE- The term `telecommunications service' means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.'.

    All you have to do is make the definition fit any part of amateur radio. Problem is, you can't. And the FCC or the courts won't either. Because definitions actually mean something, especially in legal terms.

    The hurdles you have to overcome are "offering to the public" and "for a fee". If either of those is not there, it doesn't fit the definition. If both are not there, it really doesn't fit the definition.
  8. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page Minutes July 2019(1).pdf

    IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules:

    (1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b);​

    (2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;​

    (3) No digital mode station may employ a bandwidth greater than 2.8 kHz in any band below 29 MHz;​

    (4) Reiterate to the Commission the need to remove, and the benefits of removing, the current baud limitations, subject to the conditions requested by the ARRL herein;​

    (5) Reiterate to the Commission the ARRL’s unchanged position — most recently stated in its Comments submitted In the Matter of Don Rolph, RM-11699 - that the encryption of messages prohibited in Amateur communications by Section 97.113 of the Commission’s Rules and by Article 25, §2 of the International Radio Regulations, should remain prohibited;​

    (6) Request that the Commission remind Amateurs, by whatever appropriate means available, of the current prohibition against transmitting “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”​

    I would have liked to try an experimental 500 Hz BW Robust Packet port on VAPN on 160m, but I can live with this.
  9. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    It looks like any sort of digital mode wider than 500Hz would now be required to operate in the small ACDS segment, further reducing incentive to design or build any sort of "high speed" modes for HF. I am not sure this is a good idea. It also looks like this would kill any digital emissions wider than 500 Hz on the 5MHz band as well as 160M or longer wavelengths.
  10. N8OHU

    N8OHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    If this is adopted by the FCC, I'll follow it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

    Agreed, and it's already pretty minimal as it is. Plus, it seems to me that this will kill whatever minimal use there still is of the wider variations of Olivia and MFSK, among other older modes.
    KX4O and K7JEM like this.

Share This Page