These are all good points to make the the FCC.
I don't personally have any bias against the email-via-hf as a project.
What I don't like is the side-step the official rules mentality that the
interested community seems to embrace.
1. Avoid mentioning that P4 is essentially a closed communication link and
self policing will be nearly impossible short of DF activity. For the most
part the lesser P series modes are already very obscure from that
standpoint. Not as impossible as P4, but nearly so. P4 is not completely
documented, is a proprietary product, has a encryption capability and is far
away from what traditional "open source" encoding methods normally look
like.
2. Avoid mentioning that the primary driver behind the high speed throughput
is file sharing, primary email. Keep the focus on "we need this for R&D"
and debate anyone who points out that most HF R&D for weak signal stuff is
ALL narrow band.
3. Tell anyone who will listen that some other countries have lesser
restrictions. The fact those countries ham population is generally
miniscule, or that the us has a monster coast line, and millions of water
craft will get lost in the details of the discussion.
4. Anytime someone mentions interference, be sure to point out that the
programs have a capability to determine interference - ignore that this is
mostly only true within the narrow context of another P-series transmission.
Don't mention that any other mode is considered just part of the noise
environment and that it will be worked around (or over) through repeats and
spread spectrum.
5. RTTY and CW ops are characterized as "old school" and the digital modes
are presented as "the future of radio" and "catching the attention of new
hams which the hobby needs." Anyone who does not support the proposal is
against the future of ham radio!
6. Ignore any report where QRM from a ADS has occurred. The FCC likely
won't take action even if compelling evidence is presented.
7. Make no attempt to promote self-police action within the user group.
Everyone is an island when it comes to ADS. I see nothing; I know nothing;
my stuff operates within the rules; who knows what the next guy on the net
is doing - not my problem.
8. Assume the FCC will not dig into this deep enough; momentum will prevail.
If the ARRL is supporting it, the FCC will eventually conclude that the ARRL
must have the ear of the community. No one will challenge that even though
the ARRL membership covers under 15% of the US ham community. And the rest
of the ham community won't get otherwise organized meaning the loudest voice
will end up being the ARRLs.
9. Most hams are CW and SSB focused, the RTTY guys are a small portion and
even if they yelled in unison and with perfect harmony they are token in
numbers. And because this change has been spun as a "digital mode thing,"
most hams won't take the few minutes to voice an opinion on RM-11708.
10. Money motivates us but we won't mention it beyond the sail community
reflectors. The email-via-hf guys ARE financially motivated and for that
reason WILL take the time to give an opinion in favor of 11708. Sailmail
works great but it is expensive. A one-time investment in P4 and a HF rig
pays for itself quickly, and thanks to minimal license enforcement and the
difficulty of monitoring, the FCC will never nail us.
11. Some animals are more equal than others... To the extent the
email-via-hf guys drive higher user rates of a given
email-exchanging-platform, the commercial value of the platform increases
the potential financial payoff in the event the platform be sold at a later
date. And what code writer can't use a big payday?
At least that's the way it looks to me...
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:15 PM
To: Phil Sussman
Cc: Thomas F. Giella W4HM ; rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Pactor QRM To The Other Digital Modes
Phil, that defines rude and selfish for me.
On Aug 17, 2016 11:07 AM, "Phil Sussman" <psussman@pactor.com> wrote:
I agree with most of what Thomas says; however, as a Pactor operator
myself and
a long time user I do disagree with one aspect.
Pactor operators as a whole are not rude nor selfish. Instead it's the
owners of
auto mailboxes, of which many run Pactor. You may notice I say "own" and
not
"operate" because I seriously doubt any of these owners actually operate
(or
even monitor) the operation of their systems. Instead they have other
pursuits
and their auto-mailboxes are just left to sit and run. Their only
intercourse is
to solve a problem, like it's "off the air", in response to an email.
Frankly, these people are obsessed with 'service' or 'email' and otherwise
ignorant of any operating tenets. It's not that they're rude. In my
experience
they just don't care. Many of these 'owners' place their stations outside
of
FCC jurisdiction to avoid caring at all.
Just my soapbox opinion,
73 de Phil - N8PS
Quoting "Thomas F. Giella W4HM" <thomasfgiella@gmail.com>:
I've been operating the digital modes since 2003 and RTTY contesting
since 2006 and I've had 100's of QSO's destroyed by PACTOR stations that
didn't listen before transmitting on top of my QSO. Listening before
transmitting is one of the most basic tenets of operating going back to the
beginning of hamateur radio.
So I have no doubt that RM-11708 will destroy virtually all digital mode
QSO's if allowed to pass. PACTOR operators are some of the most rude and
most selfish of all hamateur operators.
73 & GUD DX,
Thomas F. Giella W4HM
Lakeland, FL, USA
thomasfgiella@gmail.com _______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|