[RTTY] - "Freely available software"

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Absolutely not the case ... the FCC can prohibit the use of any
protocol and/or any modulation system for any reason.  If they
wanted to require Amateurs in the US to use only International
Morse in the English language they could do exactly that.

Further, they have in the past prohibited the user of certain
signaling systems ... I’ve been licensed long enough to remember
when the ONLY RTTY permitted was BAUDOT ... eight bit codes were
not permitted.

It is far better to prohibit modulation and coding that is of
real value only to commercial interests who want to protect
their revenue stream and the privacy of their semi-commercial
users that allow the amateur service to become just another
mobile service.

Sorry, if this proposal gores your personal ox ... but the
Amateur HF spectrum is much like the National Parks and it
should not have interstate highways cut into it for the benefit
of commercial interests.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV



> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Henry [mailto:ka3hsw at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:45 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: - "Freely available software"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <k4ik at subich.com>
> To: "'George Henry'" <ka3hsw at earthlink.net>; <rtty at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments
>
>
> > I am simply saying that in order for the Amateur Service to
> > be effectively self- (or peer-) policing, the Commission has
> > every right (and the duty) to permit the use of only protocols
> > and modulation for which freely available software is available.
> >
>
> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
> You seem to be forgetting that amateur radio is an
> INTERNATIONAL hobby...
> The requirement that digital protocols be publicly documented
> is an ITU
> rule, echoed in the FCC rules.  ONLY the ITU can impose a
> rule which is
> binding on ALL amateurs.  The Federal Communications
> Commission has NO
> authority under international law to regulate the actions of amateurs
> outside of the U.S.
>
> FACT:  Virtually every new digital protocol introduced in the
> last several
> years came from non-US hams.
> FACT:  Virtually all of the software for decoding said protocols was
> developed by non-US hams.
>
> Therefore, what you are proposing is both impossible, and impractical.
>
>
> > If a manufacturer believes a market exists for his product, he
> > will must make the software available in order to sell his
> > product into the amateur market.  If he is not willing to make
> > software available to support use of the product/protocol - it
> > has no place on the amateur bands.
> >
>
> And it is ENTIRELY UP TO THEM to decide whether to supply
> that market for
> free, or
> for a price, and NOT up to the FCC.  (And, given all the
> recent free trade
> agreements and
> digital copyright treaties meant to foster technological
> development, no way
> will the ITU
> go there, either!)
>
>
> > There is no "taking" involved ... simply a requirement that all
> > protocols/modulation methods can be freely monitored by the
> > average amateur.  To do otherwise would risk permanent damage
> > to the Amateur Service and particularly the HF allocations.  It
> > would be tantamount to turning large sections of Yellowstone
> > or Grand Teton National Park into a "private club" where anything
> > goes and the rest of the public are locked out.
> >
>
> Sorry....  THE FCC CANNOT DO WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.
>
> PERIOD!
>
>
>
>
>