[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Jeff Blaine]

I guess this is the thing that has me curious - the end user.  All the years 
I've been a ham (40?), the rule was that communications could not be 
encrypted.  That communication was primarily point to point and for the 
benefit of the hams.  That the language could not be a code type but was an 
international type.  I guess mixed in there was a war-time tradition of 
handling message traffic.

If the push for pactor/winlink is really about email (which despite the 
alternative emcom use claims, email seems to be at the root), that does not 
really fit in with the traditional ham use of the bands.  There are 
commercial services for email via radio.  Opening up the digital bands so 
guys could play around with that mode does make sense, but only if it's an 
open sourced format.  I don't use SSTV, for example, but I respect the 
subgroup of hams who appreciate it and like it.

The real issue that seems to make this approach fall into the "wrong" 
category is that the mode seems to be focused on enabling the ham bands to 
service unrelated parties to the communications.  email is a commercial 
venture and does not seem to be a logical extension of the traditional ham 
use as 1) the volume of data in an email is HUGE HUGE compared to the 
efficient com of even your rag-chewing guy and 2) the station serving as the 
hub is simply a relay to another point.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Kok Chen
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:01 AM
To: Jeff Blaine
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

On Nov 22, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:

> As I look back at this topic, the ARRL actions and the arguments seen here 
> are about the same ones as in 1995, but at that time, the winlink/pactor 
> intention was a bit more obvious.  This time it's a very low key 
> operation...


Jeff,

It is low key, but either (1) they are naive, or (2) they think *we* are 
naive.

I encourage everyone to take a *close* look at ARRL's petition, as filed.

http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition%20for%20Rule%20Making%20AS-FILED%2011%2015%202013.pdf

(As with reading patents, where you can skip all the prior-art and stuff and 
jump directly to Claims.  In the case of this petition, you can jump past 
all the lawyer talk and go directly to see the proposed changes. That is the 
part that will affect us in the future, not the explanations and 
justifications.)

Specifically, go to near the end of the manuscript, where the proposed 
change to 97.307 (f) (3) are listed.  First...

(A) they removed the requirement that specific digital codes need to be 
used, by adding a sentence that allows unpublished codes (see 97.309(b)) to 
be used on Amateur bands!

Currently (before petition), you have to adhere to 97.309(a), which states 
that the code used in a digital transmission must be either Baudot, ASCII, 
Amtor (which is a 7 bit extension of Baudot), or if it is none of these, the 
code has to be *publicly documented* (emphasis mine).

This makes PSK31 Varicode, DominoEX Varicode, etc also legit.  While keeps 
proprietary codes prohibited.

Modern proprietary codes are basically the same as encryption -- they are 
usually weak encryption but nevertheless protected by the DMCA (Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act, enacted by Congress in 1998).  The DMCA thus keeps 
you from being able to reverse engineer proprietary modems in order to 
decode messages that passes through public Amateur air space.

Notice that by allowing unpublished code, the ARRL modifications will negate 
the protection we have currently from manufacturers who obscure the 
protocols and codes that are use in the proprietary modems which they sell.

When you get QRMed, you cannot tell who is QRMing you.  Interference is 
therefore unenforcible, since it cannot even be reported.

The petition then...

(B) removes the 300 baud restriction from  97.307 (f) (3).

That part at least follows the purported intent of the petition.  However, 
the petition goes on to ...

(C) allow bandwidths of up to 2.8 kHz.

Notice that of the changes that I listed above as (A), (B), and (C), *only* 
item (B) has *anything* whatsoever to do with the purported objective of the 
petition.

So, why did the ARRL include the changes (A) and (C) that I listed above?!

For those who are curious... as written, the proposed changes to 97.307 (f) 
(3) allows Pactor 4, among probably some other modems to become legal. 
Pactor 4 is not legal today.

Before today, I only had the 2004 version of Part 97 on my bookshelf, and 
held back on commenting on what appeared to be a glaring problem in the 
petition.  The 2007 copy of Part 97 arrived at my doorstep late this 
afternoon.  I wanted to be sure that I was not imagining things as related 
to the current 97.309.

73
Chen, W7AY








_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty