[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Jeff Blaine]

My apologies to the board - I meant 2005, not 1995 in my prior email.  Sorry 
for the confusion.

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

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jeff Blaine
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:55 AM
To: Kok Chen
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

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