[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Peter Laws]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc at citlink.net> wrote:

> group. During the meeting, the status of countywide communications came up
> for discussion. It was stated that *secured communication channels would be
> necessary* and that the appropriate (scrambling) equipment was not yet in
> place but was on order. There was additional discussion regarding why a
> secured system was necessary during a civil emergency.

Apologies if this gets covered in subsequent posts -- I put off
digging into these threads until the holiday break (hope you all had a
happy Thanksgiving!).

I find a lot of the folks that attend these planning meetings and
drills to suffer from the highest order of paranoia, perhaps just
short of *actually* wearing tin-foil hats.

Yep, I'm gambling by dismissing most of these doomsday scenarios as
fantasy or corner cases but I'm willing to play the odds in order not
to feed these folks fantasies and go chasing down imaginary (usually
terrorist-filled) rabbit holes.  Well over 99.99% (more?) of incidents
requiring an out-of-the-ordinary emergency response need none of this.

I am reminded of two things, one being an online forum about 15 years
ago discussing some kind of curriculum for amateur emergency
communications (was there a League thing about that?) and dropped out
when the discussion turned to, and seemed to me to stay on, the
subject of mitigating the effects of EMP.  The other thing I'm
reminded of is that in NYC, a few Septembers ago, there was a massive
response that was not inhibited by the lack of encrypted radios (there
were issues with P25 HTs, and Monday-morning-quarterbacking about cops
not being able to talk to firemen, but encryption wasn't an issue).


> Now I am wondering whether this "rail job" by the ARRL isn't being driven by
> the "need" to provide that level of encrypted communication when necessary.
> If the gumment can't / won't use open communication links during a crisis,
> that effectively removes the amateur radio community from the disaster
> relief picture.


I might believe that if the ARRL hadn't just commented on a petition
before the FCC that would have specifically allowed encryption and
said that it most definitely was NOT required.

(Of course, stations doing telecommand of spacecraft are exempt and
may encrypt ... which is probably a good thing)

But I do believe that this is being done specifically for the purpose
of legalizing and encouraging the use of PacTOR 4.




-- 
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!