[RTTY] FW: RM-11708

[Terry]

Folks,

 

Over a month ago I asked some questions to Dave, K1ZZ and director
Woolworth.    Since neither have replied here is a copy of the original
email.    Perhaps someone else will have better luck getting answers from
the ARRL.

 

Terry

 

 

 

From: Terry [mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:15 PM
To: 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ'; 'David Woolweaver'
Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dick Hanson'; 'David Woolweaver'; 'Stratton, John,
N5AUS'; 'Dan White'
Subject: RE: RM-11708

 

Dave (K1ZZ),

 

On April 29th, I sent a email to you which was not answered.     On May 2,
I sent the same email to my director and you indicated that you would be
getting back to me.    It's been well over one month and I still do not have
a response.   I have serious concerns about the direction of amateur radio
is headed and potential conflict of interest at ARRL HQ and would appreciate
an answer.

 

Terry   AB5K

 

 

From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner at arrl.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:36 AM
To: 'Terry'; 'David Woolweaver'
Cc: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dick Hanson'; 'David Woolweaver';
Stratton, John, N5AUS; 'Dan White'
Subject: RE: RM-11708

 

Terry, I am not ducking questions. I am not in a position to answer as
promptly as either you or I might wish, but you are not being ignored.

 

73,

Dave K1ZZ

 

 

From: Terry [mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:32 AM
To: 'David Woolweaver'
Cc: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dick Hanson'; 'David Woolweaver';
Stratton, John, N5AUS; 'Dan White'; Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
Subject: RE: RM-11708

 

David Woolweaver,

 

As you know there are many folks concerned about RM-11708 and are seeking
clarification about its implementation and very concerned future about its
impact on amateur radio.     Questions to Mr. Sumner at HQ are being ducked
or just not being answered.    The position of the league is that folks who
oppose RM-11708 "do not understand".     You are the person who introduced
RM-11708,  and lead  the RM-11708 committee and should be the most
knowledgeable person about it and the best one to address questions
concerning it.      Please help us understand.

 

As a member of the ARRL, you are my West Gulf division director.    I am
formally requesting that you personally answer the questions addressed in
the email below.    I cannot speak for Dan, W5DNT, but I would also like to
see answers to his unanswered questions as well.     

 

Thanks,

 

Terry Gerdes,   AB5K

 

 

 

From: Terry [mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:19 PM
To: 'Dan White'; 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ'
Cc: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dick Hanson'; 'David Woolweaver';
'Stratton, John, N5AUS'
Subject: RE: RM-11708

 

Dave,

 

I am very interested in seeing your answers to Dan's questions.  In addition
I have several comments and a few questions of my own.

 

We have seen a big deterioration of the data parts of the amateur bands over
the last few years.   The data parts are hit hardest but there are also
issues in CW and SSB.    I have been QRMed many times by automated WInlink
robots.    Because they run in a pseudo-encrypted mode, it's really hard to
document exactly who is doing the QRM.    A few do have a CW ID enabled but
most do not.    While I'm told there are busy detectors,  they simply do not
work as most of the control operators a sailors who have non-resonate
antennas.

 

There is a strong bias at the ARRL toward ARES/Winlink and in the last
several years, the ARRL has made decisions that basically throw low
bandwidth (human to human) communications under the bus and favor the
"special interest" automated wide band needs of Winlink.    Some folks are
seeing this as a "conflict of interest".     There are several example of
this.

 

The July, 2004 ARRL Board minutes ties the ARRL and Winlink together and
encouraging the deployment of Winlink.    The relationship is established
where the ARRL has formal review and critique responsibilities and the
Winlink technical staff responsibility to correct deficiencies.    Thus the
ARRL is on record having responsibility for Winlink and thus the ARRL shares
responsibilities for  issues of:  transparency, encryption, monitoring,
legality and competing with other commercial radio services.   If you are
QRMed, it's the ARRL/Winlink system that has QRMed you.  

 

Based on the ARRL's recommendations:  ARRL RM-8218 and RM-8280 , the FCC
allowed automated control on HF in Part 99.221 of the rules.   This is
really the root causes of a lot of the issues as this allowed automated
stations with bandwidths of 500 Hz or less to operate anywhere in the
CW/Data band.     As time marched on, more and more automated stations have
been deployed until now on 40 meters there is one operating every 450 Hz
across the band.    When you combine the fact that they operate anywhere,
have non-effective busy frequency detectors, they are like land mines just
waiting to QRM you.

 

Now the ARRL is pushing RM-11708 which removes the symbol rate that has
protected narrow band CW/data for years and moves to a 2.8 KHz bandwidth
allowing for more interference.    Once again the ARRL is throwing narrow
band CW/data under the bus.

 

Now for a few questions:

 

1.       I believe there is a conflict of interest in that the ARRL as its
officers and directors are supposed to represent ALL of ham radio and
protect all modes.    The behavior of the league over the last few years is
one of driving regulation that allows for automated digital to run roughshod
causing interference over narrow band CW/Data and more recently pushing
RM-11708 which  removes the 300 baud protective symbol rate.   Perhaps this
is because ARES is part of the ARRL thus is causing a build in bias?
Perhaps ARES needs to be removed from the ARRL or perhaps we need a ARRL
replacement organization that addresses the concerns of all of its members.
What we have is not working as it favors special interest over legacy human
to human low bandwidth CW/data.   I am curious as to what steps you feel are
needed to correct the bias and conflict of interest concerns?   Is the
proper approach to document the bias via a official complaint to the ARRL
Ethnics committee?

2.       Winmor uses B2F compression.   Do you feel it's OK for hams to
communicate with other hams over modes of RTTY or CW using B2F compression
to pseudo-encrypt the payload?    

3.       There a email discussion running along the lines of connecting a
shack on the belt into a smart phone.   The result would be a system that
provides a no-cost cell phone data plan with a estimated 100,000 to
1,000,000 new hams..   Very similar to Winlink, there is a strong EMCOM
wrapper.   End users would probably not join the ARRL, not be technical and
only want a free cellular data plan.    Do you feel that is in the spirit of
amateur radio?

4.       With all of the interference, caused by automated packet, there are
discussions about creating new automated to automated digital contest.
Once you remove the human operator from each side the contest can run for
long intervals.    One example would be a 11 year contest running with
automated packet that is designed to collect propagation data.  As you know
the existing propagation models are based on VOA data collected on
non-amateur frequencies.  Collecting 11 year data on real propagation inside
the amateur bands can be of great value in updating the current forecasting
models.  Since the league is pushing automated digital, this would be a good
example where we can continue to contest while providing new data for
propagation modeling.   Would the league be interesting in sponsoring this
contest?

5.  Winlink is being promoted as a way to send encrypted data over Ham
radio.   Here is one view point that says "From a survivalist or prepper's
standpoint, the encrypted security provided by this system goes a long way
toward easing the concerns of many regarding their personal security or
OPSEC (Operational Security) when transmitting voice or data "in the clear"
over Amateur Radio.80.."
<http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/rms-express-secure-email-over-amateur-rad
io/>   Is this really the way you want the ARRL to be known as the next 100
years?   Are you prepared for the media blitz when a terrorist uses the
ARRL/Winlink system to do wrong?    How can the league effectively work with
Homeland Security when you have created a   encrypted system that can be
used for no good?

6.  Finally, can you remind all of the ARRL board members about article 17
in the ARRL bylaws?   That's the part that says "Each director shall keep
himself informed as to conditions and activities in his territorial division
and as to the needs and desires of the members therein in order that he may
faithfully and intelligently represent the true interests of such members."
There are several of us that feel we are not being represented well here in
the West Gulf Division?

 

Thanks,

 

Terry   AB5K