Topics

[hflink] What Was ARRL Thinking article

Jef - N5JEF
 

Whether you agree or not, this is an important issue for the future of our hobby:
 

What Was ARRL Thinking article

https://winlink.org/content/what_was_arrl_thinking


On the winlink site.


-Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA

__._,_.___

Posted by: expeditionradio@...
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
HFLINK Sponsor: Super Antenna http://newsuperantenna.com
Indoor-Outdoor-Portable-Base-Mobile-Backpack -CC&R-Stealth-Emcomm
Get the power of a Super Antenna. The #1 Portable Vertical Worldwide.
--
HFLINK forum has moved to "Groups. IO"
Please join today: https://groups.io/g/hflink
--
GLOBAL ALE HIGH FREQUENCY NETWORK (HFN) http://hflink.net 
HFLINK.COM ALE, SELCALL, and HF Interoperability http://hflink.com
--
Always sign your message with your NAME and CALLSIGN.
Do Not Post For Sale unless you are a radio dealer or manufacturer.
Do Not Post Auction Items unless you are the auction item owner.
--
ALE Channel Frequencies - Text / Sounding HFN Net [kHz] USB
1843-3596-7102-10145.5-14109-18106-28146
HFN net has 3 member slots. Your self address is first slot.
--
ALE Channel Frequencies - International Voice HFL Net [kHz] 
1996-3791-3996-5357-5371.5-7185.0-7296-14346-18117.5-28312.5
All channels USB. HFL net has 3 member slots. Your self address is first slot.
--
HF SELCALL Calling Channel Frequencies - HFS Net [kHz]
28305-18163-14343-10126-7195-7291-5363-5403.5-3795-3995-3605
All channels USB. Any HF Selcall format or any brand of Selcall radio.
Use CCIR 493-4 Open 4 Digit for Emergency Call = 0000
--
This message is for HFLINK forum members.
External web archives are forbidden.
All messages (c)2019 HFpack. All rights reserved.

.

__,_._,___

Skip - K6DGW
 

Dick, N6AA and SW Division Director was the only no vote. The controversial item out of the six is #2 and I think [but don't know] that this was his objection. Item #1 is currently the rule, all ACDS must take place in the ACDS segments of the RTTY/Data sub-bands. #3 thru #6 are just reiterations of ARRL's position in the face of a couple of challenges. Encryption for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of transmissions has always been prohibited. It's gotten somewhat wrapped around the axle with the emergence of heavily coded emission types recently. #2 makes no sense, I think ARRL has either corrected it or intends to.

Jef - N5JEF
 

Thanks Skip for your thoughtful comments. I agree with them.

My strong concern is about item 2.  I haven't seen any correction or retraction, and it would put a huge damper on HF digital modes (other than what some see as the One True digital mode of CW.)

Excerpt:

IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules: 

(1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b); 

(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled; 

(3) No digital mode station may employ a bandwidth greater than 2.8 kHz in any band below 29 MHz; 

(4) Reiterate to the Commission the need to remove, and the benefits of removing, the current baud limitations, subject to the conditions requested by the ARRL herein; 

(5) Reiterate to the Commission the ARRL’s unchanged position — most recently stated in its Comments submitted In the Matter of Don Rolph, RM-11699 - that the encryption of messages prohibited in Amateur communications by Section 97.113 of the Commission’s Rules and by Article 25, §2 of the International Radio Regulations, should remain prohibited; 

(6) Request that the Commission remind Amateurs, by whatever appropriate means available, of the current prohibition against transmitting “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.” 

Discussion followed, including discussion on the difference between encryption and compression.   


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:00 AM Skip - K6DGW <k6dgw@...> wrote:
Dick, N6AA and SW Division Director was the only no vote.  The controversial item out of the six is #2 and I think [but don't know] that this was his objection.  Item #1 is currently the rule, all ACDS must take place in the ACDS segments of the RTTY/Data sub-bands.  #3 thru #6 are just reiterations of ARRL's position in the face of a couple of challenges.  Encryption for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of transmissions has always been prohibited.  It's gotten somewhat wrapped around the axle with the emergence of heavily coded emission types recently.  #2 makes no sense, I think ARRL has either corrected it or intends to.

Skip - K6DGW
 

Don't really know about ARRL action, I just saw a comment from a Director in response to a concern that they were fixing "it."  "It" wasn't part of the answer.

I really don't understand what #2 is all about either.  ACDS are already restricted to very small segments of the HF RTTY/Data sub-bands.  Why they want to confine non-ACDS emissions greater than 500 Hz occupied BW to the ACDS bands escapes me.  The ACDS restricted segments make sense because there is no control operator present to control the emissions if they are causing interference to other users. 

By definition, there IS a control operator present in non-ACDS data emissions who has the obligation to mitigate interference just as with any other emission type.  CW is explicitly permitted anywhere in any amateur allocation.  RTTY, PSK31, Olivia, the Joe Taylor modes, and a bunch of lesser known emissions are less that 500 Hz wide and not affected.  The predominant mode greater than 500 Hz is PACTOR3, so I guess item #2 in the motion is aimed at it.  Most [if not all] ACDS are part of the WinLink email system.  This has become all wrapped up in the arguments for and against boats/boaters using WinLink to avoid paying for email services, many feel about it just like many feel for or against a political party or politician, and it's very hard to sort the arguments out.

73,
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/27/2019 12:03 PM, Jef Allbright wrote:
Thanks Skip for your thoughtful comments. I agree with them.

My strong concern is about item 2.  I haven't seen any correction or retraction, and it would put a huge damper on HF digital modes (other than what some see as the One True digital mode of CW.)



Jef - N5JEF
 

I agree it seems very much like a political "my team" versus "your team" scenario.  

I have seen some very strongly worded arguments that if HF digital is allowed to throw off the old-fashioned symbol rate limitation and simply be limited to the same 2.8kHz bandwidth as SSB voice, that the traditional CW ops would be pushed out (never mind that they typically own the lower part of each band.)  Most recently I've seen the same folks trying a new tactic, making the false argument that the problem with digital modes is that you have to know how to "decrypt" them, and implying that outside-the-law activities would take over our bands (rather than the outlaws using whatever HF frequency suits them.)

Kinda reminds me of some seriously grumpy OMs down on 40 and 75 meters who used to bad mouth me when I mentioned I was a newly licensed Extra (no code test.)

- Jef




On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:41 PM Skip - K6DGW <k6dgw@...> wrote:
Don't really know about ARRL action, I just saw a comment from a Director in response to a concern that they were fixing "it."  "It" wasn't part of the answer.

I really don't understand what #2 is all about either.  ACDS are already restricted to very small segments of the HF RTTY/Data sub-bands.  Why they want to confine non-ACDS emissions greater than 500 Hz occupied BW to the ACDS bands escapes me.  The ACDS restricted segments make sense because there is no control operator present to control the emissions if they are causing interference to other users. 

By definition, there IS a control operator present in non-ACDS data emissions who has the obligation to mitigate interference just as with any other emission type.  CW is explicitly permitted anywhere in any amateur allocation.  RTTY, PSK31, Olivia, the Joe Taylor modes, and a bunch of lesser known emissions are less that 500 Hz wide and not affected.  The predominant mode greater than 500 Hz is PACTOR3, so I guess item #2 in the motion is aimed at it.  Most [if not all] ACDS are part of the WinLink email system.  This has become all wrapped up in the arguments for and against boats/boaters using WinLink to avoid paying for email services, many feel about it just like many feel for or against a political party or politician, and it's very hard to sort the arguments out.

73,
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/27/2019 12:03 PM, Jef Allbright wrote:
Thanks Skip for your thoughtful comments. I agree with them.

My strong concern is about item 2.  I haven't seen any correction or retraction, and it would put a huge damper on HF digital modes (other than what some see as the One True digital mode of CW.)



Jef - N5JEF
 

This update just released at arrl.org:


About the only thing about this that's clear is that it's politics.

- Jef


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:04 PM Jef - N5JEF via Groups.Io <jef=jefallbright.net@groups.io> wrote:
I agree it seems very much like a political "my team" versus "your team" scenario.  

I have seen some very strongly worded arguments that if HF digital is allowed to throw off the old-fashioned symbol rate limitation and simply be limited to the same 2.8kHz bandwidth as SSB voice, that the traditional CW ops would be pushed out (never mind that they typically own the lower part of each band.)  Most recently I've seen the same folks trying a new tactic, making the false argument that the problem with digital modes is that you have to know how to "decrypt" them, and implying that outside-the-law activities would take over our bands (rather than the outlaws using whatever HF frequency suits them.)

Kinda reminds me of some seriously grumpy OMs down on 40 and 75 meters who used to bad mouth me when I mentioned I was a newly licensed Extra (no code test.)

- Jef




On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:41 PM Skip - K6DGW <k6dgw@...> wrote:
Don't really know about ARRL action, I just saw a comment from a Director in response to a concern that they were fixing "it."  "It" wasn't part of the answer.

I really don't understand what #2 is all about either.  ACDS are already restricted to very small segments of the HF RTTY/Data sub-bands.  Why they want to confine non-ACDS emissions greater than 500 Hz occupied BW to the ACDS bands escapes me.  The ACDS restricted segments make sense because there is no control operator present to control the emissions if they are causing interference to other users. 

By definition, there IS a control operator present in non-ACDS data emissions who has the obligation to mitigate interference just as with any other emission type.  CW is explicitly permitted anywhere in any amateur allocation.  RTTY, PSK31, Olivia, the Joe Taylor modes, and a bunch of lesser known emissions are less that 500 Hz wide and not affected.  The predominant mode greater than 500 Hz is PACTOR3, so I guess item #2 in the motion is aimed at it.  Most [if not all] ACDS are part of the WinLink email system.  This has become all wrapped up in the arguments for and against boats/boaters using WinLink to avoid paying for email services, many feel about it just like many feel for or against a political party or politician, and it's very hard to sort the arguments out.

73,
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/27/2019 12:03 PM, Jef Allbright wrote:
Thanks Skip for your thoughtful comments. I agree with them.

My strong concern is about item 2.  I haven't seen any correction or retraction, and it would put a huge damper on HF digital modes (other than what some see as the One True digital mode of CW.)


Nathan Chilton - K6NDC
 

At least they say they're stepping back and rethinking it.  Replacing the baud rate limit with a bandwidth limit would be good.