<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
For those (like me) who haven't heard about this before, here's
Rappaport's filing:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1111110314487/FCC%20EX%20PARTE%2016-239%20Eric%20Burger%20Nov%2011%202018.pdf">https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1111110314487/FCC%20EX%20PARTE%2016-239%20Eric%20Burger%20Nov%2011%202018.pdf</a><br>
<br>
The bit about these modes being a national security threat smacks of
fearmongering (and who's going to use ham radio for nefarious
purposes these days when commercial networks are everywhere and
their use attracts less attention?) but I have to say I agree that
proprietary modes go against the spirit of amateur radio. Slapping
an AMBE-2000 codec in a radio doesn't advance the state of the art;
it just makes hams reliant on commercial entities to provide black
boxes that they're not allowed to even reverse engineer.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure that hitching this wagon to the bandwidth limit NPRM is
the way to do it, but as long as the FCC is paying attention, maybe
it's time to take a long hard look at this issue. If we're going to
keep going down the path of using whatever proprietary technology is
convenient from the commercial communications world, it's only going
to get worse.<br>
<br>
I've talked to lots of hams about the AMBE codec in particular (it's
at the heart of the D-STAR voice mode) and what I've learned is that
to many of them it's just a black box like all of the other black
box ICs in their radio that they don't understand, and they don't
seem to appreciate that there's a fundamental difference in that the
algorithm that it implements is patented and strictly controlled by
one company. Even if you do know how it works, you're not free to
make your own.<br>
<br>
Imagine if back in the 50s Motorola had come up with a novel
proprietary modulation scheme for HF to use in their commercial
rigs, kept it tightly controlled, and only made tamper-proof, sealed
steel boxes with the complete circuit inside that were leased and
not sold, with the contract forbidding any kind of analysis of its
working or dissemination of technical details. Would hams have
accepted that? Would we have continued to progress technically if
we'd resigned ourselves to blindly using things we didn't understand
and weren't allowed to look too closely at? If homebrew was limited
to building support circuits for literal black boxes?<br>
<br>
Rather than lining DVSI's pockets for the privilege of being
dependent on their technology, we could be funding Codec 2
development - it's already good enough for deployment - and reaping
the benefits down the road. That's what we're *supposed* to be
doing as hams, building new things and sharing information.<br>
<br>
The way the FCC rules restrict HF data by symbol rate is kind of
dumb and outdated, for sure, but this NPRM seems specifically
targeted at getting Pactor IV legalized. As someone who makes a
living designing and selling gadgets for hams, that seems like a
pretty sweet deal - have the FCC rules changed specifically to
permit something you developed and that no one else can interoperate
with, and simultaneously take the wind out of the sails of anyone
trying to get traction on a more open alternative. But that's not
what ham radio is supposed to be.<br>
<br>
You want to keep getting young people interested in radio? The SDR
world is where that has to happen. Open systems are how you keep
costs down and reduce barriers to entry. You don't learn anything
from using secret, proprietary technology.<br>
<br>
I've been a ham for 30 years now and people have been bitching about
"appliance operators" for at least that long. Maybe what we need
now is a separate non-commercial appliance operator radio service.
Slice off a bit of spectrum for the people who only care about
having the shiniest, most expensive toys, and let them have reserved
frequencies so they can have their closed nets with their friends
and their private email services. Charge annual license fees. It's
a win for everyone - the FCC gets more money, the appliance
operators and empire-builders can run whatever commercial technology
they want, SCS and DVSI and the like can sell more hardware, and the
ham bands get rid of traffic that doesn't belong there.<br>
<br>
In the meantime, I can't get behind an NPRM that's specifically
targeted at allowing one specific proprietary mode just so we can
have new toys.<br>
<br>
Scott<br>
N1VG<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/2018 9:46 AM, Tyler Griffiths
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABK_yz1DQdhF0u12d5yDyoy7T+QzOxQ3GqniW_Jj91u9gpYMmw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Tyler Griffiths<br>
N7UWX<br>
<br>
See where I am:<br>
<a href="http://map.findu.com/n7uwx-12" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://map.findu.com/n7uwx-12</a></div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: <strong class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">k4cjx</strong>
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:k4cjx@comcast.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">k4cjx@comcast.net</a>></span><br>
Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:33 AM<br>
Subject: [winlink-programs-group] We are NOT asking, we are
BEGGING!<br>
To: Winlink Programs Group <<a
href="mailto:winlink-programs-group@googlegroups.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">winlink-programs-group@googlegroups.com</a>><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We are under attack from those who would <i>misinform</i>
those who have little knowledge of the work we are doing
in the data transfer community. The attack is not
specifically regarding Winlink, but all ARQ protocols that
we use. Scare tactics are effective regardless of their
connection to reality, and this is what is being done by
our opposition, without any semblance to reality.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ARSFI has responded with as much truth as we can
muster, including technical and non-technical accusations
that are aimed at ridding the US ham bands of current
enabling digital technologies. The Winlink Development
Team through the ARSFI has done its best to provide
accurate information. What is needed now is either a
strong endorsement of our position, or something of your
own making. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PLEASE, at a minimum, sign in and at least endorse our
ARSFI response. When reading the material, remember that
the NPRM and resulting Docket only address the 300 baud
symbol rate rule within the United States. However, much
of our response was written for the purpose of getting rid
of the inaccuracies that appear from those who oppose the
deletion of the symbol rate rule, and anything else
dealing with ARQ protocols.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can click on <a
href="https://winlink.org/FCC_Action"
style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10.5pt"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://winlink.org/FCC_Action</a> to
read Mr Rapport's letters and our response to become
informed. Click here <a
href="https://winlink.org/content/ECFS" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://winlink.org/content/ECFS</a> to
learn how to file a comment. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Click here <a
href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=100&proceedings_name=16-239&sort=date_disseminated,DESC"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=100&proceedings_name=16-239&sort=date_disseminated,DESC</a> to
actually file a comment. There are plenty of good
examples and it is not difficult to do. We need a large
showing of support, and time is limited.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your consideration,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Steve, K4CJX</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Winlink Programs Group" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to <a
href="mailto:winlink-programs-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">winlink-programs-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a
href="https://groups.google.com/group/winlink-programs-group"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://groups.google.com/group/winlink-programs-group</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a
href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/winlink-programs-group/f3b9e7b9-9bb2-429f-a6a3-9ecea59ce8e0%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/winlink-programs-group/f3b9e7b9-9bb2-429f-a6a3-9ecea59ce8e0%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a
href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:aprssig@lists.tapr.org">aprssig@lists.tapr.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org">http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>