pactor banned from the usa?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Not sure what point you are making. Speaking in “code” with the purpose of obscuring the true meaning of a message is prohibited for amateur radio operators.

The first amendment of the US Constitution doesn’t strictly apply to amateur radio as a lot of people seem to believe (and act). It is not against the law to send encrypted messages by telephone, fax or the internet. But it is illegal for amateurs to engage in such activities on ham radio. It may seem arcane today but them’s the rules.

What I mean is that it was repeatedly stated that Pactor has no encryption, just compression. You seem to have missed that and now look (from my viewpoint) surprised to find no encryption when reading the functional description. But then you feel the need to link Pactor with user-encrypted messages?! Why mention that in that way at that moment? This is why I reacted that user-encryption can be done in any mode and should not be linked with Pactor at all. Not even with mention that it is a separate issue because it just clouds what this is about

[transmitterdan]

It was stated in the public comments that hams use “effectively encrypted” digital communications. I think that is not accurate at least based on the PACTOR specification. But I have not reviewed the plethora of other digital formats hams routinely use.

The commenters in favor of the new rule seem pretty confident in their assertions. Most of the comments going the other way don’t try to refute this they just say that’s the way of the modern world. Which is basically correct but not sufficient to overcome existing rules.

For the record, i am against the proposed rule on several grounds. But I am not in favor of removing the requirement that ham radio must allow eavesdropping by “mere mortals”. The ability of other hams to listen in on communications is vital to self policing. Without self policing the FCC can not maintain control over amateur radio. Without fear of the government’s enforcement capability the airwaves would be chaos.

All radio spectrum is policed by the users first and foremost. They have the vested interest in keeping things working as interference free as possible. About the only time the government steps is when they get a complaint. So the ability to identify bad actors by the user community is the only effective means of keeping the peace in radioland. That’s one reason for the rule against encrypting ham transmissions.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It was stated in the public comments that hams use “effectively encrypted” digital communications. I think that is not accurate at least based on the PACTOR specification. But I have not reviewed the plethora of other digital formats hams routinely use.

The commenters in favor of the new rule seem pretty confident in their assertions. Most of the comments going the other way don’t try to refute this they just say that’s the way of the modern world. Which is basically correct but not sufficient to overcome existing rules.

I think we agree on everything except the “effectively encrypted” and the "Most of the comments going the other way don’t try to refute this they just say that’s the way of the modern world" parts.

People stating “effectively encrypted” with confidence and repeating it many times does not make that false statement true. Also, those who oppose that do refute it by stating that there is no encryption at all. May be they need to state it louder and repeat it more often for it to be heard...

For me, I read “effectively encrypted” and I see a political term that has no basis in reality and when I read "no encryption at all" I see truth that does not need repeating because truth still sticks

I am currently using my Iridium Go for everything with the HF and Pactor still at hand but rarely in use because of my laziness and not willing to wait for a propagation window to send my emails, but we must guard against commerce trying to kill HAM radio in favor of their 5G networks or whatever else they come up with. Especially when they do that under false pretenses like calling compression "effectively encrypted” when it is not

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It was stated in the public comments that hams use “effectively encrypted” digital communications. I think that is not accurate at least based on the PACTOR specification. But I have not reviewed the plethora of other digital formats hams routinely use.

None of the common digital modes use encryption. In order to improve efficiency they often use publicly-documented compression. In order to improve reliability they also do things like interleaving, adding embedded synch patterns, add error-correcting codes and procedures, use various types of efficient modulation. They even vary data rates and modulation formats on the fly to optimize throughput as the channel conditions change over time. They may dynamically change compression types depending on message content statistics. All of this is documented. None of it is encryption.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

That’s one reason for the rule against encrypting ham transmissions.

The average ham doesn't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. These communications are not encrypted, unless someone illegally pre-encrypts them.

[transmitterdan]

Actually I agree with Nick and Paul. There is no such thing as “effectively encrypted”. Either it’s encrypted or it isn’t.

If an undisclosed coding scheme is used that is not encryption, but it make eavesdropping nigh impossible. In so far as I can tell the digital standards I have read all explain their encoding scheme.

So it’s a bit mysterious why the uproar over this request for a new rule. When they could just as easily respond with “we have already publicly documented our protocol and so should not be forced to support open source software at the point of a gun”. That would be a compelling response to the RM.

But that’s not the argument they are making. They are threatening all kinds of gloom and doom as the title of the thread makes clear.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So it’s a bit mysterious why the uproar over this request for a new rule. When they could just as easily respond with “we have already publicly documented our protocol and so should not be forced to support open source software at the point of a gun”. That would be a compelling response to the RM.

One reason for the nature of the response is that the original rulemaking proposal wasn't limited to the "effectively encrypted" issue, but also threw up a bunch of other unrelated complaints. The scattered nature of the comments is largely due to the scattered nature of the proposal

But their "effectively encrypted" claim is that even if the various compression and coding methods are disclosed (as they are), they are effectively impossible for the average amateur to decode since the expertise required to "roll your own" is beyond the ability of said amateur. This forces the amateur to purchase a prohibitively expensive piece of commercial gear if they wish to monitor the ham airwaves to detect improper operation by others.

I think this is a dangerous concept, one that threatens to block technical advances and effective communications in the amateur service.

[ohgary]

Still not sure the issue. Either pactor is banned or its not. If it is, then all the services would just move to another protocol to offer their service. Being the most of the other protocols are open source and software driven I see this as a plus. No expensive licensed modems, modem provided via software on your PC.

I really doubt the US will ban pactor but if it does there are many options.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

But their "effectively encrypted" claim is that even if the various compression and coding methods are disclosed (as they are), they are effectively impossible for the average amateur to decode since the expertise required to "roll your own" is beyond the ability of said amateur. This forces the amateur to purchase a prohibitively expensive piece of commercial gear if they wish to monitor the ham airwaves to detect improper operation by others.

I think this is a dangerous concept, one that threatens to block technical advances and effective communications in the amateur service.

In this issue, it seems that both camps are talking past each other.

Putting the cynical hat on:

• Winlink and its fans want to be able to use the ham bands to support their low-cost remote messaging network. It's not really what the ham bands are there for, but hey it's just another digital mode, amirite?
  
  
• The amateur radio purists resent the use of ham spectrum for some people's avoidance of the cost or hassle of SailMail and/or marine band. They invoke the principle that you can't self-police what you can't decompress/decode, and this will lead to terrorists and other nasties abusing the ham bands, cats sleeping with dogs, and the collapse of Civilization As We Know It.

I dunno. To me the answer is that everyone should be honest about what they want, and then the answer is to negotiate spectrum to meet an obvious need. Instead of trying to argue that gray is either black or white.

[hellosailor]

The folks at Winmor and elsewhere have spent something like a decade, working as a group, trying to build an alternative to PACTOR that will send data just as reliably at just as high a rate.

And they're the first ones to say, they've been unable to match it.

Which is why SCS can command top dollar for the top performing product. For the rest of the world, the alternatives are "good enough".

Two different products, for different markets. Even if they are similar.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by ohgary

Still not sure the issue. Either pactor is banned or its not. If it is, then all the services would just move to another protocol to offer their service. Being the most of the other protocols are open source and software driven I see this as a plus. No expensive licensed modems, modem provided via software on your PC.

I really doubt the US will ban pactor but if it does there are many options.

PACTOR is not banned. And it seems unlikely that it will be banned. This dispute affects only amateur radio anyway and does not affect use of PACTOR on marine band frequencies.

This thread got started late in the process. This whole thing started years ago and has gotten blown out of proportion by both sides.

Based on what I have been able to read some people got greedy and asked for a whole lot (more bandwidth, more spectrum, etc). Some other people said “hang on a minute, you can’t take over ham radio” and they’ve been slugging it out ever since.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In this issue, it seems that both camps are talking past each other.

Putting the cynical hat on:

• Winlink and its fans want to be able to use the ham bands to support their low-cost remote messaging network. It's not really what the ham bands are there for, but hey it's just another digital mode, amirite?
  
  
• The amateur radio purists resent the use of ham spectrum for some people's avoidance of the cost or hassle of SailMail and/or marine band. They invoke the principle that you can't self-police what you can't decompress/decode, and this will lead to terrorists and other nasties abusing the ham bands, cats sleeping with dogs, and the collapse of Civilization As We Know It.

I dunno. To me the answer is that everyone should be honest about what they want, and then the answer is to negotiate spectrum to meet an obvious need. Instead of trying to argue that gray is either black or white.

Use of ham radio to send digital messages is a valid use of the amateur radio service. It is more robust than voice and faster than Morse code. So it is invaluable in an emergency situation.

Winlink would like more spectrum and bandwidth. Other hams think they have more than enough (some think they have too much now). Furthermore, some believe Winlink is trying to steal business which it is not allowed to do using amateur radio. And without any proof, a fringe argument has been made that terrorists are using ham radios to plot world domination.

I agree with you, they need to all put their petty self interests aside and sit down together so this can be resolved. A solution is not that hard to find.

I found this a little interesting. It is from a few months back so a bit out of date.

https://www.kb6nu.com/arrls-latest-p...-digital-arpa/

It suggests this war was ongoing before the latest request for comments that started this thread.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Use of ham radio to send digital messages is a valid use of the amateur radio service. It is more robust than voice and faster than Morse code. So it is invaluable in an emergency situation.

Winlink would like more spectrum and bandwidth. Other hams think they have more than enough (some think they have too much now). Furthermore, some believe Winlink is trying to steal business which it is not allowed to do using amateur radio. And without any proof, a fringe argument has been made that terrorists are using ham radios to plot world domination.

I agree with you, they need to all put their petty self interests aside and sit down together so this can be resolved. A solution is not that hard to find.

I found this a little interesting. It is from a few months back so a bit out of date.

https://www.kb6nu.com/arrls-latest-p...-digital-arpa/

It suggests this war was ongoing before the latest request for comments that started this thread.

Thats a good link and representative of the other discussions I've found in the amateur communities' forums. In particular, the comments are very informative.

Even more eye-opening, there was mention that other countries or international regulating bodies have resolved the same issue by designating a band for wider-bandwidth digital:

Originally Posted by Ted Rappaport

I have never seen Winlink and ARRL advocate for a separate small HF subband that is similar to that used by region 1 of IARU (the most populous ham radio region in the world that includes Japan, and uses segregated subbands as an accepted, commonly practiced international standard), where the wideband data crowd could have 25-40 kHz of bandwidth above the CW/RTTY/FT8 narrowband users and below the ssb subband).
....
A 25 kHz subband for wider bandwidth data, as done in IARU region 1 , or limiting wideband data for use at VHF/UHF l, would make much more sense and would be fair and respectful of narrowband incumbents on HF.

Anyway, this is a cruising forum. To those following this thread - if your eyes glazed over as the arguments veered into the technicalities and politics of amateur radio... not a problem. It might however confirm that you're probably not into ham radio (quite alright). There's clearly an affection for Winlink among the cruising community, and it would be a good thing for the FCC to find a way to accommodate it. But the "all or nothing" demands to the FCC from the Winlink proponents, even when other regions have solved the problem with a reasonable compromise, should call into question their allegiances and motivations.

The Winlink letter that kicked off this thread, and suggesting that "pactor" is about to be banned from the USA are both misleading. There's still no getting around the fact that using the ham bands for automated, secured personal/commercial networking and messaging goes somewhat against the reason and rules for amateur radio.

[Paul Elliott]

Lake-Effect, you are using a bunch of loaded and inaccurate terms there. I think you are only seeing one of the sides.

This does matter to those cruising hams who use Winlink. There have been some valid issues raised by this discussion, but I think your synopsis is flawed.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Lake-Effect, you are using a bunch of loaded and inaccurate terms there. I think you are only seeing one of the sides.

This does matter to those cruising hams who use Winlink. There have been some valid issues raised by this discussion, but I think your synopsis is flawed.

You are definitely closer to this issue than I am; I'd welcome your corrections and clarifications.

How many cruising hams are there, and how many cruisers got ham licences (or not) just to use the ham frequencies as a lower-cost option for email?

I don't understand why other compromises (like the IARU region 1 allocation for wideband digital) seem unacceptable to Winlink. And finally, I am suspicious of reaching out to cruisers with messages like "pactor banned from the USA".

Why can't everyone be upfront about who likes and uses Winlink, what effect it has had on the amateur HF bands that it has used, and agree on allocating band(s) for that use?

[transmitterdan]

ITU region 1 contains only about 25% of the worlds hams. It’s been a while since I looked it up but IIRC regions 2 and 3 had about 75% or so of the worlds ham licenses. Japan dwarfs all other countries in terms of licenses. US was #2. So what works for region 1 may not work so well for 2 & 3.

I don’t think very many hams at sea use Winlink to save $. They use it because it works and it helps justify keeping the ham gear up and running. Many of the Winlink shore stations are also SailMail stations. But for sure there are more Winlink stations so getting a connection is perhaps easier using Winlink. But I’ve never had a problem getting SailMail to connect.

I strongly believe sailors at sea should support SailMail. It’s future is not guaranteed.