Re: comments on the ARRL petition: one well worth reading


 

On 12/24/2013 10:47 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
the existence of such tools does not demonstrate the availability of a public description of the Pactor IV protocol that would
enable an amateur to decode a message's sender callsign and content. For example, the developers of those tools may have purchased
an appropriate Pactor IV technology license from SCS; I'm sure you're familiar with such agreements.

Having had direct visibility to dialog with the FCC on the GRAPES 56k
packet modem approval for US Hams in the 80's, I pretty confident that
your assumptions about FCC requirements are incorrect.

The level of documentation required was not huge, and can simply be the
encoding techniques, etc. No algorithms, code fragments, etc. Not
anywhere near enough to be a concern about putting competitors in
business. And with the absurd level of software patents allowed now,
they also have protection there. (You'd be familiar with that, I believe)

Same for ciphers. Just describe the technique. Not that I said ciphers,
not encryption. But randomizers, etc are not encryption as the key is
transmitted in the clear.

There is also not a requirement for tools to monitor, etc. But I assure
you that those tools exist now, both commercially and with the .gov/.mil
agencies.

There were just as many anti's back then, and the arguments were the
same. I still have some of the documentation stashed on this somewhere.

Circular debates about auto-ops aside and bandwidth, the
encryption/documentation argument is a non-issue.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Join main@digitalradio.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.