The History of the Annual Hurricane Symbol Rate Waivers and Pactor / Winlink / ARRL Special Interests Problem

Request To Send - The Annual Pactor 4 Hurricane Ritual (from Zero Retries #0066)

The relatively quiet 2022 hurricane season ended this week with Hurricane Ian. Thus it was time for the now-normal-ritual of ARRL submitting an Emergency Request to the FCC for a 60-day temporary waiver to use Pactor 4 on HF.

Pactor 4 is an advanced data communications system by SCS (Spezielle Communications Systeme GmbH & Co. KG) for use on the HF bands (not just Amateur Radio) that anyone can use by buying a Pactor 4 modem. Admittedly it’s an issue that Pactor 4 is a proprietary data communications mode, but it’s not encrypted (when used on Amateur Radio), and easily monitored with the simple, if expensive method of buying a Pactor 4 modem. Conceptually, the use of Pactor 4 on Amateur Radio HF isn’t any different than the use of the proprietary DVSI CODEC used in Amateur Radio digital voice communications in D-Star, DMR, P25, and Yaesu System Fusion. There are numerous other proprietary technologies such as EA5HVK’s VARA in common use in Amateur Radio which few have any issues with.

What’s maddening with these numerous requests (none declined by the FCC) is that nothing bad happens when they are granted and Pactor 4 is used on HF! Yet these temporary waivers apparently aren’t considered proof that Pactor 4 (and other advanced data communications technologies) should be made permanent in US Amateur Radio regulations.

Let’s just get on with it for US Amateur Radio Operators to be able to use increasingly advanced data communications technologies on HF (and by extension, VHF and UHF). It’s just… inane… that US Amateur Radio HF data communications are limited to a “300 baud symbol limit” and VHF / UHF data communications are limited to “19.6 kbaud” (50-54 MHz [6 meters] and 144-148 MHz [2 meters]) and “56 kbaud” (222-225 MHz [1.25 meters] and 420-450 MHz [70 centimeters]).

In doing so, the US is increasingly out of step with other countries - one of the reasons cited for these requests by the ARRL is to “… communicate with Caribbean-based stations that are directly involved with hurricane relief efforts.“ It’s humbling that Amateur Radio Operators in Caribbean nations have access to better technology than US Amateur Radio Operators.

(Much of below is from https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/october-second-century-is-here.829792/page-29)

N2EY said:
Where IS "the influence" coming from?

W0IDT said:
Lee can chime in, it's his post, but here's some references for those that aren't up to speed on the "influence" problem as it relates to wideband digital. The very first ARRL Digital Committee had Vic Poor as recording secretary, later elevated to chairman. Who is Vic Poor? He was the father of Winlink, set up for his boating buddies so they could get email at sea for free. Here's the rest of it in easy to understand form. Unfortunately the references to ARRL BoD and committee reports prior to 2004 aren't available anywhere except in QST. Issue date provided if you want to look them up, relevant bullet points included..

QST Mar 1993 BOD minutes
30. digi comm. report unattended STA comm worried that no international digi standards and interference to live ops from unrestrained automatic ops.
63. automatic proposal that actually started this mess.

QST Sept 1996 BOD minutes
82. digi comm. completed, work ended

QST Mar 2002 BOD minutes
66. Bodson change 97.305, .307(f)(2) to allow data IN THE PHONE SEGMENTS.defeated
See this thread if you need a refresher They tried an end run later, failed miserably.

QST Sept 2002 BOD minutes
63. ad hoc digital comm. authorized
64. segmentation by bandwidth proposal to be developed and submitted -- that went over well, wonder where that came from? See above.

ad Hoc Digital Committee
Victor Poor, W5SMM, Committee Chairman, Winlink
Committee Members:
Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, TAPR
Howard Teller, KH6TY
Steve Waterman, K4CJX, Winlink
Melvyn Whitten, K0PFX,
Peter Martinez, G3PLX (Resigned 2/28/03)
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, Board Liaison
Steve Ford, WB6IMY, Staff Liaison
March 24, 2003
The dissenting recommendation to this committee's final report by Skip Teller, KH6TY, is worth reading. Actually anything by KH6TY found in QRZ threads is worth the read. Also note G3PLX left in disgust over the committee antics.

QST Sept 2003 BOD minutes
25. ARES ad hoc committee formed

Richard J. Mondro, W8FQT (Chair)
Gerald F. (Rick) Muething Jr., KN6KB, Winlink
Robert E. Griffin, K6YR
Bdale Garbee, KB0G, TAPR
Andrew J. Oppel, N6AJO
Joseph A. Nollmeyer, W3YVQ, NTS
Stephen R. Waterman, K4CJX, Winlink
Peter A. Cecere, N2YJZ, NTS
Michael M. Barrett, K3MMB,
Steven R. Ewald, WV1X (ARRL Staff)
Dan Miller, K3UFG (ARRL Staff)
(The report in the July 2004 BOD minutes minute 21, spells out that Winlink 2000 will be the method ARES uses, the outcome was preordained if you read the report. ARESCOM July 2004)
Beginning to see a pattern of influence? I wonder if this committee was bullied like the Digi committee?

January 2005 BOD
20. WHEREAS, the ARESCOM participants have worked tirelessly and professionally to complete its appointed task and develop and implement a working, functional network to serve ARES;

26. WHEREAS, the resulting functional digital network requires continuing direction and guidance;

(all they did was adopt Winlink for the network with zero oversight per minute 26)

(ARESCOM minutes)
Develop a proposal for an improved national emergency digital communications network capable of moving served agency and public traffic anywhere in the country within an hour --- under autonomous ARRL control.

GOALS: To establish a working committee – under ARRL guidance -- for oversight and management of this network.

“With all the wonderful successes, a critical underlying factor has surfaced. There is currently insufficient amateur spectrum available for wide-bandwidth, error-free ARQ modes on the HF bands. Whether using Digital Voice, Digital Image, or Digital messaging, adequate bandwidth is essential and crucial to their effective and efficient use and for the future of Amateur Radio.” (they knew it but still pushed ahead)

This last paragraph is verbatim what K4CJX, AKA Mr. Winlink, has posted in many forums and FCC filings. I wonder who did the cut 'n paste on that one -- oh wait, he was on the committee. No pattern here is there? It's not about amateur radio, it is about protecting and growing their precious ego project network. A question to ask is how much traffic Winlink handles on a regular basis on the one true "emergency" network where Winlink is used, SHARES, compared to the trash that was flowing on the ham bands.

N2EY said:
Another reason is the "doesn't listen before transmitting" claim. But if the modes are limited to a small part of each HF band, is that really a valid concern? Are the HF bands so crowded that there's no room for a few "wide" digital signals? And - how wide is wide? As wide as SSB? As wide as AM?

W0IDT said:
It's not a "claim", it's a fact. The Winlink President thought his system had "listen before transmit" enabled system wide and couldn't be overridden. From the client side all it took was a single mouse click to bypass the warning the channel was in use and the LBT was NOT installed on any of the gateway software. He claimed he was "misled" by his team. While it's true that US automatic gateway stations are limited to small segments of the HF bands there is no restriction on where non-US gateways can operate and US stations are allowed to connect, using wide modes, to these gateways. I really have to laugh every time some ARES type complains about contesters interfering with their Winlink nets -- evidently they can't figure out that a band already full of signals is the very definition of "busy channel". Oh, no contester in their right mind operates in the US ACDS segments, tough to make points if some slug needs his email right now. Contesters avoid those segments like the plague they are.

A few wide signals? Define a few. Winlink would be more than happy to have access to entire ham bands but this go around they backed off to just the RTTY/Data sub bands due to the beating on RM-11306.

How wide is wide? ARRL seems to think 2.8kHz is the limit, but to put the question in the proper context, how many 2.8kHz signals (with guard bands) can be supported in the current RTTY/Data sub bands? How long before legacy modes are crushed into oblivion by wide digi signals that can override most narrow signals? Ham spectrum is finite and the lower ends of the bands are squeezed pretty tight now. Where are you going to put wide digi? Allow wide digi in the crowded phone segments? The last one has been tried several times, didn't go over well is an understatement. A better idea is get all the unattended, automatic stations and wide digi off of HF and up onto VHF+ where there's plenty of room and it's underutilized spectrum anyway.

N2EY said:
Or - is the real issue that it's ARRL proposing something?

W0IDT said:
It's something else. It may say ARRL in the proposal but when you hide under the cover of the National Organization for Amateur Radio it's something else. Question: why has Winlink never filed a petition with the FCC for enhanced modes or reserved spectrum?

N2EY said:
"Don't you have some sort of digital system where we can type a message on a computer and it is automatically routed to its destination?" the served agency asks. "Don't you have anything faster and more secure than people talking into microphones and writing down the message at the other end?"

W0IDT said:
This is just silly. A recent conversation on one of the Winlink groups shows just how silly that is. A description of how field messages were handled back to the EOC starts with someone hand filling a form, reading it over the air to a hub station who then transcribes it into a Winlink email for forwarding to the EOC. Something around 2wpm or less at that rate. What you describe would be nice but the "served" agencies have no ability to directly inject a message into the Winlink system, unless they do it through the internet, which makes the whole process a bit redundant if the 'net is available. Most agencies already have the capability to send messages from whatever widget they happen to be using direct to the recipient. Starlink just announced global coverage is now open including Antarctica. Iphone direct sat link is coming fast too along with the Verizon offering -- no hamster license or shaky HF email system required.

N2EY said:
See the problem?

W0IDT said:
Do you see the problem? Many of us do. Oh, you can skip your usual "none of those people are there" deflection, the current crop at HQ isn't doing anything to fix the mess they created. Here's a good one from people there now, "The first is a concern expressed by some in the digital community concerning unattended digital systems in HF. Our proposal currently before the FCC expands the space for higher bandwidth unattended stations, but it also pushes lower bandwidth ones into the same segment" (2022 Bandplanning Committee Report) Why on earth did they even submit RM-11708 without a valid, enforceable band plan written in stone in Part 97 and now they worry about it? If they have the described band plan proposal for unattended stations actually on file at the FCC it's a well kept secret. The last mention of the "plan" was when it passed the BoD then it went into stealth mode or the round file.

K3KIC said:
The truth of the matter is that EMCOMM needs have largely passed amateur radio by. It shouldn't be the driving force in attempts to save spectrum for amateur use.

KB9MWR said:
So much this! When the ARRL finally understands this then any proposal from them will be met with less suspicion. Right now their credibility is the core problem.

The latest nail in the Emcomm coffin is Apple iPhone 14 Features Satellite Communication.

Lets not forget the league fought against regulation by bandwidth when the FCC proposed it in 1976

Interesting to note: Over 40 years ago the FCC considered these regulations were in need of a major overhaul and in 1976 introduced the “Regulation by Bandwidth” Docket 20777. The FCC eventually abandoned the modernization attempt after a a long campaign against it waged by the ARRL.
(see June QST 1976)

There was a desire by some radio amateurs in the late 1970’s to restrict the bandwidth of digital data transmissions but any form of “Regulation by Bandwidth” was considered anathema. This resulted in the introduction in 1980 of a Symbol Rate restriction on digital transmissions (avoiding the dreaded words “Bandwidth Restriction”). This has crippled amateur radio data communications ever since, preventing amateurs using modern modes.

There was an attempt again in 2004 by the HSMM Working Group to introduce Regulation by Bandwidth. But the WG got so frustrated with the Board's flip flops on the issue (sound familiar?), that they all just resigned... in total... after one conference call in November 2006. This was another classic case of a FCC proposal that later the ARRL withdrew. (One of the core problems with the ARRL is they have to follow the money as their membership numbers aren't great. So if something gets resistance from their older members they pull out, even if they know what is being proposed is good for the hobby in the long haul. Remember that the USA was the last IARU member to retain the morse code requirement for example)

Summary

It seems to me in order of resolution on this whole matter;

Emcomm at the QST level needs to downplayed as mentioned above.

Open Source communications should always be encouraged and likely take center stage over Emcomm. There should be a regular column in QST promoting these concepts and growing the makerspace and open source ham radio communities as well as pointing out such projects. This has been the core of ham radio since day one.

Open Source is not always possible, however when regulatory issues are being proposed to accommodate such, then naturally the motives behind that are scrutinized so transparency on who, and what that is imperative.

Automated and unattended stations on HF where spectrum is crowded should likely be curtailed when a proprietary mode is used.

If you are a ARRL member you need to be very vocal that they be VERY adamantly trying to modernize the regulations with detailed accounts of their attempts.