| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.06.00 01:29l 212 Lines 7389 Bytes #-9437 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_169C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/169C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0LEL<DB0TTM<DB0SWR<DB0HBN<DB0SON<
DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8WNO<PI8HGL
Sent: 000619/1726Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:53007 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_169C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 00 17:50:38 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_169C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of
> facilitating communications."
>
> So, FCC rules specifically authorize the PacTOR mode. Apparently the
> technique is documented sufficiently to satisfy the FCC.
>
> The FCC appears to look at the "code" as a separate issue from the
> "technique". If the individual characters inside the protocol packet
> are ASCII or are derived from ASCII (as done with compression) *and*
> are not intended to be encription then the code is ASCII. CLOVER,
> G-TOR, PacTOR, and Packet are all legally ASCII codes regardless of
> the different techniques (protocols) used.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:30:57 -0400
From: "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com>
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
Thank you Judge Sampson!!
Seriously, I do not think any US court has considered whether Pactor II is
legal under the law as presently written.
It still may be illegal for US Hams to operate Pactor II.
Even if the FCC states that Pactor II is legal (and I am not sure whether it
has made such a statement), a US court could rule that use of Pactor II by
US Hams is illegal under the law IF the all the "technical characteristics"
of the Pactor II protocol were never documented publicly.
I wonder whether the FCC has even seriously considered the matter.
Rob
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:sknem6o1is4122@corp.supernews.com...
> Forget about it, it's legal, now move on. Quit wasting your
> energy. There is no case for it being illegal in most 1st and
> 2nd world countries.
>
> "Bob Lewis" <aa4pb@erols.com> wrote
> > FCC Rules 97.309(a)(4) "An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data
> > emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any
> > techique whose technical characteristics have been documented
> > publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of
> > facilitating communications."
> >
> > So, FCC rules specifically authorize the PacTOR mode. Apparently the
> > technique is documented sufficiently to satisfy the FCC.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:38:36 -0500
From: Seth Miller <sethmiller73@email.com>
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
Please note that in the prior message I meant to say "in the public domain",
not
"publicly documented", as the latter is indeed a requirement (met in every SCS
PTC-II owners manual).
I think the real underlying question here is... what you guys got against this
mode
anyway?
- Seth
Seth Miller wrote:
> No offense, but this is a really silly thread. There is absolutely no
question
> as to the legality of any digital transmission made 'in the clear' using a
> common protocol, publicly documented or not, so long as the transmission is
not
> encrypted and/or there is no attempt to obscure its meaning. The FCC can
monitor
> Pactor II transmissions at will.
>
> If you are very concerned about this I operate Pactor II regularly and my
> address is current in the database so it should be easy to catch me on the
air.
> If you want to learn the meaning of the regulations and don't mind wasting
> several minutes of the FCC's time, please 'report' me... in fact, if the
FCC
> wants to contact me I will be happy to schedule a Pactor II QSO with them.
:-)
>
> - Seth N6BMB
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:23:10 -0500
From: Seth Miller <sethmiller73@email.com>
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
No offense, but this is a really silly thread. There is absolutely no question
as to the legality of any digital transmission made 'in the clear' using a
common protocol, publicly documented or not, so long as the transmission is
not
encrypted and/or there is no attempt to obscure its meaning. The FCC can
monitor
Pactor II transmissions at will.
If you are very concerned about this I operate Pactor II regularly and my
address is current in the database so it should be easy to catch me on the
air.
If you want to learn the meaning of the regulations and don't mind wasting
several minutes of the FCC's time, please 'report' me... in fact, if the FCC
wants to contact me I will be happy to schedule a Pactor II QSO with them. :-
)
- Seth N6BMB
Rob wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I don't think it is very relevant that the FCC regulation MAY make a
> distinction between the code and the technique used.
>
> In my view, the FCC likely equates the term "technical characteristics" of a
> code with 'PROTOCOL"
>
> According to the regulation, the "technical characteristics" of the digital
> code must be "documented publicly" before a HAM can use it legally. In
> other words, it is my understanding that secret protocols cannot be used by
> US Hams.
>
> In my view, this makes sense. Then the FCC can theoretically decode any of
> these new protocols (using any equipment they may wish to use or modify).
>
> HAL has published documents on its CLOVER and CLOVER II protocols, etc.
> (But I have heard some argue that HAL really has not published publicly all
> of the details on its CLOVER and CLOVER II protocols). But since CLOVER is
> specifically mentioned in the regulation, it may be a moot point.
>
> The regulation does specially mention Pactor but does NOT specifically
> mention Pactor II whose "technical characteristics" are quite different.
>
> The issue remains. Has SCS documented publicly all of the "technical
> characteristics" of its Pactor II protocol?? It would appear that a lot of
> folks do not think so. If that is the truly the case, all the US Ham's
> running Pactor II may be doing so illegally.
>
> 73's
> Rob
>
> "Bob Lewis" <aa4pb@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:8ig9qm$d5n$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > FCC Rules 97.309(a)(4) "An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data
> > emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any
> > techique whose technical characteristics have been documented
> > publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of
> > facilitating communications."
> >
> > So, FCC rules specifically authorize the PacTOR mode. Apparently the
> > technique is documented sufficiently to satisfy the FCC.
> >
> > The FCC appears to look at the "code" as a separate issue from the
> > "technique". If the individual characters inside the protocol packet
> > are ASCII or are derived from ASCII (as done with compression) *and*
> > are not intended to be encription then the code is ASCII. CLOVER,
> > G-TOR, PacTOR, and Packet are all legally ASCII codes regardless of
> > the different techniques (protocols) used.
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:37:12 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
"Rob" wrote
> Seriously, I do not think any US court has considered whether Pactor II is
> legal under the law as presently written.
In order for a court to proceed, there must be a case. The FCC, in the
U.S., has no intention of making a case (quoted on the ARRL Web Page).
> It still may be illegal for US Hams to operate Pactor II.
May?
American law is based both on both the statute and enforcement. In the
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_169D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
