[PVRCNC] Heads up from the FCC CTO

[Ted Rappaport N9NB]

Dear Colleagues:

 

This note, below, is from the CTO of the FCC. Dr. Eric Burger, in response to my note to him regarding this November 7, 2018 FCC posting from SCS, the maker of Pactor modems:

 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/110731917879

 

Dr. Burger’s note below should be a wake-up call to all of us as to how things work at the FCC.

 

I know you have heard from me before, but this time, you really should take notice and read this email in its entirety.

 

In the FCC CTO’s email below, check out his points 2 and 3. 

 

If you have opinions about these positions, you should file a “Comment” in 16-239 and RM-11708 at the FCC ECFS website.  And please spread the word. Comments are urgently needed. 

 

I have filed an ex parte letter today (it should appear on the FCC ECFS website tomorrow), and I am writing my elected officials in the house and senate to call attention to this pending dangerous rulemaking. I hope some of you will do likewise.

 

If you have ever been interfered by or have tried to learn the identify of, or have operated a Pactor modem, or have tried to build an interception capability for Pactor, or used software,  to attempt to decode a Pactor signal or an ARDOP or VARA or Winmor signal with Winlink on HF but were unable to decode the message, you must, FOR THE RECORD, file this information at the FCC as soon as possible.  This is needed to address Dr. Burger’s point 2.

 

If you have concerns about Dr. Burger’s proposed interpretation of his point 3 regarding not needing real time 3d party interception over amature radio, you must, FOR THE RECORD, file comments at the FCC as soon as possible. 

 

I hope you will spread the word around amateur radio circles, and please have as many people you know publicly comment at FCC 16-239, RM-11708, 17-344, and RM-11759, as it can be seen from the FCC CTO that FCC lawyers will only consider comments and petitions that are “on the record.” Apparently the thousands of comments to date  in 16-239, 17-344, RM-11708, etc. are not being viewed as “on the record,” which is why I urge everyone to write their elected government officials. It is only this Nov. 7 filing by SCS that apparently is being construed as “on the record.”

 

From: Eric Burger [ <mailto:Eric.Burger at fcc.gov> mailto:Eric.Burger at fcc.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 10:49 AM To: Ted

Subject: RE: This is not accurate - be warned

1.       The below seems like something that should be an ex parte.

2.       The record appears to only have SCS’ statements that Pactor is decodable. Unless there is something in the record demonstrating that Pactor-4 is not decodable, the lawyers in the organization are going to go with what is in the record. Assertions that Pactor-4 is hard to decode or people have trouble decoding it is not sufficient.

3.       Note that one interpretation of §97.309(b)(3) states that one can use entirely proprietary (but still not encrypted) communications so long as there is a record of the communication. An example of this would be if WinLink keeps copies of email, then §97.309(b)(3) is satisfied and the fact one cannot intercept the radio communication is irrelevant. If you have an opinion about that, either that is not a reasonable interpretation, or the rule should be changed, you should file comments

                or a petition, respectively.

------

I urge all of you to file public comments at the FCC regarding Dr. Burger’s points 2 and 3 above.

 

Have you ever tried to identify a Pactor transmission, but couldn’t? Have you ever been interfered with by Pactor? Have you tried to decode Pactor 2,3,4 with a Pactor modem by SCS or any other vendor? Can you intelligibly intercept transmissions from other Pactor stations  (not whom you are talking with) when the other user is in ARQ mode?  If you have tried to decode Pactor with a Pactor modem or other device on HF, have you seen garbage, or unintelligible data, come across the screen? If you have experienced any of these things , you must immediately get your observations on the record at the FCC ECFS system for 16-239 and RM-11708, and expressly cite the SCS filing of November 7, 2018 (The link above) and Dr. Burger’s email to me dated November 8, 2018.

 

If you have opinions on point 3, you must file comments publicly at the FCC, as he suggests. I have written to Dr. Burger, telling him that I do not agree with his interpretation of FCC rules in point 3, and have asked him to carefully review the FCC Part 97 rules pertaining to the spirit and open nature of communications in amateur radio, the need to self-police, the requirement to have transmissions that are not “obscured,” the need to avoid bypass of other commercial means (e.g. no internet service provider bypass, and the requirement to avoid business, no pecuniary interest (e.g. hams must avoid business use with the internet). 

 

To his point 3, I believe he is in error, as 97.309(b)(3) is also limited by Part 97.305(c) and 97.307(f)(3). 

Note that Part 97.307(f)(3) limits all of HF transmissions to “specified codes” and 97.307(f)(5)(6)(7) further limits “unspecified codes” to frequencies above 50 MHz. Not allowed on HF, only allowed above 50 MHz, where it has difficulty going across borders.

 

PacTOR was only specified as the original Pactor 1, the openly interceptable Forward Error Control Coding made public by AMTOR.

 

The SCS proprietary Pactor 2, 3, 4 in ARQ is not available for interception or decoding by 3rd parties over the air, since their compression in ARQ mode is a trade secret. Otherwise, FBI and Laura Smith in the Wireless Telecom Bureau (WTB) would be able to eavesdrop over the air when in ARQ mode, but they cannot. 

 

If you have any opinion on point 3, you should file these comments at the FCC ECFS website for 16-239 and RM-11708 immediately. The FCC needs your input and opinion on these points made by the FCC CTO above.

 

Also, if you are like me, you may wonder why an SCS letter dated June 11, 2018 has suddenly surfaced on the FCC website on November 7, 2018, five months later. 

 

I sense that something is up, and if the amateur radio community does not respond quickly at the ECFS filing, I am concerned that our CW/RTTY/FT8 HF bands will be changed forever. 

 

Thanks es 73 ted n9nb

 

-------------

PS.  Here is a letter I am sending my elected officials, I suggest the rest of you do as well:

 

Dear Senator Kaine,

 

You recruited me back to VA with Aneesh Chopra when you were Governor, and I came back to be your rural telecom consultant, as we sought to bridge the digital divide in Virginia.

 

There is an important national security issue I would like to discuss with your senior staffer- it requires some action by you to make sure a dangerous proposal by low level staffers at the FCC  does not go through . Specifically, there is a proposed rulemaking that some in the FCC are trying to ram through for an obscure part of the radio spectrum dealing with the hobby of amateur radio. 

 

While it may seem esoteric, I and many others view this effort, by a few in the FCC to allow wideband obscured radio transmissions over the shortwave ham radio bands, to be a dangerous ruling that would allow criminals and terrorists to send cross border messages that others cannot intercept over the air. 

 

This proposed rulemaking flies in the face and is in direct violation of existing Part 97 rules, which require that all amateur radio transmissions be open and not obscured for eavesdropping, be strictly personal in nature, without allowing any business or private/secure communications that bypass other commercial means. 

 

As a global expert in wireless, I believe this matter is serious enough to warrant the senator's involvement to stop this proposed rulemaking (NPRM 16-239) from ever being enacted by the FCC, and I believe he should immediately ask the FCC to modify its Part 97 rules to ensure all amateur radio transmissions remain open, in the clear, without any business usage or bypass of other email/internet service providers as dictated by Part 97 rules.

 

Probably a simple letter to the FCC Commissioners from the good senator, citing concerns for national security and a concern that all amateur radio transmissions continue to be open, non- business,  and available for over-the-air eavesdropping by 3rd parties, as well as an investigation into why NPRM 16-239 was ever proposed by the FCC in the first place, would hopefully be enough to stop this dangerous proposal. Happy to discuss - my cell is XXXXXXX.

 

With very kind regards,

Ted Rappaport