As a (retired) systems engineer, I read the analysis on strictly
technical terms, no worries about personalities, profits, fixed costs or
any other possible motivations. I only saw the /_possibility_/ of 64
second dropouts, not the certainty. I saw no denigration of the
efficacy of Flarm in its intended role, only that the encryption of its
transmissions could /_possibly_/ result in erroneous position
reporting. Maybe the author would have been better received had he left
out the talk about monopolies, etc.

It is my understanding that the reason for Flarm signals to be encrypted
was to thwart a rogue group of Brits (tongue deeply in cheek) from using
a network of cheap receivers to receive and process Flarm signals to
post the locations of the gliders on a webpage for them to track the
progress of the gliders in flight. And if I'm correct in that
recollection, isn't that what the other sailplane trackers currently
do? Not necessarily using Flarm signals, but some other means to
display the locations and tracks of gliders.

On 3/3/2016 12:18 PM, wrote:
I'll wait for more info on the alleged technical problem. As for the attitude that "FLARM risked time and money to develop a proprietary technology that a lot of pilots want and now that it's successful, we don't think it's fair unless it's shared" (translation: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs), until such time as Bernie dispatches Hillary and then the Donald, I have no problem with this kind of "monopoly", at least in the U.S.

Chip Bearden

--
Dan, 5J