5 ms·

If encryption is permitted on amateur bands, huge chunks of the rulebook become completely unenforceable. Use-cases that would require encryption are largely in

If encryption is permitted on amateur bands, huge chunks of the rulebook become completely unenforceable. Use-cases that would require encryption are largely incompatible with the purposes of amateur radio stated in Title 47 Part 97. If the amateur bands become filled with encrypted traffic, I cannot imagine any scenario in which they would not become a free-for-all.

logfromblammo 7y ago
Police work is only easy in a police state. Ham operators have to decide whether they want to enforce the rules more easily, or whether they want their protected slices of bandwidth to remain relevant in the 21st century. Constellations of LEO communications satellites already exist, and they are becoming cheaper and more accessible. When a message can be sent from anywhere on Earth to anywhere else on Earth using antennas smaller than a thumbnail, with verification of receipt, independently of local weather, while a billion other people are doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, I will strongly wonder why people are still using a channel that could otherwise carry trillions of those messages to try to unreliably bounce Morse code along the terminator from Kansas to Kamchatka. Opening up a free-for-all in the amateur bands might just produce outsider ideas for interference resolution and deconfliction that are not encumbered by telecoms patents. I want the amateur bands to be a free-for-all. And also free, for all.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >I want the amateur bands to be a free-for-all. And also free, for all. Then they aren't the amateur bands any more - they're ISM bands with really high power limits. Interference is a thing. Modern technology doesn't magic away the problem of interference, it just gives us some tools for mitigating it in some circumstances. The amateur bands give you the right to use high power levels on big blocks of spectrum, but those rights come with responsibilities. You might prefer anarchy, but the FCC doesn't and neither do the majority of spectrum users.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Considering only the preferences of the spectrum users is begging the question. The people who are allowed to use the spectrum for the purposes they prefer, prefer that the bands be restricted to their preferred purposes. ARRL and FCC make the rules because they have both existed since before I was born, and have always picked the next generation of rules-makers from within their own ranks. I never actually agreed that they should be the ones with power over the airwaves, and neither have given me many reasons to do so. The FCC has done nothing to reverse, halt, or even slow broadcast media consolidation in the US. Why should I expect it to be penny wise when it is so pound foolish? They have lost their mandate, but kept their guns. It may be the right time for a little anarchy again now, and may the next RF allocation organization that arises out of the chaos remember that interference-free radio communication is a privilege, not a right.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      What. FCC is what keeps all wireless communications in the US working. TV, satellite, HAM, ISM, nautical, aeronautical, you name it. What do you think would happen if FCC took to heart you not recognizing their legitimacy and disbanded? Do you think your Wi-Fi or cellphone would keep working reliably?
      - logfromblammo 7y ago
        Those who paid for licenses would be rather put out, and there would be large and painful disruptions in service. But probably not as bad as can be imagined. A lot of stuff would probably still work just fine, and only suffer occasional outages. My cellphone already doesn't work reliably now, but my wi-fi would still work, as I blast my neighbors' routers out of my living room by increasing my transmitter power, and we might even have a grand war of RF attrition, which could spill over into previously reserved bands, including air, military, and emergency services. Or maybe the next version of router firmware handles it. Wi-fi is in unlicensed spectrum. It already has to contend with cordless landline phones, microwave ovens, baby monitors, garage door openers, and home security cameras. And that has prompted the creation of new technology to make it work. So now I can enjoy an encrypted Mbps link from the wall to my workstation without running a wire, even as neighbors on all sides do the same thing. I'd guess that the market for SDRs, highly-directional custom-geometry antennas, laser-optical data links, and wired network building retrofits would explode. Mobile phone service would backslide in quality. GPS would be frequently jammed or spoofed. Eventually, someone would mess with air or ship traffic and get arrested for terrorism. TV would have to come up with some way to sign its signal, so that no one can interrupt kids' programming with shock imagery, or inject pirate ads over the normal ads. Or maybe they just give up, and stream their feed over the Internet, in competition with everyone who wasn't protected by an FCC license. The FCC keeps everything working by the FCC's system. Without the FCC, it would have to work by a different system, or it might not work for everyone, for all existing use cases. It is not guaranteed that any such future theoretical system would protect any given usage of RF broadcast. Nor is it guaranteed that any usage would be threatened. If you don't run a service that is an uncontroversially unmitigated good--or at the least unremarkably banal--someone will probably try to interfere with you or usurp your station squat, and that will be your problem to solve. In order to get back what was lost with the disappearance of the FCC, some work would be required. In my view, developing the frequency to be more usable, more beneficial, or more accessible to the public is what gives you the right to use it. Other people may have different criteria.
VLM 7y ago
If the FCC permits part 97 to turn into a complete free for all, it would be functionally identical to services in part 90 and most of part 95, and if the FCC wanted 47CFR95D to have 1500 watts ... they'd amend 47CFR95D to allow 1500 watts, not screw around endlessly with part 97 to make it a weird pale imitation of CB or business band radio or whatever. Its just weird to see calls to turn part 97 operations into pale imitations of 47CFR95J or part 90 or similar. Historically the FCC kinda laughs at that stuff. An excellent local government analogy would be walking into city hall and demanding the building permit department operations be amended such that they used to issue building permits, but you hate the local marina operator, so why not amend the building permit office into stealthily becoming the new local marina operator office as a way to get around existing structure; they'll laugh you right out of city hall. Likewise the FCC is modern and hip and if you want to do 47CFR95J or part 90 operations, they're super cooperative and into helping you get licensed into those services as cheaply and quickly as possible. I'm not being sarcastic; seriously they're generally nice people to work with, mostly. They are not amused at categorical errors where someone demands they won't fill out a part 90 application because they don't feel like it so everyone else should have to modify part 97 so they can perform part 90 operations using existing part 97 structure. Really the paragraph above is the fundamental problem expressed in the article; people unwilling or too cheap or too confused to license and operate under 47CFR95B or 47CFR95D or 47CFR95G or whatever existing services mysteriously think it would be easier for the entire rest of the world to Frankenstein part 97 into a pale and inferior imitation of the existing services they somehow, for no obvious reason, refuse to use. Some of the rants are bizzare; "The FCC hates STEM and technology because they won't let me operate 47CFR95J in a part 97 band because I'm too lazy to read and apply for 47CFR95J service and part 97 is cheap and easy to apply for" Well, uh, no, that hate really does not exist at all, I assure you.
geofft 7y ago
Why do you need the contents of messages to prevent a free-for-all? Just place a limit on how much bandwidth/time can be used by encrypted messages, and require (as always) the callsign in cleartext. Excessive encrypted messages can be tracked down as effectively as excessive rag-chewing.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century. There's nothing in the rules against excessively long transmissions. There are lots of wholly legitimate reasons for very long contacts, with the most obvious example being experimental exchanges using very low SNR modes. There is a rule against "communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services" - something which could only be ascertained based on the content of the communications. There are rules against broadcasting, commercial use of the service and a number of other factors relating to the content and purpose of the transmission. What activity would people like to undertake that a) requires encryption and b) is compatible with the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in part 97? How could a simple rule on the duration of transmissions or the length of QSOs meaningfully distinguish between technical experimentation, communications that could not occur by any other medium and the commercial exploitation of the amateur service?
  - geofft 7y ago
    > What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century. If you're going to be dramatic about it: yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We've learned in the last couple of decades on the Internet that communication needs to be encrypted and authenticated as a matter of course. We did not know that a century ago. (We didn't have modern cryptography a century ago.) I think it's perfectly fair to re-evaluate in light of that. Specifically, you basically can't use any modern network protocol over packet radio any more, because no modern network protocol worth using has a non-encrypted mode. > What activity would people like to undertake that a) requires encryption and b) is compatible with the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in part 97? Personally, I'd like to tunnel E2E-encrypted text messages, a mosh session to my IRC box, etc., which ordinarily would go over cellular internet links, over ham radio to reach parts of my city with poor cellular coverage, for the purpose of casual conversations with friends and also getting experience with building/operating portable wireless communication systems. Casual conversations that inspire you to get better at building wireless communication systems is a completely normal, intentional, well-accepted use of the amateur service, perhaps the most normal and well-accepted use. (I also suspect that being able to tunnel normal internet communication protocols over ham radio would be more reliable and valuable in an emergency than voice and ham-specific protocols, and I'd argue that building and gaining practical experience with such systems is also a reasonable use of the amateur service.) > How could a simple rule on the duration of transmissions or the length of QSOs meaningfully distinguish between technical experimentation, communications that could not occur by any other medium and the commercial exploitation of the amateur service? If your transmissions are long or regular, then they cannot be encrypted. This does not ban long transmissions, this rule bans long and regular encrypted transmissions - i.e., it is effectively a subset of the existing rule banning encrypted transmissions of any length. So, all existing uses are permitted. (Are you envisioning a legitimate purpose for encrypted data over low-SNR links? Then you're probably being more ambitious than I am in your hopes for encrypted ham radio!)
ashleyn 7y ago
I've always wondered why the FCC is regulating the content of amateur radio transmissions as opposed to merely the spectrum used. With the way regulations are set up, there's little to do on amateur radio than....talk about amateur radio. A bit stifling as far as potential innovations go. I've had several great ideas for amateur radio applications that are effectively useless without some method of privacy. There's not a compelling reason I can think of for the FCC doing anything more than regulating bandwidth, power, and duration of radio spectrum signals. On that premise, what couldn't they do with encrypted signals? It's not like abusers honestly identify themselves at the required intervals anyway. They could still triangulate abusers and issue fines. The only thing they wouldn't be able to do is tell users to watch their mouth. As far as one of the stated purposes being emergency management, I can't help but wonder if reserved frequencies (ala CB channel 9) are sufficient.
- howard941 7y ago
  Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price for your unused HT, whatever.
  - godelski 7y ago
    The encrypted communication the parent is likely referring to isn't about speech. An example of something that would need encryption is something like accessing a server through radio. Or "iot" like devices, except we'll say HAMOT. I'm definitely not opening a server without encryption. Lots of applications for controlling devices you'd also want to encrypt so that they can't be hijacked.
    - howard941 7y ago
      Are you sure you have to encrypt? Those uses call for authentication.
      - godelski 7y ago

logfromblammo 7y ago

Police work is only easy in a police state. Ham operators have to decide whether they want to enforce the rules more easily, or whether they want their protected slices of bandwidth to remain relevant in the 21st century. Constellations of LEO communications satellites already exist, and they are becoming cheaper and more accessible. When a message can be sent from anywhere on Earth to anywhere else on Earth using antennas smaller than a thumbnail, with verification of receipt, independently of local weather, while a billion other people are doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, I will strongly wonder why people are still using a channel that could otherwise carry trillions of those messages to try to unreliably bounce Morse code along the terminator from Kansas to Kamchatka. Opening up a free-for-all in the amateur bands might just produce outsider ideas for interference resolution and deconfliction that are not encumbered by telecoms patents. I want the amateur bands to be a free-for-all. And also free, for all.

jdietrich 7y ago
>I want the amateur bands to be a free-for-all. And also free, for all. Then they aren't the amateur bands any more - they're ISM bands with really high power limits. Interference is a thing. Modern technology doesn't magic away the problem of interference, it just gives us some tools for mitigating it in some circumstances. The amateur bands give you the right to use high power levels on big blocks of spectrum, but those rights come with responsibilities. You might prefer anarchy, but the FCC doesn't and neither do the majority of spectrum users.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Considering only the preferences of the spectrum users is begging the question. The people who are allowed to use the spectrum for the purposes they prefer, prefer that the bands be restricted to their preferred purposes. ARRL and FCC make the rules because they have both existed since before I was born, and have always picked the next generation of rules-makers from within their own ranks. I never actually agreed that they should be the ones with power over the airwaves, and neither have given me many reasons to do so. The FCC has done nothing to reverse, halt, or even slow broadcast media consolidation in the US. Why should I expect it to be penny wise when it is so pound foolish? They have lost their mandate, but kept their guns. It may be the right time for a little anarchy again now, and may the next RF allocation organization that arises out of the chaos remember that interference-free radio communication is a privilege, not a right.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    What. FCC is what keeps all wireless communications in the US working. TV, satellite, HAM, ISM, nautical, aeronautical, you name it. What do you think would happen if FCC took to heart you not recognizing their legitimacy and disbanded? Do you think your Wi-Fi or cellphone would keep working reliably?
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      Those who paid for licenses would be rather put out, and there would be large and painful disruptions in service. But probably not as bad as can be imagined. A lot of stuff would probably still work just fine, and only suffer occasional outages. My cellphone already doesn't work reliably now, but my wi-fi would still work, as I blast my neighbors' routers out of my living room by increasing my transmitter power, and we might even have a grand war of RF attrition, which could spill over into previously reserved bands, including air, military, and emergency services. Or maybe the next version of router firmware handles it. Wi-fi is in unlicensed spectrum. It already has to contend with cordless landline phones, microwave ovens, baby monitors, garage door openers, and home security cameras. And that has prompted the creation of new technology to make it work. So now I can enjoy an encrypted Mbps link from the wall to my workstation without running a wire, even as neighbors on all sides do the same thing. I'd guess that the market for SDRs, highly-directional custom-geometry antennas, laser-optical data links, and wired network building retrofits would explode. Mobile phone service would backslide in quality. GPS would be frequently jammed or spoofed. Eventually, someone would mess with air or ship traffic and get arrested for terrorism. TV would have to come up with some way to sign its signal, so that no one can interrupt kids' programming with shock imagery, or inject pirate ads over the normal ads. Or maybe they just give up, and stream their feed over the Internet, in competition with everyone who wasn't protected by an FCC license. The FCC keeps everything working by the FCC's system. Without the FCC, it would have to work by a different system, or it might not work for everyone, for all existing use cases. It is not guaranteed that any such future theoretical system would protect any given usage of RF broadcast. Nor is it guaranteed that any usage would be threatened. If you don't run a service that is an uncontroversially unmitigated good--or at the least unremarkably banal--someone will probably try to interfere with you or usurp your station squat, and that will be your problem to solve. In order to get back what was lost with the disappearance of the FCC, some work would be required. In my view, developing the frequency to be more usable, more beneficial, or more accessible to the public is what gives you the right to use it. Other people may have different criteria.

VLM 7y ago

If the FCC permits part 97 to turn into a complete free for all, it would be functionally identical to services in part 90 and most of part 95, and if the FCC wanted 47CFR95D to have 1500 watts ... they'd amend 47CFR95D to allow 1500 watts, not screw around endlessly with part 97 to make it a weird pale imitation of CB or business band radio or whatever. Its just weird to see calls to turn part 97 operations into pale imitations of 47CFR95J or part 90 or similar. Historically the FCC kinda laughs at that stuff. An excellent local government analogy would be walking into city hall and demanding the building permit department operations be amended such that they used to issue building permits, but you hate the local marina operator, so why not amend the building permit office into stealthily becoming the new local marina operator office as a way to get around existing structure; they'll laugh you right out of city hall. Likewise the FCC is modern and hip and if you want to do 47CFR95J or part 90 operations, they're super cooperative and into helping you get licensed into those services as cheaply and quickly as possible. I'm not being sarcastic; seriously they're generally nice people to work with, mostly. They are not amused at categorical errors where someone demands they won't fill out a part 90 application because they don't feel like it so everyone else should have to modify part 97 so they can perform part 90 operations using existing part 97 structure. Really the paragraph above is the fundamental problem expressed in the article; people unwilling or too cheap or too confused to license and operate under 47CFR95B or 47CFR95D or 47CFR95G or whatever existing services mysteriously think it would be easier for the entire rest of the world to Frankenstein part 97 into a pale and inferior imitation of the existing services they somehow, for no obvious reason, refuse to use. Some of the rants are bizzare; "The FCC hates STEM and technology because they won't let me operate 47CFR95J in a part 97 band because I'm too lazy to read and apply for 47CFR95J service and part 97 is cheap and easy to apply for" Well, uh, no, that hate really does not exist at all, I assure you.

geofft 7y ago

Why do you need the contents of messages to prevent a free-for-all? Just place a limit on how much bandwidth/time can be used by encrypted messages, and require (as always) the callsign in cleartext. Excessive encrypted messages can be tracked down as effectively as excessive rag-chewing.

jdietrich 7y ago
What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century. There's nothing in the rules against excessively long transmissions. There are lots of wholly legitimate reasons for very long contacts, with the most obvious example being experimental exchanges using very low SNR modes. There is a rule against "communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services" - something which could only be ascertained based on the content of the communications. There are rules against broadcasting, commercial use of the service and a number of other factors relating to the content and purpose of the transmission. What activity would people like to undertake that a) requires encryption and b) is compatible with the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in part 97? How could a simple rule on the duration of transmissions or the length of QSOs meaningfully distinguish between technical experimentation, communications that could not occur by any other medium and the commercial exploitation of the amateur service?
- geofft 7y ago
  > What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century. If you're going to be dramatic about it: yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We've learned in the last couple of decades on the Internet that communication needs to be encrypted and authenticated as a matter of course. We did not know that a century ago. (We didn't have modern cryptography a century ago.) I think it's perfectly fair to re-evaluate in light of that. Specifically, you basically can't use any modern network protocol over packet radio any more, because no modern network protocol worth using has a non-encrypted mode. > What activity would people like to undertake that a) requires encryption and b) is compatible with the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in part 97? Personally, I'd like to tunnel E2E-encrypted text messages, a mosh session to my IRC box, etc., which ordinarily would go over cellular internet links, over ham radio to reach parts of my city with poor cellular coverage, for the purpose of casual conversations with friends and also getting experience with building/operating portable wireless communication systems. Casual conversations that inspire you to get better at building wireless communication systems is a completely normal, intentional, well-accepted use of the amateur service, perhaps the most normal and well-accepted use. (I also suspect that being able to tunnel normal internet communication protocols over ham radio would be more reliable and valuable in an emergency than voice and ham-specific protocols, and I'd argue that building and gaining practical experience with such systems is also a reasonable use of the amateur service.) > How could a simple rule on the duration of transmissions or the length of QSOs meaningfully distinguish between technical experimentation, communications that could not occur by any other medium and the commercial exploitation of the amateur service? If your transmissions are long or regular, then they cannot be encrypted. This does not ban long transmissions, this rule bans long and regular encrypted transmissions - i.e., it is effectively a subset of the existing rule banning encrypted transmissions of any length. So, all existing uses are permitted. (Are you envisioning a legitimate purpose for encrypted data over low-SNR links? Then you're probably being more ambitious than I am in your hopes for encrypted ham radio!)

ashleyn 7y ago

I've always wondered why the FCC is regulating the content of amateur radio transmissions as opposed to merely the spectrum used. With the way regulations are set up, there's little to do on amateur radio than....talk about amateur radio. A bit stifling as far as potential innovations go. I've had several great ideas for amateur radio applications that are effectively useless without some method of privacy. There's not a compelling reason I can think of for the FCC doing anything more than regulating bandwidth, power, and duration of radio spectrum signals. On that premise, what couldn't they do with encrypted signals? It's not like abusers honestly identify themselves at the required intervals anyway. They could still triangulate abusers and issue fines. The only thing they wouldn't be able to do is tell users to watch their mouth. As far as one of the stated purposes being emergency management, I can't help but wonder if reserved frequencies (ala CB channel 9) are sufficient.

howard941 7y ago
Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price for your unused HT, whatever.
- godelski 7y ago
  The encrypted communication the parent is likely referring to isn't about speech. An example of something that would need encryption is something like accessing a server through radio. Or "iot" like devices, except we'll say HAMOT. I'm definitely not opening a server without encryption. Lots of applications for controlling devices you'd also want to encrypt so that they can't be hijacked.
  - howard941 7y ago
    Are you sure you have to encrypt? Those uses call for authentication.
    - godelski 7y ago