9 ms·

FCC wants to bolster amateur radio

354 points by Stratoscope 3y ago

vvanders 3y ago
Finally. This has always felt backwards and I hope it leads to some more interesting modes across the bands.
vorpalhex 3y ago
This is great news. I would also love to see some (not all) uhf band allow encryption. While amateur radio service is about communicating with others, services like winlink and digital messaging are hampered without encryption and become unsafe for the operators. This would also make internet relay possible and legal in uhf.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >services like winlink and digital messaging are hampered without encryption and become unsafe for the operators How so?
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    Your messages are cleartext, can be forged, and your password can be trivially grabbed across just a few logins. It's like pre-https internet basically. This also means winlink shouldn't be used for PII (which is sort of important in an emergency!). If you can at least key exchange and encrypt between you and the next node, you have some safeguards and your messages aren't in the clear - but that is currently prohibited by the regs.
    - skullone 3y ago
      I don't think scammers will be listening in on shortwave to grab names or an address during an emergency :p
      - baz00 3y ago
        Have you been to a hamfest recently? Do you want half the participants getting your details?
        piperswe 3y ago
        If you put your address on your license application, then they have your details if they have your callsign.
      - vorpalhex 3y ago
        Security through obscurity is no security at all. SDRs that will record everything across a nice swath of frequency are $20.
        Forgotthepass8 3y ago
        +those fantastic websdr sites will have it captured
    - kwk1 3y ago
      > Your messages are cleartext, can be forged Digital signatures are permissible under the current rules and in principle avoid this issue although the software tooling around it isn't there. Similar example: Debian packages are transmitted over HTTP, but this isn't a problem because they are authenticated with GPG.
- finnthehuman 3y ago
  I want to agree with encryption but I think we’d see tunneling unapproved use though approved use. I don’t use my license enough to know is cryptographic signing is kosher but if it’s not that would be cool. If the idea is an “if you have a license, send whatever data you want because it’s encrypted” limited allocation then I might be into that. Sharing the spectrum would be complicated.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    Yeah that's why I suggest a small subset of the UHF spectrum - it's naturally range limited to your local repeaters and it has the room to carve some space for whatever encrypted traffic is flowing. Whether that space is used for meshtastic, AREDN, etc is up to the local band plan. Leave some for experimenters. Even APRS (which I realize is usually vhf) would benefit - sms over aprs meant all your phone numbers were public.
    - giantrobot 3y ago
      If you are transmitting an encrypted signal and I am not the recipient, I just see it as noise. There's no way for me to know its not noise. Since I have no insight into the transmission other than it's noise I don't have any idea when I get to use the shared medium you decided you wanted to monopolize. IIRC there's more bandwidth in just the 2.4GHz ISM band than all of the ham bands combined. If you want to blast noise (what your encrypted signal appears as) use ISM bands. Don't blast noise on ham bands.
  - thrtythreeforty 3y ago
    Signatures on a cleartext transmission should be okay, I think. The FCC prohibits obscured meaning and as long as the encoding scheme is published (and you're courteous and follow the band plan) then I don't think there's anything forbidding making traffic un-forgeable with cryptography.
    - myself248 3y ago
      That's my understanding as well. But I'd also bet a dollar that someone fails to understand the difference and gets their undies in a massive twist about it.
- twiclo 3y ago
  They actually never explicitly say no encryption. I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission". So theoretically you could add a header to every packet that says "purpose: testing hardware" and you'd be fine. It's only other groups, not the FCC, who have interpreted that to mean no encryption.
  - emptybits 3y ago
    > I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission". So theoretically you could add a header to every packet that says "purpose: testing hardware" and you'd be fine. I think Section 97 is what you're referring to. If so, it's not obstruction of purpose the FCC forbids; it's obstruction of meaning. Section 97: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - chriscjcj 3y ago
    I'm not an experienced ham; I only have my technician license. Throughout part 97, there is a repeated prohibition of transmitting "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If I understand it correctly, there are many accepted ways to encode a message, but those encoding methods are (and must be) published and publicly accessible. I think that encrypting a message so that only certain people could decipher it would fall under the category of "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." Yes, you could encrypt a message with a published standard, but to be legal I think there would have to be some specific exceptions made to allow it because it ultimately runs afoul of the spirit of that rule.
- ozim 3y ago
  I’m sorry but encryption is not required to test your antenna setup and get reading of your output power from another station. You miss the point, it is not about communication as in having a conversation. HAM radio is about testing technical skills of setting it up and being able to test those technical skills to set up communication channel. If you want to have encryption go to enterprise solutions and restricted bandwidths. Encryption will make asshole companies to use bandwidth for their use without paying and will make all spectrum suck. That is why you have call signs and all communications open for everyone to listen to because it is for public experimentation not for some private chats or data exchange.
  - lostapathy 3y ago
    > You miss the point, it is not about communication as in having a conversation. Yes, but, running a "yep, I can hear that" test is a lot less interesting and motivating, for most people, than being able to actually do something quasi-practical with the radio link.
  - sterlind 3y ago
    what about allowing authentication, rather than encryption? like, let people send MAC-protected checksums and signatures to make plaintext verifiable. I think it'd open up the possibilities of like, weather balloons streaming their telemetry openly, while ensuring the data they're reporting hasn't been forged, or letting anyone send random commands to it.
    - jcalvinowens 3y ago
      > what about allowing authentication, rather than encryption? like, let people send MAC-protected checksums and signatures to make plaintext verifiable. That's already allowed, and commonly done. 97.113(a)(4) doesn't say "no cryptography", it says (in part): >> No amateur station shall transmit [...] messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning. The scheme you're describing doesn't obscure the meaning of your transmissions, so it is perfectly legal. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
- vvoid 3y ago
  My fear would be Helium and rightwing extremist groups. Currently happy to have the encrypted P25 users on the wrong side of part 97.
  - thrtythreeforty 3y ago
    Do people operate pirate/unlicensed P25 nets? Seems like that's the kind of thing hams would like to foxhunt.
    - vvoid 3y ago
      Judging by amateur radio subreddits, there is significant crossover interest in this among the prepper and mutual aid community. Rhetorically speaking, what does one do with the fox once it's caught? In particular one experimenting with TAK?
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    Don't let your fear of boogeymen impact your opinions on how we use spectrum
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  I have to see anyone take things seriously enough to sign their messages. We could easily assert a public key then send a chirp at the end that signs the transmission we just made, with our corresponding private key, for folks to verify. I don't see any real push for a public service like ham to allow outright encryption. Channels feel like they should be for public use. We can get many guarantees, if we need them, without obfuscating the messages.
  - myself248 3y ago
    Yeah, it would be nice to see some protocols to do just that, implement authentication over cleartext messages in a way that's compatible with the rules, and then wedge that under some useful apps.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > I would also love to see some (not all) uhf band allow encryption. I disagree: with a finite, shared resource like radio spectrum (and especially the amateur bands), I think it would be too easy for people to abuse if other folks couldn't inspect it. As it stands, many find it annoying that PACTOR (as useful as it is) is able to keep hidden their proprietary encoding secret (though generally used on marine bands, which doesn't necessarily have the same open-ness restrictions): * 2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20386875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20386875 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACTOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACTOR * https://www.bwsailing.com/bw/ssb-email-and-weather-made-easy/ https://www.bwsailing.com/bw/ssb-email-and-weather-made-easy... * https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/PACTOR_IV https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/PACTOR_IV
- GuB-42 3y ago
  > This would also make internet relay possible and legal in uhf. That's exactly the reason why encryption is banned. The authorities, as well as amateur radio representatives don't want ham radio to become yet another internet channel, with all the commercial activity that happens there. There are many ways of sending secure messages, but few truly public spaces.
_whiteCaps_ 3y ago
I like to think that I helped with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394599
- stouset 3y ago
  Given a lack of evidence to the contrary, I’m going to think that too. Great work!
  - avalys 3y ago
    The FCC has been working on this since at least 2016, in response to a petition from the ARRL in 2013. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-96A1_Rcd.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-96A1_Rcd.pdf I would love to live in a world where the FCC could update outdated regulation within 50 days in response to a random internet comment to a commissioner...but that's not this universe.
    - saghm 3y ago
      The parent comment doesn't say they think they're solely responsible, but just that it might have helped. Given the positive response from the commissioner who posted the AMA that they already supported it, I don't think it's unreasonable that it might have been a bit of a reminder or motivation to prioritize it a bit more.
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      Government that works never works for the people. Government that works only works for the cleptocracy. Never never never aks for government that works.
- freeqaz 3y ago
  What does this comment actually mean? Replace with a 2.8khz bandwidth limit? Edit: I think this comment helps explain it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38053342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38053342
- deleted 3y ago
roflchoppa 3y ago
Dude Jessica has been killing it lately.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  Let's be honest this was probably part of a lobbying effort by some big tech company. The wheels of government don't roll unless they're greased with gold.
  - altairprime 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38052869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38052869
  - striking 3y ago
    "big tech" is currently lobbying to repurpose amateur radio frequencies for themselves (like for HFT https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ham-radio-enthusiasts-battle-high-frequency-traders-for-the-airwaves/ar-AA1ePt95 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ham-radio-enthusiast...) so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
  - tass 3y ago
    The ARRL has been pushing this for a while: https://www.arrl.org/news/congresswoman-lesko-reintroduces-bill-to-replace-symbol-rate-limit-with-bandwidth-limit https://www.arrl.org/news/congresswoman-lesko-reintroduces-b... It’s kind of unfortunate this type of decision requires Congress.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Other changes under Jessica Rosenworcel that show she is "killing it"?
  - antonyt 3y ago
    Not OP, but I imagine referring to https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/fcc-moves-ahead-with-title-ii-net-neutrality-rules-in-3-2-party-line-vote/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/fcc-moves-ahead-...
donatj 3y ago
I know next to nothing about radio, can someone tell me why a baud rate limit put in to begin with? Is there a technical reason for it like causing interference or something?
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  I think to limit the amount of spectrum used by any one signal… prevent bandwidth hogs.
- ARandomerDude 3y ago
  Uh oh. Looks like the Stack Overflow mods among us closed your question as off topic.
  - donatj 3y ago
    I reworded it to be more clear what I was asking and it turned around. It was fair.
- gaze 3y ago
  In nearly all cases, the lower the baud rate, the lower the bandwidth. You can come up with sufficiently pathological cases but indeed it’s the bandwidth that should be limited. EDIT: you should look at the shanon-Hartley limit. The bandwidth is proportional to the symbol rate.
  - Animats 3y ago
    > In nearly all cases, the lower the baud rate, the lower the bandwidth. You can come up with sufficiently pathological cases but indeed it’s the bandwidth that should be limited. This is not the case for classical frequency-shift amateur radioteletype. This sends two tones on single sideband, at 2125 Hz or 2295 Hz. So it uses up about 2.3KHz of bandwidth no matter how low the baud rate goes. 45.45 baud is classic mechanical Teletype speed, so the bandwidth is about 50x the data rate in that mode. You can do FSK up to maybe 600 baud; you need a few cycles to detect the tone frequency with classical filters. 300 is a traditional limit. Beyond that antique technology, you need a modulation scheme less than half a century old.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LanzVonL 3y ago
[dead]
declan_roberts 3y ago
> A few commenters at the time of the NPRM opposed any rule change, arguing that the existing rules should be retained in order to protect access to amateur bands by Morse code and other narrowband transmissions. I guess there's gatekeeping NIMBYs in the amateur radio bands as well!
- EGG_CREAM 3y ago
  HAM here, can confirm. If a community exists, there will be pointless gatekeeping of that community, lol.
  - baz00 3y ago
    And within those communities there will be assholes who are better than you too who are gatekeeping the sublevels. I have long since traded my license for a better life of being a decadent man of international mystery, but I do remember as a very casual CW operator getting mauled by people semi-regularly for violations of people's waterfall displays with my drifty ass analogue transceiver and newbie hand.
    - networkchad 3y ago
      [dead]
  - kmbfjr 3y ago
    Ham, not HAM. Or just call it amateur radio because HAM is meaningless.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      It seems to me you got it just fine.
    - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
      Where did the "HAM" nomenclature come from, then? I have wondered what the letters stand for. I do share your disdain for stupid and/or incorrect nomenclature. Like "Wi-Fi." WTF, there's no use of "fidelity" that this is short for.
charcircuit 3y ago
I was expecting restrictions like encryption to be removed so you could use modern network protocols. Amateur radio will continue losing to the internet where actual growth and innovation is happening instead of old guys larping how they are going to save the world by knowing morse code or something.
- genmud 3y ago
  I thought the encryption restriction was only for analog radio, not digital?
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    No. You can encode data digitally, per a specification, but you can't encode it.
    - genmud 3y ago
      So, why wouldn’t you be able to encrypt the data you send before digital encoding?
      - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
        Because it is against the rules.
      - unethical_ban 3y ago
        I meant you can't encrypt it. And the other person is correct. It's simply against the rules and the spirit of ham radio.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  It's a hobbyist set of bands, and encrypting traffic is against the hobbyist spirit of it. Part of the beauty of ham is being able to go along the dial and be able to observe the traffic. That would die with widespread encryption. Your insulting of people who try to maintain radios for emergencies is unnecessary, too.
ChuckMcM 3y ago
This is a really good thing, but for non-radio people it can be confusing. In the 80's, the FCC put limits on digital signals below 30MHz based on "baud rate". A baud is a raw bit in a digital data stream, it can either be data or part of the channel protocol. For example, a typical serial port like you have on a PC or an Arduino or something might operate at 9600 baud, each "chunk" consisting of a start bit, 8 data bits, and a stop bit. That is a total of 10 bauds, two of them, the start bit and the stop bit, are part of telling the circuit where the data starts and stops. So 9600 baud sends 960, 8 bit bytes per second over the line or only 7,680 bits per second. With me so far? Okay, so the reason baud rates were used is because digital modes were modulated using a technique calls "frequency shift keying" or FSK. Frequency shift keying would send one tone for a zero bit, and one tone for a one bit. Those tones were detected with a circuit called a tone detector circuit and typically they needed a few tens of cycles of the tone to reliably detect the tone. A higher frequency tone meant you could detect it sooner (shorter time for the detector to latch on to the frequency) and that would give you a higher baud rate. But if you're modulating a higher frequency tone on to an RF carrier, it creates a wider impact on the spectrum and everything else was predicated on 2.5kHz max width voice channels. So allowing a faster baudrate, using FSK modulation, would result in digital modes taking up way more spectrum and thus limit the number of users. But between then and now, there has been a freakin' Cambrian explosion of modulation techniques because digital signal processing is just math. We have a whole stable of techniques in the barn because of this, And as a result, you can put a lot more bits on a channel without pushing the spectrum bandwidth out. A lot of people have pointed out to the FCC that making the limit baud rate based was silly if they really wanted it to be a spectrum bandwidth limit. Just make it that, and the experimental folks will compete to see how many bauds they can fit into that space. I will admit I am biased, I'm one of those folks who got back into Amateur Radio because I was playing around with SDRs and wanted to start trying new modulation techniques. I am not motivated by "QSOs in every state" or every country, I'm motivated by "I just pulled an image off a weather balloon over the Atlantic ocean on 20 meters!" and "I can see my beacon 500 miles away on the KiwiSDR network!" things like that. So this change is really going to open up a lot of space for experimentation for me and I can't wait.
- aliljet 3y ago
  This is so damn cool. How do you discover services in this environment (e.g., how does that weather balloon announce it has an image?)
Forgotthepass8 3y ago
Rather than encrypt why not steganography? encode your data within natural language and transmit using a natural sounding text to speech engine Maybe some AM Radio stations are already actually numbers stations V2.0
subhro 3y ago
Huh? Amateur radio still exists in the world of cell phones, satellite phones, yada yada yada? That’s stupid world war 2 technology. — N9EX
- Crunchified 3y ago
  Haha, well played from an Amateur Extra! I've always considered amateur radio to be the "national parks" of radio spectrum. Maybe better termed as "international parks," since the vast majority of nations embrace it much as we in the United States do. Ham radio is certainly an important player in average-Joe diplomacy, in which we can still engage in dialog with radio technicians and operators from practically all the countries of the world without the government and mass-media filters we normally have to deal with. Even though much of our discussions are centered on radio topics and family life (politics are usually kept aside), the mere fact that we are talking in a relaxed format with folks from almost anywhere is a joy to experience!
pythonguython 3y ago
Great news. I’d like to see them take down some restrictions for ISM bands experimentation as well. So many consumer devices operate at 2.4 GHz or 900 MHz so there’s a lot to be done there.FWIW I wouldn’t feel bad about doing very low power short term experiments on those bands, but I wouldnt publish anything on it based on what I understand of the current regulations.
nickysielicki 3y ago
This is very exciting, and hopefully can be a big aspect in getting off-the-shelf 100W radios capable of doing I/Q out over USB instead of the stupid audio interfaces we're stuck with today.
Crunchified 3y ago
If removing an archaic restriction is "bolstering amateur radio" then what does the FCC call the recently imposed $35 fees for new or modified ham licenses that up to now had been one of the few government courtesies left?
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  Sounds like a way to fund ongoing support without budget headaches. And a cheap way at that.
  - Crunchified 3y ago
    Well, other FCC users are commercial users of the airwaves. Wouldn’t it make sense that their fees would cover the costs of “ongoing support” of the citizenry’s non-commercial use of radio spectrum? It’s not like they have to build roads or buildings to make this happen - it’s just some rulemaking and a database. If you’re not aware, hams have for many years received paltry (at best) support from the FCC in terms of any enforcement.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      > If you’re not aware, hams have for many years received paltry (at best) support from the FCC in terms of any enforcement. Could you expand on what you mean here? What enforcement is lacking?
- tzs 3y ago
  I believe they call it is following this law [1] that requires them to do so, which was passed by the House and Senate in 2018 and signed by President Trump. Search for "section 8 of the communications" to find the place within the bill text where it requires the FCC to start charging such fees. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625
  - Crunchified 3y ago
    I’m not ignorant of why this happened, although a bit bitter nonetheless. I can only hope that the FCC can respond by becoming more of an enforcer and more mindful that we hams (about a million of us, iirc) are now paying for their services.
threemux 3y ago
I think the proposed rule to replace the baud limits in VHF and above will make more of a difference. All the major weak signal HF digital modes use low baud rates anyway to better deal with multipath interference that's common at those frequencies. Really the only mode we couldn't use here was PACTOR 4 - that was the mode people kept getting waivers of the rule for.
- nullc 3y ago
  The rule is technically a problem for meteor scatter in 10m. The short duration of the channel favors high baud rates and multi-path isn't a significant issue there.
wkat4242 3y ago
Wow in Europe it's kinda the opposite. Most countries' regulators want us to die off so they can sell the bands for lots of money. Unfortunately dieing off is exactly what's happening :(
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Wonder why the attitude difference?
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Not sure about other countries but in Holland it had a clear reason. The old socialist-centric government of the 80s/early 90s viewed the radio spectrum as infrastructure similar to the road network. This meant that in their view their main task was policing the airwaves. Policing was omnipresent, and they would take action on every infraction even ones where radio spectrum that wasn't actually in use was used by unauthorized parties. The radio amateurs were simply one of the many right holders and treated as such. We paid a pretty reasonable fee but were respected in turn. Then when the neoliberals came to power, this changed. They view the radio spectrum as a natural resource from which they need to extract maximum profit. This coincided with the rise of mobile phones and an ever-increasing demand for radio spectrum. They moved the regulating angency from under the ministry of transportation to the ministry of economic affairs. This meant that the attitude changed a lot: HAMs were viewed as 'freeloaders', spectrum for mobile operators etc was auctioned off for billions, and policing was restricted to only following up on issues that impacted operations of major spectrum holders or made the press. I'm pretty sure that the only thing keeping them from taking spectrum away to auction off to multinationals, are international agreements. One example: When highly popular central heating company "Vaillant" introduced a new digital model which caused emissions from the wiring between the heater and the thermostat that jammed the 2m repeater band, it took a LOT of complaining to finally get the regulator to take action. At this point these heaters had been sold so much that it took years to resolve it. Of course there were other developments at this time which caused a major decline in HAM population. Like the internet and home computer. Until then the big thing a geek would have at home would be a radio shack, but since the internet and mobile phone the whole "I can talk to anyone in the world from my attic!!!" had lost a lot of its shine. But I do believe the above really was the reason why at least our regulator changed its views so heavily.
hatsunearu 3y ago
Holy shit, the title undersells that. The 300 baud limitation made digital radio basically useless for anything other than old geezers trying to fill their logbook with DXs. This is fucking great, and I hope it goes through.
mikewarot 3y ago
Wow... I started reading the FCC proposal[1], and learned of a new Ham Band, the 630 Meter band.[2] Unfortunately, I live near a 138KV power line, so I likely can't use it. It'll be interesting to see just how much data can be pushed through 2800 Hz of bandwidth in the real world, at long distance. [1] https://www.radioworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DOC-397992A1.pdf https://www.radioworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DOC-39... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/630-meter_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/630-meter_band
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Why would your proximity to a power line stop you from using it? Also there is a band below that you can use as well.
  - firesteelrain 3y ago
    RFI
  - cenazoic 3y ago
    Because it’s in the FCC rules: “...Amateur stations will be permitted to commence operations after a 30 day period unless UTC notifies the station that its fixed location is within one kilometer of Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems operating on the same or overlapping frequencies. This notification process will ensure that amateur stations seeking to operate in the above noted bands are located beyond a minimum separation distance from PLC transmission lines, which will help ensure the compatibility and coexistence of amateur and PLC operations, and promote shared use of the bands.”
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      I've never heard of anyone having a 630m permit denied due to that. I've never heard of anyone having a 630m permit denied, at all. There is some remote region of Alaska with a power restriction. Also, you can still receive all you want.
    - sciurus 3y ago
ConanRus 3y ago
[dead]
tra3 3y ago
I’m not familiar with how digital modes work. What speed can you operate at say on 2m/70cm?
omginternets 3y ago
I live in Massachusetts. What’s the best way to get started with amateur radio?
- twothamendment 3y ago
  What interests you? Talking around the world? Communicating more in your immediate area? Socially, or for emergencies? Voice, Morse code or some digital modes? There is a huge spectrum of things you can do and the amount of money you can spend. You can get into it for $50, but the sky is the limit. I'd look online for a local club and contact them. Around me, they will bend over backwards to get someone into it.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Here's my problem: it's all interesting. Ideally I'd like to hack around with packet radio. I've got a small cabin in the rural northeastern US, and would ideally like to hack on something with practical benefits in that setting. I'm pretty open to suggestions :) >I'd look online for a local club and contact them. Around me, they will bend over backwards to get someone into it. This is very good to know. Do you know of any in the Boston area?
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      The first thing is to get your Techician license. Pandemic means that there are now online tests. That allows you to transmit on VHF/UHF. Get a handheld radio. You can also try out packet data. If you want to do HF and long distances, then get your General license and HF radio.
      - _whiteCaps_ 3y ago
        If I'm reading the US rules correctly, a Technician can also do the HF 10M band? The propagation on that band is great right now during the day.
    - twothamendment 3y ago
pcunite 3y ago
Please allow HAM radio hardware to properly be used on GMRS frequencies and visversa.
ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
I hope any hams here also commented on the recent proposal to allow commodities traders to encroach on ham spectrum to gain a few milliseconds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37283776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37283776
ngcc_hk 3y ago
For a non ham radio guy, can any such change affect some use case like when some digital widespread issue, an analog communication for short message or even ham call can help but now cannot. I read the message about Morse code but they have not explained the consequences
westurner 3y ago
From "WebSDR – Internet-connected Software-Defined Radios" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38034417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38034417 : > pipewire-screenaudio: https://github.com/IceDBorn/pipewire-screenaudio https://github.com/IceDBorn/pipewire-screenaudio : >> Extension to passthrough pipewire audio to WebRTC Screenshare > awesome-amateur-radio#sdr https://github.com/mcaserta/awesome-amateur-radio#sdr https://github.com/mcaserta/awesome-amateur-radio#sdr > The OpenWRT wiki lists a few different weather station apps that can retrieve, record chart, and publish weather data from various weather sensors and also from GPIO or SDR; pywws, weewx > weewx: https://github.com/weewx/weewx https://github.com/weewx/weewx > A WebSDR LuCI app would be cool. What are some other interesting applications for [digital] terrestrial radio (in service of bolstering support for amateur radio)? What could K12cs "Q12" STEM science classes do to encourage learning of this and adjacent EM skills?
- westurner 3y ago
  "Listen to HD radio with a $30 RTL SDR dongle" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157466

354 points by Stratoscope 3y ago

Finally. This has always felt backwards and I hope it leads to some more interesting modes across the bands.

This is great news. I would also love to see some (not all) uhf band allow encryption. While amateur radio service is about communicating with others, services like winlink and digital messaging are hampered without encryption and become unsafe for the operators. This would also make internet relay possible and legal in uhf.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>services like winlink and digital messaging are hampered without encryption and become unsafe for the operators How so?
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  Your messages are cleartext, can be forged, and your password can be trivially grabbed across just a few logins. It's like pre-https internet basically. This also means winlink shouldn't be used for PII (which is sort of important in an emergency!). If you can at least key exchange and encrypt between you and the next node, you have some safeguards and your messages aren't in the clear - but that is currently prohibited by the regs.
  - skullone 3y ago
    I don't think scammers will be listening in on shortwave to grab names or an address during an emergency :p
    - baz00 3y ago
      Have you been to a hamfest recently? Do you want half the participants getting your details?
      - piperswe 3y ago
        If you put your address on your license application, then they have your details if they have your callsign.
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      Security through obscurity is no security at all. SDRs that will record everything across a nice swath of frequency are $20.
      - Forgotthepass8 3y ago
        +those fantastic websdr sites will have it captured
  - kwk1 3y ago
    > Your messages are cleartext, can be forged Digital signatures are permissible under the current rules and in principle avoid this issue although the software tooling around it isn't there. Similar example: Debian packages are transmitted over HTTP, but this isn't a problem because they are authenticated with GPG.
finnthehuman 3y ago
I want to agree with encryption but I think we’d see tunneling unapproved use though approved use. I don’t use my license enough to know is cryptographic signing is kosher but if it’s not that would be cool. If the idea is an “if you have a license, send whatever data you want because it’s encrypted” limited allocation then I might be into that. Sharing the spectrum would be complicated.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  Yeah that's why I suggest a small subset of the UHF spectrum - it's naturally range limited to your local repeaters and it has the room to carve some space for whatever encrypted traffic is flowing. Whether that space is used for meshtastic, AREDN, etc is up to the local band plan. Leave some for experimenters. Even APRS (which I realize is usually vhf) would benefit - sms over aprs meant all your phone numbers were public.
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    If you are transmitting an encrypted signal and I am not the recipient, I just see it as noise. There's no way for me to know its not noise. Since I have no insight into the transmission other than it's noise I don't have any idea when I get to use the shared medium you decided you wanted to monopolize. IIRC there's more bandwidth in just the 2.4GHz ISM band than all of the ham bands combined. If you want to blast noise (what your encrypted signal appears as) use ISM bands. Don't blast noise on ham bands.
- thrtythreeforty 3y ago
  Signatures on a cleartext transmission should be okay, I think. The FCC prohibits obscured meaning and as long as the encoding scheme is published (and you're courteous and follow the band plan) then I don't think there's anything forbidding making traffic un-forgeable with cryptography.
  - myself248 3y ago
    That's my understanding as well. But I'd also bet a dollar that someone fails to understand the difference and gets their undies in a massive twist about it.
twiclo 3y ago
They actually never explicitly say no encryption. I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission". So theoretically you could add a header to every packet that says "purpose: testing hardware" and you'd be fine. It's only other groups, not the FCC, who have interpreted that to mean no encryption.
- emptybits 3y ago
  > I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission". So theoretically you could add a header to every packet that says "purpose: testing hardware" and you'd be fine. I think Section 97 is what you're referring to. If so, it's not obstruction of purpose the FCC forbids; it's obstruction of meaning. Section 97: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- chriscjcj 3y ago
  I'm not an experienced ham; I only have my technician license. Throughout part 97, there is a repeated prohibition of transmitting "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If I understand it correctly, there are many accepted ways to encode a message, but those encoding methods are (and must be) published and publicly accessible. I think that encrypting a message so that only certain people could decipher it would fall under the category of "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." Yes, you could encrypt a message with a published standard, but to be legal I think there would have to be some specific exceptions made to allow it because it ultimately runs afoul of the spirit of that rule.
ozim 3y ago
I’m sorry but encryption is not required to test your antenna setup and get reading of your output power from another station. You miss the point, it is not about communication as in having a conversation. HAM radio is about testing technical skills of setting it up and being able to test those technical skills to set up communication channel. If you want to have encryption go to enterprise solutions and restricted bandwidths. Encryption will make asshole companies to use bandwidth for their use without paying and will make all spectrum suck. That is why you have call signs and all communications open for everyone to listen to because it is for public experimentation not for some private chats or data exchange.
- lostapathy 3y ago
  > You miss the point, it is not about communication as in having a conversation. Yes, but, running a "yep, I can hear that" test is a lot less interesting and motivating, for most people, than being able to actually do something quasi-practical with the radio link.
- sterlind 3y ago
  what about allowing authentication, rather than encryption? like, let people send MAC-protected checksums and signatures to make plaintext verifiable. I think it'd open up the possibilities of like, weather balloons streaming their telemetry openly, while ensuring the data they're reporting hasn't been forged, or letting anyone send random commands to it.
  - jcalvinowens 3y ago
    > what about allowing authentication, rather than encryption? like, let people send MAC-protected checksums and signatures to make plaintext verifiable. That's already allowed, and commonly done. 97.113(a)(4) doesn't say "no cryptography", it says (in part): >> No amateur station shall transmit [...] messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning. The scheme you're describing doesn't obscure the meaning of your transmissions, so it is perfectly legal. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
vvoid 3y ago
My fear would be Helium and rightwing extremist groups. Currently happy to have the encrypted P25 users on the wrong side of part 97.
- thrtythreeforty 3y ago
  Do people operate pirate/unlicensed P25 nets? Seems like that's the kind of thing hams would like to foxhunt.
  - vvoid 3y ago
    Judging by amateur radio subreddits, there is significant crossover interest in this among the prepper and mutual aid community. Rhetorically speaking, what does one do with the fox once it's caught? In particular one experimenting with TAK?
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  Don't let your fear of boogeymen impact your opinions on how we use spectrum
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
I have to see anyone take things seriously enough to sign their messages. We could easily assert a public key then send a chirp at the end that signs the transmission we just made, with our corresponding private key, for folks to verify. I don't see any real push for a public service like ham to allow outright encryption. Channels feel like they should be for public use. We can get many guarantees, if we need them, without obfuscating the messages.
- myself248 3y ago
  Yeah, it would be nice to see some protocols to do just that, implement authentication over cleartext messages in a way that's compatible with the rules, and then wedge that under some useful apps.
throw0101a 3y ago
> I would also love to see some (not all) uhf band allow encryption. I disagree: with a finite, shared resource like radio spectrum (and especially the amateur bands), I think it would be too easy for people to abuse if other folks couldn't inspect it. As it stands, many find it annoying that PACTOR (as useful as it is) is able to keep hidden their proprietary encoding secret (though generally used on marine bands, which doesn't necessarily have the same open-ness restrictions): * 2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20386875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20386875 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACTOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACTOR * https://www.bwsailing.com/bw/ssb-email-and-weather-made-easy/ https://www.bwsailing.com/bw/ssb-email-and-weather-made-easy... * https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/PACTOR_IV https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/PACTOR_IV
GuB-42 3y ago
> This would also make internet relay possible and legal in uhf. That's exactly the reason why encryption is banned. The authorities, as well as amateur radio representatives don't want ham radio to become yet another internet channel, with all the commercial activity that happens there. There are many ways of sending secure messages, but few truly public spaces.

_whiteCaps_ 3y ago

I like to think that I helped with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394599

stouset 3y ago
Given a lack of evidence to the contrary, I’m going to think that too. Great work!
- avalys 3y ago
  The FCC has been working on this since at least 2016, in response to a petition from the ARRL in 2013. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-96A1_Rcd.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-96A1_Rcd.pdf I would love to live in a world where the FCC could update outdated regulation within 50 days in response to a random internet comment to a commissioner...but that's not this universe.
  - saghm 3y ago
    The parent comment doesn't say they think they're solely responsible, but just that it might have helped. Given the positive response from the commissioner who posted the AMA that they already supported it, I don't think it's unreasonable that it might have been a bit of a reminder or motivation to prioritize it a bit more.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    Government that works never works for the people. Government that works only works for the cleptocracy. Never never never aks for government that works.
freeqaz 3y ago
What does this comment actually mean? Replace with a 2.8khz bandwidth limit? Edit: I think this comment helps explain it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38053342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38053342
deleted 3y ago

roflchoppa 3y ago

Dude Jessica has been killing it lately.

valianteffort 3y ago
Let's be honest this was probably part of a lobbying effort by some big tech company. The wheels of government don't roll unless they're greased with gold.
- altairprime 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38052869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38052869
- striking 3y ago
  "big tech" is currently lobbying to repurpose amateur radio frequencies for themselves (like for HFT https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ham-radio-enthusiasts-battle-high-frequency-traders-for-the-airwaves/ar-AA1ePt95 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ham-radio-enthusiast...) so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
- tass 3y ago
  The ARRL has been pushing this for a while: https://www.arrl.org/news/congresswoman-lesko-reintroduces-bill-to-replace-symbol-rate-limit-with-bandwidth-limit https://www.arrl.org/news/congresswoman-lesko-reintroduces-b... It’s kind of unfortunate this type of decision requires Congress.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Other changes under Jessica Rosenworcel that show she is "killing it"?
- antonyt 3y ago
  Not OP, but I imagine referring to https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/fcc-moves-ahead-with-title-ii-net-neutrality-rules-in-3-2-party-line-vote/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/fcc-moves-ahead-...

donatj 3y ago

I know next to nothing about radio, can someone tell me why a baud rate limit put in to begin with? Is there a technical reason for it like causing interference or something?

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
I think to limit the amount of spectrum used by any one signal… prevent bandwidth hogs.
ARandomerDude 3y ago
Uh oh. Looks like the Stack Overflow mods among us closed your question as off topic.
- donatj 3y ago
  I reworded it to be more clear what I was asking and it turned around. It was fair.
gaze 3y ago
In nearly all cases, the lower the baud rate, the lower the bandwidth. You can come up with sufficiently pathological cases but indeed it’s the bandwidth that should be limited. EDIT: you should look at the shanon-Hartley limit. The bandwidth is proportional to the symbol rate.
- Animats 3y ago
  > In nearly all cases, the lower the baud rate, the lower the bandwidth. You can come up with sufficiently pathological cases but indeed it’s the bandwidth that should be limited. This is not the case for classical frequency-shift amateur radioteletype. This sends two tones on single sideband, at 2125 Hz or 2295 Hz. So it uses up about 2.3KHz of bandwidth no matter how low the baud rate goes. 45.45 baud is classic mechanical Teletype speed, so the bandwidth is about 50x the data rate in that mode. You can do FSK up to maybe 600 baud; you need a few cycles to detect the tone frequency with classical filters. 300 is a traditional limit. Beyond that antique technology, you need a modulation scheme less than half a century old.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

LanzVonL 3y ago

[dead]

declan_roberts 3y ago

> A few commenters at the time of the NPRM opposed any rule change, arguing that the existing rules should be retained in order to protect access to amateur bands by Morse code and other narrowband transmissions. I guess there's gatekeeping NIMBYs in the amateur radio bands as well!

EGG_CREAM 3y ago
HAM here, can confirm. If a community exists, there will be pointless gatekeeping of that community, lol.
- baz00 3y ago
  And within those communities there will be assholes who are better than you too who are gatekeeping the sublevels. I have long since traded my license for a better life of being a decadent man of international mystery, but I do remember as a very casual CW operator getting mauled by people semi-regularly for violations of people's waterfall displays with my drifty ass analogue transceiver and newbie hand.
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]
- kmbfjr 3y ago
  Ham, not HAM. Or just call it amateur radio because HAM is meaningless.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It seems to me you got it just fine.
  - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
    Where did the "HAM" nomenclature come from, then? I have wondered what the letters stand for. I do share your disdain for stupid and/or incorrect nomenclature. Like "Wi-Fi." WTF, there's no use of "fidelity" that this is short for.

charcircuit 3y ago

I was expecting restrictions like encryption to be removed so you could use modern network protocols. Amateur radio will continue losing to the internet where actual growth and innovation is happening instead of old guys larping how they are going to save the world by knowing morse code or something.

genmud 3y ago
I thought the encryption restriction was only for analog radio, not digital?
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  No. You can encode data digitally, per a specification, but you can't encode it.
  - genmud 3y ago
    So, why wouldn’t you be able to encrypt the data you send before digital encoding?
    - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
      Because it is against the rules.
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      I meant you can't encrypt it. And the other person is correct. It's simply against the rules and the spirit of ham radio.
unethical_ban 3y ago
It's a hobbyist set of bands, and encrypting traffic is against the hobbyist spirit of it. Part of the beauty of ham is being able to go along the dial and be able to observe the traffic. That would die with widespread encryption. Your insulting of people who try to maintain radios for emergencies is unnecessary, too.

ChuckMcM 3y ago

This is a really good thing, but for non-radio people it can be confusing. In the 80's, the FCC put limits on digital signals below 30MHz based on "baud rate". A baud is a raw bit in a digital data stream, it can either be data or part of the channel protocol. For example, a typical serial port like you have on a PC or an Arduino or something might operate at 9600 baud, each "chunk" consisting of a start bit, 8 data bits, and a stop bit. That is a total of 10 bauds, two of them, the start bit and the stop bit, are part of telling the circuit where the data starts and stops. So 9600 baud sends 960, 8 bit bytes per second over the line or only 7,680 bits per second. With me so far? Okay, so the reason baud rates were used is because digital modes were modulated using a technique calls "frequency shift keying" or FSK. Frequency shift keying would send one tone for a zero bit, and one tone for a one bit. Those tones were detected with a circuit called a tone detector circuit and typically they needed a few tens of cycles of the tone to reliably detect the tone. A higher frequency tone meant you could detect it sooner (shorter time for the detector to latch on to the frequency) and that would give you a higher baud rate. But if you're modulating a higher frequency tone on to an RF carrier, it creates a wider impact on the spectrum and everything else was predicated on 2.5kHz max width voice channels. So allowing a faster baudrate, using FSK modulation, would result in digital modes taking up way more spectrum and thus limit the number of users. But between then and now, there has been a freakin' Cambrian explosion of modulation techniques because digital signal processing is just math. We have a whole stable of techniques in the barn because of this, And as a result, you can put a lot more bits on a channel without pushing the spectrum bandwidth out. A lot of people have pointed out to the FCC that making the limit baud rate based was silly if they really wanted it to be a spectrum bandwidth limit. Just make it that, and the experimental folks will compete to see how many bauds they can fit into that space. I will admit I am biased, I'm one of those folks who got back into Amateur Radio because I was playing around with SDRs and wanted to start trying new modulation techniques. I am not motivated by "QSOs in every state" or every country, I'm motivated by "I just pulled an image off a weather balloon over the Atlantic ocean on 20 meters!" and "I can see my beacon 500 miles away on the KiwiSDR network!" things like that. So this change is really going to open up a lot of space for experimentation for me and I can't wait.

aliljet 3y ago
This is so damn cool. How do you discover services in this environment (e.g., how does that weather balloon announce it has an image?)

Forgotthepass8 3y ago

Rather than encrypt why not steganography? encode your data within natural language and transmit using a natural sounding text to speech engine Maybe some AM Radio stations are already actually numbers stations V2.0

subhro 3y ago

Huh? Amateur radio still exists in the world of cell phones, satellite phones, yada yada yada? That’s stupid world war 2 technology. — N9EX

Crunchified 3y ago
Haha, well played from an Amateur Extra! I've always considered amateur radio to be the "national parks" of radio spectrum. Maybe better termed as "international parks," since the vast majority of nations embrace it much as we in the United States do. Ham radio is certainly an important player in average-Joe diplomacy, in which we can still engage in dialog with radio technicians and operators from practically all the countries of the world without the government and mass-media filters we normally have to deal with. Even though much of our discussions are centered on radio topics and family life (politics are usually kept aside), the mere fact that we are talking in a relaxed format with folks from almost anywhere is a joy to experience!

pythonguython 3y ago

Great news. I’d like to see them take down some restrictions for ISM bands experimentation as well. So many consumer devices operate at 2.4 GHz or 900 MHz so there’s a lot to be done there.FWIW I wouldn’t feel bad about doing very low power short term experiments on those bands, but I wouldnt publish anything on it based on what I understand of the current regulations.

nickysielicki 3y ago

This is very exciting, and hopefully can be a big aspect in getting off-the-shelf 100W radios capable of doing I/Q out over USB instead of the stupid audio interfaces we're stuck with today.

Crunchified 3y ago

If removing an archaic restriction is "bolstering amateur radio" then what does the FCC call the recently imposed $35 fees for new or modified ham licenses that up to now had been one of the few government courtesies left?

Nifty3929 3y ago
Sounds like a way to fund ongoing support without budget headaches. And a cheap way at that.
- Crunchified 3y ago
  Well, other FCC users are commercial users of the airwaves. Wouldn’t it make sense that their fees would cover the costs of “ongoing support” of the citizenry’s non-commercial use of radio spectrum? It’s not like they have to build roads or buildings to make this happen - it’s just some rulemaking and a database. If you’re not aware, hams have for many years received paltry (at best) support from the FCC in terms of any enforcement.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    > If you’re not aware, hams have for many years received paltry (at best) support from the FCC in terms of any enforcement. Could you expand on what you mean here? What enforcement is lacking?
tzs 3y ago
I believe they call it is following this law [1] that requires them to do so, which was passed by the House and Senate in 2018 and signed by President Trump. Search for "section 8 of the communications" to find the place within the bill text where it requires the FCC to start charging such fees. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625
- Crunchified 3y ago
  I’m not ignorant of why this happened, although a bit bitter nonetheless. I can only hope that the FCC can respond by becoming more of an enforcer and more mindful that we hams (about a million of us, iirc) are now paying for their services.

threemux 3y ago

I think the proposed rule to replace the baud limits in VHF and above will make more of a difference. All the major weak signal HF digital modes use low baud rates anyway to better deal with multipath interference that's common at those frequencies. Really the only mode we couldn't use here was PACTOR 4 - that was the mode people kept getting waivers of the rule for.

nullc 3y ago
The rule is technically a problem for meteor scatter in 10m. The short duration of the channel favors high baud rates and multi-path isn't a significant issue there.

wkat4242 3y ago

Wow in Europe it's kinda the opposite. Most countries' regulators want us to die off so they can sell the bands for lots of money. Unfortunately dieing off is exactly what's happening :(

mrtksn 3y ago
Wonder why the attitude difference?
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Not sure about other countries but in Holland it had a clear reason. The old socialist-centric government of the 80s/early 90s viewed the radio spectrum as infrastructure similar to the road network. This meant that in their view their main task was policing the airwaves. Policing was omnipresent, and they would take action on every infraction even ones where radio spectrum that wasn't actually in use was used by unauthorized parties. The radio amateurs were simply one of the many right holders and treated as such. We paid a pretty reasonable fee but were respected in turn. Then when the neoliberals came to power, this changed. They view the radio spectrum as a natural resource from which they need to extract maximum profit. This coincided with the rise of mobile phones and an ever-increasing demand for radio spectrum. They moved the regulating angency from under the ministry of transportation to the ministry of economic affairs. This meant that the attitude changed a lot: HAMs were viewed as 'freeloaders', spectrum for mobile operators etc was auctioned off for billions, and policing was restricted to only following up on issues that impacted operations of major spectrum holders or made the press. I'm pretty sure that the only thing keeping them from taking spectrum away to auction off to multinationals, are international agreements. One example: When highly popular central heating company "Vaillant" introduced a new digital model which caused emissions from the wiring between the heater and the thermostat that jammed the 2m repeater band, it took a LOT of complaining to finally get the regulator to take action. At this point these heaters had been sold so much that it took years to resolve it. Of course there were other developments at this time which caused a major decline in HAM population. Like the internet and home computer. Until then the big thing a geek would have at home would be a radio shack, but since the internet and mobile phone the whole "I can talk to anyone in the world from my attic!!!" had lost a lot of its shine. But I do believe the above really was the reason why at least our regulator changed its views so heavily.

hatsunearu 3y ago

Holy shit, the title undersells that. The 300 baud limitation made digital radio basically useless for anything other than old geezers trying to fill their logbook with DXs. This is fucking great, and I hope it goes through.

mikewarot 3y ago

Wow... I started reading the FCC proposal[1], and learned of a new Ham Band, the 630 Meter band.[2] Unfortunately, I live near a 138KV power line, so I likely can't use it. It'll be interesting to see just how much data can be pushed through 2800 Hz of bandwidth in the real world, at long distance. [1] https://www.radioworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DOC-397992A1.pdf https://www.radioworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DOC-39... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/630-meter_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/630-meter_band

sidewndr46 3y ago
Why would your proximity to a power line stop you from using it? Also there is a band below that you can use as well.
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  RFI
- cenazoic 3y ago
  Because it’s in the FCC rules: “...Amateur stations will be permitted to commence operations after a 30 day period unless UTC notifies the station that its fixed location is within one kilometer of Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems operating on the same or overlapping frequencies. This notification process will ensure that amateur stations seeking to operate in the above noted bands are located beyond a minimum separation distance from PLC transmission lines, which will help ensure the compatibility and coexistence of amateur and PLC operations, and promote shared use of the bands.”
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    I've never heard of anyone having a 630m permit denied due to that. I've never heard of anyone having a 630m permit denied, at all. There is some remote region of Alaska with a power restriction. Also, you can still receive all you want.
  - sciurus 3y ago

ConanRus 3y ago

[dead]

tra3 3y ago

I’m not familiar with how digital modes work. What speed can you operate at say on 2m/70cm?

omginternets 3y ago

I live in Massachusetts. What’s the best way to get started with amateur radio?

twothamendment 3y ago
What interests you? Talking around the world? Communicating more in your immediate area? Socially, or for emergencies? Voice, Morse code or some digital modes? There is a huge spectrum of things you can do and the amount of money you can spend. You can get into it for $50, but the sky is the limit. I'd look online for a local club and contact them. Around me, they will bend over backwards to get someone into it.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Here's my problem: it's all interesting. Ideally I'd like to hack around with packet radio. I've got a small cabin in the rural northeastern US, and would ideally like to hack on something with practical benefits in that setting. I'm pretty open to suggestions :) >I'd look online for a local club and contact them. Around me, they will bend over backwards to get someone into it. This is very good to know. Do you know of any in the Boston area?
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    The first thing is to get your Techician license. Pandemic means that there are now online tests. That allows you to transmit on VHF/UHF. Get a handheld radio. You can also try out packet data. If you want to do HF and long distances, then get your General license and HF radio.
    - _whiteCaps_ 3y ago
      If I'm reading the US rules correctly, a Technician can also do the HF 10M band? The propagation on that band is great right now during the day.
  - twothamendment 3y ago

pcunite 3y ago

Please allow HAM radio hardware to properly be used on GMRS frequencies and visversa.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

I hope any hams here also commented on the recent proposal to allow commodities traders to encroach on ham spectrum to gain a few milliseconds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37283776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37283776

ngcc_hk 3y ago

For a non ham radio guy, can any such change affect some use case like when some digital widespread issue, an analog communication for short message or even ham call can help but now cannot. I read the message about Morse code but they have not explained the consequences

westurner 3y ago

From "WebSDR – Internet-connected Software-Defined Radios" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38034417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38034417 : > pipewire-screenaudio: https://github.com/IceDBorn/pipewire-screenaudio https://github.com/IceDBorn/pipewire-screenaudio : >> Extension to passthrough pipewire audio to WebRTC Screenshare > awesome-amateur-radio#sdr https://github.com/mcaserta/awesome-amateur-radio#sdr https://github.com/mcaserta/awesome-amateur-radio#sdr > The OpenWRT wiki lists a few different weather station apps that can retrieve, record chart, and publish weather data from various weather sensors and also from GPIO or SDR; pywws, weewx > weewx: https://github.com/weewx/weewx https://github.com/weewx/weewx > A WebSDR LuCI app would be cool. What are some other interesting applications for [digital] terrestrial radio (in service of bolstering support for amateur radio)? What could K12cs "Q12" STEM science classes do to encourage learning of this and adjacent EM skills?

westurner 3y ago
"Listen to HD radio with a $30 RTL SDR dongle" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157466