12 ms·

ARRL hails FCC action to remove symbol rate restrictions

220 points by 7402 3y ago

charcircuit 3y ago
Next the restriction on encryption should be removed
- vitaflo 3y ago
  There is no reason to have encryption on the ham bands.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  What for?
  - wcfields 3y ago
    Internet gateway traffic most likely. Me, personally, I would like to see the bands filled to capacity and it be common/everyday that ordinary people use 2m/70cm data modes for things besides DX’ing.
    - edrxty 3y ago
      This is also the absolute worst nightmare of all the ragchew/gout-net types. The thing is [opens SDR waterfall] 70cm/2m is a wall of blue occasionally punctuated by a lonely repeater kerchunk so I'm not sure what's driving the fear. In fact, the most reliable traffic is the one narrow APRS frequency full of generally indecipherable digital packets from all the proprietary over-landing rigs.
      - wcfields 3y ago
        My inspiration has been this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk (Building a Linux Packet Node) and inspired me to buy a used Kenwood TM-D700 to operate a packet node station. I think something like that coupled with something like https://hamwan.org/ https://hamwan.org/ to route high-bandwidth traffic could be a great combo, almost like an adaptive bandwidth.
    - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
      I'd be pretty tempted to use 70cm for some business uses if it were legal. Good range and cheap tx/rx PCBs readily available. However I'd end up using 20kb/s of data 24/7 over a large range. Can't have very many people doing that or there's no bandwidth left.
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      The 2m/70cm bands wouldn't be that useful for data. They are 4MHz and 30MHz (in US) wide. By comparison, Wifi is 20MHz, LTE is 1.4-20 MHz. The bandwidth wouldn't be that high for general use. One place that extra space would be useful is for digital walkie-talkies, as an expansion of FRS.
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      > Internet gateway traffic most likely. Or use of existing internet protocols, yes. Here's an example: I was in an amateur rocketry group. One of our primary telemetry connections was wifi; 802.11b channel 1 is in an amateur band. We used directional antennas on the ground, cylindrical patch antennas on the rocket, and 1W of power (which is why we needed amateur licenses, to exceed the standard 100mW for wifi) and we could reliably communicate via standard IP while the rocket was a long distance away and breaking the sound barrier. The ESSID was one of our callsigns. Our standard telemetry protocol was unencrypted packets, because ham radio. But a common need while debugging the rocket on the launchpad was to SSH in (it ran Linux). So our options were: - Use something obsolete with much worse UX, like telnet. - Use SSH and try to convince it to run without encryption, an option which is a bad idea for every other use case and which modern SSH rightfully refuses to contemplate. - Use SSH with published keys, and hope that suffices to meet the spirit of the regulation. - Add some complexity to the system to reduce power level while on the pad so that we weren't actually using a ham license. - Safe the engines, go out to the pad a mile away, and hook up to the wired umbilical for debugging. Removing the encryption restriction would allow using standard SSH and similar systems.
      - threemux 3y ago
        Doesn't this fall under the "telecommand of model craft" exception? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 It seems to me encrypted ssh is totally within the rules in this case.
        JoshTriplett 3y ago
        Leaving aside the question of whether a 3 meter tall rocket that breaks the sound barrier is a "model craft", that just says "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.". It's not completely unambiguous that SSH and other protocols qualify as "control signal" (they were not used to control the "craft" itself), nor whether they qualify as "telemetry" per 47 CFR § 97.217. This exception unambiguously gives a pass for control protocols that aren't obvious to observers on the frequency, but not necessarily for communication protocols that are actually encrypted. Those statutes might provide the necessary exception but that's not unambiguous.
- abstractbeliefs 3y ago
  Why? Amateur radio is supposed to be an open spectrum for people to communicate and experiment on, not provide services on. If you need to privately communicate, use the ISM bands, don't consume the amateur experimentation bands.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Because the modern tech world operates with security on by default. Amateurs should be able to experiment with radio and run the same protocols that pros use.
    - abstractbeliefs 3y ago
      The pros have to bid at auction to tie up bandwidth with encrypted comms that cannot benefit or be used by others. If people want encryption, they are welcome to use the ISM bands where it is allowed, or get licenses for the commercial areas of the spectrum. But amateur radio is a public commons for those who have the interest in getting licensed, and encrypted comms being normalised damages that, making it less accessible to others and discouraging interaction between enthusiasts. I fear that with encryption allowed, amateur radio will become a collection of competing 1-to-1 links and hidden commercial activity taking advantage of the cheap spectrum at everyone else's expense.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        There is a lot of utility in having a bunch of 1-to-1 links. If you look at the internet you will see that it supports multitask, but it is rarely used nowadays. You would expect to see similar things from other communication protocols. The days that everyone's communications went to everyone are over. Even if there is hidden commercial activity going on, is that really so bad? Imagine if the internet banned commerce on it, there wouldn't be so much investment into it.
        abstractbeliefs 3y ago
        There is a lot of utility in 1 to 1 links, but you don't need encryption to do that, while adding it does encourage it at the expense of other modes. As for commercial activity, the whole point of the amateur spectrum is specifically to carve out portions of the spectrum protected from commercial interests! I agree that commercial, and also unlicensed use of radio is important, but leave commerce out of the tiny portion (and it really is small) part of the spectrum that's specifically regulated to be free of commercial interference.
- edrxty 3y ago
  Seconded. You can still have a requirement to ID in the clear if you want, but all other modern radio systems are encrypted and any interesting protocols will be largely indistinguishable from encryption from a regulatory point of view. Ham radio is first and foremost for experimentation, not ragchew, and there's no point maintaining a radio service that is fundamentally crippled.
  - kmbfjr 3y ago
    How is a lack of encryption “crippling “ the hobby? DMR is used without encryption as are other commercial modes. The point if the experimental nature is that it is open.
  - threemux 3y ago
    I see these takes pop up all the time but I have yet to hear of a legitimate use case that wouldn't be solved with digital signatures which are allowed under current rules
    - edrxty 3y ago
      The most common case people run into: I want to be able to interface with literally any other communication technology in common use without having to strip TLS. The basic case: Alice wants to talk to Bob and would rather not have their crazy neighbor listen in and threaten violence because psychosis (Don't believe me? Hang out on the fun parts of the HF spectrum). The public service use case: a disaster occurred, I need to send medical information to a known recipient. Other countries have allowances for this but the US does not. The because it's literally unenforceable anyway case: yeah, go after noise sources that don't have an ID but prove to me my shitty CW transmitter with a trillion ppm of phase noise isn't actually broadcasting encrypted PSK within pulses.
      - jrockway 3y ago
        > a disaster occurred In the case of emergency, the restrictions on your license no longer apply. You can use whatever means necessary to establish the desired communications.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  The amateur bands are supposed to be for open communication for everyone to use and communicate with each other.
- gorkish 3y ago
  Hard disagree. There should be more effort made to promote authentication and message signing (which does not require encryption to obscure meaning) and less tolerance for the use of proprietary codecs, modulations, and protocols (unpublished codes) like AMBE and PACTOR in amateur radio. It is unfortunate that there are many hams who misunderstand or mischaracterize Part 97 rules; even if there was broad support for the position of allowing “encryption” in the amateur community (there isn’t) you could never get it done. It has taken a decade of concerted effort to get this 300-baud nonsense wiped out against an overwhelmingly vocal cadre of people who seem to … really hate sailboats?! C’mon
- PumpkinSpice 3y ago
  This is such a weird topic in the ham community. The reason this restriction exists has nothing to do with the retro-justifications used by the community. For a long time, the US government genuinely feared that ham radio would be used for espionage. It had listening stations across the nation to monitor all communications. It flat out shut down the entire service (!) during WWII. And it came up with the idea that you have to communicate in the open, and that no form of obfuscation or encryption is permissible. And then hams came up with this roundabout explanation that actually, it's good that you can't have privacy. No matter that it holds back a hobby that is by all usage metrics dying, and that there are many countries where encryption is allowed and doesn't lead to any terrible outcomes. Privacy is useful in hobby uses. Maybe you want to talk to your spouse without a nosy neighbor listening. Maybe you want to periodically beacon your GPS location without the whole world knowing. There are so many cool things you can do, and there is spectrum that is... quite frankly, largely dead right now, and if you don't encourage new uses, it will be reclaimed by the government.
  - scotteric 3y ago
    How would one distinguish legal traffic from illegal? If encrypted communications were to be allowed, what is stopping people using the amateur bands for commercial use? This is the main concern of hams, not that it's good that you can't have privacy.
    - edrxty 3y ago
      You can still have an In-The-Clear ID requirement, ie frame packets as: AB0CDE--*UI93.8u[3u9,8husoa...
      - Crunchified 3y ago
        Sure you can. This still does not ensure that the communications embedded within the encrypted portion of the data does not violate amateur rules. Encryption of communications effectively removes the ability of hams (and government regulators) to monitor their service for rule breakers. It would invite commercial users to exploit hams' valuable bandwidth. I would go so far as to say encryption is not needed in the amateur radio domain, outside of limiting access to the control and configuration of remote devices. The established goals of the amateur radio service can be achieved without encrypted communications.
- swixmix 3y ago
  There is no restriction on encryption, just a restriction to not obscure the meaning. See (PDF) https://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Data%20Encryption%20is%20Legal.pdf https://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Data%20Encrypti...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Isn't encryption, by definition, obscuring the meaning of messages to everyone except authorized recipients? I guess you could transmit the contents of messages in plain text but cryptographically sign the contents to authenticate. This would probably be useful to remotely administer infrastructure: e.g. have an "net operator only" mode for a repeater when pileups occur or somebody is not abiding by rules.
    - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
      You could transmit stuff encrypted with AES as long as you also transmitted your key (and scheme) in plaintext, afaik. So you could use ham radio to experiment with an encrypted scheme that you'd later use with non-ham bands/licenses.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  You're allowed to send encrypted traffic to a remote controlled vehicle. Solution: put wheels and servos on your transceiver, and hack together a means to move and steer it via radio signals. It is now a remote controlled vehicle. Then maybe just send some encrypted data and voice along with the occasional command to steer and accelerate. Troll comment, mostly, but reading the text of the regulations it might be viable.
  - jjjjmoney 3y ago
    There are ways to transmit encryption legally if you really want to. It just take a bunch of time and a little money to get the right licenses. Encryption really isn’t in the spirit of ham radio, and the other licenses are honestly probably easier to get anyway.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      While I wouldn't want encrypted traffic completely taking over the bands, part of the spirit of amateur radio is encouraging experimentation and expanding technical understanding [1]. Encryption is pivotal to modern wireless communications, and allowing it would expand amateurs' ability to experiment and building understanding in radio encryption. Methods like spread-spectrum communication are allowed. It's not the same as encryption, but it it similar in that people without knowledge of the frequency hopping pattern are not capable of receiving the transmission [2]. Ultimately I'm not particularly invested in permitting encryption in amateur radio - my personal involvement is mostly homebrewing simple equipment - but I'd consider it a plus. I doubt it'd displace public participation around local repeaters and the existing radio activity. 1. https://www.arrl.org/about-arrl https://www.arrl.org/about-arrl 2. Well, if they have an SDR with a wide enough bandwidth they can receive spread spectrum communications. And with modern SDR's that probably not that rare.
      - jjjjmoney 3y ago
        The problem with encryption is that it discourages interaction between hams (which is already pretty bad, tbh). Yes, you’re supposed to announce your callsign, but my bet is that unsavory characters would take advantage of that. I think it’s pretty cool to listen in on different protocols and see what people are trying out (M17 is an excellent example). FHSS is pretty trivial to “decrypt” these days with an SDR. While you’re not wrong about experimentation, I feel like ham radio should be focused more on the radio side of things rather than encryption implementations. Implementing the hardware and software encoding/decoding is the hard/fun part (at least to me). Encryption should come as a piece of cake after than if you can achieve a given bitrate. And again - there already are bands that allow encryption. A couple hundred bucks and a few applications, and you’re free to go nuts. And I completely forgot, but ISM bands do allow encryption, are free, and there is plenty of hardware out there readily available.
- riffic 3y ago
  this is such a lid comment to make buddy
  - edrxty 3y ago
    Ok phonetic phonatic
- fortran77 3y ago
  I’ve been an Extra since 1978. I love ham radio and I love encryption, but I’m against encryption on ham radio for the same reason I’m against encryption for radio stations on the broadcast bands. It’s a limited natural resource and we should all get some benefit from it. I should be able to tune around the ham bands and listen in.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  I'm fairly certain that if you wanted long distance encrypted communications, you could just grab a LoRa module today and send out some AES-encrypted stuff and no one will bother you. Isn't the point of the Ham community supposed to be about low-tech solutions? I wouldn't quite say they are "preppers", but maybe "prepper-adjacent" ? Leaving some radio frequencies for unencrypted communications or Morse code or whatever hams are doing was the point of the ham frequencies, right? For encryption, we've got like everything else (cell phones, WiFi, etc. etc.)
  - RF_Savage 3y ago
    Depends on the national regulations. "Furthering the art of radio." is mentioned in some of them. So is self-training and experimentation. That can be low tech or something more modern. Good modern examples are M17, freeDV, NPR-70 and FT8.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  That's definitely an inflammatory comment and I would applaud you more if you put effort into it. But I'll bite. If encryption were allowed, it should be frequency constrained so the majority of the bands were in the open, and non-encryption citizens can still listen to the open airwaves.
- lrvick 3y ago
  Has there ever been a case of anyone actually being fined for using encryption? It seems this antiquated law is enforced only by chilling effect. Maybe this issue just needs some good old civil disobedience, like back when crypto export regulations were skirted by printing PGP code in a book. Also sending of physical mail with privacy has established case law for 4th amendment protections. Somehow this does not apply when the message does not touch paper? Given the rule seems rarely, if ever, enforced, and similar laws from the same historical justification are already repealed, I say just collectively ignore it. Use encryption openly over radio (otherwise following all rules, have callsigns in the clear, etc), and let the FCC decide try to justify fining people for exercising their right to private corporate-free distance communications to the press.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    If you want private conversations, use private frequencies. If you want a "public square" type of communications, then just accept that there's no privacy.
  - Johnythree 3y ago
    The first to complain about an open network using encryption, would be the existing commercial users, eg cell phone companies, etc. And because the justification for using an alternative to commercial services would be to avoid paying licenses fees, they world be correct. One complaint from a large phone company to the FCC, would have the unlicensed station shut down very smartly.
lxe 3y ago
I can finally CW at my full speed!
chmaynard 3y ago
Another open issue is the threat to limit amateur radio access to the 60-meter band (shared with commercial interests). https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2023-for-60-meter-comments https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2...
- threemux 3y ago
  Well we're not really being kicked off, the FCC is proposing to change the allocation to match what was agreed to in WRC-15. This page summarizes: http://arrl.org/60-meter-band http://arrl.org/60-meter-band
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    The power limit would be 15 W EIRP under that provision. It's basically useless to amateurs
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      That's around 10W with a dipole. With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I support less limitiatons for ham radio operators, but 15W eirp is really not that useless.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I semi-routinely spoke to Japan with SSB using improvised antennas in the field with 10W. Elecraft KX3 + Buddipole Deluxe. Doubt I was very efficient, though I did try to get a couple good counterpoise wires going.
      - sidewndr46 3y ago
        That's not really the point. You can work the whole world with 100mW on FT8. We don't need another low power band for digital only. If this is the route they want to go, make it unlicensed experimental operation and just limit the power to 1 W transmitter power. The whole point is having an amateur band is that it can be used for operation which might otherwise be problematic because I've agreed to work with the FCC if interference arises.
throwaway128128 3y ago
So what sort of symbol rate becomes theoretically possible within a HF frequency band?
- hedgehog 3y ago
  Potentially around 5Kbps in good conditions. I think it makes applications like e-mail over HF a lot more workable.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    I used to dialin to Pine (and Lynx) at 1200bps. If I remember correctly, I could read about as fast as the words came to screen. If you're just saving for reading later, 5kbps is tons for email.
    - throwaway128128 3y ago
      It's really hard to do on modern operating systems. Too many services that will dogpile a low bandwidth link once they see that a network adapter is up.
      - Scoundreller 3y ago
        TripMode on Mac is supposed to fix this.
- drmpeg 3y ago
  MIL-STD-188-110D defines a 38,400 baud modem at 48 kHz bandwidth. With 256QAM, the raw data rate is 240 kbps. Of course, the 2.8 kHz bandwidth rule prohibits that in the ham bands. The FCC had originally declined to set a maximum bandwidth in their first ruling, but that caused everyone's head to explode (and that's one of the reasons this ruling has taken so long). http://tracebase.nmsu.edu/hf/MIL-STD-188-110D.pdf http://tracebase.nmsu.edu/hf/MIL-STD-188-110D.pdf
  - MPSimmons 3y ago
ggm 3y ago
Are you allowed to use phase to double or quadruple the effective signal "density" in the bandwidth? Or, is that part of the 2.8khz no matter how you "time" it? (Not a ham. In microwave point to point space, you can usually get two customers on a direction by exploring the space around the 360 clock for angle/phase of the signal being sent, horizontal vs vertical is not uncommon)
- jdiez17 3y ago
  Yes, that's basically Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM). You divide the "amplitude vs phase" 2D space into a grid of points (typically 4, 8, 16, 32, ...) and assign a code to each. That way you can send 2, 3, 4, 5, (...) bits per symbol. Of course, the downside is that you need a higher signal to noise ratio to resolve which point a symbol represents. Edit: fixed bits per symbol
  - drmpeg 3y ago
    4,8,16,32QAM would correspond to 2,3,4,5 bits per symbol. 16 bits per symbol would be 65536QAM.
    - jdiez17 3y ago
      Ah, of course!
- gorkish 3y ago
  What you are describing is antenna polarization, not phase. It seems another reply covered phase pretty well, but yes you are correct that you can also put more than one signal into the same bandwidth - so long as you are able to disambiguate them from one another. This can be done generally by 1) sending signals at different times but on the same frequency 2) sending signals at different frequencies at the same time (multiple carriers within the same bandwidth) or 3) sending separate signals between separate antennas at the same time and frequency. Using antennas with different polarity is a crude and simple form of spatial multi access, but as it turns out, it’s not the only way. This is the trickery behind how sm-ofdm / mimo and other spatial modulations multiply their spectral efficiency, with current state of the art being around 20 bits per second per hz in 8x8 configurations.

220 points by 7402 3y ago

charcircuit 3y ago

Next the restriction on encryption should be removed

vitaflo 3y ago
There is no reason to have encryption on the ham bands.
CamperBob2 3y ago
What for?
- wcfields 3y ago
  Internet gateway traffic most likely. Me, personally, I would like to see the bands filled to capacity and it be common/everyday that ordinary people use 2m/70cm data modes for things besides DX’ing.
  - edrxty 3y ago
    This is also the absolute worst nightmare of all the ragchew/gout-net types. The thing is [opens SDR waterfall] 70cm/2m is a wall of blue occasionally punctuated by a lonely repeater kerchunk so I'm not sure what's driving the fear. In fact, the most reliable traffic is the one narrow APRS frequency full of generally indecipherable digital packets from all the proprietary over-landing rigs.
    - wcfields 3y ago
      My inspiration has been this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMZ8mawceuk (Building a Linux Packet Node) and inspired me to buy a used Kenwood TM-D700 to operate a packet node station. I think something like that coupled with something like https://hamwan.org/ https://hamwan.org/ to route high-bandwidth traffic could be a great combo, almost like an adaptive bandwidth.
  - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
    I'd be pretty tempted to use 70cm for some business uses if it were legal. Good range and cheap tx/rx PCBs readily available. However I'd end up using 20kb/s of data 24/7 over a large range. Can't have very many people doing that or there's no bandwidth left.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    The 2m/70cm bands wouldn't be that useful for data. They are 4MHz and 30MHz (in US) wide. By comparison, Wifi is 20MHz, LTE is 1.4-20 MHz. The bandwidth wouldn't be that high for general use. One place that extra space would be useful is for digital walkie-talkies, as an expansion of FRS.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    > Internet gateway traffic most likely. Or use of existing internet protocols, yes. Here's an example: I was in an amateur rocketry group. One of our primary telemetry connections was wifi; 802.11b channel 1 is in an amateur band. We used directional antennas on the ground, cylindrical patch antennas on the rocket, and 1W of power (which is why we needed amateur licenses, to exceed the standard 100mW for wifi) and we could reliably communicate via standard IP while the rocket was a long distance away and breaking the sound barrier. The ESSID was one of our callsigns. Our standard telemetry protocol was unencrypted packets, because ham radio. But a common need while debugging the rocket on the launchpad was to SSH in (it ran Linux). So our options were: - Use something obsolete with much worse UX, like telnet. - Use SSH and try to convince it to run without encryption, an option which is a bad idea for every other use case and which modern SSH rightfully refuses to contemplate. - Use SSH with published keys, and hope that suffices to meet the spirit of the regulation. - Add some complexity to the system to reduce power level while on the pad so that we weren't actually using a ham license. - Safe the engines, go out to the pad a mile away, and hook up to the wired umbilical for debugging. Removing the encryption restriction would allow using standard SSH and similar systems.
    - threemux 3y ago
      Doesn't this fall under the "telecommand of model craft" exception? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.215 It seems to me encrypted ssh is totally within the rules in this case.
      - JoshTriplett 3y ago
        Leaving aside the question of whether a 3 meter tall rocket that breaks the sound barrier is a "model craft", that just says "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.". It's not completely unambiguous that SSH and other protocols qualify as "control signal" (they were not used to control the "craft" itself), nor whether they qualify as "telemetry" per 47 CFR § 97.217. This exception unambiguously gives a pass for control protocols that aren't obvious to observers on the frequency, but not necessarily for communication protocols that are actually encrypted. Those statutes might provide the necessary exception but that's not unambiguous.
abstractbeliefs 3y ago
Why? Amateur radio is supposed to be an open spectrum for people to communicate and experiment on, not provide services on. If you need to privately communicate, use the ISM bands, don't consume the amateur experimentation bands.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Because the modern tech world operates with security on by default. Amateurs should be able to experiment with radio and run the same protocols that pros use.
  - abstractbeliefs 3y ago
    The pros have to bid at auction to tie up bandwidth with encrypted comms that cannot benefit or be used by others. If people want encryption, they are welcome to use the ISM bands where it is allowed, or get licenses for the commercial areas of the spectrum. But amateur radio is a public commons for those who have the interest in getting licensed, and encrypted comms being normalised damages that, making it less accessible to others and discouraging interaction between enthusiasts. I fear that with encryption allowed, amateur radio will become a collection of competing 1-to-1 links and hidden commercial activity taking advantage of the cheap spectrum at everyone else's expense.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      There is a lot of utility in having a bunch of 1-to-1 links. If you look at the internet you will see that it supports multitask, but it is rarely used nowadays. You would expect to see similar things from other communication protocols. The days that everyone's communications went to everyone are over. Even if there is hidden commercial activity going on, is that really so bad? Imagine if the internet banned commerce on it, there wouldn't be so much investment into it.
      - abstractbeliefs 3y ago
        There is a lot of utility in 1 to 1 links, but you don't need encryption to do that, while adding it does encourage it at the expense of other modes. As for commercial activity, the whole point of the amateur spectrum is specifically to carve out portions of the spectrum protected from commercial interests! I agree that commercial, and also unlicensed use of radio is important, but leave commerce out of the tiny portion (and it really is small) part of the spectrum that's specifically regulated to be free of commercial interference.
edrxty 3y ago
Seconded. You can still have a requirement to ID in the clear if you want, but all other modern radio systems are encrypted and any interesting protocols will be largely indistinguishable from encryption from a regulatory point of view. Ham radio is first and foremost for experimentation, not ragchew, and there's no point maintaining a radio service that is fundamentally crippled.
- kmbfjr 3y ago
  How is a lack of encryption “crippling “ the hobby? DMR is used without encryption as are other commercial modes. The point if the experimental nature is that it is open.
- threemux 3y ago
  I see these takes pop up all the time but I have yet to hear of a legitimate use case that wouldn't be solved with digital signatures which are allowed under current rules
  - edrxty 3y ago
    The most common case people run into: I want to be able to interface with literally any other communication technology in common use without having to strip TLS. The basic case: Alice wants to talk to Bob and would rather not have their crazy neighbor listen in and threaten violence because psychosis (Don't believe me? Hang out on the fun parts of the HF spectrum). The public service use case: a disaster occurred, I need to send medical information to a known recipient. Other countries have allowances for this but the US does not. The because it's literally unenforceable anyway case: yeah, go after noise sources that don't have an ID but prove to me my shitty CW transmitter with a trillion ppm of phase noise isn't actually broadcasting encrypted PSK within pulses.
    - jrockway 3y ago
      > a disaster occurred In the case of emergency, the restrictions on your license no longer apply. You can use whatever means necessary to establish the desired communications.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
The amateur bands are supposed to be for open communication for everyone to use and communicate with each other.
gorkish 3y ago
Hard disagree. There should be more effort made to promote authentication and message signing (which does not require encryption to obscure meaning) and less tolerance for the use of proprietary codecs, modulations, and protocols (unpublished codes) like AMBE and PACTOR in amateur radio. It is unfortunate that there are many hams who misunderstand or mischaracterize Part 97 rules; even if there was broad support for the position of allowing “encryption” in the amateur community (there isn’t) you could never get it done. It has taken a decade of concerted effort to get this 300-baud nonsense wiped out against an overwhelmingly vocal cadre of people who seem to … really hate sailboats?! C’mon
PumpkinSpice 3y ago
This is such a weird topic in the ham community. The reason this restriction exists has nothing to do with the retro-justifications used by the community. For a long time, the US government genuinely feared that ham radio would be used for espionage. It had listening stations across the nation to monitor all communications. It flat out shut down the entire service (!) during WWII. And it came up with the idea that you have to communicate in the open, and that no form of obfuscation or encryption is permissible. And then hams came up with this roundabout explanation that actually, it's good that you can't have privacy. No matter that it holds back a hobby that is by all usage metrics dying, and that there are many countries where encryption is allowed and doesn't lead to any terrible outcomes. Privacy is useful in hobby uses. Maybe you want to talk to your spouse without a nosy neighbor listening. Maybe you want to periodically beacon your GPS location without the whole world knowing. There are so many cool things you can do, and there is spectrum that is... quite frankly, largely dead right now, and if you don't encourage new uses, it will be reclaimed by the government.
- scotteric 3y ago
  How would one distinguish legal traffic from illegal? If encrypted communications were to be allowed, what is stopping people using the amateur bands for commercial use? This is the main concern of hams, not that it's good that you can't have privacy.
  - edrxty 3y ago
    You can still have an In-The-Clear ID requirement, ie frame packets as: AB0CDE--*UI93.8u[3u9,8husoa...
    - Crunchified 3y ago
      Sure you can. This still does not ensure that the communications embedded within the encrypted portion of the data does not violate amateur rules. Encryption of communications effectively removes the ability of hams (and government regulators) to monitor their service for rule breakers. It would invite commercial users to exploit hams' valuable bandwidth. I would go so far as to say encryption is not needed in the amateur radio domain, outside of limiting access to the control and configuration of remote devices. The established goals of the amateur radio service can be achieved without encrypted communications.
swixmix 3y ago
There is no restriction on encryption, just a restriction to not obscure the meaning. See (PDF) https://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Data%20Encryption%20is%20Legal.pdf https://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Data%20Encrypti...
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Isn't encryption, by definition, obscuring the meaning of messages to everyone except authorized recipients? I guess you could transmit the contents of messages in plain text but cryptographically sign the contents to authenticate. This would probably be useful to remotely administer infrastructure: e.g. have an "net operator only" mode for a repeater when pileups occur or somebody is not abiding by rules.
  - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
    You could transmit stuff encrypted with AES as long as you also transmitted your key (and scheme) in plaintext, afaik. So you could use ham radio to experiment with an encrypted scheme that you'd later use with non-ham bands/licenses.
Manuel_D 3y ago
You're allowed to send encrypted traffic to a remote controlled vehicle. Solution: put wheels and servos on your transceiver, and hack together a means to move and steer it via radio signals. It is now a remote controlled vehicle. Then maybe just send some encrypted data and voice along with the occasional command to steer and accelerate. Troll comment, mostly, but reading the text of the regulations it might be viable.
- jjjjmoney 3y ago
  There are ways to transmit encryption legally if you really want to. It just take a bunch of time and a little money to get the right licenses. Encryption really isn’t in the spirit of ham radio, and the other licenses are honestly probably easier to get anyway.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    While I wouldn't want encrypted traffic completely taking over the bands, part of the spirit of amateur radio is encouraging experimentation and expanding technical understanding [1]. Encryption is pivotal to modern wireless communications, and allowing it would expand amateurs' ability to experiment and building understanding in radio encryption. Methods like spread-spectrum communication are allowed. It's not the same as encryption, but it it similar in that people without knowledge of the frequency hopping pattern are not capable of receiving the transmission [2]. Ultimately I'm not particularly invested in permitting encryption in amateur radio - my personal involvement is mostly homebrewing simple equipment - but I'd consider it a plus. I doubt it'd displace public participation around local repeaters and the existing radio activity. 1. https://www.arrl.org/about-arrl https://www.arrl.org/about-arrl 2. Well, if they have an SDR with a wide enough bandwidth they can receive spread spectrum communications. And with modern SDR's that probably not that rare.
    - jjjjmoney 3y ago
      The problem with encryption is that it discourages interaction between hams (which is already pretty bad, tbh). Yes, you’re supposed to announce your callsign, but my bet is that unsavory characters would take advantage of that. I think it’s pretty cool to listen in on different protocols and see what people are trying out (M17 is an excellent example). FHSS is pretty trivial to “decrypt” these days with an SDR. While you’re not wrong about experimentation, I feel like ham radio should be focused more on the radio side of things rather than encryption implementations. Implementing the hardware and software encoding/decoding is the hard/fun part (at least to me). Encryption should come as a piece of cake after than if you can achieve a given bitrate. And again - there already are bands that allow encryption. A couple hundred bucks and a few applications, and you’re free to go nuts. And I completely forgot, but ISM bands do allow encryption, are free, and there is plenty of hardware out there readily available.
riffic 3y ago
this is such a lid comment to make buddy
- edrxty 3y ago
  Ok phonetic phonatic
fortran77 3y ago
I’ve been an Extra since 1978. I love ham radio and I love encryption, but I’m against encryption on ham radio for the same reason I’m against encryption for radio stations on the broadcast bands. It’s a limited natural resource and we should all get some benefit from it. I should be able to tune around the ham bands and listen in.
dragontamer 3y ago
I'm fairly certain that if you wanted long distance encrypted communications, you could just grab a LoRa module today and send out some AES-encrypted stuff and no one will bother you. Isn't the point of the Ham community supposed to be about low-tech solutions? I wouldn't quite say they are "preppers", but maybe "prepper-adjacent" ? Leaving some radio frequencies for unencrypted communications or Morse code or whatever hams are doing was the point of the ham frequencies, right? For encryption, we've got like everything else (cell phones, WiFi, etc. etc.)
- RF_Savage 3y ago
  Depends on the national regulations. "Furthering the art of radio." is mentioned in some of them. So is self-training and experimentation. That can be low tech or something more modern. Good modern examples are M17, freeDV, NPR-70 and FT8.
unethical_ban 3y ago
That's definitely an inflammatory comment and I would applaud you more if you put effort into it. But I'll bite. If encryption were allowed, it should be frequency constrained so the majority of the bands were in the open, and non-encryption citizens can still listen to the open airwaves.
lrvick 3y ago
Has there ever been a case of anyone actually being fined for using encryption? It seems this antiquated law is enforced only by chilling effect. Maybe this issue just needs some good old civil disobedience, like back when crypto export regulations were skirted by printing PGP code in a book. Also sending of physical mail with privacy has established case law for 4th amendment protections. Somehow this does not apply when the message does not touch paper? Given the rule seems rarely, if ever, enforced, and similar laws from the same historical justification are already repealed, I say just collectively ignore it. Use encryption openly over radio (otherwise following all rules, have callsigns in the clear, etc), and let the FCC decide try to justify fining people for exercising their right to private corporate-free distance communications to the press.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  If you want private conversations, use private frequencies. If you want a "public square" type of communications, then just accept that there's no privacy.
- Johnythree 3y ago
  The first to complain about an open network using encryption, would be the existing commercial users, eg cell phone companies, etc. And because the justification for using an alternative to commercial services would be to avoid paying licenses fees, they world be correct. One complaint from a large phone company to the FCC, would have the unlicensed station shut down very smartly.

lxe 3y ago

I can finally CW at my full speed!

chmaynard 3y ago

Another open issue is the threat to limit amateur radio access to the 60-meter band (shared with commercial interests). https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2023-for-60-meter-comments https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2...

threemux 3y ago
Well we're not really being kicked off, the FCC is proposing to change the allocation to match what was agreed to in WRC-15. This page summarizes: http://arrl.org/60-meter-band http://arrl.org/60-meter-band
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  The power limit would be 15 W EIRP under that provision. It's basically useless to amateurs
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    That's around 10W with a dipole. With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I support less limitiatons for ham radio operators, but 15W eirp is really not that useless.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I semi-routinely spoke to Japan with SSB using improvised antennas in the field with 10W. Elecraft KX3 + Buddipole Deluxe. Doubt I was very efficient, though I did try to get a couple good counterpoise wires going.
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      That's not really the point. You can work the whole world with 100mW on FT8. We don't need another low power band for digital only. If this is the route they want to go, make it unlicensed experimental operation and just limit the power to 1 W transmitter power. The whole point is having an amateur band is that it can be used for operation which might otherwise be problematic because I've agreed to work with the FCC if interference arises.

throwaway128128 3y ago

So what sort of symbol rate becomes theoretically possible within a HF frequency band?

hedgehog 3y ago
Potentially around 5Kbps in good conditions. I think it makes applications like e-mail over HF a lot more workable.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  I used to dialin to Pine (and Lynx) at 1200bps. If I remember correctly, I could read about as fast as the words came to screen. If you're just saving for reading later, 5kbps is tons for email.
  - throwaway128128 3y ago
    It's really hard to do on modern operating systems. Too many services that will dogpile a low bandwidth link once they see that a network adapter is up.
    - Scoundreller 3y ago
      TripMode on Mac is supposed to fix this.
drmpeg 3y ago
MIL-STD-188-110D defines a 38,400 baud modem at 48 kHz bandwidth. With 256QAM, the raw data rate is 240 kbps. Of course, the 2.8 kHz bandwidth rule prohibits that in the ham bands. The FCC had originally declined to set a maximum bandwidth in their first ruling, but that caused everyone's head to explode (and that's one of the reasons this ruling has taken so long). http://tracebase.nmsu.edu/hf/MIL-STD-188-110D.pdf http://tracebase.nmsu.edu/hf/MIL-STD-188-110D.pdf
- MPSimmons 3y ago

ggm 3y ago

Are you allowed to use phase to double or quadruple the effective signal "density" in the bandwidth? Or, is that part of the 2.8khz no matter how you "time" it? (Not a ham. In microwave point to point space, you can usually get two customers on a direction by exploring the space around the 360 clock for angle/phase of the signal being sent, horizontal vs vertical is not uncommon)

jdiez17 3y ago
Yes, that's basically Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM). You divide the "amplitude vs phase" 2D space into a grid of points (typically 4, 8, 16, 32, ...) and assign a code to each. That way you can send 2, 3, 4, 5, (...) bits per symbol. Of course, the downside is that you need a higher signal to noise ratio to resolve which point a symbol represents. Edit: fixed bits per symbol
- drmpeg 3y ago
  4,8,16,32QAM would correspond to 2,3,4,5 bits per symbol. 16 bits per symbol would be 65536QAM.
  - jdiez17 3y ago
    Ah, of course!
gorkish 3y ago
What you are describing is antenna polarization, not phase. It seems another reply covered phase pretty well, but yes you are correct that you can also put more than one signal into the same bandwidth - so long as you are able to disambiguate them from one another. This can be done generally by 1) sending signals at different times but on the same frequency 2) sending signals at different frequencies at the same time (multiple carriers within the same bandwidth) or 3) sending separate signals between separate antennas at the same time and frequency. Using antennas with different polarity is a crude and simple form of spatial multi access, but as it turns out, it’s not the only way. This is the trickery behind how sm-ofdm / mimo and other spatial modulations multiply their spectral efficiency, with current state of the art being around 20 bits per second per hz in 8x8 configurations.