4 ms·

Eh yeah I've heard these. The important bit to remember is Part 97.113 on prohibited transmissions: "Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably

Eh yeah I've heard these. The important bit to remember is Part 97.113 on prohibited transmissions: "Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services." That's the bit that trips these up rather than the encryption prohibition. The common case: this is vague and probably falls under the above. What's an example? The basic case: use phones. All of us that have spent time on HF are well aware of the antisocial behavior sometimes found there. I don't think you'll run into any ham that's against stricter enforcement in this area. Public service: SHARES is probably the move here. I think I would support waivers similar to how they were previously allowing PACTOR 4 though. Despite what the ARRL says I'm a little dubious of our utility in disasters these days in any case. I mean sure you can come up with any number of ways to get away with it but that doesn't mean we should endorse that behavior.

edrxty 3y ago
Re common case, it's typically an accidental thing. Lots of people are standing up things like ham mesh networks and similar but anything internet proximal has a very high likelihood of leaking cypher text over the air. Re basic case, I should refine my statement a bit, HF is currently populated enough that having more traffic there is probably not advisable yet. If I was given a magic pen, I'd probably allow encryption on the lesser used HF bands and 6m on up. As far as public service/phones/other services, I don't really buy into the disaster prepper stuff that's been popular as of late, but there's an opportunity for amateur radio to remain relevant. Rather than trying to prevent encryption and keep all that stuff on other ISM type bands, putting some of it under the ham umbrella could be very positive development.

edrxty 3y ago

Re common case, it's typically an accidental thing. Lots of people are standing up things like ham mesh networks and similar but anything internet proximal has a very high likelihood of leaking cypher text over the air. Re basic case, I should refine my statement a bit, HF is currently populated enough that having more traffic there is probably not advisable yet. If I was given a magic pen, I'd probably allow encryption on the lesser used HF bands and 6m on up. As far as public service/phones/other services, I don't really buy into the disaster prepper stuff that's been popular as of late, but there's an opportunity for amateur radio to remain relevant. Rather than trying to prevent encryption and keep all that stuff on other ISM type bands, putting some of it under the ham umbrella could be very positive development.