Hacker News Reader

Comment by NikolaeVarius | Hacker News Reader

The article already says what my thoughts on this are (And the thoughts of the people running HAM Radio licensing exams), Ham Radio is a privilege that is granted by the FCC. The specific issue here seems to be that a service that allows HAM communication digitally may be skirting FCC law regulating the use of Amateur wavelengths, which is an issue separate from "the spirit of open communication"., I don't think the "spirit" of amateur radio as everything default open jives with the world we live in today.

Interference is one thing and should be dealth with, but anyone is still able to broadcast QRLs if they want to even in a world of encrypted messages

View on HN

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

Police work is only easy in a police state. Ham operators have to decide whether they want to enforce the rules more easily, or whether they want their protected slices of bandwidth to remain relevant in the 21st century.

Constellations of LEO communications satellites already exist, and they are becoming cheaper and more accessible. When a message can be sent from anywhere on Earth to anywhere else on Earth using antennas smaller than a thumbnail, with verification of receipt, independently of local weather, while a billion other people are doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, I will strongly wonder why people are still using a channel that could otherwise carry trillions of those messages to try to unreliably bounce Morse code along the terminator from Kansas to Kamchatka.

Opening up a free-for-all in the amateur bands might just produce outsider ideas for interference resolution and deconfliction that are not encumbered by telecoms patents.

I want the amateur bands to be a free-for-all. And also free, for all.

>I want the amateur bands to be a free-for-all. And also free, for all.

Then they aren't the amateur bands any more - they're ISM bands with really high power limits. Interference is a thing. Modern technology doesn't magic away the problem of interference, it just gives us some tools for mitigating it in some circumstances. The amateur bands give you the right to use high power levels on big blocks of spectrum, but those rights come with responsibilities. You might prefer anarchy, but the FCC doesn't and neither do the majority of spectrum users.

Considering only the preferences of the spectrum users is begging the question.

The people who are allowed to use the spectrum for the purposes they prefer, prefer that the bands be restricted to their preferred purposes.

ARRL and FCC make the rules because they have both existed since before I was born, and have always picked the next generation of rules-makers from within their own ranks. I never actually agreed that they should be the ones with power over the airwaves, and neither have given me many reasons to do so.

The FCC has done nothing to reverse, halt, or even slow broadcast media consolidation in the US. Why should I expect it to be penny wise when it is so pound foolish? They have lost their mandate, but kept their guns. It may be the right time for a little anarchy again now, and may the next RF allocation organization that arises out of the chaos remember that interference-free radio communication is a privilege, not a right.

What.

FCC is what keeps all wireless communications in the US working. TV, satellite, HAM, ISM, nautical, aeronautical, you name it. What do you think would happen if FCC took to heart you not recognizing their legitimacy and disbanded? Do you think your Wi-Fi or cellphone would keep working reliably?

Those who paid for licenses would be rather put out, and there would be large and painful disruptions in service. But probably not as bad as can be imagined. A lot of stuff would probably still work just fine, and only suffer occasional outages.

My cellphone already doesn't work reliably now, but my wi-fi would still work, as I blast my neighbors' routers out of my living room by increasing my transmitter power, and we might even have a grand war of RF attrition, which could spill over into previously reserved bands, including air, military, and emergency services. Or maybe the next version of router firmware handles it.

Wi-fi is in unlicensed spectrum. It already has to contend with cordless landline phones, microwave ovens, baby monitors, garage door openers, and home security cameras. And that has prompted the creation of new technology to make it work. So now I can enjoy an encrypted Mbps link from the wall to my workstation without running a wire, even as neighbors on all sides do the same thing.

I'd guess that the market for SDRs, highly-directional custom-geometry antennas, laser-optical data links, and wired network building retrofits would explode. Mobile phone service would backslide in quality. GPS would be frequently jammed or spoofed. Eventually, someone would mess with air or ship traffic and get arrested for terrorism. TV would have to come up with some way to sign its signal, so that no one can interrupt kids' programming with shock imagery, or inject pirate ads over the normal ads. Or maybe they just give up, and stream their feed over the Internet, in competition with everyone who wasn't protected by an FCC license.

The FCC keeps everything working by the FCC's system. Without the FCC, it would have to work by a different system, or it might not work for everyone, for all existing use cases. It is not guaranteed that any such future theoretical system would protect any given usage of RF broadcast. Nor is it guaranteed that any usage would be threatened. If you don't run a service that is an uncontroversially unmitigated good--or at the least unremarkably banal--someone will probably try to interfere with you or usurp your station squat, and that will be your problem to solve. In order to get back what was lost with the disappearance of the FCC, some work would be required. In my view, developing the frequency to be more usable, more beneficial, or more accessible to the public is what gives you the right to use it. Other people may have different criteria.

Are you a libertarian?

Lets not delve into the RF Purge, and instead let the research into Cognitive Radio lead us to this kind of free-for-all future, in a managed, automated, non-chaotic kind of way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_radio

If the FCC permits part 97 to turn into a complete free for all, it would be functionally identical to services in part 90 and most of part 95, and if the FCC wanted 47CFR95D to have 1500 watts ... they'd amend 47CFR95D to allow 1500 watts, not screw around endlessly with part 97 to make it a weird pale imitation of CB or business band radio or whatever.

Its just weird to see calls to turn part 97 operations into pale imitations of 47CFR95J or part 90 or similar. Historically the FCC kinda laughs at that stuff.

An excellent local government analogy would be walking into city hall and demanding the building permit department operations be amended such that they used to issue building permits, but you hate the local marina operator, so why not amend the building permit office into stealthily becoming the new local marina operator office as a way to get around existing structure; they'll laugh you right out of city hall.

Likewise the FCC is modern and hip and if you want to do 47CFR95J or part 90 operations, they're super cooperative and into helping you get licensed into those services as cheaply and quickly as possible. I'm not being sarcastic; seriously they're generally nice people to work with, mostly. They are not amused at categorical errors where someone demands they won't fill out a part 90 application because they don't feel like it so everyone else should have to modify part 97 so they can perform part 90 operations using existing part 97 structure.

Really the paragraph above is the fundamental problem expressed in the article; people unwilling or too cheap or too confused to license and operate under 47CFR95B or 47CFR95D or 47CFR95G or whatever existing services mysteriously think it would be easier for the entire rest of the world to Frankenstein part 97 into a pale and inferior imitation of the existing services they somehow, for no obvious reason, refuse to use.

Some of the rants are bizzare; "The FCC hates STEM and technology because they won't let me operate 47CFR95J in a part 97 band because I'm too lazy to read and apply for 47CFR95J service and part 97 is cheap and easy to apply for" Well, uh, no, that hate really does not exist at all, I assure you.

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

What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century.

There's nothing in the rules against excessively long transmissions. There are lots of wholly legitimate reasons for very long contacts, with the most obvious example being experimental exchanges using very low SNR modes. There is a rule against "communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services" - something which could only be ascertained based on the content of the communications. There are rules against broadcasting, commercial use of the service and a number of other factors relating to the content and purpose of the transmission.

What activity would people like to undertake that a) requires encryption and b) is compatible with the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in part 97? How could a simple rule on the duration of transmissions or the length of QSOs meaningfully distinguish between technical experimentation, communications that could not occur by any other medium and the commercial exploitation of the amateur service?

> What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century.

If you're going to be dramatic about it: yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We've learned in the last couple of decades on the Internet that communication needs to be encrypted and authenticated as a matter of course. We did not know that a century ago. (We didn't have modern cryptography a century ago.) I think it's perfectly fair to re-evaluate in light of that.

Specifically, you basically can't use any modern network protocol over packet radio any more, because no modern network protocol worth using has a non-encrypted mode.

> What activity would people like to undertake that a) requires encryption and b) is compatible with the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in part 97?

Personally, I'd like to tunnel E2E-encrypted text messages, a mosh session to my IRC box, etc., which ordinarily would go over cellular internet links, over ham radio to reach parts of my city with poor cellular coverage, for the purpose of casual conversations with friends and also getting experience with building/operating portable wireless communication systems. Casual conversations that inspire you to get better at building wireless communication systems is a completely normal, intentional, well-accepted use of the amateur service, perhaps the most normal and well-accepted use.

(I also suspect that being able to tunnel normal internet communication protocols over ham radio would be more reliable and valuable in an emergency than voice and ham-specific protocols, and I'd argue that building and gaining practical experience with such systems is also a reasonable use of the amateur service.)

> How could a simple rule on the duration of transmissions or the length of QSOs meaningfully distinguish between technical experimentation, communications that could not occur by any other medium and the commercial exploitation of the amateur service?

If your transmissions are long or regular, then they cannot be encrypted. This does not ban long transmissions, this rule bans long and regular encrypted transmissions - i.e., it is effectively a subset of the existing rule banning encrypted transmissions of any length. So, all existing uses are permitted.

(Are you envisioning a legitimate purpose for encrypted data over low-SNR links? Then you're probably being more ambitious than I am in your hopes for encrypted ham radio!)

The standard FCC response to your request would be the MOSH session would run great on existing 802.11 regulated under 47CFR15.247 (probably?) so trying to implement it under 47CRF97 is a paperwork mistake.

A step up from consumer wifi gear, the specific term to google for would be U-NII as in the thingie that WISP wireless ISPs operate under. My understanding of U-NII gear (which might be wrong) is by definition its unlicensed. Its long distance performance crushes anything wifi can do (legally, anyway LOL). My understanding of U-NII is 47CFR15.407 which is a different subsection than consumer wifi.

If you feel really ambitious, FCC Part 101 service is the way to go if you want real distance. A license is a couple hundred bucks new or renewed. Your electric bill for the equipment for part 101 service will cost more than that, I think. Just because a Part 73 renewal costs about a new car per year, doesn't mean ALL the fees are draconian. You can certainly spend more on unlicensed 802.11 gear than on used Part 101 gear as a complete system; its not even remotely unrealistic for a private citizen to do part 101 stuff for fun.

If you're feeling really really really ambitious the cost of a form 442 experimental request was ridiculous like sixty bucks. But thats for really exotic experimentation like we're inventing new hardware and new protocols. And a 442 request is by definition not an existing service so they may well respond with an allocation and temporary license that doesn't work for you.

The point of all this is the FCC already has four services you can operate under, ranging from literally free up to a serious but realistic hobby expense, so changing the rules of an existing fifth service is going to be a very hard sell. Like, seriously, none of the four services they offer fit your needs, not even the $60 experimental request form?

Extensive historical part 97 operation indicates encryption has never been useful or required for the other goals mentioned such as casual conversation or operating portable communications systems, so the FCC is not going to take that subgoal very seriously at all.

Thank you—this is an informative reply and I'll check out these options.

> What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century.

This is a ridiculous premise. Things have changed a lot in the last century. We have the freaking internet now for one. It's my personal opinion that HAM is dying because it hasn't kept up with the times. How do you draw new people in? Being able to communicate with others isn't interesting. There are far easier and cheaper methods to do this that younger generation have had since they were children. So let's look at other things. What about making internet relays? Servers? Controlling things (HAM-OT?)

There is unlicenced spectrum where encrypted traffic is allowed (900MHz, 2.4GHz, 5.8GHz) why aren't those adequate for these experiments?

WiFi frequencies are often crowded and harder to get range on.

Those are way higher frequencies than the popular ham bands. I can barely get wifi to cover my apartment, but I can reliably pick up folks from across the city on my handheld radio.

(Which is why spectrum is much more valuable and there aren't unlicensed bands.)

https://faradayrf.com/faraday/

33cm ham band, up to 500kbps, tons of range, especially with yagi/directional antennas, even in a metro area the size of LA. The sad part of this project is that it never took off.

>It's my personal opinion that HAM is dying because it hasn't kept up with the times. How do you draw new people in?

Ham radio is not dying. There are more licensed amateurs now than there ever has been, and it's growing every year [1]. The whole notion that ham radio is this old relic nobody uses anymore has no bearing in reality.

[1]http://www.arrl.org/news/us-amateur-radio-numbers-reach-an-a...

I made a comment on here not too long ago that said HAM operators are the equivalent of tech tattle-tales.

This comment is exactly why I say that.

> What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century.

And this is a bad thing, somehow? In the past century, things have changed so much. For some reason, every HAM implies that encrypted communications means encrypted chatting. No one who wants encrypted comms (who I know) wants to use it for chatting, we want to use it for control mechanisms.

Quit being anti-hacker.

> No one who wants encrypted comms (who I know) wants to use it for chatting, we want to use it for control mechanisms.

As VLM keeps saying time and again in this thread, there are other bands for that.

And even if you really, really wanted to run control mechanisms over HAM bands and didn't want anyone to inject telemetry and control signals, you don't need encryption of all traffic for that. Only authentication. Exchange keys and then just send signed but cleartext messages.

Why would you want to encrypt the control traffic so that no other HAM could listen to it and learn from it? Quit being anti-hacker.

Would cryptographic signing be allowed... the CnC message is unencrypted, and you add a signed signature against the message that is against a public/private key pair. The data isn't encrypted, but the signature still proves that you're authorized.

ISM bands are available to use with whatever encryption scheme you wish to employ.

And as others have mentioned elsewhere: control mechanisms just need authentication, not encryption. Plenty of ways to skin that cat.

Are there any rules about what spoken languages can be used in what circumstances? I can imagine a lot of local hobbyists in the US getting upset if a few people started speaking Spanish on the radio. What if people speak a language that very few people know? Unless there's some rule encouraging the use of language that is widely understood in the region, then it seems like encryption would only "cause" a problem because, well, crap, we're just accustomed to people using a language we can understand.

Any language is fine. The callsign has to be understandable and that’s it. If people want to talk in Esperanto they totally can. People talk in Spanish on the ham bands all the time!

I've always wondered why the FCC is regulating the content of amateur radio transmissions as opposed to merely the spectrum used. With the way regulations are set up, there's little to do on amateur radio than....talk about amateur radio. A bit stifling as far as potential innovations go. I've had several great ideas for amateur radio applications that are effectively useless without some method of privacy.

There's not a compelling reason I can think of for the FCC doing anything more than regulating bandwidth, power, and duration of radio spectrum signals. On that premise, what couldn't they do with encrypted signals? It's not like abusers honestly identify themselves at the required intervals anyway. They could still triangulate abusers and issue fines. The only thing they wouldn't be able to do is tell users to watch their mouth.

As far as one of the stated purposes being emergency management, I can't help but wonder if reserved frequencies (ala CB channel 9) are sufficient.

Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price for your unused HT, whatever.

The encrypted communication the parent is likely referring to isn't about speech. An example of something that would need encryption is something like accessing a server through radio. Or "iot" like devices, except we'll say HAMOT. I'm definitely not opening a server without encryption. Lots of applications for controlling devices you'd also want to encrypt so that they can't be hijacked.

Are you sure you have to encrypt? Those uses call for authentication.

Do I really want to authenticate without encryption? I understand that to be a bad idea.

Are you maybe thinking about it being a bad idea to decrypt without validating message integrity (i.e. decrypt without having or checking the message authentication code)? You absolutely can authenticate without encryption, it's one of the few ways you'll be able to get away with restricting access to functions and features legally on the ham bands. One time passwords and challenge/response authentication procedures are some alternatives.

Well if I can use a key and otp that makes it safer. But I'm more thinking how do you send a password safely. On the internet we don't want to do that with http. As I understand it, if you send your password without encryption you are sending your password with plain text. I don't see why this is different with electrical signals traveling through the air vs electrical signals traveling through cables. I figure we'd want to use the same security practices regardless of what medium that signal is being sent through.

Diffie Hellman. There are all kinds of schemes for Alice and Bob to share keys over a hostile channel. A brief secrets exchange isn't the same as an encrypted pipe.

Once you have authentication, you can send whatever control signals you want in the clear, as long as they are signed.

Message: set foo to baz Author: kortex Checksum: 0x1337ace5 Sig: 0xdeadbeef

The endpoint checks for message integrity and authentication, and executes or rejects.

The difference is cables are waveguides from A to B. Radio is a common bus.

Diffie Hellman is encryption

> (wiki) encryption is the process of encoding a message or information in such a way that only authorized parties can access it and those who are not authorized cannot.

>> 97.113 (4) “…messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof..."

You are obscuring the message that is the password.

Cipher

>>> 2 a: a method of transforming a text in order to conceal its meaning

>>> 4 : a combination of symbolic letters

>>>> (wiki) Diffie–Hellman key exchange (DH)[nb 1] is a method of securely exchanging cryptographic keys over a public channel

You definitely want to obscure and hide your password for authentication. I guess it depends how you interpret the rules though. Is a cryptographic signature a message in codes or ciphers the more important part or is it about the content of the message? At a minimum I think this should be clarified more.

That being said, if I am using radio to control certain devices I may not want that content to be public (and where I can still abide by the part of not using radio for illegal activities).

I don't think we ever reach the question about which element is more important. Elsewhere in the rules situations permitting encryption are spelled out (telemetry, RC). None of those exceptions apply to server passwords. Under common rules of construction it's safe to conclude that DH key exchange - of a shared secret, if we're being fair - is prohibited. One that can be worked around but not cleanly. There may not be a clean fix that doesn't involve something distasteful like a key escrow or unachievable like a rules change.

Thank you for a challenging exchange. Those interested can inspect the full reg at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 . The permitted exceptions aren't hard to search for from there.

I don't think a rules change is unachievable. There's literally talk about it. I would be perfectly okay with a compromise of encrypted signatures or passwords. But I think that is difficult to verify that other things aren't being passed there. So it's probably just easier to allow encryption. I mean Soviet spies probably aren't using HAM bands for secret communications anymore.

I also don't understand the argument that encryption makes HAM closed. The internet is pretty open with encryption.

> Could you give an example of how the regs stifle?

As I pointed out just a few days ago, probably most hams worldwide interpret the regs as discouraging any polemic discussion like politics or religion. Since so many hams are elderly, there is also some distrust of foreigners lingering from the Cold War era. So communications, especially international communications, are so often limited to merely exchanging signal reports, maybe some gear talk or weather info, and then it’s 73.

Besides that, amateur radio is a hobby that attracts a lot of socially-awkward anoraks, who are very self-conscious about entering into any conversation deeper than just talking about their gear.

Sure, there is a community of eager ragchewers, but it is not so big comparatively, and even most of those ragchewers probably limit their deep conversations to people from the same country (or even to people from their own local club scene).

I guess you’re not familiar with 14.313 MHz...

(It’s been called the 4chan of ham radio)

And that hangout represents how many hams worldwide? Let’s have a sense of perspective.

Speaking of the cold war, the supposed limited conversations of signal report, wx, DSV and 73 reminds me of all of my Soviet-era QSOs with stations on the other side of the iron curtain. Not today - although I did have one of your wham bam thank you mam QSOs with a Cuban station last year - in the 21st century you'll talk as long as the band stays open about anything with all but the Cubans and Chinese. You're wrong about how most hams interpret the regs, for whatever purposes, offensive in your ageism and stereotypes of hams who are no more or less awkward than your average high performing HNer. I don't know where you developed these beliefs but they don't reflect reality. How do you know the ragchew community is not so big? I am indeed a random guy on the internet but one who's been hamming for more than 40 years. Copyedits.

>I've always wondered why the FCC is regulating the content of amateur radio transmissions as opposed to merely the spectrum used.

Spectrum is allocated for specific purposes. We have spectrum allocations for aviation, for public safety, for business use, for broadcast and so on. Each of those services has specific regulations to ensure that it functions effectively and is not detrimental to users of other radio services. Amateur radio has a broad but specific range of purposes with some kind of social benefit - education, experimentation, public safety, international goodwill etc. The amateur radio service is regulated to ensure that it remains useful for those purposes.

Encryption removes the ability of the FCC and the amateur radio community as a whole to see whether you're using the service legitimately, or illegally encroaching on amateur frequencies.

Quality of Service.

Multiple engineer-months of field strength estimates and measurements and extensive deconfliction to provide reliable broadcast service mean the part 73 licensing process is very expensive, yet it results in broadcast services that generally work pretty well. Of course its extremely expensive to regulate that level of QoS.

On the other hand, the Ham Radio licensing process is like: try not to hurt yourself or others, take responsibility for your actions by attaching your callsign (aka legal contact, if it comes to that) to every transmission, and we guarantee absolutely nothing although you folks are historically pretty resourceful LOL. Naturally that costs about $5 to regulate that level of QoS.

Every other service is somewhere in between. Part 87 for aircraft comms is a bit on the expensive side and extensively monitored and interference complaints are very aggressively enforced at a financial loss to the FCC (but, hey, public safety, so its worth it), Part 95-D for CB is for all practical purposes unregulated and as you'd guess its both basically unusable for any purpose and is also free.

Over a very short period of time its tempting to be the first guy to pay Part 97 prices for a license then cheat the system and operate Part 90 services or even Part 73 services on that $5 Part 97 license. Over the long period of time, regulation existed for a reason, the reason has not gone away, and the price and paperwork burden of a Part 97 license would naturally rise up to the existing Part 73 system plus an extra $5 to fund the legacy ham radio service such that its now a net loss to merge parts 73 and 97 services.

The overall process is essentially a wealth transfer from those who are the last to give in and ruin the commons to those who are the first to ruin the commons, which is usually not seen as a regulatory win in a theoretical sense.

As a thought experiment, imagine a world of highly limited internet bandwidth and no net neutrality resulting in massive tiers of bandwidth and billing, and the government proposed regulation that if you set a "I'm a 911 call" bit in your packet, that would be not billed "free" service. You know if they allowed encryption of "911 voice call traffic", that the usual suspects would be trading blueray ISO files by the dozen per month using torrent clients with the "I'm a 911 call" bit set such that the BW was free. I'm not sure that works in the sense of everyone playing along in a system.

In the very old days of radio there was no regulation, as being proposed; it didn't work very well. The FCC wasn't invented just for fun. The FCC is kinda like the EPA, didn't need the EPA in 10000 BC, and the only rational way to get into a future scenario where the EPA is no longer needed seems to be to go back to the population and living conditions of 10000 BC... So I wouldn't bet on "lets just rm -Rf the entire FCC" being implemented any time soon.

The spirit of "everything open" does not jive with the modern world and may be an issue with some emergency communications, yet it has a role with amateur radio.

The important things to realize are that amateur radio has a multitude of roles and those roles are not unique to the service. For example: amateur radio is not intended for emergency communications, you have things like aviation and nautical bands for that, yet emergency communications are central to amateur radio since the bands are available when all else fails. Likewise for experimentation, you can frequently work below a certain power levels or obtain a license to develop new technologies. An amateur license offers more leeway and less bureaucracy to hobbiests, arguably cutting down on interference to critical services. The list goes on.

The problem is creating a self-regulating environment. This is difficult to do when communications are "effectively encrypted", which I take to mean that the mode is not publicly documented, it is encrypted, or it is otherwise obfuscated. At best, this encourages use that violates radio regulations. A more cynical interpretation is that it's a prelude to taking over amateur bands.

Amateur radio is defined as a "civil emergency service" under FCC 47 CFR 97.407. Around here at least, Amateur radio groups provide a vital role in the coordination of Search and Rescue operations by setting up communication networks in backcountry areas under the direct supervision of the local sherifs office. So yes, amateur radio is (among other things) intended for emergency communications.

I'd support encrypted traffic if it was specifically restricted to certain bands in the bandplan. I don't think it should be allowed generally because part of the joy of amateur radio is the fact that other people's messages can be listened to and learnt from.

I think the same people who are protesting in the article would object to that. Because bar the FCC releasing more spectrum to Amateur radio (which probably won't happen) it would mean removing spectrum from "open" amateur bands.

Where are the amateur bands so crowded that this is a serious concern?

The lower HF bands when they're open worldwide WRT sunspots etc. Above 14 Mhz its not an issue.

Southern California has a dearth of available repeater pairs because of the massive amount of repeaters in use.

I might be oversimplifying, but isn't this the perfect argument for certain digital voice modes? DMR for example uses TDM to put two voice channels in a 12.5 KHz band.

This is about Pactor modems not being readable by other hams because the protocol is proprietary from version 2 upwards, and therefore unreadable. Also, the amateur bands can't be used for commercial traffic, and yet they are. The article may not explain this well, but that's the core of the issue. Both sides muddy it up a bit. This battle has been raging since the 90s. I posted a longer description in another thread here.

ISTM really important to crack down on the commercial uses otherwise the commercial users will justifiably lay claim to our bands. When that happens we won't have a place to be QRL broadcasting QRLs

My knowledge is a decade or so out of date, but encrypted transmissions have been allowed in the past, so long as the key for decrypting the payloads was available on request (much like how GNU says source code must be available).

For example, you can transmit video over amateur bands, even though the signal could be considered to be encrypted if you don't have the standard for decoding the signal.

Let's not confuse encryption with encoding.

But encoding is relevant here too. If people cannot make sense of the messages, whether or not they're cryptographically secure, the messages aren't fulfilling the pedagogical purpose of the amateur service.

The average English speaking American probably won't be able to make sense of someone speaking Haitian, nobody says everyone must be able to understand you.

But you can record the Hiatian speakers message and get it translated.

With sufficient encryption, recorded messages cannot ever be decoded unless the key was broadcast, which it never would be.

> But you can record the Hiatian speakers message and get it translated.

However, this exact form of encoding was used as a form of encryption while the US was at war; the Navajo Code Talkers.

Somewhat off topic, of course, but a great example of how encryption and encoding can have identical end results.

You can record an encrypted message and get it decrypted by anyone who demonstrates knowledge of the key. The process is identical to finding someone who demonstrates knowledge of Haitian. Encryption is nothing more than an uncommon encoding.

Analog video signals are pretty distinctive, anyone with an oscilloscope could recognize them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com