
Hams try to re-carve the amateur radio spectrum - lightlyused
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/05/amateur_radio_spectrum/
======
PaulHoule
Awful article that misses the point.

Vendors like Yaesu and D-Link have introduced digital modes that are
proprietary and/or patented, but not encrypted. The NSA will have no trouble
decrypting these symbols, but hams who have D-Link radios can't read the Yaesu
transmissions and vice versa.

Hams are doing a lot of interesting stuff that is open in terms of "digital"
modes that work like teletype -- today these are more spectrum efficient than
the old Morse code and make it possible to communicate between modest stations
by bouncing signals off the moon. The problem is with proprietary protocols
for fitting digital voice in narrow channels.

BTW, that Rappaport guy might be the #1 researcher in the field of millimeter
wave radio these days

------
mikece
In general, amateur radio transmissions ought to be open and unencrypted --
the equivalent of GPL or public domain. There are some instances where the
legal ban on encryption is an issue, such as when HAMs come to the aid of
emergency management after a natural disasters and cannot pass personally
identifying information or patient information in the clear without violating
HIPAA. A common-sense exception allowing encryption in these cases makes
complete sense and is something the FCC commissioner could probably approve by
edict in lieu of legislation on the matter.

~~~
vvanders
Yeah, I don't really get where this article is going. All digital signals are
required to publish how to decode and D-Star that was called out was designed
specifically by hams.

My guess is this is just a push back against pactor and the non ham usage that
tends to happen. Either way ham isn't going to be breaking any data rates soon
as the frequency used is to small for faster symbols(and they're also
prohibited but current laws).

~~~
knorker
The voice codec for Dstar is proprietary and patented. Luckily it's about to
expire and I've seen at least one reverse engineered implementation.

Still, it completely goes against the spirit of a hobby and is an intentional
legal and technical barrier to decoding transmissions, today.

~~~
dbcurtis
Yes. D-Star is the poster-child for the kind of coding scheme that should not
be allowed in Amateur Radio. If I can't access the documentation required to
do a compatible open implementation, then it is a no-go.

------
dbjacobs
There are two different issues we don't want to conflate. Encrypted traffic is
a problem because once you allow it, there is no way to police abuse of the
spectrum (in the same way you can tunnel almost anything over ssh). If you
allow encryption, then the ham spectrum just becomes an open free for all.

The second issue is proprietary protocols. If the goal is to support
experimentation and emergencies then all protocols used should be non
proprietary so that all who want can learn and be involved.

------
sliken
The biggest problem I see is this big push into proprietary digital modes is
that it creates incompatibility. These digital modes splits the market up into
incompatible segments that damages the ability to communicate. This
splintering reduces the desirability of a new radio, and reduces sales.
Reduced sales means vendors spend less on R&D.

Who wants to buy a digital radio that can only communicate with a small
fraction of other digital radios?

I've talked to dozens of hams, and their most hated feature is accidentally
entering digital mode on their radio and not being able to communicate with
anyone. Similarly the majority of repeaters are analog only, because who wants
to put up a repeater that only a small fraction of the radios can use?

If the FCC required only open systems being used then any radio could use open
software to be able to communicate and help ham radio become a more modern
radio system.

------
godelski
As a counter argument to keeping everything open there's a bunch of things you
want encrypted. Radio controlled things. This is even a problem for the people
that are trying to create HAM internet connections. You can't use any SSL.
Though it'd be slow, I'd love to see a world wide internet that could be
accessed by HAM. I can't think of anything more world changing than having an
open internet that everyone can reach with a $10 device.

So I think there are cases where being able to use encryption would be nice.
But there are also plenty of cases to keep things open. So maybe we need to
talk about some compromise. Maybe keeping certain bands open and others not.

~~~
tzs
The rule against encryption on ham bands doesn't prohibit digital signatures.
It just prohibits encryption of message content.

For radio control a protocol that sends commands in the clear but signs them
should be sufficient to let you securely control something without violating
the rules.

~~~
godelski
From my understanding because of this limitation you can't send encrypted
passwords.

~~~
rietta
Which is why you have to use other protocols and key authentication. Whatever
the current equivalent of Cram-MD5 or just plain public key HMACS. I wrote
about this 15 years ago in April 2004 -
[https://rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-without-
en...](https://rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-without-encryption-
for/)

------
8bitsrule
Ham radio been a regulatory success because the transmissions are open. Self-
policing of the ham bands has always been an essential part of the hobby. Any
transmissions using unpublished algorithms make that impossible.

In today's climate, the fact that long-established (and offshore) gear makers
are creating such a threat is not surprising but is dismaying. _One_ serious
criminal mis-use could cause serious damage to goodwill generated over
decades. It could lead to more draconian regulations.

Emergency use is a side-issue. We should not allow ourselves to be divided by
it.

------
slr555
I am an Extra class licensee in the US and while I have a lot of respect for
the Ham community, deeply entrenched thinking places the future of amateur
radio in jeopardy. If we only allow CW and SSB phone as truly open and
accessible operating modes a whole world of technical innovation and
integration will be lost. While the letter of the FCC rules might exclude some
of the more recent digital modes listed, the traffic is not encrypted. With
all the strong encryption out there in the world, it's hard to buy amateur
radio as a threat to national security unless we're worried that a bunch of 80
year olds are going to take up arms against the republic.

To me it sounds like some operators have sour grapes because they can't
immediately listen to everybody's traffic. In short I support Ham moving
forward and not becoming even more antiquated than it is.

I do think the headline of the article is poorly written as I don't think this
is about spectrum allocation in any way.

~~~
jdietrich
The article is rather badly written, but the actual petition for rulemaking is
broadly reasonable. The proposed language change to 97.309 is as follows:

 _An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code
specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical
characteristics have been documented publicly, and the protocol used can be be
monitored, in it’s entirety, by 3rd parties, with freely available open source
software, for the purpose of facilitating communications_

As I see it, the essential goal is to close the loophole whereby
theoretically-open but practically-closed protocols can be used on amateur
frequencies.

There is a broader debate in amateur radio about the use of automated data
stations and the possible increase in the bandwidth limit, both of which
represent delicate balances. There's clearly a cohort of geriatrics who want
to keep double sideband voice and ban data, but there are also genuine issues
with the behaviour of some data mode users.

A significant number of WSJT users are now transmitting at high power,
creating significant issues with interference. WinLink is an absolute nuisance
- it has always been illegal in the UK and I really can't see how it's legal
in the US.

[https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100918881206/PETITION%20FOR%20R...](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100918881206/PETITION%20FOR%20RULEMAKING.pdf)

[https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521098786.pdf](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521098786.pdf)

------
Causality1
Wow, are we sure this article wasn't written in 1980? The idea that encrypted
radio is a national security threat makes zero sense in the age of VPNs and
Tor. If someone wants to get a secret message overseas an encrypted HAM
transmission is probably the single hardest way to do that short of trying to
train a carrier pigeon with a portrait of Vladimir Putin.

