
Militia Radio Frequencies - roycoding
https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/militia-radio-frequencies/
======
zekevermillion
These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion --
if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all
tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is
fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I
would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's
hard to keep morale up if you just go to meetings where you practice blending
into population. Like, an organized concealed carry sit-in at Starbucks where
you don't tell anyone you're carrying and try not to be noticed? Or, have
radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid
transmitting any coded messages?

~~~
jonathankoren
> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion
> -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is
> look all tactical and stuff.

Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For
example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for
hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because
the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.[1] However, you look
like a fucking action movie star. Tactical vests, "every day carry" trauma
kits, throat mics, body armor, etc. There's no practical reason for any of
these, other than the owner wants to play dress up. Businesses know this. Why
else would say armor manufacturer AR5000 unveil a Boba Fett helmet[2].

[1] [http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-
ri...](http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-rifles-
hunting) [2] [http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-
tac...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tactical-
armor-before-1753821526)

~~~
runjake
_> the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for
hallways. Too powerful for drywall.)_

1\. Actually, the .223/5.56mm round has less penetration in residential[1]
that most handgun rounds due to its tumbling characteristics.

2\. I'd say the AR-15 is impractical for home defense due to its stigma of
being an evil black rifle, and that it seems like "overkill" to uneducated
people. That's a shame, due to point #1, that it has less drywall/wood
penetration than most handgun rounds.

The AR-15 is a pretty useful and relatively economical system, due to its
modularity. That said, I agree with a lot of your other opinions regarding
elements of the gun/tacticool culture.

[1.] In the drywall/stick-built US, anyway.

~~~
linkregister
I started to look for sources to refute claim #1, but found several firearms
manufacturers' websites that affirmed it. I was pretty shocked.

I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home
defense, since that same search engine query returned many results of state
and federal cases where houses football fields away were penetrated by stray
.223 rounds. Buckshot won't have the range to maim or kill compared to the
NATO 5.56 round.

~~~
defen
> I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home
> defense

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but one thing I've heard from "gun
enthusiast" family members is that this is fine if you're imagining an "ideal
scenario" of being barricaded in your room waiting for the cops to show up,
but it's worth considering what can go wrong - compared to a shotgun, an AR is
much easier to operate with one arm (if you just woke up and one is asleep, or
you were involved in a struggle that disabled one, or whatever); much less
recoil (could be an issue if smaller family members need to use it); faster
rate of fire and more rounds available before reloading (in case you miss or
there are multiple attackers).

------
twothamendment
Interesting read, but it almost paints anyone who owns a Baofeng as a
terrorist. It does do a great job of showing how lame it is to think that
those radios will help in a standoff like that. If the government was going to
go in, you can bet the first thing they'd do is jam those cheap radios.

For anyone interested in ham radio, there isn't a better place to start.
Without these cheap, not-as-good-as-something-that-costs-10x-as much radios
you can get into the hobby for under $50 including your license. I'd spend a
tad bit more and go for the UV-82hp and a new antenna, but $75 to get going
isn't bad. Without these I don't think there would be many younger people
getting started. In my area there is a very active repeater of normal people
(many of them software guys, so maybe not all that normal) chatting about all
kinds of topics and there is always someone to answer a question.

Passing the test isn't bad - checkout the mobile friendly
[http://www.hamstudy.org](http://www.hamstudy.org) (no, affiliated, just a
happy user).

~~~
Aloha
In my opinion the Baofeng isn't a very good radio (poor build quality, poor
performing RF deck, bad documentation and software support), and there are
better inexpensive options out there - most surplus commercial radio gear is
around the same price with a better build quality - and for those with some
money to spend, you can pick up surplus XTS3000 with DES-XL (or DES-OFB) for
under 250 bucks ea, add another 3-800 for a KVL and you have a somewhat hard
to crack Digital (P25) encrypted radio system.

The Motorola iDEN handset DirecTalk feature is also a great option for comms
up to about a mile, no encryption, so its more of a security thru obscurity
system (same with the Motorola DTR series of radios, which are conceptually
identical to the iDEN handset feature - down to power output even - I think
the difference is message format and codec IMBE vs VSLEP or AMBE), because of
the nature of the beast unless you know its DirecTalk, its unlikely you would
be able to figure out and find it either.

I've long used surplus Motorola or Kenwood gear in my car and for handhelds -
GP300's, XTS's, Spectra (for the car) and before that a Syntor X (which had
one of the hottest receivers I've ever seen in a mobile) - I myself have been
licensed since 1996.

~~~
cdjk
I've tried using commercial radios before, but the biggest annoyance is the
difficulty in either 1) getting programming software and 2) actually using the
software, which usually has an atrocious UI.

At least with a purpose-built ham radio you can enter frequencies directly on
the handset, even if it's a pain. Although the programming software for them
is almost as bad.

~~~
twothamendment
I heard bad things about programming the Baofeng and other cheap radios so
picked one up before getting blessed by the FCC to operate it. I figured if it
was a pain I didn't care about passing some test.

It was a pretty straight forward process. I bought a decent cable to plug it
in to my laptop, downloaded CHIRP
([http://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/Home](http://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/Home))
and used it to pull in a list of local repeaters, selected the ones I wanted
and dumped the list to the radio.

There was one issue of confusion, maybe this will help someone. The order is
important. I've never failed if I: 0) Remove the antenna 1) Plug in the cable
to the computer 2) Plug in the cable to the radio 3) Turn the radio on - all
the way, full volume Then CHIRP will happily download or upload profiles from
the radio.

The UV-82 manual is decent. I'm guessing it is the older models that people
talk about. There are some funny translations here and there, but I don't
recall anything that didn't work or make sense. Programming them by hand is
still no fun. Thank you everyone who works on CHIRP!

------
tzs
> MURS is the longest range VHF radio service that can be legally utilized by
> anyone without the need for a radio license.

The operator does not need a license, but I believe that the radio must be
certified for MURS operation. The Baofeng UV-5R is not [1]. It is certified
under Part 90. MURS requires certification under Part 95.

[1]
[http://www.gordonwestradioschool.com/attachments/FCC_Part_90...](http://www.gordonwestradioschool.com/attachments/FCC_Part_90_Certification_Baofeng_UV5R.pdf)

~~~
sliverstorm
To my knowledge you are correct. Although I kind of hope the rules get
reworked a little. As a public service volunteer, it would be beneficial to be
able to operate on many services with one radio, and many modern radios are
capable of being "good citizens" on multiple services simultaneously.

(For example, we operate on Part 90, but may interact with members of the
public who are carrying a Part 95 radio. Luckily as a ham, I believe I can at
least operate my Part 90 radio on Part 97 bands.)

~~~
tzs
> Luckily as a ham, I believe I can at least operate my Part 90 radio on Part
> 97 bands.

I believe that is correct (also a ham).

For curious non-hams, here is how it works. In the US, generally there are
three ways radio bands are licensed.

1\. No license is required for the operator to use the band, but the equipment
used must be certified for operation in that band.

2\. The operator has to have a license to use the band _and_ the equipment
must be certified for operation in that band.

3\. The operator has to have a license to use the band, but can use any
equipment as long as what is actually transmitted meets the legal technical
requirements for operation on that band (power levels, modulation types, and
so on).

An example of the first method is the Family Radio Service (FRS) bands.

An example of the second method is the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).
When I say that the operator has to have a license, that does not necessarily
mean that the person actually operating the radio has to have a license. With
GMRS, for instance, a business can get a license and that covers employee use
without the individual employees needing to get licenses.

Ham radio falls under the third method, and offhand I can't think of anything
else that does. When a licensed ham is operating a radio all the FCC cares
about is what comes out of the antenna, not what equipment produced it.

The way hams get licensed is also quite different. The FCC takes a very hands
off approach to ham licensing.

To get a ham license, you have to pass an exam. For the entry level license,
that is a 35 question multiple-choice exam that almost anyone here on HN could
learn enough to pass in a couple weekends. There is a license level above that
which gives you access to more ham bands, which you get by passing another 35
question exam which is a little harder. There is a third license level above
that which allows you full access to everything hams are allowed to do. That
one is a 50 question exam and is quite a bit harder than the other two.

The FCC neither makes the exams nor administers them. They have authorized 14
organizations as "Volunteer Exam Coordinators" (VECs), and the VECs are
responsible for maintaining the pool of exam questions, constructing exams
from the question pool, training and certifying people to give the exams,
giving the exams, grading them, and reporting the results back to the FCC so
the FCC can issue the licenses.

------
davidw
I've been following the latest standoff pretty closely, as it's only a couple
of hours east of Bend. It's pretty interesting to see the different subsets of
people involved, including the lot this article kind of touches on, who seem
to like to play "army guys". Scary, too.

I like the quote at the end:

“Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is
hollering about.” -Mark Twain

------
jff
> (obscured by the upper receiver of the assault weapon)

You mean the stock of the semi-automatic rifle which happens to be scary and
black?

~~~
nathanm412
Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine
and a pistol grip. I've seen this definition in common use going back 30
years, whether or not it helps anyone's political ideals.

A thorough discussion of the definition and it's history can be found here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)

~~~
sithadmin
>Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable
magazine and a pistol grip.

Rifle. Not firearm. Otherwise every pistol that isn't a muzzle/breech loader
or revolver is an 'assault weapon', which is makes the distinction even more
functionally useless.

~~~
kaoD
A rifle is a firearm.

~~~
sithadmin
So is a Glock pistol, which obviously isn't supposed to fall into the 'assault
weapons' category that has been constructed.

~~~
hga
But since the construction is _entirely_ political, they actually have fallen
in the category, since the majority of them have a standard magazine capacity
> 10 rounds, or simply detachable magazines.

Maybe not legally in any part of the US unless Glock sells models with
threaded barrels (vs. their factory aftermarket ones), but I don't doubt
rhetorically.

------
arca_vorago
I find it unusual that there is only passing mention of Frequency Hopping
Spread Spectrum (FHSS) and frequency-hopping code division multiple access
(FH-CDMA), which by themselves do have some issues, but combined with
encryption like KY-57 or KY-58+ they can be pretty hard. Since that is some of
what the US military uses, and militias are largely comprised of former
military, I would expect to see more PRC119's and similar in the article, but
don't. I wonder why?

edit: found my own answer in the article. "The average militia individual
can’t afford the $7,500+ price tag of a 5 watt VHF HT radio that has high
levels of encryption combined with frequency hopping capability; anything less
than that (such as DMR or P25) is easily intercepted and decrypted in
realtime."

------
VLM
Its interesting that the article has nothing specifically militia related. In
that its just a list of point to point radios anyone can use.

There probably are characteristics or features that would appeal to anti-
government activists on either the left or the right, but the article didn't
mention them.

For example, if you want communications in the deep mountains for hiking or
camping, its not a bad "buyers guide".

Interestingly it does side step using actual military surplus radios. Probably
because the mil-surp radios us Ham Radio guys use are either too expensive or
too antique to be of use. I have a nice R-392 (a "mobile" R-390). Its not
exactly tacti-cool, LOL. For about a quarter century I've been planning on
buying a PRC-77 to work ham radio 6 meter FM... in my infinite spare time. I
like the 6m band although I've almost exclusively worked weak signal SSB.

------
pythia__
What this makes me wonder is, could they use a cell phone Wi-Fi mesh network
at least for a significant part of their communications?

~~~
itgoon
I was thinking RPis with nrf24l01 chips. You could do everything with custom
encryption.

~~~
BWStearns
This settles it. HN needs to conduct our own takeover of a federal building to
show these guys how it's done :p

/sarcasm please god let this line have been unneeded

~~~
itgoon
I'll be sure and pack snacks.

/yea, me too

------
unethical_ban
For SHTF or remote rural use, I would use the FRS frequencies. No license
required, but the Baofengs do transmit above the .25W power max. Oh well.

~~~
legulere
I guess in case of SHTF radio frequency legality won't matter anymore.

------
hackuser
Isn't the FCC auctioning off some spectrum soon in former TV frequencies?
Perhaps the militia groups could bid on some ...

------
legulere
Why call them militia-patriots when they're domestic terrorists?

~~~
golergka
Nobody is a terrorist until he plans or engages in terrorist activity. Do you
have evidence that they did something like that?

~~~
smacktoward
Seizure of government property at gunpoint is certainly _something._

(Though I'm not sure it really tracks with the definition of a "terrorist,"
since a terrorist is an armed combatant who explicitly strikes at civilians
instead of at their government. A better term here might be more 19th-century-
flavored words like _insurrectionary_ or _seditionist,_ though terms like
those fell out of use as rebel and guerrilla groups abandoned direct attacks
on governments in favor of terroristic tactics.)

~~~
golergka
> terrorist is an armed combatant who explicitly strikes at civilians instead
> of at their government

Uhm, no. This is closer to the definition of terrorism, but it's still not it.
Drug store robbery gone violent involves armed people who may explicitly
strike a civilian shop owner who turned out to have a gun under the counter.

Terrorism is about intent: to spread terror. If you're blowing a bomb up just
to see the bodies fly, you're not a terrorist. But if you're conjuring an
alien monster abomination to prevent a nuclear war between two super-powers
through _terror_ against an imaginary alien adversary, you are a terrorist
(although in this case one could argue that you indeed do it for the greater
good).

