Amateur Radio and Encryption

[Balog]

What Gewehr said. 

Of all the things to be outraged about, the FCC is low on the list.  They're not controlling the airwaves to restrict your freedom, but doing so to enable maximum benefit for all users.  Since radio waves tend to go where they please, some yahoo in one town can really screw with someone else the next state or even country (read about the Russian Woodpecker).  Granted, they don't have much control outside the US, but they do try to ensure US users do not interfere with each other and the rest of the planet.

Chris

I've no issue with that. Monitoring people who are on non-emergency freqs does nothing to prevent people encroaching on each others rights.

[mtnbkr]

Emergency freqs fine. Staying out of dedicated freqs fine. Monitoring civilian non-emergency non-air traffic control etc channels not so much.

It's not that cut and dried.  Much amateur traffic occurs on or very near frequencies allocated for other uses.  For example, 70cm radio transmissions are limited in certain areas because the military has radar-like systems on the same bands.  A big stink was made over this in California earlier this year or last year because the Military was about to shut down a bunch of Amateur repeaters because of possible interference. 

The 60m band is another shared resource.

There are others, but those are the ones that come to mind. 

Our access to several bands is predicated by us not causing interference.

Chris

[mtnbkr]

I've no issue with that. Monitoring people who are on non-emergency freqs does nothing to prevent people encroaching on each others rights.

It's not about encroaching upon rights, it's about causing interference to other services.  Period. 

As far as I know, this is only a rule when using the licensed portions of the spectrum, I don't think it applies to the unlicensed portions (CB, FRS, MURS, etc).

Chris

[Thor]

Sorry, my mind isn't working well today. Too  little sleep and some heavy meds.

[RocketMan]

It's not about encroaching upon rights, it's about causing interference to other services.  Period.

What mtnbkr said.  Plus, when one starts modifying transmitters and receivers, sometimes one unknowingly ends up with a rig that is putting out RF on unintended frequencies.  That has been the cause behind many interference cases.

[Hawkmoon]

It's not about encroaching upon rights, it's about causing interference to other services.  Period. 

As far as I know, this is only a rule when using the licensed portions of the spectrum, I don't think it applies to the unlicensed portions (CB, FRS, MURS, etc).

Chris

Technically, I believe, CB is considered "licensed," but you don't have to sign a piece of paper. Technically, CB users are supposed to use a unique, identifying call sign (not just a "handle"). And any CB channel may be an emergency channel. In emergency situations, you're supposed to make initial contact with whomever you contact on channel 9, then switch to another channel so 9 will be available for the next emergency. If everyone is running more or less the same power, anyone in range to step on your transmissions should also be able to hear you and know enough to shut up while the emergency traffic uses the channel. If Art the eighteen wheeler is 25 miles down the road running a souped up radio in his rig, he could step all over your 4-watt in-town emergency transmissions and never even know you exist.

{EDIT}Google-fu tells me I am incorrect. CB does not require a license, but is subject to FCC regulations.

[Frank Castle]

Plus, when one starts modifying transmitters and receivers, sometimes one unknowingly ends up with a rig that is putting out RF on unintended frequencies.  That has been the cause behind many interference cases.

Very true. I'm in the Signal Corp!

We have jammed cell phones using the the wrong freqs!


   




 

[RevDisk]

Very true. I'm in the Signal Corp!

We have jammed cell phones using the the wrong freqs!

Good to see the Signal Corps is still upholding our sacred traditions.  Primary, messing with folks using the wrong frequencies!  Secondary, pushing watts that'd make a HAM (or FCC field guy) weep. 

(Former 31U)



Any encryption OTA is generally illegal, unless it is licensed to the operator or permitted to a specifc frequency band.  The police and military are licensed for encryption.  DirecTV and other similiar services are allowed to encrypt their traffic, per their license.  Congress (I believe the Satellite Home Viewing Act, but I'm probably wrong) pretty much mandated that the FCC can't step on commercial broadcast folks from encrypting their signals to prevent pirating. 

Just to mess with Balog.  It's not just transmitting that is illegal without a license (in licensed bands), receiving can often be illegal.  You do not own the RF spectrum on your own property.  Doesn't matter if you're not causing interference, not transmitting outside your property, or not transmitting period.  Monitoring even unencrypted cell phone conversations is illegal.  So is descrambling commercial broadcast (ie satellite TV).  You have no rights whatever in the RF spectrum.  You are granted numerous priviledges in the form of unlicensed bands and whatnot, but you have no rights involved in the matter.   Not saying it's right or wrong, just how it currently is.

[Balog]

I'll just file this in the "probably wrong, but not something I really care about" drawer. :)

[Frank Castle]

Good to see the Signal Corps is still upholding our sacred traditions.  Primary, messing with folks using the wrong frequencies!  Secondary, pushing watts that'd make a HAM (or FCC field guy) weep.

(Former 31U)

Heavy tropo (4000 watts) and UAV don't mix!! UAV fall down and go boom!

25Q

[Telperion]

I think this is one of the rules that needs to go, at least above 50 MHz.  Amateur radio is there partly to advance the art and science of radio communication, and pretty much every wireless communication standard is now built with security in mind from the ground up.  802.11 began on the ham bands, and if amateur radio is to remain a sandbox for new communications tech, the FCC should recognize the importance people are placing on secure comms.

I suppose you can accomplish much of the same thing by rolling your own experimental digital mode that's undocumented.  I don't see any requirement that people publish the details of digital mode protocols, especially if you're still working out the details of it.

[Fly320s]

No code words?!  What about "Roger" and "WilCo" and "10-4" and "Smokey?"

 

[Kingpin46]

"They can modify the CB to operate on the 10m band and at the same time transmit well over the 4w limit.  The issue is transmitting more than 4w on the CB band."

This is not true. A CB is a type accepted rig and as such no modifications are allowed.

[KD5NRH]

"They can modify the CB to operate on the 10m band and at the same time transmit well over the 4w limit.  The issue is transmitting more than 4w on the CB band."

This is not true. A CB is a type accepted rig and as such no modifications are allowed.

Wrong; it can be modified any way you want to.  It just loses its type certification for CB band use.

OTOH, actually getting caught for doing anything illegal on 11m is nearly impossible these days.  If you wanted a place to run encrypted digital, that would be the band for it.  If FCC did take an interest, it would be like trying to pick up whispers in a foreign language over the cheering at the Super Bowl.

[Thor]

Wrong; it can be modified any way you want to.  It just loses its type certification for CB band use.

OTOH, actually getting caught for doing anything illegal on 11m is nearly impossible these days.  If you wanted a place to run encrypted digital, that would be the band for it.  If FCC did take an interest, it would be like trying to pick up whispers in a foreign language over the cheering at the Super Bowl.

True. I remember back in the 70s, 80s that CB radios went pretty much unchallenged with whatever power/ freq they were using. The FCC simply does not have the manpower to track down mobile stations and many base stations. Even when I was working cable TV in the 90s, the FCC didn't take much action on nearby ham radio operators causing problems across someone's unshielded TV. I addressed that issue more than once at my first cable company.

[AZRedhawk44]

If FCC did take an interest, it would be like trying to pick up whispers in a foreign language over the cheering at the Super Bowl.

Except it's still a half duplex communication medium... which means that your two legit nodes have to:
1.  Filter out the non-related traffic, and;
2.  Shout louder or otherwise stop the other chatter so the digital data can be heard over the background noise.

[RevDisk]

I'll just file this in the "probably wrong, but not something I really care about" drawer. :)

Pretty much.  But it's pretty annoying that you can't buy secure radios or listen to whatever traffic you please on your own property.   That should offend you as a citizen.  But yea, not too much you can do about it.

No code words?!  What about "Roger" and "WilCo" and "10-4" and "Smokey?"

 

Except smokey, those are brevity codes and you know it. 

(To non-radio types, brevity codes are just shorthand.  Callsigns are identification.)

Heavy tropo (4000 watts) and UAV don't mix!! UAV fall down and go boom!

25Q

Hehehe, yep.  Didn't let the air controllers know you were transmitting heavy watts?

[Balog]

Pretty much.  But it's pretty annoying that you can't buy secure radios or listen to whatever traffic you please on your own property.   That should offend you as a citizen.  But yea, not too much you can do about it.

Yeah, but out of the massive volume "stuff our fed.gov does I dislike" this is one of the smaller chapters, and it's towards the back. :)

[RocketMan]

"They can modify the CB to operate on the 10m band and at the same time transmit well over the 4w limit.  The issue is transmitting more than 4w on the CB band."

This is not true. A CB is a type accepted rig and as such no modifications are allowed.

Incorrect.  While CBs are type accepted by the FCC, that pertains to their unmodified, legal use in the 11 meter band. 
A CB can be legally modified to operate on the 10 meter ham band, as long as the operator is licensed to use the radio on that band in the mode that it is being used.
It cannot be legally used on the 10 meter band by an unlicensed individual.
In performing such a modification, the operator must insure that the modified radio's emissions are clean and do not cause unwanted interference on any band.

[rcnixon]

True. I remember back in the 70s, 80s that CB radios went pretty much unchallenged with whatever power/ freq they were using. The FCC simply does not have the manpower to track down mobile stations and many base stations. Even when I was working cable TV in the 90s, the FCC didn't take much action on nearby ham radio operators causing problems across someone's unshielded TV. I addressed that issue more than once at my first cable company.

Read up on Part 15 devices.  That television must not cause interference (plasma TVs are a pet peeve of mine) and it must accept any interference.  My station operates legally and I can prove it.  I am not responsible for every crappy TV and cordless phone out there.  The FCC won't take action against a ham causing interference to a TV because in most cases it's a problem with the TV.  Sloppy cable TV companies and bad technicians have caused more interference from leaky cable plants and bad head-ends than hams have ever caused to cable TV companies.  Shoddy maintenance in the power companys' outside plant are also big RF offenders.  Every week a couple of power companies get the "notice of apparent liability" (fines) letter, usually about bad street lamps.

Regarding the codes used in digital modes: they must be plain-text based and use a common, published protocol.  X.25, while obsolete in much of the world's digital networking is still in use on the radio.  It is a common, published protcol and the packet payload text is en claire, usually in ASCII.

We can also build, modify and use transmitters and receivers, we just have to stay legal according to the rules.
 

[KD5NRH]

Even when I was working cable TV in the 90s, the FCC didn't take much action on nearby ham radio operators causing problems across someone's unshielded TV. I addressed that issue more than once at my first cable company.

What would you expect them to do?  Cable is supposed to be a closed system, so it's the cable company's responsibility to deal with anything leaking into or out of it.

[Gewehr98]

I disagree. It's not just the cable system's problem if somebody is transmitting so much wattage that they're saturating through the shielding of local wiring - particularly under the FCC "may not cause harmful interference" clauses...

[RaspberrySurprise]

What would you expect them to do?  Cable is supposed to be a closed system, so it's the cable company's responsibility to deal with anything leaking into or out of it.

And how would the cable company do anything about it if it's their supposed responsibility? Send out goons with bats to "persuade" people to mend their ways?

[RocketMan]

The FCC won't take action against a ham causing interference to a TV because in most cases it's a problem with the TV.

And yet they have done so in the past, because it's easier to deal with one ham than a whole slew of pissed off cable subscribers or owners of crappy stereo receivers .  It's called "silent hours".

[mtnbkr]

I disagree. It's not just the cable system's problem if somebody is transmitting so much wattage that they're saturating through the shielding of local wiring - particularly under the FCC "may not cause harmful interference" clauses...

That is a different issue.  If they are transmitting more than the legal amount of wattage, then yes, the FCC will get involved.

Also, many times people will claim interference even if there is none just because you are a ham.  I haven't had it happen to me, but others have.

Chris