• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

FCC Gets Complaint: Proposed Ham Radio Rules Hurt National Security

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,237
Location
Texas
#2
I'm in the "don't think it really matters in this day and age" group. I mean, upping the bandwidth limit may encourage more use of the spectrum since even most SCADA protocols operate at 9600 bps these days as a bare minimum.
 

ka3jjz

Wiki Admin Emeritus
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
21,675
Location
Bowie, Md.
#6
I agree with no proprietary stuff, but think the artificial limits on symbol rate are ridiculous.

Sent using Tapatalk
It's very archaic; they probably date back to the early days when 1200 baud was as fast as you could go (and by the Rules, that's only available on 10 meters and up). Now we have modes that aren't ham related, but go a lot faster, like PACTOR IV, and many others. It's high time we were allowed to use them, as long as encryption isn't involved, of course

Mike.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
286
Location
CO, USA
#7
I would hope that ham radio is used for emergency/coordination only, once the emergency victims are in a secure location then use a secure medium for HIPPA compliance? I'm not sure what others feel about sending HIPPA protected data through amateur radio?

I do not want to see encryption on ham radio purely to prevent business use and hobbyist freedom from patent/copyright infringement (which is once again related to business). Baud rate should not, however, be limited by an artificial number, as long as it fits within the channel without leakage. What bothers me is that a lot of high bit rate codecs that could fit within the channels are proprietary (remember back in modem days over plain old telephone service, 56Kbps possible over unshielded wire? Those were all proprietary and no one have been able to legally encode/decode these signals other than with the proprietary chips or software - the Linux crowd was the most hurt from this).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
10,208
Location
Point Nemo.
#8
I would hope that ham radio is used for emergency/coordination only, once the emergency victims are in a secure location then use a secure medium for HIPPA compliance? I'm not sure what others feel about sending HIPPA protected data through amateur radio?
HIPAA does not require secure/encrypted radio communications for emergencies. Ambulances can talk with the hospital on clear channels.
Amateur radio operators don't need to send personal identifying information over the radio.

Just another fallacy to stroke a minority of amateur radio operators egos. There is no reason that amateur radio needs to be encrypted, with the exception of the rules specific to controlling amateur satellites.

I do not want to see encryption on ham radio purely to prevent business use and hobbyist freedom from patent/copyright infringement (which is once again related to business). Baud rate should not, however, be limited by an artificial number, as long as it fits within the channel without leakage. What bothers me is that a lot of high bit rate codecs that could fit within the channels are proprietary (remember back in modem days over plain old telephone service, 56Kbps possible over unshielded wire? Those were all proprietary and no one have been able to legally encode/decode these signals other than with the proprietary chips or software - the Linux crowd was the most hurt from this).
There are a number of "open" digital data modes that can be used on VHF/UHF. I don't have experience with amateur HF data, so no comments on that.

And I agree, the baud rate limit puts unnecessary restrictions on what is supposed to be a hobby service.
 

W9BU

Lead Wiki Manager
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
5,683
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
#9
It's high time we were allowed to use them, as long as encryption isn't involved, of course.
The issue, as I see it, is occupied bandwidth and compatibility with other modes. An Olivia 16-1000 transmission takes up a heck of a lot more bandwidth than CW or even PSK31. I don't know how many times I've been in the middle of a RTTY contact only to get clobbered by an unattended automatic Pactor or Winmor signal. Several years ago, there was a proposal to allow different bandwidths in different parts of the band, but the proposal met with much resistance, probably because of the way it was worded.

As for Pactor 4, the proprietary nature of that mode would seem to exclude it from amateur radio. And, then there's the cost. Approximately $1500 for a proprietary, single-source modem? I don't think so.

The way these modes are used is a valid concern, too. I always thought that amateur radio was a communications medium for radio hobbyists and was specifically not a replacement for other radio services. In my opinion, if the captain of an ocean-going vessel wants to exchange email with folks on the Internet, a satellite-based service would be more appropriate than amateur radio.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top