FCC Opens Rulemaking to Allow Encryption in Amateur Radio Service
- Status
WB4CS
Member
ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption of Some Emergency Communications
Wow, I'd say the ARRL gave AB1PH (the person who petitioned the Commission) the proverbial smack-down. Does anyone on the internet still use the term "PWNED"?? Cause that's what happened.
I think every time someone goes and reads the ARRL's comments, somewhere in the US an emcomm whacker sheds a little tear.
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/FCC Documents/Comments RM-11699 FINAL Version 2.pdf
I have to agree with LouMaag, I may just have to renew my ARRL membership for a year.
n5ims
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,993
Here is their submission to the FCC direct from the FCC site as well Filing by ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio in RM-11699 on 2013-07-08 00:00:00.0
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,622
One thing I touched upon and had I thought of the phrase, ARRL got it right with the following term:
Disaster Relief Communications
Very little Emergency Communications takes place, even during unfolding drama wherever that may be. With the exception of perhaps Skywarm (a NWS program that licensed hams may participate in, but not exlusive to), real time Emergency Communications is typically the exception.
I'd like to see the ham club batmobiles relettered to Disaster Relief Communications. This is two fold (I think):
1-Represents the true nature of the support service being provided
2-The general public (remember them?) may be more inclined to walk up and ask for certain help as an easy identifiable service, vs walking up to a police command post that will be closed off like Shawshank Prison.
Red Cross and the Salvation Army are easily recongizable and in a large (or even small scale) incident would be nicely grouped together for the public
Disaster Relief Communications
Very little Emergency Communications takes place, even during unfolding drama wherever that may be. With the exception of perhaps Skywarm (a NWS program that licensed hams may participate in, but not exlusive to), real time Emergency Communications is typically the exception.
I'd like to see the ham club batmobiles relettered to Disaster Relief Communications. This is two fold (I think):
1-Represents the true nature of the support service being provided
2-The general public (remember them?) may be more inclined to walk up and ask for certain help as an easy identifiable service, vs walking up to a police command post that will be closed off like Shawshank Prison.
Red Cross and the Salvation Army are easily recongizable and in a large (or even small scale) incident would be nicely grouped together for the public
Attachments
/thread.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
I see your point, but the phrase "disaster relief" is not really any more typical of public service communications than is "emergency communications."
Providing radio support for a parade, marathon, or other such event is neither. It is public service that can include an occasional urgent transmission.
I think maybe the biggest letters on such a vehicle should be in the words "amateur radio" and "communications."
Then the owners of these batmobiles (I like that expression) can do some real public relations work involving education of the general public as to what amateur radio is and can do for them, instead of expecting blinky lights and fancy insignia to do the job for them.
I also noticed the final photo. I wonder what Lone Star's callsign was.
What if ARES changed it's name to: ARAS: the Amateur Radio Auxiliary Service?
Look up "auxiliary" in the dictionary, and you'll see that it more aptly describes what I spent most of my ten years in ARES doing.
From Webster's:
Auxiliary:
adjective
1 a : offering or providing help
b : functioning in a subsidiary capacity
I did way more in the way of providing supplemental comms for various "a-thons" than I did for anything resembling an emergency.
By removing the word "emergency" from the name, perhaps it would be more accurate.
Not that I think that there is anything wrong at all with working events, it's fun, helps the local community and provides a nice PR platform (as has been pointed out in previous posts) for the hobby.
I also am not implying that such groups should not attempt to assist in a local or wider area emergency, but I think we should approach it strictly from the idea that we are providing supplemental help and not "front line" comms, unless we are asked to do so, for some reason.
Finally and once again, I never ran across any instance where encryption would have been necessary.
Look up "auxiliary" in the dictionary, and you'll see that it more aptly describes what I spent most of my ten years in ARES doing.
From Webster's:
Auxiliary:
adjective
1 a : offering or providing help
b : functioning in a subsidiary capacity
I did way more in the way of providing supplemental comms for various "a-thons" than I did for anything resembling an emergency.
By removing the word "emergency" from the name, perhaps it would be more accurate.
Not that I think that there is anything wrong at all with working events, it's fun, helps the local community and provides a nice PR platform (as has been pointed out in previous posts) for the hobby.
I also am not implying that such groups should not attempt to assist in a local or wider area emergency, but I think we should approach it strictly from the idea that we are providing supplemental help and not "front line" comms, unless we are asked to do so, for some reason.
Finally and once again, I never ran across any instance where encryption would have been necessary.
WB4CS
Member
That is a great idea. It's such a good idea in fact, that someone should propose it to ARES. On the other hand, it would mean that the whackers aren't really law enforcement, NWS, Red Cross, and EMA members. They would just be there to assist! Oh no!
Are you kidding?! We've got to protect the names and locations of marathon runners from the general public! That's not something that should be in the clear! It could give other runners and people gambling on the winner an unfair advantage! Encrypt! Encrypt! :lol:
Yeah I know, I've completely gone into facetious mode in this thread. But once we've gone round and round and beat this horse to death, what's left but to joke around?
The State of California is one step ahead of you:
http://w3.calema.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/0/5D650F1E7361391E88257450005FB620?OpenDocument
Last edited:
AuxComm is nothing new.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
True.
Speaking as an ARRL member and as an occasional ARES volunteer, my personal opinion is that any preplanned and organized EmComm should be under a governmental aegis such as RACES and/or AuxComm rather than that of some club or fraternal organization.
Last edited:
Sad, but true ...
I am not trying to be mean to anyone with this post, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, at least one commentor on RM-11699 on the FCC website has said that encryption would prevent terrorists from listing in to amateur radio after a disaster. What is said terrorist going to hear if they did listen in? Furthermore with the world of radio communications out there after a disaster that also would not be encrypted why would a terrorist pick the amateur radio frequencies to listen to? They could get a LOT more open intelligence, as always, by monitoring news agencies which, of course, will be transmitting in the clear. This is, of course, assuming that a terrorist is going to even want to listen to disaster communications after the fact. Most terrorist acts are quick strikes that allow terror to build after the event (thus they are called terrorists). Guys, again with no disrespect meant, this would be the type of thing that some have labeled "whacker" or "over the top" etc. Also some have asserted, on the FCC website, that encryption would somehow combat radio interference or make transmissions stronger. This is simply not the case. If the transmission has interference then it is harder for the encrypted data to come through clear enough for the receiver to decode it into clear audio. If there is heavy RF interference on a band then encryption would further limit, not enhance, the range and use of the radio. Again, I urge everyone to make their comments but do so knowledgably.
Christian KF4ZMB
I am not trying to be mean to anyone with this post, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, at least one commentor on RM-11699 on the FCC website has said that encryption would prevent terrorists from listing in to amateur radio after a disaster. What is said terrorist going to hear if they did listen in? Furthermore with the world of radio communications out there after a disaster that also would not be encrypted why would a terrorist pick the amateur radio frequencies to listen to? They could get a LOT more open intelligence, as always, by monitoring news agencies which, of course, will be transmitting in the clear. This is, of course, assuming that a terrorist is going to even want to listen to disaster communications after the fact. Most terrorist acts are quick strikes that allow terror to build after the event (thus they are called terrorists). Guys, again with no disrespect meant, this would be the type of thing that some have labeled "whacker" or "over the top" etc. Also some have asserted, on the FCC website, that encryption would somehow combat radio interference or make transmissions stronger. This is simply not the case. If the transmission has interference then it is harder for the encrypted data to come through clear enough for the receiver to decode it into clear audio. If there is heavy RF interference on a band then encryption would further limit, not enhance, the range and use of the radio. Again, I urge everyone to make their comments but do so knowledgably.
Christian KF4ZMB
WB4CS
Member
The comments you pointed out are what happens when people who don't know what they're talking about feel compelled to participate and give their uneducated response.
I'm glad that the FCC allows everyone to participate in the comments when deciding if a new rule proposal should go through, but it's pretty embarrassing for the Amateur Radio Service when people who have no knowledge of the principals behind radio propagation, digital modes, and disaster relief submit their comments.
This is why I'm very glad that the ARRL gave a very detailed comment, including references to back up their claims. I also read several comments that were very well written and provided references and details to support their comment.
Interesting stuff, indeed! Thanks for the link.
The person who filed the petition, Don Rolph AB1PH, happened to be providing communications using amateur radio at an aid station along the Boston Marathon route this year. After the explosions, the race was stopped, runners along the route were consolidated at aid stations, and those runners were provided with shelter. Later, those runners were transported from the shelters to a common point for disbursement. This was described in last month's QST magazine.
It's not difficult to conclude that Mr. Rolph may believe that terrorists could use the information he was providing via amateur radio about consolidations of runners to do further mayhem. Mr. Rolph may believe that terrorists, knowing how many runners were being held at which locations, could have used that knowledge to do further harm to the runners. Mr. Rolph may believe that if his transmissions were encrypted, the runners being held at shelters would have been protected from further terrorist acts. I have not communicated with Mr. Rolph nor have I seen any explanation from him, so this is pure conjecture on my part.
I agree.
I do wonder what non-hams think about amateur radio operators after reading a comment like that to the FCC.
Christian KF4ZMB
This could be the case I don't know. What I do know was that the comment I was refering to was not one made by Mr. Rolph. I did not list the name of the commentor on purpose because my point was not to point out, or in anyway pick on, one individual commentor.
I was not in Boston during this attack, but a close family friend attends Boston University and was supposed to be at the finish line on the day of the attack. The only reason he was not was because he had gotten sick and decided to stay in his dorm. He said that the airways were immediately full of information, almost everyone was on a cellphone with someone who had been in the area, and all sorts of people were posting to social media sites about the event. Even the national news jumped immediately on the reporting, which is to be expected. This type of intelligence -- gathering intelligence information from openly distributed sources (news, social media, etc.) -- is practiced by most, and probably all, governmental intelligence services (CIA, etc.). So, it is likely that an organized terrorist attack would also gather intelligence information from the news. If they had anything else planned in which they would need additional intelligence at that stage. This was the point I was making. A shelter in place order was given during that time, openly on the news, through email, etc. for citizens and major places like Boston University. Therefore, if a terrorist had wanted to know where a good place to "hit" where a large amount of people were at time they would only have needed to "hit" places that would forseeably have a large number of people "sheltering in place" after the order was given. There would be no need for them to monitor amateur radio or even any on scene radio communications to get that information. That is the point I was making. It seems unlikely that out of all the places terrorists could get information after a disaster, again if they wanted or needed it, that they would choose to get this information exclusively from amateur radio.
Again my attempt was not point out, or pick on, anyone commentor. Rather, I was trying to add a little realism, yet once again, to a debate that has taken on unrealistic ideas, roles, and scenarios, it seems, from the very beginning.
Christian KF4ZMB
Last edited:
The ARRL Is Calling For The FCC To Deny It.
The ARRL is calling on the FCC to deny a Petition for Rule Making (RM-11699) seeking to permit the encryption of certain amateur communications during emergency operations or related training exercises. Don Rolph, AB1PH, of E Walpole, Massachusetts, petitioned the Commission in March to suggest an additional exception to §97.113, which currently prohibits “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”------> ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption of Some Emergency Communications
The ARRL is calling on the FCC to deny a Petition for Rule Making (RM-11699) seeking to permit the encryption of certain amateur communications during emergency operations or related training exercises. Don Rolph, AB1PH, of E Walpole, Massachusetts, petitioned the Commission in March to suggest an additional exception to §97.113, which currently prohibits “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”------> ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption of Some Emergency Communications
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked