Frequency hopping. Encryption, jammers, etc, all issues solved. 
FCC says NO to petition to permit ENC
- Thread starter lep
- Start date
- Status
I couldn't tell you about then since it predates me but I know currently a couple of the staff members (including higher ups) at the EOC are hams, and there are several HAM fire employees including chiefs etc...
Does anyone else have an interest in experimentation with encryption? Not as far as communicating in clandestine on the HAM bands, but for short term, localized testing and experimentation purposes, such as with Mototrbo'?
Local testing, verification and experimentation on a short term basis would be the only reason I would not mind seeing a form of ENC allowed on HAM bands. Am I the only one who would like to do this?
Local testing, verification and experimentation on a short term basis would be the only reason I would not mind seeing a form of ENC allowed on HAM bands. Am I the only one who would like to do this?
WB4CS
Member
Mototrbo is already being used in the ham bands, I know there's a large group in FL that use it.
I'm all for experimentation in the hobby, but in my opinion, experimentation should be for new modes and methods of communicating. Encryption has been used for years in public service, so it's a tried and tested communications method. I'm not sure why one would need to experiment with something that's already old technology.
Encryption is allowed in amateur radio by means of large area Wi-Fi networks. There are several hams that experiment with setting up regional Wi-Fi networks on 900 MHz and above, and just like your home Wi-Fi, the signal is encrypted.
We also need to consider the nature of amateur radio. It's an "open" communications system that allows everyone to participate. Amateur was never intended to be a private communications system, so using encrypted voice defeats the purpose of "open" communications.
Not true, if you put your call-sign on as the SSID for your wifi network or be operating equipment that doesn't fall into Part15 OEM requirements (using amps, external antennas, etc.), you best be operating in the clear. There is no exception in Part 97 rules if your operating in the amateur radio spectrum as licensee with regards to wifi.
If you are not using modified equipment or not using your call sign as an SSID, you can encrypt to your heart's desire.
VE7WV
Member
There are about 4000 MotoTRBO users world wide (user base is growing very steadily), perhaps a few more since participation in the centralized registration is voluntary.
Privacy calls (encrypted, strong or weak) are not supported within the community. Among the first things I do when programming a TRBO radio is make sure Privacy is disabled.
Really? I thought your Part 97 rules forbid this, irrespective of band or mode of communication.
An open WiFi network can be sniffed / observed easily and meets the test of being "open" and not "obscured". A network which requires authentication is much less open and is not readily observable and therefore would seem to run afoul of the rules unless the authentication information is broadly published such that any listener can access the content of the transmissions. If authentication is shared publicly then the network passes the open not obscured sniff test.
WB4CS
Member
Thank you for that correction. I remember the subject coming up during a thread about encryption (I believe on another forum) and thought I had read that Wi-Fi HSMM could use encryption, but now that I've taken another look over Part 97 I believe you're correct.
I've also found some conflicting information, I've found articles on the subject of HSMM that say it must be an open network, and I've found articles saying that it can be encrypted as long as the network key is made available.
One such site states that "Recent developments indicate that securing HSMM networks with encryption schemes are not to obscure the communications but to secure the communications from unauthorized users. The same as securing our radios from unlicensed users. As long as we publicly announce (on a WEB Site) the encryption scheme used (not the encryption key) We are still legal under part 97." However the site doesn't provide any proof to back up that claim.
I'll have to do some more research on the subject, but you're correct that there is nothing in Part 97 which specifically allows encryption for HSMM. I stand corrected
VE7WV
Member
Assuming there's been no such ruling from the U.S. regulator, that sounds like fanciful thinking on their part.
If that were the case we could flip the privacy checkbox to ON within MotoTRBO CPS software and simply tell everyone we are using a 40 bit encryption key at the packet level. Why they would think this should be ok for a network carrying "data" as opposed, presumably, to a network carrying voice encoded as data, is beyond me.
Up here in Canada my take is that amateur-run networks that desire privacy have to run in the commercial frequency slices and abide by their rules, not ours. If we want to use our shared not protected slices of the 2/3/5 GHz spectrum region, then our traffic has to be completely open, not password protected, not encrypted.
I'm working on a project plan to deploy Ubiquity 3 or 5 GHz equipment in support of point to point links between our EOC and various facilities that are integral to our emergency plans, as well as a couple of portable/semi-mobile stations. I'm not leaning towards operating them in amateur spectrum but instead the easy direction appears to be deploying them as bog standard commercial gear, unmodified (they don't need to be modified for our purposes) and thus the choice of open or closed is up to our group. With the potential for 150mpbs links, and interconnectivity to the public internet, going this route seems safer.
We'll no doubt operate them on both amateur and public space and try to wrap our minds around policy and how these high speed networks could be used in either case. I smell a paper coming out of this effort.
Mike
Not really all that secure, since anyone can download the Broadband-Hamnet firmware, find a callsign on QRZ.com and be in the network if they really wanted to be. And, to be honest,, I don't think it's really encrypted anyway, since it's running in ad-hoc mode.
Don's petition had nothing to do with voice communications, though one of the people that commented did mention it in his comments; it was all about being a backup for those rare occasions where the main encrypted digital communications systems went down and there was no way else to pass the data as the served agency wanted it passed.
...I am very well aware that 'Trbo, Iden, etc. are in use on HAM bands (I am referring to voice traffic here). My question was, is there not any interest in experimentation with different levels of encryption on the HAM bands? Not as a form of clandestine communications, but for localized testing and experimenting.
As I understand it, you aren't supposed to even click ENC on and transmit with it on HAM freqs. I figured for testing in your shop or with another HAM member, on low power, for experimentation purposes, the ability by HAM's to experiment with encryption would have some interest.
As I understand it, you aren't supposed to even click ENC on and transmit with it on HAM freqs. I figured for testing in your shop or with another HAM member, on low power, for experimentation purposes, the ability by HAM's to experiment with encryption would have some interest.
Last edited:
WB4CS
Member
Again, I will reiterate my post on this... why would one need to experiment with encryption? Experimentation within the ham bands are great for new modes, testing new technologies, or testing new ways of communicating.
Encryption has been in use in the public service spectrum for years. It's already been tested and is being used. What further experimentation could one do that would benefit amateur radio or encryption?
Maybe because it's fun? Maybe not benefit the whole of amateur radio, but certainly benefit the operator with experience. I'm new to ham radio, but I can say I've had lots of fun experimenting with IPsec and IP networks and I understand RRR's post... It would be fun to experiment with very low power on point to point links or something.
WB4CS
Member
There are already quite a bit of point-to-point links being using in amateur radio. Most large repeater systems use backbone links to connect multiple repeater sites. Again, not really sure why a point-to-point link would need to be encrypted........
VE7WV
Member
I understand the desire to experiment or gain experience with various radio modes and practices. I don't agree with the notion that experimentation is strictly or pedantically equal to applied research in the pursuit of innovation.
When a group adopts any technology, including radio in all its permutations, it is often necessary to experiment to gain experience and attain a sufficient level of competency whether or not the technology is "new" or is simply new to the adopting individual or group of users. Every new radio amateur "experiments" with their gear to see what works and what doesn't under various conditions... or they should!
In that sense I can understand why someone would want to experiment with FM analogue voice or 802.11 based high speed GHz data links or various digital voice radio telephony approaches or EME even though some technologies, use cases, and modes have been around for many decades while others are relatively new. Often even the oldest tech is new to individual users.
Encryption might feel like nothing more than a simple on-off switch implemented either in hardware on a radio or in software, but there are bound to be some operational differences that need to be understood by an adopting user group. My guess is that encrypted analogue voice would be the most different from its unencrypted counterpart in terms of new operational limitations while encrypted digital voice (such as DMR/MOTOTRBO) would be operationally identical to unencrypted DMR communications.
That all said, encrypted radio communications can only be carried out on services where regulators allow for such obfuscation and the amateur radio service is not one of those.
No, I don't find myself pining for the ability to experiment, check out, play with or otherwise investigate encryption on the amateur service. I'm all for digital modes even if they by their very nature make it more difficult (but not impossible) for casual users or observers to monitor radio traffic, but I'm totally against the use of encryption to block any form of radio transmission on the amateur service, even if I can imagine some practical uses for same in the pursuit of public service.
When a group adopts any technology, including radio in all its permutations, it is often necessary to experiment to gain experience and attain a sufficient level of competency whether or not the technology is "new" or is simply new to the adopting individual or group of users. Every new radio amateur "experiments" with their gear to see what works and what doesn't under various conditions... or they should!
In that sense I can understand why someone would want to experiment with FM analogue voice or 802.11 based high speed GHz data links or various digital voice radio telephony approaches or EME even though some technologies, use cases, and modes have been around for many decades while others are relatively new. Often even the oldest tech is new to individual users.
Encryption might feel like nothing more than a simple on-off switch implemented either in hardware on a radio or in software, but there are bound to be some operational differences that need to be understood by an adopting user group. My guess is that encrypted analogue voice would be the most different from its unencrypted counterpart in terms of new operational limitations while encrypted digital voice (such as DMR/MOTOTRBO) would be operationally identical to unencrypted DMR communications.
That all said, encrypted radio communications can only be carried out on services where regulators allow for such obfuscation and the amateur radio service is not one of those.
No, I don't find myself pining for the ability to experiment, check out, play with or otherwise investigate encryption on the amateur service. I'm all for digital modes even if they by their very nature make it more difficult (but not impossible) for casual users or observers to monitor radio traffic, but I'm totally against the use of encryption to block any form of radio transmission on the amateur service, even if I can imagine some practical uses for same in the pursuit of public service.
For that matter, nobody needs amateur radio. As your signature points out, it's a hobby. And you seem to be side stepping the point that for some individuals, encryption could provide a means to tinker and have fun.
VE7WV
Member
While I favour a looser definition of experimentation that encompasses skills building as well as innovation, I don't think the hobby loses anything much as a result of the encryption / obfuscation prohibition.
I say that even though I own DMR/TRBO gear and am pushing for broader adoption in my region. Disabling encryption is easy: set "Privacy" to "None" at the radio level / don't enable Privacy at the channel level.
Privacy != Private Call
There is nothing stopping a amateur radio station from employing the DMR "Private Call" feature as Private call does not employ encryption but instead establishes an open albeit more private link between two DMR radios as opposed to a group of available DMR radios; when a Private Call is made between two radio ID's the other radios note the traffic but because it isn't addressed to them, do not open squelch.
That's private enough for any amateur radio purpose and is certainly more private than most of our existing communications methods. Private Call remains acceptable because it isn't encrypted and anyone with the right gear and desire could monitor all such communications; as well all DMR communications are logged by the infrastructure including every PTT and kerchunk.
There are under-explored areas of DMR (just using DMR as an example). The amateur world could use more DMR related software. Gateways to APRS. Experience deploying multiple repeaters in active user bases, balancing voice and data traffic. Links to other systems. Lots of room for experimentation and even innovation.
I say that even though I own DMR/TRBO gear and am pushing for broader adoption in my region. Disabling encryption is easy: set "Privacy" to "None" at the radio level / don't enable Privacy at the channel level.
Privacy != Private Call
There is nothing stopping a amateur radio station from employing the DMR "Private Call" feature as Private call does not employ encryption but instead establishes an open albeit more private link between two DMR radios as opposed to a group of available DMR radios; when a Private Call is made between two radio ID's the other radios note the traffic but because it isn't addressed to them, do not open squelch.
That's private enough for any amateur radio purpose and is certainly more private than most of our existing communications methods. Private Call remains acceptable because it isn't encrypted and anyone with the right gear and desire could monitor all such communications; as well all DMR communications are logged by the infrastructure including every PTT and kerchunk.
There are under-explored areas of DMR (just using DMR as an example). The amateur world could use more DMR related software. Gateways to APRS. Experience deploying multiple repeaters in active user bases, balancing voice and data traffic. Links to other systems. Lots of room for experimentation and even innovation.
WB4CS
Member
For that matter, nobody needs amateur radio. As your signature points out, it's a hobby. And you seem to be side stepping the point that for some individuals, encryption could provide a means to tinker and have fun.
I agree, it is just a hobby. But it's also a radio service that has a defined use. Private communications is not within the scope of the hobby. Encryption creates a private communications system. Amateur radio is by design a means of communication that allows all to participate. If I have the right equipment running the correct mode, anyone is able to listen in and join the communication. Encryption, even for testing or experimental functions, creates a private mode of communication that does not allow others to listen or join in unless they too have the encryption key.
As it has been discussed many times during the debate of encryption, it would also create an enforcement nightmare. By allowing encryption, even for emergency or testing purposes, there is no way to know what is going on in the encrypted transmission. It's hard enough for the FCC to enforce the rules without adding encryption to the mix. You also open up the possibility of "pay to play" radio. You want to talk me and my friends or use the local club repeater? Pay us $50 a year and we'll give you the encryption key. That's not the kind of amateur radio I want to participate in, no thank you.
Also, who decides what is considered "testing" or "experimenting"? Only connected to a dummy load? Short, local communications? What about a group of 20 hams that "experiment" with encryption for months and years? What about a repeater that's set to full time encryption, couldn't that be considered experimental? How do you define and enforce experimentation?
I'll say again, you're correct that this is just a hobby. But it's a hobby that has rules and that's a good thing. If we start allowing encryption or dropping the rules that guide us, this hobby will further degrade into a lawless wasteland a la CB radio.
EDIT: (Additional) On post #6 of this thread you said "keeping amateur radio open" is a good thing. Have you since changed your mind on this and now support it, KK6DXD?
Last edited:
Excellent post.
We could rehash the debate but I won't go there. The fact is you have excellent points and I agree on all accounts, especially on the enforcement nightmare. No, I have not changed my opinion on the subject. I think that amateur radio should remain completely unencrypted in order to preserve the historic view that ham radio is 'harmless.'
VE7WV
Member
Lawless or not, you can't encrypt CB transmissions either. ;-)
Wow. ...Ok so AM has been around longer than any of us are living, so using your limited logic, do you think we should all box up our SW rigs up and all go DSTAR?
Heck, analog is pretty old technology too. No use in continuing to experiment with that either I guess.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
