FCC says NO to petition to permit ENC

[N4DES]

Oh please, $ talks these days and you really think the FCC cares about consumer grade radios when it can make millions of dollars in auctioned frequencies? The FCC couldn't care less as the wireless companies and their high paid lobbyists are knocking on the Commissioners doors daily wanting valuable spectrum, including ours whether we are using it or not. Hell we can't get the FCC to back those who live in HOA's to have an outdoor antenna when the satellite dish and TV lobbyists got the FCC to make null and void every HOA antenna regulation across the country in just a few months.

But then again, you being 21 and licensed around a year is probably very naïve to what happened to the 220 MHz band and that is a perfect example as to how it is taken away from us in the name of corporate advancement, even though it didn't work as planned, but we still didn't get it back.

Just be happy with what you have....

 

[N8OHU]

Oh please, $ talks these days and you really think the FCC cares about consumer grade radios when it can make millions of dollars in auctioned frequencies? The FCC couldn't care less as the wireless companies and their high paid lobbyists are knocking on the Commissioners doors daily wanting valuable spectrum, including ours whether we are using it or not. Hell we can't get the FCC to back those who live in HOA's to have an outdoor antenna when the satellite dish and TV lobbyists got the FCC to make null and void every HOA antenna regulation across the country in just a few months.

But then again, you being 21 and licensed around a year is probably very naïve to what happened to the 220 MHz band and that is a perfect example as to how it is taken away from us in the name of corporate advancement, even though it didn't work as planned, but we still didn't get it back.

Just be happy with what you have....

Actually, KR0SIV does know what happened; he and I saw a couple of the radios from that failed project last month. I'll bet you weren't aware that we DID get replacement spectrum after that happened but it hasn't really mattered as very fee Amateur Radio manufacturers make gear for that band due to its regional nature. As for the apparent lack of action on HOA restrictions, it's because there hasn't been pressure put on the FCC to make a change on several fronts; a formal rulemaking petition focused on that, with examples of such restrictions and a great number of comments from affected hams will do more than the few supporting comments from the last time it came up did.

 

[AD8NT]

Need I use the work "ignorant" again?

I may have been active for just a year but I am quite active.
The 220 band as N8OHU mention was and still is under used, that is exactly the point.

Since it was under used (since most regions don't have amateur use there) very few manufactures produced equipment for the band and thus there were not a ton of 220 operators that had the equipment to interfere with that band.

Lets look at the 70cm band and the UV-5R, have you any idea the havoc it would cause if that was turned into say a band for local police. Thouseands of $30 radios in the hands of licensed and unlicesed operators alike... **** 10 year olds without liceneses have them!

It would be foolish to simply take the bands away like that.
Lest we not forget we are a corporate owned country, icom, kenwood, baofeng, and many others would be running to our government to get the spectrum back due to loss of sales.

 

[N4DES]

Actually, KR0SIV does know what happened; he and I saw a couple of the radios from that failed project last month. I'll bet you weren't aware that we DID get replacement spectrum after that happened but it hasn't really mattered as very fee Amateur Radio manufacturers make gear for that band due to its regional nature.

What additional spectrum? The spectrum was cut in half and the Amateurs were left with 222–225 MHz.

In the late 1980s, United Parcel Service (UPS) began lobbying the FCC to reallocate part of the 1.25-meter band to the Land Mobile Service. UPS had publicized plans to use the band to develop a narrow-bandwidth wireless voice and data network using a mode called ACSSB (amplitude-companded single sideband). UPS's main argument for the reallocation was that amateur use of the band was very sparse and that the public interest would be better served by reallocating part of the band to a service that would put it to good use.[10]

In 1988, over the objections of the amateur radio community, the FCC adopted the 220 MHz Allocation Order, which reallocated 220–222 MHz to private and Federal Government land mobile use while leaving 222–225 MHz exclusively for amateur use. The reallocation proceeding took so long, however, that UPS eventually pursued other means of meeting their communications needs. UPS entered into agreements with GTE, McCall, Southwestern Bell, and Pac-Tel to use cellular telephone frequencies to build a wireless data network.

As for the apparent lack of action on HOA restrictions, it's because there hasn't been pressure put on the FCC to make a change on several fronts; a formal rulemaking petition focused on that, with examples of such restrictions and a great number of comments from affected hams will do more than the few supporting comments from the last time it came up did.

Who say's that there hasn't been. The ARRL has been trying for years to get the FCC to do something, to include going to Congress to force the FCC to do a comprehensive evaluation, and it has gone absolutely no where. This was the latest just in case you haven't been keeping up with the news:

While the FCC did hold Amateur Radio in a positive light in its discussion of emergency Amateur Radio Service communications, the FCC report was not as favorable in the portion of the study that addressed impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service
communications. In the comments provided to the FCC, the ARRL -- as well as numerous individuals -- cited the proliferation of specific land-use restrictions, such as deed restrictions and homeowner’s association covenants, which prohibit the erection of even
modest Amateur Radio antennas. The FCC concluded that such restrictions did not present a serious impediment. The conclusions by the FCC were disappointing to the ARRL, but not entirely unexpected. “The FCC has indicated that unless directed to do so by Congress, that they are not inclined to extend the provisions afforded Amateurs by PRB-1 when dealing with municipal ordinances or along the lines of what are called the OTARD limited protection, which allow individuals in deed restricted properties to legally have “over-the-air reception devices” such as satellite dishes..

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Legislative Update Newsletters/March 2013 final.pdf

 

[AD8NT]

In an attempt to get back on track....

It seems the biggest concern with encryption is abuse.
Encryption abuse really isn't any different than retarded gun laws making it illegal to carry a gun into a school.

The "rules are rules" clause doesn't work if you are a criminal or simply just don't care.
Encryption is already used daily in the amateur bands, laws that prohibit it doesn't stop it.

The law/regulation is simply preventing us from using it where it is of great value, the law-abiding citizen doesn't use it. That's a real shame.

Take the HSMM mesh project for example, it is the single most insecure thing I've ever seen, and its not legal to allow none licensed operators on it.... even though it looks like your run of the mill part 15 network. Laws and regulations will not keep non-licensed operators out of it.. Encryption however will.

EDIT

Again I'll remind everyone that the FCC didn't shoot it down, OPERATORS DID.

 

[N4DES]

Need I use the work "ignorant" again?

Not if you want me to keep using the classification of naïve....which you are.

 

[AD8NT]

What additional spectrum? The spectrum was cut in half and the Amateurs were left with 222–225 MHz.

They intended to take the entire band

 

[AD8NT]

Need I use the work "ignorant" again?

Not if you want me to keep using the classification of naïve....which you are.

Quite frankly I don't care what you think of me

 

[N4DES]

In an attempt to get back on track....

It seems the biggest concern with encryption is abuse.
Encryption abuse really isn't any different than retarded gun laws making it illegal to carry a gun into a school.

The "rules are rules" clause doesn't work if you are a criminal or simply just don't care.
Encryption is already used daily in the amateur bands, laws that prohibit it doesn't stop it.

The law/regulation is simply preventing us from using it where it is of great value, the law-abiding citizen doesn't use it. That's a real shame.

Take the HSMM mesh project for example, it is the single most insecure thing I've ever seen, and its not legal to allow none licensed operators on it.... even though it looks like your run of the mill part 15 network. Laws and regulations will not keep non-licensed operators out of it.. Encryption however will.

EDIT

Again I'll remind everyone that the FCC didn't shoot it down, OPERATORS DID.

The value is very debatable. If you have no way to decipher it, how do you know that it isn't Joe's plumbing service running a business on a local repeater? How do you know if it isn't a bunch using fowl language. Control OP's have a licensed obligation to verify that the operation on repeaters conform to the FCC rules.

We are supposed to be self-policing, but if every "click" is running its own algorithm how the heck are the OO's and the FCC going to verify that rules are not being broken.

I happen to manage a very large TRS with over 70 separate entities that include DES-OFB encryption key management. It is quite a complex process in a controlled environment. I couldn't even imagine what would happen if it was out in the wild to be used by whoever and whenever they chose.

 

[AD8NT]

The value is very debatable. If you have no way to decipher it, how do you know that it isn't Joe's plumbing service running a business on a local repeater? How do you know if it isn't a bunch using fowl language. Control OP's have a licensed obligation to verify that the operation on repeaters conform to the FCC rules.

We are supposed to be self-policing, but if every "click" is running its own algorithm how the heck are the OO's and the FCC going to verify that rules are not being broken.

I happen to manage a very large TRS with over 70 separate entities that include DES-OFB encryption key management. It is quite a complex process in a controlled environment. I couldn't even imagine what would happen if it was out in the wild to be used by whoever and whenever they chose.

I understand and agree with you, this isn't all cut and dry... I think encryption should be allowed, but limited.
Phone modes... no
Digital... During an ARES activation sure, other times... no

The only place I honestly would like to see it used for 2.4ghz+ bands that are slowly being utilized more and more for HSMM networks that cannot keep non-hams off of it.

EDIT

I'm not saying its easy, encryption on repeaters as you mentioned would be a bad thing....
You would almost certainly start seeing part 90 services operating under part 97 because nobody knows they are doing business on the band...
However with modes like the digital HSMM network encryption does more good than anything.

I again would like to mention other countries have encryption and don't have tons of abuse.

 

[N8OHU]

The value is very debatable. If you have no way to decipher it, how do you know that it isn't Joe's plumbing service running a business on a local repeater? How do you know if it isn't a bunch using fowl language. Control OP's have a licensed obligation to verify that the operation on repeaters conform to the FCC rules.

We are supposed to be self-policing, but if every "click" is running its own algorithm how the heck are the OO's and the FCC going to verify that rules are not being broken.

I happen to manage a very large TRS with over 70 separate entities that include DES-OFB encryption key management. It is quite a complex process in a controlled environment. I couldn't even imagine what would happen if it was out in the wild to be used by whoever and whenever they chose.

Would you please drop the discussion of encrypted voice? It was never part of the petition, though at least one commenter did mention it. If a served agency wants us to use encrypted voice they can provide us with he radios and allow us to use their frequencies.

 

[N8OHU]

Need I use the work "ignorant" again?

Not if you want me to keep using the classification of naïve....which you are.

And "ignorant" is a very good word, since you seem to be ignorant of the fact that at some point after we lost the 230-222 portion of the 1.25 meter band we were given 219-220MHz (Part 97.301)

 

[jparks29]

The rules are the rules...deal with the decision that has been handed down to us.

If you want to do encryption in amateur so bad, feel free to re-locate yourself to one of the countries that do allow it and you can experiment to your hearts content....

It's already allowed, I've stated how and why like 10x in the past umpteen threads on the topic.

 

[N4DES]

Need I use the work "ignorant" again?

And "ignorant" is a very good word, since you seem to be ignorant of the fact that at some point after we lost the 230-222 portion of the 1.25 meter band we were given 219-220MHz (Part 97.301)

The original 220 portion was taken away in 1988 and the 219-220 was provided 7 years later in1995. The 1995 grant had nothing to do with the original allocation order at all as it occurred many years later and yes I'm totally aware of it.

 

[AK9R]

We're done here. The FCC has made their ruling. Thread closed.