Not sure where the best place to post this is but I'm hoping to get some enlightenment from the part 95 folks. If there is a more appropriate section for this to be in, please do move it.
I got my ham ticket almost exactly three years ago and given the state of the hobby with the emerging experimental allocations getting auctioned off, the raising of the license fee, and the general limitations of the service I'm not sure I'll renew it when that time comes. One of the major draws to the Ham service and to radio in general for me was the ability to communicate person-to-person without the use of networks in remote environments and under adverse conditions (I guess you could say I got suckered in by the ARRL "last line emcomm" talking points). Needless to say, the community and the service are definitely not what I was led to believe they are, and I don't think I got my license for the right reasons. One big sticking point for me is the encryption prohibition. However, that is a separate discussion and absolutely not a can of worms I want to open here -I've seen how certain people get when you bring it up. Frankly, I'm mostly fine with the dedication of service that is intended to promote outreach, research, and openness. The argument that privacy is not what the HA service is for is entirely compelling to me.
Where I get confused is when folks say something along the lines of 'If you want encryption part 97 is not the service for you. There are others for that.' Understood, but pray tell; which service would that be? Part 90 gets thrown around quite a bit, but I see nothing in there that permits individuals to apply for licenses for personal use. I'm not a business owner, nor an organization engaged in emergency services. Even if I was, I'm quite sure that operating your infrastructure for reasons outside (i.e., setting up discrete talkgroups and equipment for family and friends) of the stated purpose of your business would be at odds with the spirit of the law. I'm quite sure the FCC intends to reserve that spectrum for the entities they grant eligibility to in Part 90.33, not whoever feels like setting up some LLC so they can enjoy spectrum privileges they aren't meant to have. That just screams fraud. This is to say nothing of the price of a part 90 license, which (given my understanding laid out above) makes some sense. That's valuable spectrum and I don't expect the FCC to just give it away.
My next favorite retort is the "use your cellphone" (which is pretty sad to hear from enthusiasts of the radio arts). First of all, you do not have any expectation of privacy over the cellular or internet services. Data collection over social media and to a growing extant cellular networking is real and alarming. Forget the companies simply warehousing records and traffic data to be handed over at the whisper of a subpoena, and simply look at the vulnerability of those networks. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link, and there some awful weak links, rife for intrusion into those systems. NOT secure, from the right (wrong?) people. You are also relying on a private company who reserves the right to deny services to you for any reason (or none at all). Also, coverage. It will never be 100% for any network, for economic reasons as much as any other. Cellular networks and internet services are decidedly not as secure, nor are they as reliable as a transceiver in experienced hands. Relying on them during an emergency where comms are spotty is inadvisable at best. "Use your cellphone" is a terrible argument to make to a radio operator.
My RT82 could talk directly to a group of other RT82s in full 128bit privacy, without having to put money or faith in any third party's infrastructure or self-interested company's terms of service. The only legitimate public concern this should raise is responsible usage of the RF spectrum. I am 100% willing to pay (within reason) for the privilege of operating my own network within the confines of responsibility to the public utility, but there is seemingly no way this can be done. No amount of licensing or permission appears to make this legal. It's like the FCC doesn't know such a thing could even exist. I'm at a loss as to why this is, because it would be trivial to allow any one or all of the Part 95 services to enable digital privacy an approved channel, or to allow personal use in the Part 97 services on a secondary allocation basis. Part of me thinks that this is due to the snail's pace at which regulatory agencies adapt to technological advances, but part of me also wonders how they haven't (in nearly 90 years) thought about what people might do if the networks fail them and they wish to convey private information wirelessly to trusted parties in range without the possibility of being intercepted and tracked by potential bad actors. This looks an awful lot like an infringement on our first and fourth amendment rights as citizens, and an irresponsible, nepotistic failure by an agency to manage a public resource that we are all meant to own to and enjoy.
Sorry this turned into sort of a rant. I'm interested to hear what people think. Maybe I'm also dead wrong and overlooking a service that meets these needs, in which case I will gladly stand corrected.
I got my ham ticket almost exactly three years ago and given the state of the hobby with the emerging experimental allocations getting auctioned off, the raising of the license fee, and the general limitations of the service I'm not sure I'll renew it when that time comes. One of the major draws to the Ham service and to radio in general for me was the ability to communicate person-to-person without the use of networks in remote environments and under adverse conditions (I guess you could say I got suckered in by the ARRL "last line emcomm" talking points). Needless to say, the community and the service are definitely not what I was led to believe they are, and I don't think I got my license for the right reasons. One big sticking point for me is the encryption prohibition. However, that is a separate discussion and absolutely not a can of worms I want to open here -I've seen how certain people get when you bring it up. Frankly, I'm mostly fine with the dedication of service that is intended to promote outreach, research, and openness. The argument that privacy is not what the HA service is for is entirely compelling to me.
Where I get confused is when folks say something along the lines of 'If you want encryption part 97 is not the service for you. There are others for that.' Understood, but pray tell; which service would that be? Part 90 gets thrown around quite a bit, but I see nothing in there that permits individuals to apply for licenses for personal use. I'm not a business owner, nor an organization engaged in emergency services. Even if I was, I'm quite sure that operating your infrastructure for reasons outside (i.e., setting up discrete talkgroups and equipment for family and friends) of the stated purpose of your business would be at odds with the spirit of the law. I'm quite sure the FCC intends to reserve that spectrum for the entities they grant eligibility to in Part 90.33, not whoever feels like setting up some LLC so they can enjoy spectrum privileges they aren't meant to have. That just screams fraud. This is to say nothing of the price of a part 90 license, which (given my understanding laid out above) makes some sense. That's valuable spectrum and I don't expect the FCC to just give it away.
My next favorite retort is the "use your cellphone" (which is pretty sad to hear from enthusiasts of the radio arts). First of all, you do not have any expectation of privacy over the cellular or internet services. Data collection over social media and to a growing extant cellular networking is real and alarming. Forget the companies simply warehousing records and traffic data to be handed over at the whisper of a subpoena, and simply look at the vulnerability of those networks. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link, and there some awful weak links, rife for intrusion into those systems. NOT secure, from the right (wrong?) people. You are also relying on a private company who reserves the right to deny services to you for any reason (or none at all). Also, coverage. It will never be 100% for any network, for economic reasons as much as any other. Cellular networks and internet services are decidedly not as secure, nor are they as reliable as a transceiver in experienced hands. Relying on them during an emergency where comms are spotty is inadvisable at best. "Use your cellphone" is a terrible argument to make to a radio operator.
My RT82 could talk directly to a group of other RT82s in full 128bit privacy, without having to put money or faith in any third party's infrastructure or self-interested company's terms of service. The only legitimate public concern this should raise is responsible usage of the RF spectrum. I am 100% willing to pay (within reason) for the privilege of operating my own network within the confines of responsibility to the public utility, but there is seemingly no way this can be done. No amount of licensing or permission appears to make this legal. It's like the FCC doesn't know such a thing could even exist. I'm at a loss as to why this is, because it would be trivial to allow any one or all of the Part 95 services to enable digital privacy an approved channel, or to allow personal use in the Part 97 services on a secondary allocation basis. Part of me thinks that this is due to the snail's pace at which regulatory agencies adapt to technological advances, but part of me also wonders how they haven't (in nearly 90 years) thought about what people might do if the networks fail them and they wish to convey private information wirelessly to trusted parties in range without the possibility of being intercepted and tracked by potential bad actors. This looks an awful lot like an infringement on our first and fourth amendment rights as citizens, and an irresponsible, nepotistic failure by an agency to manage a public resource that we are all meant to own to and enjoy.
Sorry this turned into sort of a rant. I'm interested to hear what people think. Maybe I'm also dead wrong and overlooking a service that meets these needs, in which case I will gladly stand corrected.
