I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequencies, that means using something like SSH or loading an SSL webpage with this modem would be a violation. I would also be very concerned with the OS background processes that may use encryption by default.
More than just encryption, this will run afoul of FCC part 97.305(c) and 97.307(f)(6) which says on the 70cm band that the maximum symbol rate cannot exceed 56kbaud and the bandwidth cannot exceed 100kHz. However the underlying transceiver chip can also work on the 33cm band where these limits no longer apply.
Original author seems to be based in France, so I don't think FCC limits are being into consideration. Would be interesting if there exists an equivalent limitation by EU regulations.
At international level, encryption in ham bands is forbidden (at least).
The legal definition prohibiting encryption is in §97.113(4) and says that "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" are prohibited. This is generally accepted to be a blanket prohibition of "encryption" in the sense that SSH, SSL, TLS, VPN type traffic would be prohibited.
However, there are some interesting and positive nuances because the rule specifically doesn't ban "crypto". For instance, it is my belief that cryptography for the purpose of authentication or message signing/integrity checking is completely permissable. That is to say that you can even technologically allow things like TLS and HTTPS so long as you force a NULL cipher; so you get message integrity but no encryption so some observer could see all the traffic but not be able to interfere.
More broadly, the purpose of the ham radio allocation is learning / experimentation / personal use between hams / etc., not production services (and not even personal use between a ham and a non-ham, e.g., while listening in on ham frequencies doesn't require a license, a ham intentionally broadcasting to those listeners is not authorized under their license). These rules predate the world in which encryption for everything is commonplace, and they envision a world in which encryption means that other people can't learn from your communications practice. These rules are also written to discourage actual commercial users from using the ham frequencies, to keep the frequencies clear for hams.
Now that we live in a world where my writing this message to you (and, in fact, to the world, publicly under my name) goes over an encrypted channel and it would be unthinkable if it didn't, and where my texts to my friends about where to get dinner happen over an end-to-end secure messenger, and where most competent cryptography is developed in public, it's not clear the rules make sense any more. But that's where they come from.
BTW, one ham has argued that encryption for the purpose of using a standard protocol like WPA/802.1x (or, probably, SSH or SSL) that is otherwise compliant with the intent of the amateur service is legal, because the purpose of the encryption is not obscuring their meaning, the obscured meaning just a side effect of other goals: http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Data%20Encryption%20is%20...
Sometimes I wish a large company, like Google, bought large spectrum and released it to the public. We fight over Mhz here and there, but tons of the spectrum is allocated but barely used.
Speaking as an amateur radio operator who does experimental stations....
Encryption is illegal as you stated. However "Unique encodings of an analog or digital nature" are completely legal. You don't even need to tell the protocol.
We had this issue with D.star where it was an amateur radio digital protocol in which they didn't tell how to encode or decode. Brought up at an FCC hearing and deemed completely legal.
So call all encryption a "Unique encoding" and you're legally in the clear.
We had this issue with D.star where it was an amateur radio digital protocol in which they didn't tell how to encode or decode. Brought up at an FCC hearing and deemed completely legal.
This can't be right. IIRC you have to publish in a public place how your code works, and I believe the D-STAR specs are public; its just that any implementation is blocked because of copyright or whatever dumb crap.
This part of the regs have nothing to do with encryption. This is the so called "documented protocol" requirement. §97.113(4) is the relevant main rule that would govern encryption. There are various exceptions to this through the rest of the document such as spread spectrum, space stations, and telemetry/radio control all having some special case language.
Well, I stand corrected. I had admittedly just googled it myself. I had known the ban on encryption was pretty accepted in the amateur radio community. Thanks for the correction.
The regulation prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein" so if you and your friend made up your language to keep your communications obscured, then it seems that it would not be allowed.
If you happen to speak a language that's not commonly known in the area then that would likely be fine.
I think it is also important to understand the "no commercial business" part of it, too. That why the meaning is not to be "obscured", lest you mean to do business over amateur frequencies.
In short, if the traffic is encrypted, how would we know that, say, Verizon isn't off-loading traffic to amateur bands?
The way to think of it is that the FCC needs to monitor communication. (Possibly also other arms of the government.) If they can't eavesdrop, then that is an issue.
They don't allow any prototyping or experimenting on the amateur bands either. That is why this is using the unlicensed ISM bands.
I want to see it adapted for the lower frequency ISM bands. I just got into ham and SDR this last year and I'm looking forward to making a super long distance super low speed link to my buddies on the other coast as a backup comm channel in case the primaries go down.
Despite that petition being denied, Part 47 97.309[1] is pretty clear that as long as the mode's "technical characteristics have been documented publicly" it's fair game, subject to 97.307(f) [2].
If I'm reading it right, the FCC denied the petition because you're already allowed to experiment on the ham bands. The whole point of the ham bands is experimentation!
Who is "they"? Unless I'm confused (which is certainly possible), the 433 MHz ISM allocation doesn't exist in the US. There's only the 420-450 MHz ham allocation.
Is there also a ban on encryption in the countries where it exists, or is that an FCC-only thing?
433.92 ISM is only EU/Africa. So yeah in the US it would be illegal to use encryption. There are quite a few lower frequency ISM bands that might offer much greater range.
They do spread spectrum on ISM bands with extremely low data rates for insane sensitivity. I want to see what kind of stable distance you can get with lower frequencies and possibly even lower bitrates.
I didn't know that. I'm not too familiar with amateur radio around the world. I know people were able to contact other people around the world, so I assumed the bands were similar.
Interesting, can you provide any more information? How could you do radio that far? Googling shows it is at least 2,092 miles. What kind of radio can go that far?
The HF bands (below 3 and 30 Mhz, also called shortwave) propagate by bouncing of the ionosphere. A major part of amateur radio is using them for intercontinental communication.
Also, I'll add a link to http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/map . Essentially this shows the transmitter and receiver locations for low power beacons, which might give you a sense of what HF propogation looks like. It will vary according to the time of day and solar conditions.
To expand on the other posters, if you can do voice around the world (a few kHz bandwidth) on those frequencies you should very easily be able to do very low bandwidth modulation for data and at reduced power. It would be nice if I could do typing speed but I'd be thrilled with 1 bit per second. Looking around they do have HF packet capable radios but they are quite expensive. I'm going to research those a bit later.
HF digital modes are very common on the shortwave bands. Look up PSK31, etc.. You can convert any SSB (voice) HF radio to digital by connecting it to a computer's audio card.
Point to point you would have to get into HF or lower frequencies and use the ionosphere. For the hobby of talking long distance as a competition, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXing.
"I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequencies, that means using something like SSH or loading an SSL webpage with this modem would be a violation. I would also be very concerned with the OS background processes that may use encryption by default."
And I wouldn't. Not trying to be an arse here... but more importantly, who cares? Someone has to discover whats happening and actually care that a rule is being violated. There really are not many hams that have the skill to figure out what is happening when they hear this on their precious 70cm band and THEN realize encryption is happening on top of the network layer. Sure, they exist, but they are also generally busy doing real things that matter rather than volunteering for the Amateur Auxiliary.
Queue: the relentless flood of pitch forks that "CRYPTION IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW ON MY HAM BANDS".
If encryption is allowed, then there can no longer be any restrictions on the use of ham bands - you won't be able to tell the difference between someone calling for help or doing disaster relief and a pizza place using ham radios for dispatch.
But to answer your question "who cares?", hams care, and I'd be surprised if people sending encrypted transmissions are not soon discovered - and if you knowingly violate the regulations, you run the risk of losing your ham license. If you're not licensed, (or even if you are for egregious or repeat violators), there are various enforcement actions the FCC can take including significant fines, equipment confiscation, and other criminal penalties.
>Someone has to discover whats happening and actually care that a rule is being violated. There really are not many hams that have the skill to figure out what is happening when they hear this on their precious 70cm band and THEN realize encryption is happening on top of the network layer. Sure, they exist, but they are also generally busy doing real things that matter rather than volunteering for the Amateur Auxiliary.
In my experience, there absolutely are plenty of hams out there who will triangulate you and report you for violations. You'd probably get away with a warning at first, to be fair, but many hams (at least around these parts) are old retired dudes with nothing better to do.
You're not wrong, but you are also lumping "old hams" into the same category as "hams that use computers". While the old dudes can certainly fox-hunt like no bodies business, they are the same dudes that get irate at the idea of hooking a perfectly good ham radio up to a computer, so that rules them out for figuring out something like ssl is being used ;-P.
If you think I'm wrong, just walk around any ham fest and ask for help setting up your Winlink node ;-).
I mean, the FCC does not really have a track record of enforcing violations. You could probably do whatever you want, until some hams fox hunt you and tell Uncle Sugar you are breaking the rules. Even then, the FCC is likely to only give you a warning rather than a punishment.
That being said these bands are out there for the public to use, the government has set aside a pretty decent portion of the available usable frequencies for use of the public. In my opinion is just in poor taste to not follow the rules here.
In these days when you can get a Baofeng HT for $25, there are already all sorts of unlicensed people stomping all over others just to be jerks.
I listen to folks DXing on CB across the continental US all the time. Not long ago I heard someone in Puerto Rico make a contact in Canada. On a band supposedly limited to 4 Watts. The FCC doesn't care unless there's a complaint, and even then there's definitely a dollar amount attached to an enforcement action. They don't roll huff-duff wagons on a whim. Everyone should watch THX1138.
I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequencies, that means using something like SSH or loading an SSL webpage with this modem would be a violation. I would also be very concerned with the OS background processes that may use encryption by default.