UK Ham Radio Reg Plans To Drop 15 min Callsign Interval and Allow Encryption 104
First time accepted submitter product_bucket writes A consultation published by the UK Radio Regulator Ofcom seeks views on its plan to remove the mandatory 15 minute callsign identifier interval for amateur radio licensees. The regulator also intends to permit the use of encryption by a single volunteer emergency communications organization. The consultation is open until 20th October, and views are sought by interested parties.
Re:Why encryption only for one body? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the rest can just use steganography and encryption as usual.
Scrap all the rules (Score:1)
All that ham nerd stuff was probably meaningful once, but is there a single good reason why people can't broadcast whatever they want? I mean, sure, stick within allocated frequencies, don't bleed over other ones etc, but check out the rules - they're hilarious. Are we still worried about political subversion and Russian spies?
Re:Scrap all the rules (Score:5, Informative)
You can now. Just stick to the allocated ISM bands (eg WiFi).
What you can't do now is build your own transmitter without a ham license. This obviously is to prevent interference to other services.
The philosophy is simple. License the Radio or License the Operator. The Amateur Operator has passed sufficient technical barrier to ensure that they won't do stupid things and cause interference.
There is one catch however. The Amateur License excluded commercial operations. To do that you need a commercial license.
The amateur license is primarily for self education.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Different modes are not encryption. That's like saying "hmmm i can only do sideband so that means i cant listen to AM". Crypto is not at all allowed on the ham bands and likely never will be. Phase Shift Keying is a mode of transmission and PSK31 is a standard that uses it. Also, WSJT isn't a mode, it is a program.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, (here) encryption is not disallowed as long as other people can read the contents of your conversation. One way to do that is by publishing the algorithm and key used. Another one if using plaintext, but encryption for authentication, for example for repeater control.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true. Part 97 prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If crypto were used, not for obscuring meaning, but to prevent unauthorized access (e.g. for a "telecommand" application), it would not run afoul of the regs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, one may want to securely control a model craft, something the regs directly allow: "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication." Or, it might be used for telecommand of a ham sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Scrap all the rules (Score:2)
As a young ham, myself and another member of our club were rebuked for what we thought was a clever workaround to a persistent jammer. We came up with a list of repeaters, assigning a number to each. When a jammer would come along, we'd simply say "meet me on number 4" and we'd QSY to that repeater to continue our QSO.
At a subsequent meeting, one of the OM officers of our club told us to knock it off as it could run afoul of the "codes & ciphers" prohibiting of part 97.
Re: (Score:2)
Your officers were full of shit. Having a private channel list is perfectly legal. Your content is perfectly readable: you're changing channels. "QSY channel 4" is no different than "QSY Bob's repeater." Just because an outsider wouldn't know who Bob is, doesn't mean you're using a code or cipher.
Re: (Score:2)
Part 97 only applies to US hams, or foreign hams with reciprocity transmitting from US territory.
Re: (Score:3)
There are many encrypted ham standards, PSK31 WSPR, WSJT, MAP65, Hellscriber, etc, etc.
Umm, unless I am managing to completely misunderstand something, those are not encryption, those are simply digital signals rather than analog.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mostly right, but Hellschreiber actually ends up being an analog signal: though it has digital origins, timing drift and interference make it worthwhile to produce grayscale output for maximum legibility.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not misunderstanding. They are encoding schemes and/or modulation techniques.
One of the differences is that anyone who knows the standard can decode the above. They don't need possession of a decryption key or device.
Re:Scrap all the rules (Score:4)
The amateur license is primarily for self education.
As a US general class amateur radio licensee, I will gladly confirm that you called out one of the primary objectives of the international amateur radio service with the other being emergency communications. I got mine out of pure curiosity and it never ceases to provide something new on a regular basis to scratch my head over.
Re: (Score:2)
They did scrap the rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
... they just called it CB.
In theory a great idea, in practice you got a load if halfwit teenagers and other dimwits who had nothing to say keying up over people trying to have a sensible conversation and generally causing a nuisance. What with them and the people who seemed to think playing music from a crappy cassette tape into the mic suddenly turned their bedroom rig into Kiss FM eventually made CB unusable and it died (in the UK anyway) apart from the occasional diehard and some truckers.
Re: (Score:1)
CB failed in the UK due to the very low power constraints. Most people couldn't talk to others a couple of miles away, even with 5m antenna. In car units struggled to make a mile on a good day when KD40s ruled the roost.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh rubbish. With a decent setup 4W goes a long way. Anyway, most people ran linears even back in the day though most also didn't have a clue what SWR was and wondered why they kept burning out. Muppets.
Re: (Score:2)
UK CB channels went from 27.6 to 28Mhz. Only in the 90s was the US/EC band legalised too.
Re: (Score:3)
In practice, the regulars are such pretentious dicks everyone else leaves and all the channels are now ghost towns.
Re:Scrap all the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
EM spectrum is a scarce resource, shared between all the community. If one person fills up the spectrum with high powered broadcasts, they deny others the use of that spectrum for potentially more valuable resources. You cannot buy or manufacture more electromagnetic spectrum: what we have is all there is, and more people want it than than there is space for. Would you be happy if, for example, I knocked out all WiFi and cell signals for ten miles around my house? Would you be happy if I overloaded the frequencies used by the emergency services? Would you be happy if I filled the TV frequencies with hardcore porn or a terrorist manifesto?
You have to be a sociopath not to expect there to be some sharing of limited resources.
Re: (Score:1)
"Would you be happy if I filled the TV frequencies with hardcore porn" :-)
Well, yes. That would be better than the crap they broadcast now most of the time.
Re: (Score:1)
So you want to subject children to hardcore porn?
I have no problem with adults viewing what they want, but children are different, and broadcast TV goes to children. I don't think I want to live in your world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I entirely agree one should supervise children. Children should only be watching safe channels, and adults should supervise them. But your proposal is to invade the safe channel - to replace Cartoon Network with snuff movies. This is not putting porn where the unsupervised can find it, this is forcing porn into areas where reasonable people would not expect to find it.
It is not "children might", it is "you are forcing on children". The difference between consensual sex and rape, the difference between guns
Re: (Score:1)
I entirely agree one should supervise children. Children should only be watching safe channels, and adults should supervise them. But your proposal is to invade the safe channel - to replace Cartoon Network with snuff movies. This is not putting porn where the unsupervised can find it, this is forcing porn into areas where reasonable people would not expect to find it.
It is not "children might", it is "you are forcing on children". The difference between consensual sex and rape, the difference between guns in self defence and firing at random in a shopping mall.
BS. It's putting objectionable material out in front of them, but unless you're doing a Clockwork Orange on them, the nasty little buggers don't have to watch it. They can switch channels or turn it off or leave the room.
It's called Free Will. And it's amazing how many of God's Anointed want to take it away from us.
Ultimately, it says that A) other people cannot be trusted to find their own way into Heaven, so we have to force them there. and B) we don't trust God to ensure that other people's life experien
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I never claimed more moral authority. I claimed my right to express my opinion on /. I also suggested that I am probably in the majority. That is not a moral statement, it is a personal view. No, I think the OP is a short sighted selfish git, but I do not see it as a political statement, just an ignorant one. That, also, is a personal opinion not a claim of moral superiority,
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously haven't been paying close attention to Bugs Bunny if you think that he's a magic shelter. There's some really wicked humor in there. It just happens to go over our heads when we're young.
There is this ridiculous delusion of "innocence" when it comes to young children and sex. Children are are born aware of sexuality. One of the most embarrassing things about parenthood can be convincing them not to display that awareness in polite company.
Of course, there's porn and then there's S&M. But t
Special pleading (Score:2)
So you want to subject children to hardcore porn?
Children would not exist were it not for a process whose depiction would be considered hardcore porn.
children are different
The special pleading fallacy can be avoided by describing how the difference is relevant in a particular context.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I would not describe reasonably consensual sex of the sort required to make children as /hardcore/ porn. Hardcore porn probably requires strange ustensils, use of bodily orifices in ways that do not lead to reproduction, often blood, pain or simulated pain, obvious coercion.
Children, not having yet developed the sexual drive, do not understand the motivation for sex. However, I do not think that seeing normal consensual sex, which I would describe a porn but not hardcore porn, would be seriously damagin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Which shows that the word is undefined. But I would expect, whatever the actual details, "hardcore" means unsuitable for broadcast TV. I would agree that GoT might be defined as porn, but is being broadcastable automatically makes it not hardcore. My definitions would not include anything transparently consensual as hardcore, but explicit portrayal of sex is porn. But the "hard" in "hardcore" implies some level of violence or coercion.
Anyway, I introduced the word into the conversation, and what I means wa
Re: (Score:2)
Now, when I'm told that I may not use any bandwidth until I pay and submit to those same rules, that's censorship. Your "think of the children" argument doesn't hold water. They may have re
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that GoT might be defined as porn, but is being broadcastable automatically makes it not hardcore.
Game of Thrones is not shown on broadcast television. It requires a subscription to limited basic cable television plus HBO plus (on many cable systems) expanded basic cable television.
Efficient modulation (Score:2)
You cannot buy or manufacture more electromagnetic spectrum
But you can use the spectrum you have far more efficiently, with more directional antennas, more efficient channel modulation, spatial multiplexing through MIMO, etc. Legacy modes used in the AM and FM broadcast bands, for example, are horribly inefficient compared to modern digital modes.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course. But the OP was suggesting people should be free to do whatever they wanted - which would include using bandwidth wastefully and overwhelmingly (i.e. at high power). Hence the need for some form of regulator to enforce the use of efficient modes, and power levels no more than necessary, not as the OP implied at complete liberty.
I agree that modern technology makes possible a greater variety and greater number of uses of the available bandwidth. All the more reason for a good regulator to share it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
". Radio licensing is largely about safety with regards to high power transmissions since RF can burn and kill you (it is a form of electricity), and slackjawed mouth breathing fools have a tendency for "hold my beer, watch this" moments."
As opposed to know it all geeks that have hay this is cool moments.
Wow Radio Licensing is not largely about safety it is about interference. You do not want some self entitled libertarian deciding that they should black out the local TV station AKA "Max Headroom" or jam th
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a new ham, looking into installing an antenna in my back yard. I have kids.
The impedance at the center of a half wave dipole is low, say 70 ohms or so if it's the right length for the transmission, but at the ends it is really high. 100W (small beer for a ham operator) into 70 ohms is 80 volts or so in the middle of the antenna. At the end of the antenna the impedance is very high, say 4000 ohms, the same 100W is then 630 volts or so.
The impedance can be much more, the power can be much, much more, th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but you will break no law if you burn yourself. The regulations are all about interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if you hurt yourself you are not breaking the law.
There are lots of safety rules. You have to obey the regulations.
I am not just talking about Amature radio but FCC licensing. That includes TV, Radio, Public service bands, HAM, and even wifi. The power regulations and frequency regulations are mostly in place to keep you from stomping on everyone else. AARL has a special relationship with the FCC that allows them to do testing and have a large voice in setting the rules for HAMs. But HAMs are a
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot about safety in the regulations, and you're misrepresenting what those regulations are by only highlighting a circumstance in which the operator hurts themselves. You are breaking the law if your station installation doesn't meet the necessary safety regulations, isn't grounded properly, isn't of a sufficient level of engineering quality, but particularly if you exceed maximum power output and RF exposure limits (especially to recipients unaware of the exposure). Enforcement of that is a diff
Re: (Score:2)
It was a typo/brain fart. I though it was the American Amateur Radio, I remebered it was the ARRL right after I hit the post button.
Re: (Score:2)
but is there a single good reason why people can't broadcast whatever they want?
Yup, It frightens rich people and politicians hell bent on scaring the rich.
You have to be a sociopath to get into politics.
Perhaps, but you definitely are a sociopath given that you think that you must be allowed to do whatever you want regardless to the consequences to anyone else.
Encryption (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, but as soon as it's an emergency, then the rules are suspended and you don't need to be a HAM to broadcast and would not be limited by the regulations that HAM operators are required to follow. And, let's face it - in a true emergency situation all the rules go out the window anyway. When it comes to saving a life or following the written word of regulation, life safety will always trump.
The only real thing that keeps encryption from being on the airwaves is hardware support - i.e. the availability of
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the reason to allow this is not to permit hams more freedom, but rather to persuade hams to purchase encryption units so that when the authorities ask them to provide communications they can do so in an encrypted way. Or, for the lobbyists, to make the ham radio service appear to have more utility in handling emergencies.
I can't think of any reason why encrypting ham communications would do anything to improve the hobby, but I can see why authorities might like to have access to another somewhat
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it didn't help that the guy who filed that petition didn't bother to read the HIPAA laws, nor understand that HIPAA laws do not apply to ham radio operators. He was seeking a solution to a made-up problem.
And also all the other things! (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the least interesting aspects of the consultation.
1) The "how often you have to identify" thing is nearly irrelevant - it's just turned now from set occasions to the vague, and therefore hard to enforce, must-always-be-identifiable. But a few people on long ragchews didn't quite stick to the rules, while almost everyone else does. Those who continue abusing the bands will carry on not identifying anyway. As for digital/data encoding, that could always announce its callsign automatically at whatever interval - it's not like you have to do it in Morse/voice anymore, unless you want to;
2) RAYNET are nowhere near as comprehensive as US amateur radio emergency support. I don't even understand why they've been given the privilege of encryption, but I guess there's something at work here I dont know - anybody?
Now, the other shit, some of which is far more interesting:
a) The "release" (this is newspeak for "private give-away") of bands 2350-2390 Mhz and 3410-3475 MHz. This is a substantial loss of amateur allocation to the wireless leeches. This isn't being consulted on, but it's a harsh reminder of the position of the ham, and a reason for the concession in b);
b) The allocation without NoV of spectrum in the 470 kHz and 5 MHz bands. I remember a decade or so ago when 470 kHz ham radio work was pioneering, and it's nice to see it go mainstream;
c) They're updating wording on fees but STILL not charging for the licence. In Soviet Britain, this is a bad thing, because a government department which gets rich from some set of stakeholders is one which listens to those stakeholders;
d) They're making it slightly harder to transmit if you've been convicted under the WT Act. Since ham radio is the last bastion of long distance electronic free speech, any moves to make it harder to transmit are worth keeping an eye on. These amendments consider fairly specific circumstances, fortunately;
e) A few babbles about call sign usage and re-use, which please those who like picking apart (genuine, if mostly just bureaucratic) problems with license wording;
f) Some minor if decent clarifications supporting reciprocal usage and transmitting from multiple locations (direction-finding exercise, etc.). This shows that the licensing body is paying attention to detail about how licenses are actually used by hobbyists, which is pleasing.
Re: (Score:1)
These are the least interesting aspects of the consultation.
1) The "how often you have to identify" thing is nearly irrelevant - it's just turned now from set occasions to the vague, and therefore hard to enforce, must-always-be-identifiable. But a few people on long ragchews didn't quite stick to the rules, while almost everyone else does. Those who continue abusing the bands will carry on not identifying anyway. As for digital/data encoding, that could always announce its callsign automatically at whatever interval - it's not like you have to do it in Morse/voice anymore, unless you want to;
2) RAYNET are nowhere near as comprehensive as US amateur radio emergency support. I don't even understand why they've been given the privilege of encryption, but I guess there's something at work here I dont know - anybody?
Now, the other shit, some of which is far more interesting:
a) The "release" (this is newspeak for "private give-away") of bands 2350-2390 Mhz and 3410-3475 MHz. This is a substantial loss of amateur allocation to the wireless leeches. This isn't being consulted on, but it's a harsh reminder of the position of the ham, and a reason for the concession in b);
b) The allocation without NoV of spectrum in the 470 kHz and 5 MHz bands. I remember a decade or so ago when 470 kHz ham radio work was pioneering, and it's nice to see it go mainstream;
c) They're updating wording on fees but STILL not charging for the licence. In Soviet Britain, this is a bad thing, because a government department which gets rich from some set of stakeholders is one which listens to those stakeholders;
d) They're making it slightly harder to transmit if you've been convicted under the WT Act. Since ham radio is the last bastion of long distance electronic free speech, any moves to make it harder to transmit are worth keeping an eye on. These amendments consider fairly specific circumstances, fortunately;
e) A few babbles about call sign usage and re-use, which please those who like picking apart (genuine, if mostly just bureaucratic) problems with license wording;
f) Some minor if decent clarifications supporting reciprocal usage and transmitting from multiple locations (direction-finding exercise, etc.). This shows that the licensing body is paying attention to detail about how licenses are actually used by hobbyists, which is pleasing.
This is a consultation exercise - make sure you get your views heard by Ofcom and raise awareness with your fellow enthusiasts. If you don't like something (RAYNET and / or band give-away) then write in and get everyone else to do that as well. Draft a set of objections and send it to others for them to write in as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the capitalized HAM was supposed to an idiot newbie mistake. Doesn't every ham like to explain that the word is not an acronym for anything?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's "ham" (or better, "radio amateur"), just like it's not the INTERNET or SLASHDOT.
Everyone uses encryption right now anyway (Score:2, Informative)
and its called Dstar, only way to "legally" decrypt it is to buy decryption module from DVSI or whole radio from Icom.
Dstar is a proprietary, patented and closed protocol using another patented and closed vocoder (ambe).
Re: (Score:2)
And PACTOR 3 / PACTOR 4.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's NOT ENCRYPTION. It's ENCODING. I can go out, buy a DSTAR radio, and copy your conversations, without needing any encryption key from you. Encryption would be where I need a pin or other code to decode your message successfully, where not having that information from you would prevent me from monitoring your transmissions. DSTAR, DMR/MOTOTRBO, Codec2, etc., are all encodings, just like PSK31. I can't verbally copy PSK31, but I can buy a device (laptop) to decode your messages without further input f
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantically correct, you are. But... why is a proprietary CODEC allowed in the ham bands? I can't go out and build a D-STAR compatible radio because of that. Proprietary CODECs should not get FCC type acceptance for amateur radio, as it conflicts the the "basis and purpose" wording of the enabling legislation. *grump*
Encryption, OTOH, is kind of a big deal now for emergency communications. In the USA, hospitals have traditionally been both big supporters of and big clients of amateur radio emergency com
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's NOT ENCRYPTION. It's ENCODING. I can go out, buy a DSTAR radio
oh, so you need to go and "buy decryption module from DVSI or whole radio from Icom"? its almost like I said the same thing...
This sounds really good, but it isn't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this leads me to a question. (Score:2)
I have an APRS transceiver sending telemetry from my cottage; mostly so I know whether I need to get in the car and drive out there to address either water in the basement or pipes about to freeze... Soon I'll be able to send commands and receive responses (like raise the temperature because I'm en-route, or turn on the irrigation system, or whatever)... I don't want any old shmuck to mess with my stuff so I thought about encrypting the text in my APRS message with a pre-shared key and calling it a day... D
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the country, but in general it's OK to encrypt control codes, but not OK to encrypt data. Although shared keys probably fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really code that's applicable to anyone else, probably. It's embedded in a bunch of python that mindlessly runs my cottage.. I have an RCS TR-60 thermostat out there that has an RS-485 port to which I can send commands and requests stats. I also have an Etherrain/8 which runs my sprinkler valves... I have a WaterBug water sensor, and some other miscellaneous arduino things to monitor my well pump controller, etc...
My APRS transceiver is a Microtrak4 and it has a serial port as well. So I monitor