ARRL wants to allow encryption on the ham bands!

Larry...

The HF bands are internationally allocated. What happens within the USA regarding the "downfall" of ham radio, if it happens, is important to world-scope spectrum planning, but it is certainly not the end of the hobby/service by any means. Other developing countries will pick up interest while ours falls off. It is the way of things.

It won't disappear by any means, especially the HF bands. You and I both know the HF bands are becoming less and less important as VHF and above spectrum becomes more and more valuable for all types of digital communications -- governments and industry have recognized and spoke out about this, especially in the public safety world. Again, it is the way of things.

Would you like me to quote the FCC regarding this?

 

I'll answer your question with some overriding information...


Federal Register: May 3, 2006

It seems the FCC explicitly put that language in to conform with WRC-03 Article 25.2A



Yet another, internationally overriding reason RM-11306 should be quashed.

 

True. A code is essentially a secret language invented to conceal the meaning of a message. The simplest form of a code is the jargon code, in which a particular arbitrary phrase,orresponds to a particular predefined message that may not, in fact shouldn't have, anything to do with the jargon code phrase.

Example:The nightingale sings at dawn.
Which could mean: Larry WA5BEN will meet us in Bogalusa.

A cipher conceals a plaintext message by replacing or scrambling its letters.

Both codes and ciphers are forms of encryption.

I need a picture too, because I don't understand your point. Your code is working very well.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

I'd say so.

The League, and others avocating HSMM, are pushing to have the encryption prohibition repealed. The League has talked about it, as well as CQ column editors. It's allowance would spell doom for hams, especially as everyone "goes digital" in the next 10 to 20 years.

73.

 

I would have to agree. The overiding consequence of the 97.309 change would be that proprietary codes would be permitted without any doubt. I object to this because it flies in the face of the customs and traditions of Amateur radio.

73,
Mark NRFX

 

97.113(a)(4)Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;

If this was going to be left as is, encription would still not be allowed. So whats all the fuss?
73
Mike

 

We really don't know the answer because the petitioner never explained it. My guess is that the ARRL wants to end the conflict over unspecified codes. This would benefit those who use PII and PIII and any other mode that uses proprietary codes.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

97.309 was updated at the same time, as a result of the same international proceedings...

"The FCC also revised 97.3 and 97.309 to update the definition of
International Morse code and of various digital codes in the amateur
rules to reflect changes in the international Radio Regulations."

Linky

The changes were made at the same time, as a result of the same event (WRC-03).

 

You are correct sir. The fuss is the contempt over a mode that has pissed off the amateur community. Taking a reasonable concept like regulation by bandwidth, and co-opting it into a spectrum grab is outrageous. It is up to the advocates of WinLink2000, PII, and PIII to mend fences. I won't hold my breath however.
73,
Mark N5RFX

 

I really don't see your link as establishing a solid connection between 97.113 and 97.309 except that they were changed as a result of WRC 03; however, you may be correct.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

Yes, your link was in May 06.

Part 97.113(a)(4) dated Feb 23, 2007 states:
(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;

Encription is not allowed, the ARRL was not trying to change this rule. RM-11306 would not allow encription on the ham bands as the thread topic states.
73
Mike

 

Thanks, I see no reason for this thread topic since it is not true to begin with.

The topic starter should have chosen a better title, this kind of stuff just causes more problems for everyone.

73
Mike

 

Yep, it was from 2006, and WRC-03 if I'm not mistaken was in 2003. It takes a long time for the international radio regulation agreements to make it out of Geneva and into Washington, through the (necessary?) federal bureauacracy, and into the rules.

If you can provide any newer information on subsequent changes to the sections since my links, I'd be glad to peruse them.

 

Both were visited by the FCC at the same time, as a result of the same WRC. The fact that the same basic language is in both places at once cannot be attributed to "oh, well they must have been written at different times".

The FCC updates both sections in question with similar language with respect to 'obscuring' at the same time. Highly unlikely that it was accidental, highly likely that it was intentional.


In any event, can someone who supports RM-11306 please quote for me the sections in the petition that justify the removal, or was it just a wholesale rewrite of the section? Usually, you have to explain *why* you want to change wording in these types of things...

 

You have to look at the Order that actually changed the regulation. You can read that at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-79A1.pdf
go to paragraph 7 and you will see

You see it has nothing to do with encryption. Paragraph 5 is the obfuscation clause and no changes have been proposed there for obvious reasons.

73,
Mark N5RFX