2025-03-21 — Impressions of HamSCI 2025, From FCC - IN RE: DELETE, DELETE, DELETE, Web Based decoders for horus and wenet, Raspberry Pi Official Image Tool, SDRBERRY, Packaging VARA FM on Raspberry Pi
It was nice to see you at HamSCI! Hope we meet up again.
I have some problems with one license class to rule them all. That’s the question of reciprocal operation. CEPT does not grant the U.S. general license full privileges. That’s a problem for those of us who travel. There is also the problem that one general class license does not include an entry level foundation license and for many the current General is a bit steep for an introductory license. Nor do I think that the technician by itself should grant full privileges at full power on every band. And the reciprocity for that particular license is even narrower.
In my radio show and on YouTube I proposed two licenses - a “full” license and a “foundation” license. The foundation should have all privileges but 100 watts of power. The full license would have full privileges and full power. But in retrospect I would still do three classes of license but still grant full privileges to current and future Generals. The Extra would remain for reciprocity purposes and also allow 1x2 and 2x1 callsigns as an incentive. Advanced would stay grandfathered but like the Generals they’d also get full privileges.
As far as encryption goes, I can’t support full encryption. I can support its use for emergencies and emergency drills and for secrets and PKI. But as Phil Karn pointed out to me, PKI is already apparently legal in ham radio as we aren’t obscuring anything.
In the end I do think that if anything will happen to the amateur radio service that it will be the simplest thing - removing all micromanagement and letting us do what we want. Designated Frequency bands and power levels. The rest is up to us.
Ria - Good to see you also at HamSCI 2025. Thanks for explaining the nuances of a single license class as it applies to reciprocal licensing. PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) certainly helps to sign transmissions and correspondingly verify that a sender says who they say they are. But I don't think that the current practice of the gray area of, for example, https which IS full encryption, and that's been in active use for a decade or more now in Amateur Radio - we're just "nudge nudge wink wink" ignoring that inconvenient issue that we can't work around. So, perhaps best to get it out in the open.
The real sticker with encryption is web pages and the https protocol. We'll soon come to a time where it will be near impossible to find a browser that supports plain http without jumping through hoops and warning screens. Since most of the Internet is going full encryption, i.e.; ssh replacing telnet, integration of the network world and the ham world will just become increasingly hard. Even if TCP over ham (HoIP?) radio is not connected to the full-table Internet, just finding software and devices that don't require an ssh or https interface will become non-trivial.
The FCC has stated that we are self-policing in an encryption proceeding before, which is why they won’t allow it. Key escrow may be one way to do it but at that point encryption becomes pointless. There are concerns that if we allow encryption that ham radio will be used for commercial purposes, like businesses using it. So encryption will be a long road, and probably never happen.
To be clear, I'm not looking for encryption just for encryption's sake. I'm worried that trying to do anything IP over ham radio will become even more difficult. I guess the issue is that ham radio and the modern networking industry are at odds regarding encryption. As a network engineer (my $dayjob) I'm making sure that all my devices and servers are running the latest ssh/SSL versions, while the ham me wants everything to be cleartext. Sadly, the fun part of ham radio for me is joining those two worlds.
I am totally with you as a security architect on the practicality of it. I guess we can do things differently. I’m just hoping we don’t surrender ham radio to becoming a commercial ISP. Many share this view.
Unless you're thinking above 23cm, there isn't the bandwidth for that to happen, IIRC. Even 70cm & 33cm are too small for what anyone would consider acceptable Internet service that they would pay for. There are much more reasonable non-ham methods of getting server these days. -Joe w7com
Now I'm wondering if I can setup squid proxy to act as a cleartext gateway to bridge the Internet and ham radio. Damn rabbit holes! I wanted to get the recycling out today! -Joe w7com
Joe - We *could*... but speaking as one who has accessed https websites from an Amateur Radio network, I just shrug my shoulders and make a mental note if I'm ever asked to explain that particular rules violation, why it was at least semi-important to do that from an Amateur Radio network rather than switch over to a commercial network. I've done it for things like downloading an update for an Amateur Radio application over my (very low profile) AREDN network inside N8GNJ Labs.
Joe - Yep - we're in violent agreement. Amateur Radio isn't using https because we need to, but because we increasingly can't access important websites or web services without it. My memory is that arrl.org was accessible for a long time without https, but checking just now, even trying to access it with http, is now redirected to https. That is just the standard operating procedure of the Internet these days.
Ria - I think you're going to have to re-evaluate your stance on encryption that it will be a "long road, and probably never happen" because it will be very, very difficult for 44Net to be relevant in Amateur Radio in the 21st century without some at least common sense adaptations to the use of encryption in Amateur Radio.
I don’t think so, Steve. At the very least there has to be some way to self-police and prevent widespread commercial use of the bands. That is and will be the major blocker.
Ria - The nice thing about the Amateur Radio is that we can physically find who is transmitting on the band. (We used to be able to do that easily, and we can redevelop that skill). So if there is (what we suspect is misuse) of Amateur Radio, we can track down who is transmitting and verify. And, there is that prohibition against pecuniary interest.
We all have a voice in this proceeding, and we all won't agree. I wish we had time to develop a broad based and well considered mostly unified position on this, but we weren't afforded that luxury. So in the absence of some guidance and coalition building from groups that could do so (have resources) like ARRL, TAPR, and ARDC, we as individuals are left to offer our individual best, most carefully considered comments to the FCC.
As for me, I don't know my exact verbiage yet, but I'm likely to recommend that the FCC adjust its regulations to permit at least some basics of the Internet such as https, ssh, and sftp.
IDing only tells you who is transmitting, not what they’re transmitting. Like for example I can set up stock trading and ID with my callsign. People know there’s a signal but they won’t know I’m trading stocks, which is the whole point of encryption.
Joe - One of the things I've come to accept, then embrace, in US Amateur Radio is that the current generation considers Internet interoperability with Amateur Radio as just part of the environment, akin to the way my generation thinks of grid power. Thus, to remain relevant, Amateur Radio needs to (be able to) embrace Internet practices like https, and ssh, and sftp, etc. And we need to make that argument to the FCC.
I think that’s outweighed by the necessity to self-police. The last thing we want is to burden the FCC with enforcement which would defeat their push to deregulate and spend money. So for that to happen everything must be in the clear.
Spread Spectrum -- I would like to see the rules simplified so that SS is allowed on *all* ham bands. It would need to be kept within the applicable occupied bandwidth limits for each band, but other than that I see no need to restrict it to 50 MHz and above. Many of the current digital modulation techniques have similar bandwidth characteristics to direct-sequence SS, so the prohibition of HF SS seems like an archaic holdover. With the 2.8 KHz occupied bandwidth requirement HF SS won't deliver fast bit-rates but there are many other reasons to to use this mode.
I'm currently going over Part 97, looking for things to delete or at least simplify. I'm also in discussion about this with several well-connected folks (ARRL will not be the only ham organization to respond to this opportunity). I've been looking at the FCC replies to date -- some good ideas, but I think we need a well-coordinated response from the established ham organizations to have an impact.
I definitely like the "Here are your band limits. Have fun!" approach, but I suspect that there are too many people who want to preserve the status quo. Still any progress towards that goal is well-worth the effort.
HamSci -- I missed it this year, but I was a presenter last year (with Rob Robinett on wsprdaemon and WSPRSONDE) and I share your enthusiasm. Seeing all the younger hams and science enthusiasts was very encouraging.
Paul - I confess I'm kind of missing the point of Spread Spectrum on HF when the US maximum channel size is 2.8 kHz... or maybe do FHSS with really narrow carriers... but then there's OFDM, which we're already using on HF.
The reason I said 50 MHz and above that it's comfortably above the 30 MHz boundary between HF and VHF / UHF / microwave. In HF, the US has to coordinate its HF activities (modes) with all other countries through IARU. In VHF and above, the US can decide what its modes are because of the localized nature (other than the portions used for satellite communications, which like HF are internationally coordinated).
I'm glad to hear you say "ARRL will not be the only ham organization to respond", but from what I've seen publicly acknowledged, ARRL is the only ham organization to state publicly that they plan to respond. The others, including the one you're most closely affiliated with, is (discouragingly) silent in public... not only that they're planning to respond... but acknowledging the issue at all to their membership.
Thus since ARRL has publicly stated that they'll be responding, and provided some method of formal input, I'll provide some formal input to them.
But, again, without any public statements by other Amateur Radio Organizations... hoping or trusting that they will isn't a good strategy. Thus I plan to (mostly) go it alone by organizing some Zoom videoconferences, and provide some "talking points" to the readership of Zero Retries, and then file my independent comments.
I've been looking at SS-like techniques not for fast data throughput, but for accurately measuring time-of-flight of HF transmissions. Sure, I could invent some non-standard protocol using SS-like FSK or PSK, keeping within the 2.8 KHz BW limit while getting much-improved time resolution. But this would be exactly like SS as far as the spectral characteristics, so why not just use "standard" SS ??? Using actual SS lets me have a standardized physical layer (from the OSI 7-layer stack perspective), which then can carry whatever we want on the upper layers. Why force us to constantly reinvent the wheel?
There may be better ways to carry data on the HF bands than simple SS, so you can reasonably ask "why?". My answer is "why not!" I'm doing this stuff because it's fun, and I learn a lot. I wish we didn't have these unreasonable rules that put roadblocks in the way of learning and invention on the ham bands. Rules are great where they serve a valuable purpose, but at least this one does not.
More on my rationale -- SS is only an example, really. I don't think we need *any* justification for experimenting with ham radio. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to solve a problem in the best practical way, and I don't care if these is even a problem to be solved in the first place. I want the rules to be flexible enough that we can FAFO (fucx around and find out), as long as we cause no significant interference. (If you want to hear interference, just monitor a DX pile-up, so please, let's hear no hypocrisy on this issue.) I want to play with interesting technology on different bands having different propagation characteristics. If more hams did this, who knows, someone might learn something in the process.
And of course there is value in finding practical solutions to actual problems. This is what I've been doing with Turn Island Systems, and did in my prior engineering career. And this is not mutually exclusive -- far from it!
Paul - Fair points all - I just didn't understand why you would want to attempt SS on HF, but what you said makes sense.
I chuckled that you were trying to make the point to me about "it doesn't have to make sense" as a prominent touchstone in my Amateur Radio development was that KA9Q created his NET and NOS applications just because he wanted to (and enable others to) play around with TCP/IP on Amateur Radio. Doing so on Amateur Radio, and later the early mobile phones, didn't make sense to KA9Q's employer at the time, which says a lot about how myopic companies can be and the value of "playing around because you want to".
KA9Q's employer? Qualcomm.
You'll get no "static" from me about "interference" which, is in the end, an engineering issue of a receiver not being designed well enough to decode only the desired signal.
DJ - Thanks! At every increase of 100 email subscribers, it feels like I've "saturated the market" of potential Zero Retries readers. But, they keep trickling in, week after week. I had to chuckle at your reference to 2600 as I have a copy of the most recent 2600 Magazine to peruse.
It's my (layman's) opinion that encryption with published keys is legal today as it's not an attempt to obscure meaning (which is the thing actually restricted). I actually like the way the FCC defines it now since it regulates the intent rather than the method. However I've found that 99% of what people say they need encryption for is really satisfied by cryptographic signatures which are definitely legal. What's missing there is the tooling. What's funny is that we're almost there with LOTW keys!
Also I will definitely be submitting comments to ARRL about removing the notification requirements from 219-220 mhz. Talk about burdensome regulations! My plan is to just read through Part 97 and find things to remove.
Justin - Agreed that encryption with published keys... helps... but there's a lot of other cases such as https that don't fall into that category. And though I didn't mention it in my article, yes - 219-220 MHz will definitely get some attention in my comments also.
I must admit I'm not sure what would make https different. Are you talking about interacting with Internet connected servers for which private keys couldn't be published?
Justin - As I understand it (poorly...) the keys of a https exchange is a "black box" set up by the individual website and the individual browser, thus there's no opportunity...
Ah... now I see your point. https, ssh, and sftp are all in that same situation that we don't really have access to the keys. OK, point taken that https isn't an exception.
THIS!!! This right here … yeah the whole thing! Is why I am a paid subscriber and WE ALL need to rally around this and get the ARRL on board or move on over and let the digital realm take over. This seems like it’s inevitable and gonna happen no matter….!! Thank you Steve for an AWESOME newsletter….? It is so much more than that though…!!
John - Thanks very much for being an Annual Paid Subscriber and helping financially to keep Zero Retries going.
More importantly, thanks for the kind words. In publishing issues like ZR 0194, it's a bit lonely and I'm never sure how it will be received. I'm not doing ZR to curry popularity, but strong expressions of support like yours really does help.
I don't know what's going to happen with the ARRL or what their comments will be until they actually become public record, though I hope for the best.
I've been a follower of w7voa for years, first on Twitter and now on Mastodon. He's a very good reporter and it was sad to see him let go from VOA.
I just had purchased the last few parts I needed to make a Radioberry setup right before I had found your ZR email. Small world. I'm still waiting on parts to get the Reticulum lab setup with a combo of LoRa, and DigiPI using AIOC using the astounding featured and cheap Tidradio TD-H3 HTs.
You're right about radios and software. It's getting hard to find a radio that isn't Turing complete, even the analog ones. Other than some simple QRP kits, I'm pressed to think of a radio for sale today that doesn't have a computer in it. -w7com
Joe - The whole situation with VOA and its related organizations is indeed sad with many casualties like W7VOA.
I've lost count of the number of projects that I've acquired parts for and one of my higher priority projects for 2025 is to set up a priority list for the projects to be worked on in 2025, and a checklist of everything I need so that once I start them, I can complete them if I allocate enough time. That, and preventing Yak Shaving exercises.
Embedded computers (and thus, software) being at the core of nearly every radio now, and the ascendance of data communications are going to be two primary themes in Zero Retries from now on. Those trends aren't being noticed in most other Amateur Radio media (treated more like an "option"), and those new realities really need to be brought into the forefront in this era.
It was nice to see you at HamSCI! Hope we meet up again.
I have some problems with one license class to rule them all. That’s the question of reciprocal operation. CEPT does not grant the U.S. general license full privileges. That’s a problem for those of us who travel. There is also the problem that one general class license does not include an entry level foundation license and for many the current General is a bit steep for an introductory license. Nor do I think that the technician by itself should grant full privileges at full power on every band. And the reciprocity for that particular license is even narrower.
In my radio show and on YouTube I proposed two licenses - a “full” license and a “foundation” license. The foundation should have all privileges but 100 watts of power. The full license would have full privileges and full power. But in retrospect I would still do three classes of license but still grant full privileges to current and future Generals. The Extra would remain for reciprocity purposes and also allow 1x2 and 2x1 callsigns as an incentive. Advanced would stay grandfathered but like the Generals they’d also get full privileges.
As far as encryption goes, I can’t support full encryption. I can support its use for emergencies and emergency drills and for secrets and PKI. But as Phil Karn pointed out to me, PKI is already apparently legal in ham radio as we aren’t obscuring anything.
In the end I do think that if anything will happen to the amateur radio service that it will be the simplest thing - removing all micromanagement and letting us do what we want. Designated Frequency bands and power levels. The rest is up to us.
Ria - Good to see you also at HamSCI 2025. Thanks for explaining the nuances of a single license class as it applies to reciprocal licensing. PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) certainly helps to sign transmissions and correspondingly verify that a sender says who they say they are. But I don't think that the current practice of the gray area of, for example, https which IS full encryption, and that's been in active use for a decade or more now in Amateur Radio - we're just "nudge nudge wink wink" ignoring that inconvenient issue that we can't work around. So, perhaps best to get it out in the open.
The real sticker with encryption is web pages and the https protocol. We'll soon come to a time where it will be near impossible to find a browser that supports plain http without jumping through hoops and warning screens. Since most of the Internet is going full encryption, i.e.; ssh replacing telnet, integration of the network world and the ham world will just become increasingly hard. Even if TCP over ham (HoIP?) radio is not connected to the full-table Internet, just finding software and devices that don't require an ssh or https interface will become non-trivial.
The FCC has stated that we are self-policing in an encryption proceeding before, which is why they won’t allow it. Key escrow may be one way to do it but at that point encryption becomes pointless. There are concerns that if we allow encryption that ham radio will be used for commercial purposes, like businesses using it. So encryption will be a long road, and probably never happen.
To be clear, I'm not looking for encryption just for encryption's sake. I'm worried that trying to do anything IP over ham radio will become even more difficult. I guess the issue is that ham radio and the modern networking industry are at odds regarding encryption. As a network engineer (my $dayjob) I'm making sure that all my devices and servers are running the latest ssh/SSL versions, while the ham me wants everything to be cleartext. Sadly, the fun part of ham radio for me is joining those two worlds.
I am totally with you as a security architect on the practicality of it. I guess we can do things differently. I’m just hoping we don’t surrender ham radio to becoming a commercial ISP. Many share this view.
Unless you're thinking above 23cm, there isn't the bandwidth for that to happen, IIRC. Even 70cm & 33cm are too small for what anyone would consider acceptable Internet service that they would pay for. There are much more reasonable non-ham methods of getting server these days. -Joe w7com
The internet is more than just the web. There are APIs and other services… like email.
Now I'm wondering if I can setup squid proxy to act as a cleartext gateway to bridge the Internet and ham radio. Damn rabbit holes! I wanted to get the recycling out today! -Joe w7com
Joe - We *could*... but speaking as one who has accessed https websites from an Amateur Radio network, I just shrug my shoulders and make a mental note if I'm ever asked to explain that particular rules violation, why it was at least semi-important to do that from an Amateur Radio network rather than switch over to a commercial network. I've done it for things like downloading an update for an Amateur Radio application over my (very low profile) AREDN network inside N8GNJ Labs.
As long as they don't reassign all the fired IRS folk to FCC enforcement, I think we're safe.
Joe - Yep - we're in violent agreement. Amateur Radio isn't using https because we need to, but because we increasingly can't access important websites or web services without it. My memory is that arrl.org was accessible for a long time without https, but checking just now, even trying to access it with http, is now redirected to https. That is just the standard operating procedure of the Internet these days.
Ria - I think you're going to have to re-evaluate your stance on encryption that it will be a "long road, and probably never happen" because it will be very, very difficult for 44Net to be relevant in Amateur Radio in the 21st century without some at least common sense adaptations to the use of encryption in Amateur Radio.
I don’t think so, Steve. At the very least there has to be some way to self-police and prevent widespread commercial use of the bands. That is and will be the major blocker.
Ria - The nice thing about the Amateur Radio is that we can physically find who is transmitting on the band. (We used to be able to do that easily, and we can redevelop that skill). So if there is (what we suspect is misuse) of Amateur Radio, we can track down who is transmitting and verify. And, there is that prohibition against pecuniary interest.
We all have a voice in this proceeding, and we all won't agree. I wish we had time to develop a broad based and well considered mostly unified position on this, but we weren't afforded that luxury. So in the absence of some guidance and coalition building from groups that could do so (have resources) like ARRL, TAPR, and ARDC, we as individuals are left to offer our individual best, most carefully considered comments to the FCC.
As for me, I don't know my exact verbiage yet, but I'm likely to recommend that the FCC adjust its regulations to permit at least some basics of the Internet such as https, ssh, and sftp.
Ria: How do you envision widespread commercial use of ham bands happening because encryption is allowed. There will still be the IDing requirements.
IDing only tells you who is transmitting, not what they’re transmitting. Like for example I can set up stock trading and ID with my callsign. People know there’s a signal but they won’t know I’m trading stocks, which is the whole point of encryption.
Joe - One of the things I've come to accept, then embrace, in US Amateur Radio is that the current generation considers Internet interoperability with Amateur Radio as just part of the environment, akin to the way my generation thinks of grid power. Thus, to remain relevant, Amateur Radio needs to (be able to) embrace Internet practices like https, and ssh, and sftp, etc. And we need to make that argument to the FCC.
I think that’s outweighed by the necessity to self-police. The last thing we want is to burden the FCC with enforcement which would defeat their push to deregulate and spend money. So for that to happen everything must be in the clear.
Spread Spectrum -- I would like to see the rules simplified so that SS is allowed on *all* ham bands. It would need to be kept within the applicable occupied bandwidth limits for each band, but other than that I see no need to restrict it to 50 MHz and above. Many of the current digital modulation techniques have similar bandwidth characteristics to direct-sequence SS, so the prohibition of HF SS seems like an archaic holdover. With the 2.8 KHz occupied bandwidth requirement HF SS won't deliver fast bit-rates but there are many other reasons to to use this mode.
I'm currently going over Part 97, looking for things to delete or at least simplify. I'm also in discussion about this with several well-connected folks (ARRL will not be the only ham organization to respond to this opportunity). I've been looking at the FCC replies to date -- some good ideas, but I think we need a well-coordinated response from the established ham organizations to have an impact.
I definitely like the "Here are your band limits. Have fun!" approach, but I suspect that there are too many people who want to preserve the status quo. Still any progress towards that goal is well-worth the effort.
HamSci -- I missed it this year, but I was a presenter last year (with Rob Robinett on wsprdaemon and WSPRSONDE) and I share your enthusiasm. Seeing all the younger hams and science enthusiasts was very encouraging.
Paul - I confess I'm kind of missing the point of Spread Spectrum on HF when the US maximum channel size is 2.8 kHz... or maybe do FHSS with really narrow carriers... but then there's OFDM, which we're already using on HF.
The reason I said 50 MHz and above that it's comfortably above the 30 MHz boundary between HF and VHF / UHF / microwave. In HF, the US has to coordinate its HF activities (modes) with all other countries through IARU. In VHF and above, the US can decide what its modes are because of the localized nature (other than the portions used for satellite communications, which like HF are internationally coordinated).
I'm glad to hear you say "ARRL will not be the only ham organization to respond", but from what I've seen publicly acknowledged, ARRL is the only ham organization to state publicly that they plan to respond. The others, including the one you're most closely affiliated with, is (discouragingly) silent in public... not only that they're planning to respond... but acknowledging the issue at all to their membership.
Thus since ARRL has publicly stated that they'll be responding, and provided some method of formal input, I'll provide some formal input to them.
But, again, without any public statements by other Amateur Radio Organizations... hoping or trusting that they will isn't a good strategy. Thus I plan to (mostly) go it alone by organizing some Zoom videoconferences, and provide some "talking points" to the readership of Zero Retries, and then file my independent comments.
I've been looking at SS-like techniques not for fast data throughput, but for accurately measuring time-of-flight of HF transmissions. Sure, I could invent some non-standard protocol using SS-like FSK or PSK, keeping within the 2.8 KHz BW limit while getting much-improved time resolution. But this would be exactly like SS as far as the spectral characteristics, so why not just use "standard" SS ??? Using actual SS lets me have a standardized physical layer (from the OSI 7-layer stack perspective), which then can carry whatever we want on the upper layers. Why force us to constantly reinvent the wheel?
There may be better ways to carry data on the HF bands than simple SS, so you can reasonably ask "why?". My answer is "why not!" I'm doing this stuff because it's fun, and I learn a lot. I wish we didn't have these unreasonable rules that put roadblocks in the way of learning and invention on the ham bands. Rules are great where they serve a valuable purpose, but at least this one does not.
Paul - Thanks for explaining your rationale - interesting perspective!
More on my rationale -- SS is only an example, really. I don't think we need *any* justification for experimenting with ham radio. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to solve a problem in the best practical way, and I don't care if these is even a problem to be solved in the first place. I want the rules to be flexible enough that we can FAFO (fucx around and find out), as long as we cause no significant interference. (If you want to hear interference, just monitor a DX pile-up, so please, let's hear no hypocrisy on this issue.) I want to play with interesting technology on different bands having different propagation characteristics. If more hams did this, who knows, someone might learn something in the process.
And of course there is value in finding practical solutions to actual problems. This is what I've been doing with Turn Island Systems, and did in my prior engineering career. And this is not mutually exclusive -- far from it!
Paul - Fair points all - I just didn't understand why you would want to attempt SS on HF, but what you said makes sense.
I chuckled that you were trying to make the point to me about "it doesn't have to make sense" as a prominent touchstone in my Amateur Radio development was that KA9Q created his NET and NOS applications just because he wanted to (and enable others to) play around with TCP/IP on Amateur Radio. Doing so on Amateur Radio, and later the early mobile phones, didn't make sense to KA9Q's employer at the time, which says a lot about how myopic companies can be and the value of "playing around because you want to".
KA9Q's employer? Qualcomm.
You'll get no "static" from me about "interference" which, is in the end, an engineering issue of a receiver not being designed well enough to decode only the desired signal.
2600 Subscribers! You deserve a Cap'n Crunch Whistle! :-)
Seriously, congratulations! That's a nice accomplishment.
DJ - Thanks! At every increase of 100 email subscribers, it feels like I've "saturated the market" of potential Zero Retries readers. But, they keep trickling in, week after week. I had to chuckle at your reference to 2600 as I have a copy of the most recent 2600 Magazine to peruse.
It's my (layman's) opinion that encryption with published keys is legal today as it's not an attempt to obscure meaning (which is the thing actually restricted). I actually like the way the FCC defines it now since it regulates the intent rather than the method. However I've found that 99% of what people say they need encryption for is really satisfied by cryptographic signatures which are definitely legal. What's missing there is the tooling. What's funny is that we're almost there with LOTW keys!
https://github.com/Mihara/lotw-trust
Also I will definitely be submitting comments to ARRL about removing the notification requirements from 219-220 mhz. Talk about burdensome regulations! My plan is to just read through Part 97 and find things to remove.
Justin - Agreed that encryption with published keys... helps... but there's a lot of other cases such as https that don't fall into that category. And though I didn't mention it in my article, yes - 219-220 MHz will definitely get some attention in my comments also.
I must admit I'm not sure what would make https different. Are you talking about interacting with Internet connected servers for which private keys couldn't be published?
Justin - As I understand it (poorly...) the keys of a https exchange is a "black box" set up by the individual website and the individual browser, thus there's no opportunity...
Ah... now I see your point. https, ssh, and sftp are all in that same situation that we don't really have access to the keys. OK, point taken that https isn't an exception.
THIS!!! This right here … yeah the whole thing! Is why I am a paid subscriber and WE ALL need to rally around this and get the ARRL on board or move on over and let the digital realm take over. This seems like it’s inevitable and gonna happen no matter….!! Thank you Steve for an AWESOME newsletter….? It is so much more than that though…!!
John - Thanks very much for being an Annual Paid Subscriber and helping financially to keep Zero Retries going.
More importantly, thanks for the kind words. In publishing issues like ZR 0194, it's a bit lonely and I'm never sure how it will be received. I'm not doing ZR to curry popularity, but strong expressions of support like yours really does help.
I don't know what's going to happen with the ARRL or what their comments will be until they actually become public record, though I hope for the best.
I've been a follower of w7voa for years, first on Twitter and now on Mastodon. He's a very good reporter and it was sad to see him let go from VOA.
I just had purchased the last few parts I needed to make a Radioberry setup right before I had found your ZR email. Small world. I'm still waiting on parts to get the Reticulum lab setup with a combo of LoRa, and DigiPI using AIOC using the astounding featured and cheap Tidradio TD-H3 HTs.
You're right about radios and software. It's getting hard to find a radio that isn't Turing complete, even the analog ones. Other than some simple QRP kits, I'm pressed to think of a radio for sale today that doesn't have a computer in it. -w7com
Joe - The whole situation with VOA and its related organizations is indeed sad with many casualties like W7VOA.
I've lost count of the number of projects that I've acquired parts for and one of my higher priority projects for 2025 is to set up a priority list for the projects to be worked on in 2025, and a checklist of everything I need so that once I start them, I can complete them if I allocate enough time. That, and preventing Yak Shaving exercises.
Embedded computers (and thus, software) being at the core of nearly every radio now, and the ascendance of data communications are going to be two primary themes in Zero Retries from now on. Those trends aren't being noticed in most other Amateur Radio media (treated more like an "option"), and those new realities really need to be brought into the forefront in this era.
Which is why I just upgraded to Founding Member 0014. Keep up the good work!
-Joe w7com
Are you saying I shouldn't be looking at ZR for the the latest in EFHW design and use?