Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#51

Post by PaulHoule »

I have this radio

https://www.amazon.com/Yaesu-FT-60R-Handheld-Amateur-Transce...

which works on both the 2-meter and 70-cm band, particularly if you use this kind of antenna:

http://hamuniverse.com/2mladjpole.html

I live in a poor spot for 2m, we have some active club repeaters. Someone is always listening on those repeaters, but they probably don't want to chat with you.

The west coast has more VHF and UHF action than any place I have been on the east. There are repeaters with people who talk nonstop in English, Spanish, other languages. You hear people talking on 2m at 4:00 in the morning around Van Nuyes.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#52

Post by melling »

hanoz wrote: post #41
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #19

I can't help but feel the amateur radio community could have used a rebrand for the internet age. I understand there's a lot of history but it's hard to get young people interested in being _hams_, a word that has not aged well. I got my licence about a decade back and really loved the technical pieces - learning about how radio waves worked, propagation with different bands, the ability to (try) to build your own mo…

In my opinion one of the best ways of injecting some new life into the community would be to let people take their test online.

He gave you the answer and you ignored it.

Instead you reverted to the classic: "Let's make taking the test easier for people".

I got my license 2 decades ago and never really use it. How about those modern use cases?

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#53

Post by Jach »

hanoz wrote: post #41
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #19

I can't help but feel the amateur radio community could have used a rebrand for the internet age. I understand there's a lot of history but it's hard to get young people interested in being _hams_, a word that has not aged well. I got my licence about a decade back and really loved the technical pieces - learning about how radio waves worked, propagation with different bands, the ability to (try) to build your own mo…

In my opinion one of the best ways of injecting some new life into the community would be to let people take their test online.

Two better ways: remove the need for a test or license at all, at least at many more frequencies and below energy levels well above current limits (which say you can transmit around 2.4 Ghz for example up to some power license-free). Second is to remove any restrictions on what is transmitted, which lets you have purely digital frequency modulated end-to-end encrypted signals meant for amateur computers to decipher.

But making the test online sounds a lot more feasible a change. I'm just skeptical of its effects. e.g. It wouldn't have made me any likelier to pursue amateur radar fun further.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#54

Post by brians »

rsuelzer wrote: post #22
Karunamon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, encryption of any kind on amateur bands is prohibited. Hams tend to be really good at self-policing, so if a curious person horns in on your traffic and discovers that it's encrypted, you can expect a knock on your door, if you're lucky from the guy that looked up your license from the public database (you're required to transmit your callsign at regular intervals) to ask you to fix it, if you're…

Correct, although there are a group of us looking to change this rule and the FCC seems receptive. It is the AARL that is a bit slow on this issue. The original rules were drafted during the cold war, so times have changed. More importantly, we believe it is possible to not hide the intent and recepient of a message, while still protecting sensitive content using open source encryption methods. There are cases that e…

I don’t see how encryption is required there. Strong cryptographic authentication, yes—but that could be as easy as an HMAC with a key shared offline.

The HIPAA information is a great example of what should be kept off the amateur bands, except in an emergency when forgoing encryption is appropriate.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#56

Post by AWildC182 »

quotemstr wrote: post #15

Unpopular opinion time: spectrum is a limited resource. We shouldn't waste it on efficient analog technologies like conventional commercial and amateur radio. We've already ceased conventional broadcasts: that's a step in the right direction, but there's more to do. The entire RF spectrum should be devoted to LTE-like efficient, packetized, and secure communication. I'd make small exceptions for things like radio ast…

Have you ever actually used an SDR? Like an RTL-SDR or similar? Go buy one for $20, plug in it and tell me how much spectrum you actually see being used across the board. Below the frequencies used for high speed communications (>800MHz, LTE, WiFi2/5 etc) you'll find a whole lot of dark blue waterfall, even with an appropriate antenna.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#57

Post by justin66 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #39
dmix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you can't run any modern internet what would you use the mesh network for? Some of Google's traffic charts show up to 90% of traffic is TLS in the US for Chrome users.

You would use it to talk to other amateur radio operators about amateur radio operating and amateur radio equipment, obviously. The prohibition on encrypted content is a deal-breaker for me, and a lot of other people, who might otherwise want to experiment with connecting to the Internet from difficult locations. But since the Internet runs on encrypted protocols now, using unencrypted amateur radio transmissions pot…

> And since hams are very likely to narc, snitch, or grass

You forgot rats and stool pigeons. It really detracted from the extremely important point you were making.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#58

Post by howard941 »

quotemstr wrote: post #37
howard941 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saddened that your unpopular opinion targets the very people who pioneered efficient, packetized secure communications, but reminded that there's a reason why we hams lost 220-222 to UPS - we failed to exploit it when we had it. There's nothing between 54Mhz and 222 Mhz for hams other than the 2m allocation. Please pick on someone else.

One of the most important problems with discussion today is people seeing personal attacks where none exist. I'm stating a policy position, not "target[ing]" people. Conflating policy and personal attacks makes it impossible to discuss policy in a reasonable way.

I don't buy that at all. There are far more important problems than those that arise from voicing an opinion and having to field defenses from those who'd suffer under the unpopular policy regime you espouse.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#59

Post by saul_goodman »

There's a lot more to this than simply taking spectrum away from hams. This potentially affects other ham bands too.

The allotted spectrum for ham use was designed intelligently to reduce (though not completely eliminate) the chances of hams accidentally clobbering folks outside of a ham band with harmonics. So for someone operating in the 10 meter band (28-29.7MHz), the 2nd harmonic is the 6 meter band (50-54MHz), the 8th harmonic is the 1.25m band (220-224MHz) and the 16th harmonic is the 2 meter band being discussed. The closest band to cause interference on the 2m band would be users of the the 1.25m band though as the 2m band is the 2nd harmonic from it.

Also, this is why the 2m and 70cm bands (144/440MHz) are commonly included on the same radio: one antenna can sort-of work for both bands. The antenna is tuned for the 2m band and that means it will also radiate 3rd harmonic excitations as well (the 440MHz band is the 3rd harmonic from the 144MHz band). So it works decent for 2 meters and as a crappy but acceptable 70cm band antenna. The only casualty is the 2nd harmonic band between them at 288MHz which is not allocated to hams.

But anyway, there's no "type acceptance" required for ham radios because that allows hams to build their own gear and not just be appliance operators. Thales is setting themselves up for a lifetime of potential problems if they manage to crack open the 2m band for commercial use.

Lastly, I will say that this is from the US perspective, I'm less well versed in ITU regions and bands available outside of the US. Thanks.

Re: The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat

#60

Post by tlrobinson »

Jach wrote: post #53
hanoz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion one of the best ways of injecting some new life into the community would be to let people take their test online.

Two better ways: remove the need for a test or license at all, at least at many more frequencies and below energy levels well above current limits (which say you can transmit around 2.4 Ghz for example up to some power license-free). Second is to remove any restrictions on what is transmitted, which lets you have purely digital frequency modulated end-to-end encrypted signals meant for amateur computers to decipher.…

As much as I'd love to have more people in amateur radio, and the ability to use encryption, I think both the licensing and prohibition on encryption are fairly critical to keeping things running smoothly.

The test includes lots of useful information such as requirements to transmit your callsign and using minimum power necessary.

The prohibition on encryption is pretty critical to enforce other rules such as only using it for non-commercial purposes. Encryption isn't actually necessary for any of the stated purposes of amateur radio (experimentation, recreation, training, contesting, emergency comms, etc). You can still use any digital mode, including digital signatures, but not encryption of the content.

I might be in favor of creating a class lower than Technician, and allowing taking the test online, though. You should still be assigned a callsign that you are required to transmit.

Post reply on HN