How I Won the Protocol Wars
Charles Brabham (N5PVL)
on
September 15, 2004
View comments about this article!
Protocol Warrior behavior:
Character flaw is common among digital ham radio enthusiasts, where consideration of a pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol looms larger in their thoughts and motivation than any consideration of the amateur radio service itself, or for their fellow hams.
A protocol warrior is full of certainty that his way, and only his way is worthy of consideration. Hams who do something different are (ignorant, luddites, lids, troublemakers,) etc., and so are not worthy of everyday decency, consideration, or cooperation.
To a protocol warrior, it is "OK" to undercut or marginalize their fellow hams, as long as those hams are doing something different. Since they use a "competing" product, project, paradigm, or protocol, then they are the "competition", worthy only of hostility.
More than once, I have heard protocol warriors professing a craven, shameless eagerness for ham radio's "old guard" to pass away. -- Where ignorance marries arrogance, there you find a protocol warrior.
This, instead of their treating their fellow hams with the respect, consideration and amity that has marked this hobby since it's beginning.
Obviously this attitude has no place in Ham Radio -- but it has found a way into the hobby anyway, and does not appear to be going away on it's own. Many digital enthusiasts remember packet radio's protocol wars as a note of discord within the hobby from a decade or more ago, not realizing that this problem is still with us today.
Just as it was a decade ago, the protocol wars stunt the progress that would otherwise be possible with digital amateur radio. Protocol Warrior attitudes have brought digital ham radio in the US to a virtual standstill, making it almost impossible to evaluate and apply new technology as it becomes available.
Many hams criticize the ARRL for not taking a lead in developing a digital ham radio network in the US. -- They criticize because they do not understand that almost every digital proposal the ARRL gets is put forward as a "hatchet job" on other methods that are proposed or that are already in use by many hams. Everybody seems to want their pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol to be given top consideration, at everything and everybody else's expense.
TAPR's IP Only promotion that they had going through Steve Stroh's column in CQ magazine a few years ago is an example of shameless protocol warrior behavior. Literally every digital enthusiast who did not care for amateur TCPIP (the great majority) were instantly marginalized and left out by this program.
This organization that sees nothing wrong with policy that excludes the great majority of hams is looked to for leadership in digital amateur radio.
A recent proposal to the ARRL concerning ARES emergency communications had three of the big wheels from SCS communications "packed" into the committee. SCS is the German company that manufactures the $1,000 PACTOR III modems that take up the bandwidth of fifteen PSK-31 QSOs... Want to guess what modem and protocol their proposal requires for the national emergency communications network?
I have communicated with this group and they have no interest whatsoever in working with anybody doing anything even slightly different. To them, cooperation with other hams would be a waste of time. Unprofitable too, I am sure.
It's precisely this "My way or the Highway" attitude that has made it almost impossible for the ARRL to act upon the great majority of the proposals they get. -- Most of them are loaded up with this same combination of ignorance and arrogance, the kind associated with protocol warrior behavior.
Whatever finally is proposed, good or bad is immediately attacked. In fact, it is almost impossible to discuss packet radio networking anywhere without being attacked by protocol warriors. It is no different in the ARRL's boardroom, which goes far in explaining the ARRL's general lack of progress with digital ham radio.
This is a primary malaise of amateur packet radio in the USA. -- Protocol Warrior behavior.
How I Won the Protocol Wars:
Perhaps because I am an old hand at digital amateur radio and can remember how friendly and inclusive packet radio was before the protocol wars, I have taken an interest in this problem.
Packet radio used to fit in with ham radio a lot better than it does today. It used to be mainstream, but now most really decent hams avoid packet -- because of the intolerant, often nasty "protocol warrior" behavior that is so widely associated with amateur packet radio today. Nobody wants discord and disharmony, or to be run down because of the equipment or software they use.
My first clue in getting past this problem was that in discussions and arguments with Protocol Warrior types, they were always outraged at my unfairness if I brought up the idea of considering their fellow hams. They reacted this way almost every time... This response was so out of whack with everything I have ever known about ham radio that I immediately recognized this as their central weakness, their blind spot; the hole in their internal logic.
Perhaps the most outrageously anti-ham aspect of protocol warrior thinking, I discovered, was the recurring theme of the "protocol" somehow being held in higher consideration than people, (fellow hams) especially when those people use a "competing" protocol. The idea of cooperation with "Joe Ham" was just too repugnant to consider. If you are not of the alleged "elite", then you are out.
Over and over, I saw a lack of respect for their fellow hams, a cynical attitude about the hobby, and a basic inability to play well with others as outstanding characteristics of the protocol warrior. This told me that a good counter-attitude would be to respect hams, and the hobby that brings them together to work and play.
As a packet net-worker, this implied to me that the emphasis on products, projects, paradigm, and protocol was misplaced. -- That the most important network component was it's people, and that people who had built working, usable network used and enjoyed by average hams were the real experts in the art of packet radio.
I quit looking at what equipment a digital group was using, or what protocol they were using, and instead looked for the results they were obtaining. I started looking for people who had discovered how to play well together because every time I found that, I also found impressive accomplishment, no matter what kind of equipment they used.
This blog is getting long, and I believe my main points have been made, so now I will invite you to look over the NETWORK page at USPacket, to see the kind of expertise that matters in the amateur packet radio world today. -- The kind that we need more of, just as we need less of the kind of thinking that drives the "protocol warrior" in us all.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket
http://www.uspacket.org
n5pvl@uspacket.org
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by W4CNG on September 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The same thing occured with Repeaters back in the 70's. The ARRL did not have a firm grasp on the technology or use there of then and sometimes now. Same thing here, and I blasted them then and have now. Win-Link, and unattended Pactor III with a modem that costs as much as 2-3 times as most commonly used HF rigs is just plane DUMB. Single source anything and your house of cards will come a crumbling down. As I have said elsewhere, I will watch this wreck happen from a distance.
Steve W4CNG
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeez Charlie, wasn't that a lot of words just to say "I'm not getting along with TAPR and the ARRL"?
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Packet is a shadow of its former greatness. When several BBSs in the east were cited for auto-forwarding an apparent commercial post, they were fingered by the FCC (only them, not the entire BBS forwarding chain) and charged with a rule violation. This meant that ALL traffic flowing through the eastern hubs would have to be sifted and then put into the network. The ham who introduced the offending post simply stated it wasn't him, and he was off the hook. The paranoia spread east-to-west, with major hub stations having to drastically reduce throughput, until posts were sifted.
The widespread effects of the internet also dealt packet radio a crippling blow.
The FCC, in its blatant ignorance, created the paranoia, which led to MANY sysops shutting down their systems, as it was a huge burden to censor messages, even though their BBS software would "tag" posts that contained keywords, and they were held for review.
Dedicated sysops were getting out of packet BBS activity by the droves. They are not to be blamed.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I FELL ASLEEP 3 TIMES READING THIS ARTICLE.
Perhaps it could be a script for a Hollywood
Horror flick or a drama.
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by W4TYU on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I didn't even know that there was a war. Still don't know what dog "US Packet" has in the fight or why.
And whose ox is getting gored today.
the ole man
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N5PVL on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It looks like I managed to fat-finger the definition at the beginning of the article, which should read:
--------------------------
Protocol Warrior behavior:
Character flaw common among digital ham radio enthusiasts, where consideration of a pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol looms larger in their thoughts and motivation than any consideration of the amateur radio service itself, or for their fellow hams.
--------------------------
I had an extra "is" in there, and though some may debate what the meaning of is is, I believe that most will agree that I had one too many of them in that definition.
Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You hit the nail right on the head and drove it in fully with one whack! Great article and thank you very much to take the time to write it and post it here. I have been thru all the differing modes and protocols and instead of improving they get worse as far as frequency space used and QRM caused by Robot stations scanning many frequency's on all HF bands.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It's precisely this "My way or the Highway" attitude that has made it almost impossible for the ARRL to act upon the great majority of the proposals they get."
This is a very common attitude in our culture. Instead of working together to achieve our common goal, we end up competeting against one another.
This is not limited to packet or even ham radio. It is a trait of our society in general. For example, instead of working together and sharing research and information to find a cure for a disease, everyone competes against each other and fiercely guards research so they can be the first to find the cure for the disease.
Somehow, we call this protocal warrior mentality "progress." I don't understand why we need to be so competitive against one another . Perhaps, it is a result of too much Monday night football over the years. (me vs. them mentality)
You said,
"Whatever finally is proposed, good or bad is immediately attacked."
This is what I refer to as a closed mind. European cultures like Sweden have technically advanced far beyond our cultural capabilities because they are not limiting themselves in their thought process. Our culture tends to be closed minded and we don't particulaly embrace change as a good thing.
This is further validated when you stated the following comment;
"I have communicated with this group and they have no interest whatsoever in working with anybody doing anything even slightly different."
"Nobody wants discord and disharmony, or to be run down because of the equipment or software they use."
My veiw is that since this is an experimental hobby, and since we are not all born as clones, we should all be trying something different. This activity may actually best serve the idea of advancment of the Amateur Radio hobby through the experimentation process.
My station is fully equipped for VHF packet operation. However, I am not currently active in this area due to a lack of interest.
I ran a large BBS system back in the late 80's early 90's and spent a lot of my own money on upgrading equipment and software for the benefit of the users of the system. I had come to the conclusion that being a sysop was just another commitment headache as the users on the BBS wanted everything done "thier way."
The way I figure things is if they didn't own the equipment, they didn't have any priveledge to say how I should operate it.
Perhaps I will consider putting up a dedicated packet node one day. However, I would certainly want it to be an enjoyable experience free from all the rhetoric that often causes many sysops to throw in the towel.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The author opines:
To a protocol warrior it is "OK" to undercut or marginalize their fellow hams, as long as those hams are doing something different. Since they use a "competing" product, project, paradigm, or protocol, then they are the "competition", worthy only of hostility.
Doesn't this remind you of the ARRL's hostillity toward those that disagree with their proposal to "dumb down" ham radio"?
W9WHE
|
| |
|
Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KT8K on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article, and quite right IMHO.
I have been interested in the digital data modes, but held off getting involved due to the apparent ever-decreasing standardization and ever-increasing amount of detailed knowledge one must have to get into it. Fortunately I haven't had too many brushes with "protocol warriors" (outside of reading their posts here on eham.net). I have been thinking about adding PSK-31 to my station, but feel quite snowed under by the many choices and daunting technical complexity involved even in just making initial choices. I may still get there someday (I have bought a couple of different sound card interfaces and intend to get at least one of them hooked up and running in the next year).
73 & best of luck to all de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KL1PL on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On a more positive note. Up here in Anchorage, Packet is alive and well. We use it during every local VHF net as a means to rely traffic and train packet users.
While the internet may have impacted the use of the digital modes in the lower 48 states, up here we prepare for the worst case. Major winter storm, earthquake or human activity could result in the Internet being knocked out for us. Just as those nice Cell Phone systems could be seriously degraded and landline telephones be reduced to local only calls.
Digital modes over VHF/HF would survive.
Due to the ability to pass digital traffic in very short transmissions, be it packet, PSK31 or whatever mode you choose. We retain the ability to get the word out via digital modes that is readily available to most Hams. Since today you can add packet capabilities with simple sound card computer interfaces or even buy a radio with the option built in any Ham can use packet. Looking around today seeing the devastation from 3 major hurricanes so far this year, I have to wonder if IRLP and Echolick are accepted as valuable tools for these emergencies why is the alternative of Packet not being revisted?
Not trying to start anything, just wanted to let you know not everyone has forgotten Packet.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N2LJD on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice posting; unfortunately, I have to disagree that you've "won" the war. Instead, your tactic seems to be avoidance of the Protocol Warriors. I don't see this war being won - ever - unless the human mind overcomes its ancient "my tribe - good; your tribe - bad" programming.
Two examples - what does one think of when one hears the word 'barbarian' or the word 'vandal?' Originally barbarian was simply a Greek word meaning 'not a greek' and Vandal was the name of a tribe. Their meanings have certainly changed over the centuries!
Good luck and enjoy your mode(s)/protocol(s) of choice!
73
Joe
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by AA9ZS on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you for the thought provoking article. Perhaps
you would consider the following subjects for another
illuminating diatribe.
Character flaw is common among Morse code ham radio enthusiasts...
Character flaw is common among AM ham radio enthusiasts...
Character flaw is common among sideband ham radio enthusiasts...
Character flaw is common among contesting ham radio enthusiasts...
It's shame that posts which seem to be crafted only for
their devisiveness are so common.
73,
AA9ZS
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
do you really want to win a protocol war (I didn't know one was declared!)... supply a CHEAP, EFFECTIVE, SIMPLE TO USE protocol.
The ARRL was wrong (as pointed out) with a lack of support for FM repeaters (Wayne made a ton of money for his magazine), they were against SSB too, and the grand experiment with PACTOR3 and a kilobuck modem is NOT going to fly with the rank and file membership. Need an example? Remember the ARES software package? It was NOT supported by the ARRL so it failed... and AX.25 boxes were everywhere back then.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N6AJR on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
seems to me the digital modes have "done filled the packet void" .
A computer ( I already own), a radio ( I already own), a piece of gear like the rig blaster or rascal or roll your own ( $10 to $100 depending on level of convience), and some free soft ware.. will do about the same thing, call it psk31, hellschriber, amtor , or what ever..
I don't need no stinkin protocols..
Problem Solved.. eh.. all running through a Fan Dipole..
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KC0ARF on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
I am deeply involved with computers, and am not going to put up a digital anything until the following things are changed:
* Faster than 1200 baud speeds for local traffic. I like the D-STAR, but they are beyond my pricepoint. They do offer nice speeds though. I would like to see 56K.
* Encryption of the data. It is too easy for someone else to put up a network and fire garbage into me with passwords and logins flying in the clear. I know Linux better than the back of my hand, and have encrypted VPNs up and running.
* No more Morse for HF. I am not going to learn Morse Code to do digital and SSB on the radio. I have a good 50 years of life remaining (hopefully), and can afford to wait a bit for HF.
I like IP as I am most familiar with it (firewalls, applications, multiple hardware solutions). I think with an IP network, the sky will be the limit on what we drive to do with it.
Christian KC0ARF
|
| |
|
How To Win the Wireless Data War
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I find amazing is just how behind we are when it comes to data & "high speed". I hear excuses about why it hasn't happed but the reasons are certainly NOT hardware related. Take a look at this building block:
http://www.eeproductcenter.com/rf-micro/brief/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=30000302
http://www.maxstream.net/products/xtend/module/9xtend-datasheet.pdf
Why hasn't something like this 902-928MHz FHSS 1 watt module made its' way into the amateur domain? RS-232/422/485 buss, datarate@115.2KBPS & 65,000 network addresses possible along with the ability to provide 10 different FHSS network pairs to coexist.
I personally can do more unrestricted data without a license than with one. No callsign, no content restrictions, no one's business.
What do you think?
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Use the modes you enjoy....dont worry about what others do. This hobby is about enjoyment, not worrying yourself sick over whos doing what to whom.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Did anyone bother to read his entire article. He lost my interest real fast. In future articles use the KISS method. I know in technical articles we like to get deep into it and that is fine but this is just a bitch session article...I think...I didn't read the entire thing. Perhaps I will print it out and read it at night to help and put me to sleep
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0ARF said...
Hello,
I am deeply involved with computers, and am not going to put up a digital anything until the following things are changed:
* Faster than 1200 baud speeds for local traffic. I like the D-STAR, but they are beyond my pricepoint. They do offer nice speeds though. I would like to see 56K.
* Encryption of the data. It is too easy for someone else to put up a network and fire garbage into me with passwords and logins flying in the clear. I know Linux better than the back of my hand, and have encrypted VPNs up and running.
* No more Morse for HF. I am not going to learn Morse Code to do digital and SSB on the radio. I have a good 50 years of life remaining (hopefully), and can afford to wait a bit for HF.
I like IP as I am most familiar with it (firewalls, applications, multiple hardware solutions). I think with an IP network, the sky will be the limit on what we drive to do with it.
Christian KC0ARF
1) You can use faster baud rates for LOCAL service, just go higher in frequency. 802.11b is common on 2400MHz HAM BANDS.
2)cannot encrypt - FCC RULES!
3)one less station on HF. Just learn the damned code, it will not KILL you and you JUST MIGHT LIKE TO NEW ACTION.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What a drag!!! I thought ham radio was supposed to be fun....guess I was wrong.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<< Christian kc0arf: "* Encryption of the data. It is too easy for someone else to put up a network and fire garbage into me with passwords and logins flying in the clear. I know Linux better than the back of my hand, and have encrypted VPNs up and running.">>>>>
Please reconsider. One gentleman posted above what happened to the packet network in this country when a single commercial message was passed, intentionally or not, through some autoforwarding hubs.
Can you *imagine* the hue and cry that would ensue should encrypted transmission be brought into the amateur bands? Self-policing works very well with in-the-clear data streams. That isn't true with encrypted data. I can just see FCC inspectors making unannounced visits to peoples stations to review what is going out and coming in to the station over its encrypted links. I don't want that. I don't know of anyone who would want that. If you can come up with an enforcement method to insure that encrypted data streams are not being used for purposes at odds with the regulations that is *not* intrusive and is not burdensome, I might consider it.
I also think we need some clarification on this subject from someone with more legal standing that I have. I read the regulations to allow encryption of protocol setup messages - that is part of channel security and not data content security. If that login and password is part of the protocol setup and is sent in an encrypted manner that may very well pass muster. At least as long as the protocol is described in the public domain in such a manner that a technically competent engineer could duplicate the protocol (i.e. make sure someone isn't hiding messages in the protocol setup <grin>). The data content would continue to be sent in the clear.
Is there any reason that wouldn't suit your needs?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I read the regulations to allow encryption of protocol setup messages - that is part of channel security and not data content security"
Who really cares? Data is data...
As far as I am concerned, the rules need to be changed to reflect the technology or they should just be ignored. It is not like they don't know how to reverse any OEM format. If I were to use it on shared Part 15 bands, who would really be able to figure out who is who?
In using a pair of the 900 FHSS radio cards I posted earlier links to, no one uses 902-928MHz, so no one will know my call or care about my encryption. If I maintain a link under 4 watts ERP, I'm not obligated to identify as a ham since the station is legal under Part 15 certification. Only if I go over 4 watts under Part 97 do I have to identify. 115KBPS is great when compared to mere 9600 baud.
I see the sole reason why ham radio is dragging anchor is far too many rules & !#@$@#! crybabies who would rather argue legality for weeks than advance us forward in technology. 9600baud packet is embarassing in 2004!!!
It is easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission...
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KA9OKT on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Isn't this a little scary?
"As far as I am concerned, the rules need to be changed to reflect the technology or they should just be ignored."
A new car will go well over 100 miles an hour in a school zone. Should the speed limit be increased to reflect the technology of new cars, or should we just ignore the speed limit? If you go fast enough, you might not be caught.
Like it or not, there are rules to everything we do. If you don't like the rules and regulations of ham radio, ignoring them isn't the right answer in my opinion, just like ignoring the speed limit in the school zone because we technically can isn't the right answer.
I really hope you were just joking in your post.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KY1V on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA9OKT wrote:
"A new car will go well over 100 miles an hour in a school zone. Should the speed limit be increased to reflect the technology of new cars, or should we just ignore the speed limit? If you go fast enough, you might not be caught."
If you go even faster, you might not be seen!
I like your post. It makes perfect sense!
David ~ KY1V
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by K1ADW on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Christian KC0ARF: "Encryption of the data. It is too easy for someone else to put up a network and fire garbage into me with passwords and logins flying in the clear."
Encryption, data integrity and user authentication are three seperate things. You need not obscure your messages or data to provice secure logins and verify the validity of every messageand packet. A message roughly stating "I am K1ADW" with a correct message authentication code (and an embedded nonce for freshness) would achieve it's purpose securly and in the clear. All subsequent messages could be prosessed similarly.
AFAIK this is compatible with the rules in letter and intent.
Adam K1ADW
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am deeply involved with computers, and am not going to put up a digital anything until the following things are changed:"
So you're not going to participate until we play by your rules??? Reaaaly good approach. Word of advice...don't hold your breath... besides that, there's already hams networking at ridiculously high speeds locally, encryption really isn't needed, and what does Morse on HF have to do with high speed data in the GHz range? Sounds like you just want a justification for sitting around complaining and doing nothing.
"the rules need to be changed to reflect the technology or they should just be ignored."
Hey, it takes very little effort to file a rule-change petition with the FCC. Why not stop complaining and try to do something productive for the betterment of the hobby??? It's obvious you have the intelligence. USE IT.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N2LJD on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0ARF - you've missed the boat on why our communications are in the clear - it's international (i.e.treaty) requirements so ham radio doesn't become spy radio or interfere with certain governments' control of paid telecommunications (such as UK's telephone service, and others). If you want to pass information that's 'nobody else's business' write a letter or encrypted e-mail and pass that way.
K4RAF - If you're not joking about ignoring the rules, please consider turning in your license; we've enough problems. See the Enforcement Letters section of the ARRL webpage for the most glaring examples.
KA9OKT - Beautiful analogy, thank you.
73
Joe
Not afraid to speak in the clear on the air by any mode
|
| |
|
It once was fun but now it's done
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These attitudes are the very same reasons why I won't bother developing any ham digital applications this late in the game. We are way too far behind, too slow & lathargic to climb back on the cutting edge we once had. You are more concerned with 100 year old CW than a 100mbps link! Then you claim to "advancing the art".
What I am not joking around about are those of you who can cite the rules to prevent something from being done & then tell others to "go do this or that". This has always been the problem facing developers as far back as I can remember, including running TCP/IP over AX.25 in 1983. Never changed except for getting worse.
Now if I simply apply Part 15 ERP to off the shelf hardware, on the same shared frequencies, I don't need to ID at all. That includes any encryption, speed or mode!
Quite an incentive for licensing isn't it?
Go to http://www.maxsell.com/radio_badge.htm & get yourself one!
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by HERTZ on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF: "Who really cares? Data is data"
I agree with you! Nobody gets hurt by having faster data transfer. Are there any "virtual" children waiting to be run over by super fast data streams? Don't think so!!!
K4RAF: "...the rules need to be changed to reflect the technology or they should just be ignored"
I can agree with the first half, but not the second. Outmoded regulations tend to hinder progress, a la megatime, for many years. Unfortunately, regulations still have to be observed... sad but true.
Cheers,
'73s
Hertz
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> A new car will go well over 100 miles an hour in a
> school zone. Should the speed limit be increased to
> reflect the technology of new cars, or should we
> just ignore the speed limit? If you go fast enough,
> you might not be caught.
Good example of why analogies make poor arguments. The problem with this analogy is that it isn't. The original author was talking about something that was hardly life-threatening and yet the analogy is all about scary life-threatening events -- and, of course, it brings the safety of children into the picture.
A closer analogy to what was being suggested: Exceeding the speed limit by 5 MPH because you believe modern cars/drivers/roads are safe enough to do so.
Er, wait, most drivers do that most of the time.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KC0ARF on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
I did not miss any boat concerning Amateur radio digital communications. I understand why it is desirable in good faith to have transmissions in the clear, and keep everyone happy and open-book.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an open-book society.
I understand the difference between encrypted authentication and having the entire package encrypted. I desire the whole encryption package point-to-point because that can be handled in the protocol (as a VPN) on Networking Layers 1-3, and leave the applications alone. Otherwise, we will have to encode every single application to be used on this network to use the new protocols, and that could be a lot of work. Setup an RF VPN and be done with it. I want it easy and simple -- the application should not care if it is on the internet, or on the proposed RF network.
As we are talking Local Communications here (VHF, UHF), I don't have to worry about International thoughts on the topic, except perhaps Canada. I am considering an FCC formal proposal to allow for public-domain blowfish and other public domain protocols to be allowed to create a VPN. Anyone can then collect the data, and then knock on my door for the key, and I'll let them have at it. This is not too different than me recording a Morse Code conversation, and knocking on someone else's door to decrypt the Morse Code into English.
Why the great concern for security? I am liable for all transmissions coming through my station, regardless if I typed/transmitted them or not. Let's say that a disaster strikes, and a governmental agency uses my equipment. They transmit out an internal statement on email to other places, and that internal confidental information is picked up by someone in the clear. They run to the newspaper with it. Or worse, they start a panic with it (think about an internal Nuclear problem, with radiation release information and expected casualties!) I am liable for that information release, and I will not have of it!
With ARES and other groups wanting to provide backup services to governments, there will be transmissions of sensitive data. I want that secured.
In Milwaukee, I had a normal TNC running on 2m. Found one day that a local Milwaukee ham was using it as a relay point between his house and his buddies. He was transmitting disgusting adult material interlaced with foul language. He then got on my case for yanking the station. I vowed that I would never put an open digital system on the air again.
I am going to check out the links for out-of-band projects. Those may be just what I am looking for.
Christian
|
| |
|
RE: ARES & GOVT COMMS BACKUP
|
|
|
by N2LJD on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0ARF - As they teach in the Emergency Communications classes
http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html
sensitive information, like a radiation release, is not information we're to transmit over the air. Recommended modes for such includes faxes, etc. Regardless of HF, VHF UHF there's still treaty requirements. As you noted, low power license-free Part 15 comms is probably where you want to be.
Glad you had the internal fortitude to tell that Milwaukee knucklehead 'wrong answer.'
73
Joe
|
| |
|
RE: ARES & GOVT COMMS BACKUP
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Regardless of HF, VHF UHF there's still treaty requirements..."
Really? Where are these supposed treaties?
While that might sound nice to you, it is not true. Each telecomm body governs things like frequency & mode on VHF/UHF, HF is generally treatied internationally but depends on purpose.
|
| |
|
RE: ARES & GOVT COMMS BACKUP
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<< As we are talking Local Communications here (VHF, UHF), I don't have to worry about International thoughts on the topic, except perhaps Canada.>>>>
Whoa! Don't forget Mexico, Russia (close proximity to Alaska), Bermuda, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, maybe Venezuala, etc. All of these countries are within easy reach on VHF and probably even lower UHF. Mexico, Canada, and and probably Cuba are within easy reach in the Ghz bands on a pretty solid basis.
<<<< I am considering an FCC formal proposal to allow for public-domain blowfish and other public domain protocols to be allowed to create a VPN. Anyone can then collect the data, and then knock on my door for the key, and I'll let them have at it.>>>>
But, you see, once this gets gets widespread then they will be knocking on everyones door. Once the government gets your key, just how safe do you suppose it will be? How long before someone gets all the keys for everybody and posts them on the internet somewhere? All the expense and all the effort will be out the door and we will still have to live with intrusive visits from the FCC investigators and with the background checks, and whatever else may come along as an unintended consequence.
<<<<< This is not too different than me recording a Morse Code conversation, and knocking on someone else's door to decrypt the Morse Code into English.>>>>>
Except it doesn't require the FCC to do the knocking. We can self-police.
<<<<Why the great concern for security? I am liable for all transmissions coming through my station, regardless if I typed/transmitted them or not. Let's say that a disaster strikes, and a governmental agency uses my equipment. They transmit out an internal statement on email to other places, and that internal confidental information is picked up by someone in the clear. They run to the newspaper with it. Or worse, they start a panic with it (think about an internal Nuclear problem, with radiation release information and expected casualties!) I am liable for that information release, and I will not have of it!>>>>>>
That is why many of us are proposing that this kind of information should not be carried on the ham bands. The government has access to all kinds of frequencies. If you want to offer your services to the government in setting up radio links to carry high speed data using government frequencies, then I'd be all for it. (think MARS. think digital MARS. Think maybe such a system already exists. Think maybe they could use your help) At least it won't cause the entire enforcement culture for amateur radio to have to change to allow you to carry encrypted data over radio links.
<<<<With ARES and other groups wanting to provide backup services to governments, there will be transmissions of sensitive data. I want that secured.>>>
I think you should talk to some ARES people about what communications they carry today and whether they need to be encrypted.
I have a big problem with the whole concept of the use of amateur radio to back up a commercial service - i.e. service provider links to the internet. I'm not sure anyone has even investigated the legitimacy of us doing that. If a county EOC has an internet link provided by a local internet provider then the email going over that link is covered under a contract - i.e. a commercial service. That email, because of being carried by a commercial carrier, has at least a passing association with being considered commercial. If that email is, for whatever reason, redirected to an amateur link, can that then be characterized as having amateur radio carrying commercial traffic since it is acting as a backup to a commercially provided service?
I think there are some significant legal ramifications that need to be investigated in detail before we jump in whole-hog to carrying email for anyone outside of already recognized 3rd-party traffic.
<<<<In Milwaukee, I had a normal TNC running on 2m. Found one day that a local Milwaukee ham was using it as a relay point between his house and his buddies. He was transmitting disgusting adult material interlaced with foul language. He then got on my case for yanking the station. I vowed that I would never put an open digital system on the air again.>>>>>
There have been ways around this for 20 years. Don't turn on digipeating. Run a bbs with access lists and passwords to restrict ability to leave messages. Again, this is not a case that content encryption would fix. It is a problem with channel security.
If you think your situation was bad wait until encryption is legal on the ham bands. Someone above mentioned the fear of us becoming a spy band. I would be more afraid of us becoming the PORN band.
Can you imagine the restictive law enforcment we ALL would have to endure if it was thought by the general public that the ham bands were being used to carry CHILD PORN on encrypted links that even the FCC could not monitor?
It's scary to even speculate about what the FCC would be forced into doing should this come to pass.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by K1CJS on September 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I restate what I posted a couple of months ago in the survey section--I still use my AEA 232 modem daily, as a paperweight in the shack.
What wars? Please explain. Packet seems to be all but dead and you say you won the wars? I don't understand......
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0ARF says,
(Re: Encrypting radio signals discussion)
"As we are talking Local Communications here (VHF, UHF), I don't have to worry about International thoughts on the topic, except perhaps Canada. I am considering an FCC formal proposal to allow for public-domain blowfish and other public domain protocols to be allowed to create a VPN. Anyone can then collect the data, and then knock on my door for the key, and I'll let them have it. This is not too different than me recording a Morse Code conversation, and knocking on someone else's door to decrypt the Morse Code into English.
Why the great concern for security? I am liable for all transmissions coming through my station, regardless if I typed/transmitted them or not."
Interesting Point...
This brings me to the idea that if you own a repeater, and then you "secure" it's front door security with a "PL tone" as a key. Then are you not restricting the repeaters access to certain users that only have that specific "PL tone key" ?
This seems to be the same thing in terms of providing a user an encryption "key" to unlock access to a specific digital radio network.
One could argue the point that PL tones used on repeaters are already a form of data encryption key technology.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by W2SRH on September 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<I desire the whole encryption package point-to-point because that can be handled in the protocol (as a VPN) on Networking Layers 1-3, and leave the applications alone. Otherwise, we will have to encode every single application to be used on this network to use the new protocols, and that could be a lot of work. Setup an RF VPN and be done with it.>>
I don't know what applications you're talking about specifically, however most applications that are in use over secure networks already can do this without end-to-end encryption. For example, CRAM-MD5, DIGEST-MD5, SRP, GSSAPI just to name a few, all of which are supported by the Cyrus SASL package, an open source authentication library (roughly). More at http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/
In short, one doesn't have to have end-to-end encryption to both verify correctly and safely a client connection. The methods listed above all work on the principal of "shared secrets" (if I know that A=foo, and I encrypt a random number with A and send it to you, and you send me back the random number, then you must know A=foo too) where the actual password is never passed en clair. And since you say:
<<the application should not care if it is on the internet, or on the proposed RF network.>>
Well fancy that, many of the services one would connect to on the internet already have built-in support for SASL, so it would work just the same; mail programs being one of the biggest users. And those things that don't support SASL likely still support things like CRAM-MD5 and GSSAPI somehow. Everyone knows that plaintext passwords are bad, so just about everything out there that takes a password has some way of keeping it safe.
Now, I'm all for security and encryption. I run my home network with encryption turned on, disallow all but SSH connections to home and work computers and only from specific IP addresses at that. Some have said I'm overzealous when it comes to security, but they tend to thank me when their data has not been compromised because the grad student down the hall who wrote their password on their monitor. But in this case, what would encryption buy us? More headaches for those who have to monitor the airwaves is one thing. And why do we need it? So far as I can tell, two things: authentication and authorization (you are who you say you are, and you're allowed to be here). Secure authentication can be done without encryption, so for what other reason could the encryption be needed? Or are people just wanting to hook KW amps up to their Linksys WAPs running broken encryption schemes :>
--
Steve Huston
Unix Systems Administrator
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on September 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ummm...I have a question....
We ARE talking local communication here, right?
Suppose there is a major disaster and hams are running a wideband data network north of 900 Mhz.
Now under a disaster scenario, who's going to be listening to their scanner (remember we're dealing with John Q Public), hear the signal, correctly identify it as a ham station with a specific protocol and then have the equipment to snatch it off the air and read it?
And if they are able to successfully do that...why are we needed in the first place?
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by W6PMR3 on September 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone acually still cares about packet??? What a dead and BORING issue.
I fell asleep four times.
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by N2LJD on September 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF wrote:
"Regardless of HF, VHF UHF there's still treaty requirements..."
Really? Where are these supposed treaties?
While that might sound nice to you, it is not true. Each telecomm body governs things like frequency & mode on VHF/UHF, HF is generally treatied internationally but depends on purpose."
Here's one treaty regarding VHF (220MHz). Accessible from FCC website by searching for "Line A":
"Definition of "Line A"
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 1989
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: Acting Chief, Treaty Branch
SUBJECT: Definition of "Line A"
TO: John A. Chudovan, Data Automation Liaison Officer, PRB
REFERENCE: Your memorandum dated May 30, 1989
The definition of Line A in Section 90.7 is taken from Paragraph 2 of Arrangement A contained in the revised Technical Annex to the agreement between the United States and Canada on the "Coordination and Use of Radio Frequencies Above 30 Megacycles per Second", signed at Ottawa on June 16 and 24, 1965. As you indicate, some points on the line are defined as passing through certain points of cities. These points have been interpreted differently by various persons who have attempted to draw, or enter into a computer, points along this line. As you have noted, there are at least three sets of points used for the four cities listed. Because these points are subject to interpretation, it would be difficult to argue which set is correct; however, for the sake of consistency, it would be desirable that the same set of points be used by everyone.
A review of detailed maps indicates that the first of the three sets listed in your memorandum is the most accurate (assuming a typographical error in the minutes of longitude for Duluth) and is close to that used by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In order that all agencies of the Federal Government are defining Line A in the same way, we would recommend that we adopt the same points as used by NTIA. They are as follows:
Searsport ME Bangor ME Duluth MN Aberdeen WA
44-27-00 44-46-00 46-36-00 46-58-00 N
68-55-00 68-47-00 92-10-00 123-50-00 W
You may wish to note that NTIA is using the following points for defining each end of the line:
Easternmost
Point Westernmost
Point
44-00-00 46-37-00 N
68-40-00 125-00-00 W
We recommend that these end points be used or that the line segments be extended, if necessary, in the same direction from the above end points.
If there are any questions, you are welcome to contact me at 653-8135.
Donald F. Weiland"
So, before you go shooting your mouth off about what's true or not, learn what you obviously did not in your licensing 'studies.'
LJD
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LJD,
I would point out that neither of your treaty examples has anything to do with digital protocol, mode or speed of any US signal, as I was referring to. They are simply drawing imaginary lines to avoid interference along an international borderline due to clashes in allocations. I reiterate that the FCC sets the protocol/mode/speed/bandwidth restrictions above 30MHz here in the US, as Industry Canada does in their country & so on. Below 30MHz might be subject to treaty with the ITU. Yes, band allocations are treatied but that is not under discussion here.
BTW: I took my tests as given by the FCC, back in 1982. I was good enough for them then so I laugh at petty snipes now. I have worked in RF Engineering since 1983 & hold a surviving GROL with endorsements.
All you have to offer is a technicality, followed by an attempted swipe at my studies? Maybe they are right about ones' initials as a vanity call?
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by G5FSD on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Protocol Warrior behavior - a character flaw common among digital ham radio enthusiasts, where consideration of a pet product, project, paradigm, or protocol looms larger in their thoughts and motivation than any consideration of the amateur radio service itself, or for their fellow hams."
This is exactly what happens on internet discussions where CW Protocol Warriors have no consideration of their fellow hams who don't wish to know CW.
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N5PVL on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am encouraged to see that several hams responding here understood and enjoyed "How I Won the Protocolo Wars".
For those individuals, I'd like to suggest the following article at Townhall.com, entitled "Intellectual Morons", as it touches on the same subject:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Flynn20040921.shtml
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I would point out that neither of your treaty examples has anything to do with digital protocol, mode or speed of any US signal, as I was referring to."
You said you didn't have to worry about international thoughts on the subject. That is far from being only concerned about treaties.
International thoughts on the matter *DO* count.
"I reiterate that the FCC sets the protocol/mode/speed/bandwidth restrictions above 30MHz here in the US, as Industry Canada does in their country & so on. Below 30MHz might be subject to treaty with the ITU. Yes, band allocations are treatied but that is not under discussion here."
No, the use of encrypted data streams is under discussion. Our international neighbors would most certainly be concerned about the US implementing such in the amateur bands since radio signals, even vhf and uhf, know no international borders.
"All you have to offer is a technicality, followed by an attempted swipe at my studies? Maybe they are right about ones' initials as a vanity call?"
You haven't really offered anything substantial on the subject at all. How about addressing what would happen to our international relations if Canada discovered that US amateurs were using encrypted transmissions in the amateur band to send pornographic materials into Canada?
Do you suppose Canada would have no thoughts on the subject at all? Do you suppose they could, in no way, affect what the federal government, especially the FCC, implements to prevent further such actions in the future? Do you *really* suppose the US would stand behind the claim that there is no international treaty covering the vhf and uhf bands and that they, therefore, plan to do nothing about such a situation?
If you truly believe that then, regardless of your tecnical expertise, you are hopelessly naive concerning international relations. If you don't believe it, then your claims about no international treaties being involved is only a smokescreen.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by N2LJD on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR - Thank you; perhaps your posting will shed light where mine apparently failed to.
LJD
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Naive is continually citing 'porn' as a technical barrier to bolster your position against advancement. I guess the internet isn't in Canada so they are waiting to sneak porn over the border on ham radio? WOW, that's naive with intent to distribute.
Naive is also thinking that any non-military encoding or encryption is secure at all. They can intercept anything non-mil, including VoIP, WEP, PGP, iDEN, etc.
I ordered some 902-928MHz & 2.4GHz SS radio cards & am busy on application using RS232, 422 & 485, in order to substantially advance the links & simulcasts I plan.
You can argue all you want, using your naive legal view of threats posed by default technology. We used to lead, now we can't even follow using your "logic".
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Naive is continually citing 'porn' as a technical barrier to bolster your position against advancement."
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Why do you suppose ham radio was shut down during WWII? Please explain why you feel the federal government would act any differently today than it did then given a risk of the amateur frequencies being misused.
"I guess the internet isn't in Canada so they are waiting to sneak porn over the border on ham radio? WOW, that's naive with intent to distribute."
So what is your point? Using your logic, no porn would be distributed by paper mail since the internet is so much better. Yet, we know that isn't true. Neither is your intimated conclusion.
"Naive is also thinking that any non-military encoding or encryption is secure at all. They can intercept anything non-mil, including VoIP, WEP, PGP, iDEN, etc."
Intercept is not the same as decoding.
And you seem to be missing the entire point. Is that on purpose?
The Amateur Radio Service is supposed to be a SELF-POLICED service. How many hams do you know with the technical expertise and the computer power to break down encrypted data streams in order to accomplish SELF-POLICING?
If the ARS can no longer self-police itself, then what is left? I can see two options. How many can you envision? Are any of them where you would like to see the ARS taken?
"I ordered some 902-928MHz & 2.4GHz SS radio cards & am busy on application using RS232, 422 & 485, in order to substantially advance the links & simulcasts I plan."
As long as those operate under Part 15 rules, there are no restrictions to encryption. I believe the point-to-point record for such units is over 20 miles. That opens a lot of area for experimentation.
"You can argue all you want, using your naive legal view of threats posed by default technology. We used to lead, now we can't even follow using your "logic". "
There is no reason we can't continue to lead. We just have to find ways to do it which are compatible with the use of the PUBLIC airwaves. The ARS doesn't own the spectrum it uses. We are just allowed to use it. If the spectrum is misused in a way which causes the public to mistrust the ARS, it can easily be taken away.
Do you remember what the FCC was warned about when they took the 11meter band away and gave it over to the CB service? The warnings came true - so much so that they are beginning to take over the low end of 10m. The same thing applies to encryption. It is a slippery slope that no one I know wants to start down.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Naive is also thinking that any non-military
> encoding or encryption is secure at all. They can
> intercept anything non-mil, including VoIP, WEP,
> PGP, iDEN, etc.
There are non-military cyphers that the military has no advantage over civilians in breaking.
Most of the better cyphers were developed by civilians and are in use by civilians.
However, security attacks go against the weakest link, not the strongest. In the history of code breaking, something like 90% (estimated) of all successes involve compromising human beings, or stealing equipment.
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to
> repeat it.
Those who do are doomed to make new mistakes.
> Why do you suppose ham radio was shut down during
> WWII?
For reasons that are no longer applicable. The global communications scene is radically different than it was in WWII.
> Please explain why you feel the
> federal government would act any differently today
> than it did then given a risk of the amateur
> frequencies being misused.
Because there are so many other far easier ways to abuse the system, and the federal government isn't able to cope with them. It won't have time to put effort into dealing with a tiny rivulet of ham abuse when it's being flooded by other abuses on easier to access media.
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N5PVL on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Data encryption:
Over the last fifteen years or so, one of the top five newbie amateur tcpip FAQ's has been:
"I want to run a high-speed packet radio link between my home and place of work... How can I set up data encryption for that link?"
This is an old, old issue, not a new one. The only thing new is that instead of whining about it as usual, somebody at ARRL/TAPR decoded to just sneak it intohe recent bandwidth proposal.
No reasonable expanation for this "need" is given because there is none. - Just the usual round of bogus rationalizations, etc.
People who care more about their pet product, protocol or paradigm more than about the hobby or their fellow hams, doing what comes natural to that breed.
Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to
>> repeat it.
>Those who do are doomed to make new mistakes.
No doubt about that.
>> Why do you suppose ham radio was shut down during
>> WWII?
>For reasons that are no longer applicable. The global
>communications scene is radically different than it
>was in WWII.
I disagree. The reason was fear of misuse. With no use there could be no misuse. Exactly the same logic could be used by the government today.
>> Please explain why you feel the
>> federal government would act any differently today
>> than it did then given a risk of the amateur
>> frequencies being misused.
>Because there are so many other far easier ways to
>abuse the system, and the federal government isn't
>able to cope with them. It won't have time to put
>effort into dealing with a tiny rivulet of ham abuse
>when it's being flooded by other abuses on easier to
>access media.
I reiterate. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You have just stated exactly what so many gun owners thought about the odds of having semi-auto rifles banned based on appearance. There were so many other guns being abused, such as S&W 38spl revolvers and sawed off .30-30 rifles, that the use of a few guns with black plastic stocks wouldn't be worth the time for the government to concentrate on. Guess we all know what happened there.
The exact same thing could happen to us. It isn't a matter of the quantity of abuse. It is a matter of the public perception of the problem and the political pressure put on the government to "solve" the problem.
The government not having time to address the problem is the **worst** possible scenario. It puts them in a position where the "easy" fix becomes the simplest and least costly avenue to pursue while solving the problem of the political pressure. Who knows what the "easy" fix would turn out to be. God forbid it would be shutting down part of the ARS operation or a total restriction to NO digital modes.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by AB8OJ on September 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS wrote:
"I restate what I posted a couple of months ago in the survey section--I still use my AEA 232 modem daily, as a paperweight in the shack."
Chris, in all seriousness, if that's all your AEA modem is doing for you, I'd be glad to pay the shipping cost to take it off your hands and put it to good use. I'll even send you a rock from my back yard as a substitute paperweight. :-) :-)
Packet (and emergency digital networking in general) is getting a good bit of attention in Michigan these days. I'm confident that many otherwise-unused TNCs can find good homes here.
73,
-Ed- AB8OJ
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim,
Your gun owner analogy doesn't work in this case.
The "assault rifle" ban came at a time when such weapons were being used in a large and growing percentage of violent crimes, and in many jurisdictions, the crooks had more firepower than the cops.
To be comprable, the use of amateur radio for nefarious activites would have to be large compared to the use of other communications means for the same purpose, and the personal safety of public service officers would have to be compromised.
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Your gun owner analogy doesn't work in this case.
The "assault rifle" ban came at a time when such weapons were being used in a large and growing percentage of violent crimes, and in many jurisdictions, the crooks had more firepower than the cops."
They were most definitely not being used in a LARGE percentage of violent crimes. A growing percentage perhaps but still a very, very small percentage of the total. The largest percentage of crimes involving guns involved small revolvers and pistols. It still does. As a gun dealer during the time prior to the gun ban, I can tell you that the police auctions, at least in this part of the country, very seldom had what is now considered an assault weapon included. And remember, none of these guns were actually banned. Only their appearances were changed. If they were so useful in crime and were a large, growing percentage of crime in the late 80's, we would be innundated by crimes being committed with them right now - yet we are not. Not as many sawed-off .30-30's are being used, they just aren't as common as they once were. But .38spl's are just as common as well as .25's. Glock's seem to have taken the spot once held by the .30-30.
"To be comprable, the use of amateur radio for nefarious activites would have to be large compared to the use of other communications means for the same purpose, and the personal safety of public service officers would have to be compromised. "
No, all that would have to happen is one or two cases would have to receive a lot of publicity - just like Columbine. Once the political pressure hits, things take on a life of their own.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> They were most definitely not being used in a LARGE
> percentage of violent crimes.
They were used in 100% of shooting sprees in California at that time, and close to 75% of armed robberies. "If it bleeds it leads", and there was a rash of such crimes.
Actually, that's what's so laughable about the CA version of the ban -- they're still the weapon of choice by gangbangers and the russian mob. Except now, our police all wear kevlar and have AR15s in their squad cars.
> No, all that would have to happen is one or two
> cases would have to receive a lot of publicity -
> just like Columbine. Once the political pressure
> hits, things take on a life of their own.
Columbine wasn't a one-off, it came after the assault weapons ban, and, in fact, led to no changes in weapons legislation, even in Colorado.
It's all about perspective. Columbine was about "the unthinkable", kids killing kids, in large numbers. Using ham radio for nefarious activities isn't in the same league.
Let's try a different analogy: We dare not let hams swear on the air, because if even one or two hams ever swore on the air, they'd take SSB away from us.
How likely do you think that really is?
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> They were most definitely not being used in a LARGE
> percentage of violent crimes.
"They were used in 100% of shooting sprees in California at that time, and close to 75% of armed robberies. "If it bleeds it leads", and there was a rash of such crimes."
I sincerely doubt your statistics. According to Bureau Of Justice statistical studies, based on criminals serving time in 1997 (since firearm related crimes entail a 5 year or more minimum sentence in most states as well as in federal courts this would cover crimes at least as far back as 1992), less than 2.5% were committed with military style assault weapons. 92% of the criminals carrying weapons during a crime were armed with handguns, 14 percent with shotguns, and less than 10 percent with a rifle (this is more than 100% because of those carrying multiple weapons).
I could probably break this down for just California but I doubt they differ that significantly from national norms.
"Actually, that's what's so laughable about the CA version of the ban -- they're still the weapon of choice by gangbangers and the russian mob. Except now, our police all wear kevlar and have AR15s in their squad cars."
The weapons ban was a joke.
> No, all that would have to happen is one or two
> cases would have to receive a lot of publicity -
> just like Columbine. Once the political pressure
> hits, things take on a life of their own.
"Columbine wasn't a one-off, it came after the assault weapons ban, and, in fact, led to no changes in weapons legislation, even in Colorado."
I didn't say it led to any changes in weapons law. I was using it as an example of a crime that received a LOT of media attention and DID cause public officials to make a lot of security changes nationwide - up to and including making it an expulsion offense to have a metal nail file on your person. A reaction somewhat out of proportion to the event.
"It's all about perspective. Columbine was about "the unthinkable", kids killing kids, in large numbers. Using ham radio for nefarious activities isn't in the same league."
Sure it is. Look at the flap currently going on about Dan Rather. Finding a porn distribution network on ham radio using encrypted transmissions would get media play like you can't imagine. It would not suprise me if such a thing would result in a Congressional investigation.
"Let's try a different analogy: We dare not let hams swear on the air, because if even one or two hams ever swore on the air, they'd take SSB away from us."
The use of certain profanity on the air is still illegal. It falls under the aegis of what is against public standards. The use of profanity and the sending of kiddie porn would be considered very differently under public standards. Look what CBS just got for one partially bared breast in a long distance shot.
"How likely do you think that really is? "
I think it quite likely that if a porn distribution ring was found operating on the ham bands using encrypted transmissions that the public outcry would be tremendous. The FCC would be forced to do "something".
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The use of certain profanity on the air is still
> illegal.
And yet it happens every day, and no one has suggested shutting down ARS SSB.
> It falls under the aegis of what is against public
> standards. The use of profanity and the sending of
> kiddie porn would be considered very differently
> under public standards.
And the anti-kiddie porn crusade, rightfully, is concentrating on the _likely_ distribution medium: the net.
> Look what CBS just got for one partially bared
> breast in a long distance shot.
The proper description of a 500k fine on an event from which you made many millions of dollars is "slap on the wrist".
Meanwhile, CBS is still on the air and still broadcasting live events.
Would there be a hue and cry if kiddie porn was transmitted on the ARS? Sure, and rightfully so. Would it lead to serious sanctions against the service? About as serious as the CBS fine, or the gun control legislation passed after Columbine.
That is, no, of course it wouldn't.
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I sincerely doubt your statistics. According to
> Bureau Of Justice statistical studies, based on
> criminals serving time in 1997 (since firearm
> related crimes entail a 5 year or more minimum
> sentence in most states as well as in federal courts
> this would cover crimes at least as far back as
> 1992), less than 2.5% were committed with military
> style assault weapons.
It is left as an (easy) exercise to the reader to determine why this statistic has no bearing on the validity of the observation about shooting sprees in California.
(There are several mistakes. Here's a hint for an easy one: how long does it take from commission to sentencing for the average violent crime case?)
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AB0WR on September 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I sincerely doubt your statistics. According to
> Bureau Of Justice statistical studies, based on
> criminals serving time in 1997 (since firearm
> related crimes entail a 5 year or more minimum
> sentence in most states as well as in federal courts
> this would cover crimes at least as far back as
> 1992), less than 2.5% were committed with military
> style assault weapons.
"It is left as an (easy) exercise to the reader to determine why this statistic has no bearing on the validity of the observation about shooting sprees in California."
Please, your quote was:
They were used in 100% of shooting sprees in California at that time, and close to 75% of armed robberies. "If it bleeds it leads", and there was a rash of such crimes."
There is no possible way that assault weapons were used in 75% of armed robberies. It was probably closer to about 2% to 3% at most.
"(There are several mistakes. Here's a hint for an easy one: how long does it take from commission to sentencing for the average violent crime case?) "
Hint: The longer the period the more accurate the statistics are for addressing the pre-ban use of assault weapons in crimes.
A tidbit from David Kopel:
"California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons.""
36 of 963 is 3.7%. 58 of 1979 is 3%.
Assault weapons just never played the role in crime that the media made everything think they did.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Treaty Restrictions
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I stand by the 100% shooting spree number.
However, I did remember the involvement in all violent crime numbers wrong.
Clearly, we should ban all handguns first, and then go after the assault weapons.
|
| |
|
RE: Assault Weapons?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on September 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It has nothing to do with ham radio. we've dived down a rathole, er, I mean distraction.
The original topic was whether or not allowing encryption on the bands would lead to the FCC taking draconian measures when someone was caught using the encryption to break some law or other.
From there we went to an analogy, and started arguing over the analogy.
Ain't the internet grand?
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KG4MRV on September 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<When several BBSs in the east were cited for auto-forwarding an apparent commercial post, they were fingered by the FCC (only them, not the entire BBS forwarding chain) and charged with a rule violation>>
Am I missing something? I thought only the first station to retransmit the message was responsible.
97.219
(c) Except as noted in paragraph (d) of this section, for stations participating in a message forwarding system, the control operators of forwarding stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing such communications once they become aware of their presence.
(d) For stations participating in a message forwarding system, the control operator of the first forwarding station must:
(1) Authenticate the identity of the station from which it accepts communication on behalf of the system; or
(2) Accept accountability for any violation of the rules in this Part contained in messages it retransmits to the system.
|
| |
|
RE: How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by N5PVL on September 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Am I missing something? I thought only the first station to retransmit the message was responsible."
No, you are absolutely right.
Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
How I Won the Protocol Wars
|
|
|
by KA7RRB on February 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would anyone want the ARRL to lead anything? ARRL is a publishing company masquerading as a wide variety of things they definitely aren't.
I attend the same digital communications experimenters group Steve Stroh attends, although not lately because television production demands have preempted that time block. Steve is a very exceptional thinker, as are the bulk of the TAPR organization.
I just wonder what is your real complaint with TCP/IP? Has the thought crossed your mind that this message board is made possible through the wonders of TCP/IP? TCP/IP, as refined, represents the state of the art in two original protocols of the DARPANET which was the precursor to our present Internet.
If digital communications are to interface with the Internet then TCP/IP is a necessary part of that interface. It is utterly impossible to move data in IP address space without TCP/IP.
There are those who put forward the ill considered proposition that Internet forwarding of packet radio "destroys the network." Most of those folks seem to live in Oregon and Texas, at least the ones we hear about.
So in the final analysis that's what it all boils down to. Are we going to forward via the Internet or not? If we are then we must use AX-25 protocols that are a native part of Linux or one of the various networking systems that provide AX-25 services the hard way. In either case, TCP/IP is a part of the equation that cannot be eliminated unless we all agree that every packet message is to be forwarded at a snail pace via RF. We can forward 10 megs of BBS content to 500 gateways in under 10 minutes total time over the Internet, or we could waste 36 hours and lots of scarce spectrum doing that same job over the air.
The choice has drawn more acrimony than anything else I'm aware of in ham radio with the possible exception of whether to use an amplifier or not. I use an amplifier because the idea of standing in front of the bathroom mirror and talking to myself isn't my idea of what ham radio is supposed to be about. I like others to hear me when the atmosphere isn't cooperating. And I use TCP/IP digital modes because I believe that forwarding traffic through IP address space is the most efficient way to get the job done.
If your idea of "winning the protocol war" is to simply ignore TCP/IP then you have won nothing. RF forwarding of the volume of traffic to and from a major metro area BBS is a frankly preposterous proposition, especially if we are talking about moving any substantial portion of it via 300 baud HF digital modes. 9600 baud forwarding is painfully slow and can only be done at higher frequencies and through many relays.
For all intents and purposes the protocol war is over and TCP/IP is the clear and uncontested winner for anyone except those few die hard bearded individualists who insist that "by Yimminy, my grandfather forwarded messages by RF and dats the way I'll do it ... or bust!" (Do you hear them busting out there?)
Personally I have an interesting life that does not include hours and hours spent watching a packet modem transferring what could be sent in 60 seconds over a TCP/IP connection. Radio is the last link in a packet system. Bulk forwarding is best done by the most efficient means and that does happen to be TCP/IP whether hams are "interested" in it or not.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Editorial Articles
Project 'Take Back 146.52'
|
