Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Isn't this illegal???  (Read 4376 times)
M0HCN
Member

Posts: 473




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2013, 05:56:36 AM »

Sure, protocols are things like levels, time durations, etc.  A protocol isn't at issue here.

Actually iff the protocol documentation is complete it is sufficient to implement Pactor 3, you do not need their source code (Just a C compiler, the protocol and some time to pen your own implementation).

Pactor 3 is documented in ITU-R 1798, which may be more useful then the SCS technical description.
Quote
It is precisely the source code to produce a pactor 3 interchange that is at issue, and makes it an intentionally exclusive mode.  A mode only available to those willing to "pay SCS' price."
Not really, it is also available to any ham willing to turn the protocol documentation into either software or hardware. Of course if the documentation is incomplete or if the real signals do not follow the documentation (quite possible, writing correct documentation is hard) then you are into the field known as 'reversing' and that really needs access to the hardware to generate known signals.

You do not need to have code identical to SCSs to have interoperability, you jut need to produce something on air that follows the protocol, after all we have probably got a dozen or so implementations of the TCP/IP protocols out there and they all talk to each other just fine.
Having a reference implementation is very helpful, no doubt, but it is not required.
Quote
And, just how would I do that?  Buy an SCS black box, then try x to the nth combinations of the protocol data to determine ASCI characters and punctuation?
Well you could do that, but it sounds a little painful, I would start with the ITU documentation and something like gnuradio (Provides convenient building blocks), and actually the interleaving and coding is described in the protocol, as is the higher level packetisation, so once you have the output from the viterbi decoder working the rest looks fairly straightforward.

73 Dan.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 06:10:00 AM by M0HCN » Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2710


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2013, 06:15:13 AM »

Sure, protocols are things like levels, time durations, etc.  A protocol isn't at issue here.

Actually iff the protocol documentation is complete it is sufficient to implement Pactor 3, you do not need their source code (Just a C compiler, the protocol and some time to pen your own implementation).

Pactor 3 is documented in ITU-R 1798, which may be more useful then the SCS technical description.
Quote
It is precisely the source code to produce a pactor 3 interchange that is at issue, and makes it an intentionally exclusive mode.  A mode only available to those willing to "pay SCS' price."
Not really, it is also available to any ham willing to turn the protocol documentation into either software or hardware. Of course if the documentation is incomplete or if the real signals do not follow the documentation (quite possible, writing correct documentation is hard) then you are into the field known as 'reversing' and that really needs access to the hardware to generate known signals.

You do not need to have code identical to SCSs to have interoperability, you jut need to produce something on air that follows the protocol, after all we have probably got a dozen or so implementations of the TCP/IP protocols out there and they all talk to each other just fine.
Having a reference implementation is very helpful, no doubt, but it is not required.
Quote
And, just how would I do that?  Buy an SCS black box, then try x to the nth combinations of the protocol data to determine ASCI characters and punctuation?
Well you could do that, but it sounds a little painful, I would start with the ITU documentation and something like gnuradio (Provides convenient building blocks), and actually the interleaving and coding is described in the protocol, as is the higher level packetisation, so once you have the output from the viterbi decoder working the rest looks fairly straightforward.

73 Dan.

Having been a developer of embedded software systems, I totally concur with Dan's comments.
Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 787




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2013, 07:03:46 AM »

Sure, protocols are things like levels, time durations, etc.  A protocol isn't at issue here.

Actually iff the protocol documentation is complete it is sufficient to implement Pactor 3, you do not need their source code (Just a C compiler, the protocol and some time to pen your own implementation).

Pactor 3 is documented in ITU-R 1798, which may be more useful then the SCS technical description.
Quote
It is precisely the source code to produce a pactor 3 interchange that is at issue, and makes it an intentionally exclusive mode.  A mode only available to those willing to "pay SCS' price."
Not really, it is also available to any ham willing to turn the protocol documentation into either software or hardware. Of course if the documentation is incomplete or if the real signals do not follow the documentation (quite possible, writing correct documentation is hard) then you are into the field known as 'reversing' and that really needs access to the hardware to generate known signals.

You do not need to have code identical to SCSs to have interoperability, you jut need to produce something on air that follows the protocol, after all we have probably got a dozen or so implementations of the TCP/IP protocols out there and they all talk to each other just fine.
Having a reference implementation is very helpful, no doubt, but it is not required.
Quote
And, just how would I do that?  Buy an SCS black box, then try x to the nth combinations of the protocol data to determine ASCI characters and punctuation?
Well you could do that, but it sounds a little painful, I would start with the ITU documentation and something like gnuradio (Provides convenient building blocks), and actually the interleaving and coding is described in the protocol, as is the higher level packetisation, so once you have the output from the viterbi decoder working the rest looks fairly straightforward.

73 Dan.

Thanks, Dan, for the lesson.  Apparently, what is necessary to effect it is too difficult for anyone else to do, thus far.  Then again, maybe there isn't such a big market for it.
Logged
M0HCN
Member

Posts: 473




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2013, 08:17:57 AM »

Small market, and those who do this stuff for fun usually have half a dozen or so projects of more interest to them on the go.
Fact is, that license is probably cheap enough to make doing a clean implementation as a commercial effort a waste of time and that just leaves the open source crowd who all have projects of their own on the go.

None the less the spec is out there if you chose to implement it.

This differs from something like say adding an AES3 layer to a PSK mode and only distributing the key to your friends (Which would definitely be illegal on the ham bands, even if I published the source code), or using something like the OPs lookup table with a private one that was not available on the web, same for one time pads and such. 

Regards, Dan.
Logged
N4ZAW
Member

Posts: 84


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2013, 10:40:38 AM »

At the point that it would be actually TRANSMITTED, yes. Until then, the FCC you,me the pope can do nothing to prevent them.
At the point that they would use this "code", the point of legality becomes moot because anarchy would be the government du jour, or a government which would go against the constitutional and God-given freedoms to do intervene. And yes, I realize we are already there with the current regime. But that wasn't the question. You could try to get your operatives on the inside to learn the code first anyhow. Is it against the law to formulate a code? No. It's against the law to use it in communications.
I think I'm going to check into this further. I might want to learn it now while I have the chance.
Logged
KU7PDX
Member

Posts: 53


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2013, 02:07:56 PM »

According to a website I just viewed (http://www.catastrophenetwork.org/?p=1027#comment-8562) - they claim to have "developed" a "Standardized Coded Matrix for Prepper Communications". Now as I read the FCC Rules - it states:

Sec. 97.113  Prohibited transmissions.

    (a) No amateur station shall transmit:
   
    (4) ... messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the
meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein; ....

But these guys have made available their "Secret" code matrix for PDF download on their website.

I posted a reply to their article on their page quoting the above FCC Rules but it is "Awaiting Moderation".

Any thoughts from you guys???

73 de W8BNL - Tom
No reason why this wouldn't be allowed. They've developed and published a phone communications protocol that the public has access to. The document even states "©2012 Catastrophe Network, Please Distribute Freely."

Nothing secret, and since it isn't secret, it doesn't obscure any meaning.
Logged

73,
Chris - KU7PDX
W6EM
Member

Posts: 787




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2013, 04:17:13 PM »

......., or a government which would go against the constitutional and God-given freedoms to do intervene. And yes, I realize we are already there with the current regime. .........

  Domestic spying/evesdropping (the Patriot Act) was implemented during the Bush Administration.
Logged
KB2WIG
Member

Posts: 115




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2013, 04:37:19 PM »


[/quote]  Domestic spying/evesdropping (the Patriot Act) was implemented during the Bush Administration.
[/quote]


Its been around a lot longer than the Bush Administration. Check out the following....

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928 ) and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

WTA,

klc
Logged
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 2338




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2013, 05:40:44 PM »

At the point that it would be actually TRANSMITTED, yes. Until then, the FCC you,me the pope can do nothing to prevent them.
At the point that they would use this "code", the point of legality becomes moot because anarchy would be the government du jour, or a government which would go against the constitutional and God-given freedoms to do intervene. And yes, I realize we are already there with the current regime. But that wasn't the question. You could try to get your operatives on the inside to learn the code first anyhow. Is it against the law to formulate a code? No. It's against the law to use it in communications.
I think I'm going to check into this further. I might want to learn it now while I have the chance.

How about coming back to earth and keeping the discussion on real life terms and not dooms day fantasies, fellows?   Jeez.
Logged
BUFFOON
Member

Posts: 16




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2013, 06:41:40 PM »

Domestic spying/evesdropping (the Patriot Act) was implemented during the Bush Administration.

And much of it was "re-upped" during the Obama administration.

So what?
Logged
N7KFD
Member

Posts: 37




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2013, 05:20:28 AM »


Why not use pig latin?
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!