Searching \ for '[EE] Maximum Radio Bandwidth - Radio Amateurs of C' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=c
Search entire site for: 'Maximum Radio Bandwidth - Radio Amateurs of C'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Maximum Radio Bandwidth - Radio Amateurs of C'
2010\04\02@231944 by solarwind

picon face
This page describes the frequencies available to radio amateurs in
Canada for various levels of certification -
http://www.rac.ca/en/rac/services/bandplans/allband.php

It lists a "maximum bandwidth" column. What does "maximum bandwidth" mean?

Also, do I NEED a BA certification to build my own transmitters? Or
can I just build and use my own using a regular B certification and
use the B-class bands?

2010\04\03@002000 by John Coppens

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 23:19:24 -0400
solarwind <spam_OUTx.solarwind.xTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

> It lists a "maximum bandwidth" column. What does "maximum bandwidth"
> mean?

With modulation modes proliferating (all those digital modes were too
many to keep track of), FCC and, I suppose regulatory agencies of Canada
and many other countries opted to specify maximum bandwidth allowed in
certain frequency segments. So, in the more restricted shortwave bands
you'll find 2.5 or 3 kHz as max bandwidth (typical SSB), while in higher
bands wider modulation techniques are permitted.

Note that appart from just the maximum bandwidth there still may be
restrictions on the actual modes. And there is a restriction on the
contents of the data transmitted, which much be compatible with the
amateur charter. (and the data may not be transmitted encripted, except
with publicly decodeable algorithms)

John

2010\04\03@004003 by solarwind

picon face
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:19 AM, John Coppens <.....johnKILLspamspam@spam@jcoppens.com> wrote:
> With modulation modes proliferating (all those digital modes were too
> many to keep track of), FCC and, I suppose regulatory agencies of Canada
> and many other countries opted to specify maximum bandwidth allowed in
> certain frequency segments. So, in the more restricted shortwave bands
> you'll find 2.5 or 3 kHz as max bandwidth (typical SSB), while in higher
> bands wider modulation techniques are permitted.

Ah. Makes sense now.

> Note that appart from just the maximum bandwidth there still may be
> restrictions on the actual modes. And there is a restriction on the
> contents of the data transmitted, which much be compatible with the
> amateur charter. (and the data may not be transmitted encripted, except
> with publicly decodeable algorithms)

That's outrageous! Why such harsh restrictions?

2010\04\03@022402 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
. > Note that appart from just the maximum bandwidth there still may be
> > restrictions on the actual modes. And there is a restriction on the
> > contents of the data transmitted, which much be compatible with the
> > amateur charter. (and the data may not be transmitted encripted, except
> > with publicly decodeable algorithms)
>
> That's outrageous! Why such harsh restrictions?

It's a freedom you agree to give up in exchange for a st of freedoms
that many commercial operators would give much for.

A radio amateur has great ability to muck other people's systems up if
not careful enough.
In exchange for the ability to do all sorts of risky (to others
rights) arcane things without any checking or oversight etc you give
them the ability to tell who you are asap so they cam come knocking if
you stray too far unawares. A good protection.

Honoured more by formal observation than strict compliance. eg some
modes are not clear or decipherable without a priori knowledge of
them. With such the operator may sen and ID in 'clear' every say 30
minutes or so or whatever the requirement is. Or not.

In quite a few countries CB radio is banned and in others the power
restrictions are ludicrous. Radio amateurs are given immense freedom
and power.

The men in the black helicopters do not NEED your address to find you,
it just puts makes them in a better mood when they arrive :-).



                 Russell

2010\04\03@023305 by solarwind

picon face
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Russell McMahon <apptechnzspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

So you're saying that I can't encrypt my data because if I mess
something up, the men in black will have an easier time finding me?
So, what if I transmit my ID or callsign or whatever every few minutes
in plain text along with my encrypted data?

2010\04\03@042039 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
solarwind wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Depends on the local Administration.

Ours you can apply do almost anything, in theory even outside the
Amateur bands. If it won't "hurt" anyone and might be useful, they will
licence that usually for a year and 30 Euro.

I think TBH, the restrictions in most countries on 3rd party messages
and encryption date back to Telegraphic Days, when the Government run
P&T had the person to person communications monopoly. Most countries
within living memory had NO private telephone, telegraph or point to
point radio. Even broadcasters had difficulty in getting their own
microwave distribution links in some countries and had to use  state
owned links.



2010\04\03@050300 by solarwind

picon face
On Saturday, April 3, 2010, Michael Watterson <EraseMEmikespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTradioway.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\04\03@055504 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:02 AM, solarwind <@spam@x.solarwind.xKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> In any case, I find these restrictions disgusting. Why is it illegal
> to encrypt on the amateur radio frequencies? Why?
>

To become a radio amateur is a choice. They are doing this for fun, for
making friends, for exploring physics and electronics. They definitely do
not use that for commercial purpose including private phone or video calls
or wireless internet connections. When an amateur is broadcasting others are
listening, and they can profit of this: What type of station was the
operator using, when and what weather condition could he make that
connection to the other side of the globe etc. To being a HAM is to becoming
a member of a community -- every amateur is a friend to every other
amateurs, so why would you hide your QSO anyway? It is somehow similar to
the free open source projects in the software industry: You can do something
and others can see how did you do that, then they can make that better or
just reusing that for benefit for everyone.

You would need to understand and obey these rules, and again, if you visit a
local HAM club in your area, they will help you to understand these, also
help you on radio theory and electronics.

Tamas



>
> Sorry for not trimming, replying from my phone.
>
> -

2010\04\03@112145 by solarwind

picon face
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Tamas Rudnai <KILLspamtamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> To become a radio amateur is a choice. They are doing this for fun, for
> making friends, for exploring physics and electronics. They definitely do
> not use that for commercial purpose including private phone or video calls
> or wireless internet connections. When an amateur is broadcasting others are
> listening, and they can profit of this: What type of station was the
> operator using, when and what weather condition could he make that
> connection to the other side of the globe etc. To being a HAM is to becoming
> a member of a community -- every amateur is a friend to every other
> amateurs, so why would you hide your QSO anyway? It is somehow similar to
> the free open source projects in the software industry: You can do something
> and others can see how did you do that, then they can make that better or
> just reusing that for benefit for everyone.
>
> You would need to understand and obey these rules, and again, if you visit a
> local HAM club in your area, they will help you to understand these, also
> help you on radio theory and electronics.
>
> Tamas

That's all fine and dandy, but that still doesn't justify why one
can't encrypt. It's a radio frequency, it's not like you're stealing
someone's code and selling it.

2010\04\03@120727 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
solarwind wrote:
> That's all fine and dandy, but that still doesn't justify why one
> can't encrypt. It's a radio frequency, it's not like you're stealing
> someone's code and selling it.

I think there are two reasons.  First, the government is nervous about
anyone encrypting anything.  This hampers their ability to listen in.

Second, if content is encrypted then it can't easily be verified to be
non-commercial.  Commercial licenses cost a lot more, and want to make sure
the ham license isn't abused by someone profiting from it.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\04\03@131651 by Derward Myrick

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "solarwind" <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonespammit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Maximum Radio Bandwidth - Radio Amateurs of Canada



> That's all fine and dandy, but that still doesn't justify why one
> can't encrypt. It's a radio frequency, it's not like you're stealing


Solarwind,

All Governments have claimed the air waves, in their area, and let hams use
some of it for their
use.  There are so many other services that want what we have it is hard for
us to
keep it. If we do not like it then they can let some other group have it.
This is the way it is and
your only choice is to not use it.  It may not make sence to you but that is
the way it is.

Derward Myrick  KD5WWI


2010\04\03@132126 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> solarwind wrote:
>  
>> That's all fine and dandy, but that still doesn't justify why one
>> can't encrypt. It's a radio frequency, it's not like you're stealing
>> someone's code and selling it.
>>    
>
> I think there are two reasons.  First, the government is nervous about
> anyone encrypting anything.  This hampers their ability to listen in.
>
> Second, if content is encrypted then it can't easily be verified to be
> non-commercial.  Commercial licenses cost a lot more, and want to make sure
> the ham license isn't abused by someone profiting from it.
>  
yes,
also historic paranoia/government control as I said earlier. Many
Administrations the rules originated in the 1920s!

2010\04\03@141649 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> > That's all fine and dandy, but that still doesn't justify why one
> > can't encrypt. It's a radio frequency, it's not like you're stealing
> > someone's code and selling it.

If it's encrypted, that may be exactly what you ARE doing :-).
Or anything else commercial.
Being able to look over your shoulder is part of the tradeoff.

In exchange for the freedoms there are the checks and balances.
The rules of engagement are very very time honoured and very very well
thrashed out.
You don't have to like them but it's a certainty that you won't change them.
There are many many many people who would like a slice of the amateur
bands and bits and pieces have been lost along the way. Rocking the
boar is not going to help the retention of the bands for future use
so, along with the government you'd be fighting the amateurs who know
that by making too much noise they will make their lot worse not
better.
The tradeoff is, as variously noted, exceptional freedom to do one's
own thing compared to what is allowed in other quarters. Some very
advanced stuff indeed is done by amateurs, even nowadays.

R

2010\04\03@144930 by MCH

flavicon
face
The reason for the "no codes/ciphers" rules are simple: This is a radio
service of good will, openness, and sharing. If you're encrypting, you
are making it private for your use only - contrary to the spirit of the
service. In many countries, people have to buy licenses to transmit.
Hams get a lot of spectrum for free - in return for the benefits they
provide to society - specifically the aforementioned good will, public
service emergency communications, and training of communications operations.

In the USA, this is the first thing spelled out in Part 97 of the FCC's
rules (the Amateur Radio Service rules) - the reasons why the service
exists. I bet it's that way in other countries, too.

If you want to encrypt things and have communications for your personal
use, I would recommend the ISM band. I suspect you will also be
'broadcasting' (making one-way transmissions) which is prohibited in the
ham bands with a few exceptions.

Joe M.

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\04\03@152456 by solarwind

picon face
On Saturday, April 3, 2010, MCH <TakeThisOuTmchEraseMEspamspam_OUTnb.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\04\03@153418 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:24 PM, solarwind <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously I don't want other people messing with It
> so I would use encryption...
>

Encryption is for privacy, not for messing up with others. If you do not
want to mess with others, then learn how to build radio step by step and
keep all existing regulations and standards.

Tamas




>
> Sorry for not trimming, replying on my phone.
>
> -

2010\04\03@154741 by solarwind

picon face
On Saturday, April 3, 2010, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaiEraseMEspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:24 PM, solarwind <EraseMEx.solarwind.xspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously I don't want other people messing with It
>> so I would use encryption...
>>
>
> Encryption is for privacy, not for messing up with others. If you do not
> want to mess with others, then learn how to build radio step by step and
> keep all existing regulations and standards.
>
> Tamas
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Sorry for not trimming, replying on my phone.
>>
>> --

2010\04\03@155446 by Marechiare

picon face
> Respectfully, How does that make sense? Without encryption,
> I have no guarantee that someone won't bring down my balloon.
> And by guarantee, I mean reasonable guarantee, which
> encryption provides.

This guy's incorrigible  :-)

2010\04\03@155921 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
solarwind wrote:
> On Saturday, April 3, 2010, MCH <RemoveMEmchEraseMEspamEraseMEnb.net> wrote:
>  
>>
>
> Regarding the ism band, so let's say I want to build a high altitude
> weather balloon which I wan to control and communicate with using my
> own equipment. Can I just build My own and use a high power ISM band
> radio tranceiver? Obviously I don't want other people messing with It
> so I would use encryption...
>
>  

ISM is only licence free in the sense of using PRE_APPROVED commercial
equipment. You can't build your own ISM gear unless you get the
appropriate FCC/CSA/CE/ETSI or whatever type approvals. EXPENSIVE

There are also power limits. Much lower than for most Amateur bands.
ONLY Licensed  Amateurs can  build and  deploy their  own equipment
legally  without  getting  it  type  approved.

You don't need all out encryption actually.   Repeaters  and  Packet  
Radio  Nodes  often  have  command  modes  that  are not  public.  The
traffic is not  encrypted,  but  the commands  to change  something  
may  need  challenge / response  DTMF  codes.

Is high power legal on US 915MHz ISM band?  Here in Ireland the 433, 864
SRD bands have like 1mW continuous limit and 10mW 10% duty cycle. 446MHz
PMR (like US FRS I guess) is built in aerial and 500mW.  CB 27MHz
approx  is 1W AM and 4W FM/SSB, any external aerial as long as it's not
directional (A 20dB gain directional aerial fed with 400W is legal for
Amateurs on 28MHz if you had the space!).  Community Radio on 27.5MHz is
1W AM and 4W FM/SSB, any external aerial as long as it's not directional
and any LIVE ONLY content, but needs annual licence and only 1 agreed
channel out of 80 available I think.

AFAIK 2.4GHz ISM is various devices here only up to 500mW. Oddly 5.8GHz
here is supposed to be WiFi only, though Analogue Video senders are in
the shops.    Amateur 2.3GHz is 11W. But no encryption.

Technically 22dB Gain dishes on outdoor WiFi (ISM) are illegal if you
feed with 500mW as that exceeds the ERP permitted. Amateurs can use
whatever dish gain they can afford as the 11W is RF P.A. power, not
ERP.   AFAIK only 137kHz has low power, but it's specified as 0dBW = 1W
ERP. With a 60ft end fed wire (20m approx) you might need 2kW of RF. The
far end probably glows in the dark with 10kv to 30kv corona discharge.

If you within x miles of an airbase you may need a permit for your WX
balloon.


2010\04\03@160147 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM, solarwind <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xspam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:

> Respectfully, How does that make sense? Without encryption, I have no
> guarantee that someone won't bring down my balloon. And by guarantee,
> I mean reasonable guarantee, which encryption provides.
>

Radio Amateur is a community, and everyone is a friend of all the others. So
no one wants to mess up with you as you do not want to mess up with others.
That's part of your HAM license... But you can always buy or rent
some commercial communication channels where you can use more secure
connections.

Tamas



>
> Again sorry for messy reply, sent from phone.
> -

2010\04\03@160353 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
solarwind wrote:
>
> Respectfully, How does that make sense? Without encryption, I have no
> guarantee that someone won't bring down my balloon. And by guarantee,
> I mean reasonable guarantee, which encryption provides.
>
>  
encryption won't provide much protection for a weather balloon.

However a few mW at 2.4GHz is all a  balloon  needs if it's a HAP. At
144MHz you can talk to ISS with a rubber duck hand held with a few watts
as it passes overhead.

Some malicious can easily jam your signal.

2010\04\03@160609 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
TiTWii   I can't think of a phrase that I dislike more.   And intend  
to put a dent in.
Gus


> On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Derward Myrick wrote:
>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2010\04\03@170221 by YES NOPE9
flavicon
face

On Apr 3, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Marechiare wrote:

> Respectfully, How does that make sense? Without encryption,
> I have no guarantee that someone won't bring down my balloon.
> And by guarantee, I mean reasonable guarantee, which
> encryption provides.

This guy's incorrigible  :-)   <------ is that a bad thing ?  I don't  
think so.  It does look like name calling.
Gus

2010\04\03@174910 by Marechiare

picon face
> This guy's incorrigible  :-)   <------ is that a bad thing ?
> I don't think so.  It does look like name calling.

It does not look like name calling and it is not that a bad thing. It
was just a joke about one's persistence in reaching a goal, in a good
sense :-)

Regards.

2010\04\03@181039 by Dr Skip

picon face
Speaking of publicly decodeable algorithms, anyone care to comment on D-Star?
For those not in the know, it's a digital mode which has a proprietary closed
source codec. One must buy the chip pre-programmed and not reverse engineer it,
et al. The spec is not public. Icom has licensed it and in they are pushing it
big in the US. AFAIK, it's the only digital algorithm which does not have a
public spec. Giving one vendor proprietary ownership of a mode on the Ham bands
is against everything good, proper, and wholesome! ;)

The FCC has a digital fetish, and seems to get giddy for things digital, like
BPL and D-Star...

Even up to the level of secrecy of D-star, you can make up your own protocol
and as long as you post it on some obscure website, you would be covered these
days. You could even offer it as snail mail. It's the making it available for
the asking that counts (except D-Star), not making it easy to find...

Subtle, and IMHO, open to abuse (D-Star), so one can easily find ways to be
legal by the letter, but violate the intent with not so much imagination
required....

<stepping down from soapbox now>


> Note that appart from just the maximum bandwidth there still may be
> restrictions on the actual modes. And there is a restriction on the
> contents of the data transmitted, which much be compatible with the
> amateur charter. (and the data may not be transmitted encripted, except
> with publicly decodeable algorithms)

2010\04\03@182245 by John Coppens

flavicon
face
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:47:40 -0400
solarwind <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> Respectfully, How does that make sense? Without encryption, I have no
> guarantee that someone won't bring down my balloon. And by guarantee,
> I mean reasonable guarantee, which encryption provides.
>
> Again sorry for messy reply, sent from phone.

You can use codes without encryption. Implement a handshake protocol
with a challenge/reply. You don't have to encrypt for that.

Send a 64-bit code sequence. I'm sure nobody will find it out before
launch.

You can also transmit visible packets with a special, non-standard CRC
protocol. The contents of the packet could still be clear-text.

You could also use the bands which are reserved for remote-control, where
nobody normally _listens_ to the transmissions.

John

2010\04\04@032912 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: TiTWii   I can't think of a phrase that I dislike more.

I'm afraid I find myself slightly email shorthand challenged in this
virtual headspace :)

What on earth does TiTWii stand for?  If necessary email me direct to
put me out of my misery.

Colin
--
cdb, EraseMEcolinspamspamspamBeGonebtech-online.co.uk on 4/4/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359








2010\04\04@053957 by =?windows-1252?Q?Enrico Sch=FCrrer?=

picon face
In Austria, the first paragraph of the Amateur Radio Act is:
This federal law is valid for the Amateur Radio Service. The term
"Amateur Radio Service" defines a technical experimental Wireless
Service and includes the use of terrestric and space-based radio
stations and will be used from operators for their own instruction, for
radio communication between them, especially for emergency and disaster
communication, and for technical studies.

In a following paragraph is stated:

The whole amateur radio traffic has to be in open language and is
restricted to:
* transmission experiments
* technical or operational messages
* personal comments or figurative illustrations (due to their triviality
the use of a commercial network is not fairly required)

The last point stated clear that the contents of transmission have to be
technical, operational, personal or figurative - for all other messages
an amateur radio operator must use a commercial network.

So for data transmissions the term "open language" does not allow
cryptography - and I think this is a fair deal.

Hope I could help to clarify things a little bit :-)

Enrico Schuerrer, OE1EQW

PS: and apologize my errors, English isn't my native tongue ;-)

{Quote hidden}

2010\04\04@153607 by Marechiare

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Well, it looks like the kind of the stuff is applicable to this list
as well, am I wrong? Hmm, I could cut on my Latin quotations, of
course, but how on the Earth could I manage to express my rather
anfractuous thoughts in plain and simple English, I am yet to become a
Hemingway, sorry. Hey, RM, how about simplifying the style of writing,
this is not a closed linguistic community, don't tempt list members
with your superb English :-)

2010\04\05@104428 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 15:47 -0400, solarwind wrote:

> Respectfully, How does that make sense? Without encryption, I have no
> guarantee that someone won't bring down my balloon. And by guarantee,
> I mean reasonable guarantee, which encryption provides.

No, it doesn't.

Encryption gives you pretty much nothing from the "person messing with
your balloon angle".

I think you misunderstand what encryption is for.

Encryption is used for the secure transfer of information. It ideally
prevents 3rd parties from knowing that information.

>From the point of "controlling a balloon" encryption gives you NOTHING.

What you are looking for perhaps is "signed" communications, methods
that your balloon can use to ensure that you are the one sending the
message. "signing" your message does use some of the same concepts as
"encryption", but it serves a vastly different purpose.

Now, to be frank: be realistic Solarwind, nobody will mess with your
balloon. Keep things simple and get the project done. The more you
concentrate on locking things down the more likely you'll a) never
finish the project or b) something will go wrong.

Remember: simplicity is king.

TTYL

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...