[HN Gopher] M17 Aims to Replace Proprietary Ham Radio Protocols
___________________________________________________________________
M17 Aims to Replace Proprietary Ham Radio Protocols
Author : emptybits
Score : 118 points
Date : 2020-10-03 07:59 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
| random5634 wrote:
| Fantastic
|
| The killer feature here would be HD voice with no squelch crash
| on simplex or repeater use. Ham used to be ahead of curve on a
| lot of communication tech. This would at least bring it more even
| with the newer stuff out there.
| random5634 wrote:
| Good news here - codec2 at 3200 - should be ok voice quality
| throw0101a wrote:
| I wish the author of Codec 2 would bit a bit more effort into
| >5000 b/s stuff: Opus goes down to 6 kb/s but Codec 2 doesn't
| _quite_ get up that high.
|
| It'd be nice to have some overlap so that unencumbered codecs
| could be used up and down the spectrum without any gaps.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Codec2 is still not ready for real use for some reason...
| Never heard of anyone playing around with it, especially in
| vhf/uhf
| jcims wrote:
| Where do people use DMR/D-Star/etc for ham radio? All I ever hear
| are AM, FM and SSB for voice.
| gh02t wrote:
| On VHF and UHF. Depends on area, but there are at least as many
| digital repeaters as analog on VHF/UHF where I live and
| hotspots are also popular.
| jcims wrote:
| Interesting! I had no idea, they are all NFM around here.
| gh02t wrote:
| Hotspots really help with that. Even if there are no
| repeaters near you a cheap hotspot will let you hop on
| digital and talk to people all around the world with
| minimal fuss. People complain that it's not "real" amateur
| radio, but if you just want to talk it's very accessible.
| madengr wrote:
| Everywhere. There is a big DMR network here in Kansas City, and
| Fusion too.
|
| http://c5.byrg.net/WP_BYRG_WWW/byrg-repeaters/
|
| http://www.kansascityroom.com/Repeaters/
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Is it legal to use crypto with ham transmissions? I was the under
| the impression that was generally forbidden.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| It's absolutely illegal, unless it's somehow an emergency that
| requires it. Don't let anyone say otherwise, there are some
| crazies who think it's legal.
| random5634 wrote:
| My own view - legal to use to authenticate? Ie callsigns etc.
| not legal to use if it obscures message
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Authentication is not encryption. Authentication is
| absolutely allowed, provided that it doesn't obscure
| anything.
| lima wrote:
| Yes, as long as the key is available. For instance, we use WPA
| keys for our HAMnet microwave links, but using a well-known key
| that's publicly known.
|
| D-Star and PACTOR are proprietary, undocumented algorithms but
| you're allowed to use them because devices implementing them
| are commercially available.
| muxator wrote:
| I guess there should be a sound technical reason for choosing
| to encrypt with a well known key vs transmitting cleartext,
| but I fail to imagine it.
|
| What's the advantage of doing it?
| lima wrote:
| Our links are essentially standard 5 GHz wifi, but on
| licensed bands with higher tx power, and we don't want
| random people to connect to them. A WPA key mitigates that
| without breaking any regulations.
|
| Mainly a mitigation against curious people with Ubiquiti
| equipment, which makes it way too easy to disable country
| restrictions and find and connect to our links in licensed
| bands :-)
| luma wrote:
| So if they don't know the key or where to find it, how is
| that "publicly known"?
| lima wrote:
| You can easily find it on a public website if you know
| what you're looking for. It's only meant to deter people
| who click the "Scan" button on their equipment.
| wl wrote:
| There are exceptions that allow for use of encryption to
| authenticate remote control of satellites and such. But
| generally speaking, it violates the rules to obscure the
| content of a message.
| nateberkopec wrote:
| Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Amateur Service rules prohibits the
| transmission of "effectively encrypted or encoded messages,
| including messages that cannot be readily decoded over-the-air
| for true meaning."
|
| What _exactly_ that means is, of course, up for debate. Some
| say you can use encryption as long as the key is publicly
| available and obvious (i.e. my key is "password"). There's been
| a bunch of stuff happening in the last year around Winlink.
| Devil's in the details.
| DarthGhandi wrote:
| What's the difference between encrypted messages and
| broadcasting random noise? Who could actually prove otherwise
| without the key?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why would you need to prove the difference between noise or
| encryption?
|
| If they claim is not encrypted it's just noise, prosecute
| them for broadcasting noise.
|
| If they claim it's not noise it's just encrypted, prosecute
| them for broadcasting an encrypted signal.
|
| What do you think the practical difference in outcome is?
| dmd wrote:
| Well, broadcasting random noise would be illegal, so...
| zeckalpha wrote:
| Encoding is not encryption. Do you consider Morse code or Base
| 64 to be crypto?
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| The article states that _The protocol allows for encryption_.
| yuubi wrote:
| Both have public documentation sufficient to decode a message
| without applying any secret information, so no.
| egberts1 wrote:
| So AX.25 isn't standardized anymore but now proprietary?
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| They never said it was, and it would be fine to have multiple
| open standards if they are suited for different things. M17
| looks to be better suited for digital voice than AX.25.
| dbcurtis wrote:
| that is an understatement. AX.25 is a guaranteed-delivery
| packet-forwarding protocol with indeterminate latency. For
| audio streaming you need a low, predictable latency and
| accept drop-out to achieve that.
| egberts1 wrote:
| Hopefully, that keeps after traversing several repeaters.
| Animats wrote:
| I didn't know that ham radio was allowed to use proprietary
| protocols.
| vvanders wrote:
| Proprietary is allowed if it is documented, the issue with most
| of the digital voice modes is they are protected by patents.
| neolog wrote:
| Ignorant here, why do people use ham radio instead of the
| internet or cell phones?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-04 23:00 UTC)