Re:ARRL Hails FCC Action to Remove Symbol Rate Restrictions
by lrvick on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @01:35AM
(#38273935)
What open hardware can legally do any useful (open source, auditable, and secure) encrypted voice communication at long distance via ISM?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:ARRL Hails FCC Action to Remove Symbol Rate Restrictions
by rsync on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @02:02PM
(#38280868)
Yes, please - I would like to see examples of the hardware stack that enables this use-case.
Thanks.
Re:ARRL Hails FCC Action to Remove Symbol Rate Restrictions
by jjjjmoney on Thursday November 16, 2023 @01:11AM
(#38286276)
Iām trying to dig up the M17 messages on the chipsets, but until then - WiFi is incredibly popular and operates on ISM bands. Same with LoraWan, and I have seen some proprietary 900Mhz mesh devices (I think called Milo(?)).
The M17 project found some low cost transceivers that operate on a pretty low level, and I think those would be relevant for future development on ISM for people wanting to use encryption.
Re:ARRL Hails FCC Action to Remove Symbol Rate Restrictions
by Johnythree on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @07:37PM
(#38284450)
Talk to your radio supplier, there are many encryption devices routinely used on VHF and UHF.
Of course encryption is not impossible on HF, just a bit more difficult.
Whatever, both commercial and military uses are using encryption on HF.
Re:ARRL Hails FCC Action to Remove Symbol Rate Restrictions
by lrvick on Thursday November 16, 2023 @07:10PM
(#38297498)
Commercial and military use encryption with well known backdoors on HF, using bands only they are licensed to use with proprietary hardware.
https://www.wired.com/story/tetra-radio-encryption-backdoor/
This is why proprietary solutions are non-starters.
Civilians deserve real encryption they can control with provable privacy.