|
Kelly:
There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by american citizens" that I am aware of... It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to stop.) Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is not a "crime.") I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is... Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods. Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive, evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today... This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for themselves, they can act as they so choose... John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:38:13 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: No sense in attempting to efficiently send data anywhere, unless methods are used which employ efficient data compaction and the use of CRC checksums... it is only there that HS data transmission comes alive... Encryption is good also, unless you want the whole world to know what you are sending... John Uhhh . . John you hopeless noclue check out what Part 97 has to say about hams encrypting their transmissions. w3rv |
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Well I dunno about that Mike, jeez, lookit all the leading-edge "solutions" Sweetums has dumped in here over the years . . . Are puns solutions? For him you bet. I do enjoy those. Imagine if that intellect were used for good....... ;^) That's what millions asked about Dr. Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber. CW provides a 10dB path gain over SSB with a simple twist of the mode selector knob. Can't wait to find out what the path gain of CW will be vs. all the furiously hyped HF digital modes. None of which actually exist 10-15 years later of course. Big surprise huh? Wow! 10 db? I knew it was superior. I didn't know it was that much superior. Yup. Same net effect as adding an amp. Go to 20 or 40 and tune an ssb signal which peaks at S4 on ye olde S-meter. Then spin the knob counterclockwise and find a CW signal which also peaks at S4, crank in the CW filter and ponder the difference in intelligibilities. The 'ole power density thing at work. But I am firmly convinced that OOK CW coupled with the processing power of "wetware", is the bottom line of getting the message through. You're there. Now the worst conditions won't happen every time of course, but they will happen some times. Huge variable there Mike. The inherent gain of CW is a very big deal in weak signal work. But if if an op's jollies come from being able to kick his feet up on the desk and yak his buddies with his RX RF gain at half mast then S/N ratios, whizzy front end dynamic ranges and path gains are irrelevant. Depends on what the particular op is into. RF gain knobs . . yessss . . "just in case" lemmee clue you about an HF dxers dirty little secret: The band is hot, big signals everywhere, yer ears are getting pounded and ya can't quite copy the new one in the muck. You have a big rig with DSP and hardware filters out the wazoo and a gazzilion buttons and knobs on the panel. Been there I dunno how many times. Took awhile for me to finally get the message many years ago but my best buddy in these situations is the lowly and usually ignored RF gain pot. Beyond this comes the subject of "operator skills". Oh Good Lord I forgot again: Discussions about operator skills have nothing to do with technical or policy "matters". Who in the hell (PMF) said THAT???? Heh . . . ! Operator skills are intrinsically a part of Amateur radio policy. Otherwise why do we have people who are trying to remove operator skills from the equation? Bwaaaaahaha! - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
John Smith wrote: Kelly: There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by american citizens" that I am aware of... It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to stop.) Typical freebanders mindset. Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is not a "crime.") I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is... Fine "John": Toss some encrypted traffic into the ham bands and get to meet Riley the lawyer who will explain it all to you in excruciating detail as he slaps you with an NAL and cancels yer ticket. Not that you have a ham license of course. Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods. Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive, evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today... This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for themselves, they can act as they so choose... Anarchy and black helicopters. Got it. 10-4 on that Good Buddy? John w3rv |
Kelly:
"Freebander mentality?" Hmmm, I have always taken keen interest in the unique, rare, unknown and unconventional. But, I imagine you might just be correct, and maybe I got all those traffic tickets, when I was younger, because of a "freebander mentality" (or, freethinker mentality--might have just been because of the foolishness of youth!) I am just wondering if I will have to consult a shrink or Sylvia Browne if I have to seek professional help on "freebander mentality?" Unless I am gravely mistaken, there are others running compaction/encryption out there (I don't know what to do with those digital packets, I can't read them, by any algorithms I know!), must have the "radio police" on a constant run. Or, maybe they are going to get the "compacting encrypters" just after they finish rounding up all the illegal cb'ers and freebanders--if so, probably have at least another month before anyone has to worry. Actually, you may not hear it that often, I suspect mainly because it must be all homebrew equip and helps to know a programming language, and ability to read schematics and run a soldering iron. But, it is there. Of course you can find it on the Ghz's--but it is not all that rare on VHF. Don't believe I have ever heard it on HF... could have a lot to do with ages you find on those freqs too... Like I say, I think that law looks a bit ridiculous at this day and age... but then, in some areas there is a lot of that going around, ridiculous chit. John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:59:39 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: Kelly: There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by american citizens" that I am aware of... It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to stop.) Typical freebanders mindset. Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is not a "crime.") I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is... Fine "John": Toss some encrypted traffic into the ham bands and get to meet Riley the lawyer who will explain it all to you in excruciating detail as he slaps you with an NAL and cancels yer ticket. Not that you have a ham license of course. Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods. Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive, evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today... This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for themselves, they can act as they so choose... Anarchy and black helicopters. Got it. 10-4 on that Good Buddy? John w3rv |
wrote:
o wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: The 'phone companies have cleaned up their act so much that most lines will not only support 56k dialup, they'll also support DSL. Such improvements are almost invisible to the unsuspecting public. They happen over periods of years. I'm using one of those lines here. A few years ago it was originally a DSL line Ma Bell set up as a second line for Eric. Then he bailed away from his DSL service and moved to Comcast thus I inherited Ma Bell's former DSL line for my dialup connection. As dailup connections go the thing screams. His cable TV connection is only 2-3 times faster than my dialup connection but no more than that. He's paying something like $50/month for his cable connection and I'm only paying $15/month. AND my dialup connection is more reliable. There ya go! The big draw of DSL, besides the speed, is that you can use the voice 'phone and the DSL at the same time over a single pair. The monthly cost of two lines is often comparable to the cost of one line plus DSL. As much as the S/N allows! See above. Of course! As a practical matter though, we have to assume amateur radio conditions. A real limitation there. Which is why you'll not see the pundits doing any of what they talk about. Gotta love it. And they're *everywhere*. Yup. Hot air is free. Brains, innovation and bench time are not free. End of. What matters is what gets built and used. Like all the bafflegab and excitement about DSP, SDR's, etc. Poke around under the hood of any of the modern top-end ham xcvrs and you'll find that their hot performance is directly dependent on their cascaded xtal filters. Jumper the filters and put it all on their "firmware". HA! As if. Xtal filters being at least seventy-year-old technology and all that. Xtal filters in ham receivers and noise blankers can be traced to the same guy: Jim Lamb, at ARRL Hq. Mid 1930s. One of the things that I wonder about with the need for huge s/n handling ratios is that we obviously want a quiet reciever, with a impressive noise floor. This means all of the "oomph" must be on the strong signal handling side. We need an exquisitely sensitive and qui= et reciever, with exceptional strong signal handling capacity. Not really. In most situations, HF radio reception is limited by the noise picked up by the antenna, not internal receiver noise. Been that way since at least the 1930s. Exactly. It does no good to have an HF receiver with, say, .05 uV for 10 dB S/N sensitivity if the antenna picks up .5 uV of noise in the same bandwidth. Eeeek! Yo, An HF RX with 0.05 =B5V sensitivity?! Not many of those around! Because there's no point to building one! Somebody put an HBR-16 through its paces and it bettered 0.5 uV sensitivity on 80/40/20. That's not .05 uV but the point is the same: There's a limit to how much sensitivity is usable on HF, with typical HF antennas. As you go up in frequency, that situation changes. You don't need a noise generator, lab full of gear or an EE to know if your receiver is sensitive enough. Just do this simple test: 1) Tune the rx to an unoccupied frequency, using the mode and bandwidth you intend to use. 2) Turn off the AGC and turn up the gain until you hear the background noise roaring away. 3) Disconnect the antenna. If the noise drops way down, or disappears, you have all the sensitivity you can use in that application. I've done that and gotten some weird results. I get non-weird results by A-B testing between the antenna and a dummy load instead. Impedance matching issue. That's the more-correct way to do it, but the point is the same: If the noise coming in from the antenna exceeds the noise generated by the rx, you've already got all the sensitivity you can use with that setup. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
That doesn't make any sense, you text. I am suspecting you mean the total cost of DSL is roughly equivalent to phone + dialup? I am not being picky, I knew what you meant right off, just to clarify for those few which might not... John On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:10:53 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: o wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: The 'phone companies have cleaned up their act so much that most lines will not only support 56k dialup, they'll also support DSL. Such improvements are almost invisible to the unsuspecting public. They happen over periods of years. I'm using one of those lines here. A few years ago it was originally a DSL line Ma Bell set up as a second line for Eric. Then he bailed away from his DSL service and moved to Comcast thus I inherited Ma Bell's former DSL line for my dialup connection. As dailup connections go the thing screams. His cable TV connection is only 2-3 times faster than my dialup connection but no more than that. He's paying something like $50/month for his cable connection and I'm only paying $15/month. AND my dialup connection is more reliable. There ya go! The big draw of DSL, besides the speed, is that you can use the voice 'phone and the DSL at the same time over a single pair. The monthly cost of two lines is often comparable to the cost of one line plus DSL. As much as the S/N allows! See above. Of course! As a practical matter though, we have to assume amateur radio conditions. A real limitation there. Which is why you'll not see the pundits doing any of what they talk about. Gotta love it. And they're *everywhere*. Yup. Hot air is free. Brains, innovation and bench time are not free. End of. What matters is what gets built and used. Like all the bafflegab and excitement about DSP, SDR's, etc. Poke around under the hood of any of the modern top-end ham xcvrs and you'll find that their hot performance is directly dependent on their cascaded xtal filters. Jumper the filters and put it all on their "firmware". HA! As if. Xtal filters being at least seventy-year-old technology and all that. Xtal filters in ham receivers and noise blankers can be traced to the same guy: Jim Lamb, at ARRL Hq. Mid 1930s. One of the things that I wonder about with the need for huge s/n handling ratios is that we obviously want a quiet reciever, with a impressive noise floor. This means all of the "oomph" must be on the strong signal handling side. We need an exquisitely sensitive and quiet reciever, with exceptional strong signal handling capacity. Not really. In most situations, HF radio reception is limited by the noise picked up by the antenna, not internal receiver noise. Been that way since at least the 1930s. Exactly. It does no good to have an HF receiver with, say, .05 uV for 10 dB S/N sensitivity if the antenna picks up .5 uV of noise in the same bandwidth. Eeeek! Yo, An HF RX with 0.05 µV sensitivity?! Not many of those around! Because there's no point to building one! Somebody put an HBR-16 through its paces and it bettered 0.5 uV sensitivity on 80/40/20. That's not .05 uV but the point is the same: There's a limit to how much sensitivity is usable on HF, with typical HF antennas. As you go up in frequency, that situation changes. You don't need a noise generator, lab full of gear or an EE to know if your receiver is sensitive enough. Just do this simple test: 1) Tune the rx to an unoccupied frequency, using the mode and bandwidth you intend to use. 2) Turn off the AGC and turn up the gain until you hear the background noise roaring away. 3) Disconnect the antenna. If the noise drops way down, or disappears, you have all the sensitivity you can use in that application. I've done that and gotten some weird results. I get non-weird results by A-B testing between the antenna and a dummy load instead. Impedance matching issue. That's the more-correct way to do it, but the point is the same: If the noise coming in from the antenna exceeds the noise generated by the rx, you've already got all the sensitivity you can use with that setup. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote You don't need a noise generator, lab full of gear or an EE to know if your receiver is sensitive enough. Just do this simple test: 1) Tune the rx to an unoccupied frequency, using the mode and bandwidth you intend to use. 2) Turn off the AGC and turn up the gain until you hear the background noise roaring away. 3) Disconnect the antenna. If the noise drops way down, or disappears, you have all the sensitivity you can use in that application. You're joking, of course. You can't even get an approximate measure of your receiver sensitivity/noise floor from that test. Suppose, for example, that an active electrical storm is brewing and you're tuned to a 40M QRG. All but the most stone-deaf receivers will give you some room-filling background noise which will disappear when the antenna is removed. Beep beep 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K0HB:
Suppose the aliens are running their evil "Confabulator?" How would a guy ever know then? John On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:13:09 +0000, KØHB wrote: wrote You don't need a noise generator, lab full of gear or an EE to know if your receiver is sensitive enough. Just do this simple test: 1) Tune the rx to an unoccupied frequency, using the mode and bandwidth you intend to use. 2) Turn off the AGC and turn up the gain until you hear the background noise roaring away. 3) Disconnect the antenna. If the noise drops way down, or disappears, you have all the sensitivity you can use in that application. You're joking, of course. You can't even get an approximate measure of your receiver sensitivity/noise floor from that test. Suppose, for example, that an active electrical storm is brewing and you're tuned to a 40M QRG. All but the most stone-deaf receivers will give you some room-filling background noise which will disappear when the antenna is removed. Beep beep 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: John Smith on Aug 7, 3:43 pm Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! Absolutely cannot be done unless "we" become MEMBERS and "work for change from the 'inside'." [repeated warnings from Dee Flint in here] Problem is, the entrenched officials and BoD are RESISTANT to "change from within" as evident from their regular BoD Meeting Minutes given on their websites. They do things THEIR way and expect all to fall-in and pop-to. After all, they "represent all amateurs in the USA" and say so up front. I'll have to check out the QST advertising page on the website, see if they have a new "Publisher's Sworn Statement" on their membership numbers. ARRL have never had more than a quarter of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs and, at the end of 2004, had only about 20 percent of them according to membership numbers they gave. However, in THIS newsgroup, all of the PCTA extras bow down and accept all League words as sacrosanct. After all, Hiram Went To Washington right after the end of WW1 and "saved ham radio" all by hisself. For that all are supposed to forever show gratitude and obediance to the ARRL, even 86 years after that "fact"! Something to consider: The present elected President of the ARRL was a former salesman. [see connection? :-) ] ant how You are as involved in the ARRL as you are in amateur radio--not at all. Dave K8MN Odd that you say that. Len frequently comments to the FCC when asked. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com