Slashdot Mirror
France Says D-Star Ham Radio Mode Is Illegal
gyrogeerloose writes "Citing 'national security concerns,' the French Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes (ARCEP, France's equivalent of the US's FCC) has ruled that D-Star, an amateur radio digital signal mode used world-wide, is illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet.The ARCEP also cites alleged concerns regarding cryptography and national security as well as the use of a proprietary codec. While it's true that the D-Star codec is proprietary, its owner has openly licensed it (for a fee, of course) to any manufacturer who wants to build it into their equipment. Any licensed amateur radio operator who lives within the EU can sign an online petition protesting this decision."
So how does Winlink 2000, a digital protocol (using a patented codec, too, I think) that supplies email service over the amateur shortwave bands, escape notice? It's a lot harder to communicate a significant distance at the VHF and UHF ranges typically used by D-Star than the HF bands used by Winlink systems.
The ways of bureaucracies are often mysterious.
What is the /real/ reason for this law, please, French hams?
"illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet."
Surfing the web is a crime in France?
Screw you ARCEP.
Tell them it is being used to fix their football program.
Just move to a better country. thanks.
I've got nothing good to say about D-Star until the voice CODEC is free-to-use. That's not amateur radio. As it stand now, D-STAR simply means "made by ICOM"...even the Kenwood-badged D-STAR radios are in fact manufactured by ICOM.
de K3XS
-=Maggie Leber=-
Did they just now figure out that IP, and thus the Internet, can be routed over ham radio? Have they never heard of AMPRnet? How about AX.25? I was able to get (very very slow) Internet access back in 1997 with a KPC-3, an old Yaesu HT, and the Linux AX.25 stack.
Methinks some PHB at France Telecom just got wind of it and is throwing a hissy fit.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
D-Star is a crock. I don't think HAM should allow anything that requires licensing like this (improved reception via patented technology seems ok, but you should be able to decode/encode without patented tech. The internet connection thing seems stupid (of course you can do this with almost anything). As for encryption that's somewhat silly too, you could encrypt other types of types too, and just make it illegal to do so. D-Star doesn't include built in encryption (it'd be illegal to use in the US with that.
It's France, so what did you expect?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wait 'til they find about IP over pigeon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers .
Honey get out the Gordon Ramsay recipes for pigeons shot out of the sky for internet connection violations.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
...to make DStar illegal, just like all other copyright-covered protocols who have nothing to do with ham radio ? Or if you insist to use DStar, to transform Ham Radio into a commercial service ?
"connect to the internet"? jeeze hey France, ever hear of a Rose node or KISS? or any of the hundreds of available(since about 1994) packet radio bbs systems that connect and use the internet at will? How about xxx.ampr.org? For the non hams, that stands for AMateur Packet Radio and when used in AMPRNet it is AMateur Packet Radio Network. Thats ok France, I've been around for years and have well over 200 countries on my list of contacts, I can do without you. Just don't get in the way of my signals with your plea for help next time your in a jam....pun intended.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Just saying...
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The French have basically outlawed something because of interoperability. The D-Star stuff can be networked. They could have simply said "Don't connect it to the Internet" instead of making it illegal to use.
I'm not surprised about any bureaucracy coming out of france. There's plenty of political idiots here that look up to that red-tape bullshit here too. Screw those cheese eating surrender monkeys. Their citizens will let their government push them around and the government knows this. Its not like they are known for standing up for what they believe in.
In the US, I would argue that using D-Star on amateur radio is already illegal, under Title 47 part 97(a)(4). Since the codec is proprietary, and documentation on the encoded format is not available, the use of the code is clearly an attempt to obscure the meaning of the communication from anyone that doesn't buy D-Star equipment that contains the proprietary codec.
Eric Smith
N2ES
Sorry, that's Part 97.113(a)(4).
...the French Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes...
They had to add in the regular mail, you see, else the acronym could have been "FARCE"...
We can't allow you to have free speech, because free speech helps terrorists and pedophiles!
Using PACTOR III it is possible to (1) connect to the Internet. It is (2) unencrypted and not only (3) proprietary -- it's sole source is SCS. Applying the same logic which prohibits the use of D-Star, PAC III stations should be prohibited too.
- They where the first to introduce "3-strikes-and-out" Internet connection. Meaning if you download something from piratebay, 3 times - then you lose your internet connection by law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8436745.stm
- They where imposing restrictions on content on personal homepages
http://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/french-court-imposes-speech-restrictions-beyond-its-borders-0
(and much more)
- They always stand in way of internet innovation, if something isn't checked with them, it's illegal:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22103516
Needless to say, this NEW restriction doesn't come as a huge surprise when it's from France. It's the same country that wanted the entire world to speak French instead of English, remember EuroDisney in the beginning, where you were nearly chased out of the country if you couldn't speak French (it's not like that anymore...experience dawns on them eventually) ...but come ON FRANCE...
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I am an outside observer, but I think you have a pretty good point there. It's arguably "messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof,". It's a cipher of sorts, the only argument is whether or not it is intended to obscure the meaning. It could be argued that there is no intent to obscure the meaning, only that its a coincidental side effect.
Brett
Who is this "France" in reference again...?
He is proposing a non-proprietary codec be developed by hams for hams (for everyone really!).
http://codec2.org/
Kill D*Star now, it isn't the right answer.
Don't you know? In France it is illegal to encrypt your mail. Repeat, mail, not e-mail. Do you want to have the same legislation in USA? If you are not careful, it will happen soon than later.
DSTAR = Dumb Sh#t Technology for Amateur Radio. Apco/P25 is where it's at.
Using PSK-31 is an attempt to obscure the meaning of the communication from anyone that doesn't buy a computer sound card interface?
Its going to be an uphill battle, like trying to use 97.113(f) as a stick to get rid of packet radio digipeaters/nodes.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
French here giving some explanation (all obtained from the document sent by ARCEP. I have no special knowledge on the subject)
In france, you need an authorization from ARCEP to broadcast radio amateur signals.
The article does not says that D-Star is illegal, just that they are not authorizing it on radio amateur.
The reason why they are not authorizing it is that radio amateur can not be connected to any other communication network (By law), except for some temporary pedagical explanation.
In fact radio amateur are design to learn and study about radio signals. Therefore communication over a radio amateur is not permitted.
The bottom line is that this prohibition is only radio amateur signals. If you are licensed, you are not amateur an can do it. If it is not on radio amateur frequencies (such as IP-over-pidgeon or IP-over-yelling as suggested by other slashdotters) then this decision does not apply.
Encryption, per se, is not disallowed. What is prohibited is "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." A group of hams setting up a high powered 802.11 AP (which would be illegal for a non-ham to access) might use encryption, not for the purpose of obscuring meaning (it's not being done to hide anything from anyone), but simply for the purpose of restricting access to licensed hams. Likewise, a control link might be encrypted to disallow unauthorized control, not to hide the control operations which are actually being done. That would be perfectly legal, by a plain reading of the regulations. The regulations specifically state that with regard to telecommand of model aircraft, "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification."
I don't see how this applies to DSTAR. There is nothing implied or explicit in the language above, about encoding communications using proprietary or patented protocols.The language focuses on intent "purpose of obscuring". I interpret this as the difference between compressing and encrypting. If I use G729 to compress voice transmission, it doesn't mean my intent is to obfuscate, but merely improve the efficiency of my communication.
Ha. The phone system in my community of 300,000 people went down for 4 days a few months back. Guess who provided all emergency communications...
It never occurred to me before: Digital PORN over shortwave! Of course we'll have to pass "Think Of The Children" laws now!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The proper emergency authorities, that's who called the hams. If the hams were not present they would have taken care of things themselves.
The hams are merely cheaper, and only useful in situations like yours where there is inconvenience but no emergency.
They have proven time and time again they are absolutely incapable of maintaining an acceptable level of service in a genuine emergency situation.
Hams are no replacement for the professionals.
Yes, I agree, it should be illegal. It uses a proprietary codec, and it should not be allowed.
Amateur radio should only use open standards, codecs, and protocols; anything else should not be allowed on the air and people using anything else should lose their license.
There really is no reason to use anything proprietary anyway: the necessary technologies and protocols have been known for a while.
Using PSK-31 is an attempt to obscure the meaning of the communication from anyone that doesn't buy a computer sound card interface?
No, because the protocol is open and anyone can record it and get it translated at any point now or in the future. Or get it translated by a friend. Or create your own hardware to decode it using spare parts. Or use O-scope to replay it and decode by hand. Or ...
With D-Star that's not the case at all because they're deliberately not releasing the specs to keep you from decoding it! I'd call that obscuring it.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
The point is that unless I can build a device on my end that will "uncompress" your transmission, it is encrypted and obfuscated from me. I agree with N2ES, transmitting with a protocol that "anyone else is free to understand, provided they buy one of your radios" is a crock. If I invented a scheme for compression (or obfuscation) of my transmissions and let the ham community know that they're welcome to comprehend my transmissions provided they buy my secret device.. well, that would be illegal in the US. (thank god.)
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
Yes, PACTOR III should be disallowed as well.
Somewhere over the last couple of decades, the amateur radio community has drifted off into a dependency on proprietary hardware and software, contrary to the original intent and spirit of amateur radio use. It's probably because people actually interested in digital technology just left amateur radio for the Internet, and the people who were left were just Windows-using analog guys who didn't care about all this digital stuff or licensing.
After having an amateur radio license for 20 years, I'm just going to let it lapse this year. As far as I'm concerned, with the kinds of attitudes prevailing among current amateur radio users, the bands should just be returned to more productive use.
Simple rename it D-ETOILE, and the real problem will be solved.
Yeah, you obviously do not know much about the history of radio, let alone amateur radio, here in the U.S.
And, despite the waste of space in your head, where brains should be, during a major catastrophe (power down for days, weeks, etc.) POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) and HAM radio would be the only working sources for emergency communications, which might save even your sorry ass, that is, if you would ever pull your head out of it.
You can even tune into the broadcasts from the International Space station.
Yes, well, I suppose that is "geek porn" of a sort. But it's not what I had in mind.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
1. Internet, the ARCEP warn the HAM operator about the legislation. If you want to run a public telecommunication service you must conform to the pretty heavy legislation about it and it nearly impossible in the HAM environment. Plus HAM frequency aren't supposed to be connect to an open network for non HAM operator use.
2. Cryptografic & National Security, In fact most french HAM operator i know are pretty free software enthusiast and most of them are again proprietary codec and close standard. We have a large number of guys developing mixed HAM/VOIP service with ASTERISK or other kind of crazy stuff. The ARCEP simply said that in the current state of the D-Star standard, It not possible to the ARCEP and other HAM operator to monitor what's going on the frequency.
3. Patents, The standard is cover by many patent and that could be a problem for equal access and monitoring of the frequencies. In short, the ARCEP is again brand specific frequencies and standards for the HAM.
If you can read the ARCEP response letter, the situation is pretty simple. A guy from the DR@F Digital HAM group asked for a authorization for experimental use of the D-Star frequences bands. The ARCEP gave the authorization for 6 months, they asked for up to 10 members authorization they get it and 6 more months. Then they ask for a France wide general authorization for all registered HAM operator. Then the ARCEP politely explain that clearly out of the experimentation range and that clearly another story. For the ARCEP amateur radio group are suppose to be amateur and can't start negotiation for a national wide deployment in place of the manufacturer or consortium behind the standard or the equipment.
D-Star equipment manufacturer need to get in contact with the ARCEP to clarify some issue, like the patent and the possibility of interconnection with an open network ( internet, phone, etc. ). HAM frequence are suppose to be used only by and for registered HAM operator. You couldn't start your own nation wide pager network using HAM frequency.
This seem pretty reasonable to me.
Bruce Perens, K6BP, proposed replacing the proprietary AMBE codec with a new open codec. David Rowe, VK5DGR, has strted a project to replace the codec, but needs support in order to continue.
Anyone willing to help out or donate?
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
There is nothing implied or explicit in the language above, about encoding communications using proprietary or patented protocols.The language focuses on intent "purpose of obscuring". I interpret this as the difference between compressing and encrypting.
Arguably, the intent is to obscure the data in such a way that you can only receive it using another proprietary device.
If I use G729 to compress voice transmission, it doesn't mean my intent is to obfuscate, but merely improve the efficiency of my communication.
It's not just your intent that matters. For a company to use a proprietary codec has multiple purposes: one probably is to achieve a given level of voice quality without much effort, another is to gain market share and create barriers to entry.
It's reasonably possible to do what D-STAR does without using proprietary codecs or protocols; therefore, the use should not be permitted.
There are no specific patents covering PSK-31, so that's free and open. The fact that you are paying someone else to build hardware and software for you doesn't matter; nobody in particular benefits from implementing that standard. If you like, you could even use PSK-31 with completely open, patent-unencumbered hardware and software.
In contrast, there are specific patents covering DSTAR; the only way anybody can use that is by paying licensing fees to specific patent holders.
Ahhh, but its "intended to obscure the meaning thereof" not just obscure it.
I think we both agree the only reason the manufacturer of the codec chip (ABME?) has not released the specs, is because they "intend to make fat stacks of cash".
Also only voice passes thru the codec. You can do inet access / text message-y stuff / APRS-like stuff / file transfer apps all totally wide open.
Its rather like talking in Japanese on the radio. Perfectly OK as long as I follow all the other laws, especially including identifying in English. If you are unable to ever be able to understand Japanese, that has no impact at all on my part 97 legality.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Did France outlaw alternatives like APRS? Or just this specific implementation? Its hard to get upset about this without the complete story. Like others have said, D-Star does seem to go against the spirit of amateur radio. Maybe France got it right!
I guess I am a big, old dummy as I can't get a grip on why governments just can't stand the free flow of information. I guess it is sort of like US states not wanting their schools scores to be made public.
Heard this many times, never seen it proven true, only seen problems where hams think they're better than the pros and make things harder for everyone else.
A body covered by protection make a much better weapon than a bare body. You can pick up greater speed and have a greater shock. Otherwise, when bare, you get the pain yourself inflict without protection. I would wager that the energy involved in helmet+protection is allowed to be much greater, and when that protection fail the danger of greaver wound is probably higher. Maybe somebody with statistic on grevious wound in rugdby vs US football (more like handball) can chime in.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ahhh, but its "intended to obscure the meaning thereof" not just obscure it.
They could do two things to prevent people from buying any radios but theirs:
They win doing either one. But I argue until they fall into #2 they're with the intent to obscure. (if option #2 didn't exist, it would be a different story)
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
You're missing the one big exception to the "no broadcasts" rules--the ARRL (the US amateur radio operator organization) has special license from the FCC to run W1AW, their broadcast station, which transmits only on things that are of interest to hams: morse code practice, radio propagation bulletins, ham radio rules changes, etc.
Are you adequate?
The parent post is identical to the post on QRZ.COM. It seems like an ICOM troll shows up there every month to astroturf D-STAR.
One interesting thing though, on QRZ.COM, the comments seem to encapsulate the attitude "internet ain't HAM Radio." Here the comments are much more diverse and entertaining.
As for D-Star, the system has a proprietary patented CODEC. If the CODEC were open, I think most HAMS would embrace it willingly. The Winlink/PACTOR3 has the same problem. The fact that the CODEC is proprietary makes these systems too expensive and limits availability.
> They win doing either one. But I argue until they fall into #2 they're with
> the intent to obscure.
Their intent is not to obscure the content of the transmissions from third parties: the FCC (or anyone else with the cash) can buy the equipment and listen in. That is what the rule is about.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
As a ham op, I question any need for digital modulation on the FM repeater bands. Public Safety needs digital because of congestion, and second for security. Hams are not exactly overrunning VHF/UHF bands, and security is a non issue for hams. Digital modes on HF make more sense, as they can work with very weak signal strengths, and they are usually open source. The same reasons don't work with digital VHF, most of which is point to point communications with repeaters mounted on high. I see no need to buy any digital equipment for VHF use. FM works just fine for typical repeater use.
Good for the French! D-star is just another way to exclude everyone who doesn't want to plop down a kilobuck for their radio...much like "private" repeater organizations in the states. Amateur radio should be free and open to everyone, and D-star clearly doesn't fall into this category! 73, KD5SFK
DNS
distribution of IP address
Internet should be central free. People soon forgot what make it happen. What make it grow.
Because society promote CROWD, make us dump.
[ACERP] has ruled that D-Star, a amateur radio digital signal mode used world-wide, is illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet.
They've obviously never heard of Packet Radio then, which has been around much longer and enabled digital data packets to be transmitted over any radio link. Hell, it's pretty much how Taxi booking systems and Police response systems work.
Arcep is a public service that does a good job overall. They have been single-handedly (well, pushed by the European Commission) responsible for opening up the local copper loop to competition, and as a result propelling us into the top 5 for broadband speed and availability. At the same time, the Bush FCC, thanks to Verizon-ATT-cable "political contributions", which are but in name only *actual* bribes, made sure no such competition happened in the US.
Phil Karn's KA9Q package has combined amateur radio and the internet since the mid 1980's.
As an amateur radio operator I've questioned how D-Star could be legal. In a nutshell, D-Star implements a method of encoding radio communications in a way that can also be interpreted as encrypted (ie WEP/wifi on steroids). Since the FCC and the ITU (international telecommunications union) dictate that "no encryption or other privacy techniques may be used".
... except D-Star.
Since there is a proprietary chip made by a single manufacturer and a fee must be paid for the use then this would seem to violate the above rule. Every other digital and analog mode of communication is defined to the extent that an amateur radio operator could construct hardware to send, receive, encode, and decode the information
However, the French couldn't see the big oak in front of them, they had to decide that their big brother authority is threatened.
Yes, I was only claiming that the D-STAR voice modes are (in my opinion) in violation of the FCC regs.
Ham to ham... hack it and produce an open source version. By definition, patents are only valuable to others who use the idea to make money. Case law is required for a patent to be worth anything.
You're probably a little kid masturbating to scat porn in his parents' basement and trolling to inflate your shrunken self-esteem, but check out any major catastrophe - New Orleans, Haiti, L'Aquila - and you'll see how ham radio operators managed to keep communications working, in concert with authorities, to help get information about the damage and affected areas and coordinate the aid efforts. The internet was knocked out, together with cellphones, in the first minutes of the emergency.
Now put yur head between your legs and shit on your own face. My excrements are too precious to waste on the likes of you.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Same country requires 64 not 128 bit encryption in browsers from memory...
That citizens (oh, sorry, "consumers") could use the tech to bypass the up and coming internet filters, packet inspections and other assorted freedom-killing shite. How do you dare challenging the might of the corporate-backed government, consumer? Step in line or this friendly private security officer will bash your head in, kill your wife and rape your dog.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
The fact that they will happily sell equipment to decode the transmissions does NOT negate the fact that the transmissions are obfuscated.
from the summary: "illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet"
from the article: "ARCEP says protocol specifications could allow ham-radio operator to connect their station to Internet and are against the law"
is the Internet illegal in France? What is the problem here? Can someone please provide an explanation which doesn't require foreknowledge of Ham-radio operation/protocols/conventions or French law?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It's interesting to see how Americans apply their political traditions to countries they know nothing about.
Could it actually be that a public official is doing their job to promote open and free communications?! How shocking for you Americans.
So you'd be fine with me and a friend communicating over some AES encrypted VoHAM protocol as long as I sold the key to anyone that wanted it for $1M?
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Finally a Ham that's gets it. 73s Eric.
My Dad could connect to the internet over ham radio sans dstar almost 20 years ago,
Just Sayin' - Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Without commenting about your masturbatory habits, the record on that is pretty clear. If you are unaware of that record it's willful ignorance of the sort I usually only see applied towards saying evolution or climate change aren't 'proven'.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media