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."

Comments

... and Winlink 2000?

[dtmos]

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.

every modulation method can be 'net-connected

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the /real/ reason for this law, please, French hams?

Wait, What?

[Monkeedude1212]

"illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet."

Surfing the web is a crime in France?

Re:Wait, What?

[vlm]

Be thankful it is how it is. If commercial interests got access to the amateur bands, they'd push individual "amateurs" out. Just imagine if the bands were crowded with business traffic, with powerful stations paid for by commercial interests. The regular Joe would never be able to get through the din.

Yeah, like winlink on 20M HF (ducks from the flames while running). Seriously funny how well your description matches winlink, which in my opinion spends most (all?) of its time dangerously close to breaking the law.

Also your quotes apply to the semi-professional affiliated emcomm types pretty well, too. Pretty much any emcomm involving "memorandum of understanding" and florescent orange safety vests.

Which is probably why those two groups are so ... strongly debated, in some circles. But dstar is not debated so much. Odd.

Re:Wait, What?

[galaad2]

If I was a big electronics geek I could theoretically set up a pair of toy laser pointers + some light sensors to allow me to relay internet traffic by line of sight (with crappy bandwidth) but that wouldn't be that much more complex than what they seem to be talking about.

not exactly toy laser pointers, but it has already been done and it works reasonably well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA

Re:Wait, What?

[Skuld-Chan]

Ordering a pizza has always been legal to do over the radio - many people misinterpret the rule here. If the ham radio operator himself has a fiduciary interest in operating the radio (for example - dispatching pizza delivery people for his/her own company) that is a no no - however if there is no fiduciary interest (like a 3rd party person on the phone you have no relationship to) - nothing wrong with that since the ham making the phone call isn't making any money by operating his or her radio. Same rules would apply to accessing the net over the air using ham equipment.

The only ham radio operator allowed to make money while operating a radio is a school teacher :).

Also - its largely up to the repeater operator what kind of traffic they allow on their system - if a club has a rule - no pizza ordering they can enforce that, but the FCC doesn't care - and they never have as long as I've been a ham (since 91).

Re:Wait, What?

[RandomJoe]

Well, you *could* also pass data while in the "digital voice" mode, even alongside a voice conversation. Just at an abysmally slow data rate (~960 bps). So in theory you could "access the net" even with a VHF/UHF rig if the other end was set up appropriately.

I did this once, set up a PPP link between two ID-800s attached to Linux machines. Just for giggles - the data rate is so horribly slow you almost have time to think between keypresses! :)

Normally the data "side channel" is only used for position reporting like APRS, but there are some apps available that let you do a sort of text-messaging with it. Perhaps that's what has them up in arms, don't want to lose any lucrative text-messaging money from the phone company... (Although then again I'm under the impression France / Europe didn't have insane pricing for texting like we do in the US.)

I'm waiting for a couple of ID-1s to show up right now, be interesting to see what sort of range I'll get from 1.2GHz. Never used that band before...

Why now?

[red_dragon]

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.

Where's the petition for to praise the decision?

[Eric Smith]

Some of us licensed hams think that allowing a proprietary protocol/codec on the amateur bands is a crock of shit. Where's the petition to praise the decision? (I'm licensed, but I'm not in the EU.)

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

Using That Logic PACTOR Should Be Illegal Too...

[xquercus]

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.

Encryption...

[msauve]

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."

Project to replace the proprietary codec

[molo]

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

It ain't that simple

[aepervius]

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.