The main problem if you ask me is this the over the air
baudrate/bandwidth rules. These prevent anything at truly usable
speeds on non-microwave bands.
Has anyone heard anything on that plan to do away with the baud rate
part that was proposed to the FCC in 2013? (Would have been nice to
see 200 KHz wide on 70cm)
Steve, KB9MWR
-----Original Message-----
I presume you mean routing other subnets over amateur radio frequencies.
We used to do that. But there are two main problems with it here in the US.
1) Encryption. More than half of websites are now encrypted and the percentage is
growing every >day. E-mail encryption is also on the rise. And encryption is not
allowed over US amateur >frequencies. So amateur frequencies are fast becoming
impractical/irrelevant for real-world, >mainstream network traffic.
2) 3rd party-initiated traffic. Routing inbound e-mail, even if unencrypted, over an
amateur >frequency is a violation of Part 97, according to the FCC enforcement bureau.
At least it was when >I asked them about this a few years ago. That's because
anyone anywhere could initiate a >transmission on an amateur frequency without a
license simply by sending you an email. So we >allowed only outbound email from hams
to traverse the amateur frequencies. Inbound email >stopped at the gateway. It
wasn't very practical, but at least a message could go out.
We later got internet connections at all of our hub sites. So we turned each of them into
their own >gateways. Users can access the site over amateur frequencies to download
their mail since the >ham initiates that connection. But we still have to filter out
encrypted email. And we're using Part >15 frequencies between hub sites. I
suppose we could still use 44.x addresses. But since a 44.x >subnet can only exist
behind one gateway in AMPRnet routing, we didn't see much point in that >either.
Not trying to be a bummer. But the FCC regulations really squash creativity and
innovation.
Michael
N6MEF