Nick,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Somebody finally figured out to ask the key question! Nick gets an A+. The League's attorney would not let us publish his FCC communications and discussions on this encryption matter outside the WG (a couple dozen Hams). He couldn't even review and approved our "Guidelines for Proper Use of Encryption by Radio Amateurs" that we derived from his FCC communications because he was so highly involved in BPL issues. That was yet another straw for the WG! They thought that our dealing with sharing the 2.4 GHz band with Part 15 (WiFi) stations was just another form of BPL and we deserved equal time. Also, they wanted an actual RULES CHANGE, as the ARRL Board originally agreed to have him pursue, not just many pages of FCC-ARRL memos! Well....there are a lot more ARRL members on HF than have even HEARD of a Radio Amateur 2.4 GHz band, HSMM, etc. so I he didn't buy that argument (HI). John - K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: n2qz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:25:47 -0400 John Champa wrote: > So encryption is required to be used, and the League attorney > asked the FCC if that was acceptable and they said "yes". The > FCC's reasoning was that it was NOT our INTENT (an important > legal concept) to obscure the communications. Our intent is > to PROTECT our HSMM Network (The Hinternet) from unauthorized > users (Part 15 stations). > > There is nothing I can point to our extremely out-dated regs that covers > this specific situation, but I do have a copy of the League's > correspondence on the matter. Could you post a pointer to where this correspondence is available? Or if it's not up on the net somewhere, could you mail it to me directly? I'd be most grateful for your effort. -- 73 de Nick N2QZ Section Traffic Manager, Eastern New York Section Net Manager, NYS/E FISTS #11469 SKCC #1027
