I have my first mesh running in my house with a Mumble server for voice.  A small issue appears to be that all voice is encrypted. Is this encryption in violation with part 97?

Attachments
 20130715_181357.jpg [110 KB]

Check the main page http://hsmm-mesh.org/ about legal information.

We don't debate encryption here.  

HSMM sends whatever data you send through it.  It doesn't check for FCC rules compliance.

If you want to use encryption, you do so at the risk of your own ham license.

Thank you for the reply, your point is taken. I wouldn't and do not expect software (or firmware) to inspect each packet for FCC compliance.

I do however feel that using COTS (commercial off the shelf) applications would be a strong enabler for HSMM to bring an influx of new license holders into the art. The most commonly used VoIP software that provides server software encrypts its transmission by default and cannot be turned off.

I'm open to be the guy that pursues the answer, though I'm not sure where to get started.

How do I go about finding and accessing a, "...duly appointed person, empowered to interpret the rules and regulations..." in order to get a solid answer on this issue?

Thanks Jim!

I'm going to give the guy over at ARRL a shot first. Then I'll jump in to what I fear would be the nightmare of getting an answer from the FCC :)

If you read through a variety of the comments posted to the FCC, you will see this is a hot issue, and unfortunately is not an easy answer.

The actual proposed ruling change deals STRICTLY with emergency situations and training for such. Unfortunately, most of the 80m ragchewers and DX-chasers who probably still use paper logs didnt get that fact and posted their blab accordingly.

It is my hope that the FCC will recognize those facts and rule accordingly.

Ive said it in private conversation, but Ill state my prediction here:

Look at the recent past, where the ARRL "leadership" commented/filed AGAINST a possible FCC rule change/waiver/etc (Recon Robotics, BPL, etc); The FCC almost ALWAYS went the opposite way. So it is my prediction that this proposed change will go through! :-)

Now, of course, Im a die hard Steeler fan, and every time I think they will win, well..... lol

KTF

Please don't.  You are wasting your time and will only make things worse. 

If you ask the FCC, the answer will be "No," because they're bureaucrats, they only care about the people with big bucks or political connections, and the easy, safe, answer is "No." 

Unless they go through the official, bureaucratic, rulemaking process, any positive FCC response will mean nothing.

If they go through rulemaking, the answer will be convoluted and not what you want, even if it's not entirely negative.

They're not going to give blanket approval to encryption, and they're not going to go to the trouble to decide that "mumble" encryption is a special case because then they'd have to decide a thousand other special cases.

If anything, they'll completely misunderstand the question, and do something stupid like rule against any form of digital communication using 802.11 on ham radio.

Don't forget, this is the government you're dealing with.  Imagine what is going to happen to any questions you ask.  It's going to handled by someone who is a typical government employee.  Imagine the typical person behind the counter at your local driver's license office.

The person might have some idea about ham radio, but he's probably not even a ham.  He probably doesn't understand computers or he'd have a real job.  He's probably not really familiar about what encryption means, he just knows it's bad.  He doesn't know what "mumble" is.  He doesn't understand key exchange, etc.

Imagine Emma Ray at the local DMV going through the following thought process:

"Let's consider my options:

1) Say "No, that's encryption and it's forbidden." 

Mark off another item off my todo list. 

Go eat another donut. 

2) Figure out what "mumble" is. 

Take time to understand how keys are exchanged in mumble.

Think about the concepts involved.  Is the encryption intended to obscure meaning?  If it isn't, why is it encrypted?  Why does the author say "Stay private and secure - always encrypted communication" if it's not intended to obscure meaning?

Check with my superiors.  Explain it to them. 

Write up some documentation about how to use mumble and stay within the rules despite the "encryption" involved.

Document for FCC field agents how to recognize a mumble data stream and get around the encryption.

Go through the notice for proposed rulemaking  process to document the answer.

Prepare to go through the same analysis for the next 200 different obscure computer programs that I'll get asked about." 

What do you think the answer is going to be?

As for running a mumble server on your own home network, just don't use amps or high gain antennas and work under part 15.  We're only under ham rules if we go outside the normal 802.11 effective radiated power and frequency limits.

Just don't mesh in with any other hams who might be doing their own high ERP links.