Talk:High-speed multimedia radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Amateur radio (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amateur radio, which collaborates on articles related to amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Security != encryption[edit]

It's a common assumption that security requires encryption. Even the FCC seems to have this belief, given that it allows encryption in space command communications.

In fact this is incorrect. I've pointed this out to some people involved in HSMM work (and hope to write an article about it one of these days). Access control needs strong authentication. That can be done quite easily, without encryption of any kind. IPsec in authentication-only mode has all the necessary mechanisms.

I suspect in the HSMM context the picture gets muddled because there isn't an authentication-only mode in WEP or WPA. Then again, WEP at least is junk. WPA seems to be better, but personally I would just turn all that stuff off and rely on IPsec, which definitely has been designed by skilled cryptographers (unlike WEP).

73, ni1d. Paul Koning (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that if you've reason enough to use authentication, then you've reason enough to use encryption too. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you wouldn't want anyone stealing your packets. --AB (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. In network security they are different services and the reasons for using one vs. the other are not the same. In any case, amateur radio is a special case: by law, amateur radio communication is not allowed to hide the content of the communication. So encryption is prohibited. On the other hand, there is no prohibition on authentication, and in fact in some places the regulations imply you are supposed to use it (for example auxiliary links).
Also, what do you mean by "stealing your packets"? If it means (a) reading the contents -- then the answer is that the amateur radio service specifically requires that the contents be readable, and if you need to communicate something that shouldn't be publicly visible, your only option is to avoid the amateur radio service. If it means (b) having Y take a copy of the packets sent by X and pretend they were created by Y -- I agree, and that is precisely what authentication does. In fact, only authentication does that -- encryption alone does not. That's why the FCC's rule allowing encryption in space command traffic is flat out technically wrong. (See Bellovin, Steven M. (1996). "Problem Areas for the IP Security Protocols". Proceedings of the Sixth Usenix Unix Security Symposium. San Jose, CA. pp. 1–16.  for a detailed explanation of that point.) Paul Koning (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pros and cons??[edit]

Can the article be edited to remove the Pros and Cons sections? It currently reads like a product review rather than an encyclopedia article.--Kharker (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Also AMSAT has requested that HSMM operators stay away from 802.11b/g channel 1 to prevent interference to satellite operations. It was recommended in CQ magazine that users use channels 3 and 5."

This is no longer the case. In an email from John Champa he said "When the "Channel 1 is Ver Botten" message (HI) was sent out there was an active Phase 3 OSCAR using that band segment. That is no longer the case. So that guideline is outdated. Forget about it.  ;o)" Kmoravec (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Kmoravec

1500 W ?!![edit]

IEEE 802.11a is really allow 1500 Watts (1,5 Kilowatts)? BlackCatzilla (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The information in this article as it stands now (14 July 2010) about frequencies, modes and power limits is only applicable to the US. Roger (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This is bad information! Part 97 is not the same as Part 15! Part 97 is amateur radio. Part 15 is your COTS wifi router! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is good information! Mind you, it is USA centric... All Amateur Radio Operators can re-type accept (in a sense) part 15 equipment, as part 97, stripping the part 15 from it in the process. The only time this is not true is in the case of commercially built external power amplifiers which could be operated in the part 95 band of 11 meters (below 144 megahertz, much lower than 2.4 gigahertz). Those must be part 97 accepted at the factory (and have 11 meters summarily locked-out)[1](Section:97.315). All home-built, and commercial equipment outside that narrow scope is exempt.
In amateur radio, since it is a competency licensed service, all amateurs are responsible to insure that their equipment is operating properly, and within restrictions of that band. 1500 watts, on 2.4 GHz is a bit extreme, but legal. However anything over about 10~20 watts is a waste as it will get you 2X the radio horizon. The only thing that it would be suitable for is deep space communications (a practical possibility with upcoming Mars missions!) AE7EC (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)