There’s limited bandwidth available. I definitely think it’s worth experimenting, but my expectation would be that any bands that allow for encryption would quickly be saturated with traffic.
There is absolutely no need for encryption to get mesh working.
I think there is another agenda: There has always been political pressure to open the ham bands for commercial use. And the one thing that has kept the commercials out is being able to inspect their packets, eg the ban on encryption.
It seems that the push for encryption is a barely hidden campaign by commercial entities.
If anything, I'd guess it's closer to being the other way around. Encryption allows us to pull in about 40 years of research in packet radio and protocols that run on top of it; that plus the HAM bands is an internet that no government entity can control, or even locate geographically (without a ton of in-person effort).
I imagine that prospect is frightening to a lot of 3-letter agencies.
> There is absolutely no need for encryption to get mesh working.
The internet learned the hard way that encryption is very important, even for casual use. I'm not sending emails -- even, especially, to my friends -- that aren't encrypted.
It’s not growing like the Internet, but there isn’t space like the Internet. It’s fixed real estate that can only have so many people on at one time. If you cruise the HF bands in the evening there’s lots of chatter going on, there’s no room for 1000 times as many people.
Yes it could grow faster, yes it could be much much much more welcoming to new people. The industry could support it with cheaper hardware and technology that allows for more tinkering. But if we want make wholesale changes to the regulations, like allowing encryption, it’s going to have to be very well thought out.
> But if we want make wholesale changes to the regulations, like allowing encryption, it’s going to have to be very well thought out.
I'm all for working out a really good way to allow encryption. But it sure seems like the pervasive reaction to encryption is just resistance; and that makes me pessimistic.
Sure there's resistance. Imagine being a ranger that's been tending the same national park location for the past 30 years. One day some people come in from the DNR and say they are hearing complaints about no cell signal so they are going to build a road and clear out two acres of land to drop in a tower.
Sure it will help the park appeal to a broader community and drive up visibility and maybe increase overall revenue...but...ugh.
Decent analogy, but classic ham radio isn't a 'natural state' that's being encroached upon. It's just an older technology. I think a better comparison would be if the park had no cell signal, but did have an old pager network set up.
It works, but...ugh.
The pagers used to be extremely valuable...before better tech was invented. Very few people have a use for the outdated tech anymore. Cell phones let us do far more.
I imagine there might be other mechanisms for limiting abuse - e.g., limit the traffic that any given call sign can generate. The call signs can help ensure it's non-commercial. Plus, don't people like doing fox hunts?
