[aiforecastthway]

> I'm not an emcomm whacker but I think that take is too dismissive. Ham radio was a much more viable for emergency communications before cell phones, Internet, and FRS/GMRS/MURS.

Absolutely no disagreement! But I think that use-case is more-or-less dead. (The tool is perfectly good... it just doesn't have the network effects and usability of the other tools, and a combo of sats and FRS is good enough almost-always).

> Perhaps when all cell phones can reliably and routinely communicate with satellites, emcomm on ham radio won't have much purpose. But we're not there just yet.

True. But we are at the point where (a) satellite communication is extremely cheap, (b) authorities can be accessed via satellite as easily as 911 (or easier), and (c) people who can help but not official responders but in a place to help are WAY more likely to have satellite+FRS than Ham. (Eg most SAR teams either stick to FRS or deviate but don't even both licensing...)

> If the message is encrypted, how can anyone tell whether it is commercial or not?

I seriously don't think this will be a huge problem.

1. What's the point? There are cheaper and better solutions. Abuse will be minimal because infinitely simpler solutions just aren't that expensive these days. This was a very valid concern in the 80s, but it's not anymore.

2. Still require a call-sign unencrypted. Huge volumes from lots of different sources w/ the same call-sign such that it's ruining the amateur purpose of the use should be easy enough to investigate. If stations don't identify, well, that problem already exists and so do the solutions.

BUT, if it does become a problem, you can solve it in a variety of ways. If congestion really becomes an issue after the rule change, it can be rolled back. Or the rules could be written with "automatic triggers" based on congestion. Or you could pre-empt by putting a maximum number of minutes per callsign per day. Etc.

[ElevenLathe]

> 1. What's the point? There are cheaper and better solutions. Abuse will be minimal because infinitely simpler solutions just aren't that expensive these days. This was a very valid concern in the 80s, but it's not anymore.

I would like to point out that there has recently been an interest in HF spectrum for use shaving milliseconds off the ping of high-frequency trading firms, since skipping off the ionosphere on HF bands can be slightly faster than more reliable microwave or fiber links. There is licensing trouble (a good rundown of this is at https://computer.rip/2024-10-12-commercial-HF-radio.html) and I'm sure they would love to just use ham spectrum, even if it means paying a fine later after they've cleaned up in the markets. If this works, there will be more than enough demand for such connectivity to swamp the ham bands in encrypted digital junk.

[aiforecastthway]

> would like to point out that there has recently been an interest in HF spectrum for use shaving milliseconds off the ping of high-frequency trading firms, since skipping off the ionosphere on HF bands can be slightly faster than more reliable microwave or fiber links.

That's fascinating.

> and I'm sure they would love to just use ham spectrum, even if it means paying a fine later after they've cleaned up in the markets. If this works, there will be more than enough demand for such connectivity to swamp the ham bands in encrypted digital junk.

What stops them from doing this NOW?