Defining the Personal Journey — Meshing around with Meshtastic Part 4
Hello folks, welcome to part 3 of my blog series on Meshtastic. It seems this month has been rather noisy in this space. Particularly in the legal field, which an article from Hackaday has pointed out an interesting legal caveat to the Meshtastic protocol’s default use state. [1]
Regulation and the Crux of Radio Locality
The Hackaday article on FCC rule interpretation puts into question the future of my own node and furthermore the danger of having my own name and callsign on it. Specifically, the regulation is “§ 15.247 Operation within the bands 902–928 MHz…” [2]
The point of the matter is as quoted: “Some pointed out that subsection (a) states that it is “limited to frequency hopping and digitally modulated intentional radiators,” as evidence that it doesn’t apply as neither project utilizes frequency hopping. Others felt that the rules were only intended for devices with higher output power, and some even expressed a disbelief that the manufacturers would allow the modules to operate in a non-compliant mode in the first place.” [1]
My blogging on the topic, participation in the community, call sign designation of both my mobile station and base store & forward node and potentially antenna choice all jeopardize my project.
Diving Deep, the Widespread Impacts of Spectrum Use and Misuse
The crux of the issue is interference with emergency service on this band of spectrum, 902–928Mhz. EmComm is a vital part of radio response technologies such as P25. Interference with these can create life-endangering situations. The way Meshtastic is configured by default, too much airtime happens when exchanging messages across the node. This could create unwanted interference in emergency service communications.
Personally, further trouble can come in many forms for people with knowledge of multiple trades or industries. It’s rather known how Software Developers can end up in the hot seat when presented with past work in Design Patents. [3] The same way, someone with a cybersecurity & information security background who is learning about things in the realm of radio would have a target painted on my reputation should I continue conducting the node without any changes in the face of this legal interpretation.
The most prominent areas these have been enforced are the upper New England states, Pennsylvania [4], and the areas around Maryland’s tristate (MD, DE, VT). New York is unique in that our legal system is among the most rigid in the United States to process enforcement against. This creates delays in responses, so I’m acting as fast as I can to pre-empt the inevitable action.
There’s also an exceedingly disappointing angle to the way Meshtastic handles this region’s international element. Our relations between the United States with Canada are at a low point. Meshtastic can communicate across borders using local hops between nodes. The potential of cutting the ability to communicate with other countries off in this manner presents an imminent and growing danger. I cannot stress enough that this is a very large and concerning issue for this and all prior reasons. The ham radio community should consider the risks involved, as any security professional would.
I have some ideas of how to adjust to this emerging area of risk. At least, for my own node these would be the options. These vary in scope and complexity of carrying out, but I have been able to successfully work around the concern here by blog’s end.
Six options to adjust to the legally correct angle.
a. Changing to “Long Turbo” Meshtastic configuration for all 224 nodes would be the ideal solution as listed by Hackaday. Last week I made such an announcement on the local Meshtastic server for my neighborhood community. It was met with tepid reception at this time. As I am unable to get traction on this movement; participating nodes remain on & the existing 1 out of 224 nodes detected within the last 30 days continue to operate on “Long Fast”.
Get Masq31 - Benjamin Giordano’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
b. I could also modify my node to operate in ham mode. Currently a fraction of the 224 nodesoperate like this in the community. This feature is not compatible with the connected nodes. The available nodes may be too spread out from my geographic location to make this feasible. It would also remove a great deal of opportunity for the non-licensed audience available to utilize the feature. This would require further testing.
c. I could switch to a low power output antenna to avoid the wording of power levels in the FCC guideline. This would reduce my range to 3 DB and rely on hopping to other devices. While I have another antenna, this came at a financial cost of $15, and without guarantee this would work. I would also potentially need to remove the existing antenna from the roof.
d. I would need to cease functioning as a store and forward node, crippling capabilities for others in the area to record and log past communications. No other node operates outside of client or client base mode, making my personal node a unique and niche fulfilling item. It also singles myself out in the scenario the FCC regulation needed further investigation.
e. I would remove my call sign, as this designation puts me in the line of fire of the FCC and other Federal agencies to become involved with activity. Occam’s Razor can only go so far in the face of well-educated and technical qualifications. As someone who is security-aware, knowing where their local federal offices are stationed downtown among other skills, I’m certainly inclined to keep operating radio technologies with the utmost security, transparency and integrity to the hobby. So this ‘solution’ of cutting corners is not viable for my use case.
f. There is a simpler solution that I didn’t consider yet, and that is reducing the inverse-square power output of the antenna. To reduce a 7dbi antenna to 3dbi of range, we’d need to reduce power about 60%. This is a lot easier to do than making adjustments on the actual antenna. An N-fed antenna can be particularly tricky to adapt to mini u2sma. Thus, we’re going to settle with this solution.
Rallying around a Legal Spectrum Standard.
So option ‘f’ is our final determination. After attempting a coordinated response for about a week. I ended up simply reducing power to just enough to reach the nearest hop. This avoids any trouble, and any drama, within the community. I’m a bit ashamed of needing to even blog about this in the first place. As I’ve learned with my homelab series on computer technologies, adapting to existing scenarios or disasters (legislation changes in this case) is a skill that can benefit everyone.
I am left with the question on whether the interpretation of this legal definition can be challenged. I invite comment and consideration of the topic below. Thank you very much for reading.
As always,
Stay Safe Out There.
73
KE2IIL — Benjamin Giordano
References:
1. Nardi, Tom. “FCC ISM Rules May Shatter Lora Mesh Communities.” Hackaday, 18 Sept. 2026, hackaday.com/2026/09/17/fcc-ism-rules-may-shatter-lora-mesh-communities.
2.“§ 15.247 Operation within the Bands 902–928 MHz, 2400–2483.5 MHz, and 5725–5850 MHz.” National Archives and Records Administration, 6 June 2026, www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR2f2e5828339709e/section-15.247#p-15.247(a)(2).
3.“The Software Patent Crisis.” The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, 1 Apr. 1990, www.belfercenter.org/publication/software-patent-crisis.
4. “FCC Regulations and Meshcore 500.” Philly Mesh, 2 Sept. 2026, phillymesh.net/2026/09/02/fcc-regulations/.
