ARRL announced today that they have filed comments with the FCC requesting a dismissal of the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by New York University (NYU) regarding digital encoding and encryption. This petition basically claims that proprietary and closed protocols like PACTOR violate current FCC rules, an opinion I’ve had for several years. I think the AMBI vocoder used in D-STAR and other digital voice modes falls into the same category as well as it’s not openly documented, like the rules require. Due to the lack of documentation and openness, such encoding is de facto encryption, which is prohibited.
ARRL’s filing has me smacking my head. Rather than openly addressing the issue of protocols in amateur radio that are closed and proprietary, they attack the language proposed by the Petition. Furthermore, they pull CW into this, stating,
“The proposed prohibition arguably could include, presumably unintentionally, CW (Morse Code), which is a longstanding means of encoding transmissions. The very fact that messages sent in CW are “encoded” by any definition of the term starkly demonstrates the problem with this proposal.“
I’m not sure if ARRL is intentionally being obtuse or just doesn’t understand the crux of the issue with “un-openly” documented digital protocols. CW, while technically encoding, is 100% openly documented, and has been for a century or more. It doesn’t require proprietary hardware, software, or algorithms to decode. PACTOR until most recently could only be decrypted with proprietary hardware. AMBI and others continual to be closed protocols. That’s the problem, not semantics over the proposed language in the petition snagging CW as encoding, and encryption.
A few weeks ago I started writing comments to file with the FCC, but I quite honestly lost interest. I don’t have a horse in this race, other than wanting to see amateur radio continue on well into the future. I’m just disappointed ARRL doesn’t get what the real problem is, doesn’t make an effort to correct it, and fails to even acknowledge that closed digital protocols are antithetical to the openness and historical foundation of amateur radio.
This article originally appeared on Radio Artisan.
There’s been a festering, ongoing social media battle over Hamvention, its new venue, the fairground in Xenia, and the old Hara arena. It seems this has bubbled up to the surface again with the recent tornado disaster in Trotwood which severely damaged homes and the venerable, but severely dilapidated Hara Arena.
I won’t dispute that Hara was a dump. It was a major dump. It was abused over the years and its long tenuous financial history is available for anyone who wants to find it on the interwebs. Despite being a dump, Hara was an ideal venue for the Hamvention. Hamvention started there, grew with Hara even through its physical decline, and the legendary event arguably was molded and enabled by the capabilities the site offered. Hara may be rebuilt and Hamvention may or may not return to Hara, but I’m not going to bet on it or even entertain the thought.
What bothers me is that some dismiss any commentary or criticism of the Xenia location as merely Hara Arena fanatics sore over the loss of Hara, or simply as complainers. That’s not the case. I’ll acknowledge that Xenia was likely the best choice out of a few choices at the time, but it’s just not well suited long term for the Hamvention. There’s a lack of major highways and hotels nearby. The mud pit parking has become legendary. The buildings are more suited to host livestock than technology. The flea market is in the grassy track center, because, well, there’s no where else to put it. And last, the venue doesn’t feel like the largest amateur radio gathering in the western hemisphere. It feels like a county fair with amateur radio.
It’s not realistic to think Hamvention will return to Hara anytime soon. I think what many of us would like to see is a realization that Xenia isn’t an ideal location, and it has changed the character of the event. Xenia was a prudent, stopgap measure taken under difficult circumstances. Now that the immediate threat to the future of the event has passed, the Hamvention powers that be should seek a better venue for Hamvention and not settle for Xenia.
This article originally appeared on Radio Artisan.
In the past I’ve been a strong proponent of ARRL. I often mentally tied the past and future success or failure of amateur radio to the organization. I’ve come to the conclusion that this just isn’t the case, and in my evolving opinion the organization is becoming less relevant as time goes on. The elected leadership hierarchy to me seems archaic. I tend to doubt the slate of new blood “change” candidates which got elected will change much, as long as the majority of ARRL leadership, and to some extent the general population of amateurs in the US, continues to have the demographic makeup that it does. My life membership has essentially become a good deal on a perpetual magazine subscription, assuming that I don’t get hit by a bus anytime soon. I’m convinced it’s non-centralized grass roots efforts from individuals that are going to make or break amateur radio in the coming decades.
So, one of my 2019 “amateur radio resolutions” is to stop worrying and pontificating about ARRL, and be that individual that leads my own grass root effort.
No doubt you’ve seen the recent ARRL proposal to increase Technician HF privileges and the expected ensuing online debate over it. In general I’m not opposed to the proposal, however I find myself indifferent. As others have pontificated, it’s not much of a hurdle these days to upgrade to General to acquire more privileges. I was very supportive of the code test elimination and various changes over the years that have simplified licensing. However, to some extent I think we’re at a point of diminishing returns with benefits from licensing changes and privilege increases. There’s perhaps one specific area I see the ARRL-proposed changes increasing on air activity: FT8. If Techs are given HF digital privileges on lower bands, I suspect we’ll see a lot of Techs end up there, and stay there, like a lot of Techs do today with 2 meter repeaters, unfortunately. With new radio amateur recruiting, participation, and retention, where should our focus be, what are the real stumbling blocks, and where is the opportunity? It’s not privileges. In thinking about the ARRL proposal, I’m kind of left thinking, “Meh.”
We need to look where the bulk of amateur technology hobbyist activity is today. It’s the Maker movement. These are intelligent, innovative, and inquisitive people who would be a great asset in amateur radio. It’s often been said that amateur radio and its perhaps dated technology can’t compete with the Internet, Xboxes, and cell phones. That may apply to your grandkids, but with Makers it’s not an issue. Makers enjoy playing with retro technology, like Nixie tubes, for example. They like building stuff and experimenting. They also like cutting edge technology, like satellites. Amateur radio has the perfect blend of retro and modern technology, and it has the opportunity to take Makers beyond the typical Maker fare of microcontrollers, single board computers, 3D printing, and robotics. Unlike “preppers” coming into the hobby for a specific application for their own purposes, Makers will be active and contributing participants and arguably are more likely to advance the radio art, as amateur radio was intended to do. But we need to have a culture that welcomes them, on their turf, and their venues, not just ours.
The Maker movement is a potential goldmine for amateur radio, one that needs to tapped, right now. This goes beyond having an amateur radio display at a Maker Faire stocked with pamphlets. If we really want to increase participation and new licensee retention, we need to pull out all the stops and target this demographic with technology, exhibitions, publications, and venues that tie amateur radio into their curiosities, interests, and projects. We need to be seen as innovators, not preservationists or on air retirement communities. There needs to be cultural change within amateur radio. While more kilohertz for newcomers is nice, and fairly easy to implement, it’s not going to get sizable returns in participation and retention. Targeting Makers will.
This article originally appeared on Radio Artisan.
For the first time in my amateur radio career, I’m beginning to look upon ARRL unfavorably. About 15 years ago after I acquired a lifetime subscription, my grandfather chastised me saying I’d eventually grow tired of the League and would regret my subscription. I’m sad to say I think that day may have come.
Over the years I’ve defended ARRL, in both in person conversations and online. ARRL attracts a lot of haters, often unfairly, for wrong reasons. For example, I’ve witnessed many hams hate ARRL, claiming they don’t like CW and worked to eliminate it, despite ARRL supporting code testing for Extra licensing in their FCC comments filings years ago, and offering daily code bulletins and practice over the air. Despite ARRL’s faults and shortcomings, amateur radio would not be where it is today, and perhaps not even exist, if it wasn’t for ARRL.
With the recent Code of Conduct and censure incident and the proposed voting and membership changes, I’m left with the impression of an organization that is closed, secretive, adverse to dissent, and focused on self-preservation. The Force of 50 debacle points to an organization eager to project to the public a disaster response “photo-op” image that neither the organization or the amateur radio service supports or deserves. Over the years I’ve personally seen other examples that support these two impressions but never dwelled on them as ARRL garnered my utmost respect as I felt that the League, despite its flaws, in general was taking amateur radio in the right direction. I no longer have that confidence in the organization.
While I could end my diatribe with the paragraph above, I really want to explore or ask, what is the solution to “fixing” ARRL? ARRL does a great job with publications and education, contesting, and lobbying the FCC. Does the large and seemingly complicated hierarchal governance structure really serve a purpose today? It appears that structure is geared more towards emergency communications initiatives than an effective membership feedback vehicle or advancing the radio art. Is this structure the problem and ARRL needs to be transformed into more of a flat, responsive, grass-roots kind of organization?
This article was originally published at Radio Artisan.
Answers to the top 10 questions at Field Day, with questions omitted (and with 5 bonus answers):
14. Yes, I still hear the interference.
13. Behind that tree over there.
12. Because he knows his callsign and you don’t have to tell it to him three times.
11. Hit Return.
9. Try rebooting it.
8. It doesn’t matter. It’s not up high enough to have any directivity.
7. Just say QSL.
5. Yes, this frequency is in use.
4. It’s on the sign right above the rig.
3. I filled it up an hour ago. It’s good.
2. Yes, it’s done in the middle.
This article was originally posted on Radio Artisan by a team of laptop-equipped squirrels.