AmateurRadio.com

Dear Sirs.

I understand that the trend in amateur radio these days is towards self regulation. However, recent events in the digital sub-bands lead me to believe that this is just a recipe for chaos. I refer to the recent appearance of ROS, a 2.2kHz wide digital mode apparently developed for weak signal work.

Soon after the ROS software was made generally available, chaos ensued with ROS users causing interference to IBP beacons, established APRS and ALE networks and Olivia users, not to mention other ROS users. Any chances of making DX low-power contacts were dashed by the number of people trying to use a limited number of frequencies to make short range QSOs that could have been accomplished using PSK31 and one twentieth of the bandwidth.

The band plans do not set aside specific sections of the digital sub-band for different modes. I am told that this is so as not to hinder experimentation. However, many popular modes such as PSK31, WSPR, Olivia etc. have established their presence on various parts of the bands and this is normally honoured by “gentleman’s agreement.” This all goes out the window when someone posts on the net that a new mode is available and hundreds of people download software and go mad with their new “toy” without any authoritative guidance as to where to operate.

The experience with ROS throws into question whether different digital modes can co-exist in the same band space. Many digital users seem to treat signals in another mode as QRM to be transmitted over rather than somebody else’s contact. The problem in the case of ROS is exacerbated by the fact that the transmission of this mode is 2.2kHz wide, which makes it harder to avoid causing interference to somebody. I think we should also be asking if there ought to be a limit on the width of digital modes that can be used on the HF bands, because there just isn’t enough space in the digital sub band for many people to each have a clear 2.2kHz wide channel.

I am not against experimentation, and would suggest that a small part of each band be set aside for experimental modes, experiments being conducted by the developer and a few chosen testers. However, before a mode can be made available for general use it should be approved by an international committee which would take into consideration the benefits of the mode, the amount of bandwidth it occupies and what frequencies it may be used on.

Julian, G4ILO

CC: Andy Talbot, G4JNT, Data Modes columnist

I visited the ROS Digital Modem Group on Yahoo! and found the following message:

ROS ULTIMATUM

Several hours ago I posted about the news that the FCC had reversed its decision regarding the legality of the use of ROS in the US. Is that not good enough for him?

A week ago, when I posted that ROS was illegal in the US, that was what the FCC believed and what I wrote was true at the time. I am not in the Soviet Union and I am not rewriting history to suit someone else’s convenience. Moreover, if someone has an issue with me or anything I write, would not the correct way to proceed be to send me an email, not issue an ultimatum in a public forum that I may or may not read?

I am so angry I can barely type.

Update: Jose has now seen my post of this morning and issued an apology. He wrote:

I apologize and I hope you put yourself in my place and understand my indignation.

I don’t wish to have any ill-feeling so I have accepted his apology. But I am still pretty angry and upset about the manner in which he chose to express his indignation. Even if I hadn’t yet written about the changed ruling, an email would have been all that was needed to obtain my assurance that I would as soon as I could.

I will not be using the ROS digital mode any more.

José Alberto Nieto Ros, the developer of the new ROS digital mode, has submitted the technical specification of the mode to the FCC, as a result of which they conclude that ROS can not be viewed as Spread Spectrum and would be encompassed within the section 97.309 (RTTY and data emissions codes).

Now, all that needs to be resolved is the issue of where to use it without causing complaints from users of existing nets and other modes. Anyone with experience of getting quarts into pint pots please apply now.

Today is the 10th anniversary of me getting my first ham radio license, which was officially issued by the FCC on March 1, 2000. My original callsign as issued was KC2FZT, though I changed to the current vanity callsign (K2DBK) later that year, just before I upgraded to my General license. At the time I was licensed, I had to take both the old Novice and Technician written tests to receive a Technician class license. (Major license restructuring occurred on April 15, 2000, when they reduced the number of license classes from 6 to 3 (Technician, General, and Amateur Extra). I didn’t take a Morse code test at the time (which would have given me “Technician Plus” privileges), but I did take a 5wpm test later that year as part of the General Exam. And no, I didn’t have to go to the FCC office in New York City as used to be the process, I took my exams in Joyce, KA2ANF‘s basement from a dedicated group of Volunteer Examiners.

I first got interested in getting onto the HF bands after participating in Field Day that year. Alan, KG2MV, helped me work the 15m phone tent (and yes, the bands were a whole lot better then, so we were pretty busy) and I got hooked. In addition to friends in my radio club (the 10-70 Repeater Association), I also had a lot of encouragement from a co-worker Jim, WK8G, and of course from my good friend Larry, N4VA, who continues to encourage me today.

Reflecting back on 10 years as a ham, there are a number of things that I’ve come to realize are why I so enjoy the hobby. There is always something new to try, be it a new digital mode, a new contest, or operating from a new location, although you can always go back on something you already know well and with which you are comfortable. The hobby is there when I’m ready for it; I don’t have to depend on good weather or some particular location. And of course, there are good friends and good times for those of us drawn together by a common avocation.

East of Mississippi.

• N4OGW | 64 Qs | 45 Mults | 2,880 Points [ACG].
• W9RE | 58 Qs | 40 Mults | 2,320 Points [SMC].
• N8EA | 55 Qs | 39 Mults | 2,145 Points [Thumb Area Contester].

n = 24 scores submitted in this division.

West of Mississippi.

• N3BB | 55 Qs | 40 Mults | 2,200 Points [CTDXCC].
• W0BH | 51 Qs | 38 Mults | 1,938 Points.
• WD0T (@KD0S) | 48 Qs | 39 Mults | 1,872 Points.

n = 14 scores submitted in this division.

NCCC Member (CA/NV).

• N6RO | 52 Qs | 32 Mults | 1,664 Points.
• N6ZFO | 47 Qs | 30 Mults | 1,410 Points.
• K6VVA | 45 Qs | 28 Mults | 1,260 Points.

n = 5 scores submitted in this division.

A shout out from the shackadelic on the beach to Tor, N4OGW and his great effort while leading the Alabama Contest Group to its banner position until next winter! The fastest 30-minutes in RadioSport experimented with its winter version of NS Sprint and scored a resounding success.

Now, if my work schedule permits, I want to join the fun this summer at least on one band before bedtime.

Contest on.

Kevin, GW0KIG, has just written in his blog about struggling to brush up his Morse. He first learnt the code at the age of 19 and has “memories of a Morse code tutor program on a borrowed ZX81 computer (remember those?)”

I remember the ZX81 and its wobbly 16KB RAM pack very well. In fact, a Morse tutor was one of the first programs I wrote for it. I wrote an article for Short Wave Magazine which described the program, together with a Morse keyboard with programmable memory and a high-speed Morse sender for meteor-scatter work. It is amusing today to read my conclusion that “it is possible to program the ZX81 to create sophisticated memory keyers.” These primitive programs would hardly seem sophisticated today.

The article was published in the August 1982 issue of Short Wave Magazine. I kept a copy and you can see it here. I wonder if my program was the one Kevin used to learn Morse when he was 19? One of these days I might try downloading a ZX81 emulator and see if these old programs will run on it.

I have been browsing for information about various circuits recently. Two books that are often recommended are “Solid State Design for the Radio Amateur” (which is now quite old) and its successor “Experimental Methods in RF Design”. I decided to get a copy of the latter and was gobsmacked to find on Amazon.co.uk that only used copies are available, priced from £557.14. No, that’s not a misprint, it’s about 800 bucks in real money.

I clicked over to Amazon.com and found the same book listed as available new for a slightly more reasonable (joke) $600.00, or I could buy a used one for a whisker under $500.00. Who are these sellers kidding? Do people really pay $600 for a book that was published by the ARRL in 2003 with a cover price of about $40? I wish I’d invested in a pile of them – they would have been a better return on my investment than my shareholdings (sick joke.)

I browsed down the Amazon.com page to see the usual stuff Amazon tells you about a book and found that 37% of people (rich or insane people, presumably) buy the item featured on the page, while 36% buy “Experimental Mathods (sic – not a joke) in RF Design” for a mere $42.70. That’s 36% who can’t spell, I guess, but I can live with a misprint in the title if it saves me $550.

But seriously, what’s going on here? Is “Experimental Mathods” a pirate copy using a mis-spelt title to avoid copyright infringement? Is a joke being played on somebody? If I buy it will I receive something other than what I expected, like searching for “mammaries” instead of “memories” on Google? I’m off to confused.com.