AmateurRadio.com

This article is part two of the series taking a look at band plans and gentlemen agreements.
See part one, here: Land (er, FREQUENCY) Grab.  See part three, here: In Response — Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Displaced and Marginalized

There are some unhappy amateur radio operators in the world of shortwave operations. Users of Morse code, and digital modes other than the highly-popular modes engineered by Joe Taylor, K1JT, feel displaced on the many amateur radio bands where Joe’s wildly-popular mode FT8 has erupted.

Joe (born March 29, 1941), is a friend of hams everywhere, and is an American astrophysicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate (https://g.nw7us.us/2Ptquv1) for his discovery with Russell Alan Hulse of a “new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation.”

Many have asked questions like, “Did Joe Taylor K1JT Destroy Amateur Radio? Did Joe Taylor K1JT, Nobel Laureate and noted friend of hams everywhere, accidentally destroy amateur radio?” This question remains relevant, even as more and more FT8 operators take to the HF bands to chase wallpaper and awards.

FT8 Has Validity and Usefulness

Full disclosure: I administer a Facebook group for FT8 and FT8-related modes, because I believe that the mode has a valid place in our amateur radio technology portfolio.  Here is the Facebook group URL, if you would like to join the fun: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FT8.FT4.HF.6m/. Understand, I have used and will continue to use FT8.

Because it has a place, it stands to reason that everyone should become more aware of the impact of using FT8 on the bands. It also stands to reason that it should be used ethically, and in the best spirit of amateur radio.

Many amateur operators use the FT8 digital mode as a novelty when there isn’t much else happening on amateur radio shortwave bands. One of the great things about it is that you can tell when a band is open–even though you don’t hear any other signals of other modes on the band in question, you very well may hear the roar of FT8 on the band where propagation actually exists to somewhere else than your QTH.

Others use it to finally get their DXCC, or WAS, or other award and wallpaper. This is especially popular during this season of the sunspot cycle where there are no sunspots–propagation is limited to lower-HF amateur bands because there’s just not enough solar activity to energize the ionosphere enough to open up the higher segment of shortwave.

FT8 Has Limitations

Can FT8 be used for two-way conversations? No. However, the JS8CALL digital mode is designed from the FT8 mode, by changing the protocol in a way that allows free text. It is designed for ragchewing and the new version 2.0 offers three modes of chat with 50 Hz and 16 wpm, 80 Hz and 24 wpm, and the turbo mode at 160hz and 40wpm with turbo only having a 6-second turn around time. The designated frequency is 7.078, which many find much nicer to use.

However, many find JS8CALL combersome, and non-intuitive.  How fast and how reliably can it handle critical messages, say, during an emergency?  I’m sure the software will improve, but how good is the protocol?

A mode such as Olivia has been field proven, and time tested.  It can reliably handle traffic.

The Rant

During the early days of widespread FT8 operation that came with the first public non-Beta release of FT8-equipped WSJT-X software, I tried to reason with the FT8 development leadership team. I made a polite attempt at explaining how incredibly rude they were in purposefully programming into the software the default operating frequencies such as 7.075, 14.075, and so on.

One of the main leaders of that team slammed me and stated that “we only suggested those frequencies; the operator is free to change them.” Additionally, he stated that the team used a common QSO/Mode spotting website to see what digital modes or other operations (like CW) were sparser. They perceived that the frequencies they proposed where no longer active because they saw few if any spots. They thought that no one would care.

I explained that a single website-spotting strategy was illogical and very lazy. This is true for several reasons, at least.

I guess you have to have a Ph.D. to know better than any average ham who went by gentleman’s agreements. I have an extremely dim view of JT and his disciples. CW is not the only operating group he’s engineered out of traditional slices of spectrum. Olivia, and other modes, now have been pushed down into PSK subbands, and everyone is feeling the crowding. As far as my thinking of FT8, well, it is radio, but it doesn’t foster goodwill and building serious communications skill. IMHO.

Play Nice, Be Positive and Polite. Smile.

I’ve received wise counsel from a number of fellow amateur radio operators.  They implore us to not promote hostility between “us and them.”  That even though the WSJT team is playing the playground bully, we should not be vengeful, but polite and willing to negotiate in good faith.

If we don’t play nice with the bully then the bully won’t play with us.  And, the general public will side with the bully because the bully has the nice toys…

Good negotiations, though, take a willingness by both sides, so that conversation evolves,  resulting in positive, cooperative actions embraced by both parties. There are other amateur radio operators who have made attempts to open up talks with Joe and crew.  What are the results, so far?

We can hope that Joe Taylor and his group of developers and leadership take a proactive role and join a conversation that is with a wider group of amateurs than just the WSJT enthusiasts.  We hope that they will play fairly, and cooperatively, with the rest of the amateur radio community.

Tomas Hood, NW7US, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from Nebraska, USA. Tomas is the Space Weather and Radio Propagation Contributing Editor to ‘CQ Amateur Radio Magazine’, and ‘The Spectrum Monitor’ magazine.

The following open letter to the ARRL Board of Directors and Leadership is in concert with many others coming from current members in response to the activities occurring at the ARRL Leadership level.

To join in and voice your thoughts, please visit:

(More information is found after the following open letter)

To: All ARRL Directors and Officers

From: NW7US

Many actions–policy and governance–taken by the League’s leadership over the past two years trouble me. Formalization of specific actions planned for the Board meeting on January 19, 2018, specifically worries me.

At this time, any action taken by the ARRL Board of Directors cause me concern. As a result of this, I add my name to those seeking that the Board delay consideration of any ByLaw changes at the January 19 Board meeting.

In particular, I strongly urge you to:

1. Reject any proposal to allow the President and individual Vice-Presidents to vote as Directors.

2. Reject any provision that allows expulsion of an ARRL member “for cause” without delineated criteria.

3. Reject any provision that allows expulsion of any Director, Vice-Director of Officer for bringing ARRL into “disrepute” without specific criteria.

4. Reject any provision that reduces Members’ ability to recall a sitting Director.

5. Reject any current or proposed provision that allows the Board to disqualify candidates for elected office without full disclosure of the reasons for such disqualification.

6. Reject any proposal that would allow the Board to designate replacements for Directors instead of appointing an elected Vice Director or other elective processes.

7. Reject any current or proposed provision that allows censure, removal or other disciplines of a Director for revealing or openly discussing any view expressed at a Board meeting that is not consistent with the Board’s action.

8. Adopt a policy that elected Directors, and Vice Directors are not “personnel” for the purposes of declaring that any information about removal or disqualification is confidential and may not be released.

It is crucial that ARRL remain a solidly democratic, membership-based organization with principles of openness and accessibility through our elected Directors. I urge you to vote per my wishes at the January 19 meeting.

Beyond these issues of governance, I am concerned about the policy-making process of the ARRL leadership–leadership that I feel has become much less Member-driven, and that no longer reflects the needs of the Membership.

Ham radio is in a time of transition. The ARRL must focus on the issues that make a difference for the future success of the hobby.

73, Tomas Hood / NW7US

More information about this effort:

myARRLvoice is an independent grassroots group of amateur radio operators working on behalf of our fellow Members of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), monitoring the activity of its leadership and advocating change to optimize the organization’s effectiveness in matters of policy and governance, and to foster ethical and competent stewardship.

myARRLvoice acts as a vehicle for ARRL Members to make their voices heard on matters of governance and policy, and to participate in the policy-setting process, holding our elected and appointed leaders accountable. We strive to make the activities of ARRL leadership more transparent by insisting on the creation and dissemination of records of the deliberations and actions of all ARRL Boards, Committees, and the operational Executive Team.

myARRLvoice believes that good ARRL stewardship can only be achieved through a check and balance system that includes the watchful eye of the Membership.

Visit the website at www.myarrlvoice.org