AmateurRadio.com

My friend and colleague Frank/K4FMH has published several recent articles on trends in amateur radio licensing and demographics. This one, The Decline in ARRL Membership and Market Share, has some interesting data and observations about licensing trends in the US. (It also comments on ARRL membership trends, but that is not the subject of this post.) This post focuses on the decline in the number of FCC amateur radio licensees in the past few years. See the chart below.

By License Class

As Frank points out, breaking this out by license class is illuminating. Unsurprisingly, the Novice and Advanced class licensees are experiencing a slow, steady decline. This probably represents the natural decline of a set of licensees when no new licenses are issued. Advanced class licensees declined 4.7% per year from 2019 to 2024. Some of these licensees may be upgrading to higher class licenses, but anecdotally, I think this is a small effect.

The Technician class is more concerning, with a 7.2% cumulative decline starting roughly in June 2021. (The data is in 6-month increments.) Being the entry-level license and representing about half of the total licenses, it is a strong indicator of ham radio licensing activity, in general. One potential factor contributing to this decline is that COVID-19 restrictions on public gatherings started around March 2020. In most areas, the VE exam opportunities dropped off dramatically, which could have affected the number of new licensees. This triggered a new emphasis on offering online exams, so exam availability improved during the following years.

Fees and Dabblers

Another factor is that the FCC fee implemented a $35 application fee in April 2022. However, this came after the Technician decline started. Although the $35 fee is arguably “reasonable,” I expect it to decrease the number of licensees.

Many Technicians are only dabbling in ham radio.

Dabbler: someone who takes a slight and not very serious interest in a subject, or tries a particular activity for a short period.

These Dabblers may get their license in response to family or friends encouraging them to do it. Or they may have a work connection such as being a firefighter, law enforcement officer, or emergency medical technician. Or maybe they were curious about the hobby, but it did not quite take hold. When they get to the point of renewing their license, many Dabblers will likely decide not to spend the $35. One might argue that the Dabblers are not engaged in the amateur radio service so having them drop out may be just fine. Whatever the reason, the result is fewer licensees.

Frank points out that the General and Extra Class numbers are increasing, reflecting healthier activity in those license classes. However, the slope of those curves is pretty flat, and the General class declined slightly during the past year. From December 2019 to December 2024, the General class numbers increased by 3% and the Extra class by 4%. US population growth was about 3% during this time, so these two license classes are just keeping up with population growth. I’d argue there are fewer Dabblers in the General and Extra ranks as they have demonstrated enough interest and commitment to the hobby that they went to the trouble of earning a higher-level license. Accordingly, the $35 FCC fee would have less effect on these two license classes. (I don’t have data to support this, so it is just my own little hypothesis.)

Back in 2018, I made some comparisons between ham radio and other activities. These ratios have probably not changed much in 7 years.

Ham Radio, Chess and Model Railroading

In 2018, the number of amateur radio licenses in the FCC database was about 0.2% of the US population, which remains about the same today. Of course, not all those licensees are active, so this overstates ham radio activity. Birdwatching came in at 3% of the population, so it’s 10 times more popular than ham radio.

Conclusions

Technician decline is real and should be a cause for concern. I don’t think we should panic but if this trend continues, the ham radio population will wither away. I mentioned the probable impact from COVID-19, which should be a transient event that has now passed. The impact of the FCC license application fee (if any) could be long-lasting.

It is well known that the radio amateur population is skewed towards older individuals…mostly older men. Aging does cause people to leave the hobby over time, either by death or by reduced physical and mental ability. This is probably part of the picture, but why would it only affect the Technician numbers?

What do you think?

73 Bob K0NR

The post The Case of The Shrinking Technicians appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

Many “emergency frequency lists” showing up on the internet are a hodgepodge of frequencies scraped from various sources and assembled into what looks like a credible list. Some of these frequencies are useful, but too many are misleading and perhaps even dangerous. These lists gloss over training and licensing issues, as described here: The Talisman Radio.

Many of these lists are generated by copying other prepper lists or scanning various sources for “emergency frequencies.” Even this Wikipedia page about international distress frequencies includes some of this misinformation.

Important Disclaimer: People often point out that in many jurisdictions, a citizen without a radio license for a specific frequency can still make a call in case of a true emergency (usually defined as potential loss of life or property). This may be true, but it is generally not a good emergency communications strategy: See The Talisman Radio. Most of these lists do not address the issue of radio licensing at all, which is very misleading.

Here is a recent FCC action to consider: The FCC has ruled that a ham radio operator in Idaho must pay a record $34,000 penalty for interfering with wildfire communications on 151.145 MHz. This is a US Forest Service frequency not authorized for amateur radio licensees. So don’t be transmitting on unauthorized frequencies.

Misleading Frequency Lists

One of the worst frequency lists is shown here by Stryker Radios. This “Ham Radio Emergency Frequencies” list shows 29 frequencies, but only two are in the ham bands. The rest are a collection of airband, marine, FEMA, search and rescue, National Guard, US Air Force, etc. Most of these frequencies are not legal for the general public to use. An FCC amateur radio license permits operation on the two ham radio frequencies listed but nothing else. The 4Patriots has a similar list, leaving out the ham radio frequencies and calling the list “other emergency radio frequencies.” The Save Net Radio website also has a poorly thought-out frequency list. But they compound their errors with this statement:

It’s important to note that these frequencies aren’t just for professional rescuers and emergency workers; they can also be used by ordinary citizens who are equipped with the appropriate radio equipment.

This is incorrect and potentially dangerous.

Some Specific Frequencies

These emergency frequencies have three main uses: situational awareness (listening to learn what is happening in your environment), distress calls (calling out to anyone for help), and coordination with friends (communicating with friends and associates about supplies, health and welfare, transportation, weather, etc.)

We must consider our radio’s capabilities, specifically the frequency range (for transmit and receive, which may differ) and modulation type (AM, FM, SSB, etc.). The typical low-cost VHF/UHF radio that is so common (Baofeng UV-5R or similar) has a frequency range of 136 to 174 MHz (VHF) and 400 to 520 MHz (UHF). Many of these radios are shipped with their transmit frequency limited to the amateur (ham) radio bands: 144 to 148 MHz and 420 to 450 MHz. However, there may be a method to enable (or unlock) the entire frequency range for transmitting. Check the specifications of your radio model. These radios are almost always FM only, so no AM or SSB. Some radios can receive AM in the aircraft band but won’t transmit AM.

Listening to radio activity around you can be very helpful in understanding situational awareness. A good example is listening to your local fire or law enforcement channels. You can hear some of these frequencies using a low-cost VHF/UHF radio but a scanner that receives digital signals will be a lot more useful.

Let’s examine some of the frequencies in the Stryker list. I will skip the frequencies outside the typical VHF and UHF tuning ranges listed above, as your radio most likely won’t be able to tune them.

138.225 MHz: Primary FEMA channel for disaster relief operations.
This frequency is in the federal VHF band, but I could not confirm a specific usage.
To transmit on this frequency, you need federal authorization.

146.52 MHz: Ham radio frequency for non-repeater communications on the two-meter band.
This is the 2m FM calling frequency, which is generally lightly used. You may hear interesting traffic on this frequency but need a ham radio license to transmit on it.

151.625 MHz: Utilized by mobile businesses such as circuses, exhibitions, trade shows, and sports teams. Other channels in use are 154.57 and 154.60 MHz.
This is an itinerant business band frequency known as the Red Dot channel. The other two frequencies listed are MURS Channels 4 and 5. They may be useful to program in.

154.28 MHz: Local fire department emergency communication channel. Additional frequencies include 154.265 and 154.295 MHz.
These are Fire Mutual Aid channels (VFIRE21, VFIRE22, VFIRE23) set aside for when multiple fire districts need to communicate. Typically, each district has their own radio frequencies and only uses these when a large incident occurs with multiple agencies responding. An FCC license for these specific frequencies is required to transmit on them.

155.160 MHz: Local and state agency channel for search and rescue operations.
This is the most common VHF frequency for Search and Rescue. To transmit on it, you need an FCC license for this specific frequency.

155.475 MHz: Local and state police emergency communication channel.
This is a Law Enforcement Mutual Aid channel (VLAW31) set aside for when multiple law enforcement agencies need to communicate. An FCC license for this frequency is required to transmit on it.

156.75 MHz: International maritime weather alerts channel.
This is marine channel 15, receive only, reserved for listening to emergency locator beacons. This is not a normal communication channel and is probably not useful in an emergency.

156.80 MHz: International maritime distress, calling, and safety channel.
This is marine channel 16, the calling and distress channel, which may be useful in coastal areas, lakes, and waterways that have significant marine radio activity. This frequency is for marine / boating use using a certified VHF marine transceiver.

162.40 MHz to 162.55 MHz: Series of channels used for NOAA weather broadcasts and bulletins. Also 163.275 MHz.
These well-known weather broadcast stations cover a large portion of the US and are very useful to have programmed in your radio. Do not transmit on these frequencies.

163.4875 MHz: Nationwide emergency channel for the National Guard.
163.5125 MHz: National disaster preparedness frequency for the armed forces.
164.50 MHz: National communication channel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These are federal frequencies requiring federal authorization to transmit on them.

168.55 MHz: Federal civilian agency channel for emergencies and disasters.
This frequency is assigned exclusively to smoke jumpers working on wildfire suppression.
Do not transmit on this frequency.

409.20 MHz: National communication channel for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
409.625 MHz: National communication channel for the Department of State.
These are federal frequencies requiring federal authorization to transmit on them.

462.675 MHz: General Mobile Radio Service channel for emergency communication and traveler assistance.
This is Channel 20 on GMRS and FRS radios. This frequency is probably useful, but it is subject to the GMRS and FRS rules.

Some of these frequencies may be useful to monitor in an emergency (situational awareness), but very few are available for distress calling or communicating with friends.

RadioMaster Reports Frequency List

This list originated on the Radiomaster Reports website and has spread around the web in various forms (see below). It is one of the better prepper frequency lists, but it still has some issues.

The FRS and GMRS frequencies are useful to have available. The PMR UHF frequency (446.03125 MHz) listed is actually in the 70 cm ham band in the US and is a non-standard frequency, so it should not be used at all in the US. (PMR is a European standard.) The CB frequencies listed are not available on your typical low-cost VHF/UHF handheld but are useful if you have a CB radio. The so-called CB Freeband frequencies are never legal for use and your standard CB won’t tune them.

The low-band VHF frequency of 33.4 MHz will also not work with your typical handheld radio. The FCC license database shows many businesses are licensed to operate on this frequency, including many fast food restaurants. I suppose if you want to order a hamburger in an emergency, it might work.

If you have the appropriate amateur radio license, the Ham VHF and HF frequencies listed are usable in the US. On the 2-meter band, 146.52 MHz is indeed the nationwide calling frequency and was discussed earlier. However, the frequencies of 146.42 and 146.55 MHz do not always conform to local band plans, depending on the area of the country you are in. So you may or may not find activity there. The Search and Rescue frequency (155.16 MHz) was discussed earlier. The two marine frequencies listed do not require a license but should only be used for boating and similar communications.

Summary

We could continue to examine the specifics of all these frequencies and discuss their equipment requirements, licensing requirements, and proper usage. However, the main message is that these frequency lists are just a collection of random stuff compiled and propagated around the web.  None of them are well-considered and most will likely not do you much good in an emergency.  And they might lead uninformed citizens into using a frequency that can get them into a heap of trouble.

I have been looking for a list to recommend but have not found one. Let me know if you come across one that is truly useful.

That’s what I found. Let me know what you think.

73 Bob K0NR

References

National Field Operations Guide (NFOG)
https://www.cisa.gov/safecom/field-operations-guides

NTIA Redbook
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/publications/redbook-manual

RadioMaster Reports Frequency List
https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/shtf_survivalist_radio_frequency_list.pdf

The post Erroneous Prepper Frequency Lists appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

When teaching ham radio license classes, I often get asked whether the FCC enforces the Part 97 rules and regulations. That is, how likely is it that the FCC would come after me if I violate the rules? This same question surfaces concerning the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).

This morning, I looked at the FCC Enforcement Actions page, to see what’s there. First off, there are a ton of actions against unlicensed FM broadcast stations, in response to the PIRATE Act pass by Congress in 2020. There are also many actions against people operating RoboCall systems via telephone. If you find yourself bored, go ahead and read through these enforcement actions.

Here are some actions taken by the FCC concerning Amateur Radio and GMRS in the past few years:

In June 2022, the FCC sent a Notice of Violation to David Dean, K0PWO, concerning a continuous carrier signal on 7.033 MHz from a remote station near Fairplay, Colorado. I recall there being a ruckus about this incident in the ham radio community but I did not know it resulted in a Notice of Violation.

In June 2022, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (FCC talk for “we are fining you”) of $34k to Jason Frawley, WA7CQ. The FCC says that Frawley used his ham radio to transmit on frequencies allocated and authorized for government use during the Johnson wildfire near Elk River, Idaho.

In November 2022, the FCC sent a Notice of Violation to David Dean, K0PWO. (This is the same person with the stuck transmitter in June 2022.) The FCC received a complaint from the State of Colorado that someone (later found to be Dean) had an illegally cloned radio transmitting on the State’s digital trunked radio system (DTRS) without authorization.

In June 2023, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Martin Anderson, GMRS WQQP653 in Vancouver, WA. This relates to a stuck transmitter, apparently due to a faulty transceiver at a repeater site. It transmitted continuous, unmodulated signals on the frequency of 462.725 MHz.

In August 2023, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Jonathan Gutierrez, GMRS license WRTD259 in response to a complaint of intentional interference to a 462.625 MHz repeater in Mt. Holly, Pennsylvania.

In August 2023, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Alarm Detection Systems, licensee of radio station WQSK406 in Louisville, Colorado. This is not ham or GMRS-related but involves a business band radio on 460 MHz. Apparently, the company continued to operate legacy “wideband” FM radios after the FCC required business band radio users to switch to “narrowband” radios (12.5 kHz channels). I found this interesting because it is an action related to the use of improper radio gear and emission type.

In May 2024, the FCC issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation to Skydive Elsinore, LLC, a skydiving company in Lake Elsinore, CA. This company was transmitting in the 70 cm amateur band on 442.725 MHz without a proper license.

From these notices, we can see that the FCC does enforce amateur and GMRS rules, but not as often as we’d like to see. Usually, the situation has to be a big nuisance before it escalates enough for the FCC to take action. If you make a simple mistake once or twice, you are highly unlikely to be cited. If you are a more consistent or flagrant rule breaker, then you might get a visit from the FCC.

Remember that the ARRL has the Volunteer Monitor program, operating under a formal agreement with the FCC,  that can assist with on-the-air violations.

73 Bob K0NR

The post FCC Enforcement Actions appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

The FCC will be voting on and will likely approve a Report and Order that eliminates the symbol rate restriction on HF data transmissions, replacing it with a bandwidth limit of 2.8 kHz. See FCC To Vote on Removing Symbol Rate Restrictions. The symbol rate limit of 300-baud is an obsolete way of limiting the signal bandwidth, created back when the data transmissions were predominately Frequency Shift Keying (FSK). It was a simple, practical way to regulate the bandwidth at that time but technology has moved on. The use of digital signal processing and efficient wireless encoding techniques require a better approach to bandwidth regulation.

A practical impact of this change is to allow higher speed protocols such as PACTOR-4 having a bandwidth of 2.4 kHz. I suspect we will see other protocols emerge that squeeze the best data rate out of the 2.8 kHz bandwidth.

Living in a Narrowband World

The FCC proposal implements a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit on data emissions on the HF bands. Some folks have suggested a narrower bandwidth while others argue that wider bandwidth signals should be allowed. And some even think we should have no bandwidth limit at all.

The problem is that the amateur HF bands are not very wide. For example, the popular 20m band is 14.0 to 14.350 MHz, providing only 350 kHz of spectrum. Common practice on this and the other HF bands is to use modulation types that have bandwidths of 3 kHz or less. (Yeah, AM signals are twice that wide, at 6 KHz, a topic for another day.) Of course, CW and some of the data modes are much narrower than 3 kHz. But the general approach to regulating HF is to allow many narrowband signals on the band. Limiting HF data transmissions to 2.8 kHz bandwidth is consistent with existing practice while still allowing for innovation and experimentation.

VHF/UHF Bandwidth Limits

The FCC also plans to issue a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR) that:

• Proposes to remove the baud rate limitation in the 2200 meter and 630 meter bands, which the Commission allocated for amateur radio use after it released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2016.
• Proposes to remove the baud rate limitation in the VHF and UHF bands.
• Seeks comment on the appropriate bandwidth limitation for the 2200 meter band, the 630 meter band, and the VHF/UHF bands.

I won’t comment on the 2200 meter and 630 meter bands. The FCC proposes to remove the symbol rate limit on the VHF and UHF bands and asks what bandwidth limit is appropriate. The current bandwidth limits are 20 kHz for the 6m and 2m bands, 100 kHz for the 1.25m and 70 cm bands, and the FCC seems fine leaving these the same. Authorized emission types are listed in FCC Part 97.305.

With 4 MHz of spectrum, the 2m band is much wider than any of the HF bands. It might be tempting to conclude that there is plenty of room for wideband signals on this band. Many hams think 2 meters is just used for FM simplex and repeaters but a closer look reveals that it supports many diverse modes: weak-signal SSB/CW, meteor scatter, EME, FM simplex, FM repeaters, digital voice modes (D-STAR, DMR, Fusion), satellites, and more. The 20-kHz limit seems appropriate, as it roughly matches the bandwidth of the most common (FM) voice signals on that band. It is not an appropriate band for trying out wider bandwidth signals.

The 6m band should probably keep the same 20-kHz limit. (I don’t think there is a compelling reason to change it.) The 1.25m band already allows 100-kHz bandwidth data signals, which some radio amateurs have used for higher-speed data links (still not what I would call wideband).

The 70 cm band is much bigger (420 MHz to 450 MHz) and could accommodate some wider bandwidth signals. Perhaps the existing 100-kHz limit should be increased? Keep in mind that fast-scan ATV is allowed on this band with a bandwidth of 6 MHz. Maybe we can make some room for a few larger bandwidth data channels, to encourage innovation and experimentation.

The bands above 70 cm have no bandwidth limit other than the signal must stay within the designated ham band. It has been this way for a long time, without causing any issues (that I know of).

Conclusion

The FCC’s proposal makes a lot of sense and it is long overdue. Frankly, it is a bit of an embarrassment that it has taken so long.

Better late than never.

73 Bob K0NR

The post Adios Symbol Rate Limit appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

A VISUAL + AUDIO AIR CHECK OF DIGITAL MODE FT8 QSOs, ON THE 30-METER BAND

Here is a video capture of the reception and transmission of many digital FT8-mode amateur radio high-frequency (HF; Shortwave) communication signals. This video is a front-seat view of the software operation performed at the radio room of amateur radio operator, NW7US, Tomas Hood.

The software packages demonstrated are installed and operational on a modern personal computer. The computer is connected to an Icom IC-7610 radio transceiver, controlled by the software. While there is no narration in the video, the video provides an opportunity for you to see first-hand how typical FT8 operations are performed. The signals can be heard.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VROGz-x9NyE[/embedyt]

The frequency used for the FT8 communication in this video is on or about 10.136 MHz, in the 30-Meter shortwave amateur radio allocation (or, band). As can be seen, the 30-Meter band was active at this time of day (0720 UTC, onward–local nighttime).

In this video you see (and hear) NW7US make two-way contacts, or QSOs, with stations from around the country and the world.

There are amateur radio operators within the amateur radio community who regard the FT8 digital mode (FT8 stands for “Franke-Taylor design, 8-FSK modulation“, and refers to the mode created by Joe Taylor, K1JT and Steve Franke, K9AN) as robotic (automatic, automated, and unattended) computer-to-computer communications, and not ‘true’ human communications–thus negating the spirit of ham radio. In other words, FT8, in their opinion, is not real amateur radio. While they pontificate about supposed automated computer communications, many of those holding this position have not installed and configured the software, nor tried communicating with the FT8 digital mode. They have perhaps formed their anti-FT8 opinion in a vacuum of knowledge. (This writer has other issues with FT8, but not on this point–see below)

As you watch the video linked in this article, consider these concepts:

+ A QSO is defined (as per common knowledge–see below) as the exchange of at least the minimum information needed as set by the requirements of a particular award, or, as is defined by law–for instance, a QSO would have at least an exchange of the legal call sign assigned to the radio station and/or control operator, the location of the station making the transmission, and a signal report of some kind about the signal received from the other transmitter at the other end of the QSO.

+ Just how much human involvement is required to make a full FT8 QSO? Does WSJT-X software run all by itself, with no human control? Is WSJT-X a robot, in the sense that it picks a frequency, then initiates or answers a CQ call automatically, or is it just powerful digital-mode software that still requires human control?

The video was captured from the screen of the PC running the following software packages interacting together as a system:

+ WSJT-X: The primary software featuring the digital mode, FT8. (See below for some background on WSJT-X software.)

+ JTAlert: Provides several audio and visual alert types based on decoded Callsigns within WSJT-X.

+ Log4OM, Version 2: A full-featured logging program, which integrates well with WSJT-X and JTAlert.

+ Win4IcomSuite: A full-featured radio controlling program which can remote control rigs, and provide control through virtual communication port-sharing.

+ Com0Com: The Null-modem emulator allows you to create an unlimited number of virtual COM port pairs and use any pair to connect one COM port based application to another. Each COM port pair provides two COM ports. The output to one port is the input from other port and vice versa.

As mentioned, above, the radio used for the communication of FT8 at the station, NW7US, is an Icom IC-7610 transceiver. The antenna is an off-center fed dipole that is over 200 feet in total length (end-to-end measurement).

Some Notes:

About WSJT-X

WSJT-X is a computer program used for weak-signal radio communication between amateur radio operators, or used by Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWLers; SWL) interested in monitoring the FT8 digital communications between amateur radio operators. The program was initially written by Joe Taylor, K1JT with Steve Franke, K9AN, but is now open source and is developed by a small team. The digital signal processing techniques in WSJT-X make it substantially easier for amateur radio operators to employ esoteric propagation modes, such as high-speed meteor scatter and moonbounce.

WSJT-X implements communication protocols or “modes” called FST4, FST4W, FT4, FT8, JT4, JT9, JT65, Q65, MSK144, and WSPR, as well as one called Echo for detecting and measuring your own radio signals reflected from the Moon. These modes were all designed for making reliable, confirmed QSOs under extreme weak-signal conditions. JT4, JT9, and JT65 use nearly identical message structure and source encoding (the efficient compression of standard messages used for minimal QSOs). They use timed 60-second Transmit/Rreceive (T/R) sequences synchronized with UTC (Universal Time, Coordinated). JT4 and JT65 were designed for Earth-Moon-Earth communications (EME, or, moonbounce) on the Very-High Frequency (VHF), Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) and microwave bands. JT9 is optimized for the Medium-Frequency (MF) and High-Frequency (HF) bands. It is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65 while using less than 10% of the bandwidth. Q65 offers submodes with a wide range of T/R sequence lengths and tone spacings.FT4 and FT8 are operationally similar but use T/R cycles only 7.5 and 15 seconds long, respectively. MSK144 is designed for Meteor Scatter on the VHF bands. These modes offer enhanced message formats with support for nonstandard call signs and some popular contests. (The MSK in MSK144 stands for, Multiple Frequency Shift Keying.)

FST4 and FST4W are designed particularly for the Low-Frequency (LF) and MF bands. On these bands, their fundamental sensitivities are better than other WSJT-X modes with the same sequence lengths, approaching the theoretical limits for their rates of information throughput. FST4 is optimized for two-way QSOs, while FST4W is for quasi-beacon transmissions of WSPR-style messages. FST4 and FST4W do not require the strict, independent time synchronization and phase locking of modes like EbNaut.

As described more fully on its own page, WSPR mode implements a protocol designed for probing potential propagation paths with low-power transmissions. WSPR is fully implemented within WSJT-X, including programmable band-hopping.

What is a QSO?

Under the title, CONTACTS, at the Sierra Foothills Amateur Radio Club’s 2014 Technician Class webpage, https://www.hsdivers.com/Ham/Mod15.html, they teach,

An amateur radio contact (called a QSO), is an exchange of info between two amateur radio stations. The exchange usually consists of an initial call (CQ = call to all stations). Then, a response from another amateur radio operator, and usually at least a signal report.

Contacts can be limited to just a minimal exchange of call signs & signal reports generally between amateurs previously unknown to each other. Very short contacts are usually done only during contests while longer, extended ‘rag chews’ may be between newly met friends with some common interest or someone you have known for a long time.

Wikipedia has an entry for QSO, too.

My Issue With FT8 and WSJT-X

I have written in the past, on this website, about an issue that came about during the course of the development of the WSJT-X software package. The development team decided to widen the slice of ‘default’ (pre-programmed) frequencies on which to operate FT8. The issue was how the choice of new frequencies was made, and what choices were implemented in an upcoming software release. Read more about all of this, in these three articles:

+ Land (er, FREQUENCY) Grab (Part 1)

+ One Aspect of Amateur Radio: Good Will Ambassadors to the World

+ In Response — Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Has this issue been resolved? For now, yes. There appears to be more coordination between interested groups, and the proposed new frequencies were removed from the software defaults in WSJT-X. At least, up to this point, at the time of publishing this article.

..

You have probably heard about the FCC proposal to establish a $50 application fee for Amateur Radio licenses. This is part of an overall redesign of the FCC’s fee structure, affecting many radio services, not just amateur radio.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is found in Docket 20-270.  The public is invited to submit comments on the proposal via the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). It is relatively easy to do. You can upload a document with your comments or use “express comment” to just type in your comments.  If you are short on time, you could simply submit a few sentences supporting or opposing the licensing fee along with your reasoning. The only tricky thing you need to know is the proceeding number: 20-270.

I thought this was important enough that I put together my thoughts and submitted them.  The short version of my comments are:

• The $50 fee seems excessive, compared to the cost of relatively simple amateur radio license transactions. (If it really costs the FCC $50 to do this, they need to redesign their system.)
• The $50 fee will be a barrier to getting an amateur radio license for many potential licensees. That’s my opinion based on interacting with a large number of new licensees coming through our club’s Technician license class.
• I support charging a smaller fee, in the range of $15 to $25.

You can read my complete comments here:
Robert Witte K0NR Comments MD Docket No. 20-270

73 Bob K0NR

The post My Comments On The Proposed FCC License Fees appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

This article is part one in a multi-part series.  Part 2 is located here: One Aspect of Amateur Radio: Good Will Ambassadors to the World.  Part 3 is located here: In Response — Can’t We All Just Get Along?

We’ve all heard it at least once:  no one owns a frequency.

By law, amateurs must keep the transmissions from their station within the bounds of the allocations granted to license-holding operators–within these bands that are allocated for amateur radio use.  Amateurs are expected to follow band-plans, which guide us to which mode can be used in a band.

Subbands — Band Plans

There are many decades of constant refining of the standard operating procedures–perhaps we can call them, traditions–that, for the most part, work out pretty well for most amateur radio operations on our precious allocations in the radio spectrum.  Each band–a slice of radio spectrum between a lower frequency and a higher frequency–is made up of subbands.  These subbands are slices within a specific band (allocation), in which amateurs participate in two-way communications by using a particular mode of transmission, like single side band or CW.

For instance, Morse code enthusiasts use CW (continuous-wave modulation, i.e., A1A) between 14.000 MHz and 14.150, which is the subband that exists in the larger allocations known as the 20-Meter Band.  The 20-Meter Band is 14.000 MHz to 14.350 MHz, and the regulating bodies (such as the FCC in the USA) have directed through law that voice modes cannot be used between those subband frequencies from 14.00 MHz to 14.15 MHz. Voice modes can be used from 14.15 MHz up to 14.35 MHz, with certain license class variations. Read the PDF from the FCC: FCC ONLINE TABLE OF FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS

CW is not the only mode allowed in the 14.00-MHz-to-14.15-MHz subband.  The regulations stipulate that a number of data modes can be used in this subband. There are specific requirements that a mode must meet, in order to comply with regulations–these are known as the authorized emission types.

Gentlemen’s Agreements

Amateur radio operators, decades ago, began discussing, then agreeing to, agreements between all operators as to where specific modes can be used, so those operating the different modes do not trample on each other’s transmissions.  These agreements are known as our band-plan gentlemen’s agreements.  They exist to help minimize interference–QRM–and to help foster good operating procedures between the different groups.

The band plans that have evolved through the decades are not regulations, and do not mean that any particular group of amateur radio operators own any frequency or subband.  A mode does not own a particular subband.  Amateur radio operators are not encouraged to start transmitting a mode that is typically found in that subband, if someone else is on that frequency using a mode not expected.

Just because some other operator is using the subband for a mode not in compliance with the gentlemen’s agreement, don’t purposefully try to eject that operator.  At the same time, the gentlemen’s agreements exist to help amateurs avoid interference with others that are using different modes.  Thus, the operator who has chosen to use a non-standard mode for a subband known to be used for some other mode should move that operation to the subband identified to be for that operator’s current mode of transmitter emissions.  In other words, do not QRM another amateur radio operator, and do not cause confusion and frustration by barging into a subband for a mode that you are not intending to use.  Use the mode expected in the subband of your current operations.

This concept is especially helpful when we consider weak-signal operations.  If a very strong, loud teletype transmission begins in a subband that is set aside for weak-signal propagation modes like WSPR, then it defeats the efforts of the operators making the attempt to have successful weak-signal two-way communications.  Thus, the teletype transmission should be made in a subband where teletype operation is expected and acceptable.  And, WSPR should stay in the subband where people expect to find WSPR signals.

This concept is also applied to VHF or higher bands.  Why?  If repeaters are parked on known repeater subbands, then weak-signal single-sideband communications can take place in a subband where repeaters are not allowed.  By allowed, though, I mean, by agreement with gentlemen’s agreements.  Regulators have stayed out of the amateur radio operations except by creating regulations at a high-level–for instance, the FCC stipulating that voice communications are not allowed between 14.000 MHz and 14.150 MHz, in the 20-Meter band.

The Frequency Grabs by the WSJT Developers, Planners, and Leadership

With several current release candidates of the WSJT-X software by Joe Taylor, the group of developers and leadership have programmed into the WSJT-X software a set of NEW default frequencies.  These new frequencies are in addition to their current pre-programmed frequencies that the amateur community now identifies as, The FT8 Subbands.

The new proposed frequencies are right on top of other subbands where other modes have been operating for decades (such as PSK and Olivia, and many others).  There was no community discussion, except within the WSJT community.  And, when someone protested the take-over of other well-established subbands, those protests were shot down.  The stated reasons included, “Well, those other modes are not very active or popular, because spots are not showing up on various spotting networks.”  Such reasons break down on deeper consideration–for instance, most spotting networks are not programmed to automatically identify Olivia transmissions.  CW, PSK, and FT8 are programmed into scanners, but other modes are ignored.

This behavior, considered rude, arrogant, presumptuous, and anti-gentlemanly (referring to well-established gentlemen’s agreements) has happened before, with the initial release of FT8.  They (the WSJT-X developers and leadership) simply picked a frequency slice of each subband, without true collaboration with the wider amateur radio community.

When this columnist and fellow amateur radio community member, attempted a discussion, the retort from an official representative was an absolute dismissal of any protest against the choice and method of frequency options within the WSJT software. While the software marks these frequency as suggestions, only, these defaults are used without question by the operators of said software.  And, the mode is so fast that there’s no human way of truly monitoring the frequency before use, to see if some other mode is in operation.  Besides, weak-signals that are present but cannot be heard by one’s ear, might well be in operation.  Subbands exist to keep QRM from covering up the weak signals of the mode expected at that frequency.

Enter the IARU…

The IARU has decided to step in and join the discussion.  “The International Amateur Radio Union has been the worldwide voice of radio amateurs, securing and safeguarding the amateur radio spectrum since 1925.”  The IARU guides regulating bodies like the FCC, regarding the administration and rule-making pertaining to amateur radio.

The IARU states, on their website,

The radio spectrum is a priceless natural resource. Because radio waves do not respect borders, the use of the spectrum must be regulated internationally. This is accomplished through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the United Nations. Through World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs) held approximately every four years the ITU revises the international Radio Regulations which have the force and effect of a treaty. The Radio Regulations allocate the spectrum to different radiocommunication services such as broadcasting, mobile, radar, and radionavigation (GPS). The most recent WRC was held in October-November 2019. The next one is not yet scheduled but is expected to be held in 2023, so it is usually referred to as WRC-23.

New uses of the spectrum are being developed every day. This puts enormous pressure on incumbent users who are called upon to share their spectrum access with new arrivals. The allocation process is extremely complex, especially when satellite services are involved.

Reportedly, from first-hand communication from one IARU representative,

WSJT-X RC3 has 14074 kHz again for FT8. IARU is intervening. Stay tuned. I am asking for further suggestions.

73 Tom DF5JL
IARU R1 HF Manager

This is very welcomed news!

What ought to take place, as quickly as possible, is to rally the different interested parties, like the Olivia group, the PSK groups, the various CW groups like CWOps, FISTS, and the SKCC, and many others, for ideas and suggestions.  A discussion must take place in the hope that new gentlemen’s agreements can be made, that include the FT8 and FT4 operations, without stepping on the subbands of other digital modes.

As Tom says, STAY TUNED.

If you have suggestions, please comment. This columnist will summarize the main ideas of the comments and forward them to Tom.  You may also contact the IARU managers and let them know your suggestions.

Discussions in the Olivia community are ongoing, too.  Join in at OliviaDigitalMode.net even if you are not yet an Olivia operator.

On Facebook, you may also discuss your thoughts, in either the Olivia Digital Modes on HF group or in the Digital Modes on HF group.

If you use FT8 and FT4, voice your concerns and ideas, too.  Open dialog, without declaring war, is welcomed and hopefully will prove productive.

This article is the first in a series focusing on band plans, and gentlemen’s agreements. Please stay tuned for more installments.

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.