Posts Tagged ‘OpEd’
In social media circles there has been much discussion about Field Day in light of COVID-19 restrictions. Many traditional club operations are going to be cancelled this year due to social distancing requirements and the need to protect ourselves and especially vulnerable members of our population, of which there are many in amateur radio.
Folks are going to continue to participate from home this year. Many people undoubtedly are going to recreate the “traditional” FD experience they are accustomed to, operating in their backyard, perhaps in a tent with temporary antennas, emergency power, a grill, and some cold 807s.
Participants operating at home must operate either as D or E class. D class stations use commercial power while E class uses emergency power sources. D class stations cannot contact other D stations for points. E class stations can contact any other class station. For those wanting to operate in their backyard with tents, emergency power, and temporary antennas, with the way the rules are currently written, they are required to operate as E class. This puts them in competition with other E stations that choose to operate in the comfort of their homes using permanent antennas. This would include antennas like a rotatable beam on an 80′ tower. So participants choosing to operate in their backyard with what would otherwise be a common field station, as 1E are at a disadvantage. It would be more fair to allow backyard stations to operate as class B.
There have also been calls for ARRL to remove the D class contact limitation. This would give D stations more opportunities to make contacts than they usually could, but considering the unprecedented situation this year and the likelihood of a large majority of D class stations, it would seem removing the restriction would make sense.
ARRL has noted they will not publish aggregated club scores. Doing so would be a benefit for clubs that are unable to have their normal FD operations and have members operating from home. There could be an “Aggregate Club Home Score” reporting category created. Considering that all FD score data is probably stored in a database, producing such a reporting category would be trivial.
Undoubtedly there are other one time tweaks and adjustments that could be made this year in light of the situation we’re in. I can’t understand why ARRL hasn’t been more flexible and creative this year and used the circumstances as an opportunity to officially recognize the flexibility and creativity of participants, and instead has ironically asked participants to be creative, but stay within the lines of the current rules.
This article was originally posted at Radio Artisan.
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.
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.
The FCC issued Report and Order 17-33 which creates two new bands for amateur radio, 472-479 kHz (630 meters) and 135.7-137.8 kHz (2,200 meters). As ARRL reported, it is a “big win” for amateur radio. I’ve been waiting in anticipation for the 630 meter band as it’s an old yet new frontier for us. With old Sol taking a bit of a nap for the past few years and perhaps for years or decades to come, lower frequencies are where we’re going to have to play for more fun.
There are a few caveats in using these bands. The FCC is requiring radio amateurs be at least 1 km from electric power transmission lines using Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems on those bands. PLC is a technology that uses low frequency signals on power lines to perform signaling and control functions, and often meter reading. Amateurs will have to notify the Utilities Technology Council (UTC) of station location prior to operating on 630 and 2200 meters. The UTC maintains an industry database for PLC operations.
Those who were around to experience the Broadband over Powerline (BPL) brouhaha around 2003 to 2005 may recall the UTC organization. At the time BPL was billed by proponents as the next big thing in broadband Internet. Amateur radio operators and ARRL argued vigorously against BPL, citing engineering and evidence that the HF signals on the power lines radiated into the ether and interfered with HF radio operations. The FCC turned a blind eye to the issue. Luckily market forces took out BPL as a viable broadband solution due to increasing bandwidth needs and numerous failed trials which uncovered its technical difficulties and business problems. PLC and BPL are cousins, with PLC operating below 500 khz and HF BPL operating from 1.8 to 30 Mhz.
The UTC, several electric utilities, and a handful of BPL equipment vendors at the time claimed that BPL didn’t interfere with HF radio operations. The explanations and claims baffled those of us experienced in wireless and RF engineering as it’s a fact that an unshielded conductor tens of wavelengths long, conducting RF signals, will radiate energy. The math and science supported this and measurements in the field provided real life evidence.
“This Activity is established as provided for in the FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 90.35(g) (47 C.F.R. ‘ 90.35(g)) relative to PLC operation in the 10-490 kHz band, and the NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management, in Part 8.3, under the heading “Notifications in the Band 10-490 kHz,” (see 47 C.F.R., Chapter III). Electric utilities are allowed to use power line carrier (PLC) transmitters and receivers for control signals and information transmission in the 10-490 kHz band without obtaining a license from the [FCC]. However, PLC users are not protected from interference from licensed radio transmitters.”
Part 90.35(g) states that PLC operates under Part 15. With the distance separation and notification requirement for amateurs, the FCC has granted an unlicensed incidental radiating non-wireless service protection from a licensed wireless service. This was essentially the case with BPL in the early 2000s with an unworkable process for resolving interference issues, and interference complaints from amateurs living in trial site areas languishing for months with no action.
With this latest frequency allocation to amateur radio and requirements for protecting PLC operations, the tables are turned. It’s the electric utility industry, that once claimed power lines wouldn’t interact with wireless spectrum, that could potentially experience interference. Undoubtedly many FCC staffers involved in BPL in the past are no longer at the agency and the electric utility industry has forgotten about the BPL fiasco and fail to realize the irony of needing to protect PLC from wireless.
All this being said, I’m not attempting to downplay or criticize the allocation of the two new bands. I think it’s wonderful and I applaud ARRL’s success. However, I hope amateurs wishing to enjoy these bands aren’t prevented in doing so. While it’s unlikely a large number of amateurs will be excluded from operating due to PLC on high voltage transmission lines, PLC systems are used in meter reading applications in neighborhood power distribution systems. Hopefully the majority of systems do not operate in the new 630 and 2200 meter amateur bands and we can peacefully coexist, unlike what occurred with BPL.
It’s often been said that amateur radio is a hobby consisting of many sub-hobbies. This is true when you consider the different modes we use (like RTTY, CW, PSK), technical endeavors like equipment design and building, special operating techniques like satellite and moonbounce, different bands each with their own characteristics and fans like LF, HF, VHF/UHF, and microwave, and activity based sub-hobbies like contesting and DXing. It’s multidimensional and there is often overlap between the various sub-hobbies.
Unfortunately there’s a detrimental sub-hobby that’s been around a long time, perhaps as far back as when there was spark and a new mode called CW was emerging. It’s complaining about what everyone else is doing or how they’re doing it.
I was reminded of this on an unnamed social networking site that starts with the letter F and rhymes with the word crook. Perhaps you’ve been there. A poster in an amateur radio group couldn’t make sense out of people sending and receiving CW using computers, and quipped that operating this way was taking the “radio out of radio”. Never mind that you can’t do this sort of operating without a radio. The most vocal complainers in amateur radio tend to rant about amateurs who don’t operate CW, so it was ironic that this complaint was about people actually operating CW but not in a way that the poster and others like to do it. As expected, the discussion was lively with many people lamenting over this operating method, and a lesser few defending it.
Any time I look an amateur radio activity, I ask a few basic questions:
- Is someone getting enjoyment out of it?
- Is it not harming anyone else and not detracting from anyone’s enjoyment of the hobby?
- Does it positively reflect amateur radio, both within the amateur radio community and the general public, or at least not reflect negatively on the hobby?
- Is it spectrally and resource efficient, and reasonable from an engineering perspective?
- Is it consistent with the spirit and nature of amateur radio?
If you can answer YES to all of these questions, I see no reason to complain about the activity.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years about amateur radio, it’s that if you’re more concerned about what others are doing, and not what you’re doing, and having fun doing it, it’s a sure fire way to be unhappy in amateur radio.