Why is AR so far behind the state of the art?

[KA7O]

How many hams have taken a look at what's going on on the commercial side of radio side these days? Well, hams that don't already work in that arena - that is.

Why hasn't the AR community - as a group - innovated itself back into a position of relevancy, let alone leadership in wireless communications? Is the community waiting for those involved with the commercial side to share, lead or show the way? Isn't that backwards?

As a gross example - who in the AR community knows what C4FM is or why it's cool - again, AR community members that aren't already involved in the professional side of things. Who is using C4FM on the ham bands?

What's it going to take to motivate the 'common ham' to catch up with 10 to 20 year old tech? Is it simply money? Isn't there a hunger for tech for tech's sake anymore?

Is it any wonder that the commercial LMR folks think of us as 'quaint' - at best?

[K6BBC]

I've noticed every model airplane enthusiast flies prop planes.

bbc

[K5FH]

Who says Amateur Radio has to be relevant? Relevant to what? Why?

Hasten thee back under thy bridge.

[N0BOX]

I, personally, have a lot of questions about what we are even allowed to do. Apparently spread spectrum is allowed, but only above some frequency...I think it's allowed at 1.2GHz. I don't know a thing about what is actually going on in commercial communications, but I assume most, if not all of it, is digital, and it is generally used for internet-facing purposes. Unfortunately, you can't do anything internet-facing with amateur radio because it's simply not safe to do anything on the internet that isn't encrypted. Therefore, the only thing that amateur radio is allowed to do that is digital is pretty much limited to what we've been doing.

There is no reason to have huge amounts of bandwidth when it comes to ham radio unless you are doing video. Anything else that you could use for large amounts of data involves data that you generally don't want everybody and their brother seeing. I can see amateur TV being a place for innovation in data throughput and also in digital video, but I just don't see any other place for innovation unless there is something going on in commercial radio that isn't what the public sees happening with cell phones and wifi.

[KB4QAA]

State of the art is a lot further along than APCO 25.

Regardless, state of the art without an established need is just wasteful spending of amateurs hard earned money. APCO 25 for amateurs is a waste of money without a defined need.

[VK6ZGO]

Well, I dunno about the rest of you OFs,but I read the OPs post & said:-

"C4FM! Well,golly gee,that sounds way too technical for an oldster like me!"

Anyhow, I Googled it,& blow me down!,it isn't rocket science,after all!

It's actually something I read about in passing about 20 years ago,but now they've given it a fancy name & it's the greatest thing since sliced bread!

The point is,that it is only used because there is an advantage in the application they use it for.

In Amateur Radio,there is no such advantage,so it is not used.

We Hams kid ouselves a bit about the things we pioneered.

We did pioneer HF Communications,but the Commercial people were breathing down our necks all the time.In fact,a lot of the Ham pioneers were also using the ideas
at work as Commercial pioneers.

There is a lot made of pioneering SSB use by Hams. Actually,point to point services were using SSB & its offshoot ISB as early as the late 1930s between the UK &USA,
& in Australia in the early 1950s.

73,VK6ZGO

[G8ADD]

I don't care who thinks AR is "quaint", it is fun. It is supposed to be fun. We are supposed to enjoy it. If "state of the art" doesn't contribute to that fun then it has no place in AR.

I suppose the people who putter about in yachts using wind power are "quaint", or the people that ride horses, or the people that lovingly restore and operate steam locomotives, or the people that indulge in a spot of archery? Retro is cool, that's all there is to it.

If you enjoy being state of the art, and can persuade others to join you, go for it, but don't criticise people who get their enjoyment out of more old-fashioned types of radio experience. We are all into AR for the pleasure it gives us.

73

Brian G8ADD

[KY5U]

State of the art is digital communications with large amounts of bandwidth we don't have in AR. We could do something on UHF bands and above, but running infrastructure for state of the art switching gear is expensive as it requires a lot of power and air conditioning, so much that it would be cost prohibitive. Let's face it, cellphones are cheap enough now to preclude private digital networks.

The two near state of the art activities are SDRs and narrowband digital experimentation. Both are useful and exciting work.

[N0AZZ]

I think Joe Taylor is still on the cutting edge in that mode of AR among others.

[N2ZNC]

I don't care who thinks AR is "quaint", it is fun. It is supposed to be fun. We are supposed to enjoy it. If "state of the art" doesn't contribute to that fun then it has no place in AR.

I suppose the people who putter about in yachts using wind power are "quaint", or the people that ride horses, or the people that lovingly restore and operate steam locomotives, or the people that indulge in a spot of archery? Retro is cool, that's all there is to it.

Brian G8ADD

You are absolutely right Brian. Im not 75 yrs olds, Im 44. I enjoy, model building especially older airplanes, biplanes etc..I enjoy archery, and love sailboats. Yes, I can enjoy shooting an M4, but archery has an appeal.
Everything has its place, and its attraction. It doesnt make it obsolete. I just recently returned to HF after many years of being off the radio. I love being back on HF. I went off not because I was trotting with late technology, or because I didnt like older technology. I was off simply because I had little time to enjoy it. To build antennas, to play with the radio for hours on end. Now I have much more time, and am back to enjoying the wonders of amateur radio.

No I dont sit there, and plan for disasters, I have been in the middle of the 2 major ones that hit NYC.
No, I dont get annoyed cause the government hasnt called upon me and my radios to help them, cause their multi million dollar, radio systems have alledgedly failed and they want me there with my portable vhf or uhf radio.....(LOL)

It has never crossed my mind that amateur radio or one of my hobbies, is obsolete , because I still enjoy it, and so do many that I know. Old and young...

Why cant we just sit back and enjoy a hobby. Why are club repeaters so cluttered with "Politics", and "Power Struggles".. I belonged to a local club in the 90s. We had over 200 members at one time. That club has struggled to stay alive and I think they barely have 40 members. It didnt dissipate cause amateur radio was becoming obsolete. It dissipated cause people wanted to make something much more than it is, and their self importance, was greater than the hobby and club itself.

Keep amateur radio where it is. Yes, there are ever developing advances in radios, and so forth. however, Amateur Radio is "AMATEUR RADIO"..

Enjoy it.. It is fun. Even kids get a kick out of it.. But nobody is trading in their Ipods, iphones, or ipads, for a handie talkie....

George
N2ZNC

If you enjoy being state of the art, and can persuade others to join you, go for it, but don't criticise people who get their enjoyment out of more old-fashioned types of radio experience. We are all into AR for the pleasure it gives us.

73

[WA6MHZ]

After working on tiny Surface mount stuff during the workday, it is a real pleasure to get out an old TUBE radio and fix it. Parts you can touch, and even SEE!!!
Parts with wire leads, parts with sockets, radios with terminal strips and WIRE!

Friday I had an INCREDIBLY INTRICATE job to do. Modify a circuit board using a realtively large IC for SMT, a SOIC-8. It still involved cutting traces and installing little pieces of copper trace the size of a sesame seed. Then installing 402 sized components BY HAND. Most work was done with a 10X Jewelers loupe and even some soldering done while watching what I was doing under the loupe. The circuit didn't work, but atleast I had done it correctly according to the engineer's instructions. Now HE has to figure out why it doesn't work. Nothing more I can do, I am just the builder. This is a typical day, working with whole circuit boards smaller than a typical TUBE I use in the old rigs! So that is why vintage radios are so relaxing. None of the STRESS I get from SMT.

Viewing inside the modern HTs, I see similar technology and workings. All parts installed by robotic Pick & Place machines, reflow soldered, and ATE Tested. Not much human intervention till it is time to put it in the case. So I think Ham Radio is up to the State of the Art in actual parts. Maybe the Software and transmit schemes are not the same, but that is for the programmers to figure out.

[AD7N]

Is it any wonder that the commercial LMR folks think of us as 'quaint'

Royal Hairy Horse Bollocks


http://imgur.com/Rg02u.gif
EME to scale

Tell me JT65 is "quaint". The official protocol specification is available here, from Physics Nobel Prize Winner Joe Taylor, K1JT: http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/JT65.pdf

Click my sig for a direct example of a 21st century ham radio voice experiment. Tell me that's "quaint".

[NA0AA]

I suppose that we amateurs have lost our so-called leadership position simply because the state of the art has moved well beyond the realm of home-brewing circuits. The new amateur is going to be stuck with SDR development and large scale circuits. I mean, unless you go to an auction and decide to buy a slightly used Fab plant and built your own microchips to your own design. Radio as hardware has passed us by, radio as software and such, may still have some room.

Commercial users have many many users to cram into their slices of spectrum, so the use of trunking, APCO 25, "nextel type" digital radio systems and the like were not intended to increase reliablity or range, but to reduce bandwidth and allow more users per frequency pair.

Digital modes are developing new modulation schemes for keyboard comms.

Is this something we need worry about? Do we require pilots to build their own planes to be 'real pilots', how about you golfers? Do you sand cast or forge your own clubs and lay up your own graphite shafts? What? How can you call yourself a real golfer? When was the last time you boiled feathers to make your own golf balls?

I understand that there traditions to uphold but to beat ourselves up because technology for manufacturing has gone beyond the backyard seems silly.

[WB2WIK]

There's a lot more to ham radio than LMR and repeaters.

Hams have linked systems that have inputs on six bands and outputs on all of them, and cover several states. That's been done by hams for well over 20 years. <Yawn> It just isn't particularly interesting, at least not to me.

Hams have privileges to use more modes of operation than any service except the Government. We use CW, SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK, SSTV, FSTV, WSJT...it's a long list. We routinely make contacts over 500-mile paths on 10.3 GHz. We routinely bounce signals off the moon and make contacts that way. Many hams (experienced contesters, mostly) can handle traffic at a rate of 300 contacts per hour without making mistakes, and that's via phone and CW.

We're the only service allowed to build our own equipment, including transmitters, and many do.

Many advanced digital modes were invented by hams; in some cases, employed by companies who paid them to do that, but often not.

The cellular telephone system was mostly invented by hams, employed by AT&T and Motorola. Actually, the touch tone telephone was invented by two hams working for Bell Labs in Whippany. I knew one of them (W2GAX) very well.

The first time radio signals were reflected from the moon to make 2-way contacts by anyone other than the government was by hams, and we're still the only population routinely doing that.

LMR just isn't very interesting to many of us. I have 6-7 rigs that can work VHF-UHF FM and very rarely use it. If I could pick up a hand held and talk to someone on the other side of the continent, I'd still rarely use it. Just not interesting.

It serves a purpose for local disaster communications, so I hope the systems in place will remain so for that. They likely will.

[N5YPJ]

We are amateur radio, hobby radio and we fulfill that definition pretty well. We can when asked fill voids in communication systems during emergencies and we will be around for a while longer. A lot of what LMR does requires an extensive infrastructure that not many hams or clubs are interested in or able to invest in. Our existing repeaters allow coverage over a few hundred square miles with a small box and a whip, HF is extremely portable compared to some years ago when HF mobile was giving up half the front seat of the family chariot plus a complicated power supply to run the behemoth.

We are doing OK. If we want to do better we can look as far as ourselves, go out of your way to make QSOs interesting, explore a new area of AR you haven't done before - meteor scatter and moon bounce have never been easier nor has 10 Ghz. AR is what you make of it. :)

[NY7Q]

Hey Tate, it's an experimental electronics hobby[/B].

[KI6DCB]

I've noticed every model airplane enthusiast flies prop planes.

bbc

Uhh...

...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4cEVB5nd8

[G4LNA]

Royal Hairy Horse Bollocks



That made me laugh coming from an American :D It's not normally a word that is understood that side of the puddle.

[K0RGR]

We have our equivalent of P25 in DSTAR. DSTAR architecture is designed around the ham community, not LMR. With very few exceptions, hams have no need of trunking technology (though it would allow for many more repeaters in areas where there are no available repeater pairs today). DSTAR is moving out of the ICOM-only realm into one with multiple vendors selling equipment: http://www.dutch-star.eu/ This new gear was designed by hams for hams.

Hams are doing pioneering work in SDR's, and various digital modes, because these are areas that are easily in reach for the average home experimenter. It's doubtful that hams working on their own will discover any new physical principles that lead to unimagined ways of doing radio communication. But, hams will make anything they can get their hands on work for ham radio.

[W5BIB]

Uhh...

...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4cEVB5nd8 THAT!!! was cool. I almost missed this thread!!... I thought the OP was about Arkansas........

[AG3Y]

Uhh...

...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4cEVB5nd8

Some of those turbos cost 10K bucks a piece ! And you thought ham radio was expensive ! Look for some of the BIG models, like the 747s with at least 4 turbos pushing them along.

Like old Sen. Dirkson of Illinois famously said, "a million here, a million there- - - pretty soon we are talking REAL money ! "

A lot of this "new technology" is in the same category. Not all of us has enough of the "lettuce" to construct a "state of the art" installation!

As far as the airplanes are concerned, if I crash one of my models, I may mope around for a few days, but at least I won't have to re-finance the house to pay for replacing it !

[KA4DPO]

I've noticed every model airplane enthusiast flies prop planes.

bbc

That's a great point. I fly prop planes but I do know one guy who flys jets. The reason most of us fly prop planes is simple, we like old planes and we can't afford to build an fly jets. The typical jet model, we're talking turbo fan not electric ducted fans, costs between $10,000.00 and up, way up.

The average new amateur radio is fairly state of the art but not up with the military and commercial stuff. Most hams like old radios although there are some who use only new ones. Most hams could not afford the state of the art rigs like those used by the military or the ones found in commercial airliners.

You can afford a state of the art Marine radio but they are not cheap and are really not that well suited to amateur radio.

[K8ERV]

Hasten thee back under thy bridge.

NO! No! It is already too crowded under here!

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[K4WGE]

"Why hasn't the AR community ... innovated itself back into a position of relevancy, let alone leadership in wireless communications?"

We need a definition of a baseline "position of relevancy" to answer the question.

[N5YPJ]

NO! No! It is already too crowded under here!

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
A man has got to know his limits.

[G0GQK]

What is the current state of the art ? And what is the name of this art ? As a general rule being up there in the front row means you have to pay very expensively to be there.
How many more ways can there be to communicate and what is the advantage to the average ham ? If he can talk to his pals in the next city on a tranceiver which costs £150 why should he waste his money by giving £2500 to a foreign manufacturer to talk to his pals in the next city on a tranceiver which uses a different method to carry his voice ?

We're into austerity now, for many the good days have gone

[KA7O]

Some good responses - thanks.

A few trolls - oh well, goes with the territory. Maybe if the trolls explored the basis for their defensiveness, we'd all gain - maybe.

Above all, I appreciate the honesty in realizing and accepting that AR isn't the technology leader it might have been, back when. And likely doesn't need to be.

Implications abound.

[K5FH]

A few trolls - oh well, goes with the territory. Maybe if the trolls explored the basis for their defensiveness, we'd all gain - maybe.

You just don't get it, do you?

[K5FH]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[KA7O]

You just don't get it, do you?

Why try to make this a personal issue?

What's your point? You don't like me or my questions? fine - no skin lost here.

[AD7N]

I still think Amateur Radio has significant technological prowess in very specific, niche fields... from an open source perspective.

There are commercial/governmental projects/software/techniques/etc. that have been driven by highly refined, profitable engineering by some of the brightest minds in the world that do go beyond amateur radio's technical skill.

However, within certain niches there are aspects of this hobby (mostly digital fields) that are pushing the bounds of what's available out there, for the ham radio community to share and build upon.

Predominantly, I would say though that what's driven commercial over ham radio is the requirements to deal with growth. Public demand and dollars are funding the brightest minds in the world (many hams undoubtedly) to build systems that can handle the exponential growth of the marketplace.

Money talks, and quantum leaps in technology are required every decade to keep up with this demand. That kind of sheer money isn't found at the same scale in the ham radio community.

If every ham in the world was demanding 1080p streamed to their HT, things might change a bit....but that kind of demand isn't really there.

There is also the argument that the ham radio community is smart by *not jumping* on the latest/greatest bandwagon in the mainstream perspective. That's because it's often better for demand to drive innovation, so resource efficiency is maximized to *just what needs it*.

To allow the community to grow organically, rather than shove a new technique/technology in for the sake of innovation.

There are literally hundreds/thousands of niches that are being researched in ham shacks around the world on new techniques/technologies/etc (MANY are actually quite advanced digital circuitry or techniques (see sig!)). Just because they're not being "adopted by the masses" doesn't mean the masses aren't smart - it just means the existing techniques/technologies meet the existing goals of most Hams.

[AD7N]

SSB/AM/FM/CW have been around a very long time. If we were switching modes/techniques every decade or two (as commercial systems seem to do) - there would be larger fragmentation and the cost of entry would be higher. A standard FM radio (broadcast band) that could listen on 88-108Mhz was a fortune 80 years ago. Now you get them built on a single chip embedded in your cell phone.

To pack the same number of features in a modern "shack-in-a-box" radio... in a ham radio 50 years ago... would have cost a royal fortune (government level-cash). If anything, "commercial Amateur Radio" (that which is manufactured for us) has kept up with their commercial/government band cousins in their internal sophistication.

Check out Elecraft, their new KX3 as an example of bleeding-edge ham radio tech: http://www.elecraft.com/KX3/kx3.htm

-----------------------
Comparing Ham Radio to Commercial/Government/Cellular/etc is a false game, in my opinion. The demands are simply different, and therefore the requirements are very different. One has a leisure demand , the other is a break-neck, bleeding-edge cash-infused industrial complex. There is no comparison.

Modern-day ham radios/software techniques however do reap from the benefits of the commercial industry, and also have innovation all their own.

[W0BTU]

Why hasn't the AR community - as a group - innovated itself back into a position of relevancy, let alone leadership in wireless communications? ... What's it going to take to motivate the 'common ham' to catch up with ... tech?

Respectfully, Tate, you are wasting your time. :-)

Although I'm not 'leading edge' by any stretch of anybody's imagination, I have always been an electronics experimenter first and an operator a very distant second. My enjoyment of amateur radio comes from various technical aspects of the hobby; when I do get on the air, it's usually to test a new modification, antenna, etc. I have a soldering iron in my hand FAR more often than a key or microphone.

Long ago, I came to the realization that to think that more hams should be that way was completely futile. It only led to arguments such as "Hey, this is AMATEUR radio, not professional radio". (Frankly, how can you argue with that?)

[WB2WIK]

There are commercial/governmental projects/software/techniques/etc. that have been driven by highly refined, profitable engineering by some of the brightest minds in the world that do go beyond amateur radio's technical skill.



I agree with most of that, but remember many of those brightest minds developing new communications systems and algorithms actually are hams, even if they're working for the government, or AT&T, or whoever.

When I was at Bell Labs, the majority of the communications systems breakthroughs (which averaged probably 10 a month or so) were developed by hams on staff. Yes, they were being paid and the patents and credit went to Bell, but the minds at work were often hams. Ditto for many of the staff involved in early spacecraft development.

When I visit the JPL labs in Pasadena today and look at the wondrous robotics work they're doing, half the scientists involved are members of the JPL amateur radio club. They still scout Science Fairs looking for the best and brightest minds to recruit them for Cal Tech. A lot of Cal Tech students are hams.

As a hobby, I think ham radio offers opportunities galore to do almost whatever we want, and many push the envelope just short of bursting.

[AD7N]

Very true, Steve....

another thing it seems is the world is leaning away from wires and towards wireless - it's inherently cheaper. Cellular networks in Africa are extremely cheap to setup for example, compared to running the fiber/copper required to create a similar sized network.

Landlines (at least in the developed world) are rapidly becoming obsolete. That means there will need to be more RF engineers, and more people who understand the fundementals of what "wireless" really means.

Amateur Radio fills the education niche very nicely, in a fun and hands on way that demonstrates the basics very visually (and aurally).

[NL7W]

Yes, AR is quaint. I said so in another thread.

And yes, so what... it IS fun. That's what I like about it. I'm not involved with AR because of an abiding interest in emcomm. My interest remains true to the root interests early amateurs -- technical discovery and learning of RF comms tech -- the fun aspect.

I've stayed involved for 30 years because of that "fun factor," and the fact I occasionally learn something from other hams, even though I have also been in the RF telecom business for a quarter century now.

Yep... there's nothing wrong with quaint! :)




I don't care who thinks AR is "quaint", it is fun. It is supposed to be fun. We are supposed to enjoy it. If "state of the art" doesn't contribute to that fun then it has no place in AR.

I suppose the people who putter about in yachts using wind power are "quaint", or the people that ride horses, or the people that lovingly restore and operate steam locomotives, or the people that indulge in a spot of archery? Retro is cool, that's all there is to it.

If you enjoy being state of the art, and can persuade others to join you, go for it, but don't criticize people who get their enjoyment out of more old-fashioned types of radio experience. We are all into AR for the pleasure it gives us.

73

Brian G8ADD

[N0NB]

As a hobby, I think ham radio offers opportunities galore to do almost whatever we want, and many push the envelope just short of bursting.

Absolutely, Steve.

Consider that in the beginning there was but one mode, that being Morse over spark generated by various means. Hams of that time needed to know Morse to communicate. There was a need for radio to be more accessible and that meant voice. Yes, spark was modulated but the results were poor until RF generated as a continuous wave entered the picture. AM quickly became the voice mode of choice as it was simple to modulate and detect. Since the carrier was there anyway, the use of the carrier switched on and off to generate Morse quickly gained favor in the amateur ranks which became known to this day as CW. Although SSB and FM were invented not long after, they were covered by patents and other issues which kept them out of reach to radio amateurs. Until the shutdown of amateur radio during World War II, amateurs had two modes to experiment with (spark was outlawed by the late '20s).

Things exploded after WWII and amateurs added SSB, FM, and new fangled modes called RTTY and SSTV to their stations. By the late '70s the personal computer entered the ham shack and the desire for computer to computer communication led to the various digital modes of today. Besides diversity in modes, amateurs have taken it upon themselves to operate in ever more varied settings. Receiver technology has advanced greatly as amateurs have demanded higher performance to cope with crowded bands during popular operating events and to deal with ever more local noise from EFI generated by household gadgets. Noise reduction techniques are undoubtedly among the most prominent area of research and implementation in amateur radio. Amateurs have developed techniques for dealing with interference not only technically but operationally as well. What we take for granted today was the stuff of fiction or heavy government funding only a couple of short decades ago.

In short, amateur radio has not stood still and is still the best avenue for learning the science behind telecommunications. And that aspect of its nature alone, keeps amateur radio relevant and will for years to come.

[AC0FP]

I've noticed every model airplane enthusiast flies prop planes.

bbc

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU

[N5PVL]

Why is AR so far behind the state of the art?

What art is that - The radio art?

If so, then amateur radio is the innovator these days, not the commercial outfits.

Do the commercial outfits use software and hardware that hams do not or could not use? - Yep, they sure do.

Does that mean that the commercial outfits eclipse amateur radio in advancing the radio art? - Nope, it sure doesn't.

Hams experiment with new systems, modes and protocols all of the time, and it's usually open-source too. It is not like that at all with the commercial outfits, who look for long-term, settled solutions that have a better chance of paying for themselves while shaking out the worst of the bugs. They literally cannot 'experiment' very much at all because the listeners could not keep up with any significant changes, so commercial outfits much prefer to develop what they have, rather than change to something different. This, in part, is why the recent digital transition among HF broadcasters has been likened many times to the pulling of teeth.

The very term "state of the art" implies some summit that cannot be bested, like it was somehow cast in stone. When you hear commercial outfits including broadcasters talking about being "state of the art", what they mean is that they have all agreed to freeze at the same technology level.

In contrast, because of the constant process of experimentation and development that goes on within the amateur radio community, hams often become the keepers of arcane knowledge related to the radio art that you literally cannot find anywhere else.

A few years back, Voice of America was looking into digital multicast transmissions for providing news service to 3rd world countries lacking communications infrastructure. The VOA engineers consulted an amateur radio operator, because hams were literally the only people on the planet who had practical experience with digital multicast transmissions on HF.

Amateur radio is a major player in advancing the radio art, make no mistake about that. Perhaps this is so because radio is not an academic or a commercial matter for hams so much as it is a hands-on part of everyday life.

We may not have multimillion dollar budgets and university engineering departments in our pockets, but we do have a system that produces steady results...

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/SSTV/TxStock39.jpg

[K7JBQ]

Charles,

Thank you.

That might be your best post ever.

73,
Bill

[WB2WIK]

Things exploded after WWII and amateurs added SSB, FM, and new fangled modes called RTTY and SSTV to their stations.

And remember is was really Art Collins and Curtis LeMay who verified SSB's ability to surpass other voice modes in critical situations. They were both hams. Collins made the equipment, and LeMay tried it out for airborne coverage.

Licensed in the mid-60s I caught the "tail end" of the "SSB vs. AM" wars on amateur radio -- it was hilarious. Nobody was right or wrong, but there sure were lots of strong opinions.

[K8ERV]

Licensed in the mid-60s I caught the "tail end" of the "SSB vs. AM" wars on amateur radio hilarious. .

I used to work 75 etc on AM. Then for several years I was only on RTTY. When I got back on 75 everything was SSB, but I did not know about the change. What a surprise!!

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[WB2WIK]

I used to work 75 etc on AM. Then for several years I was only on RTTY. When I got back on 75 everything was SSB, but I did not know about the change. What a surprise!!



"When did everybody start talking like Donald Duck?"

[KI6DCB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU

Like Mendeleev, Newton, Edison, Marconi, the Wrights, and Einstein, Kelly Johnson will live forever.

[2E0OZI]

Along with R.J Mitchell, Sir Sydney Camm, and the peerless WEW "Teddy" Petter......

[KI6DCB]

Well, OK...

...Don't forget Sir Barnes Wallis.

I will grant you that the English -- and the Germans -- have had their share of good aero designers.

Still, it's hard to find anyone who designed as many completely different aircraft as Johnson: Electra, Constellation, P-38, P-80, F-104, C-130, U-2, Sr-71, and the list goes on.

[N7WR]

I could care less if amateur radio is less than state of the art--though I would argue that there are some niches of AR that are very much state of the art. I deal with state of the art all day at work. My enjoyment from AR comes from ragchewing on 40 or working DX on 20. I don't care at all about digital modes, the ability to interface with the Internet yadda yadda. To me, state of the art is work and amateur radio is for relaxing and fun.

[W1GUH]

While all the current whiz-bang radios are pretty darn impressive, and by, say, standards of the 70's almost miraculous in what they can do, how well they can do it, how small they are, and how rugged they are, there's one area that YaeKenCom seems to severly lag: battery charging.

Every single consumer item I own that uses rechargable batteries comes unthinkingly standard with a quick charger. So it's obvious the technology is mature and available. But can I get a quick charger for my 'F6A from Kenwood? Can I get a quick charger for my '817? No and no. And the (snail's pace) charger in my '817 isn't even a smart charger. It's dumber than dumb. Charges for 8 hours regardless. Well, the Yaesu is taken care of with the W4RT big battery and One Fast Charger (work really, really well with a packaging issue), and the Kenwood's battery lasts long enough so it's ssllllooooowwwww charger can be planned around. But WTF? Kenwood made a quick charger 'way back when for the '2500.

Rant over.

[SV9OFO]

Let's take it from the start.

What limits our tecnological innovation is actually our licensing terms.

There is a finite amount of things one can do being limited to "No spread spectrum under 430", "max 3 KHz wide transmissions on HF", "open protocol encoding of data packet", "well-known modulation scemes".
Developer hands are actually tightly bonded.
Also, there is the enormous problem of patents. A ham radio innovator is usually some PhD on telecom technologies, who makes a living out of it. Applying for a patent and making good revenues out of it excludes the "open source" community all along. Other hams cannot take advantage of those until patent expires. So, sufficient lag in modern technology implementation occurs.Even when there are projects that start as open source (like Codec2) they strive to get moderate levels of support, financially or even acceptance to the project.


When patents do get licensed for radio amateur use, as the case for AMBE (D-Star, AOR) and PactorIII, only few hams actually accept it, usually black box operators who know next to nothing about what actually happens inside the box, while homebuliders are signing off the project by definition.

Open source projects openly avalable and implemented in software like WSPR and JT65 are embraced in no-time by ham radio,

since ham radio is a hobby and noone affords to invest $$$ in foggy royalities following a standard that could be superseeded by another, similarly implemented or not, in a few months.

[SV9OFO]

battery charging.

Well, my Alinco DJ-G7charges in no time compared to what it takes to charge my TH-28.

Same applies to Puxing's AFAIK.

LI-PO batteries have found their way to "consumer" ham radio rigs, but consumer ham radio rigs are bound to compatibility due to market nature (no manufacturer would get truly innovative with a company patended standard when it comes to ham radio. In ham radio, you got to make something that can be reproduced in a garage to get it standardized). We need to talk about innovation a little bit. We have to exploit all input-output jacks of commercial radios when we discuss innovation, because this is what lies most on ham shacks nowadays. Commercial radios.

And even getting a discriminator output out of a radio would employ some risk of damage in some cases, when the signal is not provided at IO connectors at the back of the rig.

[N5PVL]

Charles,

Thank you.

That might be your best post ever.

73,
Bill

I appreciate the kind words, but my point there was an easy one to make. - I was up against a fallacy.

What I was addressing wasn't the original post so much as the wording used in the title "Why is the AR so far behind the state of the art?"

My guess upon reading the title was that somebody had a pet mode or protocol that they believed was just not getting enough attention in the ham radio community. - And sure enough, that was exactly what was going on. - It's a very old story.

I hear questions and statements asserting that ham radio is hopelessly behind the times from a variety of amateurs who have some pet activity, mode, protocol, or even software that they kind of get latched onto, somehow so that the next thing you know, their view of the hobby's relevance and state of advancement is directly related to how popular the pet whatever it is - is.

The most extreme example are the hinternet folks, who judge the relevance and advancement of an amateur radio activity by whether it uses the internet or not.

The ones whose pet XYZ is not very popular really go for the bitter negativity. - Any and every thing about amateur radio and everybody associated with it is just absolutely bogus, to listen to the bitter oikophobe.

It goes further than that though, and it has for some time. There is a school of thought within the hobby who honestly believe that the best, most productive way to promote a favored activity is by attacking all others. - It is basically a case of zero-sum thinking, the alleged logic being that one can only better or advance oneself at another's expense.

The post title "Why is the AR so far behind the state of the art?" is typical of the approach. - That's how I knew that it was somebody wanting to promote an obscure or unpopular XYZ the minute I saw the dismissive, bitter, anti-ham tone of the question in that title.

Now, one would think that if you had an activity or whatever that you would like to see more hams enjoy, the logical thing to do would be to talk about why you enjoy it. - Talk about that thing that you wish to promote in a positive, informative, friendly tone that will make it hard to miss the fact that you are having fun, and would like to share that fun with your fellow amateurs - because you like them.

But no. - Most often, we get somebody telling us all how miserable, sorry and pointless the hobby is - and how backward and dim-witted we all are - unless we all simultaneously jump on the XYZ bandwagon.

Most hams take one good look at that attitude and simultaneously jump as far away as possible from the miserable-sounding XYZ bandwagon, and it has been that way for decades - but this idea of getting hams to do things by talking trash about the hobby is still pretty deeply ingrained.

Here is a good place to mention the thing about insanity being where you repeat the same nonproductive action over and over, each time expecting success.

TAPR is the place where this kind of thinking is most prevalent within the hobby.

As far as I can tell, it started off with a really nice amateur who strongly promoted 9600 baud Packet radio, back in the early days of Packet. The fellow started off being informative and friendly, but as his continued efforts bore no particular fruit, he became progressively more bitter and dismissive about the amateur radio community. His status within the ingrown, isolated TAPR group was so high that his bitter, disrespectful approach was not moderated or disapproved with at all. Nobody took him aside and told him it was time to chill out. - Instead, his misbehavior was widely adopted within that community and remains SOP to this day, over twenty years later.

Ain't that something?

Now that you know what to look for, keep an eye out for whiny "ham radio is obsolete" or "hams are dumb" fallacies, and see if it isn't somebody who would fit right in at TAPR, trying to convince everybody to try out their unpopular pet whatever it is - and of course getting nowhere.

[KY5U]

I agree with most of that, but remember many of those brightest minds developing new communications systems and algorithms actually are hams, even if they're working for the government, or AT&T....
We still do...

[KY5U]

Charles,

Thank you.

That might be your best post ever.

73,
Bill
Dang, Bill, don't encourage him. He's my buddy, but encourage him and he'll talk the under-pants off a nun. I mean I'm just sayin'....

[N5PVL]

Dang, Bill, don't encourage him. He's my buddy, but encourage him and he'll talk the under-pants off a nun. I mean I'm just sayin'....

I greatly resemble those kind of remarks!

- And it wasn't a nun, it was a social worker.

[K4KYV]

There is a lot made of pioneering SSB use by Hams. Actually,point to point services were using SSB & its offshoot ISB as early as the late 1930s between the UK &USA, & in Australia in the early 1950s.

Actually, SSB was used for long-wave transatlantic voice communication as far back the 1920s. One of the reasons was that practical antennas for those wavelengths did not have enough bandwidth to allow transmission of both sidebands.

Some early amateur experimentation with SSB occurred in the early 1930s. A 4-part series of articles appeared in 1933 and 1934 in R/9 Magazine, first explaining what SSB is, followed by detailed instructions on how to build a filter-type SSB transmitter that was designed to work on the high end of 75m. I have the issues containing those articles in my library.

[KA7O]

Charles - if you really knew why I was asking what I asked, you'd be laughing too. The irony of your feelings toward TAPR wasn't missed. Good stuff.

No, no pet modes, technologies, ideas, projects or hurt feelings here. Nothing like that. I mentioned C4FM as an example only. One that's been around for awhile. And one that I'd expected many to not be familiar with.

I've recently had opportunity to see what's been happening on the commercial side of things over the past 10 to 15 years or so. I was curious as to why AR hasn't also progressed in a similar fashion. As a 'technology' hobby - it appears there's a lot of stuff we aren't playing with. But, it is being played with - just not publicised or advertised, widely.

Special with the oft stated 'need' to draw in younger folks to the hobby, it would've seemed a natural to adopt some of these other technologies in an attempt to make AR look more 'attractive' to some perceived market space. But, there seems to be a built in 'resistance' (inertia, immunity?) that helps keep ham radio, well - ham radio. Yes, that's 'quaint' - but quaint isn't inherently a bad thing.

I mostly enjoyed the responses from those that are comfortable with doing what they're doing for their own reasons. Folks that simply enjoy what they're doing and have no pretensions of being more, or less, than what they are. Special from those that also work in related fields. I've a feeling the far flung future of AR may well have it's roots in these folks. I'm curious to see what it'll be.

Still, there's also a level of defensiveness from some quarters. However, I'm not so sure I want to explore that hallway. It's kind of dark and it's making squishy noises...

[N5PVL]

Actually, SSB was used for long-wave transatlantic voice communication as far back the 1920s. One of the reasons was that practical antennas for those wavelengths did not have enough bandwidth to allow transmission of both sidebands.

Some early amateur experimentation with SSB occurred in the early 1930s. A 4-part series of articles appeared in 1933 and 1934 in R/9 Magazine, first explaining what SSB is, followed by detailed instructions on how to build a filter-type SSB transmitter that was designed to work on the high end of 75m. I have the issues containing those articles in my library.

Many years ago I had an elderly neighbor in north Texas named Mr. Potts. We lived on the shore of a lake, and some mornings Mr. Potts and I would end up fishing together.

Mr. Potts told me that at one time he had been an amateur radio operator, and had been prominent for his enjoyment of SSB mode when it was new and relatively unknown within the ham community. He mentioned maintaining a regular schedule with a polar expedition at the time. If I remember correctly, he said that he was one of the first hams in Texas to play with SSB, if not the first. - This was all some years ago.

I would guess that he was talking about the 1920's or thereabouts... Mr. Potts was quite frail and only made it out to his place on the lake every once in a while. He was a great fishing companion, and we enjoyed swapping stories about ham radio. I was not yet a ham, but I had been around them since I was little. Though Mr. Potts had not been active in years, he still liked to hear about some of my misadventures and minor triumphs as a shortwave listener, studying for the ham exam. He had some great stories to tell, and made some good suggestions about my antenna.

I cannot remember what his call had been, of really if he had ever mentioned it. - But I do remember that Mr. Potts was proud of his work in advancing and developing SSB mode.

Later I ended up moving away from the lake, so I lost track of Mr. Potts. I will always remember him though as a great ham, and a great fishing companion.

[M3KXZ]

Many years ago I had an elderly neighbor in north Texas named Mr. Potts. We lived on the shore of a lake, and some mornings Mr. Potts and I would end up fishing together.

Mr. Potts told me that at one time he had been an amateur radio operator, and had been prominent for his enjoyment of SSB mode when it was new and relatively unknown within the ham community. He mentioned maintaining a regular schedule with a polar expedition at the time. If I remember correctly, he said that he was one of the first hams in Texas to play with SSB, if not the first. - This was all some years ago.

I would guess that he was talking about the 1920's or thereabouts... Mr. Potts was quite frail and only made it out to his place on the lake every once in a while. He was a great fishing companion, and we enjoyed swapping stories about ham radio. I was not yet a ham, but I had been around them since I was little. Though Mr. Potts had not been active in years, he still liked to hear about some of my misadventures and minor triumphs as a shortwave listener, studying for the ham exam. He had some great stories to tell, and made some good suggestions about my antenna.

I cannot remember what his call had been, of really if he had ever mentioned it. - But I do remember that Mr. Potts was proud of his work in advancing and developing SSB mode.

Later I ended up moving away from the lake, so I lost track of Mr. Potts. I will always remember him though as a great ham, and a great fishing companion.

Charles, could it have been John Luther Potts (1922-2011) W5LFQ or his father, Roy Potts W5FSU? There's a wiki article about a lady named Myna Potts from Chillicothe , W. Texas (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myna_Potts) and she became a radio ham in order to speak to her husband, John Luther Potts, who was in the Merchant Marine and away from home for up to six months at a time. His father, Roy, would probably have been well and truly active as a ham in the 20s. Just a thought.

[AG3Y]

Let's take it from the start.

What limits our tecnological innovation is actually our licensing terms.

There is a finite amount of things one can do being limited to "No spread spectrum under 430", "max 3 KHz wide transmissions on HF", "open protocol encoding of data packet", "well-known modulation scemes".
Developer hands are actually tightly bonded.
Also, there is the enormous problem of patents. A ham radio innovator is usually some PhD on telecom technologies, who makes a living out of it. Applying for a patent and making good revenues out of it excludes the "open source" community all along. Other hams cannot take advantage of those until patent expires. So, sufficient lag in modern technology implementation occurs.Even when there are projects that start as open source (like Codec2) they strive to get moderate levels of support, financially or even acceptance to the project.


When patents do get licensed for radio amateur use, as the case for AMBE (D-Star, AOR) and PactorIII, only few hams actually accept it, usually black box operators who know next to nothing about what actually happens inside the box, while homebuliders are signing off the project by definition.

Open source projects openly avalable and implemented in software like WSPR and JT65 are embraced in no-time by ham radio,

since ham radio is a hobby and noone affords to invest $$$ in foggy royalities following a standard that could be superseeded by another, similarly implemented or not, in a few months.


I think this post nails it on the head !

One is NOT going to see digital real-time television transmissions on the HF bands, for instance, simply because the RULES won't ever allow it. Bell labs experimented with TV over phone lines waaaay back in the 50s, and the best they have ever achieved are those flat, detail-less, jerky images that we occasionally see on some newscast from a 3rd world country, or battlezone. How could anyone expect MORE from equipment designed for use on the ham bands ?

In this country, the F.C.C. is so far behind on establishing regulations for the new modes, that almost nothing is understood as to the legality or acceptance of their use on the HF bands. And face it, the HF bands are still where the great majority of hams eventually migrate to, or leave the hobby before even giving them a fair trial.

The problem, as I see it, is not the use of exotic modes on the air, it is the understanding of what modes are acceptable, where, and making the hardware and possibly software that will support those modes.

However, if a person wants to simply bang away at a hand key, they should NOT feel guilty that they are "holding back technological progress". They are enjoying the art of communicating with other people, some near, some far away, and THAT is one of the major underlying concepts of ham radio.

73, Jim

[N5PVL]

The main problem stems from amateurs who are so 'advanced' that they cannot comprehend the simple relationship between frequency and bandwidth.

[KC8VWM]

"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."

~Aldous Huxley

[KB1SF]

I think this post nails it on the head! In this country, the F.C.C. is so far behind on establishing regulations for the new modes, that almost nothing is understood as to the legality or acceptance of their use on the HF bands. And face it, the HF bands are still where the great majority of hams eventually migrate to, or leave the hobby before even giving them a fair trial.

Agreed.

And I have spoken at great length in these forums about how technologically stifling and socially backward our current FCC licensing and regulatory requirements are from an operational standpoint.

Unfortunately, many people posting in these forums continue to firmly believe that, because ours is a "hobby" service, we somehow don't have to continually justify what we are doing...to anyone.

The problem with his notion is that, unlike sailing, fishing, gardening, collecting coins or rare stamps, OUR hobby uses a shared international resource that is defined and specifically allocated for our use.

What's more, that "shared international resource" just happens to be worth many hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on the open radio market. Few other "hobbies" (and certainly the other hobbies I've noted above) routinely require "fee free" access to that kind of dollar value of scarce resources...resources that could be fairly easily reallocated to some other use... in order to even exist.

The other wrinkle here is that it's an amorphous group of politicians and bureaucrats, each with their own political agendas, who grant us continuing access to those resources. We have little, if any, control over their decisions, other than to be good stewards of what they collectively decide to let us use. What's more, those decisions are all based on their (and the public's) best interests, not necessarily ours.

The truth is that we very much need "to continue justifying ourselves" as worthy stewards of the public resources to which we are routinely allowed access.

And at least PART of that justification is contained in the expectation that we will continue to move the state of the communications art FORWARD. Unless we continue to do this, I believe we run the very real risk of permanently losing that access. And, sadly, far too many of us take our continuing, "fee free" access to the frequency spectrum that our "hobby" absolutely requires for its very existence as some God-given right.

Unfortunately, throughout the history of amateur radio, a resistance to move the hobby forward and accept needed change has hampered the introduction of new communications technologies at every turn. This resistance often stems from the (mistaken) belief that the current state of technology is somehow a pinnacle of achievement.

For example, spark operators resisted the transition to CW. And then later, CW ops opposed the introduction of phone. Then AM phone ops resisted the introduction of SSB phone. FM analog ops are currently up in arms about "intrusions" from P25 and D-Star, etc. And the DX and "weak signal" crowd is also fighting the introduction of spread spectrum and other digital techniques because they are looked upon as "spectrum polluters".

It's also interesting how this exclusion of newer technology manifests itself. We usually see it in often over regulated band-planning and informal agreements about who can use what spectrum for what purpose, not to mention the seemingly endless arguments (such as those being offered in these forums) as to whether (or not) the application and integration of these new technologies into what we do constitutes "real amateur radio".

Unfortunately, over the years, the widespread introduction of these newer technologies has usually suffered at the hands of the old, at least until such time as the new technology has been around long enough to be accepted. Then the new technology (now no longer really "new") is tacitly embraced as being "real ham radio"…but only so long as it causes no interference whatsoever to the so called "legacy modes".

We hams also like to blame the decline of interest in amateur radio on the Internet. To some extent this is probably true. However, the fact that many Hams (particularly those of the older generation) often don't understand the Internet and thus don't understand how it could significantly complement what we do, ANY amateur radio interface with the Internet automatically makes it something to be ridiculed at all costs by this crowd.....much like CB and CBers.

Take for example, the social networking Internet site called Twitter. Six or seven years ago, Twitter didn't even exist. However, today, it's one of the most popular and fastest growing social communication systems in the world with an estimated 26 million users.

Now, I often have to wonder what would have happened to Twitter (or Facebook, or any of the other popular Internet social networking sites) if the FCC had been placed in charge of administering them and granting access to their users.

Indeed, I doubt seriously whether such things as Twitter and Facebook would be as popular as they are today if the FCC had required all new users of such networks to buy (and become conversant with) a set of not one, but THREE license manuals, fill out a bunch of application paperwork, find an examination site, drive to that site on an non-working evening or weekend, pay a $15 fee, successfully complete not one but THREE largely irrelevant examinations over material that (for the third exam at least) has little or nothing to do with the operational privileges they grant...and then wait a week or more for their "authorization" to arrive allowing them to get communicating with their newly "earned", full Twitter or Facebook privileges.

What's more, up until very recently, such candidates would probably have ALSO been forced into taking and passing a stupid Morse test in order to obtain such "full" Twitter or Facebook privileges.

It's absolutely no wonder amateur radio is now looked upon by the rest of the modern world as a quaint throwback to the early days of radio made up of what I and others call the "Radio Amish"…that is...an ever-shrinking group of predominantly "grumpy old men" who want absolutely nothing at all to do with embracing 21st Century technological or sociological reality in our Service.

Unfortunately, it is also painfully obvious from these discussions that many of the people posting here have yet to fully realize just how much of what we do in amateur radio has created (either explicitly or implicitly) an all but closed culture of elitist exclusion.

No wonder most of today's tech-savvy youth are now avoiding our hobby like The Plague!

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[K7JBQ]

Dang it Keith, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. And avoid cliches like the plague!

73,
Bill

[WB0LSR]

Here's my thoughts on the OP:

A prime example of what's happening in the state of the art can be found in modern music studios. 20 years ago, if one wanted to record and mix multiple tracks of audio at studio quality, he/she needed a hardware multitrack recorder, and various hardware effects to go along with it. Nowadays, the entire studio is software emulated. All that's needed is a powerful enough computer and a good sound card, pretty much all current generation computers are more than good enough, and this assumes top-tier sound quality.

To me, software emulation exemplifies state-of-the-art in AR as well, just take software defined radios as examples. Even that, however, is a little behind the times. I recently posted in another thread about how I feel that the current generation of smartphones are sufficiently powerful that the form factor and internal computing structure could be combined with an internal QRP-level output PA, resulting in a tiny, handheld SDR packed with advanced features. As was pointed out at the time, there are compromises once in awhile with emulation, but today's processors (even the current dual-core smartphone processor) are more than powerful enough to cope with emulating down to a very fine level of detail.. I firmly believe that current tech could provide some absolutely incredible radios... but there are caveats to that from a hobbyist's perspective.

Hobbyists tend to prefer devices that they have either built or are capable of fixing/customizing. The technology today does not offer that option, while older discrete technology does.

[KI4NGN]

Jeez, you conflated so many issues under one topic, such as the level of our technology with our licensing structure, that I'll just respond to the below.


.........
Unfortunately, many people posting in these forums continue to firmly believe that, because ours is a "hobby" service, we somehow don't have to continually justify what we are doing...to anyone.

And I am very vocally one of those people. How many different ways can it be put to you? A hobby does not have to justify itself to anyone, expect perhaps for justifying expenditures to a spouse!

Part 97 defines us as a hobby, and the rules and regulations focus on us ensuring that this is how we use our spectrum. There is NOTHING in Part 97 that even hints that we must justify our existence.

The preamble RECOGNIZES, recognizes, recognizes, recognizes, that we may voluntarily provide a public service.

It is NOT implied or explicitly stated that public service is required or expected of us by any interpretation of the English language. You continually push what you want it to say, and ignore what it DOES say. It was even quoted to you in another thread officially coming from the FCC that public service was not require or expected, yet here you are again.

As long as we use our bands, however we legally use them, that is all the justification that is required.



The problem with his notion is that, unlike sailing, fishing, gardening, collecting coins or rare stamps, OUR hobby uses a shared international resource that is defined and specifically allocated for our use.

Yes....that is defined and specifically allocated for our HOBBY use.


What's more, that "shared international resource" just happens to be worth many hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on the open radio market. Few other "hobbies" (and certainly the other hobbies I've noted above) routinely require "fee free" access to that kind of dollar value of scarce resources...resources that could be fairly easily reallocated to some other use... in order to even exist.

Worth billions to WHOM????? Please, just once, answer that question. Who exactly is clamoring for, fighting for, bidding for, chomping at the bit for, space on HF???


The other wrinkle here is that it's an amorphous group of politicians and bureaucrats, each with their own political agendas, who grant us continuing access to those resources. We have little, if any, control over their decisions, other than to be good stewards of what they collectively decide to let us use. What's more, those decisions are all based on their (and the public's) best interests, not necessarily ours.

There are NO politicians who grant us continuing access to our resources. We have them according to law, not according to on-going politics. No one is granting or continuing to grant. It would require a change in law to take them away.


..............................
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KB1SF]

J0]How many different ways can it be put to you? A hobby does not have to justify itself to anyone, expect perhaps for justifying expenditures to a spouse!

Perhaps most other "hobbies" (such as those I noted in my original post) as you say, "do not need to justify themselves to anyone".

But, as I noted earlier, our hobby, by definition, also involves participation in a radio service. That's due, in large part, because we rely on a shared public resource (the radio spectrum) to pursue it. And it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, without continued access to the radio spectrum, our hobby dies.


Part 97 defines us as a hobby, and the rules and regulations focus on us ensuring that this is how we use our spectrum. There is NOTHING in Part 97 that even hints that we must justify our existence.

Would you please show us, exactly, where either the ITU regulations or Part 97 defines us as a "hobby"? Everywhere I look, we are referred to as the Amateur Radio Service.


There are NO politicians who grant us continuing access to our resources. We have them according to law, not according to on-going politics. No one is granting or continuing to grant. It would require a change in law to take them away.

Well, if there are "NO politicians granting us continuing access to our resources" as you say, then why do the IARU, the ARRL, the Radio Amateurs of Canada (and just about every other major amateur-radio-related organization in the world) bother to raise and then spend inordinate sums of money preparing for (and sending delegates to) periodic World Radio Conferences?

Do you think these organizations do that "just for fun", or for their delegates to have a nice vacation in Geneva, Switzerland?

Or, could it possibly be that these people and organizations know a little bit more than you do about the pressing need for amateur radio to continually justify its access to radio spectrum in a world that is growing increasingly hungry for such bandwidth for other pursuits?

Unfortunately, these national amateur radio organizations are now running out of things they can hold up at such meetings to justify our continued access to our spectrum going forward.

Of course, our role in emergency communications is certainly one of them and, quite naturally, forms the current basis for such "spectrum defense". But, as others and I have opined in these and other forums, there is eventually going to come a point where our "customers" in that role will no longer need (or want) our "help" because they are increasingly growing their own, highly robust, in-house communications services for use in such emergencies.

And, certainly, experimentation and application of new and innovative ways to communicate and similar pursuits are (and will continue to be) helpful in this ongoing battle for ever-more scarce frequency spectrum.

Indeed, some of the work my organization (AMSAT) is now doing by applying advanced Software Defined Radio and innovative forward error correcting BPSK techniques into its current crop of satellites, along with our plans to use emerging technologies such as "pseduo capacitors" in place of limited lifetime batteries (strings of small, 2.4Volt, 250 Farad (yes, FARAD!) capacitors all strung together as a power source) will continue to push the state of the radio art going forward.

And, much to the apparent chagrin of the "real radios glow in the dark" crowd, this is all happening in our Service DESPITE the very best laid plans or our regulatory fundamentalists and others to keep amateur radio firmly stuck in the technological and sociological 1950s.

But, as I have also said, whether or not our current experimentation and eventual widespread application these innovative communications techniques into amateur radio will be sufficient for us to attract (and keep) enough tech-savvy, youthful newcomers to replace those of us now dying off in increasing numbers remains anyone's guess.

Clearly, unless and until we can figure out a way to do this, our frequencies will eventually be taken from us and our "hobby" will die. Right now, I'd say the chances for our Service's survival beyond the next few decades are about 50-50.

Indeed, based on some of the latest new licensee information I obtained from the ARRL at this year's the Dayton Hamvention, it now appears those of us currently licensed are now starting to die off faster than we are being replaced by youthful newcomers.

But, all one really needed to do was to simply look around at Hara Arena (the Dayton Hamvention venue) at the preponderance of graying (and balding) heads, advancing age and expanding waistlines (not the mention the increased use of electric scooters for people to get around) to see visible proof of the "graying" of our Service and where our hobby is now headed.

Any way you cut it, gents, that should be a cause for some very real concern. For, once our frequencies are taken from us, all of these discussions (whether we need to justify our existence or not) will become quite moot.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WB2WIK]

Perhaps most other "hobbies" (such as those I noted in my original post) as you say, "do not need to justify themselves to anyone".

But, as I noted earlier, our hobby, by definition, also involves participation in a radio service. That's due, in large part, because we rely on a shared public resource (the radio spectrum) to pursue it. And it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, without continued access to the radio spectrum, our hobby dies.

Sure, but all my other hobbies use shared public resources, too. Like tennis, where I go play at public courts provided by the City. Skiing, where I use mountains owned by the government with lifts and resort facilities that are privately owned but open to the public. Surfing, where I use the ocean, which is a public resource. Running, where I'm almost always on public streets or in public parks. I can't think of any hobby I've ever had which doesn't use public resources we're all sharing. They're all valuable and non-regenerating.

[KI4NGN]

Perhaps most other "hobbies" (such as those I noted in my original post) as you say, "do not need to justify themselves to anyone".

But, as I noted earlier, our hobby, by definition, also involves participation in a radio service. That's due, in large part, because we rely on a shared public resource (the radio spectrum) to pursue it. And it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, without continued access to the radio spectrum, our hobby dies.


Again with "service"! That's just a label applied to the allocations made by the FCC. Like your electric service, or your water service, or your garbage service. We are USERS of all of those services. Of course we need our spectrum. You are the one who says if we don't justify it, we'll lose it. I notice that you ignored part of my response to you, asking just who it is that is after our HF spectrum making it worth "billions".






Would you please show us, exactly, where either the ITU regulations or Part 97 defines us as a "hobby"? Everywhere I look, we are referred to as the Amateur Radio Service.

Have you looked at the definition of the Amateur Radio Service? Apparently not.

"(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."

Do you even know what a hobby is?



Well, if there are "NO politicians granting us continuing access to our resources" as you say, then why do the IARU, the ARRL, the Radio Amateurs of Canada (and just about every other major amateur-radio-related organization in the world) bother to raise and then spend inordinate sums of money preparing for (and sending delegates to) periodic World Radio Conferences?

Do you think these organizations do that "just for fun", or for their delegates to have a nice vacation in Geneva, Switzerland?

Or, could it possibly be that these people and organizations know a little bit more than you do about the pressing need for amateur radio to continually justify its access to radio spectrum in a world that is growing increasingly hungry for such bandwidth for other pursuits?

To keep up with changing tachnologies and uses, potential uses, by us, on our bands? To coordinate changes on band usage? To try and keep all of the signatory countries some what synchronized as to how we use our bands?

Do you want to say that you think they're fighting against some entities who make our bands worth billions???? Who are these entities????

BTW, nice side-step. I responded to "The other wrinkle here is that it's an amorphous group of politicians and bureaucrats, each with their own political agendas, who grant us continuing access to those resources. We have little, if any, control over their decisions, other than to be good stewards of what they collectively decide to let us use. What's more, those decisions are all based on their (and the public's) best interests, not necessarily ours."

So, again, no group of politicians and bureaucrats grant us continuing access to our resources, and it is a blatant falsehood for you to continue to state what is so obviously untrue.



Unfortunately, these national amateur radio organizations are now running out of things they can hold up at such meetings to justify our continued access to our spectrum going forward.

Those organizations don't meet to protect us for government elimination! Point to any meeting minutes where that was the case!



Of course, our role in emergency communications is certainly one of them and, quite naturally, forms the current basis for such "spectrum defense". But, as others and I have opined in these and other forums, there is eventually going to come a point where our "customers" in that role will no longer need (or want) our "help" because they are increasingly growing their own, highly robust, in-house communications services for use in such emergencies.

Jeez Keith.....we're a hobby! By definition we do not have customers. You just don't get it.

The rest is pointless, as always.



......................

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KB1SF]

Sure, but all my other hobbies use shared public resources, too. Like tennis, where I go play at public courts provided by the City. Skiing, where I use mountains owned by the government with lifts and resort facilities that are privately owned but open to the public. Surfing, where I use the ocean, which is a public resource. Running, where I'm almost always on public streets or in public parks. I can't think of any hobby I've ever had which doesn't use public resources we're all sharing. They're all valuable and non-regenerating.

Certainly, these are all "shared" public resources. But they aren't also SCARCE shared public resources.

Indeed, which one of all those shared resources you mentioned requires a license...granted by a government entity to use? And which of those shared resources you note requires an international body (i.e. the ITU) to specifically set aside those scarce resources for your exclusive use while at the same time requiring you (or your representatives) to attend periodic international meetings to show cause why your access to transmit in that spectrum shouldn't be taken away and given over to someone else?

In that sense, amateur radio remains unique among many other "hobbies" in the sense that, in order for our "hobby" to even exist...that is for us to be able to TRANSMIT on our bands...we continually need to justify our continued access to an increasingly scarce shared resource called the radio frequency spectrum to those politicians and bureaucrats who have been empowered (by law or treaty) to decide such things.

And, unfortunately, our allocated portions of that scarce public resource are now becoming ever more "ripe for the picking" by other commercial and/or government users...not only in the United States, but throughout the rest of the world.

As I've said, without that continued, exclusive authorization to transmit in the radio spectrum, our hobby dies.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KB1SF]

Jeez Keith.....we're a hobby! By definition we do not have customers. You just don't get it. The rest is pointless, as always.

Well, Michael, it would appear that there are a whole lot of people (not to mention national amateur radio related organizations) that clearly "get it" and that very much disagree with you.

One of them is the Radio Amateurs of Canada who note (on the main page of their Web site at www.rac.ca (http://www.rac.ca)no less) that:

"Amateur Radio exists as a frequency spectrum user because it qualifies as a service. Its continued existence depends to a great degree not on the service it has performed in the past, or on its simple potential for service, but on what service it is performing now and will continue to perform in the future."

You'll note the word "service" is mentioned not once...but FOUR TIMES in that statement!

So, now, what part of us "existing as a frequency spectrum user" and that amateur radio's continued existence "depends on the services it performs" don't you understand?

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KI4NGN]

Well, Michael, it would appear that there are a whole lot of people (not to mention national amateur radio related organizations) that clearly "get it" and that very much disagree with you.

One of them is the Radio Amateurs of Canada who note (on the main page of their Web site at www.rac.ca (http://www.rac.ca)no less) that:

"Amateur Radio exists as a frequency spectrum user because it qualifies as a service. Its continued existence depends to a great degree not on the service it has performed in the past, or on its simple potential for service, but on what service it is performing now and will continue to perform in the future."

You'll note the word "service" is mentioned not once...but FOUR TIMES in that statement!

So, now, what part of us "existing as a frequency spectrum user" and that amateur radio's continued existence "depends on the services it performs" don't you understand?

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

Uh, hello!!! This is the USA, NOT Canada. What part of that don't YOU understand???? Perhaps that's where your problem understanding Part 97 originates: mixing up the definition of amateur radio from the two countries.

[KB1SF]

Uh, hello!!! This is the USA, NOT Canada. What part of that don't YOU understand???? Perhaps that's where your problem understanding Part 97 originates: mixing up the definition of amateur radio from the two countries.

First of all, what I shared with you isn't a "definition" of our Service, Michael.

Rather, it's a statement ABOUT our Service from a well-respected national radio organization that clearly knows more about such things than you or I do.

And perhaps you may have forgotten that, because our radio transmissions don't all stop at the US border, our Service is first and foremost governed by treaty obligations under INTERNATIONAL regulations set down by the International Telecommunications Union (the ITU), all of which have the force of law in the United States of America.

Indeed, it is from those ITU regulations that our FCC derives its ultimate authority to regulate us via their Part 97....NOT the other way around. Or, to put it another way, the ITU doesn't take orders from the FCC.

Sometimes, I'm absolutely amazed at how totally oblivious many US hams are to the political. legal and regulatory realities of the world around us. Indeed, some of us here STILL seem to think that we live in this little "spectrum bubble" and that our national and international politicians and regulators are forever obligated to provide us frequency spectrum to play in "just because" we're somehow entitled to it.

The simple reality, Michael, is that OUR hobby…amateur radio… has ALWAYS had to justify its existence for the reasons I've cited above.

And if you don't still believe this (which you obviously don't), I suggest you pick up a copy of Clinton DeSoto's book, "Two Hundred Meters and Down" (it’s available from the League or online via Amazon) and discover just how very close we came in our early years to not having our "hobby" amateur radio service at all.

Indeed, it was only because our ham radio leadership in the United States at the time (the ARRL) was able to justify our continued use of the radio spectrum to the US Congress (primarily on the basis of our non-profit message handling abilities and NOT for anything related to our technical contributions) that we were even allowed to exist as a separate radio service. The US Navy, in particular, wanted to completely shut us down.

Perhaps you have also forgotten that 11 Meters at one time used to be a ham band. And then there was that time a decade or so ago when we hams completely lost the use of the lower portions of our 220 MHz band to a push by the United Parcel Service to take over that piece of the radio spectrum for its own use. And while their whole idea tanked, our access to that portion of 220 MHz spectrum that was once "ours" remains "off limits" to us to this day.

Then there were the "little LEOs" who were poised to completely take over portions of our 2m and 440 bands for their exclusive use by a whole fleet of low Earth orbiting store-and-forward communications satellites a while back. And, just recently, our 440 MHz band has again come under the very real threat of reallocation via a concerted push on the part of a powerful US Congressman to "refarm" it for various other uses.

In each case, we (both individually and collectively via our various national radio societies) had to stand up to various politicians and bureaucrats to justify our continued access to our frequencies. Thankfully, up to now we have been largely successful in those efforts, except for the loss of that portion of our 220 MHz band and also during that time back in 1927 at the International Radiotelegraph conference in Washington, DC when some 70-odd nations in the rest of the world vehemently objected to US hams having so much spectrum space and ultimately forced the United States to agree to reduce the HF frequency assignments of its amateurs by almost 40 percent.

The bottom line here is that there is an already establishedprecedent (at both the national and international level) for our frequencies to be taken from us and given over to some other radio service.

It has happened in the past, and unless and until we QUICKLY figure out a way to attract more youthful, tech-savvy newcomers to what we do and open up our bands to further technical experimentation, the REST of the frequencies now allocated to our beloved radio service WILL eventually be taken from us, and our Service will be relegated to the dustbin of radio history.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WB2WIK]

Sometimes, I'm absolutely amazed at how totally oblivious many US hams are to the political. legal and regulatory realities of the world around us. Indeed, some of us here STILL seem to think that we live in this little "spectrum bubble" and that our national and international politicians and regulators are forever obligated to provide us frequency spectrum to play in "just because" we're somehow entitled to it.

We've been deemed "entitled" to it because we were the first users, prior to broadcast services or any commercial use. That historical role can't be forgotten since it's well documented.


The simple reality, Michael, is that OUR hobby…amateur radio… has ALWAYS had to justify its existence for the reasons I've cited above.

I understand your feelings, but I don't think this is really true. There was no spectrum regulation at all when amateur radio came into existence; at first, there wasn't any licensing.


Perhaps you have also forgotten that 11 Meters at one time used to be a ham band. And then there was that time a decade or so ago when we hams completely lost the use of the lower portions of our 220 MHz band to a push by the United Parcel Service to take over that piece of the radio spectrum for its own use. And while their whole idea tanked, our access to that portion of 220 MHz spectrum that was once "ours" remains "off limits" to us to this day.

11m was very underutililzed, since it wasn't harmonically related to the other ham bands, like 10m was. 220 MHz was also very underutilized, and still is. We "got back" 1 MHz of the spectrum that was "taken away" from us, and even that 1 MHz is very underutilized. Since 135cm is a Region II allocation only, 2/3 of the world doesn't have it, and Region II hams just never used it much, and still don't. I have, since 1966. It's a nice band, but very similar to both 2m and 70cm and its only advantage over 2m is that tropo ducts sometimes don't make it down to 144 MHz, but do make it down to 222 MHz. That's the only advantage the band has over 2m. If we lost this band, it wouldn't be a great loss to many, although I'd miss it since I've used it a lot over 45 years. For those who haven't, they wouldn't even know it's gone.


Then there were the "little LEOs" who were poised to completely take over portions of our 2m and 440 bands for their exclusive use by a whole fleet of low Earth orbiting store-and-forward communications satellites a while back. And, just recently, our 440 MHz band has again come under the very real threat of reallocation via a concerted push on the part of a powerful US Congressman to "refarm" it for various other uses.

Well, the re-farming effort seems to have gone away. LEOs can work at such low frequencies, but are so much easier and more efficient at far higher frequencies, I cannot imagine any popular commercial use for them below 24 GHz or so. It just doesn't make practical sense, as the earth station antennas need to be too big. At 24 GHz and above, it starts making lots of sense, which is why TV DBS services are there.

[KB1SF]

Well, the re-farming effort seems to have gone away. LEOs can work at such low frequencies, but are so much easier and more efficient at far higher frequencies, I cannot imagine any popular commercial use for them below 24 GHz or so. It just doesn't make practical sense, as the earth station antennas need to be too big. At 24 GHz and above, it starts making lots of sense, which is why TV DBS services are there.

Well, perhaps the re-farming threat of which you speak has gone away....but only temporarily. As I see it, it's only the latest skirmish in what has proven to be an ongoing "war" to hang onto our frequencies.

If anything, you make a valid point that we had better start using these VHF, UHF and SHF frequencies more than we are or else we will soon lose them, too. Indeed, several years ago the Chief Technology Officer (now retired) of the ARRL made the offhand comment to me that he spent "80 percent of his time defending frequencies that only a handful of hams ever use".

Unfortunately, the day will eventually come when we can no longer justify "banking" our frequency allocations above UHF for our eventual use "someday". That spectrum has simply become far too valuable to commercial and other interests to justify our continued access to it based on the tiny handful of hams who are actually making use of it today. As a result, I predict that spectrum will probably be the first to go to auction...unless we start making a LOT more "noise" (from our own use) up there.

But as I've also said, while the mass migration of other Service's activity these days is to those frequencies above UHF, sooner or later I predict that the widespread application of advanced communications techniques (such as yet-to-be-perfected variations of spread spectrum technology) will once again make our frequencies below UHF...including our HF and VHF allocations....increasingly "ripe for the picking" as well.

When that technology comes of age...and it most certainly will...ALL of our remaining frequency allocations will be "up for grabs"...unless and until we can quickly start making some serious "noise" there with increased activity and experimentation.

The Amateur Radio Service is chock full of examples where we hams were supposedly sent "out to pasture" on frequencies that nobody else thought were valuable at the time. Remember when hams were "banished" to those frequencies below 200 meters...frequencies that later turned out to be ideally suited to long range shortwave communications? And once upon a time we hams were the only ones experimenting with frequencies that now carry the bulk of today's cell phone and satellite TV downlinks...not to mention Internet WiFi.

Indeed, the frequencies around 2.4 GHz (where most of this WiFi activity is now centered) still contains an allocation for the Amateur Satellite Service. However, I know for a fact that 2.4 GHz has become all but unusable for amateur satellite uplinks because of all the terrestrial WiFi "noise" now being generated there.

The bottom line here is that, like it or not, and because of the ever more political way the world's radio spectrum will be allocated going forward, those HF spectrum resources we now smugly think are "safe" might very well become extremely valuable to some other user someday in the not too distant future...so much so that our access to that spectrum will be taken away from us and given over to that "other user".

And, as I've said, when that day comes...and I predict it eventually will...our "hobby" WILL die unless we quickly change our ways and start doing a far better job of justifying our continued access to these increasingly scarce public resource than we are doing right now.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WB2WIK]

I doubt "all our frequencies will be up for grabs," as there's no great use for the HF spectrum.

The government has any frequency they wish, so if they want to use HF, they always could and still can. Maritime services use it in the 60m range because it has great coverage for that, but they're already allowed to do so and don't need any more frequencies than they have.

SW broadcasters already use HF and don't need more spectrum; if anything, they need less with each year that passes since the SW BC audience is dwindling and will eventually drop to zero over time. There is virtually no SW BC audience in the U.S. (and probably Canada, too), so it's appeal is largely to third world countries who don't have satellite TV and CNN, etc. Those places will have those things...before long.

I listen to SW BC sometimes, to catch soccer ("football") scores from around the world, but only because I can listen there. For those who can't it's no big deal since all the same stuff is reported via satellite. SW BC stations mostly run 50kW carrier power or more (some, a lot more) and their electric bills are rising. This is the way of the past, not the future.

I can't envision anyone who would really want our slice of the HF spectrum. Who would want it? It's nearly useless for most applications except ham radio, who are all a bunch of weirdos pushing the limit of propagation just because we can.

[WA8FOZ]

I doubt "all our frequencies will be up for grabs," as there's no great use for the HF spectrum

Its main interest to outside interests may be for use as a "garbage dump," viz. BPL and other such Brown-25.

[K7JEM]

LEOs can work at such low frequencies, but are so much easier and more efficient at far higher frequencies, I cannot imagine any popular commercial use for them below 24 GHz or so. It just doesn't make practical sense, as the earth station antennas need to be too big. At 24 GHz and above, it starts making lots of sense, which is why TV DBS services are there.

Just a correction. The DBS frequencies are in the 12GHz band, not 24. I don't think that affects your argument much, however.

[KB1SF]

I doubt "all our frequencies will be up for grabs," as there's no great use for the HF spectrum.

"There's no great use for the HF spectrum"...today.

But what about the future?


The government has any frequency they wish, so if they want to use HF, they always could and still can. Maritime services use it in the 60m range because it has great coverage for that, but they're already allowed to do so and don't need any more frequencies than they have.

"They don't need any more frequencies than they have".....today.

But, once again, what about the future?

Right now, we are sharing our 440 MHz band with the military. In fact, MOST of our frequencies above the 2m band are shared with some other user. Remember when a whole group of 440 MHz repeater owners on the US East and West coast had to substantially change their repeater operations (power, antenna patterns, etc.) so as not to interfere with the USAF's highly classified "Pave Paws" radar system?


SW broadcasters already use HF and don't need more spectrum; if anything, they need less with each year that passes since the SW BC audience is dwindling and will eventually drop to zero over time.

Perhaps.

But what other user of an as-yet-to-be-invented communications technology might once again discover that such HF spectrum is ideally suited for its needs at some time in the future?

As I've said, over the years, we hams have traditionally embraced the myopic notion that the communications modes we use today are the absolute pinnacle of technological achievement and that there won't be anything else that can (or will) ever be invented to match them. This is probably also why we tend to hang on to ancient communications technology LONG after it has become virtually obsolete elsewhere and repeatedly hold it up as the "gold standard" by which any potentially "new" communications modes in our hobby must always be measured.

Indeed, who among us would have ever envisioned such things as digital cell phones, WiFi Internet, satellite TV and multi-channel, digital broadcast television just a few short years ago? For example, I can remember reading the Dick Tracy comic strip when I was growing up and marveling at his "two-way wrist radio". That technology is here...now... today.

It's called a cell phone.


I can't envision anyone who would really want our slice of the HF spectrum. Who would want it? It's nearly useless for most applications except ham radio, who are all a bunch of weirdos pushing the limit of propagation just because we can.

Once again, that HF spectrum is "nearly useless" for anyone else but we hams....today.

But the fact remains that our HF spectrum is part of an increasingly crowded, FINITE piece of technological "real estate" in a world that is growing increasingly hungry for their own slice of RF bandwidth. Who knows what truly revolutionary technologies will come down the road in the future that may once again exploit that HF spectrum...and at the same time make our HF frequencies "ripe for the picking?

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KC2SIZ]

When the "cutting edge" ceases to be interesting anymore, that's when it's time to stop being "cutting edge".

[KI4NGN]

"There's no great use for the HF spectrum"...today.

But what about the future?



"They don't need any more frequencies than they have".....today.

But, once again, what about the future?

Right now, we are sharing our 440 MHz band with the military. In fact, MOST of our frequencies above the 2m band are shared with some other user. Remember when a whole group of 440 MHz repeater owners on the US East and West coast had to substantially change their repeater operations (power, antenna patterns, etc.) so as not to interfere with the USAF's highly classified "Pave Paws" radar system?



Perhaps.

But what other user of an as-yet-to-be-invented communications technology might once again discover that such HF spectrum is ideally suited for its needs at some time in the future?

As I've said, over the years, we hams have traditionally embraced the myopic notion that the communications modes we use today are the absolute pinnacle of technological achievement and that there won't be anything else that can (or will) ever be invented to match them. This is probably also why we tend to hang on to ancient communications technology LONG after it has become virtually obsolete elsewhere and repeatedly hold it up as the "gold standard" by which any potentially "new" communications modes in our hobby must always be measured.

Indeed, who among us would have ever envisioned such things as digital cell phones, WiFi Internet, satellite TV and multi-channel, digital broadcast television just a few short years ago? For example, I can remember reading the Dick Tracy comic strip when I was growing up and marveling at his "two-way wrist radio". That technology is here...now... today.

It's called a cell phone.



Once again, that HF spectrum is "nearly useless" for anyone else but we hams....today.

But the fact remains that our HF spectrum is part of an increasingly crowded, FINITE piece of technological "real estate" in a world that is growing increasingly hungry for their own slice of RF bandwidth. Who knows what truly revolutionary technologies will come down the road in the future that may once again exploit that HF spectrum...and at the same time make our HF frequencies "ripe for the picking?

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

HF is increasingly crowded? On what planet??

What about the future?

The entire LF/MF/HF spectrum encompasses less than 30 mhz, and there are hugely varying degrees of usefulness within that range at any given time. There's so many bands at the higher frequencies providing that much and much more usable space with relatively equal characteristics within the entire band, unlike LF/MF/HF.

There are no possible future developments that are going to change the laws of physics, making the tiny sliver that is LF/MF/HF within the entire electromagnetic spectrum suddenly very valuable and sought after.

Your argument always changes, always, from someone clamoring for our bands now to they could be in the future; from being worths billions now to maybe being worth billions in the future. That argument always changes when some, including myself, asks you to please provide information as to just who it is that is trying to get our bands. Failing to answer that, your position becomes some future development might happen, ad nauseum.

You said that politicians are granting us continuing access, when in fact politicians are granting us nothing, yet continue that argument by citing the periodic meeting of international amateur radio organizations.

You challenged me to show where AR is defined as a hobby, and I did. You responded how it is defined as more than a hobby in Canada. I said we're not in Canada, that their definition didn't matter, and you responded that we're not talking about definitions.

You have one and only one agenda, and that is to somehow change our licensing structure because you abhore incentive licensing.

No matter which doom and gloom approach you take, you ALWAYS introduce incentive licensing, and how its elimination would alleviate or prevent whatever your crisis de jour.

The current approach is the pending loss of our spectrum if we don't justify our existence. Previous approaches were attempts to convince that our licensing structure violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was a real hoot.

I have to admire your tenacity, but repetition and perseverance does not change false into true.

[M3KXZ]

Surely the following are sufficient to justify our existence:

A large number of amateur radio operators are technically minded, experimenters, involved in development of wireless communications, and continue to work on improving forms of communication.

The vast majority of amateur radio operators spend money on commercially produced equipment - this boosts the economy, whether it be in the form of jobs in shops, jobs in production, jobs in distribution, import duties that the government charges on imported goods, taxes that the government charges on sales, taxes that the government charges on fuel used for distribution, income tax that the government charges all those who have jobs in the amateur radio industry. The list goes on an on. A lot of hams are technophiles and will continue to spend spend spend to make sure they have the latest of everything, and these hams will therefore be paying even more to the government.

To say that hams contribute nothing in exchange for use of parts of RF spectrum is absolute rubbish.

[WB2WIK]

I agree with Mike NGN. HF is less used today than it has been at any time in the past 50-60 years and the user base is dwindling.

At one time, it was used for long distance telephone calls! That was a really long time ago...

Commercial services and defense organizations want stuff they can count on 24/7. HF isn't it.

What appeals to us as hams has little appeal to almost anyone else.

The Wi-Fi services at 2.4 GHz don't interfere with satellite uplinks; they could interfere with downlinks, but that's only because amateurs are often using crappy antennas. They'd never interfere with commercial downlinks, when the users have dishes aimed at the satellites. I use the 2.3 GHz (13cm) amateur band quite often, and there's zero interference from Wi-Fi, since we're using narrowband equipment with highly directional antennas aimed at where we want to work.

There are limitless applications for satellite assisted communications and broadcast services, and I see no end to that at all; but I don't see where hams would have to give up anything to allow that growth to continue.

[KB1SF]

The entire LF/MF/HF spectrum encompasses less than 30 mhz, and there are hugely varying degrees of usefulness within that range at any given time. There's so many bands at the higher frequencies providing that much and much more usable space with relatively equal characteristics within the entire band, unlike LF/MF/HF.

There are no possible future developments that are going to change the laws of physics, making the tiny sliver that is LF/MF/HF within the entire electromagnetic spectrum suddenly very valuable and sought after.

....in your opinion.


Your argument always changes, always, from someone clamoring for our bands now to they could be in the future; from being worths billions now to maybe being worth billions in the future. That argument always changes when some, including myself, asks you to please provide information as to just who it is that is trying to get our bands. Failing to answer that, your position becomes some future development might happen, ad nauseum.

One look at our past history should leave no doubt that the only constant in our Service IS change. And that change continues apace despite the quixotic efforts of people like you to prevent it.


You said that politicians are granting us continuing access, when in fact politicians are granting us nothing, yet continue that argument by citing the periodic meeting of international amateur radio organizations.

No, Michael...."amateur radio organizations" DO NOT sponsor periodic World Radio Conferences conducted by the International Telecommunications Union!

Rather, "amateur radio organizations" ATTEND them, sometimes as members of official delegations sent by their host countries. Perhaps you now have the ITU confused with the IARU...the International Amateur Radio Union...which IS an international amateur radio organization. The ITU, on the other hand, is a treaty organization of the United Nations whose signatories include countries like the United States of America, Canada, Great Britain and Italy.


You challenged me to show where AR is defined as a hobby, and I did. You responded how it is defined as more than a hobby in Canada. I said we're not in Canada, that their definition didn't matter, and you responded that we're not talking about definitions.

Again, what I shared wasn't a "definition", Michael. Rather, it was a STATEMENT put forth by ONE national amateur radio organization.

Industry Canada (Canada's equivalent to our FCC) promulgates the exact same ITU definition of our Service that the FCC does in its regulatory documentation, to wit, that we are to be: "A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."

And just in case you don't believe me, here's the link to that definition in the ITU regulations on the ITU Web site: http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/art01.htm

I suggest you scroll down to Paragraph 1.56 to see that definition in its entirety.


You have one and only one agenda, and that is to somehow change our licensing structure because you abhore incentive licensing.

And I also know how to use my online spell checker to spell the word "abhor" correctly. :cool:


No matter which doom and gloom approach you take, you ALWAYS introduce incentive licensing, and how its elimination would alleviate or prevent whatever your crisis de jour.

That's probably because all that needless government "incentive" overkill lies at the very root of the technological and sociological retardation (not to mention the blatant lack of neccessary growth) we are now seeing in our Service in the United States.


The current approach is the pending loss of our spectrum if we don't justify our existence. Previous approaches were attempts to convince that our licensing structure violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was a real hoot.

As they say, "He who laughs last laughs best."


I have to admire your tenacity, but repetition and perseverance does not change false into true.

And ignorance of the truth doesn't turn truth into falsehood, either.

Fortunately, your myopic viewpoint on these issues is not shared by the vast majority of hams who know better…. and certainly not by those individuals (along with a number of national ham radio lobby organizations) who fully understand the highly politicized nature of our ever more tenuous hold on that scarce public resource called "our frequency spectrum" that people like you seem to think remains yours simply for the taking.

Indeed, someday, when some well-heeled commercial interest takes access to YOUR favorite frequency away from you because lobby organizations like the ARRL and RAC (et al) were no longer able to justify ham radio's continued access to it, perhaps you can then take solace in the fact that you will still be able to use your radio equipment to talk to yourself on your dummy load.

Perhaps then what I and others have been advocating in these forums will all become much clearer to you.

But, then again, I seriously doubt it.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WA4OTD]

Satellite and secure communications by the military and government took a lot of pressure off of most of the spectrum. They don't need to clog up HF to communicate around the world when satellite and even fiber can provide the communication much more reliably.

I think there is a lot of experimenting with new technologies but still SSB, FM and CW handle the majority of communication needs very well still.

[KI4NGN]

....in your opinion.



One look at our past history should leave no doubt that the only constant in our Service IS change. And that change continues apace despite the quixotic efforts of people like you to prevent it.



No, Michael...."amateur radio organizations" DO NOT sponsor periodic World Radio Conferences conducted by the International Telecommunications Union!

Rather, "amateur radio organizations" ATTEND them, sometimes as members of official delegations sent by their host countries. Perhaps you now have the ITU confused with the IARU...the International Amateur Radio Union...which IS an international amateur radio organization. The ITU, on the other hand, is a treaty organization of the United Nations whose signatories include countries like the United States of America, Canada, Great Britain and Italy.



Again, what I shared wasn't a "definition", Michael. Rather, it was a STATEMENT put forth by ONE national amateur radio organization.

Industry Canada (Canada's equivalent to our FCC) promulgates the exact same ITU definition of our Service that the FCC does in its regulatory documentation, to wit, that we are to be: "A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."

And just in case you don't believe me, here's the link to that definition in the ITU regulations on the ITU Web site: http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/art01.htm

I suggest you scroll down to Paragraph 1.56 to see that definition in its entirety.



And I also know how to use my online spell checker to spell the word "abhor" correctly. :cool:



That's probably because all that needless government "incentive" overkill lies at the very root of the technological and sociological retardation (not to mention the blatant lack of neccessary growth) we are now seeing in our Service in the United States.



As they say, "He who laughs last laughs best."



And ignorance of the truth doesn't turn truth into falsehood, either.

Fortunately, your myopic viewpoint on these issues is not shared by the vast majority of hams who know better…. and certainly not by those individuals (along with a number of national ham radio lobby organizations) who fully understand the highly politicized nature of our ever more tenuous hold on that scarce public resource called "our frequency spectrum" that people like you seem to think remains yours simply for the taking.

Indeed, someday, when some well-heeled commercial interest takes access to YOUR favorite frequency away from you because lobby organizations like the ARRL and RAC (et al) were no longer able to justify ham radio's continued access to it, perhaps you can then take solace in the fact that you will still be able to use your radio equipment to talk to yourself on your dummy load.

Perhaps then what I and others have been advocating in these forums will all become much clearer to you.

But, then again, I seriously doubt it.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

No, I don't use a spell checker. I can spell. I do make typos that I sometimes miss when I proof-read.

Your topic sways in focus like a palm tree in a gentle breeze, and your hubris at claiming that your viewpoint is shared by the vast majority of hams is surreal. It fits right in with your sources within the FCC and government in general who support your viewpoint but still always remain unnamable.

There is not and never has been any facts presented by you to support your opinions, just hyerbole expressed as fact.

That's it for me this time. Adios.

[WB2WIK]

Just a correction. The DBS frequencies are in the 12GHz band, not 24. I don't think that affects your argument much, however.

Right you are. I was referring to the DBS "uplink" band. The downlinks are at 12 GHz (still).

I think there's an FCC RM pending to actually open access to 17 & 24 GHz for downlinks but maybe it's stalled...haven't heard much about it.

[KB1SF]

Your topic sways in focus like a palm tree in a gentle breeze, and your hubris at claiming that your viewpoint is shared by the vast majority of hams is surreal. It fits right in with your sources within the FCC and government in general who support your viewpoint but still always remain unnamable (sic).

How you can consider the goals and work of such ongoing efforts as the the ARRL's "Spectrum Defense Fund", the Radio Amateurs of Canada's and Radio Society of Great Britain's respective "Defence of Amateur Radio Funds" (just to name a few) as "unnameable support" is quite beyond me.


There is not and never has been any facts presented by you to support your opinions, just hyerbole (sic) expressed as fact.

Have you looked in your mirror lately?

Oh, and by the way, "hyperbole" is spelled with a "p" and "unnameable" also contains an "e". That's a fact!


That's it for me this time. Adios.

Michael, I strongly suggest you obtain (and then read) a copy of the book I noted (200 Meters and Down) and then do some research on the differing roles and responsibilities of the ITU, the FCC and the IARU.

Then, I suggest we get back together again so we can discuss these matters intelligently based on knowledge and facts rather than on how you THINK these organizations work.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[WB2WIK]

The only threat to our bands I've seen lately wasn't a band grab as much as a potential huge QRM generator, and that was BPL. The League did expend effort to fight that on identified fronts, but it seems to have mostly died a natural death because it was a bad solution; so we really don't know if "fighting" it was necessary. But I'm glad they tried.

The only spectrum space we've lost in the past 50 years was 1 MHz of the 135cm band.

Considering amateurs had the entire electromagnetic spectrum at their disposal once (in the earliest days of "radio"), that's not bad.

The satellite bands are really easy to share due to the nature of the transponders and antennas used. Hell, you can share a single frequency by changing antenna polarization. Going forward into the far future, I envision satellites using higher and higher frequencies until droplets of moisture cause too much attenuation...you have to get up really high in the spectrum for that to happen.

I don't worry about our bands at all.

[W6RZ]

Right you are. I was referring to the DBS "uplink" band. The downlinks are at 12 GHz (still).

I think there's an FCC RM pending to actually open access to 17 & 24 GHz for downlinks but maybe it's stalled...haven't heard much about it.
DirecTV uses downlinks at 18.3 to 18.8 GHz and 19.7 to 20.2 GHz.

http://www.lyngsat.com/dtv103.html

[W6RZ]

The only spectrum space we've lost in the past 50 years was 1 MHz of the 135cm band.

You're forgetting 1215 to 1240 MHz lost to GPS.

[WB2WIK]

You're forgetting 1215 to 1240 MHz lost to GPS.

Yep, you're right, I did forget that. Of course pretty much nobody was using that part of 23cm. I've been on 23cm for 44 years, and actively, and my activities always started at 1296.100.

Of course, we also "gained" the 12m, 17m and 30m bands, all of which are valuable HF spectrum; and then we gained a bit of the 60m band which is an amazing part of the HF spectrum permitting worldwide communications with low power.

Not a bad tradeoff.

[W6RZ]

Now that I think about it, we also lost 2310 to 2390 MHz to SDARS (Satellite Radio).

[M3KXZ]

Yep, you're right, I did forget that. Of course pretty much nobody was using that part of 23cm. I've been on 23cm for 44 years, and actively, and my activities always started at 1296.100.

Of course, we also "gained" the 12m, 17m and 30m bands, all of which are valuable HF spectrum; and then we gained a bit of the 60m band which is an amazing part of the HF spectrum permitting worldwide communications with low power.

Not a bad tradeoff.

And have you not more recently gained an increase in your 40m band to match us? That's not bad either.

[WB2WIK]

And have you not more recently gained an increase in your 40m band to match us? That's not bad either.

I don't know if we "match" you; I don't think so. U.S. hams have always had 7.000 to 7.300 MHz for 40m, but we recently were granted "voice mode" privileges down to 7.125, which is something fairly new (a few years). We still can't operate SSB down to 7.100 or below that; it's all CW or digital only down there.

But we're getting "closer..."

[K0RGR]

You're forgetting 1215 to 1240 MHz lost to GPS.

Yes, the APX-6 we used 40 years ago might have drifted that far down the band.

[WB2WIK]

Yes, the APX-6 we used 40 years ago might have drifted that far down the band.

I used to use only the PA section of APX-6's (only the 2C39 cavity amp) and throw the rest in the dumpster.

[KE4YGS]

One thought about the original question of this thread comes to mind. It "seems" to me the single biggest thing that has hindered Amateur Radio is the mindset driven with the ISO standards being imposed in industry. Since most who do experiment at the higher levels also work in "the industry" they had bought into the ISO mindset at every level of every discipline. ISO to me is the absolute antithesis of what Amateur Radio is all about. Or at least what "I" thought it was about. If were going to advance things ourselves we need to have a clear mind uncluttered by making everything understandable to everyone on the planet. I personally think that the ISO standards are just another tentacle in the "Dumbing Down of America/The World". Yes AR is wide open for experimenting but you cant present anything to anyone without beating your head against these infernal ISO standards. Likely as soon as some see we don't conform they will turn a deaf ear to us anyway. I am big on playing with the higher GHz stuff but I have little patience trying to explain it to anyone of consequence in industry, because we simply do NOT speak the same language anymore. I refuse to adopt ISO and they refuse to dispense with it. Of course, I do have the upper hand. I am retired now.