IARU Preparing For Digitalization of Ham Radio

[WA6ITF]

It looks like ham radio's political leadership world-wide is preparing for what it collectively sees as the coming digitalization of Amateur Radio. Their first step seems to be the adoption of a new "RSQ Reporting System" for all digital modes operating below 30 MHz. The following was supplied by the Wireless Institute of Australia:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"A new signal reporting method for digital modes is being considered by the International Amateur Radio Union Region 2 Conference next month.

This very busy meeting in Brasilia, Brazil from the 10th to the 14th of September has on its agenda a recommendation that RSQ reporting be used for digital modes below 30MHz.

RSQ stands for Readability, Strength and Quality, and was first proposed and endorsed at the Region 1 General Conference in 2005. It was also agreed at the IARU Region 3 Conference in Bangalore last year.

"This in recognition that the traditional RST, Readability, Strength and Tone signal report that has been around since about 1934, is not suitable for text modes.

"RSQ is favoured because it can provide a more useful signal report for HF digital modes.


(WIA News)

[N0IU]

When has a signal report in any form #been useful?

So few people know what each element of the present RST scale represents, what makes them think this new system will be any more accurate or useful just because they substitute "quality" for "tone"?

Whenever there is a subjective element like quality, it will always be up to the receiving station to make a judgement call and we already know that two amateur radio operators rarely think alike!

Scott NØIU

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (n0iu @ Aug. 08 2007,06:07)]we already know that two amateur radio operators rarely think alike!

Scott NØIU

Doesn't this site prove that!!!

[N5PVL]

Naturally, old "bend over for digital" Pasternak would interpret a change to the signal reporting system as more 'evidence' to support his conspiracy theory about digital taking over amateur radio, to the exclusion of everything else.

Somebody from ARRL HQ told him all about it, probably the doddering 'tecnology expert', Rinaldo.

So it looks like from now on, any accomodation that amateurs make to utilizing digital amateur radio will be more grist for poor old Bill Pasternak's propaganda mill, and we'll see another big headline about the upcoming hostile takeover of the hobby by the deadly and irresistable digital !

The SKY is falling! - The SKY is falling!

---{ #I don't think so, Chicken Little! #}

Naturally, anybody with even minimum common sense can see that digital stuff is gaining popularity, but not taking over by any means - and they can also see where analog systems have obvious advantages over digital stuff in most amateur radio activities and so are highly unlikely to 'replaced' by something else that is more expensive and doesn't work as well.

Worked any digital voice 'pileups' lately?

Pulled any weak digital voice signals out of the mud?

Bill thinks that all hams are going to ignore analog's obvious advantage for radio operators and spend a bunch of money that they don't need to, all so they can 'jump on the bandwagon' with Bill Pasternak or some doofus from ARRL HQ.

Seems like the ARRL always wants amateurs to 'jump on the bandwagon' but after so many fiascos, I for one have gotten to where I look pretty carefully at an ARRL bandwagon before I leap.

This time the bandwagon is carrying willful ignorance and stupidity, trying to manipluate amateurs into a stampede, in a direction that they would not choose for themselves.

I think I'll take a pass on that one.

[WA0LYK]

To be honest, this is a change that has been needed for decades. It really applies to SSB, RTTY, and FM as much as digital. RST for CW makes sense while RST for voice and RTTY never really made much sense to me.

The test is to listen to how many SSB conversations discuss the 'quality' of the signal, not the overall 'tone'. An RSQ for SSB would go a long way to letting the other party know how their signal sounds. Especially if folks will use it in the right manner to let folks know when their signals are splattering all over the place.

Jim
WA0LYK

[AB0WR]

w3miv

Quote[/b] ]The evidence is that more and more hams are voluntarily working digital modes, and surprisingly, not all of them are newbies. In fact, the evidence indicates that digital keyboard modes are growing at a faster rate than any other mode of operation excepting SSB.

Where's your evidence for this?

Based on my watching the psk sub-bands on 80m using my new softrock there isn't any more usage than when I first started using the mode 2 years ago.

The subband certainly hasn't spread out much more than the 2khz it took up before. I do see more wideband modes, e.g. 500hz and up, than I did before but not very quantity wise since they take up more space and there isn't much to begin with.

I suspect this "growth" is in capability, not in actual spectrum usage. They are two very different things.

tim ab0wr

[N2RJ]

What a misleading thread title from the anti-technology and anti-progress lobby.

How exactly is adopting a standard for signal reports in digital modes digitizing ham radio?

You guys need to lay off the FUD and actually read what you post for a change.

AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIGITIZING HAM RADIO. IT IS SIMPLY ADOPTING A UNIFORM STANDARD FOR SIGNAL REPORTS IN EXISTING DIGITAL MODES.

[KD6NIG]

RST for text?

Isn't it an all or nothing proposition? I know on packet either the message you type and submit gets there, or it doesn't.

So I suppose 0 for not received, 1 for is received would work?

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Aug. 08 2007,05:16)]To be honest, this is a change that has been needed for decades. It really applies to SSB, RTTY, and FM as much as digital. RST for CW makes sense while RST for voice and RTTY never really made much sense to me.

The test is to listen to how many SSB conversations discuss the 'quality' of the signal, not the overall 'tone'. An RSQ for SSB would go a long way to letting the other party know how their signal sounds. Especially if folks will use it in the right manner to let folks know when their signals are splattering all over the place.

Jim
WA0LYK

I can't recall ever hearing anyone, ever, on the ham bands, using "T" or "Tone" in regards to either SSB, AM or RTTY. Can't imagine it. Nor can I imagine what it would be expected to mean. For voice reports "RS" was common, though those letters weren't used. What was used was "you are good and readable, and strength 9" or something to that effect. I've never heard any ham say "You are R5" on voice. Won't say it never happened, but I never heard it.

"Q" was used on voice for decades, as "quality" which included whatever the guy wanted it to include, and I guess that could mean tone. But it usually mean "copy" or "how readable in overall conditions the signal is." Q5 was never really an official signal of any type, but was meant to express the thought "you are perfectly readable with a good quality signal.."

Likewise I never heard "T" used in connection with RTTY, though it would make more sense to describe the tone as being a '9' or "pure dc" as that was actually what the "T" in signal reports was meant to describe, the purity of the CW tone as regards hum and filtering. And nothing more.

It had nothing at all to do with voice, and had nothing at all to do with keying characteristics, on either CW or RTTY.

Probably, the T statement is of little value today, for two reasons. One is most hams are using store-bought equipment, and it was really of far more value in the days of homebrew equipment, as a way of telling the person of the tonal quality of his CW signal. And the other is few people understand that it really means. Or meant, I should say. Today it is simply an extraneous character sent as part of a contest log.

RSQ would actually apply better to a standard voice signal, I agree. In fact, it has been done that way for decades, when someone would tell another guy, "you're S9 here, perfectly readable, a Q5 signal." Ever heard that? Sure you have! I was hearing it even before I got my license in 1956, though I really didn't know what it meant.

But digital isn't going to replace CW yet, and if you read the threads on QRZ with all the newcomers using CW, the "T" part of the signal report may stick around a while, even if it isn't very relevant. But it has no place in voice operation and never has.

I don't think any of us are going to see an all-digital ham radio in the immediate future. It is still both possible and easy to get on the air using a QRP rig and no computer in the household, and a lot of hams still don't have, or even want, a computer. That percentage is diminishing, of course, as many hams are finding computers are useful in running the household as well. Still I hear hams on the air saying "I don't own a computer." Not many, but a few.

I hope legacy modes stick with us for a long time to come, even though I won't be here. A good many of us drive antique cars on a regular basis, or fly old airplanes. WE should not outlaw the past, as appears to be the thrust in so much today. I hope legacy modes in ham radio don't become outlawed but I fear that could happen, and it would include CW.

Ed

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 08 2007,07:44)]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 08 2007,08:25)]Where's your evidence for this?

I have no intention of getting into another one of your infinite parsing of minutia in an effort to sustain or refute any of your beliefs.

Suffice to say that the recent survey of 2,453 revealed that, while 55% of our respondents stated they regularly work CW, 52% of those respondents also stated they regularly work digital modes.

Cross tabulations of the license-class responses and time-licensed responses with those of the various digital modes revealed that digital keyboard modes (primarily, but not limited to, PSK31) are being used regularly by a range of hams that is as heavily weighted to those who have been licensed as long as 30 years as it is to those who have held licenses for five years or less.

And, no, I am not going to post or provide links to a 91,000 cell spreadsheet. We are still working on the data. You can accept my statement or you can reject it out of hand.

Don't confuse the ARRL shill with facts, or actual on the air activity that shoots down the propaganda he mindlessly parrots.

He just gets abusive and upset, when you do.

- Can you imagine any attitude which could more accurately reflect what we currently have at ARRL HQ? - Let's give credit, where credit is due!