Issue #37: The Hack that Nearly Hammered Amateur Radio

I don't know that "fun-ness" is the term I would use. When the FCC in Part 97 writes into the regulations ...
97.3 Definitions (in part)
(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.

This is another somewhat ambiguous statement. Let's break it down.
Self-training... Developing operating skills.

intercommunication...communicating with other ham radio operators via different modes and at different locations worldwide. Contests could also be considered here.

technical investigations...highly technical investigations sure and what of not so highly technical investigations like how is that new dipole working out?

carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

All of the above carried out by persons solely with personal aim. Nothing prohibiting "fun" in any of it.

 

"Fun" seems to be the underlying theme right now with the ARRL.

Fun is good. But fun isn't the whole story.

Representing the components of amateur radio that meet the mission of Part 97 is the only thing that works with the USG. As such, we can only lobby for the removal of handicaps, within reason, that hinder same--things such as HOA restrictions, amongst others.

A digital future, as I believe ARDC may emphasize in its future lobbying, is not a BAD thing, but the focus isnt on : 'what is the mission of Part 97?" IMO digital emphasis is only a small component of that which, if over emphasized, will remove a backup/backbone communications enablement we now possess with non digital modes.

Too much digital emphasis will play strongly in favor of other interests that will be eager to scoop up MF/HF spectrum in the next 10 years. Maybe less. Some of that will be former parts of our bands, perceived as unecessary if we have a digital realm of ham radio.

ARDC has a point of view. It's not wrong, its just not embracing the full spectrum of abilities of amateur radio.

Ham radio as open source and digital is not who we are--its a cool but only partial part--and no one is doing a good job of capturing and emphasizing all that we are. I do not believe the ARRL is heading there, although it certainly has done reasonable efforts in the past to tell our full story.

Having fun yet;-)?

 

The types of automation being brought up here (thank you) are being actively addressed at the FCC. ARRL's Greg Lapin, and myself (Michelle Thompson, ORI) are active participants on the FCC Technological Advisory Committee Working Groups that are focused on this exact issue. The work that we and other hams on the TAC are doing could really benefit from a lot more publicity and support.

Phil Karn hates on the patent office in social media, but the promotions of patents is what he did professionally. He was handsomely rewarded for this work. He doesn't do regulatory work. He hasn't published any significant technical designs since the 1980s. Yes, that work was important. But, how long should we give him a pass for some really bad more recent behavior?

He and a very small group of men were entrusted with a remarkably rare public asset. They arguably failed to develop it properly (a lot of us have a lot of stories about that). Then this tiny group sold it to Amazon.com for many tens of millions of dollars and they kept the money for themselves under their private foundation's complete control. If this had been done elsewhere, it would be a total scandal.

Phil joked on Reddit about how we should all simply be happy that they didn't take the money and run, buying an island to retire. He has repeatedly bragged that the IP addresses were "legally theirs", as in "individually owned". I heard this firsthand from him at Aladdin Restaurant in San Diego. I was stunned and sad. This is not good thinking. It was absolutely not how the amateur radio IP address allocation was intended to be used. Several of us tried very hard to talk him out of this at the time. I've since met many others that objected in writing on ARDC mailing lists. They all got ignored or attacked.

Those of us that have attempted to collaborate with Phil technically have similar stories. He loves to take credit for everything. He has zero shame in doing so. People believe in him because his is obsessive and compulsive about getting the credit and owning any narratives, no matter who gets shoved aside or hurt in the process.

Those of us working really hard to help make things easier and better for amateur radio, and are doing innovative, inclusive, and modern work, could really use more collaboration and community support from people like Phil and the many others like him in the hobby. Elderly white men with lots of ill-gotten capital with power trip tendencies are not helping here. There are clear parallels to the power struggles in Open Source work. Those power struggles are causing real-world damage. The same is true for amateur radio.

If we do not solve this cultural problem, it won't matter how much spectrum me and Greg and others help defend at the FCC. We need to be safe and fair and fun in our hobby. We need to NOT be abused by elderly white men with tons of money they extracted without consent from the amateur radio community who then attack anyone that dares questions their authority or simply asks for fairness.

-Michelle Thompson W5NYV

 

It's going very well, thank you. ORI reports all progress (and shows how the sausage is made) on the YouTube account and website, and keeps a news feed on the website. Daily engineering is handled on a Slack account. People can join here. There's developer guidelines and a code of conduct that members are expected to follow. Thank you to everyone that has supported this work. We really just want to make a positive difference in amateur radio.

-mdt

 

Well said!

 

Michelle,

"elderly white men"....

I am elderly and white. And I am a man.

Frankly, I don't see how any of those adjectives either singly or in combination have any relevance to your concerns, which, for the moment, I will accept as being based on fact as a helpful premise.

I am not RACIST.

I am not SEXIST.

I am not AGEIST.

In other words, I and others that may fit within those adjectives are not the enemy.

It behooves you to think of how you SHOULD interact with others. For example, I look at you as a PERSON who has knowledge, creativity, and drive. I do not look at you as middle aged, white and a woman. THAT would go against MY upbringing and MY outlook on life, and frankly MOST other people in the planet would have the same response.

Now: as to money. Yes, I have some. I worked damned hard for it. My 'gains' were not procured illegally, immorally or unethically. And yes, although I do NOT make public disclosures, I have and do assist others, at my discretion and for those who seek to enhance the human condition. Some of those are hams.

I hope you will re-consider how you view the outside world. Assumptions based on 'adjectives' are usually wrong and do not give people the benefit of the doubt a priori. And certainly they are counter to the collegiality and empathy and goodwill that the amateur radio service actually often lives up to.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I think the "fun" is mainly to sell memberships. And, enjoyment of the spectrum actually does make a difference at the FCC. I don't fly to DC a couple times a year to tell you lies. It matters to the FCC chairwoman that citizens get to use the bands for more than just downloading cat videos.

People like me, and people from ARRL, actively participate in regulatory and legal work ranging from FCC TAC membership to proposed rulemaking comments to meetings with FCC staff and beyond. This level and amount of work is significant, ongoing, focused and effective. A lot of it is successful. Some of it is not. This all in spite of some really dumb ARRL HQ executive decisions and behavior.

I'll tell how how funding for a critically important CJ Request/EAR Classification to free amateur satellite work from ITAR/EAR went at ARDC. My non-profit (ORI) applied for a grant to pay for legal work *already done and paid for* concerning the State Department. This (expensive!) work solved a 40 year old problem for amateur radio. One of the board of directors (John Gilmore) laughed at the grant request and said it was impossible. Well, we won. And then we won more. ARDC did reimburse the initial expenses, but another board members said it was a super close call, barely funded, and I should consider myself lucky.

Well, then. I guess we know how they stood.

Did ARDC fund the second half of this very successful regulatory work? No, they flatly refused and acted angry they'd been asked. ARRL Foundation also said no, but were very sorry about it. Their grants only go up to $3k, so it was a long shot anyway. YASME said they wanted to fund "technical work and STEM", and declined. IEEE said come back in 2025 and try again, because they didn't view amateur radio satellite service as essential to their foundation's mission. No answer from nine other foundations.

I want to ask a question.

If people are kicking ass and taking names and getting things done for long-term amateur radio health and success - and amateur radio organizations and foundations can't cough up the money to simply reimburse people for *existing legal expenses*, let alone the travel and the time - then how in the ever living hell do you think they are going to source the talent and execute all the necessary things to get regulatory work done on their own?

If they won't support those of us that stick our necks out and get things done without being awful about it, then it very well be the case that you all will wait another 30 years to simply maintain the status quo. I don't want this and I'm not alone, but it's way more difficult than it should be when recalcitrant organizations fail to support successful activists and do-gooders.

-mdt

 

I wrote a whole paper about demographics in amateur radio and how they are relevant.

You can find it here: https://github.com/Abraxas3d/Demographics

-mdt

 

I agree with much of this.

The big issue is 'who are we?'

Unfortunately the technically inclined are a vast minority in ham radio in 2024. In, say, 1970 they were a vast majority.

And we are dealing with technical issues, ultimately serving the non-technical.

That, as I have seen,is always a challenge and not rationally driven.

73
Chip W1YW

 

IMO, Its called 'selection bias'.

If you REALLY want to probe the relevancies of what things are all about, you don't go in with a premise: you allow the data to show the outcome. IOW if you want to invoke sociobiology, make sure you come in with dozens of adjectives and let the data show you which ones are the drivers.

Melanin content (WHo is white? WHo is black? WHo is green? WHo is transparent?), chronic cell death, and X and Y chromosones . There's three. There a lot of others.

My wife--yes, I am in a 'hetero' relationship, as if that's relevant-- is a chemical engineer by training. I never looked at women in the crude stereotypical way of 'elderly white men' and if I did I would have been wacked firmly at junk level.

For fifteen years I headed a STEM program for mostly minorities and women at a major university . IOW I gave up a key time in my own progress to push others ahead. No regrets.

There are LOTS of 'elderly white men' who do not fit nicely in categories. Kindly keep that in mind.

Also there are many, many hams who qualify as idiots, and finding the appropriate adjectives may be a lost cause;-)

73
Chip W1YW

 

"Who We Are" was the title of my amateur radio demographics project.

But, to answer your question in this context, I work with many hundreds of technical hams through ORI and IEEE. The scene is vibrant and making lots of progress. It's a way better scene than in the late 1990s, when I started volunteering for AMSAT and TAPR and ARRL etc. I don't think what I'm seeing right now is a vast minority at all, but it certainly is not being fairly captured by traditional clubs and organizations and publications like QST. There's more hams showing up for DEFCON meetings in my area than show up at amateur radio club meetings, and their projects and show and tells are really amazing. Half of that stuff should be in QST, let alone QEX. There is a disconnect.

We live in a literal golden age of cheap embedded computer and unrivaled success of software-defined radio. It's deeply rewarding. Hard to grapple with, but worth the learning curve.

The technical is social before it is technical. Technical work has to serve the non-technical, or it fails. This got brought up repeatedly in the interview - technical progress can and often is derailed by abusive power-mongering and manipulation.

-mdt

 

I agree: there is a wellspring of new technology interest, because the barriers in cost and effort are much lower. As such I applaude ORI for being part of that solution.

BUT--

There are other parts, and a mutual respect for how progress is made, on many fronts ,is in everyone's best interest Greedy idiots--and I am not inveighing that against anyone discussed here-- abound and some work individually, others manipulate teams.

Bad actors are bad actors.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I don't think this is the place for arguing about demographics and assigning labels to certain of them but not to others. I'm an older white guy. I have plenty I could say about my STEM activities that would support the fact that I value diversity and would appreciate it if ham radio could be more diverse. I've been a speaker on STEM on college campuses all over the world, and have been interviewed by Dan Rather on the topic.

But, my question is, how to make the amateur radio community more diverse if those other demographics don't seem to have an interest? I've beat the bushes for years to drum up young people, of diverse backgrounds, and women as well and get them into our radio services. It's extraordinarily difficult. I proposed a contest to both the ARRL (and to QRZ) that in my opinion was guaranteed to be of interest to the younger, diverse crowd, and neither even bothered to reply. Let's face it . . . the League has the same problems, despite an excellent publication (On the Air) directed to newcomers and a clearly stated desire to make radio more diverse. Michelle, I agree with your science that the population on gender in ham radio is about 14-15% female and 85-86% male. My guess is that if you look at your former university's roster in the Electrical Engineering school, it may not be more than 20-25% female. There are just certain topics/categories of study or hobbies that don't seem to appeal the same way to both sexes. I'm at a loss at this point as to what to do about it, but my initial comment stands, that assigning labels to "old white guys" isn't going to do much but separate us from each other, which doesn't help.

Dave, W7DGJ

 

My results are directly from the FCC ULS database and use the same definitions as the US Census.

I cite prior work and present the case that the homogeneity has an effect on the experience of people that are not so heavily represented.

The results are not a personal attack against you. As I made clear in the presentations on this work (in the linked repository), population level effects are not proof of individual bigotry.

-mdt

 

Here's my answer--

People try out options if they know they exist. If you are a person of color in rural Arkansas--an example-- how is such an option available to you? If you have a high school with a ham club in Lexington MA, well, guess what?

One option is to have a 'traveling science show'.... Raytheon(now RTX) did that for a while...a good model IMO.....

Can we do the same with ham radio?

?