Issue #39: The Future of Ham Radio

Well said. We have some women in our club and they are treated with great respect, like everyone should be.
That being said, we have an increase in numbers of women testing for a license, but only a few join a club. We all have to do better at making them feel welcome in the company of a bunch of guys passionate about radio.

 

Excellent article, thank you for sharing. I'm a young ham, and first got licensed at age 17, around 10 years ago. What drew me to the hobby was communicating with (like-minded technical) people in a way that took some effort and deliberation, rather than by a rigidly structured or pay-to-play channel like social media, SMS, or the PSTN. It's easy to send a text -- there's something altogether different and exciting about sending your callsign into the ether and receiving no response. Undaunted, you tweak your setup, try again, and finally make a QSO. The magic of analog modes, vintage gear, and DIY are what keep me coming back.

On the other hand, I was speaking to another young ham at my local club meeting the other day -- he is drawn to amateur radio by YouTubers, memes, and POTA. I'm surprised nobody in the article mentioned POTA as far as the future of the hobby goes -- looks to me like it's kindled the flame of our hobby in a welcome way. All this to say, I think young hams are brought in by as diverse interests as anyone else.

As far as the concern some have expressed for the demographics of the hobby, I've always admired this space as a nice respite from the issue, which we encounter at every turn nowadays. That being said, I'd be just as happy logging a QSO with a transgender Tanzanian as Bob Smith from Phenix City

Furthermore, AI must be destroyed.

 

Hi Sean, Thanks for being here, and for the nice comment about the article. I hope you were talking about Trials and Errors when you said that it's a nice respite from the issue about demographics. We try to be a positive influence in a quirky sea of social media.

It's interesting that your last comment seems to say that you're not a fan of AI. That's my gut fear as well, but I must admit it could be because I am a fan of science fiction and movies like the Terminator franchise have set this vision of AI-dominance into my mind to stay. But also, big time brains like Bradbury and Clarke foresaw that, didn't they. You'll probably find the other Sean (another young guy) comments of interest as his total forecast in the article was about AI. He's really a strong voice for ham radio and the guy was a founder of a really major cloud services company that ended up being sold to Cisco. He knows what he is talking about (Sean, if you follow the forum, tell us why you are not concerned about AI).

You'll also note that I had Jason, of Ham Radio 2.0, drop his comments into the piece. I listen to some of his stuff, and a couple of his colleagues on YT like Dave and Josh, but for the most part I find much of it entirely useless. That's why this column is in writing, instead. But, if done right, I agree with Jason that the medium could be very important to ham radio education in the future.

Very much appreciate your comments. Thanks and stay tuned. Dave, W7DGJ

 

I for one do NOT want AI to do my (home)work for me.

And yet I just got asked by a major online magazine to write a piece on AI...I agreed--if they didn't use ChatGPT to edit it!.

N5AC knows what AI can do--right now. Using a massive parallel processing chip array set gives SDR a frequency agile system in real time, profound noise reduction and rejection, real-time cog radio type ionospheric probing, among others. His point is that WE are not ready for that so going to market with those capabilities would not only flop--it would give it away to competitors as we watch it catch on 5, 10 years from now. MO; Not his;-)

 

Sadly this is likely very true. We already have an example of this playing out over the last 20 or so years. Namely core SDR technology itself. A majority of the amateur radio customer base is SO far behind the curve for actually understanding what SDR can already do. Nor do they have any desire to use it to its fullest potential, as it already exists today, and has for well over decade already. And which is already available in off the shelf products made for amateur radio use.

Most of the customer base still just wants legacy radios and all of their inherent usability and spectrum monitoring and exploration limitations. I.e they only want some knobs and buttons, analog looking meters, 1 or 2 receivers - controlled by "VFOs", rudimentary connectivity to external computers, etc. And maybe one band at a time low-resolution spectrum display, if any at all. That is why many of the "SDRs" today, particularly those from the "big 3" just aren't that operationally or capability different than the models that they built 20 years ago. And yet the users of those will proudly proclaim that their new radio is "cutting edge" just because it uses "SDR". Um no, not really. It is just a legacy radio that was recreated by using SDR.

So where is the imagination amongst so many hams? There just seems to be so much looking back and nostalgia amongst so many of the current ham population. Nostalgia and history are great for gaining and having a frame of reference. But it is not a path forward, and it shows.

 

Nostalgia makes up a big piece of the ham market for goods like boat anchors and so on. While I don’t like Jason’s way of saying it, we may find more acceptance in a decade when nostalgia is greatly removed from the ARS. Dave

 

There are certain aspects of these proposals which befuddle me. Why the reduction of MF/HF allocations, if HF (for example) is not a primary means of commercial or emergency communications anymore? What harm then is there in continuing the current HF allocations if they are going to go fallow for the most part under the new scheme? International shortwave broadcasting has almost disappeared (save perhaps for a few holdouts, like the BBC World Service's very limited broadcasts for Africa and Southeast Asia). So, if HF will go mostly unused under the proposals, why not merely persist with the current bandplans?

How will the FCC verify 30 hours of operation? Will we go back to mandatory logs? How would the FCC check on a ham's operations? This appears rather difficult to enforce. Also, what harm is there in the ten-year license plan, other than that perhaps ten-year renewals do not provide enough of an income stream for the FCC to continue support of amateur radio?

I greatly resent those who paint CW as akin to equestrian sports. I am in my mid-40s. I have been licensed since age 13. For the vast majority of this time I have been CW only. I love HF CW, and will continue to operate it so long as A1A is an allowed mode. If I have one recommendation for younger hams, it is not to regard CW operators as hobbyist dinosaurs. CW is still quite vibrant, and should not be maligned.

73, Jordan AB2T

 

The FCC ,MO, will plan to 'open the MF/HF spectrum to new technologies, modalities, and uses'. This will also reflect with the ITU and worldwide re-allocations.

The 'abandoned' MF HF spectrum will be fully oversubscribed in twenty years and much of ham radio spectrum--always regarded as a placeholder by many-- will be gone as we are forced into 'spectral efficiency'.

CW maps to the Part 97 mission as 'pool of skilled operators'. CW is not dead. It has a place under the 'spectral efficiency' header.

The ham will check on the ham's operations --with a log. No operating means goodbye license. I suspect fraud with such logs will amount to major fines. There will be no more '700,000 plus licensees but 400,000 non-operators', which is the situation we have in the US today. The 'just in case' ham won't fly. He or she will have to keep their chops up( or lose the license) to remain in the 'pool of skilled operators'.

What happened with analog TV will happen to Part 97: take back some spectrum; force spectral efficiency; reallocate spectrum to new and or different services. The precedent has been around for a while and the FCC will use the success of that model as justification for applying it to Part 97..

73
Chip W1YW

 

I have read about stock-trading technology that uses HF to transmit digitalized stock trades. Is this the technology which will replace HF ham radio for a large part?

I don't find fault with the FCC's allocation of spectrum to the highest bidder. Per the shopworn cliche, "it is what it is". The FCC is a government agency, and awards contracts, allocations, etc. according to not only the best and highest use but also the most profitable spectrum holders. Amateur radio is, in my estimation, not a profitable spectrum holder even if licensing terms are reduced to five years. I suspect that $35 or some other fee (which will probably increase as the CPI inevitably inflates) will be charged every five years to make ham radio even tangentially relevant for the FCC's finances. Even that charge, and the revenue from that charge, will probably be meager justification to continue the FCC's support of ham radio.

It is quite sad that the FCC's evaluation of ham radio is quite poor, but it is bound to do what is most cost efficient and cost effective for Uncle Sam.

73, Jordan AB2T

 

No. That proposal is dead, but the idea of opening up spectrum is very much alive.

There will likely be some spectrum use for HFT at some point. Certainly some commercial use for low bit rate M2M; government; others.

The FCC is not communicating effectively and informatively with a vital user community. There's irony for you...

The FCC will back Part 97--if we essentially force it-- because the new 'cold war' is one predicated on RF as an enabler. We need trained , skilled operators, scientists, engineers, with RF background. The FCC will likely be forced into a role where it leverages Part 97 as (at least partial) training turf.

Or--it takes most of it away. Creates another new service as training turf. IMO that would be stoopid.

MO's.

 

Another thought-provoking thread, Dave. You seem to come up with a lot of these.

The future of anything is uncertain, but I do see amateur radio at a sort of crossroads. Personally, I do not want or need a transceiver that thinks for me (AI), nor do I want a touch screen with the menu on it. It is akin to a car, my Mum has a car that many functions are controlled by a touch screen, and it is aggravating whilst you are driving to do even the simplest of tasks like adjust climate or the radio, to name a few. I like to know how things work and do a lot of repairs on radio equipment, and it seems that many do not care about that aspect anymore. Plug and play seems to be a mindset of many. I do not want to depend upon the internet. Yes, I use it obviously, and use digital on HF a lot due to restrictions on my antenna and power I can run, but I also do not want to depend upon it, either.

I think a lot of the curiosity and magic of radio has been lost, not totally, we have fine comments from younger people here and for reference I am in my 50's. This may be due to the instant gratification mindset seen in society now and the prevalence of other forms of communication that do not require a licence. SDR's can be fine units and they do quite a bit that analogue cannot, but they are not the end all. I get more enjoyment out of my FT-450D than I have out of the FT-710. As one example, a ham in my area had a linear 35A PS for his station, it blew its fuse. It was going to be junked, I told him to let me look at it. Those are expensive, I repaired it for 14 USD, and that includes freight for the bridge diode that shorted. Took me about 10 min to diagnose. Where is that curiosity or want to learn by some? Is it because it does not have a nice touchscreen or is it something more?

Agencies such as the FCC and OFCOM (UK) are not exactly ham friendly, either, which seems to be a slowly emerging trend over the years. Selling off spectrum here, burdensome regulations there, it adds up over time.

And when I begin to think that ham radio is in demise, I see a few teens at testing sessions lately and I see that spark of curiosity and magic that I felt when I was that age, and it restores my hope that we will continue. It certainly will change from when I first got my licence due to technology, but as long those two aspects are there, well, the foundation will remain strong in my opinion. Advances in technology can have two effects, they can enhance our daily lives and pursuits or make us stupider as we no longer think for ourselves. It is our choice which direction to go.

73
Tony AA7FR

 

This is a subject that interests me, as the conditions for amateur radio has changed quite dramatically during my life-time. My data and findings do come out of a North European perspective, and may not be aligned to "US-centric" world-views.

The most noticeable changes are the loss of interest from both the spectrum regulators, prospective radio amateurs and the general public. AR now exists on a highly competitive market for the very short attention span of modern people, and it mostly lacks "Unique Selling Points" that are visible above the media noise, which has increased to ear-splitting levels in our present time.

"Yesteryear" it was considered exotic and impressive to be able to make, although noisy and intermittent, international contacts with some effort, but today such facilities are in the domain of literally everyone.

The current entry requirements for new amateurs are quite easy, and entry-level gear having quite impressive performance has never been cheaper in real terms. But still the recruitment of "youngsters" have been dwindling in later decades.

This has been a trend since at least 30 years, and it has accelerated in the last decade.
The current ageing demographic and very low in-flux is perhaps the most imminent threat to amateur radio, together with the worsening RFI situation and increasing difficulites to set up antennas, especially useable antennas for HF. Another aspect is that youngsters are attracted to "instant gratification" and "social media", but the image of amateur radio instead tells about an "anti-social media", and having to make efforts.

A less visible threat to amateur radio privileges is the increasing deregulation of radio spectrum use, turning it into a tradeable commodity among others. Amateur radio has its vast spectrum allocations and other privileges only by virtue of "tradition","good looks" and "reflections from a glorious past", which neither can be sold nor traded.
When market valuation of radio spectrum finally becomes a reality in most of the world, it becomes less and less opportune advocating for hobbyists to continue having free access to "prime spectrum real estate".

The elite performance shown about 80 years ago by our predecessors is simply not sufficient to ensure continuing access in a highly competitive environment, and "bean-counters" have very short memories. They, and their corporate or political superiors giving them directions, have generally no idea that amateur radio even exists. If they do they regard AR as an anachronism.

We also need to consider the geopolitical and financial aspects of national and international spectrum policies, to which the amateur radio privileges are intimately connected.

The current political situations has disturbing similarities to the mid-1930s. Nations and societies are becoming increasingly divided and polarised. Democracy and "Rule of Law" is on decline, and authoritarian rulers are gaining traction. We quite obviously live in "pre-war days", and it is necessary to take this into account when looking ahead.
There are at least three potential conflicts that could change the road-map; a Coup-d'Etat and/or civil war in the US, an European regional war and a major war in the Middle East. Each of these have the potential to completely upset the global economy, and may also result in authoritarian rule in an increasing number of nations. There is no way of predicting how future dictatorships will look at amateur radio as a concept.

For what it is worth, it was the Allied victory in World War 2 that paved the way for the current existence of international amateur radio. Had WW2 not broken out, or the Allies had lost to the Axis, there would most likely not be any international amateur radio today.

As it was the outcome and aftermath of the 1939-45 war that shaped our current standing, it is not too far-fetched to look into the future of amateur radio from this perspective. In any post-war society the main focus will be on reconstruction, and "luxuries" such as amateur radio in its present forms will be low on the priority list. One may also ponder if there will be an ITU or similar international organisation at all in a post-war world.

A few days ago, the Annual Assembly of the Swedish National Committee for Radio Science was held, and one agenda item was how to address the declining interest of young people in STEM subjects, especially radio-related.
A working party had been assigned at an earlier instance at the initiative of the national society (SSA) president in which I participated as some form of "Devil's Advocate". The group had a few Zoom meetings where the question was analysed from various angles, and it was, not unexpectedly, stated by the SSA representative that lowering the licence exam requirements would solve the problem, at least for amateur radio.
However, even removing the exam entirely would not make any dramatic difference in numbers. The visibility of and interest in amateur radio is simply not there in the below-30 age groups.

One thing can be however be taken for sure; it is futile trying to solve "tomorrow's problems" using "yesterday's solutions". We need to carefully look into the various options that are available and weigh them against each other.

 

Quit calling it ham radio.

Hams are over-actors, have no idea what the heck they're doing.

I am an amateur radio operator. I know what I'm doing but I'm not paid for it.

Professional radio operators are paid, however.

Kraus/KC4ZGP

 

If it's too large for ARRL then we have our work cut out for us for sure.

In your view, what are some practical things we can start doing today in order to show the value of amateur radio with respect to training and personal and professional development?

This is part of my non-profit's mission, and we're hitting our markers and achieving significant benchmarks. However, we are pretty small. We only have 7-8 projects. We have high school through retired folks. There's only a few dozen people in the critical path at any one time. We're just above the $1,000,000 mark in terms of funding and have a very high ROI and return on capability.

So, since this non-profit R&D activity I am personally involved with is somewhat limited in scope I've also been promoting/organizing events through IEEE that show the power of professional development through open source amateur radio. I have an advantage as I'm the current Section Chair for San Diego and a solid network of really wonderful people to work with.

This has been successful far beyond what I expected. Maybe that's a path forward? There's other active hams in IEEE that are doing great work, such as Kimball Williams EMC-HAMS efforts, and the commitment from major conferences such as IMS to showcase amateur radio and make room for organizations like ARRL.

-Michelle

 

Jordan, I haven't seen any disparaging comments here about CW. I agree with what you say. In fact, read the "Boys of Radio" article from the series and you'll see a comment that CW is still fascinating to kids (a "secret language") and it may be our hook to get them interested in the ARS, Dave