Trials and Errors #64: The New Hams -- Shot Across the Bow for ICOM, Yaesu and Others!

This is the forum discussion for the newest column on Trials and Errors -- Ham Life with an Amateur (read article at this link.) There are some really interesting developments coming in the makeup of the newest ham radio operators . . . many of them come from the IT world, computer engineering, maker communities and more. Read this article about opinions on how this might shake up an overly laid-back technology scene in commercial ham radio! Thanks -- Post your comments below, Dave W7DGJ

 

There are already some manufacturers and "open source" radio projects that treat ADC captured RF as simply data that can be pumped around, duplicated, and manipulated / processed / presented in various ways. In fact the one manufacturer had to provide more traditional user interfaces for more conventional user experiences in order to get sales volume.

But those radios from that manufacturer under the covers are still very open ended for how they can be used, and are also already Ethernet based. They even have several different models that can all do so. So those radios can be used very conventionally, or in ways that most hams can't even imagine. Which is unlike anything from the Big 3 which are all very knobs and buttons first boxes, and are therefore very locked down to only conventional usage styles and approaches from decades ago. And the Big 3 sell many of them.

So it is primarily the existing customer base masses that have held things back for at least 25 years already. And brand loyalty plays a big part of that.

 

Hi Duane, good comment. I agree with this statement, but it may be one of those situations that changes dramatically, overnight, when the number of "new tech" hams gets to a certain level and that existing customer base dies off. These new hams care nothing about the big 3. Dave. W7DGJ

 

I wish I could be as optimistic about the level of "new tech" rising to a high enough level for that to happen. Most anyone in that space faces much ridicule, and condemnation by the "gatekeepers" of "traditional ham radio". You see a huge amount of that dismissiveness right here on QRZ.

 

Very true. As Steve Stroh said in my article, these non-traditional operators are not subscribers to magazines, not joiners of organizations like ARRL, and may not be active forum participants (or readers) of QRZ forums. Dave, W7DGJ

 

What the most unfortunate side effect of this bifurcation is that useful knowledge doesn't get carried forward. There are valuable and useful things to be learned from the multi-decade long amateur licensee's. It would even speed some of the "new tech" efforts along.

But unfortunately the things that so many of the "oldsters" (I am one them at this point) are most concerned about are the things that aren't actually important, or in many cases even relevant. That's the destructiveness of "gatekeeping".

 

I'd be interested in the names of those manufacturers.

 

I think there are several issues to be addressed here.

The 1st is that it doesn't matter how good your program is, it still needs hardware in the form of antennas, amplifiers, both receive and transmit, tuning units when people insist on using really poor bits of wire for transmitting and receiving and ways to supply the analogue RF to the SDR programs. I remember reading the blurb a few years ago from a well known SDR transceiver manufacturer that you would not need to change the hardware anymore, just download the new program. Years latter and they are *still* marketing new hardware units.

The next is that the frequencies that we all use are getting noisier, Solar panels and plug in chargers with poor RF characteristics mean that the wanted signals are being overcome by high levels of noise, so the Signal To Noise Ratios are getting worse. Yes, data modes like FT8 etc., deal better with higher noise levels but at some point the noise will be too much even for the clever programs to cope with.

The comment about "why don't you use a mobile phone?" is easily dealt with as, unless you know the number of the person you want to talk to you won't talk to them. Even social media is not helping as it screens out people that it thinks you don't want to talk to. With Amateur Radio the only algorithym is whether you have a callsign or not. Your political, social or personal preferences don't come into it, you just call "CQ" and hope that someone, anyone, will reply.

Most radio users now are not Radio Amateurs, they are construction workers, shop staff, emergency services or drivers of vehicles doing various jobs and they just get issued with a radio and use it to talk to the people that they need to talk to. So, if the company buys a certain brand of radio and its digital set up the end users don't care they just use it. Within Amateur Radio it becomes a mutually exclusive system with Fusion not being able to talk to D-Star or DMR and the setup of the various talk groups makes programing your radio to actually be able to talk to someone else difficult. To the point where you can see that many talk groups on all of the Amateur digital systems are under used.

I also think that the issue of propagation studies was skated over. I'm not great at propagation on HF, I do try to get my head round it and was a member of the RSGB Propagation Studies committee for a while, mainly because they wanted someone who could use a spreadsheet, but it was many years ago and I much prefer VHF/UHF which then comes into why Amateurs use the VHF/UHF bands rather than the ordinary users who don't care as long as they can talk to the people that they want to talk to.

So, yes the Tech minded people will be attracted to certain parts of the hobby. I remember going to a computer activity many years ago and the non-Radio Amateurs were facinated by Morse code and how you could detect it and convert it into binary and manipulate it. I don't think any became Radio Amateurs though.

I have a saying that "Amateur Radio is a hobby where people are seperated by a common interest", if we can't get the people already into the hobby to want to talk to other people already in the hobby then attracting people who have no interest in actually talking to others isn't going to help and, by talking to, I mean all modes of communication.

Dave (G0DJA)

 

Hi Dave, thanks for being here and for posting your interesting thoughts on this topic. With regards to your comment about "propagation studies being skated over," -- never intended to be a direction that the article takes, as it was only a side comment that even a plug 'n play radio operator does some experimentation. It wasn't intended to be elaborated on, so I didn't "skate over" it. I like your quote in the last para, though. With regards to this new type of ham, we don't have to invest a lot to find them, as they are being driven into radio by the cool stuff others are doing with coding and the IT side of radio. Dave, W7DGJ

 

But, who are they going to 'talk' to and who are we going to interest them into talking to?

By your definition, actually making contact with someone else isn't what they are interested in...

Dave (G0DJA)

 

Two very good points.
Never understood why some folks want to bring up cell phones as some sort of alternative when discussing ham radio. How do you call CQ on your cell phone and have a cell phone-to-cell phone-only response? (DXCC, WAS, etc.)

New technology is great, I love to try out a new digital mode when it comes on the scene. With so many modes, are they bringing operators together or acting as a dividing force?

I think of it this way, maybe not the best example. Your company throws a party so that all employees will get to know each other, but as they arrive, they are sent to different rooms in the building and remain there for the duration of the party, not having the opportunity to meet the employees in the other rooms (MODES).

 

Thanks Dan I think that is a VERY good analogy. Dave, W7DGJ

 

I've done that.

Even using a straight key for a CW contact, but iPhone to iPhone with a 40m EFHW in the signal path to make it a legal HF QSO.

There's a variety of ways one can operate between two stations both with Hermes Lite 2 transceivers. Used a CTR2-Midi adapter to connect the key to the iPhone for input. Audio out via Bluetooth AirPods.

 

Radios have changed.
We no longer have tube amplifiers, oscillators and a lot of other bits and pieces.

With the Si53** series of DDS systems the VFO, LO , BFO and much of that is simply gone in the new generation of direct or single conversion radios.

Filters still exist and make a difference, keyer are a good thing and while I can operate just find without a 'fish finder', I will allow that many find these handy. Cool.

CW is still the original 'backwards compatible' mode so even the most 'modern/digital will still be useful for the future. You guys go ahead and enjoy your 'digital frontier', I'm quite happy with my little slice of ham radio.....and SWLing.

 

I'm seeing a different tangent here. Makers and experimenters are using radio, but not ham radio. GMRS, MURS for voice. Part 15 and "mesh" modes for data.
They're finding ways to communicate without the formalities and rules that go with ham radio. Many consider RF as just another way to connect, and have no actual interest in how radios work. It's just a different kind of modem or router, that's under the desk or in a slot in their computer.
The experimentation and interest are still there, but ham radio gets in their way.

73 Rick N8TGQ