PBMME November 2009 GRRRRRRR

Today I combined two of my hobbies, hunting and amateur radio, and participated in the Polar Bear Moonlight Madness event. I'm polar bear #45. I haven't been active in the Polar Bears since I joined several years ago, but recently rejoined the reflector and hopefully I will do more field events this winter, perhaps while ice fishing.

Here I am all suited up in orange ready to go.

My shack in the woods is the venerable Yaesu FT-817 and an SGC SG-211 autotuner. On the left is a 12 gauge shotgun, Remington 870, with 3" magnum turkey loads. QRP rig, QRO shotgun.



I tried to find a hemlock to stand under as it was misting and overcast, but unfortunately I couldn't find any. This was the best spot I could find on the hillside with a little bit of cover.

I think my pack with the rig, tuner, lunch, soda, battery, and extra ammo weighed about 30 pounds. Not a bad load, but too much for this backpack. Next time I need to bring my big Jansport frame pack.



Here's the view from my spot. Not much green this time a year in Pennsylvania, and a rather overcast day. The squirrels and chipmunks were quite active.



That's me in there.



Peek-a-boo!

Yeaaaah, contacts! I made only two bear contacts, AF4O and WG0AT on 20m, both of whom were at near ESP levels at times. I also made two KY QSO Party contacts on 40m, and had a brief ragchew with WD9F in Illinois. I also heard polars bears WA8REI, N0EVH, and K4UPG but didn't get an opportunity to make contact.

It's been awhile since I've operated afield and I know there's some tweaks I need to make to my setup. I think I'm going to carry the K1 next time. That rig is lighter and I won't have to carry as much battery power for it. I like having all bands including 6m available on the 817, but it's rare that I use them afield during a daytime event. Also, the SGC tuner has been a disappointment. I bought this several years ago and it died. A few months ago I decided to give it a second chance and have it repaired. It works, but it's still a lousy tuner which takes a long time to tune and often can't find a match. One of these days this tuner is going to be used for target practice. I should just carry a BLT or I may homebrew a small balanced L tuner with more range and more bands than the BLT.

My antenna was a lightweight 40m dipole fed with speaker wire. I've used it with good results for several years; there's not much that can go wrong with a dipole. It can be a pain to put up as you have to find a tree to throw a rope up in to pull the center up. I've considered getting something like a Buddipole but I just haven't been able to justify the cost. I may attempt to homebrew something like a Buddipole in the near future as I recently discover an easy and clean way to wind coils on PVC using a solder gun.

Overall it was a good day. Thanks to everyone who contacted this bear who just came out of hibernation. :-) GRRRRR

(P.S. I can't figure out for the life of me how to properly arrange images in Blogger posts, but the arrangement above works, I guess. Just know that I didn't try to make it this way...)

4G And Why It Matters

In my recent blog post entitled Spectrum is Oxygen, I talked about the upcoming radio spectrum crunch (shortage/crisis/reallocation?) that is going to occur due to pressure from mobile wireless carriers migrating to 4G technology. It may not be clear to some why 4G is significant as it may appear to be just another "new and improved" technology, much like upgrading software or buying a new ham rig. It's more.

4G, as the name would imply, is the fourth generation of mobile wireless. The first generation was analog cellular, known as AMPS, at least here in North America. There were mobile phone services before AMPS, however they didn't have widespread adoption as they were expensive services in limited areas, often mirroring local pager or two way radio company footprints. With AMPS, most of the US had coverage, but roaming between systems was an adventure and could be quite expensive. You couldn't just call a cell phone subscriber and expect to reach them if they were outside of their home system coverage; you often had to dial up a mobile access phone number of the carrier system they where roaming in. The technology behind AMPS was quite simple, frequency modulated carriers and a data control channel that was used to communicate with mobiles for call setup. Towards the end of the 1G era, the FCC here in the US expanded the number of mobile carriers in each market from two to up to eight, and allocated more spectrum.

2G introduced digital technology such as TDMA, GSM, and CDMA, mainly to squeeze more voice conversations out of channels, but also to introduce new features. Data services like CDPD were created. Phones became smaller and handheld phones replaced phones in vehicles and bulky "bag phones". Networking between mobile carriers became the norm and roaming between systems became automatic and nearly seamless within countries, but not internationally. One way text messaging called Short Message Service was introduced, and later it became two way, but usually worked only between phones on the same network.

In 3G, things really took off. In 1G, mobile phones were for the wealthy and businesspeople. In 2G, blue collar folks were using them in their jobs. With 3G, housewives and teenagers got phones with carriers offering affordable family plans. With this the mobile carriers have essentially fully penetrated the market. Now the only additional revenue to be had is either through stealing customers from other carriers, or offer more services and applications that can be charged for. Internet service on phones and data dongles for laptops have become commonplace. However, voice and data are still, for the most part, separate traffic streams on the network.

Enter 4G. 4G is mainly two technologies, WiMax and LTE. WiMax is the brethren of WiFi / IEEE standard 802.11. WiFi revolutionized wireless data and unwittingly enabled the wireless ISP industry. Originally intended only as an indoor wireless LAN protocol, WiFi was extended to provide data service in point-to-point links and point-to-multipoint networks. WiMax was created in IEEE standard 802.16 from the lessons learned from 802.11 WiFi. Today pre-WiMax networks are deployed throughout the world and WiMax is starting to be deployed by several companies in the US, mainly Clearwire.

LTE or Long Term Evolution has different family roots, coming from the mobile carrier suite of technologies and is a natural progression from 3G protocols such as UMTS. Several tier one mobile carriers such as Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility, and T-Mobile have committed to LTE buildouts.

For the most part, LTE and WiMax do the same thing. Voice is no longer on traffic streams separate from data. The entire network is IP based and voice is just another data packet stream but with a high prioritization than other packets. Every device has an IP address and the network is built from the ground up to be very scalable from a bandwidth perspective, supporting mere kilobits up to 100 or more megabits per second, per subscriber device. Base stations are equipped with multiple "smart" antennas that digitally process RF signals to demodulate even weaker signals and get more bits per hertz out of the spectrum.

With 4G, wireless networks go beyond just mobile wireless applications. With ubiquitous coverage, two protocol standards that are for all intents and purposes the same and adopted by all carriers, and a packet-based network that is fully IP, this is creating a wireless network for fixed and mobile applications and will lead to network convergence never experienced before. Laptops will have 4G in them as a standard feature, like WiFi is today. Instead of buying OnStar service and satellite radio for your vehicle, your vehicle will be equipped with 4G and all the services in the vehicle will be IP based. Furthermore, you'll be able to get mobile video for the kids in the back seat and car companies will monitor your vehicle's performance in near real time. Smart Grid, the initiative to modernize the power grid with monitoring and control capabilities, will undoubtedly use 4G to a large extent to pull data from millions of devices. As 4G chipset prices go down, common devices that require periodic servicing or data telemetry will have 4G capabilities in order to communicate with automated systems. Homes that do not have cable TV coverage will be able to subscribe to video service over 4G sometime in the future, in addition to getting broadband Internet service. The possibilities are endless.

With the 700 Mhz auctions, the FCC introduced the idea of public safety networks being provided by commercial wireless carriers. While the FCC was unsuccessful at auctioning the "public safety strings-attached" spectrum this time around and many of us in the communications world question this concept, the idea is out there and it's undoubtedly going to happen in the future, at least for less critical public safety communications.

With all of these bandwidth-hungry applications, carriers will undoubtedly need more spectrum. With technology they are achieving more bits per hertz than ever before, however this can only be taken so far before more frequencies are needed. I mentioned in my previous blog article that I think amateur radio spectrum is safe this time around but I don't think we will be so lucky when 5G or whatever next generation technology arrives. The FCC and other regulatory bodies are going to reallocate spectrum, grabbing the lowest hanging fruit first. UHF TV was one of the first bands to be re-allocated here in the US because it had so much unused spectrum, mainly due to outdated allocation rules and the rise of cable TV. The move is on to support public safety networks on commercial wireless networks; undoubtedly there will be a push to move business two way radio systems to 4G, and economics may drive that even more than the FCC, freeing up more spectrum. With enormous computing power and software defined radio technology in handheld devices, it's rather easy to support new frequency bands, so we could probably have devices supporting 100 Mhz to 5 Ghz capabilities in the near future giving new levels of frequency and protocol agility which will support many new band allocations if needed.

When you look at mobile wireless spectrum, attaining perhaps 2 or 3 bits per hertz spectral efficiency and serving millions of customers, it's hard to defend our use of a 4 Mhz wide band that at any given moment in any area is supporting perhaps three or four voice conversations. Doing some back-of-napkin math, this would be about 0.016 bits per hertz efficiency. I know the amateur radio service offers much more beyond a spectral efficiency number, but hopefully you can see the difficulty in justifying our usage of spectrum to the FCC when there are companies willing to pay millions of dollars for spectrum that will result in much more immediate and tangible benefits to the general public.

It's an exciting time in the communications world. The concept of having a seamless standard data network with broadband capabilities covering nearly the entire the civilized world was science fiction twenty years ago. In amateur radio, we can't ignore 4G, either as a threat to our spectrum or an opportunity to extend our networks and our technology, strengthening amateur radio.

FCC: Don't Mess With Texas

Here's a little gem from the FCC Daily Digest. A pirate radio operator, caught on two separate occasions two years apart, operating an FM broadcast pirate radio station, was fined $10,000. From the FCC text:

"In his response to the NAL, Mr. Frank asserts that, as a citizen of the Republic of Texas, he is not subject to the laws of the United States or the Commission’s Rules. Specifically, Mr. Frank asserts that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over his actions, because he operated a radio station solely within the boundaries of the state of Texas. Finally, Mr. Frank justifies violating Section 301 of the Act, because he claims the Commission’s licensing policies violate the First Amendment."

Would this make Texas a new DXCC entity? :-)

Time For A "DX Cluster 2.0"?

Rick, K6VVA, posted this on the CQ-Contest reflector regarding an FCC petition to address forging of callsigns on the DX Cluster. Basically someone is impersonating several prominent contesters on the DX Cluster, sending "hateful and obscene" messages.

I'm surprised it's taken this long for abuse of the DX Cluster to become this blatant and malicious or for anyone to do anything about it. The DX Cluster is undoubtedly one of the most insecure computer networks in existence. Granted, it's not running the financial system, launching missiles, or guiding planes so there isn't a whole lot of security and authentication required. But it's much too easy to exploit and I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to run denial-of-service attacks or found and exploited security issues in popular DX cluster node software.

I ran a DX Cluster node on the Internet for about eight months, six or seven years ago, using DXSpider running on Linux. It was a fun little project and I learned a bit. It's rather simple and easy to activate a node and you just need a sysop at an existing node to let you network with them in order to become part of the network.

Every DX Cluster server I've been on has allowed anyone to create an account with little or no authentication. Furthermore, anyone on the web can go to one of several websites and post DX spots, again, without authentication. It's not surprising someone is impersonating other amateurs and using resources on the Internet to cloak their identity as it's yellow belt hacking at best that a ten year old could perform.

Also, it's rather easy to screw over a contester without impersonating them. All that is needed is a few "broken" callsign spots specifying their run frequency and someone with bad intent can create a pileup of dupes for someone.

I doubt the FCC will do anything about this abuse, but I don't think it's their issue to address. The DX Cluster originally was an over-the-air data network using packet radio. Today it's mostly Internet based. There aren't any statistics or network maps for the DX Cluster network, however I would venture a guess that 98% of it is over the Internet and not over wireless packet links. I think it's going to be up to the operators of DX Cluster servers to implement some sort of authentication to prevent the problem. But considering the DX Cluster is an old mish-mash of servers with no documentation or central governing entity, it's probably unlikely anything will be done.

If something is going to be done, it needs to be done on all nodes within the network, otherwise those wanting to abuse the system will use any weak security entry points. Can it be expected that all the DX cluster software writers will agree upon authentication and security methods, release new versions of their software, and all sysops will update it in a timely manner? I doubt it. Ultimately I think someone needs to architect a new DX Cluster network, separate from the existing network, with software and nodes approved by some central body. There needs to be trust and authentication between nodes and sysops and there needs to be logging and an audit trail in order to prevent exploitation and abuse in the future. This is a solvable probably, but it won't be fixed through legislation, litigation, or law enforcement. It's going to come down to what radio amateurs are good at: technical solutions and good old fashioned cooperation and coordination.

Spectrum is Oxygen

With mobile wireless networks migrating to fourth generation technologies or 4G, such as Long Term Evolution (LTE) and WiMax, there is going to be increasing pressure from mobile wireless carriers for more spectrum. LTE and WiMax are going to be used to deliver faster data speeds to mobile devices and it's likely that we'll see 4G being used for many new applications such as power grid management.

There's been a lot of press lately on the need for spectrum to feed the growing needs of mobile wireless:

Unstrung quoted FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski as saying "Spectrum is Oxygen"....

Fierce Wireless reported from the CTIA show in San Diego about carriers looking for more spectrum....

Fierce Wireless quoted Blair Levin who is heading up the commission's broadband program, "The record is very clear that we're facing a looming spectrum gap..." Fierce Wireless also noted "Wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon spent almost $20 billion in last year's auction of the spectrum."

What impact will this have on amateur radio? First off I think there's nothing to worry about below 30 Mhz, at least from 4G wireless needs (BPL still could come out of the ashes in grid management initiatives). Our VHF and UHF bands, however, are quite valuable as they could easily be used for mobile wireless. In some regards, per megahertz they are perhaps more valuable than the recently auctioned 700 Mhz spectrum as they propagate better than higher frequencies and would require less cell sites for the same coverage area. The carriers spent billions on nationwide bands only a few megahertz wide. Make no bones about it, the VHF and UHF bands we use are worth a lot of money.

Looking at our allocations, 6 meters is unused the majority of the time until there's a Sporadic E opening, meteor scatter, or some other cool propagation phenomenon occurring. I've heard a repeater QSO on 6 meters only once in my life. The Emcomm folks haven't figured out that this band is ideal for regional communication so it's mostly 6 meter fans who listen to white noise days on end.

2 meters is like the Night of the Living Dead. We have repeaters all over the place, so many that you can't get a frequency coordinated in some places. But the repeaters are dead the majority of the time, with many repeaters serving as life support systems for bored cherkunkers.

440 I haven't had much experience on other than a few simplex contacts during some VHF contests. This band is used a lot for linking together the repeaters on 2 meters so you can hear the cherkunking on multiple frequencies simultaneously. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe we have secondary status on 440 as there was the PAVEPAWS issue going on last year with interference to government radar systems, so there is probably some protection to be afforded by the government also using this band.

These bands are probably going to be safe, but I would expect questions to be asked the upcoming months. We're going to have to justify our VHF and UHF frequencies more than ever, and do it in an intelligent way. We need to be realistic and truthful in our capabilities and need for spectrum, otherwise we will be seen as obstructionists attempting to preserve an antiquated hobby, and not a valuable resource. Furthermore, we need to get out of this rut of having hundreds of dead repeaters not serving any useful purpose. Perhaps it's time to build a "wider" band data networking capability, beyond what D-STAR can provide, and allocate some significant chunks of 6 meters, 2 meters, and 440 to it? The FCC is clearly thinking outside of the box, and we need to start thinking this way as well, otherwise we may not be so lucky when 5G wireless five or ten years from now needs more spectrum.

Just Keeping It Real

Much has recently been written about the issue of fake amateur radio, namely online amateur radio simulators such as the new CQ100, though other fake amateur radio technologies such as Echolink have been around for awhile. IRLP isn't totally fake as it links real radio repeaters, though VHF and UHF radio waves weren't meant to travel around the world, so rather than fake I'd classify IRLP as unnatural amateur radio.

These fake amateur radio systems threaten amateur radio for several reasons:

• People will want to be on the Internet rather than real radio
• Those who would normally get amateur radio licenses will take the "easy route" and use these fake systems instead
• Real radio modes like CW, not supported in these fake amateur radio systems, will fall by the wayside

I fear that if these fake radio technologies are allowed to continue, amateur radio will be reduced to a dying group of uninteresting, bitter, crusty old men, complaining on the air about anything and everything, as all of the more interesting and more chipper people will flock to the fake systems. Real amateur radio accomplishments like DXCC will be diminished as everyone will be able to work DX with the assistance of the Internet as you can see on what frequencies the fake DX is on. With fake amateur radio, operators can just unbox a PC, plug it in, and start operating. They'll be unskilled appliance operators. Amateur radio technology will fall behind the rest of the world and will not be seen as cutting edge, as all the innovators will use the fake systems, which are viewed by everyone as technologically superior. Our numbers will begin to decline. Government agencies will take our service less seriously and not call on us as often in emergency situations. Some agencies may even decide to use Internet technology in their emergency systems. Our young people won't be interested in real amateur radio. Basically it will put our hobby into a real death spiral.

But in thinking about this further, some of these fake amateur radio systems don't require a license or a written test. Without a written test, the quality of the fake operators will be quite low, and the system will be plagued with fake QRMers jamming fake QSOs. They probably won't use proper language and will use terms like "73s" or phases like "my personal here is". The systems like CQ100 do require a license, but even so there's no threat of the government regulatory agencies like the FCC, Industry Canada, or Ofcom fining operators, and they'll all act like children on the fake air. I can't imagine how barbaric fake radio Internet forums will be.

So, I think it's likely that the whole fake amateur radio network will implode and be destroyed shortly after it becomes popular. Perhaps we don't have anything to worry about, and real amateur radio is safe.

Quarter Century Reminiscing and Thoughts

This week I've been an amateur radio operator for 25 years. I first became an amateur in 1984 at the age of 15, callsign KA3NGH. W3HC (then W3HCW), my grandfather, was my elmer. I studied the venerable Now You're Talking study guide from ARRL and learned code from ARRL tapes and a VIC-20 program that sent five letter code groups. I learned CW at first by the old visual method, memorizing the dots and dashes on paper before actually hearing the code. I regret learning the code this way, but I didn't know any better then. I took my test at the York, Pennsylvania Hamfest. The York Hamfest was quite spectacular back then. Of course most hamfests were at the time, especially to me as a geeky teenager with not much money. It was astounding what a handful of cash could buy back then in a flea market.

I tested for Technician class a few months after getting my Novice. I failed the test, but two weeks later I received a letter from the ARRL or FCC that a mistake was made on the scoring of my test and I had indeed passed.

Later I practiced the code further to get to 13 WPM to pass my general a year or two later at the Rochester, NY hamfest, but didn't really use it much at all until 1999. CW to me was seen more as a testing hurdle than something you actually enjoyed. After passing my General, my grandfather bought me a used National NCX-3 for my first HF rig. It had just 20, 40, and 80 meters. I didn't have any heat in my attic bedroom; the old National put a good bit of heat out and acted as a space heater in the winter. I made a boatload of phone contacts with that rig. I made a few CW contacts after getting the CW bug at a Field Day, but the NCX-3 was a miserable CW rig. It had no filtering thus it was as wide as a barn door and it had no CW sidetone, however I used the hum from the Heathkit power supply, which increased dramatically on transmit, as a sort of sidetone. It seemed like everyone kept drifting in frequency. In later years I learned that the NCX-3 had no frequency offset in CW mode, which explained why everyone kept moving away from me after transmissions. A few years after using the National, I borrowed a wattmeter from someone and was surprised that it was only putting out 20 watts on 20 meters. I couldn't really tell the difference from 200 watts on other bands. It was a good rig and it gave me a lot of good experience fixing it and keeping it running.

Later I picked up an old Gonset G-20 6 meter AM rig at a hamfest for $20. There was pretty much no one to talk to on 6 at the time as this was after the '60s and '70s 6 meter boom and HF rigs didn't have 6 meters like manufacturers started including in the late '90s. The rig tuned to below the 6 meter band and I used to listen to cordless phone conversations. The 20 watts of AM power was great for breaking into neighborhood telephone conversations! (evil grin)

After high school, between college, part-time work, and scraping enough money together to feed myself, pay rent, and keep my car going, I was inactive for the most part, other than making the trek up to the Rochester Hamfest one year. After landing my first real job and during my bachelor life in an apartment I had a stint with FM pirate radio. I built a 40 watt station with a kit exciter and an amplifier chain cobbled together from parts from my workplace. The coverage of the station was amazing, with a nice full-quieting signal in the nine mile wide valley. More on this in a later blog article.

In 1998, after being married several years, a few "real" jobs under my belt, and a new house, I got the ham radio bug again and strung up a dipole. Later I got on 2 meters and found a local club which further sparked my interest. In '99, when the Extra code test was about to be eliminated, I decided to go after 20 WPM to get my last upgrade, a feat that I thought I could never achieve. I bought a used Kenwood TS-850 and a new Bencher KY-1 paddle as an incentive. I had the rig shipped to my workplace because I knew my wife would blow a gasket if she knew what I paid for it. I snuck it home one night, brought it in quickly and swapped it out with the dinky little Yaesu FT-747 I had in my shack at the time. She didn't notice for about a week, until she figured out that my rig doubled in size. Luckily I didn't have to sleep with the dog that night.

I copied W1AW code practice and CW bulletins every night for a month straight. For the written test, the technical part was a piece of cake as I was already an RF field engineer in my professional life. For those other questions like band limits and various rules I practiced with online tests. I ended up passing my Extra on the first try at a neighboring club's VE session, though I thought my arm would fall off after cramping up while copying the code. To my amusement, the testers immediately asked me after passing if I could start coming to their club and VE sessions because they had a lack of Extra VEs!

After getting my Extra I got the "knack" and went on a CW bonanza, mainly going after DX. I erected a 40 foot tower in the backyard with a two element five band quad, which I still have up though I'm looking to replace as I'm older, wiser, and I'm more familiar with ice storms. During the peak of the sunspot cycle this antenna was magical. The best pileup I ever broke was Bhutan, netting it on the first call running a barefoot 100 watts. On 20 meters most stations can't believe I'm running QRP.

In later years I jumped around various sub-hobbies within amateur radio, including PSK, Hellscreiber, multi-multi contesting, PSKmail, running a DX Cluster node, maintaining a repeater, homebrewing and maintaining a 10m beacon, PICs, and 6 meters. I built a few Rockmites, a K1, and several rigs for friends. Initially I was interested in paper-chasing, but the thought of it later gave me a feeling that the hobby was dictating what I do rather than the other way around. I became president of the local amateur radio club, serving for about six (or was it seven?) years, which was rewarding but also frustrating. Circuit building and QRP are the two sub-hobbies that I have maintained throughout. I often enjoy building equipment more than actually being on the air, unless it's Field Day, the PA QSO Party, or I'm operating out in the wilderness. There's something satisfying about setting up a station in the middle of nowhere and being able to communicate to far off lands...

More in the next installment of this series....

Nice Morse Code Report

Paul, PC4T, posted in his fine blog this BBC report on CW:

Other than the erroneous American amateur radio operator figure (there are only about 650,000 US amateurs, not 2 million), the video in my opinion is nearly perfect. It's not laden with acronyms or geeky amateur-speak that the public doesn't understand. Most importantly it doesn't sound like a funeral ceremony with an old man lamenting how young folks don't want to learn the code. This video makes Morse code look like a fine art, not a dying hobby that needs to be preserved like a cadaver. There's no "ham radio saves the world" theme.

Watching this video makes me want to get on the air. Kudos to Paul for posting this and hats off to the BBC for a fine report. We need more positive reports like this.

Plain Talk

National Public Radio took a break from its non-stop, nation-destroying liberal agenda ( inside joke ;-) to report on the move within public safety communications to eliminate codes such as the venerable "10 code", and migrate to plain language communications. The plain language movement has been going on for several years; the problem hasn't been codes themselves, but rather interoperability between agencies and jurisdictions. Beyond the few universal codes such as 10-4 (acknowledgement) or 10-20 (location), many of the ten codes are different across agencies as no one etched-in-stone standard exists.

In amateur radio we tend to chastise others over protocol and codes, with arguments over things like "73" versus "73s" or "name" versus "handle" or "personal". Public safety on the other hand has determined that clarity of the message is more important than protocol and codes. But it does make sense to use codes with modes like CW since it minimizes the number of characters to transmit and actually contributes to the clarity of the message.

With the elimination of ten codes in public safety communications a training barrier is removed, and arguably it may be easier for people to grasp public safety communications than amateur radio voice communications. Perhaps we don't want to eliminate codes on voice, but it may make sense to update them. Calling any female on the air a YL or Young Lady is a bit, well, 50s-ish. It's supposedly bad practice to use Q-signals on phone, but nearly everyone does it. And then there's the obligatory "fine business" phrase. It's more a conversational crutch, but is in essence code for "I got your last transmission and I'm thinking what to say next". :-)

Could Amateur Radio Prevent Insanity In the Wild?

This evening I watched a special series on the National Geographic Channel entitled Alone in the Wild. It's about Ed Wardle, a British man who spent 50 days alone in the Yukon wilderness, surviving by living off the land and a meager amount of supplies he brought with him. He intended to stay 90 days but decided to terminate his challenge early after his health began to suffer. Hunger definitely took its toll, but it appeared that isolation and the lack of human contact and interaction had the most adverse affects, turning Ed into an emotional wreck and likely close to insanity towards the end.

I hunt, hike, camp, and fish, and like many outdoorsmen I dream of an adventure like Alone in the Wild, however I would probably go crazy after the first week of isolation. Being a QRPer who likes to hike and operate from the trail, I wonder if one had a small rig and was able to make a QSO or two each day, would it stave off the loneliness and prevent insanity? I would probably opt for a lightweight rig that could do at least 20 and 40 meters, a small battery, a small solar panel, and crank generator for rainy days. All CW, of course; phone would be too much of a creature comfort. I'm still bringing the 30-06 and a case of shells!

If you can catch the series on the National Geographic Channel, I highly recommend it. (You can view some video online here.)

FSKDS

Scientists in Geneva, Switzerland recently discovered that mice exposed for short durations to two audio frequencies turned on and off in rapid succession became irritable and attempted to push other mice out of the laboratory pen. Affected mice weren't able to do activities that they normally found enjoyable, such as running on the mouse wheel or searching for cheese in a maze. Even when mice had the opportunity to escape the audio tones and walk to other areas of the lab cage without the audio tones, they stayed in the area with the offensive tones. The effect was observed nearly exclusively in older male mice, puzzling researchers.

The mystery effect has been dubbed Frequency Shift Keying Derangement Syndrome or FSKDS. Scientists plan to conduct more tests and it is hoped that the research can have beneficial results for humans, although at this point it's uncertain how, as no sane and reasonable humans listen to two alternating audio tones for even short periods of time.

Most Amateur Radio Communications Are Illegal

With all the recent focus and fervor on 47CFR97.113(a)(3), I'm surprised no one in the studio audience has noticed (a)(3)'s rarely mentioned brother, (a)(5):

§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

Do you have a cellphone in proximity while you're on the air? Discuss.

The Demise and Rebirth of NTS?

Worldradio this month has an article by WB8SIW entitled The Demise of Traffic Nets, in which he laments the decline of participation in traffic nets over the years. The reasons he cites mirrors several of those that we often hear of when talking about the decline of amateur radio: the Internet, cellular phones, home entertainment (television programs), and an overall lack of free time these days. The article outlines the value of the NTS, focusing mainly on CW skills and protocol.

To fully analyze the situation with the NTS, we have to take a step back and ask what is the purpose of the NTS? The purpose of the NTS was to handle traffic and serve as a messaging system during disasters and when other communications infrastructure was down or just non-existent. It was state-of-the-art in its heyday, mainly in the 40s and early 50s, and it had a clear mission and easily-identified value to the general public.

I think the NTS suffers from two key problems today: it is neither state-of-the-art nor does it have a clear mission or purpose, or at least its current purpose that it has evolved into isn't what it was originally designed for. Rather than a messaging system, it has transformed into a preservation sub-hobby, preservation of a fine art from long ago -- CW nets. I've always found CW traffic nets to be something of wonder, like a a complex, finely tuned machine in operation. CW has been the mode of choice for traffic handling for decades, because it's simply the most efficient. But there are better modes today, from both a technical and human standpoint. More on this in a second.

The article ends with a recommendation that those in charge of NTS assemble a committee of those active in NTS to revitalize the program or sunset it. In my opinion, if you want to euthanize it, this is the perfect group. If you want to revitalize it, you need a mixed group of half who participate in it and half who have never participated in the NTS, ever. The problem I see with having a group of only those who are active in NTS is they lack a perspective of the very group that they need to woo to get into NTS to keep it alive. Many of the active NTS people are undoubtedly good people who have perhaps gotten new participants into NTS, but certainly many have done their part to stagnate NTS.

The group of non-NTS participants needs to be a mix of brand new and very experienced amateurs, and preferably those who have had experience in many modes. They should have careers in areas such as networking, engineering, information technology, or public safety. We need to have a group of well-rounded people that have some experience in the messaging and networking world outside of amateur radio, and have exposure to the customers we're serving with the public service that NTS is.

As its first exercise, the non-NTS group should caucus separately and determine how they would build a national traffic system from the ground up, today, starting from scratch. They shouldn't include any pre-existing systems such as Winlink or PSKmail, but describe in basic terms how any protocols or systems should operate, if that's the direction they decide to go. They should ignore any current net hierarchy or any reporting structures. Afterwards, the active NTS people then need to see what the non-NTS group came up with. Here's where things get dicey. I think the non-NTS group would come up with an implementation that looks nothing like the current NTS. You're going to see digital modes (other than CW). You're going to see automatic operation and Internet interoperability. The network will look like a self-routing mesh rather than a hierarchical tree. You will see concepts that have come out of the Internet and open source software. CW would probably be a very small part or not involved at all. At this point a crucial decision needs to be made. Should NTS be rebuilt to this new vision, be left alone to undoubtedly die, or accept some new ideas and technology?

Ultimately, I doubt the current NTS participants can withstand a rebuild of the network that would make it both modern and attractive to the much-needed new participants to keep it going. Some would outright oppose any changes, especially those who see the primary purpose of NTS as a life support system for traffic nets. That's not the main purpose, however, it's to serve as a messaging system. Its purpose was to pass messages in times of need; "playing radio" was merely a side benefit to radio amateurs.

How do we handle this dichotomy? The only solution I can envision is addressing these two directions as separate movements or initiatives. The current NTS needs to be spun off into an organization of "heritage" traffic nets which exchange traffic for the fun of it. This would address the needs of those who want to continue the CW traffic net tradition. A new NTS, built from the ground up would use digital modes mixed with voice and CW, utilize open source software technology, and interoperate with other networks like the Internet to create a modern NTS that would attract new participants. It would better fit the lifestyles and time constraints of today's participants and it would use technologies that non-amateurs could relate to. If we could combine this with rule changes allowing more options for handling encrypted data, third party traffic, and wideband digital modes in VHF and UHF bands, and develop an easy-entry and inexpensive way to do mesh networking with amateur radio stations in VHF/UHF bands, we would have a traffic system that would be the envy of the world and survive for several decades to come. We just have to get out of the mindset of preserving the classic traffic net and look at the bigger picture....

FCC 47CFR97.113 Interpretations: Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater

Amateur Radio Newsline reported that W0WLS was sent a letter by FCC enforcer Laura Smith after she was forwarded a web posting of W0WLS describing a recent emcomm effort. W0WLS is a hospital employee who participated in an emcomm drill. Smith admonished W0WLS:

"...just so we are clear, Section 97.113 (a)(3) of the Commission's rules specifically states that "no amateur station shall transmit: communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." This means that if you are an employee of the hospital you may not operate the amateur equipment on their behalf even after hours or while you are on a break. The operation of the amateur equipment must be conducted strictly by volunteers."

First, let me give a little disclaimer here. I'm not a big fan of emcomm. I prefer to do other things in amateur radio, but I recognize the fact that many like to do emcomm and it serves the public, which is a Good Thing. Part 97.1(a) states that one of the reasons amateur radio exists is for public service. So I'm not an emcomm "fan boy", but I acknowledge that it is consistent with the spirit and purpose amateur radio. Amateur radio is not emcomm, but emcomm can and should be a part of amateur radio.

Looking at the W0WLS post, the original one of which appears to be deleted but is still available in a quoted response, probably over-embellished the fact that he was getting paid during an emcomm exercise. However, I think this rule interpretation and admonishment by Smith is misguided and detrimental to amateur radio and isn't in the best interest of the public. The 97.113 rule was obviously put in place to prevent businesses from using amateur radio frequencies. W0WLS was a volunteer and it's obvious that his employer did not profit from his participation in a radio drill. This interpretation could have widespread effects in emcomm as basically anyone who is employed by a public agency or any business participating in communications or emcomm cannot legally participate in drills or real emcomm events. The rule interpretation and admonishment is simply a Bad Thing and throws out common sense in favor of legal posturing and government bureaucracy.

Over at AA7BQ's Amateur Radio Wingnut World, the anti-emcomm pitchfork-and-torch crowd is having a ball with this rule interpretation. Most are using this FCC admonishment and rule interpretation to bash all emcomm activities. Surprising, several do not want any emcomm in amateur radio, despite Part 97.1(a). Many cite the "wacker" element in emcomm. We've all seen these people (often showcased over at Hamsexy.com) and often they do give emcomm a bad name, however the vast majority of emcomm participants are not "wackers". The 97.113 interpretation doesn't ban emcomm, but a few fools are dancing in the street believing it does.

There's also much angst over people getting amateur radio licenses just for emcomm purposes. On Wingnut World, posters complain that these people often don't upgrade to General or Extra, and never get on HF. This is just an incredibly ignorant view as these amateurs somehow feel that getting on HF and yelling 59 into a microphone all day or chasing paper is somehow more important and noble, activities that ironically 95% of the non-amateur radio public doesn't care about or understand, including non-hams at the FCC, I might add. I'm not bashing such activities as I enjoy them, but if the FCC ever has to make a decision in the future whether to continue to allow amateur radio to use certain frequencies, it's not going to be contesting, DXing, County Hunters, paper chasing, and "MEDS HR ARE" ragchewing that will justify its continued use. (However, I do think that amateur radio's role and value in emcomm is declining. This isn't a good situation for the future of amateur radio, in my opinion. More to come in a future blog.) I will admit that emcomm volunteers have often done much to damage the reputation of emcomm. The wacker element with vehicles like this, while few and far between, seriously damage real emcomm efforts. Admittedly, many emcomm efforts today are a relic of a time decades ago when the general public didn't have instant wireless communications at their fingertips. But I digress.

The action by Smith quite frankly surprises and troubles me. The Indianapolis Police Department appeared to be treated with kid gloves after they were caught using 2 meter rigs for actual police business. (They didn't even have licenses and they weren't fined!) There are definitely individuals and businesses violating 97.113, and some with bad intent or realizing benefits to their business. W0WLS was not one of them. I think this action was a waste of time and isn't attacking the real rule breakers and it will ultimately have a chilling effect on legitimate emcomm activities as some emcomm participants are also public safety employees. These people often are the sparkplugs in emcomm programs, acting as liaisons between amateurs and public safety organizations.

I've avoided comparisons between Ms. Smith and Riley Hollingsworth up until this point, but I believe Riley would have taken a more pragmatic approach. I think Riley selectively enforced the rules, used creative interpretations, and took action when it may not have been otherwise warranted with literal rule interpretations (i.e. Glenn Baxter). But he went after the bad guys, not those with good intentions who happened to step over the line. We need this kind of enforcement, not literal rule interpretations taken to the Nth degree which don't serve the public good.

There's collateral damage with this recent rule interpretation. Often on Space Shuttle missions or on the Space Station there is at least one astronaut on board who makes amateur radio contacts. The astronauts are on NASA's payroll and NASA certainly wouldn't let them operate amateur radio unless it had some benefit to the mission. At the very least it has a public relations value to NASA. This is pecuniary interest, as defined in 97.113. However, no one in their right mind would argue against NASA missions having amateur radio on board, but I think it's clearly illegal if one uses's Smith's recent rule interpretation.

In conclusion, I expect someone to petition the FCC to create a loophole for public safety employees, as has been done with teachers in regards to 97.113. Expect to see the anti-emcomm element out in full force, filing vitriolic comments on the FCC ECFS site that will embarrass amateur radio and dumbfound those who have a clue. I hope the FCC takes a common sense approach to this and not a legalistic stance and non-pragmatic rule interpretation that effects amateur volunteers who are also public safety employees or are employed in other efforts that may overlap with their amateur emcomm activities.

Can I Make My Own Contest?

There are some days I want to make a bunch of contacts on CW without a long draw out QSO. Casually operating contests is often a good cure for the fast QSO craving, but what does one do when there is no contest going on?

I've wondered what would happen if I just called CQ TEST some night there was no obvious "official" contest going on. Would people actually answer my calls? If someone did I would do a simple 599 and serial number exchange, and presumably they would reply with 599 001 or some serial number. That's easy enough. I would expect the more inquisitive would ask what contest I was in. I would answer MY CONTEST.

So, if you hear me calling CQ TEST or CQ MY TEST some evening, give me call. You can give me a 599 001, or whatever exchange you like. You can participate as well and call CQ MY TEST. It's your contest, too.

MFJ: Often Maligned, But Filling a Crucial Niche in Amateur Radio

MFJ made the news recently with its acquisition of Cushcraft, which appeared to be in a sort of autopilot mode after being acquired by Laird Technologies. MFJ has been slowly building an amateur radio empire with the acquisition of other American amateur equipment brands such as Ameritron, Mirage, Vectronics, and Hy-gain.

MFJ gets a lot of slack from amateurs, with names like Mighty Fine Junk, and sometimes, rightfully so. When popping open their equipment you're either going to see a well manufactured piece of gear, or be horrified at a sloppy solder job that looks like it was done by crackheads eager to get out the door on Friday at 5 PM. MFJ certainly has had quality control issues over the years. However, MFJ's product line is simply amazing. Who knew anyone could offer 50 varieties of antenna tuners? Need an antenna analyzer? They've got 17 different models. Got the CW QRP bug? They have rigs for everything from 80 to 15. If you need it, MFJ probably has it.

Amateur radio operators are cheap. Cheap bastards to be exact (CBs). There's nothing wrong with that, as this is a hobby, but we're often old cheap bastards which is even worse (OCBs). MFJ's prices are quite reasonable, even for OCBs.

We seem to complain about Radio Shack's perceived abandonment of the electronics hobbyist, and often reminisce about long gone days when you could walk down the street to the neighborhood amateur radio shop and pick up a straight key. MFJ, while not a brick-and-mortar store, has to some extent brought back from the dead the neighborhood amateur radio general store, albeit over the Internet. And it's an American store with American products, something even our red-meat-eating Bitter Clinger American citizens should be happy about. Not even the staple of US retail, Walmart, can make that claim.

We should praise MFJ for keeping amateur radio brands alive and offering a plethora of affordable and reasonably-performing equipment. If you buy a piece of gear that's lemon, use the warranty and let them know what they did wrong. But please continue to support this company as what they're doing is good for amateur radio.

FCC Launches Blog

The new FCC administration appears to be heading full speed into the 21st century. First they get a Chairman who has a history of approaching problems in a "data driven" manner and now they have launched a blog, albeit one devoted to broadband, the hot button topic on many peoples minds and perhaps the biggest screw-the-pooch issue past chairmen Kevin Martin and Michael Powell were involved in (besides Broadband over Powerline). For years the FCC had a let-them-eat-cake attitude towards broadband, classifying anemic speeds slightly better than dial-up as broadband, considering an entire ZIP code area covered by broadband if one person in the ZIP code had it, and periodically releasing a broadband customer numbers report that was widely considered as suitable for lining the bottom of bird cages.

Hopefully the FCC will create blogs for other focus areas, such as the Office of Engineering and Technology and amateur radio, though I fear the day when links to these blogs are posted on those two manure farms we have posing as amateur radio forum sites, urging the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal masses to post their drivel for the FCC to read. But kudos to the FCC for launching the blog initiative; I hope it becomes a valuable tool for two way communications between the agency and the public.

Mobile Amateur Radio on Steroids...or Crack?

Check out this pimped-out ham car. I'm trying to determine if this is a joke or the real deal. The installation looks to be permanent, so if it is a joke they sure went to a lot of trouble and expense. I can't figure out how you would use all the radios, or how the vehicle is even drivable.

I hope this is a joke and the non-ham public and local public safety officials don't see this monstrosity.

I'm Officially An OM Now

Friday I turn 40. As Andy Rooney once said, "The only thing worse than having another birthday is not having another birthday".

GET OFF OF MY LAWN!!!

How did I do? :-)

(When do you get OF status? 60?)

73

Goody

K3NG

dit dit

Radio Shack Rebranding as The Shack; Rejects Failure Hut Name Idea

Radio Shack, the once upon a time venerable staple of the amateur and electronics experimenter community is reportedly rebranding itself as "The Shack", not to be confused with the book by William P. Young . Years ago Radio Shacks in Canada were rebranded as The Source, though I've seen blogging netizens up north saying that most still refer to it as Radio Shack.

Radio Shack has somehow managed to survive over the years despite totally missing the boat on the PC revolution, abandoning its roots as a specialty and hobbyist store, and devolving into a quirky "me too" cellphone and consumer electronics store that can't compete well with the likes of Best Buy, Circuit City, Costco, and Walmart, or the fifty other stores in any given town selling cell phones. I thought Radio Shack was on to something good with their website several years ago. They established a rather extensive selection of components, despite decreasing component inventories in stores at the time. For some reason that, too, went by the wayside. But to their defense, they still are the only place in Methville, USA you can pickup a 10k potentiometer at 8PM in the evening to finish that 555 multivibrator project from the Forrest Mims III handbook you've been eagerly building.

Hip names can't fix a broken business model. Radio Shack is simply one of those organizations that needs to reinvent itself from top to bottom, otherwise it's going to continue to slide down the right side of the corporate maturity curve which bottoms out at oblivion.

I still visit the local Radio Shacks once in awhile to get a part and they sometimes have it. A part of me longs for the good old days when they had TRS-80s and lots of analog, TTL, and CMOS parts.

Whether you love or hate the chain, it seems everyone has their own affectionate name for Radio Shack. I call them Radio Shaft; I've heard others call them Rat Shack and Shadio Rack. What name do you use?

Homebrew Lightweight 6 Meter Moxon

Here's a 6 meter (metre for my European friends :-) lightweight Moxon antenna I built.

Part list:

1 - PVC pipe 1-2" in diameter and 12" or so long. Dimension according to your preferences.

4 - 48" fiberglass sticks. I found fiberglass reflective driveway markers at the hardware store for about $3.50 apiece.

12" tubing, cut into four equal length pieces. These go on the ends of the sticks; you'll see in a second.

50 ohm coax - exact type and length your choice; I used RG-58.

1 - PVC pipe about 3" long, maybe 1" in diameter to wrap the coax around for a balun

3 insulators. Use pieces of plastic cut from soda bottles or some small diameter nylon rope.

Stranded Wire. I used some junkbox #22 stranded with insulation.

One of the fiberglass sticks.

Four 3" pieces of tubing are notched.

The notched tubing pieces are placed on the ends of the four fiberglass sticks. These hold the antenna wire in place.

Eight holes are drilled in the PVC. The four fiberglass sticks are inserted into these holes to form an "X". I made my PVC about a foot long so I could place it on top of a mast. There is a set screw towards the bottom to secure it on the mast. If you're not concerned with putting this on a mast and want the antenna as lightweight as possible for backpacking, you can make the PVC about three inches long.

Drilling the holes right was the hardest part of this because I had to do it freehand. If you have a drill press it's a lot easier to drill the holes accurately.

Here's the balun and the center insulator made out of milk jug plastic (and a bit hard to see). The next time I make one of these I'm going to make the balun be the center insulator.

The assembled antenna, top view...

Here's the Moxon on the air for the 2009 CQ WW VHF Contest; I operated as a QRP Hilltopper. I ratchet-strapped a 15' one inch mast to the Jeep spare tire and stacked the Moxon and a Radio Shaft FM broadcast yagi converted to 2 meters.

I used this calculator to figure out the Moxon wire lengths. I haven't taken any real measurements of the antenna pattern, but it does have a discernible front-to-back ratio when you spin it around. It's not a six element yagi, but works amazingly well for a simple antenna.

Have fun and see you on 6!

We Need Intelligent BPL FNPRM Comments

As reported earlier here and numerous other places, the FCC released a Request for Further Comment and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to the US Court of Appeals ruling, pertaining to BPL and the ARRL lawsuit. The FCC Electronic Comment Filing System is open for comments and unfortunately, as with previous BPL comment periods, there are some really questionable and often useless comments being filed. Here's a sample of comments I found today.

"BPL is digital and uses square waves. Square waves are rich in harmonics. We have standards to designed to limit radiation from "incidental radiators", Part 15. So why don't Part 15 standards apply to BPL? "

BPL is digital, but it's modulated on RF. The square waves aren't applied directly to the powerlines. Part 15 rules (not standards) do apply to BPL; there are specific rules in Part 15 that define and regulate BPL. The Part 15 rules were discussed extensively in previous BPL proceedings.

"I understand The Obama administration is pushing BPL and so the FCC wants to follow however whats more important, a fast connection or saving a life? Look, Do you personally understand the problem or are you coached to give an answer which makes the president happy? How am I to save a life if I can't talk 2miles down the road in an emergancy? How can I utilize the bands if they are too noisy? Do you understand ham radio is NOT something in the past?"

The Obama administration is not pushing BPL specifically, but rather broadband in general. BPL is broadband, but all broadband is not BPL (less than 0.01% of US broadband today is BPL). I don't recall Obama saying anything specifically about BPL, but Bush mentioned BPL in a speech in April 2004. I doubt BPL is high on the President's agenda; I think universal healthcare, the economy, and two wars are tops on his list.

"I personally feel it is taking away the rights of CB, Ham, and Shortwave to allow frequencies to not only be used in the FM/VHF/UHF frequency range that CBers currently use, but to allow them to be used on power lines in cities, where they can cause the most interferance with the majority of CBers. Many people may think the CB has died out, because more cars choose to use cell phones, rather than CB's, but if that's the case, why have sales of CBs not died out? 18 Wheelers still buy CBs and hobiest like myself still buy CBs. We enjoy a free method of communication between vehichles and base stations that does not require any fees for air time."

Ummm....CBers don't use FM, VHF, or UHF. Hobiest? Is that the most hobby you can get?

"Concerning the implementation of BPL: while the ARRL has shown that BPL can be notched for amateur radio frequencies (I am a licensed ham - [callsign]), that still does not help the shortwave listener or any other users of the required spectrum. Plus, it is just bad technology. Fiber optic or wireless are much. Yes, even in wide-open country like western Nebraska. Unless the required spectrum can be moved out of the HF bands - say above 60 MHz, it will continue to disrupt the airwaves. A point can be made that the loss of spectrum caused by the high noise levels of BPL denies - or censors - the access to listen outside of the U.S. AM & FM radio bands."

BPL will cause interference in whatever frequency spectrum it is located in, so some licensees will potentially be affected if it is moved above 60 MHz. (This is one of the better comments posted on the ECFS, though it's not very relevant to the FNPRM.)

"BPL has been proven incompatible with business band and amateur radio use. Please to not entertain this ridiculous technology any more."

Actually, BPL has coexisted in places where amateur spectrum has been notched out. If it isn't notched out, it will interfere with whatever licensed services are on the spectrum it is using. I will agree that BPL is ridiculous technology, though this isn't what the FCC is asking for.

"Although I do not have a working grasp of: n = (logE1 – logE2)/(logD2 – logD1) I believe that the time of day of these measurements should be factored in because of the characteristics of HF frequencies before Dawn and after dusk when MuF frequencies may be more adversely effected with the BPL interference because of the effect of F layer. 73, [callsign]"

The FNPRM is soliciting comments on the formula that is used to determine how rapidly BPL emissions deteriorate moving away from the powerline. Ionospheric propagation isn't a factor in this as we're talking about distance of tens to hundreds of feet. Ionospheric propagation of BPL is a concern and was somewhat addressed in the first NTIA BPL study. It was determined that individual BPL units on lines wouldn't be an issue, but when millions of BPL units are deployed worldwide, it could raise the noise floor and affect ionospheric HF communications.

This is just a quick sampling of comments I found today. There are other comments with bad grammar, misspellings, non-sequitor arguments, sentence fragments, and irrelevant information.

The FCC BPL FNPRM is concerned mainly with the 40dB per decade calculation factor, which it seems most of the amateurs filing don't understand or aren't concerned with. The question about whether BPL should exist or not was beaten to death in previous comment filing periods. If you don't have anything to contribute as far as the 40 dB per decade issue, technical issues, or personal experience with BPL interference, you probably shouldn't be posting comments.

People are not helping the cause by filing comments like several of the ones above. At the very least it's a waste of the FCC's time and drowns out other more relevant and pertinent comments. At worst some make amateur radio look like a bunch of fools to the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology.

If you're going to file comments, keep the following in mind:

• Be factual
• Use proper grammar (Proofread!!!)
• FCC officials reading these comments are likely unfamiliar with amateur radio jargon, equipment, and culture
• Get to the point
• Don't comment on nonsense stuff like conspiracy theories, politics, or theories on corruption or revenues from BPL
• Backup claims with math or measurements, or cite reputable sources where applicable
• Respond to what the FNPRM is asking for

When it comes to FCC filings and comments, we need to act like professionals, not amateurs.

Non-US Radio Amateurs: Does Universal Healthcare Work in Your Nation?

I don't like to mix politics and amateur radio, but I'd call this more an "online QSO" with any DX friends who regularly read my blog (DX would include VE land and South America). Here in the US there's a heated debate going on over whether we should implement universal healthcare. I know many nations have this today, and the US is one of the few industrialized nations that doesn't.

It's difficult to get unbiased, non-politicized information about how good or bad univeral healthcare works in other countries. We often hear the horror stories about universal healthcare in other countries, but I doubt it's the disaster that it's made out to be. I doubt it will be perfect, either.

DX amateurs, could you tell us how universal healthcare works in your country? 73

Want To Make a Change?

Last night I started working on a blog post following up on QRZ.com. It was an angry blog post, one of the most scathing ones I've ever written; I think there were flames shooting from my fingertips while I typed. The basic gist of it was that nothing has really changed there since the troll clampdown that was announced nearly three months ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was the article on Walter Cronkite's passing. Several amateurs attacked Cronkite's perceived political orientation. A QRZ.com moderator mentioned Cronkite was just a novice and called him a "two-bit ham". The discussion got uglier and uglier with each post. Rather than shutting down the article comments or deleting the tasteless postings, the entire article was moved to the QRZ hell fire pit known as the political forums, where Cronkite could be further skewered more freely, but out of the sight of the front page. It was disgraceful and disrespectful to this great man who happened to be a radio amateur.

Another recent outrageous action on the site shocked me and leaves me wondering if the management and moderators of the site give a damn. In an article regarding the spectrum inventory legislation, someone stated (paraphrased) that the President should be "taken out" like a particular prominent black civil rights leader in history was, and added a racial slur at the end to boot. The post text was deleted and the reason for the deletion was listed as "warning". Looking at the posting history of this scumbag, it was clear they had a history of trolling previous to this incident and shouldn't be there in the first place. I find it sickening that this deplorable excuse for a human wasn't banned for life from the site for a racist statement condoning the assassination of the President.

I'm tired of being angry about QRZ.com and Eham.net. They are both a disgrace, an embarrassment and an abomination to our great hobby. They have undoubtedly turned away potential new members to amateur radio. They are a liability to amateur radio.

But I've often said that it's easy to complain about something; it takes real effort to actually do something about it. So today I'm doing something. I want to launch a community created, moderated, and maintained amateur radio portal. I'm not talking about a cookie-cutter forum site run by one person with copy-and-paste ARRL news with the obligatory run-of-the-mill topic discussion areas. I want to form a group of amateurs who have a positive amateur radio online presence or have some notable accomplishment and have a common vision of a quality site that will live on well beyond any of the founding members. This group will determine from the ground up the framework of this site - everything from the name, to the mission statement, to the intended content, to all the technical aspects. It will be a community effort where each member can give as little or as much as they like.

If you think you're up to the challenge and feel as strongly as I do that we need a new positive amateur radio Internet news and portal site that showcases the wonderful history, brotherhood, and spirit of amateur radio, and you want to do something about it, please contact me at anthony dot good at gmail dot com.

The BPL Saga, Part 15.... Literally.

Today the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Part 15 and BPL. This is in response to ARRL vs. FCC, where the FCC was basically told to go back and justify its 40 dB per decade field measurement standard and revisit the infamous Part 15.611(c)(1)(iii) rule in which the FCC will look the other way when receiving complaints of interference to mobile operations if the BPL operator has already notched emissions by 20 dB. The public was not given the opportunity to comment on this rule before it was put in place.

In the court decision the FCC was also taken to task for its redaction of staff studies. The FCC said that it had not considered the redacted information in its decisions, and the ARRL fought this as it was just as relevant to know what information and findings the FCC was ignoring when reaching conclusions. After the ARRL got the unredacted documents released under a Freedom of Information Act request, one of the key redactions was a finding from an FCC staffer that BPL emissions were indeed not point-source in nature, but power lines tended to radiate the BPL signal for some distance, a point that ARRL and several others had argued.

The 28 page NPRM can be summarized in a few sentences. The FCC believes that the 40 dB per decade rule is correct due to the NTIA Phase Two BPL study and a study that was done in Brazil. It considers the ARRL's measurements as empirical evidence not containing enough data points to justify the 20dB per decade standard they had lobbied for. They also tore apart the OFCOM BPL studies from England which leaned towards a 20dB per decade finding, siting variations in the results and tests done on European wiring rather than American. The FCC admits that the exact factor will vary from installation to installation, and it really wants to keep the 40dB factor, but they are willing to compromise and do 30dB, but are looking for comments.

I Love the Smell of Ones and Zeros

ARRL announced today that they will be adding PSK31 and MFSK16 transmissions to their daily broadcasts. AMTOR and ASCII transmissions will be discontiniued. I had inquired about PSK transmissions a few times and was wondering when ARRL would get with the times. I'm pleased to see ARRL has finally done this.

While we're on the topic of data, I discovered this system / software suite called NBEMS or Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System. It looks to be using PSK and the ARQ protocol, and the fldigi and flarq software which is also used by the PSKmail system. I've been hoping for some open alternative to Winlink and I question whether PSKmail will ever be ready for prime time. NBEMS is a point-to-point system operated by live humans, which hopefully avoids the issues Winlink PACTOR transmissions have had with stepping on QSOs. I have to try NBEMS out.

Google Chrome OS: Windows Killer or Yet Another Linux Distribution?

Today Google announced they will be releasing an operating system (OS). It will debut on netbooks next year and to no surprise it will be Linux based and open source. Many of us saw this coming a mile away. Google offers the handheld device OS called Android. Their Chrome web browser plays well with their Google Apps; it was a matter of time before they tried to make the browser the operating system. Furthermore, it's probably one of the last frontiers Google can conquer, besides perhaps becoming a wireless carrier (which they've teased us with but clearly aren't going to do) or manufacturing automobiles.

Initially I was quite excited by the announcement. I've become increasingly frustrated with Windows over the years. But I was disappointed when I noticed one feature that is missing from Google's announcement: Windows application compatibility. Considering the Chrome OS is Linux based, this could be accommodated with the Windows emulator, Wine. However Wine development has moved at glacial speeds over the years , its development leadership has been outright strange and alienating, and in my opinion it's still not ready for prime time. Google would likely have to create a new version of Wine (also known as a code fork) and make Wine work with more applications and without a bunch of fuss. Basically it needs to be a seamless part of the OS.

But back to the topic of Windows application compatibility. This is probably one of the biggest features that will be needed to compete with Windows. People run applications that just don't have open source equivalents and certainly can't be recreated as web apps, whether it's Google or God doing the coding. There seems to be this prevailing attitude or belief that Google with offer all the applications, magical web applications. While Google has made neat applications like Google Earth, Sketchup, and Docs (spreadsheet application and word processor), they're really toys when you get down to it. Google Earth is fun to play with, but it's missing many crucial features needed in a real Geographical Information System (GIS). Sketchup makes nice 3D models, but it's not an AutoCAD replacement. Google's spreadsheet application and word processor is great for creating simple documents, but your CFO isn't going to create the company's annual report numbers using Google's spreadsheet application. People just aren't going to drop mature, feature rich, and custom native Windows applications to use water-downed forever-in-beta cloud web applications just to support a free and open operating system. If this was the case, we still wouldn't be asking when Linux on the desktop will become commonplace and ubiquitous....after a decade of trying. (I've tried several times to go 100% Linux at home and just couldn't do it.)

I think if Google doesn't include robust and easy-to-use Windows application compatibility, the Google Chrome OS will be yet another Linux distribution or a simple operating system that is suitable for just browsing the web, checking email, and doing lightweight word processing; essentially an Android operating system on steroids. It won't be used for business and only the most casual non-business computer users or existing Linux users will use it. This is disappointing because I think now is the best time to challenge Windows dominance and users are clamoring for a simpler OS that they don't have to fight to get things done. Unfortunately I don't think Google understands that people want to get things done, and not just be part of a free OS and cloud computing beta software experiment.

Perhaps the amateur radio cloud-computing logging application as a service idea that has been dicussed recently in blogademia will be the ticket for this new OS. More on that in (hopefully) my next blog entry....

The Multi-Band Radio Project

Here's an article talking about the Department of Homeland Security's Multi-Band Radio project. This initiative is creating a software defined radio that will enable multiple agencies to communicate with each other over various existing VHF and UHF bands. The price target is a whopping $4K to $6K per radio. Thales Communications, Inc. won the contract to create the first demonstration radios.

The concept seems reasonable, but the price tag seems a bit steep. Software defined radio technology is leading edge, but certainly not bleeding edge. While several modulations and digital standards will need to be handled, this complexity will undoubtedly be handled in software. I would think the radios could be mass produced much cheaper than $4K per radio, though I've been spoiled by the pricing we've enjoyed as amateurs over the years. I wonder if Thales will have to buy chips for AMBE, IMBE, and other proprietary protocols or if they'll be able to procure licenses for software implementations.

It would be nice to get one of these radios and hack it for the ham bands. Even better, it would be cool to hack a multi-band VHF/UHF amateur radio and make it meet the requirements of the Multi-Band project and sell it for $4K to $6K :-)

The Legality of the D-STAR AMBE Vocoder on US Amateur Frequencies and Its Implications

First, let's get this out of the way: I'm not a fan of the AMBE vocoder being used in the otherwise open D-STAR protocol. I've enumerated the issues of a closed, proprietary protocol in previous blog entry and won't rehash them here. In the past few days I got into an online debate about the D-STAR vocoder. (Yes, I'm a glutton for online punishment, and I get sucked into long debates.) I was giving more though to D-STAR and the proprietary vocoder. While D-STAR can and often does transport voice, over the air the modulation is digital (GMSK, QPSK, or 4FSK at a maximum of 4.8 kbs according to the spec). The D-STAR protocol itself is fully documented and open, but when you get to where the AMBE-encoded digital voice sample fits, it shows where the bytes go but nothing about the AMBE encoding itself. The digital AMBE protocol is proprietary and as far as I understand, you can't decode it off the air unless you have the proprietary chip from the company who delevoped AMBE called Digital Voice Systems, Inc. or DVSI. This chip can be in an Icom rig, the DV-Dongle, or a homebrew rig using the proprietary chip.

Per the DVSI End User License Agreement in page 3 of the AMBE-2020 manual, it is illegal to reverse engineer the protocol and create a compatible vocoder if you own a chip:

"2.3 END USER shall not copy, extract, reverse engineer, disassemble, de-compile or otherwise reduce the DVSI Voice Compression Software to human-readable form. END USER shall not alter, duplicate, make copies of, create derivative works from, distribute, disclose, provide or otherwise make available to others, the DVSI Voice Compression Software and Technology and/or trade secrets contained within the PRODUCT in any form to any third party without the prior written consent of DVSI. The END USER shall implement reasonable security measures to protect such trade secrets."

I believe the AMBE technology is patented so it would be illegal to create a compatible vocoder even if one doesn't own an AMBE chip. From a technical standpoint I think it would be nearly impossible to reverse-engineer the protocol strictly by looking at just an off-the-air AMBE data stream extracted from D-STAR packets.

FCC Part 97 says this in regards to data emissions:

§97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.

(a) Where authorized by §97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified digital codes:

(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as "Baudot").

(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 (commonly known as "AMTOR").

(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as "ASCII").

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.

What constitutes proper public documentation of technical characteristics is up for interpretation. I would consider it something that is sufficient to demodulate the signal that is transmitted over the air. I think the spirit of this paragraph is to prevent potentially illegal content from being transmitted in a concealed manner on amateur frequencies, such as business communications.

If you don't know the digital code being transmitted, the transmission is essentially encrypted. I think this makes AMBE in its current state illegal on amateur frequencies according to §97.309 (a)(4). The AMBE protocol is simply not publicly documented to a level that allows demodulation. If the FCC interprets this differently and does consider the level of documentation on AMBE sufficient to satisfy the language §97.309 (a)(4), they are essentially in a Catch-22 situation allowing encrypted data transmissions.

I'm curious what others think about this. Again, I don't have anything against D-STAR, DVSI, or the AMBE technology itself, but I don't believe that the use of the technology on amateur radio frequencies is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If it is in accordance, it gives de facto authorization to encrypted data transmissions, something which has been taboo from day one.

Where Your Sunspots Went

NASA has figured out why the sunspot cycle has been moving at glacial speeds. No Maunder Minimum, so don't sell those HF rigs yet....