N2EY wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...

"Brian Kelly" wrote


So BPL at this point is *all* a
political and legal problem.

If that's true, then the money we've spent on lobbying by Hainie,
Sumner, and Imlay has been wasted, and any more spent would be further
waste. Here, from the FCC R&O, is what that money bought us:

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio
frequencies warrant the special protection afforded
frequencies reserved for international aeronautical
and maritime safety operations. While we
recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist
in providing emergency communications," it described
typical amateur operations as "routine communications
and hobby activities."


That's because:

1) If an international safety frequency was interfered with, there'd
be some pretty knotty legal situations.

2) Most amateur radio communications *is* routine. Always been that
way.

3) Amateur communications cannot, be law, be commercial. They are also
not the first choice for emergency communications if other means are
available (because of the non-secure nature of amateur radio
communications).

The current batch of politician/regulators thinks BPL is needed enough
that it's worth polluting the RF spectrum to get it. That's a
political issue, not a scientific one, because the science and
experience have already shown what experience results. And it goes
right to the top.

What sort of communications goes over the BPL systems? Wanna bet most
of it is "routine communications and hobby activities"?

Right! Porn surfers need that access!

Face it, Brian, we've been marginalized, and for years the FCC has been
trying to get our attention. Way back in June of 2000 FCC'er Dale N.
Hatfield (W0IFO) Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology made these
comments in a speech to AMRAD:

"I would urge you to continue shifting towards more
spectrally efficient communications techniques - especially
digital techniques."

Whoaaa there! We need the names and specs of those more spectrally
efficient digital techniques!

Why aren't hams using them?

Are they stupid?

Are they technologically retarded?

OK, hold it right there.

What, exactly, does that mean to Joe Average Hamm?

Does it mean no more AM voice on HF, because it takes up so much
spectrum?

How about FM on VHF/UHF?

Is Baudot RTTY still OK, or should PSK-31 be the standard?

Is this what the push for WINLINK is all about? Perhaps we should
automate HF completely.

Heck, why don't we just do everything via Echolink? That's the
internet. That's high-tech and thoroughly modern.

"Such a shift has a number of benefits:

"- First of all, it demonstrates to POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS
that you are good stewards of the public's airwaves even without
direct economic incentives.


How do they know unless the monitor the bands?

Snort! First they'll have to be told that Ham radio exists!


"- Second, by using what you have efficiently, it strengthens
your case when you need to ask for additional spectrum.


So if we use less spectrum, we get more?

New speak, I guess?


"- Third, by allowing more users to access the available
allocations simultaneously, it improves the amateur experience and
ultimately increases the attractiveness of the service to new and
old users alike."


Yet there are petitions out there to widen the subbands intended for
spectrally inefficient modes at the expense of spectrally efficient
ones.

I almost didn't become a ham, because I found out about feld-hell! I
mean *really*, just how unattractive a mode can you get?


But seriously folk, this whole "They just don't get it!" jeremiad, is
just that - a jeremiad.

Yapping at us about not using newfangled digital techniques without
naming what those modes might be is not a way to lend credence to the
lecturer.

Later on in this post, I'll do something like that.

I recall some years back when a certain poster here was haranging us
about "better modes and modulations" and how we should be using DSSS
on HF. He was/is Executive Director of a lobbying group called "No
Code International" IIRC.

He gave us the essentially the same speech over and over. He also
spoke out forcefully against "wallpaper hunting" and "electronic
paintball wars" (his terms for award-seeking and contesting). Then
restructuring came, and he eventually got his Extra. Last I heard, his
major ham activity was chasing HF DX - on SSB. With a manufactured
transceiver.

I believe that he is a great guy. I'll also believe he changes his mind
a lot, even when he says he never will.

He did some really great work on BPL - work which may have had some
effect, but not as much as we'd like.

Remember this, too: The BPL folks wanted the Part 15 limits *raised*,
and also wanted *protection from interference*. They didn't get
either.

Then a couple of weeks later FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH, made some
chillingly similar comments in a public speech.

"Take nothing for granted. Bill Gates can't, and you can't either."


In what context was he speaking?

"You're at a crossroads now. An old Chinese philosopher (or my
grandmother--I can never remember which!) said, "Be careful what
you wish for. You may get it." Seize the moment, and make this
your finest hour. Ham radio has been at a crossroads before and
has thrived. Continue that tradition."

What's with the Chinese philosopher does the Battle of Britain stuff?
Our finest hour might be our last.


So which way do we go, Hans?

Turn left at Orion?

"Make sure that, on your watch, Amateur Radio never becomes
obsolete."


OK, fine - how do we do that? Who defines "obsolete"?

I will.

All modes in use more than ten years ago shall be outlawed.
All modes shall be digital, as that is high-tech.
In order to avoid future obsolescence, no mode shall be allowed to be in
use more than ten years.

To encourage compliance, and to allow for manufacturers to continue to
make high quality equipment available, all equipment shall be destroyed
at the end of it's allotted life, and all new digital modes shall be
proprietary to the manufacturers.


From those two FCC speeches, it ought to be clear to all of us that
Amateur Radio does *not* have a "free pass" to spectrum, not will our
current allocations be "protected" when other applications come looking
for a place to operate.


Of course! It's *always* been that way - which is why we need a strong
national organization like ARRL.

And the fact is that we can't expect to win every battle, no matter
what happens.

The handwriting is on the wall --- the FCC isn't much interested in what
we used to do, but is intensely watching our current stewardship of the
resources that are so highly coveted by other services. Regretably I
think we've been found, in Riley's words, "obsolete", and financing a
rearguard legal and political maneuvering by Haynie and Imlay is pretty
much ****ing money down a rathole.


Then what do we do, Hans?

This weekend is CW SS. I plan to get on the air, probably with my
homebrew 100 W transceiver and inverted V, and try to make as many
QSOs as possible. Because I think it's fun to do so.

Is that OK? Am I being a good steward of the resources by domestic
contesting on CW? Heck, I'll bet 99% of the amateurs I work this
weekend could have been reached by email in a fraction of the time and
with no use of the radio spectrum at all - so is SS "obsolete"?

Remember that the Internet is High tech and should always be used in
preference to radio modes, which are old and stodgy.

Why don't hams get that through their head? We could move the CW SS to
the internet. A clever programmer could write propagation conditions for
each faux band, and random propagation conditions for the contest. Noise
and QRM (QRpR for programmed interference?) There ya go! A Contest that
uses absolutely no HF bandwidth, and is done via the web, therefore is
modern and Hi-tech. Heck, the smart ham should be able to auto send and
receive and auto log to boot. This would allow him or her to do
something else, while the computer does the contest.

Is it OK for me to homebrew rigs the way I do? Or must it be
electropolitically correct, using only SMT and the latest goodies in
the Digi-Key catalog?

Live in the now, Jim!

This whole discussion sounds like I'm being told what I should enjoy
and what I shouldn't.

Jeremiads often work that way.

That hams might be exhorted to try new technologies is in itself not a
bad thing. To threaten them is quite another. To make *weird* arguments
such as using less bandwidth can get you more spectrum is positively
nonsensical, aside from being an argument against AM or WBFM!

So here we are. Considering that most of us here are RF type people,
this means that digital equipment will most likely be in the form of add
ons to existing equipment, unless we follow my draconian suggestion from
a few paragraphs back.

And most of what I've seen leaves a lot to be desired. One I was
reading about recently sounded promising, until I found out that you
have to be on the same frequency as the other station when they start
transmitting, elswise you won't be able to pick up the signal. Nothing,
not gibberish, or noise or anything. Channelized HF for us, folks? Maybe
all comms by Sked?

Other thoughts are that many digital voice modes take up as much or
more space than a properly modulated SSB signal. What's with that?

So we need to look at a successful digital mode. Probably the best one
to use is PSK31. Low BW usage, works pretty well, as long as monster
high power and BW grabbing other signals don't open up right next door.

PSK31 can be performed by any amateur with a rig, computer, sound card
and interface.

The parts for the interface can be assembled for a few dollars, or
purchased for not a whole lot of money.

Software can be free.

There are others out there to type to. Very important, yaknow.

So I made my interface, plugged it in, and was having QSO's in short
order. That's a successful mode.

Probably more successful than a relatively expensive box that plug into
your computer between mic and rig, and requires the guy or gal on the
other end to know your frequency and when you are going to start
transmitting.

We have (most of us) a digital processing box sitting on our desks
right now. A lot of us already have it hooked to the rig.

Here's a potential voice mode that utilizes psk31:

Voice recognition software that you speak into a mic. the output is
modulated using psk31, and after received on the other end, is text to
speached by the other computer. Probably would take two sound cards, and
would be slow, but that is probably as little BW as voice could take.

So there. I have offered my opinion, and a possible mode, not just a
general jeremiad on how Hams need to keep up.

There was a classic original "Twilight Zone" episode starring Burgess
Meredith and Dennis Weaver. Called "The Obsolete Man", about a future
society in which books had been declared "obsolete". A librarian
(Meredith) is declared "obsolete" because he has preserved some books
and actually reads them - an activity declared to be wasteful of
resources by The State. So he is eliminated.

Am I "obsolete" because of what I like to do, and what I believe in?

Report for decommissioning, Jim! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -