Quoting from an ARRL news release

... On Saturday, May 17 at the Dayton Hamvention, ARRL President
... Joel Harrison, W5NZ, plans to announce that the League will expand
... its identity program to include greater emphasis on technology.
... Harrison explained that "Ham radio operators, and particularly
... ARRL members, closely identify with current and emerging radio
... technology. Today, we are naming 'technology' as ARRL's new
... fifth pillar."

If ARRL will put enough weight into this idea that it can gain traction, I feel
this may be the key to a renewed health for our hobby.

What can we do to help?
--
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Homepage:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
Member:
ARRL http://www.arrl.org
SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc
VWOA http://www.vwoa.org
A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/
TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org
MWA http://www.w0aa.org
TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org
FISTS http://www.fists.org
LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm

KØHB wrote:
Quoting from an ARRL news release

.. On Saturday, May 17 at the Dayton Hamvention, ARRL President
.. Joel Harrison, W5NZ, plans to announce that the League will expand
.. its identity program to include greater emphasis on technology.
.. Harrison explained that "Ham radio operators, and particularly
.. ARRL members, closely identify with current and emerging radio
.. technology. Today, we are naming 'technology' as ARRL's new
.. fifth pillar."

If ARRL will put enough weight into this idea that it can gain traction, I feel
this may be the key to a renewed health for our hobby.

I think this is a good idea. I'm not so sure that Amateur Radio is
unhealthy though.


What can we do to help?


I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just
technology for it's own sake.

Good technology:

Getting more people on narrow digital modes.

I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that
can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT,
and the cost of charging batteries.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is
still being produced

As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty
interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable
that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price
point is advised.

Keep on moving with the computer enhanced stuff.


Technology that is so-so.

I've seen a lot about the new Digital voice and data modes such as
D-Star. Lots of investment needed there, and although the transmission
of data is kinda cool, I have concerns about multipath. Isn't as much of
a problem for old school FM. Also while I like the idea of sending data,
I think that digital voice is kind of underwhelming, unless we
subscribe to the view that "it's digital - It's better".

D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing
repeaters, and maybe some initial users getting some help. Otherwise
people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater)
might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On May 19, 7:13 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just
technology for it's own sake.


"Relevant" is a moving target, Mike. I think we should encourage technology
"just for it's own sake".

Some percentage (invariably a LARGE percentage) mosly likely will end up no more
than a technical curiousity (for the moment, anyhow). But if ARRL can light a
technological campfire for us to gather round, even small percentages of PBI's
maturing will justify the effort.

Good technology:

Getting more people on narrow digital modes.

I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that
can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT,
and the cost of charging batteries.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is
still being produced


None of that is new technology, Mike, just "more of the same old stuff in a
different sack". "Texting" and "cameras in an HT" are mass marketed by the
millions and already owned by every bubble-gummer in the country who has access
to a cheap cell phone!

As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty
interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable
that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price
point is advised.

Hopefully this new "pillar" isn't about hints to manufacturers defining
their product offerings, but about fostering an amateur radio environment which
breeds a spirit of experimentation and tinkering among amateur licensees.

I want to see more pages of ham-authored articles in QEX, not more commercial
advertising in QST.

Hopefully this new "pillar" is about petitions to FCC to loosen up our spectrum
to new modes and techniques. Back when ARRL/FCC were haggling about how to
refarm the so-called "Novice bands", I suggested that they be set up as
experimental reservations where forward looking amateurs would be encouraged to
try new or unconventional technologies. Instead, FCC copped out and just
shuffled some mode-boundaries around.

What an opportunity lost!

Perhaps it's time to send a new copy of my remarks to FCC. See below.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554


In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10413
Amateur Service Rules Governing )
Operating Privileges )
)


PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB


OVERVIEW


These comments are in response to the ARRL proposal for "refarming"
the existing HF "Novice sub-bands".


I. Discussion:


The ARRL petition does not address the implementation of
new technologies as repeatedly requested by the Commission in
WT Docket 98-143. It simply proposes to eliminate the Novice
segments and reshuffle that spectrum among existing legacy
modes. Rather than gain consensus, the ARRL polling method
produced a popularity poll among several non-responsive (to
98-143) choices.


Rather than just "more of the same old stuff", I propose
that the Commission take this opportunity to provide the
Amateur Radio service with a new incentive to concentrate
on paragraph 97.1(b) of the Commission's Rules.


97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the
radio art.


While I agree that the declining Novice license population
no longer justifies several significant chunks of spectrum
as a "reservation" for improving their Morse skills, and that
these "reservations" have outlived their regulatory purpose,
I propose that we retain these 50-year old "reservations" and
convert them to a new purpose which will ensure the future
Amateur Radio service continues our "proven ability to
contribute to the advancement".


II Proposal:


A. To "de-populate" the current Novice segments, I propose
that all Novice (and Technician with code credit) licensees
be authorized to use Morse code in the same band segments
now authorized for General class licensees.


B. I propose that the current Novice sub-bands be set aside
as a new "Experimental Reservation" for non-traditional
and experimental modes such as digitized voice, digitized
image, and other "forward looking" communications methods.


C. I propose that the current power output level of 200W
be retained for those segments, and additionally propose
that transmitters in those segments must be equipped with
auto-adaptive circuitry to reduce output to the lowest
level consistent with reliable communications.


D. I recommend that the Commission grant broad discretion
to amateurs operating in this "experimental reservation"
as to innovative modulation schemes and non-traditional
technologies.


Respectfully,

H. Hans Brakob, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
On May 19, 7:13 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just
technology for it's own sake.


"Relevant" is a moving target, Mike. I think we should encourage technology
"just for it's own sake".

Keeping in mind that some technology is a dead end.



Some percentage (invariably a LARGE percentage) mosly likely will end up no more
than a technical curiousity (for the moment, anyhow). But if ARRL can light a
technological campfire for us to gather round, even small percentages of PBI's
maturing will justify the effort.

Good technology:

Getting more people on narrow digital modes.

I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that
can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT,
and the cost of charging batteries.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is
still being produced


None of that is new technology, Mike, just "more of the same old stuff in a
different sack". "Texting" and "cameras in an HT" are mass marketed by the
millions and already owned by every bubble-gummer in the country who has access
to a cheap cell phone!

So much of what we use is not terribly new. Certainly SSB was around a
long time before Amateurs adopted it in large numbers. Technology is not
just about what is cutting edge, but is often about can be done
efficiently and at a good cost. While PSK has been around for a while,
availability of computers/soundcards/software to allow Hams to
experiment with it was critical to having many adopt it.


As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty
interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable
that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price
point is advised.

Hopefully this new "pillar" isn't about hints to manufacturers defining
their product offerings, but about fostering an amateur radio environment which
breeds a spirit of experimentation and tinkering among amateur licensees.

I want to see more pages of ham-authored articles in QEX, not more commercial
advertising in QST.

The RF world is fairly mature at this point. (please no comparisons to
that physicist who said "everything is known") The earth shaking
developments tend to come a little further apart these days. I would
guess that most new innovations will be incremental, though it would be
cool to be proven incorrect on that.

I just don't know how many fundamental breakthroughs will be made by
some Ham working in his or her garage.

More to the point in my mature technology outlook is that when something
gets to that point, much of the research and innovation needs a fair
amount of money put into it to get very far.

Hopefully this new "pillar" is about petitions to FCC to loosen up our spectrum
to new modes and techniques. Back when ARRL/FCC were haggling about how to
refarm the so-called "Novice bands", I suggested that they be set up as
experimental reservations where forward looking amateurs would be encouraged to
try new or unconventional technologies. Instead, FCC copped out and just
shuffled some mode-boundaries around.

I wouldn't argue about your idea. I think it is pretty sensible. There
would probably be a lot of hand wringing about it by some folk, I suspect.


- 73 d eMike N3LI -

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
I still want a PSK31 HT.

My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and
well-defined. A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms
TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at
PSK31. Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters? Who is going to develop
the technology to determine that a PSK31 signal that is 100Hz off the correct
frequency should be digipeated while one that is 50Hz off should not? (1kHz
error in an FM HT is common. 1kHz error in PSK31 is a completely different
QSO.)

Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is
still being produced

Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud?

As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty
interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable
that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price
point is advised.

Volume means low price. High price means no volume. Yeah, a $100 SDR HT
would be great. It also has more than $100 of parts in it. That $0.10 diode
detector is replaced by a $30 DSP chip.

I've seen a lot about the new Digital voice and data modes such as
D-Star. Lots of investment needed there, and although the transmission
of data is kinda cool, I have concerns about multipath.

But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31
texting, good?

D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing
repeaters,

Sorry, but at $10,000 starting, our emergency group isn't going to be
buying one. The fact we have no open repeater space, and the cost of a
D-STAR radio, makes it certain that D-STAR is a non-starter here.

people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater)
might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends.

I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me,
one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks".

Mark Kramer wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
I still want a PSK31 HT.

My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and
well-defined.

APRS texting isn't terribly convenient, and you have to put up with the
rest of the squacking to get it.


A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms
TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at
PSK31.

I'm not talking about sending data, or long messages, just ones similar
to what is sent in cell phone text messages.

This is about getting people interested and using Ham radio. It isn't
necessarily about getting something that you or even I would buy.
Younger folks, high school kids, would likely buy into something like that.

Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters?

What I envision would be likely simplex. Although a repeater could come
into the picture somewhere, it wouldn't need to be a digipeater.


Who is going to develop
the technology to determine that a PSK31 signal that is 100Hz off the correct
frequency should be digipeated while one that is 50Hz off should not? (1kHz
error in an FM HT is common. 1kHz error in PSK31 is a completely different
QSO.)

These are all pretty minor technical problems. I imagine that a person
might be able to differentiate between signals in an old school manner,
by tuning them in.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is
still being produced

Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud?

I've sent SSTV images in a fairly short time. They aren't large images,
but along with the texting I speak of, make a fun little gadget for
people to play with. Might even be of some emergency use.

I have to say that I probably would never buy such a device. That
doesn't make it a dumb idea though. If there was one thing I would like
to counsel Hams on , it is the idea that whatever you or I are into at
the moment is not what everyone is into, and it shouldn't be either.
Some modes such as IRLP or Echolink, I don't even consider "radio", but
hey, a lot of people like them a lot, so I won't argue.



As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty
interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable
that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price
point is advised.

Volume means low price. High price means no volume. Yeah, a $100 SDR HT
would be great. It also has more than $100 of parts in it. That $0.10 diode
detector is replaced by a $30 DSP chip.

I've seen a lot about the new Digital voice and data modes such as
D-Star. Lots of investment needed there, and although the transmission
of data is kinda cool, I have concerns about multipath.

But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31
texting, good?

I don't declare D-Star Texting "bad", but I do declare the PSK31
texting pretty darn good. PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is
pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is
quite proprietary. Wanna use D-Star? Get out the plastic and go
without something else for a couple years.


D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing
repeaters,

Sorry, but at $10,000 starting, our emergency group isn't going to be
buying one. The fact we have no open repeater space, and the cost of a
D-STAR radio, makes it certain that D-STAR is a non-starter here.

I think that what would be needed is for local governments to do the
actual purchasing, then hand it over to the Hams. The Hams are going to
have to have regular access to the D-Star repeater, or else they won't
buy-in.

My honest opinion however is that this is one of those technology
solutions that just add too much technology to the mix. One of the big
complaints from emergency responders is that they can't talk to each
other. This is due to the introduction of too much structure upon the
system. With D Star, we do the same thing with Hams.


people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater)
might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends.

I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me,
one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks".

Yup. And the big problem as far as Amateurs go is that they can't get
into the system. Whereas you or I can build a CW, SSB, FM, or PSK31
radio for most any application we'd like, we can't do that with D-Star.
So unless those prices come waaaay down, D-Star is going to be a very
low volume mode, probably used only by emergency groups. Of course if
that is the case, they shouldn't be operating it on the Amateur bands,
because they can get more use out of it on their own frequencies, which
won't have Amateur reestrictions.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
I still want a PSK31 HT.

My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and
well-defined.

APRS texting isn't terribly convenient,

That's a user-interface issue, not a technology issue. I could write software
tomorrow that hooks my D700 up and sends APRS text as easily as email, if
someone hasn't already. I've seen aftermarket keyboards for the D700 to do
this.

and you have to put up with the rest of the squacking to get it.

I have no idea what you mean by this. You aren't going to listen to
the PSK31 audio any more than you have to listen to the APRS audio when
using it.

A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms
TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at
PSK31.

I'm not talking about sending data, or long messages, just ones similar
to what is sent in cell phone text messages.

"Cell phone text messages" are "data". Two seconds of 1200 baud packet can
send more "cell phone text" than more than 50 seconds of PSK31. If people had
to wait a minute for their SMS text messages to be sent instead of the few
seconds it does, they'd be less likely to use it.

This is about getting people interested and using Ham radio.

We HAVE the technology in place that is better than that proposed as the
salvation of amateur radio. No, a PSK31 HT isn't going to do anything
to support the hobby or bring new people in that APRS HTs haven't
already done. A PSK31 HT is an interesting concept; difficult product.

It isn't
necessarily about getting something that you or even I would buy.

If nobody buys it, then it won't ever be cheap. If WE, the existing
amateur base doesn't support it, it ain't gonna happen. Voice HTs work
because there is an existing repeater infrastructure. APRS HTs work only
because there is an existing APRS network infrastructure. If there is no
VHF PSK31 infrastructure, it isn't going to be used.

Younger folks, high school kids, would likely buy into something like that.

No "younger folks" are going to buy a new technology where there is no
infrastructure to support them.

Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters?

What I envision would be likely simplex.

The range of a PSK31 HT would be very short. FRS distances, at best. It
would be extremely sensitive to antenna orientation. You couldn't load
a message and then put the HT back on your belt while it takes a minute
to send. Who is going to pay several hundred dollars for an HT that can
only communicate three blocks in a city?

Although a repeater could come
into the picture somewhere, it wouldn't need to be a digipeater.

PSK31 is a DIGITAL mode. Repeaters for digital data are ofen called
digipeaters. WHO is going to install these repeaters? You can't use
the existing ones -- PSK31 is narrowband FSK, existing repeaters are
relatively wideband FM. If you are going to use an entire FM voice channel
bandwidth, you might as well use standard 1200 baud packet and APRS.
Existing technology. Where are all the youngsters using APRS messaging?
Why do you believe they would flock to a slower, shorter range system?

These are all pretty minor technical problems. I imagine that a person
might be able to differentiate between signals in an old school manner,
by tuning them in.

A PERSON might be able to, but a DIGIPEATER is not a person. And these
YOUNG PEOPLE you want to lure into the hobby with a PSK31 HT aren't going
to want to have to tune around hoping to be on the right frequency when
their friends send them messages. It's got to be channelized to make
it simple. An HT that's off channel by as little as 100Hz for PSK31 is
a different channel. That's REALLY tight technical standards for amateur
gear.

Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud?

I've sent SSTV images in a fairly short time. They aren't large images,

They are also not PSK31 data. Entirely different mode.

I have to say that I probably would never buy such a device. That
doesn't make it a dumb idea though.

No, the technical issues do, and expecting it to bring lots of new people
into the hobby as something similar to SMS text messaging is silly. We have
better technology already in our hands; where are the people?

But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31
texting, good?

I don't declare D-Star Texting "bad", but I do declare the PSK31
texting pretty darn good.

In it's place, perhaps. Sitting in a radio shack with a $1000 HF radio
and a computer to decode it, yes. In an HT, no.

PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is
pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is
quite proprietary.

No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard.

Wanna use D-Star? Get out the plastic and go
without something else for a couple years.

Yes. Want a usable PSK31 HT? Go without something else for many years.

I think that what would be needed is for local governments to do the
actual purchasing, then hand it over to the Hams.

Wow.

The Hams are going to
have to have regular access to the D-Star repeater, or else they won't
buy-in.

The hams are going to have to have a lot of MONEY to have regular access
to any D-Star repeater.

My honest opinion however is that this is one of those technology
solutions that just add too much technology to the mix. One of the big
complaints from emergency responders is that they can't talk to each
other. This is due to the introduction of too much structure upon the
system.

This is due to licensing limitations that prevent LMR radios from being
fully and easily programmable in the field.

With D Star, we do the same thing with Hams.

I know of no D-Star radio which is not fully field programmable.

I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me,
one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks".

Yup. And the big problem as far as Amateurs go is that they can't get
into the system.

I have no idea what you mean by this. What "system" can they not get into?

Whereas you or I can build a CW, SSB, FM, or PSK31
radio for most any application we'd like, we can't do that with D-Star.

So what? Most people cannot build even a CW transmitter, much less
a PSK31 system. Have YOU built your own PC to run the PSK31 software
yet? I doubt it.

So unless those prices come waaaay down, D-Star is going to be a very
low volume mode, probably used only by emergency groups. Of course if
that is the case, they shouldn't be operating it on the Amateur bands,
because they can get more use out of it on their own frequencies,

I'm sorry. Exactly what frequencies do ARES groups have that aren't part
of the Amateur Radio Service? How do I legally put an amateur certificated
repeater on to a public-service frequency?

which won't have Amateur reestrictions.

Amateur restrictions are trivial compared to LMR. Nobody is demanding that
we all cut our bandwidth and channel spacings in half by 2013, e.g.. Our
licenses don't come with a list of specific frequencies we can use.

Mark Kramer wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is
pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is
quite proprietary.

No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard.


I respectfully disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-STAR

to quote the relevant part:

"D-STAR has been criticized for its use of a patented, closed-source
proprietary voice codec (AMBE). [4] Hams do not have access to the
detailed specification of this codec or the rights to implement it on
their own without buying a licensed product. Hams have a long tradition
of building, improving upon and experimenting with their own radio
designs. The modern digital age equivalent of this would be designing
and/or implementing codecs in software. Critics say the proprietary
nature of AMBE and its availability only in hardware form (as ICs)
discourages innovation."

end quote


Wow.

Understood. I'll skip most of the post because I'm not looking for a
sentence by sentence rebuke here. Let's just take it that you don't like
my ideas, and we'll move on.

My thoughts are that having some sort of device that young people can
use to communicate with each other, in a manner such are they are used
to, such as texting, might just be a good thing. Add a couple more
friends, and you have a VHF chat room. No need for repeaters, no need to
intrude on other people's BW. The idea isn't to forge some new
technology. Too many people get caught up in that. It is an application
of available technology in a way that some folk might not see as useful,
but others might.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:50:32 EDT, (Mark Kramer)
wrote:

PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is
pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is
quite proprietary.

No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard.


Not proprietary? How can I get my Yaesu to work with it?

On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:13:26 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing
repeaters, and maybe some initial users getting some help. Otherwise
people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater)
might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends.

The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star
EMCOMM network and a Pactor network. It's being pushed by several
folks who got either ICOM or the State or both to subsidize their
personal D-Star radios and/or are "blessed with resources" to get one
on their own. Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice
comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my
"grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't.

Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's
Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is
in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar.

My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net