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 thought everybody knew KARL was just looking for a FREE RIDE to HF. he
could care less about but his FREE RIDE.

"N2EY" wrote


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


Jim, your message is a classic collection of "shoot the messenger". The
comments in my message aren't mine; they are direct quotes from hams
inside the FCC. I think it's safe to say they reflect 'official'
regulatory views. Further, it is my opinion that those comments weren't
meant as "handwriting on the wall" but as huge billboards painted in
international-orange to send our service an unmistakeable message.

Distill it all down, and the essence of that message is "You guys have a
playground which is a prime piece of RF "real estate". Unless we see
some 'contributions to the radio art' pretty damn soon, we're going to
bulldoze the place and put it up for sale to commercial interests."

In a misdirdected response ARRL has erected an expensive political
soapbox on the street corner with huge banners saying "Save Our
Playground". The FCC is ignoring that soapbox and putting up more
billboards with unflattering descriptions like "routine communications
and hobby activities".

It is the contention of a growing number of active and concerned hams
that ARRL needs to quit spending our money on political posturing, and
redirect their attention and our money into regrowing the technological
reputation which earned us that playground in the first place.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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.

Disagree. Strongly.

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."

I don't have a problem with that.

Face it, Brian, we've been marginalized,

We've been continuously marginalized ever since the commercial and
government services and the technologies they used passed ham radio as
a source of emergency comms and new technologies starting in the
1920s.

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. 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.

Then the same "POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS" dumped BPL all over the HF
and beyond spectrum which essentially precludes the introduction of
new "spectrally efficient HF communications techniques" by any
service.

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

The last couple times we asked for more HF spectrum space we got it,
30, 17, 24 and 60 meters and none of it had anything to do with
"spectrum efficiency". Had to do with hams jumping into open spectrum
space abandoned by other services which moved to higher slots in the
spectrum.

"- Third, by allowing more users to access the available
allocations simultaneously,

What BPL "allocations"?

it improves the amateur experience and
ultimately increases the attractiveness of the service to new and
old users alike."

How in the hell does sharing 30M & 440 with the commercials "improve
the amateur experience"?

I have a 12 year old grandson who got his first peek at ham radio this
past July when I still had the FD station running in his aunt's garage
and was doing a bit of dxing and he started asking questions. I tuned
around 20M and explained what was going on and how it happens. His
opinion of ssb was that it sounded like a waste of time. I tuned some
RTTY and PSK31 which he immediately likened to his Internet
connection, "I can already do that", then I worked a couple Euros with
CW. That grabbed him and he bored into the subject. Ditto SWLing the
foreign broadcast stations. I bought him a copy of the ARRL primer on
ham radio, a copy of Passport and I need to dredge up a half-decent
rcvr for cheap, toss some wire up and I'll see what happens.

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."

"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."

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

Where's he been?

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.

What "other applications" besides BPL are out there looking for HF
space? The Radio Mondiale SW broadcasters? Which want to use 10 Khz
wide digital signals to replace their existing 6 Khz wide AM signals?
There's a great example of "modern spectral efficiency".

The handwriting is on the wall --- the FCC isn't much interested in what
we used to do,

Welp, I guess that means that they're not interested in what 99.9% of
us hams do huh?

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.

Point 1: The FCC's formal rationale for the existence of ham radio is
what's actually obsolete. The whole pile of nonsense about justifying
ham radio based on ham emergency comms and "advancing the state of the
art" is farcical at best and needs to be recognized as such so that we
get that silly old baggage out of the way. The HF spectrum is a
protected and regulated natural resource which needs to be shared by
both common citizens like hams and others who need access to the
resource for their particular purposes. The ham spectrum spaces need
to be protected on the same bases as the national parks are protected
and for the same reasons. One big difference between ham radio and the
national park system of course is that we don't cost the gummint squat
compared to what it spends to provide hiking trails for users of other
"antiquated technologies" like feet. Hypocrites.

Point 2: The coming of BPL is exactly analogous to the timber
companies clear-cutting anywhere they choose to do so. We're now in a
position to get clear-cut ourselves, that's WRONG and it's coming from
the same bunch of politicians who have the worst environmental record
and big-biz "connections" in recent times. The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies by leaning on the politicians and the
courts and now it's our turn.

Point 3: With respect specifically to funding the ongoing ARRL battle
against BPL note that we managed to get the FCC to recognize that yes,
BPL does have the potential to generate harmful interference and they
handed us a few tools to deal with it as best we can. The League is
going to spend money on that effort and I continue to support their
efforts.

"Quitters don't win."

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

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 -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


Our President says BPL is a good thing and is needed for
techno-economic
prosperity. He and his appointees at FCC and NTIA say that any
interference can
be managed.

Are you saying Our President and his advisors and regulators are
wrong?



Leading question noted. Sorry, Jim, but 7th grade debating tactics
don't cut it in the grownup world.

I've said nothing about the president, his advisors, or his regulators.

To refresh your memory and to save you the effort of Goggling is up,
HERE is what I said:

"Rather than (ARRL) spending hundreds of thousands of our dollars
chasing a POLITICAL resolution to this issue where they have gained no
traction and which they can't possibly win, why don't we take the money
we spend on Sumner and Imlay and hire a bunch of Ed Hare's and do the
SCIENCE necessary to discredit BPL. Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political
lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of obstructionist
amateurs (lower case amateur)."

Science is not the answer to political situations. Unless of course,
the political situationists want it to be.

It is clear that the powers that be want BPL to happen.

So it will happen. They may run into economic or scientific reality,
but it won't fail because of lack of political desire for it to happen..

RIIIIIGHT! . . . sheesh . . how more obvious can it get?!


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote

The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies
by leaning on the politicians and the
courts and now it's our turn.

Good luck on that one now!

See you in the contest this weekend.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Report for decommissioning, Jim!

Hold that thought!

On March 4th, 1913 when hams were banished to "200 meters and down", the
service would have gone extinct if the prevailing attitude had been
similar to you guys' head in the sand stance, and the ARRL "We can do
this through political pressure" pipe dream.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


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


Damn, Mike, you're a flip-flopper to rival Senator Kerry. Back about
2-1/2 years ago when I made this same pitch almost verbatim, your
flattery was almost embarrassing when you said:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...adelphia .net

Gee Hans, sensible talk like that, and rrap might just
dissapear! 8^)

Excellent post, and I suggest that we take it to heart. That is if we
care about the future of the ARS.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Watsa matta --- you don't "care about the future of the ARS" anymore?

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


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



Jim, your message is a classic collection of "shoot the messenger". The
comments in my message aren't mine; they are direct quotes from hams
inside the FCC. I think it's safe to say they reflect 'official'
regulatory views. Further, it is my opinion that those comments weren't
meant as "handwriting on the wall" but as huge billboards painted in
international-orange to send our service an unmistakeable message.

So.... What new digital mode are you moving to, Hans?

Distill it all down, and the essence of that message is "You guys have a
playground which is a prime piece of RF "real estate". Unless we see
some 'contributions to the radio art' pretty damn soon, we're going to
bulldoze the place and put it up for sale to commercial interests."

THat may be so. But looking at what was said, then the loss is
inevitable. When we get contradictory statements that we have to
conserve bandwidth to get bandwidth, it ain't good, or likely true.

HF isn't prime real estate anyhow.


In a misdirdected response ARRL has erected an expensive political
soapbox on the street corner with huge banners saying "Save Our
Playground". The FCC is ignoring that soapbox and putting up more
billboards with unflattering descriptions like "routine communications
and hobby activities".

You are seriously saying that we would sway politicians, and regulators
that simply try to figure out what the regulates tell them to do - with
science rather than more politics? Better go read what the scientists
have to say about that sort of thing.

Today, if the science does not fit the agenda, it is discarded.


It is the contention of a growing number of active and concerned hams
that ARRL needs to quit spending our money on political posturing, and
redirect their attention and our money into regrowing the technological
reputation which earned us that playground in the first place.


Okay. Tell us what they must do. I hear a lot of posturing, but it is
all of the political sort.

Give me some real projects, and where the ARS should go, and what they
should do, in hard form, not hand wringing.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Report for decommissioning, Jim!



Hold that thought!


Okay, but only until after this weekend! ;^)


On March 4th, 1913 when hams were banished to "200 meters and down", the
service would have gone extinct if the prevailing attitude had been
similar to you guys' head in the sand stance, and the ARRL "We can do
this through political pressure" pipe dream.


Not hardly. If the ARS were to be banished to a few bands, and allowed
only digital signals of very small BW, I had come up with a method of
doing voice comms using hardly any BW at all. Hardly cutting edge stuff,
but cutting edge stuff isn't our province (on the ham bands) anymore.

That's more than what I hear from anyone else.

- Mike KB3EIA -