W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA (Keith Petersen) (08/07/87)
The following file was uploaded to my bulletin board. I am NOT the
author. Replies to the author, please, not me.
--Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 - 300, 1200, 2400 (V.22bis) or 9600 (USR HST)
--cut-here--PDRS.TXT--cut-here--
[This article is NOT COPYRIGHTED and may be freely reproduced, however, it is
requested that all credits remain intact.]
This File is provided as a Public Service by:
Business Information Xchange NETwork
BIXNET - 300/1200/2400 8-N-1
616-361-7500 24 Hours 7 Days a week
Thom Byxbe, SysOp
David Stockdale, Co-SysOp
Jack Decker, Co-SysOp, Administrator of PDRS & Wireless Modem SIG
BIXNET is a public BBS operated by:
Advanced Business Technologies, Incorporated
4191 Plainfield Avenue
Suite # 217
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505
VOICE 616-361-0200
A public SIG is avaliable on BIXNET to discuss the Topic of Wireless Modems
and The Public Digital Radio Service. Your input and comments are invited and
encouraged. Voice communications may be made VIA Advanced Business Technologies
Contact Jack Decker or Thom Byxbe.
WIRELESS MODEMS: THE NEXT CORDLESS TELEPHONE?
by Jack Decker
I'd like you to think, for a moment, about the cordless telephone. For nearly
a hundred years, if you wanted to use a telephone, your freedom of movement
was restricted to the length of the cord attached to the receiver. Then
someone got the idea to remove the cord and use a short-range radio
transmitter-receiver in the handset instead, and the cordless telephone was
born. Early units were very primitive by today's standards - they generally
had no way to dial (you had to return to the base unit to do that), their
range was limited to about 100 feet, and the sound quality was reminiscent of
tin cans and string. In spite of all that, the idea of cutting the cord
caught on with the public, and the cordless telephone is now a multimillion
dollar industry.
What is particularly worth noting, however, is that the cordless telephone is
a "Part 15" device. This means that it operates under "Part 15" of the
Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations, which specifically
pertain to the operation of low-power transmitters for which no license is
required. Keep in mind that originally there were no frequencies specifically
allocated for cordless telephones, so the designers of the first cordless
units had to find a suitable band on which low power, unlicensed operation was
permitted. Originally, frequencies just above the AM broadcast band and
frequencies in the 46-49 MHz band were used, but the AM frequencies were later
dropped in favor of 46-49 MHz use only. The 46-49 MHz band was not originally
set aside for cordless telephones, but low power operation was authorized in
that band for the use of things like children's walkie-talkies and remote
control models.
However, as the cordless telephone became more and more popular, and there
were more and more reports of interference between units, the F.C.C. realized
that something needed to be done to bring order out of the chaos. So, they
then set standards for cordless telephone operation, assigning cordless phones
to certain frequencies and specifying permissible transmitter power levels.
Part of the F.C.C. action was to allocate new frequencies for cordless phones
in the 46-49 MHz range, while eliminating the use of the low-fidelity AM
frequencies that were responsible for the poor audio quality of early cordless
phones.
When you stop and think about it, the cordless telephone would hardly fall
into the category of a "necessity of life" for most people, but nevertheless
they have made a big impact on the consumer market. Ten years ago, if you had
asked people to name a needed product that had not yet been invented, I doubt
that anyone would have said "I need a phone handset with no connecting cord."
But, as is the case with so many consumer products, the availability of the
product created the demand. People saw the product, realized that it could be
of use to them, and bought - in big numbers!
CAN HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
Computer hobbyists are in a similar situation right now. Many computer users
have discovered the pleasures and benefits of connecting their computer to
other computers via telephone lines, using modems. However, the dependence on
phone lines creates some problems for the average user. For one thing, the
family's telephone line is tied up while the computer is online, and for
another, toll charges or measured service telephone charges may be imposed
even though the computer being called is only a relatively short distance
away. Also, since only two users at a time can be connected via a telephone
connection, it is impossible to have local area "computer conferences"
involving more than two users (unless there is a sophisticated, multi-user BBS
in the area, to which all the potential participants have access).
One obvious solution to these problems is packet radio, as widely used by
amateur ("ham") radio operators. But, there are a couple of restrictions to
the use of ham radio. The first is that all potential users of amateur radio
must first learn the antiquated Morse Code, plus some electronic theory.
While these requirements may not be burdensome for some computer hobbyists,
others (who have little interest in electronics or no desire to learn the
Morse Code) may see them as formidable obstacles. The other restriction is
that no messages of a commercial nature may be sent via amateur radio. Since
most BBS's contain advertising of one form or another (if only messages
offering no-longer-needed computer equipment for sale or trade), the use of
amateur radio might tend to limit the free exchange of messages that could
remotely be considered "commercial".
Besides, amateur radio operators and computers hobbyists may have totally
different interests. While there are many people who are interested in both
amateur radio and computers, there are also many people who are interested in
one hobby but not the other. Amateur radio operators, who have suffered a
decline in the number of people joining their fraternity in recent years, have
sometimes looked at computer users as a source of potential "new blood" for
their organizations. However, I believe it is a disservice to both the
amateur radio community and to the computer user community to induce computer
hobbyists who have no actual interest in amateur radio into becoming "hams".
The computer hobbyists will have little interest in the majority of the
activities enjoyed by amateurs (such as building radio transmitters and
antennas, or talking to people on the other side of the world via Morse Code)
while many of the amateurs may not be interested in discussions of bits and
bytes, which DOS is best, or the differences between Basic, Pascal and C.
While the ability to use packet radio may induce a number of computer
hobbyists to join the ranks of the amateur radio operators, I believe this
would be a "marriage of convenience" and not really satisfying to either group
in the long run.
A short analogy might be in order. Suppose we have a stamp collectors' club
that, as a benefit to its members, offers a free trip to a philately
convention in some major city of the world every year. Now, lets further
suppose that club membership is declining, so some of the members, in an
effort to boost membership, start selling the club as a good way to travel to
various places at low cost. A number of people who like to travel might thus
be attracted, and while a few of those might actually become interested in
stamp collecting as a byproduct, most are going to become very bored and
irritated with club meetings where the only discussion is about First Day
Covers and commemoratives. By the same token, if these new members vote to
change the format of the meetings so that travelogue films are shown during
the meetings, the original members would quite rightly protest that the
purpose of the club is being abandoned. Ultimately, neither group would be
fully satisfied. And I suspect the same will be true when computer hobbyists,
many of whom have no desire to ever pick up a soldering iron, become amateur
radio hobbyists simply to gain the benefit of being able to operate packet
radio stations.
So, what is really needed is a way for computer users to be able to enjoy the
benefits of packet radio operation, without the need to become amateur radio
operators. Mr. Donald L. Stoner of Mercer Island, Washington proposed this
very thing before the F.C.C., with a proposal to establish a computer hobbyist
radio service, to be known as the "Public Digital Radio Service" (PDRS). This
service would have operated on the 52-54 MHz band. However, the proposal was
opposed by the American Radio Relay League (a national amateur radio
organization) and a few other organizations and individuals, and the F.C.C.
denied it (but said that they might consider allowing a similar service on a
different frequency).
Obviously, the formal implementation of this service is not a high priority
for the F.C.C. But, under current F.C.C. regulations, it would be quite
feasible to start a "bargain basement" version of PDRS and, once the need and
desire for such a service is established, I believe that the F.C.C. might then
reconsider the PDRS proposal with a bit more urgency.
PDRS NOW?
You may be asking yourself, "Is it really true? Is there a way for computers
to communicate with each other via packet radio, without the need to obtain a
license, and with no restrictions on message content (other than, perhaps, the
general restrictions on the use of obscenity and profanity on the airwaves)?"
It sure is, but the only problem is that nobody's making the equipment yet,
probably because nobody has given much thought to the particular frequency
band involved.
"But if the F.C.C. hasn't authorized packet radio for non-amateurs, how can I
use it?" Easy. Under the provisions of good old Part 15, the same section of
the F.C.C. rules that the cordless telephone manufacturers used to get their
product started. "But cordless telephones only have a range of about 1000
feet. What good will that do me?"
Well, we can stay within the scope of Part 15 regulations and still get a MUCH
greater range than 1000 feet. You see, there is one major difference between
a wireless modem and a cordless telephone handset. The cordless phone is
intended to be portable, so ideally we want to be able to use the shortest
possible antenna on it. It wouldn't be very practical to have a cordless
handset with, for example, a ten foot antenna on it. The higher the transmit
frequency used, the shorter the antenna you can get by with, and at the 46-49
MHz range the short antenna used with most cordless phones is adequate. But,
at 46-49 Mhz, F.C.C. (Part 15) regulations only permit a transmitter output
power of 1/10 watt, which severely limits the distance at which the handset
and base can be separated before the signal fades out.
But a modem generally remains in one place, and for that reason we can easily
connect it to a larger, outdoor antenna if necessary. In the case of amateur
packet radio stations, outside antennas are often used to increase range (even
though they are not strictly necessary at the frequencies used by amateur
radio operators). With no practical limitation on antenna length, we can use
frequencies that might be unsuitable for portable operation. And, as it turns
out, there is a small band of frequencies that can provide us with a much
greater range under Part 15 rules and regulations, if we are willing to erect
a good antenna.
That frequency band is the 160-190 KHz band (sometimes known at the "1750
Meter band"), located well below the AM broadcast band. As I understand it,
at these low frequencies you can use up to one watt of power and an antenna
length of up to fifty feet, and still remain within F.C.C. regulations for
unlicensed operation. Theoretically, a range of up to 30 miles is possible,
although you may practically not be able to communicate that far. But please
keep in mind that packet radio stations can act as repeaters (while still
permitting normal local use of the packet station), so, for example, to send
messages or data to someone as far as 100 miles away might be possible if
there are enough conveniently-spaced repeater stations with good antennas in
between.
Low frequency equipment is very inexpensive to build and operate, but the
antenna is very important. The best antenna would be a fifty foot vertical
mast with lots of radials (ground plane wires) buried in the ground, but this
is obviously impractical for most users (although, if this mode of operation
ever catches on, it's quite possible that one or two companies may specialize
in manufacturing "easy to install" low frequency antennas!). However, if you
are willing to accept a reduction in range, shorter antennas can be used.
Even a relatively small loop antenna may get you a five mile range (and,
again, don't forget that repeaters can be used for greater distance).
Transmission on the 1750 Meter band can be by AM, FM, SSB or any other mode
you like, but it has been suggested to me (by Bill de Carle) that the optimum
mode at 300 baud might be MSK (minimum-shift-key). Bill states that "at these
low frequencies you can do everything digitally, even when it comes to
directly synthesizing the RF waveforms." Another correspondent (Jay Coote)
has suggested that it may be possible to use a High-Frequency amateur type
packet (AMTOR) in the low frequency band. Some others are using BPSK [bi-
phase shift keying], which for all I know, may be the same thing as MSK.
I am convinced that if some individual or company would take the time to
design and build a low-frequency Part 15 wireless packet radio unit (which
could be a low-frequency transceiver intended to be connected to any of the
commercially-available amateur packet radio Terminal Node Controllers), it
could well be the turning point in getting PDRS "off the ground." Computer
hobbyists would begin to see the desirability of having this kind of
equipment, would most likely pressure the F.C.C. for better frequencies, and
the industry would take off. And, of course, the first company to produce
such a unit would likely wind up being a major player in this industry (how
would you like to be the next Hayes or Microsoft?).
You may ask why, if I think this is such a great idea, I don't keep it to
myself and build a prototype unit. The answer is very simple: I'm not a
hardware hacker! I don't have the technical knowledge required to make such a
unit, and don't personally know anyone who has the expertise or initiative to
produce such a unit. Also, I do not have the financial resources to
participate in this endeavor, being one of the underemployed at present. So,
although I would love to get a piece of the action on this industry, there
really is no way for me to actively participate. And keeping the idea to
myself would accomplish nothing, since then the units would never be built and
no one would benefit. I only hope that, if anyone gets filthy rich in this
industry, they will remember me and, if nothing else, at least send me a
couple of free samples of each new model of wireless modem that they create.
Personally, I could put a pair of wireless modems to good use. The SYSOP of
an area BBS lives approximately five miles away from me, but it is a toll
charge for me to call his BBS. Conversely, people in my phone exchange have
access to cheap long distance (good for calling other BBS's) while people in
his exchange do not. So, we could both make use of a radio link to connect
our two sites. At present, the only workable solution we can find are the
wireless modems manufactured by a company called Electronic Systems Technology
(1031 N. Kellogg Street, Kennewick, Washington 99336). They manufacture a
device called the "ESTeem Wireless Modem" that transmits on 24 channels in the
frequency range of 72.040 to 72.960 MHz. It is licensed using "F.C.C. form
574" (under "Part 90" of the F.C.C. regulations, I believe), and appears to be
intended for business applications only. Therefore, it probably would not be
possible to license this unit for what would basically be considered
"hobbyist" use, and the units are certainly not priced with the hobbyist in
mind - each wireless modem costs over $1,000! I can't imagine why the cost is
so high when an amateur Terminal Node Controller/Transceiver combination can
be purchased for under $400, but we can't afford one, let alone the two we'd
need to establish communications between us.
In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that if computer hobbyists understood the
benefits of PDRS, they would be solidly behind efforts to get a decent
frequency allocation for this service. However, until they have actually had
the opportunity to sample such a service and see what it can do for them, they
will remain apathetic toward it, and will not put any pressure upon the F.C.C.
to formally recognize this type to service. By providing low-cost equipment
to operate this service on 160-190 KHz, computer hobbyists would be able to
utilize the service now (instead of waiting for the F.C.C. to act, which may
take years) and would have practical knowledge of the benefits of this type of
service and more incentive to lobby the F.C.C. for a better frequency
allocation.
I would suggest that any individuals or groups that attempt to create a
working low-frequency packet radio standard try to keep in touch with each
other, so that incompatible standards don't develop between different
groups. A public SIG is avaliable on the BIXNET BBS at (616) 361-7500
(300/1200/2400 8-N-1) to discuss the topic of Wireless Modems and The Public
Digital Radio Service, and I would suggest that this would be a good place for
people who are interested in this subject to exchange information and keep
in contact with others who have similar interests.
One final technical suggestion: Although this may exceed the scope of the
basic system described above, if you do decide to design a low-frequency
packet radio system "from scratch" and you give it any amount of intelligence,
please give it the capability to require a fairly complex (say 10 or 14
character) password for access (and even possibly the ability to be able to
vary passwords according to time of day, or to use passwords from a pre-
created list) and/or the ability to accept incoming calls from only one other
packet system; and also give it the ability to be connected "back to back"
with a conventional smart modem (in addition to the "standard" conection to a
computer). Why? Because then a low-frequency packet radio system and
conventional modem could be placed at a friend's or neighbor's home, or at an
office location, and used to gain access to the telephone line there without
necessarily giving everyone else with a similar system the same access. The
big advantage of doing this would be when the remote conventional modem is
connected to a different telephone exchange (with a different local calling
area) than yours, and making a connection through the remote packet
system/conventional modem combination saves you outgoing toll charges. In
this type of situation, it would be ideal if the packet system could contain
enough intelligence to reject unauthorized usage and/or to reject the sending
of outdialing commands to the conventional modem that would place a long
distance call (i.e. "ATD" commands where the first digit is a "1", or the
second digit is a "1" or "0").
RESOURCES:The following is a list of various resources on the subject of low-
frequency radio, including a few people who seem to be knowledgeable on the
subject. If I have omitted anyone from this list, I apologize.
The Longwave Club of America, 45 Wildflower Road, Levittown, Pennsylvania
19057. Has a publication called the "LOWDOWN" which apparently is widely
circulated among low-frequency enthusiasts (although I have yet to see a
copy!).
Radio Computing Digest, c/o Paul Louden Christensen, P.O. Box 916, Oroville,
Washington 98844-0916, telephone (509) 476-2600. Send $3.00 to receive issue
number one, the only issue published so far. It has a wealth of information
on radio computing, including a much more complete list of resources than what
is being provided here.
Panaxis Products, P.O. Box 130, Paradise, California 95969, telephone (916)
534-0417. These folks produced an 1750 Meter FM transmitter-receiver kit a
couple of years ago but recently stated they only have three (3) printed
circuit board sets left. A plans and circuit board set goes for $28.50 while
a complete kit is $134.95 (antenna not included). Panaxis also sells other
types of kits and equipment, including transmitters for (unlicensed) low-power
AM and FM (including stereo FM) broadcasting.
Dave Riley (Broadcast Technical Services), 11 Walnut Street Marshfield,
Massachusetts 02050, telephone (617) 837-3521. Radio Computing Digest states
that Dave has lots of experience in RF communications and Radio Computing and
has published a small book on the subject ($10). He also operates a BBS at
(617) 837-2880. Kevin B. Haywood, another correspondent, states that Mr.
Riley's booklet is called "Computer Communications Study" and contains
information on F.C.C. rules governing no-license broadcasting, addresses of
radio manufacturers, and hints and ideas on how to convert ham radio gear to
the license-free bands.
Donald L. Stoner, 6014 East Mercer Way, Mercer Island, Washington 98040.
Original author of the Public Digital Radio Service proposal, now said to be
working on a revised proposal. His time is quite limited but he may
appreciate hearing any PDRS suggestions you may have, even if he is unable to
respond.
Bill de Carle, 235 Baythorn Drive # 301, Thornhill, Ontario, Canada L3T 3V6.
Bill has done some work with low frequencies, including running "some
experiments with a low-frequency beacon transmitter sending FSK data on 180.2
KHz" in one direction from his apartment to his office, a distance of about
five miles. He states that his transmissions "can be copied reliably at this
distance even with inefficient antennas, but I use computerized signal
processing to enhance data recovery."
Mel Carter, 46 14th Street, Wheatland, New York 82201. Bill de Carle states
that Mr. Carter "has designed a simple BPSK [bi-phase shift keying]
transmitter/receiver using only CMOS chips."
Jay Coote, 808 North Avenue 66, Los Angeles, California 90042. Another low-
frequency beacon operator who may be able to offer information on the
peculiarities of LF operation.
Jack Decker, 1804 West 18th Street # 155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783-
1268, telephone (906) 632-3248. I will be more than happy to field-test any
prototypes of low-frequency radio modems or packet radio systems. As a
computer user who has had some experience in telecommunicating with
conventional modems but virtually no experience with packet radio, I can
easily discover any difficulties that the average computer user might have
with your product, and would be more than willing to offer suggestions for
product improvement!
This File is provided as a Public Service by:
Business Information Xchange NETwork
BIXNET - 300/1200/2400 8-N-1
616-361-7500 24 Hours 7 Days a week
Thom Byxbe, SysOp
David Stockdale, Co-SysOp
Jack Decker, Co-SysOp, Administrator of PDRS & Wireless Modem SIG
BIXNET is a public BBS operated by:
Advanced Business Technologies, Incorporated
4191 Plainfield Avenue
Suite # 217
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505
VOICE 616-361-0200
A public SIG is avaliable on BIXNET to discuss the Topic of Wireless Modems
and The Public Digital Radio Service. Your input and comments are invited and
encouraged. Voice communications may be made VIA Advanced Business Technologies
Contact Jack Decker or Thom Byxbe.elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (08/09/87)
Glitch in the law:
The original bulletin proposed a low-frequency low-power public digital radio
service (using the same section of the law that applies to children's
walkie-talkies and other such things).
Note that under the proposed new FCC rules applying to enhanced services, a
computer attached to a modem is an enhanced service, and if that computer uses
a radio modem to transmit across state lines, then that computer is an
interstate enhanced service and thus every minute of connect time to that
computer must be, by the proposed rules, assessed carrier access fees. Yet
another reason to defeat that inane proposal! Get your responses out in a
hurry, because the deadline is August 24! Otherwise, on January 1, 1988, the
Evil Witch of the East will come across and carry off a lot of folk's network
access!
The docket in question is FCC General Docket 87-215, you must send them six
copies (minimum) of your comments, with the docket number prominent at the top
(else it gets "lost"), and give them some good reasons about why
non-interexchange enhanced services shouldn't be assessed access fees....
Example:
"My university is on BITNET, and our leased line crosses state lines,
making us an interstate enhanced service" (note that the definition of an
"enhanced service" is anything connected to the phone line, that does other
than transmit voice). "This will result in billing nightmares... how can we
tell what prcentage of modem us is interstate access? What about electronic
mail, which runs in the background while the person isn't logged on? What
about information RECIEVED over the network, and later read by all persons on
the machine? What about people logged in over our LAN, how can we tell that
their initial login on the other machine, was via modem?"
Or:
"We are a public institution. Our budget was fixed in law in May 1987,
before your decision. Please delay it until at least July 1988, because
otherwise, we lose all our network access from January 1988 to July 1988 due
to the budget not covering the increased costs. "
The docket was recently posted to the net. Someone posted a "toolkit" about
how to respond to the FCC, if I get 10 (ten) requests, I'll re-post (sorry, I
can't EMAIL to most of the net without a path to ihnp4, cuae2, or cbosgd,
because machine "killer" doesn't have a smart mailer and our map entries seem
to be a bit messed up, resulting in pathalias giving weird wonderful useless
paths). I notified the poster of the toolkit about the August 24 time limit,
hopefully he'll eventually post an updated toolkit, but time is limited and
I'm afraid that he might not get it out in time for most of you to
respond....
--
Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ollie North for President:
{cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg A man we can believe (in).
Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191
Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baudW8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA (Keith Petersen) (08/12/87)
The following files was just uploaded to my BBS. I am NOT the author.
Replies to the author, not me, please.
--Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 - 300, 1200, 2400 (V.22bis) or 9600 (USR HST)
--cut-here--PDRS-ANS.TXT--cut-here--
Mr. Decker's comments on amateur radio need some commentary by someone who
knows more about it than he evidently does.
First, he is totally inaccurate and misleading about the dissimilarity
between ham radio and computer 'hobbying.' Both involve electronics,
mathematics, and an interest in transferring and processing data. The
dissimilarity between stamp collecting and travel is not a good analogy and
tends to lead to a false conclusion. Moreover, Mr. Decker seems to feel that
ham radio is a single, homogeneous activity. It isn't. It actually involves
dozens of 'sub-hobbies', of which talking to people in foreign countries via
radio-telegraphy is only one, and a small one at that. Other areas include
VHF/UHF/microwave use of ham satellites, one of which (now under
development) will have a radio BBS built in. One of the most esoteric
sub-hobbies in ham radio is two-way communication on VHF/UHF by means of
signals bounced off the moon. So, lumping all hams into one "boring" pigeon
hole isn't accurate, let alone fair.
One sub-hobby of widespread popularity involves relaying messages through an
organized network of stations. This networking concept is going through a
metamorphosis as a result of the introduction of computer technology.
Networking, of course, is what we are talking about with radio modems.
Hence, attracting computerists into ham radio is a 'natural' which will
benefit everyone.
Mr. Decker made the point that hams need to learn electronic theory. He
feels that this is an unnecessary imposition on computerists. I disagree.
Anyone engaged in any activity involving any type of sophisticated hardware
will benefit from knowing how that hardware does its thing. Hams shook their
heads in disbelief when they saw CB'ers being ripped off by false
advertising claims of people selling various types of CB equipment. For
example, those twin antennas on trucks are worthless unless they are
separated by at least one half of one wavelength at the operating frequency
(18 feet on the Citizens' Band). Another rip-off is the 'power mike'. Almost
all of the additional power output they produce is in the form of distortion
products which actually degrade communications intelligibility. If CB'ers
had known some theory, they would have spotted the lies.
To be even more pointed about the value of electronic theory being useful to
computer hobbyists, Mr. Decker would never have made his suggestion about
putting radio modems on 160-190 khz if he had had the slightest notion of
the mathematics and physics of communication. If radio modems are to be of
any practical use for more than one pair of terminals every 40 miles, they
must use very high data rates. (56,000 data bits per second as a minimum.)
This, of course, means wideband radio transmission. At 1750 meters, even the
simplest antenna acts as a very sharp tuned filter which prevents wideband
transmission. (That's why the subs must use radio-telegraphy!) Moreover,
putting radio modems on 1750 meters will produce a VOCIFEROUS outburst from
the electric power industry, which uses that frequency range for carrier
current remote control of transmission lines and substations.
The solution is to go UP in frequency. 900 mhz is being suggested as the
best place to put PDRS. Mr. Decker suggested extending range by using
digital repeaters. Hams have found that in practice using more than two such
links in a row tends to bog down, although the newer NETROM modification to
the conventional TAPR TNC software seems to be a big help in linking.
Mr. Decker stated that the American Radio Relay League opposed the original
PDRS proposal by Don Stoner (who's a ham, by the way) without explaining
that they opposed it because 52-54 megahertz is half of the amateur 6 meter
band. If you leave that part of it out, it makes the ARRL opposition sound
mindlessly obstructive.
Mr. Decker's comments on the inappropriateness of ham radio as a solution
for computer hobbyists is based in part on a lack of knowledge of some of
the reform and revitalization movements within ham radio. Pressure to end
the Morse requirement is growing even among hams. Also, some influential
people within the FCC are beginning to say publicly that some of the
restrictions now put on hams (particularly the ones on message content) are
unrealistic and unreasonable.
Mr. Decker says that technical development is needed and acknowledges his
own lack of expertise in that area. And yet he is trying to tell his
constituency to pursue their interest in isolation from the very group who
'invented' packet radio and who are still leading in developing its
potential -- radio hams.
Mr. Decker suggested that Part 15 tinkering would show the FCC that PDRS is
needed. The FCC already knows that; the only doubt is what's the best way to
go about it.
Finally, do not misunderstand my motives in writing this. I am not saying
that there ought not be a PDRS separate from ham radio. I can see a lot of
benefits from an independent PDRS. I am saying only that computer hobbyists
should not reject the option of pursuing ham radio as a medium for radio
modeming solely on the basis of erroneous statements made by someone who
obviously doesn't know whereof he speaks.
If you (and he) want to learn more from an authoritative source, try the
Bald Hill Tech Center BBS, 1-516-736-2208. It is run by Norm Sternberg,
W2JUP, who, among other things, writes the technical manuals for the AEA
TNC's. Another good source of information is the HamNet SIG on CompuServe,
which is used as a coordinating medium by several of the leading minds in
the field.
/s/ Jim Grubs, W8GRT
6817 Maplewood Ave.
Sylvania, Ohio 43560
GEMail address: W8GRT
Friday, August 7, 1987.ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/13/87)
The other problem with 52 MHz that has caused many hams to give up on it is that it is smack in the middle VHF TV. Interference with TV reception caused hams to look to other frequencies. A large quantity of cheap transmitters operated by people with no understanding of radio couldn't possibly fare any better. By the way many public service (fire department, etc) people on 46 MHz are now giving up on this band because of interference from Radio Control, Intercoms, and cordless phones now also allocated to this band. -Ron
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (08/19/87)
> First, he is totally inaccurate and misleading about the dissimilarity > between ham radio and computer 'hobbying.'... > ...lumping all hams into one "boring" pigeon > hole isn't accurate, let alone fair. As a 15-year computerist who got a ham license to experiment with packet radio, let me comment. The ham fraternity is seriously reactionary. Hams work hard to keep others out, so there will be more frequency spectrum for them to use, and they actively spy upon and report (to the Feds) violations of the mickey-mouse rules they operate under. Everything you do is under control of government regulations which take years to update, and the army of reactionary spies makes it hard to operate outside the rules. In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical. New ideas and new people are welcomed. Experimentation is encouraged. If you get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way or do it your new way. You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether you are permitted double the speed of your machine. If you can afford to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it. I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for computer users. While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that THEY had had to go through. They wanted to use their new, experimental packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting the bull over the radio). > One sub-hobby of widespread popularity involves relaying messages through an > organized network of stations. This networking concept is going through a > metamorphosis as a result of the introduction of computer technology. > Networking, of course, is what we are talking about with radio modems. > Hence, attracting computerists into ham radio is a 'natural' which will > benefit everyone. What hams knew, or wanted to know, about computer networking in 1982 would fill a thimble, maybe. There are a few people like Phil Karn who span both computer networking and ham radio, but the rest were basically ignorant. Their "networking" consisted of passing 10-word messages from one person to another, by voice or Morse code, down a line of humans, on a fixed nightly schedule. This was (is) mostly done by people who have nothing better to do than read other peoples' messages over the air. This has nothing to do with computer networking, though these people have finally realized that they can automate the processing if they can ever get their packet radios to work reliably enough. So now they want a few computer people to come in and fix 'em up so they can do their same old same-old, without, of course, letting many new computer users in to crowd the radio spectrum. [They claim to be practicing for providing emergency communications service. However, if the public was permitted to use the airwaves for REGULAR communications service, then no EMERGENCY service would be needed, since the regular service would continue to work in emergencies. E.g. the cops don't rely on hams, they have their own radios for regular and emergency use.] > Mr. Decker would never have made his suggestion about > putting radio modems on 160-190 khz if he had had the slightest notion of > the mathematics and physics of communication. If radio modems are to be of > any practical use for more than one pair of terminals every 40 miles, they > must use very high data rates. (56,000 data bits per second as a minimum.) That's funny, the hams who are currently doing packet radio are doing it at 1200 baud. It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over ham radio in the United States. Ham packet radio was started in Canada, where the government didn't get nearly as much in the way. It took an immense amount of work in the US just to get the use of ASCII legalized over the air -- before that, it was Morse or Baudot or nothing. 56Kbit modems are a research project at a few places, like Linkoping University in Sweden; Stanford; and at Tucson Amateur Packet Radio. > Mr. Decker suggested extending range by using > digital repeaters. Hams have found that in practice using more than two such > links in a row tends to bog down, although the newer NETROM modification to > the conventional TAPR TNC software seems to be a big help in linking. As explained above, the ham fraternity knows nothing about networking. This is why they are using very lossy links, but with protocols where acknowledgement and retransmission only happens end-to-end. This data is being relayed at a maximum of 1200 baud -- HALF DUPLEX -- between each relay point. If you connect directly (no repeaters), you might get 1000 baud since you have to turn the line around once in a while for acknowledgements. If you use one repeater, divide by more than 2, since each packet has to go to the repeater, then, from the repater to the destination. (Each of these hops involves a delay of up to .3 seconds while switching from receive to transmit, depending on the quality of the radio.) Just going through one repeater, you drop under 300 baud; two repeaters gets you say 100 baud, or 10 cps. That is, when all the data gets through error-free. No wonder it "bogs down" on more then two links! > Pressure to end > the Morse requirement is growing even among hams. Also, some influential > people within the FCC are beginning to say publicly that some of the > restrictions now put on hams (particularly the ones on message content) are > unrealistic and unreasonable. The pressure may be "growing" but it's sure not grown. The FCC backed a proposal to open up ham radio to computerists who didn't know Morse code, a few years ago, and it was shot down by comments from thousands of reactionary hams, guided and spearheaded by the ARRL (American Radio Relay League), sort of the AAA of the airwaves. > I am saying only that computer hobbyists > should not reject the option of pursuing ham radio as a medium for radio > modeming solely on the basis of erroneous statements made by someone who > obviously doesn't know whereof he speaks. How about rejecting the option on the basis of MY statements, made by someone who DOES know whereof he speaks. I tried it. I still have my ham license (KB6DQC, technician's). I'm gone though. I'm building free software rather than building packet radio networks, because there is no government actively standing in the way of building and using free software. I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the amateur spectrum space. I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong. -- {dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu My name's in the header where it belongs.
larson@sri-unix.UUCP (08/20/87)
I apologize in advance if this article seems agressive and unfriendly. I just did not feel that I could let such a vast amount of mis-information be broadcast without a reply. John, You seem to have some misconceptions. Since your article is quite long, I will not quote the entire thing. > Hams work hard to keep others out, so there will be more frequency > spectrum for them to use, I suppose this is why they give classes to those interested in amateur radio. Often these classes are free. A prevalent thrust in amateur radio is recruting new amateurs. > What hams knew, or wanted to know, about computer networking in 1982 > would fill a thimble, maybe. Most still are. Amateur radio is NOT A COMPUTER HOBBY. It includes many other forms of activity, unrelated to computers. Many amateur radio operators have NO INTEREST in computers, no matter how much they excite you. Those that do know computer networking are in the minority, but they know an amazing amount about the subject. > It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over ham radio in the > United States. Not even close. 97.69 (a)(1)(iii-iv) specifically allow 19.6 Kbaud from 50 MHz to 220 MHz, and 56 Kbaud above 220 MHz. Since these are baud rates, clever modems can provide even higher bit/second rates. Further, for domestic communication, even higher data rates are allowed -- these are defined as bandwidths, and are limited only by the requirements to say in the allocated bands on frequencies above 1215 MHz. Thus, data rates in the MegaBauds are clearly allowed. >I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to die before it becomes >possible to do anything interesting with the amateur spectrum space. It depends upon your definition of interesting. Some of us are not so narrow in our views. - - - - - I hope to comment on the original proposal. While there were some glaring problems, it had some really good ideas buried in it. Please mail flames/replies -- I don't expect to have much time for news for some time. Alan
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/20/87)
> Hams work hard to keep others out, so there will be more > frequency spectrum for them to use, and they actively spy upon and > report (to the Feds) violations of the mickey-mouse rules they operate > under. This is a gross mistatement of the ARRL OO procedure. I should also point out that the mickey-mouse rules were what were established to justify the FCC allocating the frequency spectrum to the amateur service to begin with. Note the willingness of the FCC to expand service to lesser controlled "Citizen Band" allocationgs. > It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over > ham radio in the United States. This is untrue. > 56Kbit modems are a research project at a few places, like > Linkoping University in Sweden; Stanford; and at Tucson Amateur Packet > Radio. 56KB packet is not easy. Just look how much money that various places are getting for even the "low-cost" packet radio for the government. These things are costing upwards of $50,000 dollars a piece. > As explained above, the ham fraternity knows nothing about networking. > This is why they are using very lossy links, but with protocols where > acknowledgement and retransmission only happens end-to-end. This data > is being relayed at a maximum of 1200 baud -- HALF DUPLEX A CMSA channel is by necessity half-duplex. The low speeds are more due to cheapness rather than lack of network ability. Think of your ethernet. Generally the FCC and large portions of the existing community is living in the past (and frequently when they do sally into the cutting edge the screw it up) but a lot of John's comments are emotional gibberish that don't even apply to the existing FCC regulations. To act like this makes you no better than the existing old-fart ham ragchewers. -Ron
chris@hplvdd.HP.COM (Chris Kelly) (08/21/87)
I am not sure why Jim Gilmore has an axe to grind against the amateur radio service, but I think he either misunderstands the service itself or expected that it was a homogeneous group just waiting to serve his particular needs in some way. The amateur radio service predates the formal regulation of radio, and did indeed start as individuals who wanted to try out the use of "Spark" to communicate without wires. It was morse code and exotic spark transmitters used by folks who were radio pioneers and later became major contributors to the development of broadcast radio, TV, Radar, etc. Today the amateur service is regulated by the FCC, to try to bring order to the chaos which would otherwise result if the use of radio spectrum were unregulated. Unlike scenes from "Smokey and the Bandit", one cannot pick up the mike of any radio anywhere and talk to the sheriff, because CB, TV, shortwave, radar, aircraft, police and hams all have their own "slices" of the available spectrum, which do not overlap and interfere. Radio amateurs are not a homogeneous group, and the service (which is a licensed service and not just a hobby) is almost as diverse as any cross-section of people anywhere. Some folks enjoy Public Service communications, which include providing comm for bicycle races, yachting regatta, severe weather reporting nets, "health fairs", equestrian events, and other non-commercial events which are distributed over wide areas. Other folks are dedicated to emergency communications, and prepare in advance for everything from floods, tornadoes and hurricanes to airplane crashes and rescuing injured rock climbers. Recent examples include the Mexico City Earthquake and the major tornadoes in Canada. Amateur radio is an important part of many local, county and state emergency communications plans, because hams are not just using radio as a tool of their job (like police do) but are familiar with the vagaries of propagation because they study and use the various modes and know what frequency band and technique can accomplish the desired result. Additionally, "hams" can and do provide large "bandwidth" channels to relieve the usual immediate overload of the public safety channels when a disaster occurs. Others enjoy the examples given of "talking to the other side of the world using morse code", using the lower-frequency, long-range bands. Hams also are involved in many technical aspects of radio, including "moonbounce" (in which VHF and UHF signals are reflected from the moon and back to another spot on earth), amateur satellite building and use (many new concepts were first used and proven on amateur satellites), "meteor scatter" (in which signals are reflected off fleeting ionized trails of meteors burning up in the atmosphere), experiments in the multi-gigahertz microwave region, amateur television, and of course packet radio. These interests are not all overlapping, and nobody I know or have ever heard of has been seriously involved in more than a few areas of the service. It is a very diverse area, with a lot of room for new ideas. I think perhaps Jim Gilmore expected that because he had a great idea for how he would like to use his amateur license, the whole US population of hams would jump at the opportunity to serve his needs in some unstated way. The way new ideas become realized, accepted and operational is through simple hard work, not through repeated assertion. One example is that of amateur packet radio: many hams, myself included, had been thinking of how best to make digital connections over the air. Many experimental systems were built using various techniques on various frequencies, but most stayed very local inside closed systems, because most hams built their own gear. Then a group of hams in Tucson formed a nonprofit R&D corporation called Tucson Amateur Packet Radio, and designed and offered for sale a radio modem called a Terminal Node Controller, or TNC. This took a lot of work and actually involved hams from throughout the US, but the key point is that a few people with a good idea worked hard to make it generally available for a reasonable price. The protocols were based on X.25 and became a standard, called AX.25, or Amateur X.25, so anybody could make and sell a TNC which would interoperate with any other TNC abiding by the standards. Since this time (1982 or so) the TNC's have been manufactured by many commercial outfits, and their price ($130 and up) has been dropping due to widespread acceptance and competition among vendors. The evolution of how these TNC's are used in the amateur service has been a somewhat random walk, since different areas grew at different rates, and considerable diversity in "local area networks" is still evident. There is an emerging national network of packet radio stations using some HF (long range) and VHF (short range) amateur radio bands. How the network operates is primarily dependant upon how much time and money is available to individual hams, and how altruistic they individually are in willingness to provide their equipment for shared use. The network is loosely coupled, but I can still get an error-free message to either coast in a few hours, using linked BBS stations which unload into long-distance HF "gateways". All this is done at 300 to 1200 baud, since in every case the equipment used transmits over radios designed for voice operation, and respond only to frequencies in the 300-3000 hertz range. To gain free use of the "network" I have to expect that my operation will conform to the net, not vice-versa. The amateur service has several bands in relatively constant use, but even with about 1/2 million hams using the bands, there is room for new modes, especially at the higher range of frequencies. If Jim Gilmore wants to operate some other form of packet radio, there is room for him to do it, he need only coordinate his frequency use with other hams in the area and go to it! If he wishes to use some other type of equipment than the de-facto standard TNC's, he is free to design, build, buy, borrow or otherwise acquire such equipment and put it on the air. Only loose legal restrictions apply, as noted in other messages, which are designed to prevent interference to other services and maintain reasonable channel-loading on limited spectrum space (lower frequencies mean lower bandwidth). What Jim Gilmore will find is that there is nobody out to get him, but that there may be only a few hams interested in his particular form of digital radio (just like only a few hams like to talk via moonbounce). It will take a lot of work to reinvent the standards, just as TAPR found out. What has evolved in the amateur service is very heavily dependant on the foresight and hard work of a very few, since there are not many folks out there competent to write network communications software with the time and eagerness to spend months of their non-working hours to do it. As a sidenote, because it takes much time and effort to accomplish almost anything worthwhile in radio (or life) the folks you find on the air a lot "rag-chewing" are often NOT the folks that are doing the technical innovation and work. Picking up a radio and talking may put you in touch with hams, but they may not be the particular hams with whom you would like to speak. For example, there are probably 500 hams within 30 miles of me in northern Colorado, but only 3 of us were interested enough to work on the local packet radio repeater. The hobby is as diverse as the people in it, and "it" accomplishes exactly as much as the people in it. If Jim sees an opportunity to do some new thing, he need only do it, not kick because it hasn't been done for him. .....Chris
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (08/22/87)
In article <2788@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
) > First, he is totally inaccurate and misleading about the dissimilarity
) > between ham radio and computer 'hobbying.'...
) > ...lumping all hams into one "boring" pigeon
) > hole isn't accurate, let alone fair.
)
) As a 15-year computerist who got a ham license to experiment with
) packet radio, let me comment. The ham fraternity is seriously
) reactionary. Hams work hard to keep others out,
Huh? How, then, do you explain the multitude of ham radio classes that exist
constantly? Every ham club I know of works very hard to attract newcomers.
We think ham radio is great; why should we want to keep it to ourselves?
) so there will be more
) frequency spectrum for them to use, and they actively spy upon and
) report (to the Feds) violations of the mickey-mouse rules they operate
) under. Everything you do is under control of government regulations
) which take years to update, and the army of reactionary spies makes it
) hard to operate outside the rules.
Ham radio is self-regulating, both by long tradition and FCC wish. Which
would you rather have: fellow hams telling you you're breaking the
(reasonable) rules (which I'll address in a moment), or the FCC sending you
an official citation every time you mess up, even slightly? The system
works.
As for the "mickey-mouse rules": Funny, I see nothing wrong with prohibiting
obscenity, regulating frequency use and power output, or forbidding
malicious interference.
) In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical. New ideas
) and new people are welcomed. Experimentation is encouraged. If you
) get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way
) or do it your new way. You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can
) plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether
) you are permitted double the speed of your machine. If you can afford
) to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it.
There's no real reason yu can't innovate in ham radio, either. If you want
to experiment, go right ahead - and, as long as you don't cause a real
interference problem, nobody will stop you. If you want to do something that
might cause interference, but it's a technical advance, the mechanism is
there - and the FCC is liberal in granting STAs to reasonable requests.
) I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for
) computer users. While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio
) Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the
) hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just
) send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that
) THEY had had to go through. They wanted to use their new, experimental
) packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting
) the bull over the radio).
For all the ragchewers, there are an equal number of people seriously
working on higher-level protocol implementation, wide-area networking (and
the problems are different over unreliable radio links than they are over
(comparatively) reliable phone lines), public service usage, you name it.
There IS a problem with letting the world flow data on an amateur link:
Amateur radio is a non-commercial service. Hams can use cheaper equipment,
more frequencies, and higher power than their commercial counterparts. If
the entire world was permitted to use the packet network to pass any data
they wished, what would stop GTE from having its employees get ham licenses
and use the packet network as part of Telenet?
) > One sub-hobby of widespread popularity involves relaying messages through an
) > organized network of stations. This networking concept is going through a
) > metamorphosis as a result of the introduction of computer technology.
) > Networking, of course, is what we are talking about with radio modems.
) > Hence, attracting computerists into ham radio is a 'natural' which will
) > benefit everyone.
)
) What hams knew, or wanted to know, about computer networking in 1982
) would fill a thimble, maybe. There are a few people like Phil Karn who
) span both computer networking and ham radio, but the rest were
) basically ignorant. Their "networking" consisted of passing 10-word
) messages from one person to another, by voice or Morse code, down a
) line of humans, on a fixed nightly schedule. This was (is) mostly done
) by people who have nothing better to do than read other
) peoples' messages over the air. This has nothing to do with
) computer networking, though these people have finally realized that
) they can automate the processing if they can ever get their packet
) radios to work reliably enough. So now they want a few computer people
) to come in and fix 'em up so they can do their same old same-old,
) without, of course, letting many new computer users in to crowd the radio
) spectrum.
You're ignoring there the most visible thing hams do: emergency message
handling. The 10-word messages you bemoan are training material, for when
the excrement impacts the rotating air circulatory device...and when that
happens, hams will be there, getting critical (yes, and not-so-critical)
messages into and out of the disaster area.
) [They claim to be practicing for providing emergency communications
) service. However, if the public was permitted to use the airwaves for
) REGULAR communications service, then no EMERGENCY service would be
) needed, since the regular service would continue to work in
) emergencies. E.g. the cops don't rely on hams, they have their own
) radios for regular and emergency use.]
I've addressed this one before, but I'll repeat myself: Public service
agency communications are fine for the normal case. When all hell breaks
loose, though, their channels fill up rapidly and become unusable. Who do
they turn to for their enhanced communications needs? Hams.
(BTW, I always carry my 2-meter handheld with me when I'm on an ambulance
call...as an EMT, I want backup communications.)
) > Mr. Decker would never have made his suggestion about
) > putting radio modems on 160-190 khz if he had had the slightest notion of
) > the mathematics and physics of communication. If radio modems are to be of
) > any practical use for more than one pair of terminals every 40 miles, they
) > must use very high data rates. (56,000 data bits per second as a minimum.)
)
) That's funny, the hams who are currently doing packet radio are doing
) it at 1200 baud. It's in fact illegal to go faster than 9600 baud over
) ham radio in the United States.
Only below 1240 MHz.
) Ham packet radio was started in
) Canada, where the government didn't get nearly as much in the way.
) It took an immense amount of work in the US just to get the use of ASCII
) legalized over the air -- before that, it was Morse or Baudot or
) nothing.
Mainly because of the monitoring problem: since ham radio is
self-regulating, the FCC didn't want to hamper the efforts by allowing
widespread use of a mode that nobody could copy. It had been used for
several well-designed experiments, though.
) 56Kbit modems are a research project at a few places, like
) Linkoping University in Sweden; Stanford; and at Tucson Amateur Packet
) Radio.
Hams don't experiment, huh?
) > Mr. Decker suggested extending range by using
) > digital repeaters. Hams have found that in practice using more than two such
) > links in a row tends to bog down, although the newer NETROM modification to
) > the conventional TAPR TNC software seems to be a big help in linking.
)
) As explained above, the ham fraternity knows nothing about networking.
) This is why they are using very lossy links, but with protocols where
) acknowledgement and retransmission only happens end-to-end. This data
) is being relayed at a maximum of 1200 baud -- HALF DUPLEX -- between
) each relay point. If you connect directly (no repeaters), you might
) get 1000 baud since you have to turn the line around once in a while
) for acknowledgements. If you use one repeater, divide by more than 2,
) since each packet has to go to the repeater, then, from the repater to
) the destination. (Each of these hops involves a delay of up to .3
) seconds while switching from receive to transmit, depending on the
) quality of the radio.) Just going through one repeater, you drop under
) 300 baud; two repeaters gets you say 100 baud, or 10 cps. That is,
) when all the data gets through error-free. No wonder it "bogs down" on
) more then two links!
This is a well-known problem. The digipeater function was added to AX.25
(the ham extension of X.25) as a work-around, so that people wouldn't have
to use expensive, high-powered radios to get on and talk; instead, they
could put up a digipeater at some high point and talk to it. With my 25-watt
radio, I can reach all over south Texas with little effort.
Several groups are working on practical, higher-level protocols to get
around the problem you describe. Instead of complaining, wny not lend your
considerable expertise to help solve the problems??
) > Pressure to end
) > the Morse requirement is growing even among hams. Also, some influential
) > people within the FCC are beginning to say publicly that some of the
) > restrictions now put on hams (particularly the ones on message content) are
) > unrealistic and unreasonable.
)
) The pressure may be "growing" but it's sure not grown. The FCC backed
) a proposal to open up ham radio to computerists
(and anyone else)
) who didn't know Morse
) code, a few years ago, and it was shot down by comments from thousands
) of reactionary hams, guided and spearheaded by the ARRL (American Radio
) Relay League), sort of the AAA of the airwaves.
The proposal was very badly thought out. It would have given wide-ranging
radio privileges to someone based on a simple written test, and did not even
try to see that they had the minimal technical knowledge to operate their
equipment within the bounds of the rules.
The Morse Code objection is a red herring. Anyone can, with a minimal amount
of study, learn the code. Are you trying to suggest that computer types
aren't intelligent enough to do so?
) > I am saying only that computer hobbyists
) > should not reject the option of pursuing ham radio as a medium for radio
) > modeming solely on the basis of erroneous statements made by someone who
) > obviously doesn't know whereof he speaks.
)
) How about rejecting the option on the basis of MY statements, made by
) someone who DOES know whereof he speaks. I tried it. I still have my
) ham license (KB6DQC, technician's). I'm gone though. I'm building
) free software rather than building packet radio networks, because there
) is no government actively standing in the way of building and using
) free software. I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to
) die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the
) amateur spectrum space. I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong.
Watch the network grow and improve! You have apparently gotten the wrong
impression from a few minor legalities, instead of seeing the broad horizon
awaiting anyone with a little imagination.
I've been a ham for 16 years (before you ask: I'm not an old fogy...I'm only
27!). I've been involved in a very wide range of different pursuits during
that time: from CW (Morse Code) ragchewing, to VHF-FM and repeaters (I'm
currently serving as president of the Texas VHF-FM Society), to packet
radio, and always answer the call when the public welfare needs it. I'm not
an expert on the design of networking protocols (having been corrupted by
SNA :-), but I can and do participate actively in packet. While you're
complaining, we're innovating.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
"Don't ask ME about Unix... | (or sun!housun!nuchat) CI$: 71036,1603
I speak SNA!" | internet: beats me GEnie: JAYMAYNARD
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (08/24/87)
in article <77@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) says: > In article <2788@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > > ) > Pressure to end > ) > the Morse requirement is growing even among hams. Also, some influential > ) > people within the FCC are beginning to say publicly that some of the > ) > restrictions now put on hams (particularly the ones on message content) are > ) > unrealistic and unreasonable. > The Morse Code objection is a red herring. Anyone can, with a minimal amount > of study, learn the code. Are you trying to suggest that computer types > aren't intelligent enough to do so? A couple of local hams tried getting me into their hobby by waving the red flag of packet radio before my eyes. One shoved his ARRL handbook upon me, which I dutifully read. No big problem there, I like learning new and useful things (the power supply designs alone were worth the read). Then another one took me to the local hamfest (where I got a big mungo heatsink for a power supply I was building :-), and forced one of those introductory kits upon me, you know, the one with the Morse code tape in it. I read the first few pages, and listened to a few beeps, and then I said, "Why the hell am I sitting here listening to a damn tape beeping at me, when I could be doing something useful?!" Needless to say, I never did "get my ticket"... sure, it's only a few hours, but I'm a busy person, and if something that seems a waste of time comes along, there's 50 dozen other things to do tacked onto my bulletin board (hoards of little yellow notes, covered with suggestions, people I need to call, etc). The point: technical information is useful, even though I'm a software guy. About the only people who'd complain about having to learn some technical info, would be dweebs who don't belong on the airwaves anyhow. But listening to beeps? I can think of better things to do with my time and money. Like, logging onto a USENET machine instead. And instead of spending a few hundred bucks on a used transciever and antenna, getting me a better printer, or that new software package that just came out, or.... Anyhow, I guess what I'm trying to say is that ham radio has gotten a bad image amongst todays techies. They don't see the old '50s image of the electronics wizard ham enthusiast cobbling up his own machine with spare parts and advancing the state of the art. Instead, they see basically upscale CB radio operators, who spend all these jillions of dollars just to beep at one another and "ragchew" all day, a waste of time and money. Until ham radio regains a reputation for technological prowness and sheds the waste-of-time-and-money reputation, the ranks of amateur radio operators will continue to dwindle. I'm sure you ham folks can think of some good things about Morse code (like "well, it's as not sensitive to conditions as voice transmission, and in event of nuclear warfare, reception would be shot to hell, so we need to know Morse to communicate when the end of the world comes"). But to the average Joe Techie on the street, the kind of person you'd want to attract (as vs. the CB radio rejects), he sees no use in it -- all he sees is yet another way of wasting his time, and is immediately and permenantly turned off to ham radio. All that blather about ragchewing certificates and talk-to-all-this-and-that certificates and such, only confirms his suspicions. Raising potted plants seems more educational and exciting as a hobby, and cheaper, too. After all, who the f*ck cares if I talked to all 50 contenients and 99 foreign countries and 15 planets all on a tenth of a milliwatt of power! -- Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ollie North for President: {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg A man we can believe (in). Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/24/87)
In article <5899@sri-unix.ARPA> larson@sri-unix.ARPA (Alan Larson) writes: |John, | You seem to have some misconceptions. Since your article is quite |long, I will not quote the entire thing. | |> Hams work hard to keep others out, so there will be more frequency |> spectrum for them to use, | |I suppose this is why they give classes to those interested in amateur |radio. Often these classes are free. A prevalent thrust in amateur |radio is recruting new amateurs. I think what John meant was that hams work to keep other users out, other than hams, to leave more space for the ham bands. Given the ham reaction to citizens band, cellular phones, etc, he is not *completely* without reason. I would really like to see the code requirement dropped from the technicians license. Judging from the hams I know most haven't used CW in years, and even the DX types tend to go sideband rather than CW. More people to talk to. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {chinet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/25/87)
In reading all the drek about how CW (morse code) is good/bad in
comp.dcom.modems and how assembly language is good/bad in comp.arch, it
occurs to me that CW is the radio world's assembler and vice versa.
Now, can we all talk about something useful?
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (08/27/87)
In article <1398@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > in article <77@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) says: > ... and forced one of those introductory kits upon me, > you know, the one with the Morse code tape in it. I read the first few pages, > and listened to a few beeps, and then I said, "Why the hell am I sitting here > listening to a damn tape beeping at me, when I could be doing something > useful?!" Can't argue with you. I was interested in getting my ticket from about age 10. I got my technician ticket in high school because you are forced to waste your time anyway so why not take a class where you can waste it learing morse code. I then got back to my interest, electronics. I got to build transmitters and remote base stations and test them out because I now had my ticket. Did I ever use morse code? No. Did I learn about electronics and further the state of the art? Yes and I hope so. Next came college and 4 more wasted years. Sure enough, a class where you got a B if you had a technician license by the end of the class, A if you got a general or higher. As I already qualified for a B if I didn't even attend class (really, I checked it out) I decided to take the class time and try for an A. I got an advanced ticket and 4 units of upper division A. In the 20 years since that time I have built a lot of stuff, learned a lot and, um, morse code, what's that? -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, +----------------+ Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX | NO CONTRA AID! | ...!uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl +----------------+