Over the past 4 years, I've written a variety of opinion columns addressing issues in Amateur Radio. I'll summarize some of those columns here and explain why I intend this as my last column; the web site will remain as a personal web site and I will continue to add articles from time to time. But my priorities are moving elsewhere. You are encouraged to continue using the online Forums and to keep the flame burning.

Attitude issue

The number one problem facing the Amateur service is a hostile attitude towards anything that is different, including newcomers and change - meaning improvements in procedures, processes and technology. You can read more about this in Promoting Amateur Radio, Marketing Amateur Radio and in Amateur Radio Has Lost its Uniqueness.

Marketing

As pointed out in Promoting Amateur Radio, the Tech classes are growing, year over year, with essentially no marketing or promotion. This is great news and we should leverage this. For several years, we've proven that marketing ham radio with big towers, HF rigs, keyers, amps, and big antennas has generated effectively zero new hams. We've proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are many simple steps we can take to promote our great hobby. Banner exchange ads (check them out at http://www.linkexchange.com, for example) are easy to implement on your ham radio web site. There are many other simple methods. I wish I had time to write a column on the topic.

Our Reason for Existence

We exist to support the public. We have no other purpose for our existence. In some way, shape or form, the public expects to derive benefits by granting us access to a broad selection of radio frequencies. These benefits come in five ways (see Part 97.1). Today, the public finds that spectrum is valuable. Their preference is to assign spectrum to the highest valued use. The mechanism they have chosen to make this assignment is by auctioning spectrum to the highest bidder. Bidders independently choose how to optimally use their spectrum. The public buys their services, or the provider goes broke, and the spectrum re-sells to another party. In this way, the market, over time, identifies the highest valued use.

This approach impacts Amateur radio. By focusing on the present, and the future, we expand our value to the public. By stubbornly preserving methods of the past - that served well back then - we fill a declining niche of public needs. Our value to the public declines and the public decides to re-assign our spectrum privileges to higher values. In 1989, we lost 220-222 Mhz spectrum. 902-928 Mhz and 2390-2450 Mhz have been usurped by millions of Part 15 devices and the assignment of priority access to AVL systems at 900 Mhz (with their right to suspend Amateur operations in the band). 5.7 Ghz, over time, is likely to go the same direction as 902 and 2400 - as it will be used by unlicensed high-speed data links spanning many miles of distance. 1240-1260 Mhz is under consideration for re-allocation. 3.3 to 3.5 Ghz is under consideration for use in future fixed wireless local loop services in the U.S.; there is a desire for 10 Mhz of wireless local loop spectrum near 400 Mhz for serving rural customers (can you say "Amateur 420-430 Mhz band"?)

By reallocating Amateur spectrum, the public tells us that our value is declining. I hinted at this in a recent story on VDSL computer networking (see Home Networking, VDSL and HF Interference, and related stories, Special Reports: The Death of HF Radio Operation?, and RFI From Home Computer Networks,). VDSL broadcasts data on copper phone lines using HF radio frequencies and the proponents admit it creates lots of HF interference. But when the FCC is asked about preserving HF for Amateur telegraphic communications versus a competitive market for high speed residential internet service, it is an easy decision based on which creates the most value for society.

License Re-structuring

License restructuring is not a panacea. It does not define a new vision for Amateur Radio. Once the FCC issues a decision, there will be a one-time bump in licenses, lasting perhaps a year. Unfortunately, the restructuring proposals missed the de facto change from a HF centered ham radio to VHF/UHF operation. Maybe the FCC will figure this on their own and address it in the final ruling. Otherwise, the licensing system remains mismatched to contemporary requirements.

Speaking of the FCC, have you noticed how it seems the majority of "news" now carried in Amateur Radio Newsline and The ARRL Letter consists of reports of enforcement proceedings and little else? There is an argument that publicizing enforcement actions will deter other nuts from doing similar things. To my eye, this publicity focused on bad apples makes ham radio look ugly - so I've avoided covering thse stories, entirely. But heck, reprinting government press releases is a time honored easy source for new stories!

Emergency Communications

There are some cool emergency communications activities underway by ham operators, particularly regarding severe weather situations (hurricanes and tornadoes), occasional earthquakes on the West Coast, and forest fires in California. Unfortunately, our only nationally sponsored simulated emergency training drill is largely disconnected from real emergencies.

In The FCC Reorganization: And Why The SET Is Irrelevant, I wrote about the ARRL-sponsored Simulated Emergency Test, that if implemented as their policy guidelines recommend, is rather pointless. I was surprised at the number of you who wrote to tell me, "Wow, you're right", and/or sent me copies of your SET plans, which deviated greatly from the official guidelines. Here in our state, we followed the rule book, turning this into a Simulated Traffic Test, originating NTS traffic containing famous quotations (to avoid listeners thinking there was an actual emergency). Locally we staffed 3 radio stations at 3 fire stations, each operating 2 transmitters, operating for a full 24 hours, which is quite an achievement. Everyone worked very hard and were very professional inspite of difficult, sleep deprived situations. Personally, I had a blast for the few hours I was able to spare. At the end of the exercise, we justifiably patted ourselves on the back for having achieved 160 to 180 messages handled, per station in the 24 hours period. Measured in conventional NTS fashion, this was a great achievement. But when measured using a more modern yardstick, our thruput was less than 1 BIT PER SECOND over the 24-hour period! And if the messages being sent to our station were typical, an estimated 1 in 3 were defective before even reaching us!

While we have trouble recruiting sufficient ARES/RACES team members for actual events, maybe the real problem is that we make inefficient use of what we have (see Amateur Radio Has Lost its Uniqueness). For our Simulated Traffic Test, we could have delivered the same set of messages with just 6 to 8 operators, using simple packet radio systems. Our average throughput would likely exceed 100 bits per second (which is generously derated from the 1,200 bps raw speeds), in about 2 hours time, including setup and typing the initial messages.

Rather than optimize use of people and frequencies, we act like people and frequencies are free, so we squander them. We act like a monopolist, since only a monopolist can deliver reduced quantities, with poor quality, and steadfastly refuse to improve procedures and processes yielding better service. Interestingly enough, once upon a time, ham radio had a monopoly on communications (see Amateur Radio Has Lost its Uniqueness, Dealing with Threats to Amateur Radio Head On, The Decline of Amateur Radio?, and Is Ham Radio Still Relevant?). That world does not exist anymore. But in 1999, we act like monopolists! We squander  people and frequencies since they cost nothing. Imagine how you would allocate your volunteers if you had to pay them $20 per hour? When we are shorthanded we actually have a process problem that needs fixing, not a shortage of free workers. The Amateur Radio is just begging for improvements to better use our people.

By the way, I'm not arguing against NTS procedures. Besides personally enjoying traffic handling, there are times where formal NTS traffic handling plays a part (in my own emergency and public service experience, it occurs in about 2% of the situations). But we so obsess with NTS traffic handling that our only national-level simulated emergency training session has little to do with actual emergency training. 

Technical Experimentation

There are still a great many places for Amateurs to contribute. I came up with partial lists in Software Radios and Digital Bits and America Needs Amateur Radio.

ARRL

The demographics of the ARRL show an organization predominately representing the interests of those who operate HF, and who are a minority of all amateurs. The ARRL membership includes half of all Extras, 1/3 of all Advanced class licenses, about 1/4^th of all Generals, and diminishing numbers of Techs (who are the majority of all licensees) and Novices. Therefore, the national organization for amateur radio is not representative of the overall U.S. Amateur population. This is unfortunate because the FCC officially (per correspondence with WB6BNQ) ignores rulemaking petitions from others, in most situations. The data shows that the ARRL membership is elderly. The 1996 survey show 29% over the age of 65. Because the demographics imply an aging membership that is reaching the end of their life spans, the ARRL could lose its lobbying clout, simply from a drop in numbers. Whether you agree or disagree with ARRL policies, it has been fairly successful as a lobbyist on behalf of Amateur Radio.

The Rational Argument For - Or Against - A Telegraphy Requirement

Many arguments have been put forth either for or against a telegraphy proficiency requirement in the Amateur Radio service. In the columns I've written over the past four years, I've noted that the telegraphy proficiency requirement is doubtfully the main factor in the success or failure of the Amateur service (especially in The Decline of Amateur Radio?). There are many, many issues at play, from competition for people's attention, to the loss of uniqueness in ham radio today, to restrictive antenna covenants on new housing. Hence, I've not expressed an opinion on the subject. And I'm still not - instead, I'm advocating a logical way of examining the issue.

We exist solely to provide benefits to the public we serve. Therefore, the Amateur service must be optimized to meet the requirements of the public. This perspective leads to the rational argument for – or against – a telegraphic proficiency requirement. Literally, since the Amateur service exists to serve the public, we must ask, "Does our society demand more telegraphers or more technicians and engineers?" If our society demands more telegraphers, than a telegraphy requirement is important. If our society has little demand for telegraphers, than a telegraphy requirement is superfluous and may hinder our effectiveness at producing more persons knowledgeable in the technical art of radio communications. 

The government recently expanded its H-1B visa program enabling foreign engineers to work in the U.S. to fill an alleged shortage of technical workers in the United States. The number of visas to be issued was increased from 65,000 per year to 115,000 per year (the INS admits it may have admitted 135,000 during the recent year). Three proposals are now before Congress to expand this to 200,00 engineers per year, or raise the cap to virtually unlimited numbers. (See http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/zdtvnews/features/story/0,3685,2353217,00.html?chkpt=zdnnp1ms). No such program has been established for telegraphers. Society's near zero demand for telegraphers is adequately fulfilled by those of us who voluntarily choose to maintain proficiency in telegraphy.

The evidence suggests society has a large demand for engineers and a nil demand for telegraphers. A logical conclusion is that the telegraphy proficiency requirement in the Amateur service no longer serves a public need.

Summary

So in the end, we are faced with fixing our attitude towards newcomers and change and getting serious about marketing our great hobby. We've got to welcome change - and making our procedures, our requirements and our service better, every year. Many of our traditional activities rarely meet the contemporary needs of today's public. We have it within our power to make ham radio the 21^st century hobby. I truly believe that a high tech hobby, that serves the public's needs and interests, which has the ability to innovate in myriad ways by combining the hot topics of wireless communications, computing and network communications - ought to thrive in the coming century. We have all the pieces sitting there right before us - if only we are willing, through acceptance of change, to seize the opportunity.

On the downside, we are faced with many challenges:

1. Our resistance to new and different ways of doing things, and a frequent hostility to newcomers who have different interests than us.
2. Significant HF interference problems looming on the immediate horizon (home computer networks, which will soon become home entertainment networks, broadcast at HF and are selling like crazy right now) and VDSL, who's proponents admit that it causes horrendous HF interference. These technologies are a cornerstone of government policies to promote a competitive high speed internet access market to the home.
3. Perhaps half of all U.S. residents are faced with prohibitions on HF antennas. This number will increase as prohibitive CC&Rs are on nearly all new home construction. Maybe it doesn't matter - since it seems we are moving to VHF/UHF operation anyway.
4. Finally, the demographics of the ARRL are unfortunate - from not representing the other 80% of the U.S. hams, to potentially suffering membership losses due to the effects of its aging members.

For practical reasons, this is probably my last opinion column. When I started this web site on October 30, 1995, my goal was to learn about the Internet and electronic publishing and this web site significantly exceeded my goals. Several thousand unique visitors, from 120 countries around the world, stop by Ham Radio Online every day and for that I am flattered. I've provided assistance to numerous media contacts (including MSNBC, the BBC, and others) regarding stories related in some way to Amateur radio. I'm currently working with an author who is developing a novel about a West Coast city hit by an earthquake - and who wants to get the Amateur Radio participation as authentic as possible. I have a lot of fun helping to promote Amateur Radio. 

Along the way, I've suggested ideas for overcoming the loss of purpose afflicting Amateur Radio today. Judging from the email and posting on the forums, I've been modestly successful in bringing a new perspective to the issues. It's been a fun way of giving something back to ham radio, from which I have derived a great deal of enjoyment and satisfaction. In one perspective, I could turn the web site commercial and perhaps make some money from it in order to justify the time commitment. But I'm a realist. Amateur Radio is not a growth industry. It makes more sense to focus my energy on growing markets. I will continue to post some articles, but basically the web site is reverting to a personal web site, with much less of the "magazine style" that has developed over the years.

It's time for me to move on,

73,

Ed Mitchell, KF7VY 
http://hamradio-online.com