Bolstering amateur radio?

The FCC is trumpeting this today: 

We’re bolstering amateur radio. We will vote on a proposal to incentivize innovation and experimentation in the amateur radio bands by removing outdated restrictions and providing licensees with the flexibility to use modern digital emissions.

 I'm interested but not overly convinced.  Frankly, I've been writing about government for too many years to not be skeptical about ANYTHING they cough up, particularly when they sound like they're trying to promote something we're supposed to think is a good thing.

First, this vote will supposedly occur at an "Open Meeting" of the FCC. An Open Meeting just a dog and pony show; streamed these days on their website, wherein they read prepared statements.  That's it. And it needs to be remembered  that the commission has had these proposals floating around in their DC offices for over a decade, now, so nobody can accuse the FCC of a knee-jerk action, here.

Now, , you'll recall the conversations we've been having as regards the stock traders wanting HF access with high power and increased bandwidth. As I said at the time that proposal came up, it looks to me that the commission didn't expect the volume of howling from individual Hams to be quite so loud as it was.

With that in mind, it seems likely to me that this is the commission's version of "giveback". If commercial interests can run wider bandwidth, they reason, why should Hams be restricted? At least I suspect that is what they're trying to sell. The dog and pony nature of their open meetings doesn't lend itself to public comment, in any event. If they're bringing something up at this meeting, they've already hashed out what they're doing and how it'll be presented.

That said, I don't put much stock in the Chicken Littles wailing and gnashing of teeth over "the end of Ham radio" and more than I think FT8, SSB, or the break from spark gappers signaled the end of Ham radio.  Then again, I never have. 

Will the new rules be to our advantage? IDK, but it does seem to me that the commission will be reluctant to hand us any setbacks at this point. Yeah, I know....but understand me, here.

It's my take that they likely got clobbered to a level they didn't expect in the comment period for the SMC proposal, about how Ham radio was getting the axe from the commission. I'm certain, the league saw some of that thinking in their correspondence as well. (which would explain why folks like KE0OG took to his channel to address the issue with the message "Calm down". ) 

 

 How else, after all, to explain the loud trumpets surrounding the announcement of this proposal, about how they're "Bolstering amateur radio"? That kind of fanfare surrounding this announcement from the commission is fairly unique, in my experience.Why would they feel the need to promote things that way,except to counter that perception that the commission was working to eliminate Ham radio? I've been writing about government and the actions they take for too many years not to be skeptical, at least and in truth, cynical, thinking that In reality, there's no reason for it otherwise

 

As to what we WILL get...I doubt we're going to see (Lat's say) C4FM on HF outside of 10m, because (By Yeasu's description) that's using 12.5KHz generating the 9600 baud rate the mode uses. And frankly, I have my doubts that we'll see other digital modulation modes show up below 10m, (At least for passing voice) because even at the meager bandwidth C4FM uses,there's a practical consideration for the end user.... it still sounds like a bad MP3. Sorry, it just does. 

 

I've seen arguments going on over speculation that the commission was going to widen HF bandwidth limits to accommodate things like that. One can easily understand why they have (apparently) chosen not to significantly change those limits: Fear of running into this kind of creature. (Snicker) I mean, even a shallow reading of his reax to eSSB has me wondering if the prospect of digi sigs of 12khz (or, more) would have his family calling for an ambulance.

Let's bottom line this, at this: Doing away with symbol rate limits is a good idea, long past it's due. They've been sitting on this one since what, 2004, I think.  

 

However: 

 

At least in the near term, it's my read that there will be no significant changes to Ham radio on HF, either legally or practically. There are still physical limits on what we can cram into 3k of analog space and I don't see the average Ham having enough data processing horsepower on his desk to even partially overcome that limitation. Hell, I build my own computers, and I don't have such computing power available, either. In short any innovation in this area will first show up in the short bands.  

I'll be watching of course.

Emergency handling in the ham radio world

Had a conversation with Dave Jensen, W7DGJ the other day, in response to his recent article, Trials and Errors Issue #29: More Hero Hams -- the 1937 Ohio River Valley Flood

 I will suggest reading the article at the link before we go on.

Now, I know, there's been a lot of chatter about this over the last few years. I admit I take a different approach to the topic than many hams do. I tell Dave, in my response at QRZ:

A couple of things strike me about the editorial.

First the subject of regimentation of amateurs came up, regimentation of amateurs by government, the regimentation of response to emergency situations.

The editorial rightly states that emergencies are totally unpredictable. And, that's true.... Very obviously so. Indeed, in my opinion that's what makes them emergencies. Thereby, making a regimented response worse than useless in many if not most cases.

At the risk of sounding political, emergency planning by government is essentially impossible, thereby. Mind you, I'm not talking about one government or another, I'm talking about any government. Any government entity, any government individual attempting to plan such things except in the broadest of terms is destined for failure. And yet, they keep trying to do precisely that, in an apparent desire to maintain the power of control in their hands not in those of the volunteers. You know, the ones that are actually doing the work.

I suggest that the writings about this incident prove one thing that many people will wish they don't: training & regimentation is neither possible nor desirable in emergency situations and the people that are the most effective in those situations generally are simply doing what they can do, not necessarily what pre-planning by authorities, and regimentation has brought them to.

I suggest that a look at the volunteer fire companies around the country of 50 years ago versus what we have now, while perhaps not directly comparable, is instructive.

50 years ago most areas of the country had fire companies that were staffed by people who are completely volunteer. These days, as time has gone on fire companies have become professional organizations represented by unions in many cases.

The volunteer .... And with it, alas, the spirit of volunteerism, has essentially been erased under the weight of the attitude of "let the professionals do it".

As a result of this progression, many fire companies are left wanting for staff.

One could certainly argue that we are better protected by such a shift, at least in the more heavily populated areas because of the training and regimentation. (Well, at least government believes so...) But there are so many holes in those lines as to make that argument at least a bit more difficult.

Is this where amateur radio is headed as regards emergency response? And this brings us to our second point:

The league has been using emergency response ability as a lever, (one of several) as a means of justifying our operating privileges or frequencies and so on.

The negative effect on amateur radio of downplaying our emergency role is obvious and quite probably devastating, both from the standpoint of "let the professionals do it, it's not my job". (see also, "ham radio is not an emergency service", and the usual jibes about the "yellow jacket crowd".)

And thus needful things not getting done in a timely fashion in an emergency situation...

And also, from the standpoint of being able to maintain those operating privileges. Governments want some return for their investments. That's simply how things are these days. They need to know when time to regulate spectrum comes along, when questions of local zoning boards regulating antenna structures, of our ability and willingness to throw a shoulder where needed. Down playing that role, as I have seen happen so often here on the Zed, runs directly counter to that purpose.

 Dave responds, in part:

I love this line from that ARRL editorial, "The very greatness of our performance early this year now attracts many agencies who would like to commandeer, direct us, and so on. Let them understand that this service comes from us, of our own volition as free agents. We shall want to help them all as much as we can, but of our own accord and not by direction."

Friends, the message sent in that paragraph is the very essence of Americanism.

The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government, that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's members?

. The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government  that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's members?

. The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government  that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's members?

. The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government  that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's members?

. The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government  that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's members?

the message sent in that paragraph is the very essence of Americanism. The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government  that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's membe

the message sent in that paragraph is the very essence of Americanism. The message is that  it is the individuals, not the government  that makes us great.  Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's members?

More on the external processing at K2ENF

 Well, after running the external proc for a couple of weeks, now, I'm getting the hang of what this thing can do and what it shouldn't do. I must say I'm quite pleased with the reports I'm getting.

One of the things I've discovered, is the value of the expansion and noise gate ability. In fact I've come to think it's critical for a good signal.  To explain this, however, I've got to dive into the settings I'm using, and the working philosophy behind them.

Remember that the goal here is raising the average RF power levels by several DB without adding any undue distortion.  Understand what I mean, here. I'm not the audio purist in ham radio some operators are. I'm willing to deal with a bit of added distortion to a certain point, so long as I get the advantages of the increased audio level/RF level. 

So, here's a quick overview. 

1. Whatever mic I'm using. (Usually a Hiel pro-set 6 headset.)
   
2. Gemini mix console with EQ to bring things to line level
   
3. The Behringer Composer Pro-XL MDX2600 
4. Optimus 10 band EQ set to pass 100-3000Hz with a 3db push at ~2100Hz. 
5. Pyle breakout box with a pad to distribute the audio to a second console for recording conversations and to bring the audio back to microphone levels for the radio.
   

The 2600 Pro is a a broadband Noise Gate/ Compressor / Limiter/ De-esser  and is the star of this show.... It is a Stereo unit. but I'm not using it that way.  I have the two channels, left and right, running in series, each one running independently. . In other words, the audio comes out of the mixer and runs to the left channel as the first stage of level control.

This first stage (which if you like to think of it as such, is the left channel) is set up with a full-on noise gate which opens up at seeing anything on the inputs above about 15db down. This keeps stray noises from being broadcast and helps keep the radio's vox control in line.  Once it gets over that threshold, it goes directly to the compressor, with about a four to one ratio.... a slow attack and a slow release. The De-Esser is set fairly loose, only acting if it sees a very serious peak of higher frequency content. Remember, I'm trying to keep the audio bright with the input EQ leaning very heavy on 2100Hz, , but at the same time you need to keep it under some modicum of bandwidth control. So, the I have the De esser acting in peak mode, which over-rides the slower settings.

The second stage is the  right channel. I'm running the audio directly out of the left channel output to the right channel input, with the system set in "dual Mono" mode. The two channels' level controls operate independently, one from the other.  This "side", I have set as a pure peak limiter, with the rise and fall times set very fast indeed, including perhaps 8db worth of noise gating here. This helps provide a bit of definition between words.

This setup theoretically would allow me to run twice the compression... but that's not the purpose here.  Rather, doing it this way allows me to run two separate compression and expansion curves.... the first fairly slow AGC/Noise gate and the second very fast peak limiter/expander.

The purpose of the peak limiter is obvious.... it's maintaining very tight control over any peaks directed at the radio. With the expanders (noise gates) disabled, my peak to average ratio on my air is about 2 or three DB... no more. (If you're looking at a VU meter, that would be the difference between 80% and 100% Or if you like we're talking about less than a half an S-Unit of received signal between the room ambience and my voice.)  That would mean, absent the noise limiting, that I'd be picking up massive amounts of unwanted signal from the room. Echoes, fan noise, etc.  I also have employed the de-esser here as well, which seems to help in keeping the bandwidth inside the 2800 Hz wide skirt. (100-2900)

But here's the secret:  As long as my normal speech is above the threshold of the noise gates, the audio goes directly to as close to zero DB as no matter.  Below that level, the noise is unheard, as is the echo, my breathing, and so on.  No wasted watts, no clutter on the signal.  

I'm getting amazing reports and I am busting through pileups with little effort, even on those occasions I've run with with RF power levels reduced. From this, I learn two things; 

• With the power on full, I'm getting an average power I'd never be able to achieve without the external processor.
• Even at lower RF power settings, I'm being heard, apparently due to the distinctive nature of the audio. 

Both of these factors make a huge difference between my being heard or simply being buried in the noise. And, being heard is the whole point.