
The Backbone of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat - Errorcod3
https://hackaday.com/2019/07/01/the-backbone-of-vhf-amateur-radio-may-be-under-threat/
======
i_am_proteus
Discussed yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321272](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321272)

~~~
dang
Also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20178799](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20178799)

------
t0mas88
The proposed frequency is just above the aviation VHF band (108 to 136Mhz) so
it makes sense to use it when aviation runs out of frequencies to use.

However... EASA has made all aviation radios switch from 25Khz channel spacing
to 8.33Khz channel spacing, essentially tripling the available number of
frequencies for everything between 118 and 136Mhz. So I cannot imagine there
is a current lack of frequencies for aviation in France (or anywhere in
Europe).

The US has some shortage (and still uses 25Khz channel separation), but they
solved it by sharing frequencies between small airports.

~~~
throw0101a
> _So I cannot imagine there is a current lack of frequencies for aviation in
> France (or anywhere in Europe)._

This isn't about voice / ATC, but rather about up/downlinks for drones and
such. From the background on the proposal:

> _The decisions of previous conferences have introduced some restrictions to
> the use and have imposed constraints on the development of aeronautical
> mobile applications within some existing mobile allocations traditionally
> used by the aeronautical mobile applications._

> _At the same time, the number of manned and unmanned aircraft equipped with
> sensors has grown significantly in the past 20 years together with the need
> of bidirectional low to high data rate communications. Aeronautical
> applications like fire surveillance, border surveillance, air quality and
> environment monitoring, traffic monitoring, disaster monitoring, terrain
> modelling, imagery (visible, infrared, radar, meteo), video monitoring
> require non-safety communications between various types of aeronautical
> platforms._

> _Consequently the need of non-safety data communications between various
> types of aeronautical platforms increases and so the need for new frequency
> bands._

* [https://cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/cpg/cpg-pt-a/client/meeting-...](https://cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/cpg/cpg-pt-a/client/meeting-documents/file-history/?fid=51940)

~~~
moftz
Why would you want to try to pump video over VHF? You have line of sight to
everyone when you are in an airplane. Use a higher frequency band that allows
for much more bandwidth and therefore higher data speeds. The little 1.2GHz
video transmitters can easily reach 10km. That is cruising altitude for a
commercial airliner. Having the proper license would get you even greater
distance with a higher transmit power. Have the drone/UAV transmit ADS-B data
and use GPS position to point a high-gain directional antenna at it, that
should get you even more bandwidth.

~~~
kawfey
This, to me, is why this request is so unusual. This is much more suited for
spread spectrum, secure, short wavelength (smaller antennas) and the like, and
its surprising that Thales - a world renowned avionics corporation - is behind
the push. It's also why I think this big 2m band scare is moot; someone didn't
actually do the engineering, it's like they just threw out a random number and
put it in a powerpoint slide.

------
kylehotchkiss
I can't help but feel the amateur radio community could have used a rebrand
for the internet age. I understand there's a lot of history but it's hard to
get young people interested in being _hams_, a word that has not aged well. I
got my licence about a decade back and really loved the technical pieces -
learning about how radio waves worked, propagation with different bands, the
ability to (try) to build your own modem with two radios and an Arduino, but
when it came to actually talking to people on the radio... other people just
wanted to talk about radios.

It is really fascinating what you can do with 2m band radios. For those times
and places where your cell phone won't work, digital modes on the new Icom
radios look pretty cool. Being able to hook up a radio to a laptop to send
something digitally still seems valuable and relevant! But the community
branding could use some modernization to push those use cases.

~~~
hanoz
In my opinion one of the best ways of injecting some new life into the
community would be to let people take their test online.

~~~
Jach
Two better ways: remove the need for a test or license at all, at least at
many more frequencies and below energy levels well above current limits (which
say you can transmit around 2.4 Ghz for example up to some power license-
free). Second is to remove any restrictions on what is transmitted, which lets
you have purely digital frequency modulated end-to-end encrypted signals meant
for amateur computers to decipher.

But making the test online sounds a lot more feasible a change. I'm just
skeptical of its effects. e.g. It wouldn't have made me any likelier to pursue
amateur radar fun further.

~~~
tlrobinson
As much as I'd love to have more people in amateur radio, and the ability to
use encryption, I think both the licensing and prohibition on encryption are
fairly critical to keeping things running smoothly.

The test includes lots of useful information such as requirements to transmit
your callsign and using minimum power necessary.

The prohibition on encryption is pretty critical to enforce other rules such
as only using it for non-commercial purposes. Encryption isn't actually
necessary for any of the stated purposes of amateur radio (experimentation,
recreation, training, contesting, emergency comms, etc). You can still use any
digital mode, including digital signatures, but not encryption of the content.

I might be in favor of creating a class lower than Technician, and allowing
taking the test online, though. You should still be assigned a callsign that
you are required to transmit.

~~~
jmwilson
> Encryption isn't actually necessary for any of the stated purposes of
> amateur radio (experimentation, recreation, training, contesting, emergency
> comms, etc)

It is, or will be, needed for experimentation. Wireless security cannot be an
afterthought anymore; communication modes and protocols need to be built with
security in mind from day 1.

There is one area where encryption is expressly permitted in amateur radio:
satellite control, for obvious reasons. The future of amateur radio is not
people talking to people over narrowband voice channels; it's going to be
machines talking to other machines, and being able to control them. This is
going to require encryption, or innovation will shift off the ham bands. And
if the ARS is just ragchews, contesting, and doing things that have already
been done instead of advancing communication, then there's not much defense
when someone like Thales comes in and suggests reallocating bandwidth to
something new and enterprising.

~~~
tlrobinson
A few points:

Encryption isn't typically part of the physical or data link layers, which are
the bread and butter of amateur radio. What you send on top of those isn't
really the interesting part of amateur radio, from a technical perspective.

The actual rule prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their
meaning" which I think most people interpret to mean digital signatures for
authentication and integrity are permitted, just not encrypted payloads.

Many protocols have the ability to switch ciphers, including disabling
encryption entirely while still performing authentication and integrity
checking.

------
rsuelzer
as an aside, I got my ham radio licence because of my interest in long
distance microwave mesh networking. there is a group called aredn
[http://www.arednmesh.org](http://www.arednmesh.org) which uses wifi devices
modified to run in the Amateur portions of 2ghz and 5ghz to create massive
mesh networks. The lack of noise on our allocations means we can make really
long connections. I personally have a 50 dollar Microtik dish that makes a 25
mile connection to a backbone node and get about 25mbps. If there are any HAMs
that are reading this, or you want to become a HAM it's a fun project that
blends computers and radio.

~~~
xxpor
There's something similar in the Seattle/Victoria area.

[https://hamwan.org/](https://hamwan.org/)

It's really fun to play with. It's not strictly a mesh, but that's OK. It's
used heavily for EMCOMM as well as internet linking repeater sites on the tops
of mountains where there's no other internet.

~~~
rsuelzer
Another great project, although I don't think they have modified their
firmware to run outside of the Part 15 wifi bands, so they have to deal with
noise... Could be wrong though. :)

------
curiousfab
The fact that there was little opposition was partly due to the short time
between the submittal of the amended proposal by France and the meeting
itself.

Here's some background by someone who is well connected with the German
authorities:

[http://mailman.pe1itr.com/pipermail/moon-
net/2019-June/03977...](http://mailman.pe1itr.com/pipermail/moon-
net/2019-June/039773.html)

------
saul_goodman
There's a lot more to this than simply taking spectrum away from hams. This
potentially affects other ham bands too.

The allotted spectrum for ham use was designed intelligently to reduce (though
not completely eliminate) the chances of hams accidentally clobbering folks
outside of a ham band with harmonics. So for someone operating in the 10 meter
band (28-29.7MHz), the 2nd harmonic is the 6 meter band (50-54MHz), the 8th
harmonic is the 1.25m band (220-224MHz) and the 16th harmonic is the 2 meter
band being discussed. The closest band to cause interference on the 2m band
would be users of the the 1.25m band though as the 2m band is the 2nd harmonic
from it.

Also, this is why the 2m and 70cm bands (144/440MHz) are commonly included on
the same radio: one antenna can sort-of work for both bands. The antenna is
tuned for the 2m band and that means it will also radiate 3rd harmonic
excitations as well (the 440MHz band is the 3rd harmonic from the 144MHz
band). So it works decent for 2 meters and as a crappy but acceptable 70cm
band antenna. The only casualty is the 2nd harmonic band between them at
288MHz which is not allocated to hams.

But anyway, there's no "type acceptance" required for ham radios because that
allows hams to build their own gear and not just be appliance operators.
Thales is setting themselves up for a lifetime of potential problems if they
manage to crack open the 2m band for commercial use.

Lastly, I will say that this is from the US perspective, I'm less well versed
in ITU regions and bands available outside of the US. Thanks.

------
howard941
There are too many existing terrestrial and space users for this to fly.
They're not getting a globally harmonized ham band. Is it April 1?

~~~
Sanzig
Especially not one of the most popular bands for new hams (and probably one of
the most popular bands period). The vast majority of young hams these days
enter the hobby by getting whichever basic license their country offers and
buying a cheap Chinese dual-band 2m/70cm handheld radio (like the ubiquitous
Baofeng). Learning how the repeaters work is a rite of passage.

While I think 70cm is probably more popular than 2m in Europe, 2m is the
preferred default in North America. Just about everywhere you go on the
continent, you'll be able to find a 2m band FM repeater on some nearby hilltop
with the customary 600 kHz channel spacing and a CTCSS control tone. Is every
cash-strapped amateur radio club supposed to go and drop a few grand to
convert all these stations to 70cm?

I could probably see an argument for potentially clawing back ( _not
eliminating_ ) the bandwidth for some of the microwave allocations in C band
and up, which are definitely under-utilized by the amateur radio community.
But Thales trying to make a land-grab on one of the most popular ham bands
simply because it happens to be globally allocated is utterly absurd.

~~~
jedimastert
> The vast majority of young hams these days enter the hobby by getting
> whichever basic license their country offers and buying a cheap Chinese
> dual-band 2m/70cm handheld radio (like the ubiquitous Baofeng).

Calling in as one of those people. Part of the reason I did so is that, for a
small time commitment and about $30 I can do a small part of community service
in the form of traffic nets and external communication (I do regularly check
into the local traffic net, although I've yet to generate or accept any
traffic. I should do that at one point)

------
msisk6
From the ARRL: [http://www.arrl.org/news/restraint-urged-in-response-
to-2-me...](http://www.arrl.org/news/restraint-urged-in-response-to-2-meter-
reallocation-proposal)

------
throw0101a
The official proposal if anyone is interested:

> _The decisions of previous conferences have introduced some restrictions to
> the use and have imposed constraints on the development of aeronautical
> mobile applications within some existing mobile allocations traditionally
> used by the aeronautical mobile applications._

> _At the same time, the number of manned and unmanned aircraft equipped with
> sensors has grown significantly in the past 20 years together with the need
> of bidirectional low to high data rate communications. Aeronautical
> applications like fire surveillance, border surveillance, air quality and
> environment monitoring, traffic monitoring, disaster monitoring, terrain
> modelling, imagery (visible, infrared, radar, meteo), video monitoring
> require non-safety communications between various types of aeronautical
> platforms._

> _Consequently the need of non-safety data communications between various
> types of aeronautical platforms increases and so the need for new frequency
> bands._

* [https://cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/cpg/cpg-pt-a/client/meeting-...](https://cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/cpg/cpg-pt-a/client/meeting-documents/file-history/?fid=51940)

~~~
Sanzig
The thing is, 2 MHz of bandwidth in VHF isn't going to help the vast majority
of those use cases. The best you can hope for is low-rate telemetry in that
band (since that 2 MHz is going to need to be shared with other UAV users, and
the noise temperature at VHF is horrendous due to man-made interference).

Those use cases more properly belong in the microwave bands. Why aren't they
going after allocation in L-band and S-band?

I also fail to understand why they need an globally coordinated allocation for
this. Surely with GPS + cognitive radio approaches, a UAV could use a local
allocation set aside for this purpose wherever it's operating?

------
PaulHoule
I have this radio

[https://www.amazon.com/Yaesu-FT-60R-Handheld-Amateur-
Transce...](https://www.amazon.com/Yaesu-FT-60R-Handheld-Amateur-
Transceiver/dp/B00Q1UYR1G)

which works on both the 2-meter and 70-cm band, particularly if you use this
kind of antenna:

[http://hamuniverse.com/2mladjpole.html](http://hamuniverse.com/2mladjpole.html)

I live in a poor spot for 2m, we have some active club repeaters. Someone is
always listening on those repeaters, but they probably don't want to chat with
you.

The west coast has more VHF and UHF action than any place I have been on the
east. There are repeaters with people who talk nonstop in English, Spanish,
other languages. You hear people talking on 2m at 4:00 in the morning around
Van Nuyes.

------
tlrobinson
There are millions of these radios in the hands of both licensed hams AND
unlicensed preppers/airsoft players/etc who bought their $25 BaoFeng radio on
Amazon.

Thales wants to reallocate the band for autonomous drone operations.

What could possibly go wrong?

------
quotemstr
Unpopular opinion time: spectrum is a limited resource. We shouldn't waste it
on efficient analog technologies like conventional commercial and amateur
radio. We've already ceased conventional broadcasts: that's a step in the
right direction, but there's more to do. The entire RF spectrum should be
devoted to LTE-like efficient, packetized, and secure communication. I'd make
small exceptions for things like radio astronomy, but I don't think we should
be squandering prime regions of the EM frequency space just to support
transceivers that Marconi would have recognized.

~~~
howard941
I'm saddened that your unpopular opinion targets the very people who pioneered
efficient, packetized secure communications, but reminded that there's a
reason why we hams lost 220-222 to UPS - we failed to exploit it when we had
it.

There's nothing between 54Mhz and 222 Mhz for hams other than the 2m
allocation. Please pick on someone else.

~~~
quotemstr
One of the most important problems with discussion today is people seeing
personal attacks where none exist. I'm stating a policy position, not
"target[ing]" people. Conflating policy and personal attacks makes it
impossible to discuss policy in a reasonable way.

~~~
howard941
I don't buy that at all. There are far more important problems than those that
arise from voicing an opinion and having to field defenses from those who'd
suffer under the unpopular policy regime you espouse.

