
Is Ham Radio a Hobby, a Utility or Both? A Battle over Spectrum Heats Up - amynordrum
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/wireless/is-ham-radio-a-hobby-a-utilityor-both-a-battle-over-spectrum-heats-up
======
VLM
A perfect HN automobile analogy for the situation is as follows:

Imagine the govt provides two transport services, a car road service, and a
paved bike path service. They're deconflicted and regulated and licensed and
taxed separately for various social engineering reasons, etc.

The car roads are congested and I want to drive my semi trailer to the next
town, or I just don't feel like paying the tollbooths or whatever. I propose a
"brilliant" solution of modifying the regulations for the bike path to allow
semi trailers on the mostly empty paved bike path because bicycles are an
ancient technology over 100 years old and they should get with the internal
combustion times, I don't have a bike personally, I feel my semi trailer is
more important than some spandex wearing bicycle hobbyist's amusement, and I
don't care about bicycling as a hobby in general, so if I mow down bicyclists
while driving my semi down the bike path thus completely destroying the
utility of a bike path for bicyclists, I really don't mind. Hey I got mine, I
got to drive my semi trailer on the bike path, so at least for me all is well,
right?

Now just to make it clear I don't hate bicyclists any more than I think its a
good idea to amend part 97 to perform stealthy part 90 operations on part 97
frequencies. I'm merely making a very accurate analogy.

~~~
geofft
But the car roads aren't congested—or, if they are, the bike path is so narrow
that using it doesn't actually solve the problem in a long-term way. It's just
that you don't need a license to ride a bike the way you do to drive a truck.
That's the only (alleged) appeal of the bike lane.

And meanwhile, the people who fear semis using the bike lane (though the semis
wouldn't fit anyway) are actually preventing pedal-assist e-bikes, which the
younger spandex-wearing bicycle hobbyists would love to use.

~~~
ouid
pedal assist ebikes in bike lanes are quite dangerous. They are just faster,
heavier bikes with less braking power.

I'm not saying your point is wrong, just that the analogy is bad.

~~~
giobox
Starting to see these arguments that ebikes should somehow be banned from
cyclepaths or bike lanes a lot and not sure I agree at all. Virtually all
ebikes sold in North America are limited to speeds achievable on a
conventional bike, with most limited to 20mph. An average cyclist on even a
cheap road bike can comfortably hit 20mph too if gradient is not too severe.

The faster “class 3” ebikes with 28mph top speeds are already banned from
cycle paths pretty much everywhere.

I think we should just be happy more people are getting on bikes regardless.
Pedal assist by definition is not a throttle - it’s not like the rider has a
gas pedal they can leap on and accelerate like a sports car.

As others have said, I’d much rather share a lane with an ebike than a car or
motorcycle! Huge speed differentials in the bike lane at times is already a
fact of life given varying levels of rider fitness. Just do what most
cyclists/ebikers do already - be a considerate rider.

Your argument that they have worse brakes is especially silly - almost all
ebike systems only add 7-10kgs to total bike weight vs equivalent non ebike.
There are far bigger variances just in rider weight alone. I’d argue ebikes
typically have _better_ brakes given most of them are sold with mid to high
end hydraulic discs. Typical road bikes are often sold with significantly
inferior rim brakes. Modern bicycle disc brakes are extremely good.

~~~
ouid
The question is not whether they have a higher top speed, but whether they are
usually traveling the speed of traffic. Pedal assist bikes are _usually_ going
significantly faster than bikes in the same area. That's the point of them.

Additionally, that 20 pounds of extra weight is in an uncontrolled projectile.
Person to person collisions are not as injurious as bike to person collisions
even though bikes are just a fraction of the weight of the person, and that
extra 20 pounds triples the weight of most bikes. Talking about rider weight
misses the point.

~~~
giobox
Now you are really making things up as you go. 20lbs triples the weight of
most bikes? That implies most bikes only weigh ~7lbs. You realise that is
completely absurd, and would likely be close to a world record holder for
lightest production bike?

Going faster than other riders is absolutely not the point of pedal assist.
Most of them basically can’t thanks to the 20mph cut out. Of course many will
find they can sustain a higher average speed below 20, but the point is
travelling much the same kinds of speeds with _much less effort_.

Of course rider weight matters. One is rarely hit by a riderless bicycle.
Rider weight is especially relevant in your claim that the brakes are worse
too - whether the mass is in the rider or the bike frame is going to be
largely inconsequential to stopping distances - the brakes still have to stop
the combined weight of rider plus bike. Hence relevance of the small
additional mass of small motor plus battery being dwarfed by variances in
rider weight on normal bikes.

------
nvahalik
Amateur Radio is a lot like STEM. One of it's goals is to encourage people to
get "into" thinking and planning for the situations where amateur radio is a
useful public service. The hobby portion exists to give people the freedom to
experiment and test their skills.

Part 97 of the CFR[0] actually gives the reason/spirit:

> (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the
> public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with
> respect to providing emergency communications.

> (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute
> to the advancement of the radio art.

> (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which
> provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases
> of the art.

> (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of
> trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

> (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance
> international goodwill.

[0]: [https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a14...](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a147f885bdee88264&mc=true&node=pt47.5.97&rgn=div5)

~~~
criddell
> Amateur Radio is a lot like STEM. One of it's goals is to encourage people
> to get "into" thinking and planning for the situations where amateur radio
> is a useful public service.

A few years ago I tried to convince my kids that it would be fun for all of us
to get our license for amateur radio. They asked what we could do with it and
I told them we could talk to people anywhere in the world! They looked at me
like I was nuts because they do that all day everyday online.

~~~
amatecha
I'd say "We can receive images from and talk with astronauts on the
International Space Station... No big deal, right?" They do this regularly and
actually give out certificates for successfully receiving the SSTV images they
broadcast, which is super cool IMO. [0]

Regarding cell phones, just yesterday there was a countrywide cellular service
outage[1] in Canada, where amateur radio would have continued working
flawlessly. Further, if you are doing some backcountry camping or offroading,
good luck getting on the cellular network.

[0] [http://ariss-sstv.blogspot.com/](http://ariss-sstv.blogspot.com/)

[1] [https://globalnews.ca/news/5469880/rogers-wireless-
outage/](https://globalnews.ca/news/5469880/rogers-wireless-outage/)

------
NikolaeVarius
The article already says what my thoughts on this are (And the thoughts of the
people running HAM Radio licensing exams), Ham Radio is a privilege that is
granted by the FCC. The specific issue here seems to be that a service that
allows HAM communication digitally may be skirting FCC law regulating the use
of Amateur wavelengths, which is an issue separate from "the spirit of open
communication"., I don't think the "spirit" of amateur radio as everything
default open jives with the world we live in today.

Interference is one thing and should be dealth with, but anyone is still able
to broadcast QRLs if they want to even in a world of encrypted messages

~~~
jdietrich
If encryption is permitted on amateur bands, huge chunks of the rulebook
become completely unenforceable. Use-cases that would require encryption are
largely incompatible with the purposes of amateur radio stated in Title 47
Part 97. If the amateur bands become filled with encrypted traffic, I cannot
imagine any scenario in which they would not become a free-for-all.

~~~
ashleyn
I've always wondered why the FCC is regulating the _content_ of amateur radio
transmissions as opposed to merely the spectrum used. With the way regulations
are set up, there's little to do on amateur radio than....talk about amateur
radio. A bit stifling as far as potential innovations go. I've had several
great ideas for amateur radio applications that are effectively useless
without some method of privacy.

There's not a compelling reason I can think of for the FCC doing anything more
than regulating bandwidth, power, and duration of radio spectrum signals. On
that premise, what couldn't they do with encrypted signals? It's not like
abusers honestly identify themselves at the required intervals anyway. They
could still triangulate abusers and issue fines. The only thing they wouldn't
be able to do is tell users to watch their mouth.

As far as one of the stated purposes being emergency management, I can't help
but wonder if reserved frequencies (ala CB channel 9) are sufficient.

~~~
howard941
Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities
you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price
for your unused HT, whatever.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> Could you give an example of how the regs stifle?

As I pointed out just a few days ago, probably most hams worldwide interpret
the regs as discouraging any polemic discussion like politics or religion.
Since so many hams are elderly, there is also some distrust of foreigners
lingering from the Cold War era. So communications, especially international
communications, are so often limited to merely exchanging signal reports,
maybe some gear talk or weather info, and then it’s 73.

Besides that, amateur radio is a hobby that attracts a lot of socially-awkward
anoraks, who are very self-conscious about entering into any conversation
deeper than just talking about their gear.

Sure, there is a community of eager ragchewers, but it is not so big
comparatively, and even most of those ragchewers probably limit their deep
conversations to people from the same country (or even to people from their
own local club scene).

~~~
tlrobinson
I guess you’re not familiar with 14.313 MHz...

(It’s been called the 4chan of ham radio)

~~~
Mediterraneo10
And that hangout represents how many hams worldwide? Let’s have a sense of
perspective.

------
zw123456
These guys were the original hackers !!! I knew a lot of these guys, they were
taping 2meter repeaters with these funky handheld radios that looked like a
phone way back in the late 70's, I thought they were kookokoobooros.. but
turns out... Before you totally dismiss some geeky dude with some weird thing,
think about this. Back in 1978 [I get it I am old but just hear me out here]
Way back then these guys were talking with each other with these 2M "walkie
talkies" over these "community repeaters". Back then it seemed pretty kooky to
me. Now, looking back, they were very geniuses (I think) You just never know
when a bunch of hackers building their own PC's or their own cell network,
will take things. We need to keep a space for hacker, experimenters. I think
it is critically important to always find a way to make sure there is some
space carved out for experimenters. That is why I believe we need to keep some
amount of spectrum reserved for "experimenter". You just don't know what will
come of it. Again, IMHO.

------
jedimastert
To note for other people: This is about digital modes, not the recent
arguments about that french company trying to take the 2 meter band.

~~~
sciurus
It's not about all digital modes. It's about proprietary digital modes. As the
petition says:

> Almost all digital modes in common amateur radio use are capable of being
> monitored by third parties, either through an integrated developer provided
> software package, or with a stand alone software decoder. Problems arise
> when protocols and devices used in commercial, government, and marine
> services are used in the amateur service with no adequate means to fully
> decode transmissions. Further complicating the situation are security and
> privacy features of the specific modulation and networking protocols which
> are not subject to rules governing amateur radio. Said features preclude the
> amateur radio community from attempting to monitor the Part 97 spectrum by
> denying them ability to eavesdrop

and the proposed solution is

> To rectify the current situation in the amateur radio service,digital mode
> developers must be required, by Part 97 rule, to provide the means to fully
> decode their product in amateur use to enable monitoring and self-policing.
> The amateur radio community, the FCC, and intruder monitoring groups should
> not be put in a position of having to develop decoders for any digital
> protocol destined for use in the amateur radio service. The protocol
> developers should be solely responsible for providing a decoding solution to
> ensure Part 97 rules compliance. Any necessary software provided by
> developers must be open source, unencumbered by patent, licensing
> fees,royalties or copyright, in keeping with the intent and spirit of the
> amateur radio service as exemplified in Part 97.1(b)(c).

[https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100918881206/PETITION%20FOR%20R...](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100918881206/PETITION%20FOR%20RULEMAKING.pdf)

~~~
pantalaimon
What about people trying out new, experimental digital modes? Should that not
be allowed?

~~~
sciurus
The petition doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed. It just suggests the
people developing such modes must provide the means to decode them.

------
psim1
AM (CW) -> AM voice -> SSB -> FM wide -> FM narrow -> Digital

Modes have to evolve and the amateur radio community needs to do more to
educate. The harrumphs of the old-timers can be discouraging, but amateur
radio needs to push through that in order to stay current.

~~~
moftz
There's nothing wrong with digital modes. It really is the next evolution for
ham. But there is something wrong with proprietary, blackbox encoders that
only allow people with specific radios or licensed software to use it.

The world got onboard with 802.11g (and even 802.11b but that sucked). That
was a massive movement towards the proliferation of wireless devices. While
the standard costs $178 from IEEE, you can find copies of it scattered all
over the internet. I don't know why hams have adopted these closed standards,
I'm guessing it's because at one point the hobby was dominated by elmers too
old to figure out anything but the newest expensive shiny thing from Icom or
Yaesu (too much money, not enough sense...) Nowadays you can pull up GNU Radio
and start using any sort of open standard mode you want because of how
accessible everything is.

------
simmons
The concrete example provided by the article is the potential for opaque
transmissions via Winlink, which could reduce transparency and thus raise the
potential for abuse of the limited spectrum. I knew nothing of Winlink (or
this petition) before today, but I was wondering why it necessarily has to be
encrypted. A transparent Winlink service could surely be compatible with the
spirit of Amateur Radio in the same way that packet radio is, right?

From a brief Googling leading to Winlink's web site, it sounds like Winlink
isn't even encrypted at all [1]:

> _Q260 While monitoring transmissions from WL2K stations, I notice that the
> content appears as “gibberish”. Isn’t this illegal?_

> _A260 The content looks that way because it is a compressed binary format
> called "B2F." This format is available to anyone, so the compressed data is
> not considered encryption or illegal for radio amateurs._

Is the concern that people are encrypting Winlink payloads anyway? And
wouldn't this already be illegal under current rules?

[1]
[https://www.winlink.org/sites/default/files/wl2k_faq_2015031...](https://www.winlink.org/sites/default/files/wl2k_faq_20150314.pdf)

(Edit: formatting)

~~~
sciurus
The concern with winlink is twofold:

1) It transmits without checking if the frequency is already in use, and is
thus a source of interference to other users

2) It uses a proprietary protocol that requires purchasing expensive hardware
froma single company
([https://www.p4dragon.com/download/SCS_Pricelist_2019_REV-A.p...](https://www.p4dragon.com/download/SCS_Pricelist_2019_REV-A.pdf))
to decode

The solutions proposed are

1) Limit "Automatically Controlled Data Stations" like Winlink to a specific
range of frequencies 2) Limit the protocols they use to ones that "can be be
monitored, in it’s entirety, by 3rd parties, with freely available open source
software"

You can read the petition at
[https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100918881206/PETITION%20FOR%20R...](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/100918881206/PETITION%20FOR%20RULEMAKING.pdf)
for more details.

~~~
sjoerger
While Winlink can use the Pactor protocol, it is not required to use the
system. Winlink is capable of using multiple protocols each of which fit to
frequency, hardware and band conditions.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winlink#Technical_protocols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winlink#Technical_protocols)

------
tyingq
Recently proved itself as an essential utility in Puerto Rico, right?

~~~
michaelt
Imagine a hypothetical private company with a radio system that is used 5% of
the time for important messages in major emergencies, and 95% of the time for
billionaires' yachts.

In a genuine emergency where many lives were at stake, one might give them
great leeway to break the law, just like fire trucks can speed and run red
lights.

But when there's no emergency, should such rulebreaking be allowed for the
billionaires' yachts?

Obviously, the e-mail-by-radio system at the heart of this argument isn't all
about billionaires' yachts - but still, there's no reason loosened rules for
emergencies should be extended to non-emergency use.

~~~
duckqlz
Seems hyperbolic. Considering the transfer speeds and relatively low cost of
sat internet I sincerely doubt that "billionaires" are using winlink to a
point that is interrupting the global ham radio band.

[1]
[http://www.groundcontrol.com/MCD-4800_BGAN_Terminal.htm](http://www.groundcontrol.com/MCD-4800_BGAN_Terminal.htm)
[2]
[https://www.winlink.org/sites/default/files/download/wl2k_fa...](https://www.winlink.org/sites/default/files/download/wl2k_faq_0.pdf)
(see A170)

~~~
kayfox
Theres a decent number of people who use Winlink as a substitute for Sailmail
and thusly are in violation of 97.113(a)5.

~~~
ineedasername
Why do they do it? Is it a cost or convenience issue (or both)?

------
msla
These days, an important skill is security, and security thinking, which
requires modern encryption. The government currently demands to eavesdrop on
all ham communications. Well, of course it does. It's a government. Standing
up to such nonsense is a skill in itself, and one which should be cultivated.

------
smkellat
The Administrative Procedures Act provides great processes to express
yourself. I highly doubt this Petition for Rulemaking would proceed to a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission rarely conducts proceedings to
adopt or change rules in Part 97 since 2001. I expect a dismissal letter to
eventually issue forth more than anything else.

------
skrowl
Hobby now. Utility once the zombie apocalypse starts.

------
mmaunder
This fight has been brewing for a long time and I've been a user on both
sides. I sailed across the Atlantic in 1993 and 1996 and we used a Pactor
modem and a service called Sailmail to send and receive email via marine HF
radio (1 to 30Mhz). The service is still active and is an alternative to
Winlink unless things have changed.

I'm a licensed ham these days (WT1J) and use HF for my hobby. I use voice and
open source digital protocols. All for fun and learning.

I think the reality here is that Sailmail and Winlink are used by folks to
check their email and they treat it like regular email, which means they
conduct business over it. The system has become popular with yachties around
the world - many of whom are wealthy retirees or remote workers.

In the 90s, using a Pactor modem and SSB was pretty much your only cost
effective option to have any kind of email access.

These days you can buy an Iridium Go for less than a Pactor4 modem and the
rates are reasonable for text and email. In fact Sailmail integrates with
Iridium Go now.

I think the arguments made for banning Pactor modems on the HF bands are
legitimate. Other than Pactor 1 which is open source, Pactor 2, 3 and 4 are
proprietary and you can't decode them if you're listening in.

You are also not supposed to use the amateur bands to conduct business, and
yet that is exactly what is happening much of the time someone is
downloading/uploading email via a Pactor modem on the amateur bands.

From the FCC: "The amateur and amateur-satellite services are for qualified
persons of any age who are interested in radio technique solely with a
personal aim and without pecuniary interest. These services present an
opportunity for self-training, intercommunication, and technical
investigations." Source: [https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-
divisions/mobility-divis...](https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-
divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service)

So checking your stock portfolio from the Bahamas or communicating with your
lawyer is not allowed. However this is near impossible to monitor because
Pactor 2+ is proprietary and so no proof of this can be submitted.

What the hams are arguing for is in the spirit of the amateur bands: Make the
protocols open source and unencrypted so that all communication on the amateur
bands are essentially open source and we can all participate and help regulate
each other - while learning from each other.

This feels reasonable to me. Kick the Pactors off and let them use Iridium or
Inmarsat.

PS: I don't buy the 'interference' argument mentioned in the article. Pactor
is low bandwidth and doesn't cause interference that I'm aware of. It's just
occupying some bandwidth and can't be understood by others.

~~~
sciurus
Sailmail does not use the amateur bands, so it wouldn't be affected; it is
licensed under [https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-
divis...](https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-
division/maritime-mobile-service)

------
Aloha
A bigger issue is RM-11831 would also ban DMR, P25, and pretty much every
digital mode used on VHF as well, because of its open source requirement -
currently every ham digital audio mode uses codecs from DVSI.

~~~
nullc
Proprietary patent encumbered digital modes have done a lot to ham string ham
radio: They have resulted in a proliferation of mutually incompatible radios
and repeater systems which otherwise could be totally compatible just with a
different setting or firmware load.

In addition to that most obvious annoyance, encumbered modes have restricted
experimentation and exploration. Compare the vibrancy and progress in the open
source HF low bandwidth modes implemented by WSJT to the level of technical
development at the modem or codec level for dstar.

FWIW, my recollection is that the AMBE patents are soon due to expire, if they
haven't already.

~~~
Aloha
Both P25 and DMR are open standards, the only closed part is IMBE (which I
believe is patent free now) and AMBE+2 (which will be patent free in the next
5 years). DSTAR is also a open standard too, but I think only has a single
implementer, same for C4FM.

------
JetezLeLogin
Since they're both valid uses, let's just partition/segregate the freq bands
and be done with it.

------
addamh
my kingdom for an icon next to each user handle in this thread that shows
whether or not they are or ever have been a licensed amateur...

------
jdlyga
I'm Mary Ham, and welcome to Ham Radio.

------
anilakar
It could be argued that when all you had were AM/CW receivers, plain old SSB
would have been an encryption scheme, if the definition of encryption is
"there's someone who cannot demodulate it with the equipment they have".

~~~
jimktrains2
Part 97 ([http://www.arrl.org/part-97-text](http://www.arrl.org/part-97-text))
does not even contain "encryption" . The rule is:

> §97.113(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided
> elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal
> act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as
> otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false
> or deceptive messages, signals or identification.

The "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as
otherwise provided herein" being the key part and the "except as otherwise
provided herein" basically boiling down to remote control (incl for
satellites!)

It's also tricky because the FCC allows proprietary voice codecs on the mature
bands. They are not considered as "obscuring" the meaning because even though
they're not an "open" standard, anyone with the appropriate decoded, can
decode the voice stream. I guess because it's a globally shared secret and not
a shared secret only between the sender and receiver, they allow it under the
rules.

Even experimental digital modes on the amateur bands don't fall afoul of this
rule. You can experiment with a new digital mode that no one but you has the
ability to decode. However, if push came to shove you'd need to release at
least a functional description of your mode or forfeit your license.

It's not an encryption or cryptography ban -- signed messages are perfectly
fine -- it's really an extension of the whole idea that these bands and your
license exist for the purpose of shared, non-commercial communication of a
personal nature in a public space.

