Advancing Ham Radio.. different ideas

Evangelism

2021-10-15T22:38:00.003-05:00

In my last blog post I urged you to find someone in the ham radio arena to study.

Since my interests are radio and Linux, it shouldn't be suprising that I tend to pay attention to Bruce Perens. Well know as the open source definition guy, but also a ham, K6BP.

A not too distant DCC paper titled "Open That Which is Closed," will give you a pretty good snapshot of the guy and what makes him tick.

I've always been a marginal coder, so I've always adopted the "what I can't do in software, I'll do in hardware", since I was into electronics before computers became common. Now things are so much software and less hardware, so I'm feeling old and dumb. Never fear, there is this thing Bruce does that he calls "Evangelism," and it can work for you too!

Basically stuff outside of his abilities or that require group effort he gets on the pulpit about. He explains how that works attacting like minded folks in that DCC PDF. A recent example would be the Codec2 thing. He felt closed source vocoders in the hobby were bad, thus a movement was born and in comes some talent named David Rowe.

I've found the same logic works, so don't sit idle with your thoughts folks. Because thats what makes ham radio great, everyone has a talent in a specific area, and when that can all work together the community benefits.

Here are some things I've harped about (some right in this blog), that have come to light thanks to other talented hams;

802.11, HSMM (1999-> ongoing)

-Part 97 only 802.11 channels (Nov 2013)

SAME/FIPS software decoder (May 2010) (multimon-ng)

D-Star AMBE DTMF decoder (Sept 2009-Jan 2011)

AMBE voice software decoder (March 2010)

IPV6 embeded callsign application (July 2012)

Linux streamer to Zello (Jun 2020)

Rants and grants

2021-09-07T13:21:00.023-05:00

I have been following the TH-D74 Firmware reversing project. The previous MD-380 project was great, but a lot more could be accomplished if the hardware was more capable. (Bigger flash space etc.) Either way the MD380 project opened the door for the OpenRTX project.

Apparently the few that are working on the TH-D74 project so far are having some dificulty with the Ghidra reverse engineering.

I think it would be benefical for a wider audience to understand the former md380 project... maybe Linux in the Ham Shack could interview someone so others better understand (& appreciate) the motiviations and process (stumbling blocks and all), etc.

I feel there are important lessons that can be learned, especially since manufactures apparently are content with pumping out the same old crap. Props to the folks working on these projects trying creative ways around that problem.

The problem is two fold. Obisuoly a lack of these fine folks; hackers, engineers, or just plain technically oriented folks. Then there are the gadget obsessed folks...

Oh! we changed the color of display and added another 1000 memory channels, come buy our new HT!

(which is really the same crap as the last model).

But then there obviously fools falling for this gimic buying this nonsense. I call them gadget obsessed dimwits. They seem to have more money than brains, cannot put on a connector etc.

Please study and learn to apprecaite the few fine folks that don't play that game. Those who are moving things forward, both past and present players. Ham radio needs their inspiration!

Here is my list on interesting / inspirational people:

Wayne Green, Phil Karn, Bruce Perens, Aaron Schwartz, Richard Stallman, Jason Scott, Cory Doctorow, George Carlin. Some of all time favorite article authors: Doug Demaw, Ray Marston, Joseph Carr, Harold Kinley, Bill Cheek, Don Rotolo, John Champa

Not all are hams, but they all to me thought a bit out of the box. The first guy that I payed attention to, was Phil Karn, since I entered ham radio with an interest in packet radio. Its interesting to learn a bit about the people behind certain things and their logic & motivations to see if you can understand what makes them tick.

To me there has been a lot of stagnation in the hobby lately, so I haven't been overly active. I spent the last half dozen years working with some more fearleess tower climbing folks here in my home state. Our goals were to help "get shit on the air" with as few strings for folks as possible. Getting on towers and working on them has been a big problem here in Wisconsin. A lot of clubs and indivduals don't have the resources for that. We got a lot done.

Now another one of my main tower climbing folks is taking a job out of state, so that is winding down, and I am looking for my next thing to dive into. I have to say sadly there really isn't a whole lot that holds my interests these days.

I like what is going on with the ARDC grants, but I think it will take some time for those funded initiatives to bear fruit.

There are two to me of interest, the M17 Grant, and the Allstarlink grant.

I'm glad this happened:

The ARRL Board granted several awards at its July 2021 meeting.

The Board bestowed the 2021 ARRL Technical Innovation Award on Steve Haynal, KF7O; Wojciech Kaczmarski, SP5WWP, and Roger Clark, VK3KYY. Haynal was cited as the instrumental and driving force behind the Hermes Lite 5 W HF SDR transceiver as a fully open-source hardware and software project. Kaczmarski was recognized for developing the open-source digital radio communication protocol M17, leading to the development of DroidStar (an Android application) by Doug McLain, AD8DP. Clark was cited for spearheading a successful effort to augment a low-cost handheld radio for use by visually impaired operators, significantly lowering the cost of entry for such amateurs.

Once upon a time the ARRL had a "Future Systems Committee", the RSGB has an "Emerging Technology Coordination Committee".. I think the ARRL needs to reinstitute this concept.

Too bad we don't have a technology director, but somehow Emcomm still is apparently even in the light of firstnet and starlink.

http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-seeking-emergency-management-director

http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-hires-paul-z-gilbert-ke5zw-as-director-of-emergency-management

In the past, the leauge techical specialist was more vocal and had written regular pieces for QST. Not so these days for whatever reason. From their past censure tatics and over all lackadaisical attitude its time to write these good old boys off.

In short of anything ever changing at the league level (and it likely never will), I think the best option is to find a good number of hams willing to particpate in a coordinated social media and in person campaign to become more vocal to manufactures on what we'd like to see brought to the market. I believe if 100 hams would commit to making a point at Dayton to being more vocal to the reps then we might get something other than a "new HT" that in reality has a few extra memory channels and a new color display.

Modernizing Amateur Radio Regulations

2021-07-26T16:12:00.010-05:00

Steve, N8GNJ asked me to consolidate my regulatory changes that I think are required to modernize US Amateur Radio.

What I am about to present isn't new. Bruce, K6BP wrote a well thought and researched overview in 2017 in response to a Technological Advisory Council (TAC) on reforming rechnical regulations across all FCC radio services.

Several of the personal radio service rules (Part 95) were subsquenctly.

https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/business-and-law/fcc-to-consider-changes-to-part-95-rules

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-personal-radio-service-revisions-will-affect-gmrs-frs-cb-other-part-95-devices

And some are still in motion:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-374114A1.pdf

Meanwhile there are number of ham radio requests, some even from the ARRL that have gone no where. (Symbol Rate Petition of 2013, and the 2018 Technician Enhancement Proposal). And as Bruce pointed out most of our regulations have been unchanged for 65 years or more.

So here we go:

Our Basis and Purpose MUST be freshened up to relect the educational benefits and purposes for continued justification of spectrum allocation to the Amateur Service.

Our emergency services role continues to diminish (with the advent of FirstNet and Starlink) and the other currently-stated missions of Amateur Radio have already reached irrelevance.

Examples:
Bruce pointed out the context of "enhance international goodwill" was written before direct dialing of long distance calls (transatlantic telephone cables). So, Radio Amateurs were the only people who regularly had casual conversations with people overseas.

He also pointed out that the word "reservoir" is critical to understanding this statement:
"Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts"

The U.S. was at war in Korea as this statement was written, and World War II had concluded less than a decade before. The military had a need for a reservoir of trained radiotelegraph operators who could go to war.

Bruce pointed out the word “education” doesn’t appear in §97.1, and there is no tie-in to the oft-promoted need to educate young citizens in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics).

This second part is my own hot button topic since data is my fotre.

"§97.305 through §97.309 spell out a limited set of modes, modulations, and digital data codes which Radio Amateurs can use on the air. They date back to the analog age, and limit innovation because they do not permit the use of modern modes and modulations in the Amateur Service"

I've written before on how I feel its just plain silly that we classify our transmissions by how we use them (what we convey) and that defines what rules apply. i.e Digital voice modes, while all ones and zeros don't fall under the data rules, the fall under the voice rules. I've also harped about how the fast scan amateur television rules let video modes occupy 6 MHz or more (actually no bandwith limit), while data is limited to 100 KHz.

And its dumber that just all that. Now that FreeDV is starting to become more common on HF, its classified as a voice mode since that is what is being conveyed. So its required to be in the voice segments, not the data, etc.

Regulation based on the bandwidth of the transmission, rather than the modulation type and mode is overdue folks. Its the only thing that makes any sense.

I'm partial to the 2.8 kHz below 30 MHz proposal, and no maxium bandwidth or data rates above 30 MHz.

Whatever you wish for please keep in mind that is almost next to impossilbe to get the FCC to change anything for Part 97 and takes decades to do so. We'd be best off with as few rules as possbile and just implementing more gentlemans agreements. It's not like the FCC does any active enforcement anyway.

Linux in the Hamshack

2021-05-28T13:21:00.008-05:00

I think this podcast has been around since about 2008. Or thats about when I first learned of it. Russ, K5TUX (like the penguin) is one of the main co-hosts.

In the grand scheme of things I think this podcast is serving an area that the ARRL isn't by promoting collorabative software development. Years ago a lot of collorabative hardware projects were thanks in a large part to the now dying print media. Wayne Green's, 73 Magazine, as well as other technically oriented publications like Ham Radio Magazine, provided a platform to show the general ham populas what some talented folks were working. Others would use and build upon those ideas, and that is a large part of how technology marched forward.

Since the fall of of the previously good publications and transition to other information descimation methods like the internet, that leading force with all its subsribers has changed. With the ARRL's latest introduction of another watered down publication, I had hoped that meant some of the more intermediate topics would make QST, and the begginers stuff would be shifted to this "On The Air Magazine." Well folks, sadly that hasen't happened, and I think its time I throw in the towel for my ARRL hopes. The time spent checking perodicaly to look at the QST editorial is likely a waste. Instead I encourage you to focus that time in other place and with other ham oriented organizations and causes.

"Linux in the HAM Shack is a podcast designed to help amateur radio enthusiasts to migrate to Linux and Open Source from Microsoft or other closed-source software. Our goal is to provide a sound foundation in Open Source and demonstrate how it can help amateur radio operators participate in many of the best parts of the hobby."

So here are some of the LHS podcasts that I have bookmarked as they fit my mostly VHF/UHF interests:

Episode #138: Being David Rowe
https://lhspodcast.info/2015/01/lhs-episode-138-being-david-rowe/

Episode #206: Hamlib
https://lhspodcast.info/2018/01/lhs-episode-206-hamlib-deep-dive/

Episode #242: FreeDV/Codec2
https://lhspodcast.info/2018/08/lhs-episode-242-freedv-codec2-deep-dive-2/

Episode #310: DMR
https://lhspodcast.info/2019/11/lhs-episode-310-dmr-deep-dive-2/

Episode #340: Hamlib
https://lhspodcast.info/2020/04/lhs-episode-340-hamlib-deep-dive-redux/

Episode #343: YSF and WiRES-X
https://lhspodcast.info/2020/05/lhs-episode-343-ysf-and-wires-x-deep-dive/

Episode 393: DUDE-Star
https://lhspodcast.info/2021/02/lhs-episode-393-dude-star-deep-dive/

Episode #396: M17
https://lhspodcast.info/2021/03/lhs-episode-396-m17-deep-dive/

Episode 399: OpenRTX
https://lhspodcast.info/2021/03/lhs-episode-399-openrtx-deep-dive/

Episode 403: MVoice and MRefD
https://lhspodcast.info/2021/03/lhs-episode-403-mvoice-and-mrefd-deep-dive/

DudeStar (DroidStar)

2021-03-27T15:04:00.001-05:00

I like this project as it finally provides a way to retrofit an existing analog rig to do multiple digital modes. It and its user base should show potential manufactures what the community wants.

Sadly what seems to get the most interest is the DroidStar app. But that is okay too, as I see that helping fuel attention to the underlying software vocoder performance issues. I am hoping sooner or later someone with the software skills will step forward.

And for the app, I do think this makes more sense than having to buy multiple digital radios and a "hotspot", to effectively talk (maybe 10 feet over RF) over the internet on these modes.

Yaesu and Chirp

2020-09-09T13:33:00.003-05:00

There has been a fuss about this topic in a variety of places. Radioreference, reddit and the old YaesuSystemFusion Yahoo email reflector.

John Kruk, N9UPC Yaesu National Sales Manager Amateur Division writes "CHIRP damages the internal firmware and programming of the radio BEYOND repair."

John Hays, K7VE wrote the best reply:

The converse is having the radios built so that 'bad programming' doesn't damage them.
Also, having vendor provided software that runs on more than Windows, especially Linux and MacOS. Including easy import and export of data in a vendor neutral format.
Quality engineering and open system design is the proper way to go.
Listen to your customers' needs and desires.

Others ham mentioned that Chirp hasn't caused them any problems, and that RT Systems has a business relationship with Yaesu. Chirp does not.

Just in case someone from Yaesu ever reads this. Open source is good for ham radio. Please embrace it.

A number of hams on the email reflector wrote why would anyone use Chirp on a Radio that is supported by the manufacturer? For some the point of ham radio isn't talking on the radio, the point of it to understand how it works, and maybe even build or modify your own equipment. In order to learn we must be able to inspect; to tinker, or at the very least have access to a specification we can build from.

For a good number of years at various DCC meeting the concept of a radio with open firmware has been brought up.

Let's take a quick look at why this would be good for the hobby:

The Linksys WRT54G WiFi router of the early 2000's was a good example of the good that can come from open firmware/open source. The history here was the original factory firmware was discovered to be based on Linux components, which are covered by the GPL. This required the manufacturers to release the source code. With the code in hand, developers learned exactly how to talk to the hardware inside and how to code any features the hardware could support. It has spawned a handful of open source firmware projects for the WRT54G that extend its capabilities, and reliability, far beyond what is expected from a cheap consumer-grade router. In short, due to open source, one can load a third party firmware on the router and give a $60 consumer home-grade router all the functionality of a $600 Cisco professional router.

Lets keep in mind that Yaesu was the latecomer (2011) to bring something to the amateur digital arena.

You may recall at the time there was speculation at the time that Yaesu might adopt the P25 or DMR standard. This made sense because between 2007 to 2012 there was an 80% joint venture between them and Motorola.

At the TAPR digital conferences between 2009 to approximately 2013 there was quite a few talks about the digital fragmentation problem. With theoretical solutions presented by; Chris Testa, KD2BMH - Practical Handheld Software Radio. Bruce Perens K6BP Talking about the HT of the future, and David Rowe, VK5DGR's Codec2 to replace AMBE.

They didn't listen to the digital fragmentation problem then. They introduced another total incompatible digital flavor. They still aren't listening apparently when it comes to the open firmware desires of the ham community.

Apparently they haven't been paying attention to the recent radio firmware reverse engineering efforts. The most well known is the MD380 project by Travis, KK4VCZ. The hobby can use a lot more of this and a lot more people like Travis. We haven't yet figured out how to re-write a radio's firmware to create that elusive digital radio that can do more than one digital mode. But that day may still come. Software Defined Radio was likely a foreign concept to many 20 plus years ago when this problem was first brought to our awareness by Bruce Perens. USRP, HackRF, HamShield, RTL-SDR, are known to many now, and having to have a hardware dongle to do the speech coding with those is illogical.

The Yaesu radios are firmware update-able (yet no open for third party development). So those thing were done right, however their digital design is disappointing, as well as their internet linking tie-in. The design took a 30 year step backwards in digital communications by releasing a design based on P25 Phase 1, but occupies more bandwidth to do less.

For what its worth, I used to always buy Yaesu, but I haven't since 2011.

Make better use of the bands.

2020-06-20T14:36:00.001-05:00

The following is from the IARU Region 3, Seventeenth Regional Conference (Sept 2018) document.

"The evolution of spectrum management in the era of hyper-connectivity and its impact on the amateur service."

Technical implications

While the discussion above has focused on the 6 m band, one thing that the applications based method has revealed which is applicable to all bands is that we need to come up with applications (transmission modes) that use more, rather than less spectrum, if we are required to justify our allocated spectrum. More amateurs or more band activity would also help, but they are separate and difficult issues…

The move towards digital coding, a rising noise floor and internet reporting has driven us in the direction of reducing the bandwidth that we, as amateurs, use to communicate. The ‘JT’ modes are a superb example of very clever coding, allowing communications in very narrow bandwidths. They allow (usually limited) communications to occur in situations where conventional analog applications (modes) do not function. Similarly various digital voice modes generally use narrow bandwidths and operate in poor signal-to-noise environments. In general the direction of application development is to use less bandwidth and this leads to some questions:

- While the advantages of narrow bandwidth applications are very important when band conditions are poor or band occupancy is high, what about the rest of the time? What about the VHF bands and above where propagation conditions are relatively favourable and stable, why limit the application bandwidth?

- Why not consider developing modes that use more bandwidth, or at least are adaptive and can use more bandwidth when band conditions permit? Wider band modes offering better voice quality are certainly easier on the ear. Other information could also be transmitted which would enhance the communications experience. Reduced Bandwidth Digital TV is a possibility for UHF bands and above, possibly even on 6 m and 2 m. Acceptable video quality can be achieved using bandwidths of 300 kHz or less.

-How about moving away from our reliance on internet mediated modes, or at least supplement the internet with an amateur equivalent. HAMNET in Germany and Broadband-Hamnet in the US are examples of this. Why not use some of our spectrum assets to transmit amateur-specific and non-commercial information (DX clusters, WSPR reports, etc.) instead of commercial internet services? Considering that amateurs have exclusive use of the 44.xx.xx.xx IP address range (AMPRNet) we could build an independent, though internet-linked amateur-specific network. Given the low population density in many Region 3 countries an extensive broadband network using any of the microwave bands is unlikely to be feasible, but perhaps lower frequency bands could be used for (relatively) broadband links if the application data rate is kept low enough.

Acting upon some of these ideas, and other innovations, would increase spectrum occupancy and help justify the bands we have.

Basically this is the same thing I have been saying for a good number of years.

Now if we just had some leadership in this hobby that had a real desire to do something more than the status quo.

Yaesu (DR-1X) Fusion repeater converted to DMR

2020-06-09T18:35:00.002-05:00

Paul, KB0P is sorta new to the Green Bay area. He used to live in the Upper Peninsula. He recently emailed me about setting up a DMR repeater back home in the U.P. (Ishpeming/Marquette).

He said a number of his U.P. ham friends have been getting on the air with DMR using hotspots as there are no DMR repeaters in the Marquette area.

Paul was writing to come up with the least expensive way to go this. He already had an fairly unused analog repeater and a site etc.

I replied and informed him that a good number of the Motorola XPR8200/8300 repeaters that hams have on the air were graciously provided as refurbs from a ham who works at Motorola. So Paul could reach to this guy, but these units have high PA failure rate. A surge suppressor and isolator are highly recommended if you are going to use them. And you'll want to crank the transmit power back if you are 24/7 linked to high transmit rate talkgroups like WW, etc.

With that in mind, and the headaches of having to swap the transmit and receive radios around when they blow-up (and it seems to be just a matter of time), I suggested he roll his own.

Paul has been in the hobby since the mid 80's I think, and I knew he had no qualms about using a soldering iron a service monitor.

I wrote, another option that might be better is MMDVM. And I am note referring to that flea power hotspot junk. I am talking about using an adapter like the INADVM MMDVM, or RB_STM32_DVM and using that to drive existing analog equipment. As a bonus you'll be able to support all the other digital modes if you take the time to set them up.

A couple weeks later he wrote:

A new DMR repeater has now been installed in Marquette, Michigan (da U.P.). It can be reached on the U.P. Talk Group 31268.

http://kb0p.com/index.php/hara-dmr-repeater/

We converted a Yaesu DR-1X repeater to a DMR repeater using the STM32-DVM system by Repeater Builder consisting of a Raspberry Pi computer and a MMDVM Top Hat board, using the Pi-Star software.

Nice job Paul!

An inside look at a TE Systems Amplifier

2020-05-03T21:00:00.000-05:00

This is what the cover removed from a TE Systems VHF Amplifier: (1412RRN) 25-45 watts in, 160-200 out, continuous duty convection cooled looks like"

Intellectual Property and Ham Radio?

2020-03-01T19:41:00.001-06:00

Early on, Bruce Perens, K6BP, amateur radio and open source advocate voiced concerns about D-Star’s use of a proprietary vocoder. Asking; does it really fit into the spirit of the hobby? Bruce makes a strong argument that an Open Source vocoder needs to be developed. The codec2 development started in 2009, when David Rowe, VK5DGR stepped up to the challenge.

While the Codec 2 development was and is good, here we are 2020, and sadly there hasn’t been a lot of work in my opinion, for a drop in replacement for VHF/UHF radios. Presently that seems to best match up to FreeDV’s 2400B mode. Most of the work has been for HF applications. Or at the very least, Codec2/FreeDV hasn't been adopted by VHF/UHF manufacture like many would have hoped.

The bad part is Bruce brought an awareness to the AMBE patents that probably would have otherwise not have been thought about much by fellow hams. So the bad part is Bruce created a stigma. And it was further improperly (in my opinion) used as a sly marketing tool by some of the ham manufactures of the AMBE DV Sticks.

And from what I have seen, there are still hams out there that think the AMBE patents surrounding D-Star are still an issue. (they aren't, they expired in 2017) And more than likely the the big-bad-boogie-man is gonna come nab you if you meddle with trying to create your own open source AMBE, or using something that has someone else’s non-licensed AMBE, etc.

Facts of the matter are;

When you buy consumer electronics and other things that might have technology under the cover that might be covered by patents, does it impact your buying decision? Likely not. However, truth be told since the majority of electronic things are manufactured in China, it’s not uncommon for there to be cloned (improperly/unlicensed/bootleg - whatever you want to call it) intellectual property under the cover. (If you don’t believe me, go look at the Indusic chip in your Chinese DMR handheld, then go look at DVSI’s note on their website)

Second, non-commercial/research usage of patented technology is, and always has been covered by exceptions on the definition of "patent infringement”. By our very definition, ham radio is all about non-commercial, experimental and research activities.

Have you ever heard of anyone actually successful at litigation, if the defendant never made any money off your patent? No, and no one is coming to your local court to instigate that fruitless endeavor against you.

And if you are still biting your damn nails, remember that; Bruce told us that there is prior art from David Rowe that would likely invalidate the AMBE patents, and that DVSI used the AMBE codec in commerce before some of their patent applications, potentially invalidating their own patents.

Let’s look back:

Patents have been around longer than ham radio. In radios formative years there were a lot of patents, and since that time, have obviously expired.

I have been trying to research how those patents impacted ham radio operators. Back then, then pretty much had to build everything from scratch. Nowadays, if a new thing is patented related to radio (perhaps something like LoRA), hams generally are buying something from a supplier to use that mode or technique. This pretty much moves any possible legal concerns off the individual hams shoulders and on to that of the supplier. (These days it’s America’s (and the worlds) convenient way of evading legal repercussions).

So I have been combing the archives of QST magazine and other sources trying to understand if anyone seemed concerned that back then, when things like the Hartley oscillator were under patent. I haven’t found one mention of concern.

If you were a ham messing around with SSB in the 1930's the Hartley patent might have been a problem. But there wasn't a lot of specialized parts back then rather than general purpose components.

However, it does appear that you had to pay RCA for certain parts necessary to build a transmitter with then, current technology as they held the patents and were the only source/supplier.

I tend to think a patent on a circuit design (as opposed to a component) would be easy enough for an amateur to copy without much worry of being sued for infringement.

Truth be told, I have a tough time understanding radio circuits with solid state components and tubes, so its hard to imagine what was possible then.

With "Single Sideband for the Radio Amateur" published in 1954 it would seem things were pretty wide open by that time. The forward to that says the first QST mention of single sideband was in 1948, at which time the Hartley patent would have been expired.

However, in more recent years (post print media), I personally do recall some possible patent issues;

Satoshi’s D-Star GMSK node adapter and his supposed patented pseudo real time monitor circuit? There were clones of this circuit initially.

The ZUM Hotspot? Some say jumbo/china spot was an improper clone of Jim, KI6ZUM’s design. But it actually seems to have been released with an Open Hardware license?

In summary:

I feel these patent concerns have been over amplified for the individual ham/end user. They are valid concerns and something to ponder when it comes to the ability and impact of smaller businesses being able to feed the needs of the ham community. Like I pointed out, if you are making money then you do need to pay attention to this sort of thing as litigation becomes a potential real thing.

Fortunately, much of the innovation in ham radio is now is purely in the form of software, which is much easier to mass-produce than hardware.

Bridging modes

2020-02-15T19:26:00.001-06:00

Mike, K9MLS recently posted to one of the Allstar lists I am on about creating a D-Star bridge.

dvswitch is a combined effort of Steve N4IRS, Cort N0MJS, and a few others.

Take a look at: https://dvswitch.groups.io/g/main

The software pieces are ASL (Allstar Link), Analog_Bridge, ircDDBgateway, MMDVM_Bridge.

It's possible to create multi-mode / cross-mode bridges with the software, between DMR, DSTAR, NXDN, YSF and P25.

With the DV3000 hardware AMBE vocoder dongle, DSTAR audio is quite good.

However a lot of folks use the MD380 emulator (which is the handy work of Travis, KK4VCZ's md380 reverse engineering project) to get around the hardware requirements of most systems that with otherwise require with dongles or boards.

Its also the preference for a virtual environment where you don't have physical access to the servers. Russell, KV4S did a good job documenting this with his blog entry titled "Hosting an AllStar Node and an AllStarDMR bridge in the cloud"

Sadly that emulator doesn't support D-Star even though that is the mode completely out of patent.

In my opinion; For the price Mike would likely be investing in AMBE hardware, one should really think about soliciting the coding community and offering that money toward a solution that will benefit the community and move it forward.

Multiprotocol DV

2020-02-11T13:27:00.000-06:00

Multiprotocol Digital Voice

Most of my ham radio "on the air" time has historically been mobile. It’s a convenient way to enjoy the hobby when you'd otherwise not have the time to sit in front of a radio. So that is VHF/UHF. Unfortunately we have a lack of standards adopted by the community so we have this digital fragmentation problem. While repeater-to-repeater network layer cross mode solutions exist (like DVSwitch and XLXD), we still are waiting for a digital HT and or mobile radio that supports more than one digital mode.

But the problem is worse than that. We don't even have a direct way to talk on the various modes over our smartphones, like you can with Echolink.

A number of people seem convinced the AMBE patents are a part of the problem. Lets review:

Patents are protected for the longer of 17 years from issue date or 20 years from filing date. Patents are still applicable for DMR, YSF (Yaesu Fusion), and NXDN. They should all expire by 2022, but sadly Patent 8,359,197B2 was filed on April 1, 2003. USPTO tardily granted it on January 22, 2013. In compliance with legal guarantees, USPTO granted the patent a 5-year and 51-day extension. This patent would expire on May 22, 2028.

Open source advocate, Bruce Perens gave a talk a while back about possibly trying to invalidate it some years back. But since that costs money to pursue, and there are exceptions for non-commercial/ research usage of patented technology, that would really only benefit potential manufactures.

The AMBE patents aren't really the biggest problem. Solutions already exist. If you want better solutions those won't just come along when those patents expire anyway.

As an example, D-Star is already fully cleared of AMBE patents and has been since 2017. A potential conflict, impeding software AMBE is the dplus person, AA4RC. The creator of the DV dongle.

Software decoding (and encoding) tools exist. DSD, DSD+, op25, md380 emulator, etc. And a couple of those are open source. I'd say it’s just a matter of finding coders.

https://github.com/nostar/dudestar

http://git.osmocom.org/op25/tree/op25/gr-op25_repeater/apps/tx/multi_tx.py

http://git.osmocom.org/op25/tree/op25/gr-op25_repeater/apps/tx/dv_tx.py

In my opinion, Max, KA1RBI and Doug, AD8DP should have a large fan base, as they are the unsung heros trying their best to move things forward, with zero monetary interest.... true hams!

I suspect another part of the problem why we don't have chipless AMBE access over the internet to at least the D-Star networks is because our current architecture relies on hardware AMBE for authentication/access. If software AMBE apps were easily and readily available then this would open a can of worms as there is no current way to restrict access to just hams.

So this is something that needs thought by the US Trust (REF) and truthfully is more likely to be supported by some of the other splinter reflector network operators, like XRF, DCS, XLX..

And Brandmeister, Marc and other DMR network operators also need to get together and do some thinking too and come to a consensus on a new network protocol that actually has end user protocol level authentication, ie, password/ auth token.

As software AMBE becomes easier to install, presently I don't see anything that prevents someone from streaming AMBE audio at an IP address/UDP port and having it coming out over a repeater or group of repeaters.

If you are interested in ever seeing a cheap HT that can do more than one digital voice mode, then I suggest promoting and starting to learn about the above mentioned open source Digital Voice projects. It's fairly clear to me after waiting years for things like the CS7000, DV4mobile and the “HT of the Future” to materialize, we (the hams) need to repeat the steps of the how the TNC (for packet radio) came to be readily available from commercial suppliers.

So let’s look back at how that came to be:

If you recall the TNC was started by Vancouver Area Digital Communications Group (VADCG) and it started as kits. Kantronics and Paccomm came later to offer it commercially. That is how it is supposed to work. We the hams innovate, and commercial guys can pick it up if they see it as something there is a business model for.

The Vancouver guys (especially Doug Lockhart) were the real pioneers, but it was a small experimentally-minded group that wasn't really thinking about mass-marketing yet.

A couple of Arizona hams with a vision took things to the next level. They designed their own TNC and formed Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR) to market it as a kit. The TNC-2 (their second version) eventually became a huge hit. But TAPR was (and still is) a volunteer organization, and volunteers can only go so far in making hardware. Even if you're a nonprofit, somebody has to sink a lot of money into a parts inventory. You need boards made. You need somebody to take the orders, package up the kits, and ship them. For volunteers, that eventually gets old though I'm amazed at how dedicated some of them still are.

So TAPR approached ham manufacturers and gave them the complete TNC-2 design for free. Yet TAPR still had to plead and beg them to build and sell it. TAPR wasn't trying to make a profit, they were simply trying to get packet radio into the ham mainstream and they couldn't do it alone.

Ham manufacturers are a fairly conservative bunch. They don't want to invest in anything unless they know it's going to sell. And that's hard for the kind of radical innovations that technically oriented hams like to work on just for fun. To coin a phrase, there's a real impedance mismatch between the two groups. Fortunately, much of the innovation now is purely in the form of software, which is much easier to mass-produce than hardware. So all you need the manufacturers for is to make general purpose SDR hardware, which is an easier sell than some new special mode.

The purpose of this article isn't just to bring awareness, it’s to hopefully attract some dormant hams with software coding skills to join forces and to help propel the projects and move ham radio forward.

An updated DV Adapter?

2020-01-19T15:21:00.001-06:00

Back when D-Star was new to ham radio (around 2008), Satoshi Yasuda 7M3TJZ/AD6GZ, created a DV adapter.

He also created the first GMSK node adapter. The node adapter was more well recognized, as a way to retro-fit analog radios to become hotspots and repeaters (entry points) into the D-Star internet linked network. Now a days this has morphed into the well known Pi-Star, using much lower power integrated transmitters.

But lets go back and revisit the forgotten and overlooked DV adapter.

Shortly there after Jonathan Naylor, G4KLX crafted one of his first software projects. A D-Star client that created all the underlying GMSK signalling with a sound card/FOB. Much like Satoshi's adapter this too interfaced to the packet radio port of an analog radio.

The difference here between these ad the node adapters/ Pi-Star, is that these you plug microphones into and talk into directly rather than a something you use as a passive gateway device with a HT.

Since a number of efforts to create a true HT that does more than one digital mode still haven't come to fruition (like the DV4mobile, CS7000, etc), this is something the ham community should take another look at and work together at.

This time around, rather than the big user interface and display, all that could be served over a web interface to your cellphone over wifi or bluetooth. (much like the VGC VR-N7500) So just think a magic box, that has a microphone and a 5 pin mini-din to connect to your existing analog rig.

The mode, D-Star, Yaesu Fusion (YSF), P25, or NXDN as well as userid, and talkgroups could all be selected over the web interface.

Doug, AD8DP is working on something of this DV adapter nature.

There is a great starting place here for someone, thanks to the work of Max, KA1RBI.

If you know of other similar developments please contact me. I feel this is an area we need to be putting some focus on if we ever want to true multiprotocol radio.

AMBE and Codec2

2019-09-16T12:59:00.002-05:00

About 10 years ago, when D-Star was really the only Digital Voice radio in ham radio, there was a bunch of fuss over how AMBE was not open like the rest of the D-Star protocol.

This may have very well started the Codec 2 project. Its still a noble effort. The problem is the VHF/ UHF dilemma has grown with the introduction of the digital voice radios like DMR and Yeasu's Fusion. By the time these other modes came around, than initial fuss had simmered.

There were hopes initially that Codec2 could be a drop in replacement for AMBE. And presumably if this happened perhaps manufactures would include this in future radio?

So here we are, 2019. Back in Oct 2017, the patents surrounding AMBE for D-Star expired. There is a crude sounding open-source AMBE code in mbelib that has been around for a while.

It appears in late 2018, Antony, SV9OAN started creating a vocoder extension "pydv" that allows the use of the open source Codec 2 with D-STAR.

"Provides Python interfaces to manage DExtra and DPlus connections (protocols used by reflectors), convert from network data to D-STAR streams (header and frames) and vice versa, as well as encode and decode voice data using mbelib (decode only) and codec2, and transcode using an AMBEd server (the version included in my xlxd fork)"

Sadly without some sort of D-Star radio firmware hacking project like Travis, KK4VCZ did with the MD-380 for DMR, I see Antony's work being a vain effort unless there is something I am missing?

Multimode VHF/UHF Digital Voice ?

2019-02-10T17:36:00.001-06:00

Where is that radio that will do D-Star, DMR and Fusion? It seems like everything has gone no where?

The NW Digital Radio (UHF 56kbps etc) high speed UHF data radio: proposed UDRX-440 has been scrapped. (Initially announced in May 2012)

Jerry at Connect Systems hasn't been able to get the needed cooperation from Co-Value or any other hardware manufacture for that multi-protocol Digital Voice radio, the proposed CS7000. (Initially announced in May 2014) So that's in hiatus till someone can design the hardware.

That DV4 Mobile that the German Wireless Holdings guys showed at Dayton 2016 has ran into redesign/parts issues, so that appears to be going nowhere too. (Initially announced July 2015)

Then there is Bruce Perens who was/is working with Chris Testa (KD2BMH) on some sort of SDR based VHF/UHF TDMA radio (Algoram, Katena, Whitebox - first talked about in April 2015) The inital idea was likely too ambitious, and they ran into RF problems.

If you need to review these endeavors, Gary KN4AQ made a reddit post a while back that goes into a little more detail

And from Bruce's 2017 DCC talk, he details some of the snags. Here are some relevant extracts:

-

Next Step, First Try
Chris Testa and I tried to build a power-efficient SDR HT with a radio based on the CMX991 and a computer with built-in FLASH-based gate-array based on Microsemi SmartFusion.

Chris and I spent a lot of time making the computer. By the time we were done, we could buy better, faster computers, already built, for less. We won’t make computers again.

I bought a lot of test equipment at surplus, so we each have a pretty good lab.

Biggest Mistake

Chris and I got the computer working before we entirely debugged the radio. In retrospect this was backwards, and we should have built a radio that we could debug without building a computer at all.

To make up for the computer’s low speed, we took too long working on gate-array code.

The radio design turned out to be too noisy, and that killed the design. By the time we got to that point, there were a lot better platforms than CMX991.

Why Not Use Raspberry Pi 3?

Many small, powerful, and really cheap computers, like Raspberry Pi 3, are too I/O limited to do high-bandwidth SDR. In the case of Pi 3, its USB 2 is too slow, and it has serial channels dedicated to a camera and display that might have worked, except that they aren’t fully documented and depend upon undocumented coprocessors.

But there are somewhat more expensive boards with USB3, etc.

Next Steps

Chris and I took a two-year break to work on other things after this design failure. In that time, nobody has approached creating the radio we wanted. So, it is probably time to work on the next version.

This would use an existing computer, existing SDR board, and only require the production of hardware for filters, amplifiers, and glue.

I have the development hardware on hand.

I guess the Runbo line of Android phones with an integrated two way radio chipset is worth mentioning. Some people think that thing might evolve into something. The problem is I have been keeping an eye on this longer than all of the above, perhaps back to 2013. In that time I haven't seen much. I'd be surprised if whoever makes these things would be willing to work with anyone to let them access the development side of things so that a potential reseller could investigate if the hardware/chipset is capable of doing much outside of analog FM etc or if there is enough resources under the hood to do multimode digital.

A few years ago (2013) Andrey, RU3ANQ created and sold for a short time a SDR receiver initally for P25 called ADCR25, then he later added other digital modes like DMR.

For the last year or so he has been fairly quiet. My inital preduction is that someone hired him. Well in fact it looks like he created a company: http://www.rfcraft.ru/

And for anyone who is still disillusion enough to think one of the big three is going to develop this multimode radio, wake up! It would have happened by now. While I tend to agree they would be in the best position in terms of engineering and assets, seems they are not interesting in competing. They are still interested in locking everyone into their digital flavor.

I'd still be happy to throw some money into a gofund me sort of thing to get Jonathan G4KLX to code a client/user end type of MMDVM application. Where you use a AMBE dongle or sudo dongle for that part, and interface it all to the same type of Arduino interface that his repeater MMDVM interfaces uses to connect to analog radios. The problem is he doesn't have the free time like he used to.

{Edit}
It appears a user-end application (dudestar) is under development by Doug.
https://www.qrz.com/lookup/AD8DP

Also see my updated blog entry,
https://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2020/02/multiprotocol-dv.html

That bandwidth petition...

2018-12-19T23:40:00.001-06:00

Some of you may have been wondering what ever happened with that push to remove the symbol (baud) rate restrictions for ham radio and to just set a bandwidth rule.

The FCC's June 2016 conclusion to their request for comments on the ARRL's proposal (RM number 11708) was; They agree that a hard baud limit is not good, but the bandwidth limit proposed by ARRL isn't any better, so FCC denied the request.

Theodore Rappaport, N9NB has been making a fairly big media campaign to get the FCC to dismiss the the subsequent pending Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Docket No. 16-239). His issue is that wide-band connected digital modes and modes that are hard, expensive (or need proprietary hardware, firmware or software) to intercept communications on-the-air need to be removed from the amateur bands.

He goes so far to say that these these modes encourage crime, terrorism and are a threat to national security.

I agree with his first part, but won't go that far out on a limb to make his secondary claims. Having open communications in ham radio is essential to preventing unauthorized use of the bands/self-policing. It's also essential to the self-learning/training aspects of the hobby. Anything else stifles innovation

Ham radio operators have long been some of the original open source , Do-It-Yourself (DIY) proponents. I wrote about this some time back after the economy collapsed.

Bruce Peren's K6BP brought this proprietary "black-box" problem to the forefront back in 2006. At that time he was concerned about the proprietary vocoder in D-Star.

In a reply RM-11625 comment from Bruce Perens in 2012, he made the suggestion that comment that only open source protocols be allowed...
(https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022090358.pdf)

"Amend Section 97.309(a) to read:
Any digital code that is fully disclosed to the public in sufficient detail that a Knowledgeable person can create a computer program to encode and decode it, or any digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part, may be transmitted."

I'd be in favor of Bruce's suggested emission code language in conjunction with the FCC's intended resolution for removing the symbol rate and not adopting a bandwidth limit.

Many may respond that this will there would be detrimental effects from banning existing technology like Pactor and AMBE. Radio amateurs will simply have to undertake an joint effort to reverse engineer protocols and/or petition the manufacturer's to create an open specification of their technology.

APCO (the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials) required this very thing in relation to their standard, P-25. And ham radio should also adopt that type of policy. The future of radio is more and more software defined, so sharing information/specifications and working together is what ham radio has always been about.

What is more disturbing to me is that the "leaders" of ham radio haven't really even gotten on soap box about this, let a lone proposed a solution.

Getting on DMR and other Digital Radio networks from your phone

2018-10-28T17:25:00.000-05:00

There was recently a message from the folks that run the BrandMeister servers requesting that folks do not cross link the traffic to Zello or other non-amateur VOIP networks.

Zello is not to be cross-linked to BrandMeister in any way.

All of the US Master server owners decided among themselves that they do not want any part in facilitating other amateur radio operators to knowingly or unknowingly break the rules that the FCC have made for us to abide by, these are the same rules that you sign to agree to after you successfully pass an amateur radio examination.

But the reason people are doing so, is because they want access to the network in a more logical way than we have now. So lets review.

Presently the only thing that ensures the voice traffic is from a ham is that traffic be AMBE encoded, as that is how its natively transported anyway. This leaves you with two traditional options;

1.) Use an transparent RF "hotspot" to take the native AMBE traffic from your HT and put it on the internet. These are generally Part 15/10 mW transmitters, to provide "in-house" coverage
2.) Use an AMBE hardware dongle to do the encoding.

The problems are that the first option is a lot of hardware to haul around to effectively talk ~50 feet into a radio. And the cost.

The problem with second option is mostly cost and a lack of wide support for doing so, especially with mobile devices. So that is why people are bridging to Zello.

In the near future software AMBE will be widely doable. The "unverified ham origin" problem will metastasize as software AMBE becomes easier. So WE NEED to incorporate automatic authentication into this somehow.

Right now we have security by obscurity, as the traffic is merely in a strange non-standard AMBE format. BrandMeister seems okay with cross linking to Allstar. Allstar, like EchoLink, IRLP, and the other "ham" VOIP systems manually verify that you are a ham.

That could be and probably should be automated. You could be uploading your LoTW (Log Book of the World) digital P12 certificate to their sites to verify that you are a ham. (The LoTW verification process sends a post card to your FCC address, and Then issues you the digital P12 certificate)

But we need to get all these ham VOIP network operators to implement that. From there, you can use the IAXRPT or Zoiper apps to talk into the Allstar networks and thus DMR and other digital networks.. Or the Echolink app, etc.

It would be ideal if your allstarlink.org account could be verified automatically this way. And a unique SIP credentials would be auto-generated. so you can use normal Apps to connect to their server directly. From there and IVR menu of options could exist. Like "Press 1 for Talkgroup X" etc.

These concepts could also be something for the newer hamshack hotline folks to explore.

Listening to D-Star on the Rasperry Pi3 with op25 and a SDR

2018-09-28T12:02:00.002-05:00

A while back I blogged about how to listen to DMR using a SDR. I tried to do the same with D-Star, but was having problems. I ended up reaching out to the author. He just released a fix, so if you download / install from now on, you shouldn't run into the head banging that I was.

I am not going to lie, it doesn't sound the best. There was no information for coder's to work off of, so what we have is rather crude, but intelligible.

If you are looking to help improve it, start here. This is from the folks from the community that brought us what we have today.

There was also this tip from user "groovy"

If anybody wants to continue the research / work, I suggest you look at the osmocom GMR code that Sylvain Munaut worked on. Those phones use a similar codec - I believe with longer frames for the satellite latency. Initially he used the mbelib code, enhanced it for things like tone support, but he later rewrote the synthesis code completely. See OsmocomGMR for his presentations and source code.

Unless other developers take this on, DVSI releases specs, or you switch to a hardware-based decoder like the thumbDV, I don't see the dstar voice quality improving in the short term.

I'd love to see further work on OP25. More so on the transmit part (hooked to analog radio, perhaps using the MMDVM hardware/Arduino. Anyone care to join forces with Max?

Perhaps an update to Johnathan Naylor's (2009) GUI Linux client that would decode and generate GMSK using a soundcard and interface to a radio with a 9600 Baud packet connector. ..

Wouldn't mind a way to hook op25 to Allstar either :-)

The Next 100 Years of Ham Radio

2018-09-24T00:33:00.000-05:00

A few years back I shared a video about ham radio in the future. It's was from a 2012 webinar, where Chris Imlay W3KD and Ed Hare W1RFI predict and speculate what ham radio will be like in 25 years.

As the focus of my blog has been more of a modern ham radio theme, it seems appropriate also share an excerpt from Mike & Key Amateur Radio Club (Seattle) Newsletter (K7LED Relay) by Peter N. Glaskowsky K4PNG.

October 2014

The Next 100 Years of Ham Radio

By Peter N. Glaskowsky K4PNG, Activities Manager

The video we saw at last month’s meeting, ARRL at 100 — A Century of Ham Radio, helped me to better understand the history of our hobby. It also got me to thinking about how amateur radio might continue to advance over the next 100 years.

I believe the key elements of ham radio’s future will be developed from recent history’s three biggest technologies: the personal computer, the Internet, and the cellphone. Each of these fields has much to offer us. I'd like to explain some of these opportunities and describe one possible vision of what we can achieve.

The evolution of the PC has shown us that microprocessor-based digital electronic devices are faster to develop and more flexible than those using fixed-function digital or analog circuitry. While most modern ham radios have some digital logic in them to manage buttons and displays, most of the RF and audio processing in these radios is still done by analog circuitry.

Even most of the so-called software-defined radio (SDR) products on the market are still predominantly analog inside, with digital processing only in the audio stages. While features such as noise reduction, voice processing, and simple digital modes are valuable enough, the full potential of SDR is achieved only in direct-conversion designs that digitize one or more bands with minimal analog processing.

Although there are several direct-conversion radios on the market, including commercial and hobbyist designs, it’s still early days for this product category. Many valuable features remain to be integrated, including features that will come from those other two fields: the Internet and the smartphone.

The Internet teaches us the advantages of packetized data. Packets let us route our transmissions through complex networks, share a single channel among multiple users and messages, and confirm error-free reception where desired.

The latest smartphones deliver high-fidelity voice quality similar to that of landline phones—but over radios, a far more demanding environment. They also feature full-duplex operation, which is more convenient for users and opens the door to techniques such as collision detection, transmit power minimization, and real-time band coordination. Whereas cellphone networks are controlled by one central authority, amateur radio operators work together to follow the guidelines of band plans they develop themselves, like those of the ARRL and the Western Washington Amateur Repeater Association (WWARA).

It may seem as though many of these technologies could use more of our limited spectrum for the same amount of traffic. After all, packets and control channels add considerable overhead, extra error-correction bits do no good for clear, strong signals, and it’s wasteful to retransmit a whole message when only a word or two isn’t heard.

But in truth, today’s amateur radio is terribly inefficient. How many times, on average, do you send (or say) “CQ” for each QSO you complete? How many calls do you hear, but not understand? And when nobody is transmitting, the frequency is still occupied. Our modulation schemes are far less efficient than digital methods. CW, which is one of our more efficient modes, uses about 100 Hz of bandwidth to carry 35 words per minute (roughly 30 bits per second) of information. With a digital modulation scheme such as 64-symbol quadrature amplitude modulation (64-QAM), the same amount of data would fit into as little as 5 Hz of spectrum... and 64-QAM is far from the most efficient modulation scheme known. Digital radios are also better at sharing one channel among multiple users, delivering the benefit known as statistical multiplexing.

There are dozens of other techniques used to improve the throughput and reliability of communications channels, more than I could possible describe here, known by terms such as 8B/10B, CDMA, DSSS, MIMO, NPML, PRML, RLL, Turbo, and Viterbi. Some of these methods are already used in radios, and some were developed for wired networks or even disk drives, but they’re all worth studying to see how they might apply to the unique requirements of amateur radio.

A common objection to the rapid adoption of advanced technologies is that they interfere with what 47 CFR 97.1 describes as “the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.” It’s a rare amateur who can understand everything going on inside modern analog radios, never mind digital ones. It may seem as though adding more layers of technology will make it more difficult for amateurs to contribute meaningful innovations—but digital radios are simpler inside, and it’s easier to add new features with software than hardware.

Amateur operators used to lead the development of radio technology. It may take many years for amateur radio to regain technical parity with commercial interests, but I believe we can and will get there.

Opening up our hobby to technologies that were developed for computer networks and cellphones creates the potential for hams to attract interest and assistance from the companies that developed them. Intel, Qualcomm, and Samsung (to mention just three of the largest) employ armies of RF and communications system engineers, but few if any of these professionals work on ham-related projects because their employers see no significant profit potential there.

These leaders of the cellphone industry are aware, however, that they aren’t taking full advantage of the potential synergies available in large networks of smartphones. In a technology known as cognitive radio, smart radios cooperatively adapt to changing conditions and requirements. With the flexibility to try experimental new technologies and the pressing need to deal with the changing conditions of the HF bands, amateurs may already be making more rapid progress toward cognitive radio than commercial firms.

Similarly, while there is much talk of “cloud computing” today, rigidly hierarchical computer networks aren’t very cloud-like. Mesh networking technology, which is under active development here in the Pacific Northwest, is a great solution for amateur radio and may also be a better solution than the networks from which the public Internet is built. As amateur mesh networks become more sophisticated, their underlying technologies may transfer back into the commercial world.

Unlocking the full potential of amateur radio will require more than technology. The language of the law will have to change, too. The current legal framework dates back to the days of crystal-controlled radios, and creates unnecessary obstacles to improving spectrum utilization with smart, agile SDRs. The current prohibitions on commercial and encrypted content preclude using amateur frequencies for Internet access; reversing that stance would surely create tremendous new demand for ham licenses and radios. Such prohibitions still make sense in the crowded HF and VHF bands, but with tens of megahertz of amateur spectrum available in UHF, and over a gigahertz in the SHF band—where line-of- sight propagation means the bandwidth in a geographical area is practically unlimited—more accommodating policies could spur more rapid progress.

I’d like to show how all of these advancements could apply to amateur radio by sketching out a hypothetical future DX contest—using only technology we could deploy today.

As the contest opens, participants introduce themselves by broadcasting just one digital CQ call. Since everyone has a software-defined radio that simultaneously receives and decodes every transmission on every band, each station knows the call signs and locations of every other station within minutes. The stations spontaneously construct a distributed control system that calculates the ideal combination of long-range and short- range connections to maximize the number of QSOs on the network.

The best stations get the most points for completing their own QSOs and for relaying the QSOs of others. Instead of a hundred contacts per hour, each operator could make thousands.

True, some of the skills needed for this kind of contest aren’t the traditional ones, but they are unquestionably more relevant to the real- world needs for amateur radio. There would be very little difference, for example, between a contest and a disaster-response operation, except for the content of the messages. And bear in mind that digitally programmed and enforced band plans will keep digital radios from interfering with CW, SSB, and RTTY operations. The spectrum of the future will have plenty of room for tradition and progress.

20 years ago...

2018-05-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

After being in the hobby only a few years and having been running a 9600 baud packet station I was looking to go faster. At the time there was an ongoing TAPR project to create a 128 Kbps frequency hopping spread spectrum 1 watt, 900 MHz radio. I was interested, the problem was it had been stalled for a while. And to make matters worse; the only real price clue was that it would be under $500, and it would be dual marketed, to hams and for unlicensed use.

Barry, VE3JF had a webpage dedicated to higher speed options using wireless LAN modems. At this point consumer networking products where switching from 900 MHz to 2.4 GHz. And the price had dropped to the $100 range. I started to make a ruckus on the TAPR spread spectrum list, why weren't hams embracing this technology?

There were a lot of naysayers. Some said the 1 Watt automatic power control rule made Part 97 operation less desirable than Part 15.   Later this rule was done away with.

This was the start of what later became HSMM. It was clear to me that direct sequence was going to win over frequency hopping for the newly emerging 802.11 (now legacy standard) circa 1997 or so. This was good and bad, but sure made shifting the operations totally withing the ham radio overlap easy. It was clear to me, that 802.11 was going to be common placed in the average home in a few short years. And it seemed since this stuff was already operating on ham radio frequencies, we might as well at least draw some attention to it, and see what we could do with it to use it for slightly longer distances. Heck, I just snagged a bunch of partial screen parabolic antennas for the band that were being removed from service from a rural "wireless cable TV" provider that went under.

I know I as well as others wrote letters to the ARRL at the time.

Fortunately the ARRL president at the time (Jim Haynie, W5JBP) had open ears, and formed a working committee that reported to the Technology Task Force. It was actually Paul Rinaldo (chief technical officer), W4RI's recommendation to the ARRL board that the group be formed. A survey conducted by the ARRL Technology Task Force, of League members and other amateurs revealed that the number one interest in new technologies was in high-speed digital networks. Amateur radio, particularly EmComm (this was just after 911), needed some means of data transmission significantly faster than conventional packet radio.   The group was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and other modes on frequencies above HF.

Now about this time in my life, I had just been transition from high school to college and started working, bought a house. So at the time I actually didn't know Jim had appointed this group. I didn't end up catching up with what was going on till about 2005 or so.

I learned that John Champa, K8OCL became the chairman of the working group. The group had made several recommendations that ultimately all went no where. Some were a matter of policy; like the regulation by bandwidth proposal that hams weren't ready for yet. Another was trying to get TAPR to help develop 2.4 to 3.3-3.5-GHz transverters, a 70 cm OFDM modem, etc.

But the groups publicity, drew people out of the wood work to try things. And the enthusiasm continued past the official working groups dissolution in 2006. I felt this was good. I had actually hoped there would be other working groups formed. Like SDR, etc.

Anyway, the work continued without the ARRL. By the Fall of 2008, a group of amateurs from the Texas area announced development of their own custom firmware for the WRT-54G to enable HSMM-Mesh networking.

In my opinion, this was a major thing, and this is when hams really paid attention to what others were doing.

Summary:
Sadly ham radio really doesn't have enough enthusiasm and/or skilled folks to build our own stuff to do things that we are able to do now a days with commercial networks. The market is simply not there either.

The model of the TNC, where it started by hams, initially as a kit, and then something that small manufacturers started to sell to amateurs and to a commercial market is a very unlikely thing to see again.

VHF and above ham radio has always pretty much adapted things from the commercial market. Now a days that market is pretty slim. The heyday of two way radio has come and gone. What is left is the public safety market.   Heck we had to adapt 802.11.

That is basically the best you can realistically hope to for. It's important to keep eyes and the mind open to things abroad. Things that might have a commercial market in other (perhaps less developed) countries that could be imported and used in ham radio.

The rules should be relaxed as much as possible so that if future things from the commercial market can be adapted to use in ham radio, that there won't be a need for any drawn out future requests to have that emission type permitted etc.

The present generation of hams should ban together to religiously petition that the rules be relaxed as much as possible to prevent anyone in the future from being denied from trying to do anything. Experimentation is the key to new ideas. And lastly if you hear someone saying "you can't do that", kick them in the nuts and don't listen to a word they say.

Yaesu System Fusion (YSF)

2018-03-12T13:52:00.002-05:00

It seems that Yaesu has learned from the ARRL. Their youtube channel has comments turned off, and their yahoo group is moderated.

I tried to make some comments on their firmware updateable radios. This is a concept I wrote about a long time ago. Obviously if it was something open to 3rd party development like how the WRT-54 series router hardware turned out to be, then it would be truly awesome. But that isn't realistic I suppose. So short of buying one to give to Travis Goodspeed who has hacked the MD380, that likely won't be happening any time soon.

I was envisioning Yaesu later adding features like the ability to listen to ATSC TV audio. I miss the days of when things were a bit dull on the ham bands, tuning over to the TV audio channels while at work with my VX-5.

It is truly a shame that they haven't/won't at least add D-Star receive support at the very least. I have to say I had hope for them early on. Maybe it was because I realized they are now solely an amateur company and unlike the others do not have a commercial line to supplement their bottom line. At that time some of us where hoping when there were not saying a whole lot about their introduction to the ham digital market, that C4FM meant there might be a chance of whatever they unveiled would be backwards compatible with P25 or DMR. Instead they further contributed to the digital fragmentation problem, but unveiling yet another format that is totally incompatible with anything else. And that stubborn / bullheadedness unfortunately continues but not embracing and adding support for other modes like DMR or D-Star, in addition to their moderated/censored comment approach.

I'd sure like to see someone do it... And they'd seem like a good candidate, as they are solely ham, with no commercial line anymore... You cant tell me that it wouldn't sell and boost their name.

I can't say their digital mode or any of the other really interest me a whole lot till we have someone willing to embrace these interoperability concepts. So the only things that I think are worth my time and money are things like MMDVM, OP25, and XLX cross connect reflectors.

Till then its old school thinking that continuing their segregation approach to digital somehow helps their bottom line. When in fact I tend to think if they would add support for another digital mode, they would have a hot selling radio.

Listening to DMR on the Rasperry Pi3 with op25 and a SDR

2018-01-13T22:40:00.000-06:00

This past summer I blogged on how to listen to a simulcast APCO-25 trunked public safety system. Since that time was looking for a way to listen to a DMR system. Last winter I gave the Raspberry Pi2 a try using DSD. That didn't go so well. I suspect because DSD was written a long time ago, and is a single threaded application that can't take advantage of the Pi's multiple cores.

Last April Transmit support was added to op25 for; DMR/YSF/P25 and D-STAR. Just after Christmas this year, Receive support was announced. So I had to try this!

I just heard DMR audio on a Pi3.. And it sounded good!

Linux op25 4.9.28-v7+ #998 SMP Mon May 15 16:55:39 BST 2017 arm71 GNU/Linux (Raspbian Jessie)

ppm set to 3 for me (see json file below) using my NooElec SDR

Note: DMR audio for the second time slot is sent on the specified port number plus two. In example 'udp://127.0.0.1/56122', audio for the first slot would use56122; and 56124 for the second.

You can setup a mix of the various digital channels in the json file... It works like a scanner.. And if you want you can define SDR dongles to channels... In case you want certain channels banded to a certain hardware... for RF/antenna reasons for example.

Graham and Max have been hard at work improving op25. And thanks to that hard work its child's play to install:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get build-dep gnuradio

cd ~
git clone https://github.com/boatbod/op25
cd op25
./install.sh

If you are wondering what your tuning offset is, the best thing is to enable the datascope plot, and adjust the ppm value by one click at a time to center the eye plot.

{Edit/update April 2020}

Max just added a way to specify talk group id's for DMR:

There are two new json keys defined for the channel entry - examples

"whitelist": "4,6,8"

"blacklist": "9"

The talk group id's are specified as a string (comma separated list) with the entries in decimal.

myARRLvoice

2018-01-10T12:00:00.000-06:00

Before the latest ARRL shit storm erupted, I had written in November 2017 my section manager (KA1RB). Pay attention to my 6th paragraph where I commented to KA1RB that I never see any division directors or section mangers make public FCC comment, thus I have no idea if they represent my interests.

You may have noticed I wrote to my section manger instead of Kermit, W9XA, my division director. I haven't been impressed with Kermit, W9XA since he replaced W9GIG. Not that I thought Dick Isely was that great anyway. At least Pat, KA9RB responds enthusiastically, and comes off as having an open ear. An impression I wasn't left with when I'd communicate with Dick or Kermit.

Patrick,
That was me who shyed away from your table at the fest when you brought up renewing. I figured I can articulate my issues via email here better. As a side note, that was probably the best Appleton fest I have seen in recent years.

I am considering not renewing this year. I have been a member off and on, and more steadily the last few years. Honestly I think the ARRL does a piss poor job of steering amateur radio. Maybe they don't want to, but ultimately someone should in my opinion. The don't even attempt to create enthusiasm about anything new. I always admired Wayne Green despite some flaws, in that he inspired a more hand-on approach and promoted new ideas. (I ended up being the somewhat silent curator to collect scans of his magazine, that he later signed off for release into the public domain, if you weren't aware)

I have brought up in past communications that I saw good things come from the HSMM working group around 2001 that was created under the direction of Jim Haynie, W5JBP. I had hoped other working groups would be formed, SDR and so forth as there seemed to be good ideas, enthusiasm, and promotion stemming from the HSMM WG. I haven’t really heard much about the Technology Task Force since Brennan N4QX took over for Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, which is disappointing.

Anyway the ~$50 that someone might send the ARRL, in my opinion is better donated to an open source ham radio software project in my opinion. I think folks like Jonathan Naylor, G4KLX are some of the unsung heros of ham radio. Might just have to bring this up at a local meeting.

There was a recent entry license survey which I am sure you are aware of. And since I got into the hobby in my high school days in the mid 90's I recall two big license changes. I wasn’t paying attention at the time of those, but I would be interested in learning how those came about. I assume they were ARRL endorsed/initiated to some degree. Of course I am referring to the first was around 2000, where 5 WPM became the highest code test, and they consolidated the license classes, eliminating novice and advanced classes. Then around 2006, when the code test went away all together.

So why the ARRL doesn't endorse some major rule changes bugs me. Seems like the bottom line to them is just to have a good number of folks entering the hobby. And while I feel that is important, there are other important things like undoing some of these decades old rules to there is at least a chance of things moving forward on their merits. The bottom line is I don't know where they stand on things, let alone even where my division director feels personally.

Someone with the league really ought to write on what you can and can't expect ARRL to do and why. Maybe that will help me. Some years back I had similar confusion/frustrations with TAPR.

Thanks, any feedback will be used in making my renewal decision. Though I think the biggest thing that will help me make my decision will be this “vision of the future” that needs to be conveyed it to our current membership. That is the shimmer of hope I have with the League right now.

Steve, KB9MWR

I am still waiting with money in hand for this vision, and some sort of action from the ARRL higher powers to indicate a willingness to move into 2018 with more transparency and a more democratic voice for it's membership.

Another 900 MHz mesh gadget

2017-10-15T11:22:00.001-05:00

From some discussion on the wetnet mailing list:

> https://www.sonnetlabs.com/
>
> Mesh, external antenna connector and cheaper then some of the others I've
> seen.
> Huh... maybe worth finding out more about there type of modulation etc.

A FCC ID search by manufacturer brings back nothing. So I suspect this thing isn't as far along as they make it seem.

Some how I suspect the thing will be overpriced like the goTenna and Beartooth anyway.

Else I was going to suggest since its never clear if it has to abide by the image, data, spread spectrum rules or all of the above.... pick whatever is the least restrictive is how I'd go about it. Consider it an ignorant form of civil disobedience to make a case for rule reform if you like.

It's the classic case of a multi-media gizmo; "send text messages, images, audio recordings.."

One day likely not in my lifetime the old men at Newington will pull the head out of their posterior, and realize they should have lobbied 30+ years ago to make rule situations like this clearer if they expect anyone to take the things and themselves seriously.

FCC investigating technical regulations

2017-09-04T11:26:00.002-05:00

This is mostly stuff I just communicated again to my Division Director. But I plan to file comments directly, and encourage others to do the same.

I just read the blurb about the FCC Technological Advisory Council Investigating Technical Regulations. And I was just going to inquire with the league about the status of the October 2013, proposal to modernize the rules for data transmissions.

I have stressed before that I am fine with doing away with the symbol rates, and establishing the proposed 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit for HF. But I am totally against not revising the bandwidth limits for above 50 MHz. There is plenty of spectrum on the VHF/UHF bands, and other modes like image presently are not as limited as data is.

From: http://www.kb6nu.com/arrl-finally-realizes-status-quo-isnt-going-cut/
(ARRL link)

"From the committee’s vantage point, the status quo is no longer adequate: we need to have a vision of the future and convey it to our current membership. If we do not convey the need to change the paradigm, the ARRL’s relevancy will not move forward."

The first step in anything is admitting there is a problem. Now if they follow through with comments that reflect something other than the status quo in this latest proceeding, I might feel this is more than hot air.

There are also some good points in The Future of Amateur Radio Is Not In The Numbers , by Chris Warren.

So I sincerely hope any league comments I read on this latest docket reflect some sort of different carve out in respect to bandwidth for data on the VHF/UHF bands. If for some reason someone doesn't understand why data is important, you can skip down to "Internet Threats and Regulation and The Need for Speed and Digital Networks"portion of this document.

In my opinion we need a group such as TAPR to start getting more involved with the FCC and bypass the ARRL. It's my impression that the League only cares about contesters and DXers because that is where most of their money comes from.

I remember back when I never really understood TAPR. I knew what the name stood for, so I always assumed they were the voice representing the digital aspects of the hobby. Then I heard a 2008 Rain report where Steve Bible explained TAPR. I wonder if there is any chance of TAPR taking up the role that I thought there were about?

And as I stressed before, I feel its important to have a futuristic thought process when making comments as it takes many years for regulator changes to actually happen. And in that light, there is a 2012 webinar, where Chris Imlay W3KD and Ed Hare W1RFI predict and speculate what ham radio will be like in 25 years (2037).

So I encourage everyone to listen to that when you have the time, add your own thinking and start drafting your thoughts to the commission. I believe they are referring to Subpart D, Technical Standards, which includes; 97.301 Authorized frequency bands, 97.303 Frequency sharing requirements, 97.305 Authorized emission types, 97.307 Emission standards, 97.309 RTTY and data emission codes, 97.311 SS emission types, 97.313 Transmitter power standards, 97.315 Certification of external RF power amplifiers, and 97.317 Standards for certification of external RF power amplifiers.

Now on to what I think:

I actually recommended basically do away with the bandwidth limits, and let gentlemans agreements take rule. This was something that made sense to me from Bruce Peren's Dec 2012 Codec 2 filed comments. This is how a lot of other countries handle ham radio things. As long as there is a list of permitted emission designators, our regulations remain brittle and prone to rapid obsolescence (and holding the rest of the world back). Allow any emission that fits within the band. Hams have always been responsible and share the bands on their own, without the authorities wielding a stick.

I think that seems logical moving forward. All we are doing is taking up the FCC's time and screwing ourselves with this 10-15 year re-revising the rule, piece meal approach game like we have been playing, that really just impedes innovation.

I am sure from the leagues recent license survey, they are fully aware that in the next 10 or so years a large number of the existing ham population will have passed on. A new group of hams who need better representation are the future ARRL customers/members.

Since I got into the hobby in the mid 90's, there have been a couple big license changes. The first was around 2000, where 5 WPM became the highest code test, and they consolidate the license classes, eliminating novice and advanced classes. Then around 2006, when the code test went away all together. I should research how these event came about. I assume they were ARRL endorsed. So why the ARRL doesn't endorse some major rule changes bugs me.