innismir.net

Mark, K6HX writes another good article regarding the NSC and ARRL letters and does some math on what we might expect to see if we tried to find evidence on Ham Radio operation while mobile:

There are only about 660,000 or so hams licensed in the U.S. The vast majority of these do not operate mobile. The vast majority of those do probably spend most of their time listening. In such a case, we’d expect that the number of accidents caused to be much lower than those caused by cell phones, even if mobile operation was every bit as dangerous as using a cell phone. The overall instance of accidents may be only 0.1% or less of the levels we see from cell phones. One study estimated that 6000 accidents might have been caused by cell phones in California in 2001. Even if ham radio were as dangerous, we might expect to see only six accidents in the entire year from ham radio operation.

Now, the are some other variables at work that would be interesting to toss around:

• A lot of amateur radio operators are older, would cause the rates to trend upwards?
• Are amateur radio operators more distracted when we have to fiddle around, find a mic, adjust the radio, etc?
• Is a study done in 2001 going to accurately reflect numbers in 2009?

However, the kicker of this whole article is not the post by Mark, but a comment done by Schley Cox:

I operate mobile with amateur radio using Morse code. I copy in my head, my eyes never leave the road in front of me and my right hand (sending hand) is not more than 2 inches from the bottom of the steering wheel. I tune my radio by ear only. I work a narrow range of frequencies without ever looking at the radio. Compare all these situations with using a cell phone, or even a mobile radio using a microphone.

My right and left brain don’t have much to do with each other and it doesn’t seem distracting to me to both send and receive Morse code while driving on stretches of highway. If I need both hands on the wheel while sending I simply send AS and the other operator knows to wait for a while. I don’t have to explain to her (or him) why I am stopping sending.

I don’t operate at all on busy highways. Period. There’s not even time to send AS somewhere (like I-65) while careening between lanes at 80 mph trying to keep from getting rear ended by the rush behind.

Holy crap, where do I begin? Mark makes the statement in a later comment that “This is precisely the kind of argument that I think we should all view with skepticism.” and I wholeheartedly agree. I’m scared the Mr. Cox can think he can do CW in his head and fully concentrate on driving. I will give credit to him for at least realize that doing it on a busy highway is bad, but I hope he isn’t sharing the road with me while I commute. Mark is right to point out that distractions come in all different shapes and sizes while driving: people in the car, twiddling the A/C, and using a mobile phone. It’s foolhardy to think that we are somehow above all that.

Late in July, the ARRL wrote a letter to the National Safety Council regarding the operation of amateur radio while mobile. Joel Harrison, W5ZN, president of the ARRL wrote lobbied (lets not kid ourselves, that what the ARRL does) the NSC to help them ensure that Amateur Radio is not caught up in no-cell-phones-while-driving laws by waving the bloody shirt of public service.

Amateur radio operators provide essential emergency communications when regular communications channels are disrupted by disaster. Through formal agreements with federal agencies… Amateur Radio volunteers protect lives using their own equipment without compensation. The ability of Hams to communicate and help protect the lives of those in danger would be seriously hindered if… governments do not ensure that Amateur Radio operators can continue the use of their mobile radios while on the road.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I use my FT-7800 in my car on an almost daily basis. I am by no means innocent and I did write my representatives when Massachusetts tried to pass a cell phone ban in 2008. It’s my hobby, I enjoy it, and in the car is the only time I get the “play radio” for the most part. I enjoy talking to my friends via it. I try to be responsible, however, I think that if anyone tells you that they are 100% concentrated on driving while they are playing radio, they’re a bold-faced liar.

President Janet Froetscher of the NSC’s response is very political and does a great job at walking right down the middle by giving a response without giving a response. While everyone is touting the NSC’s statement saying that “NSC does not support legislative bans or prohibition on [amateur radio] use” and counting it as a victory, however, the letter from the NSC says some very different things:

We are not aware of evidence that using amateur radios while driving has significant crash risks. We also have no evidence that using two-way radios while driving poses significant crash risks. Until such a time as compelling, peer-reviewed scientific research is presented that denotes significant risks associated with the use of amatuer radios, two-way radios or other communication devices, the NSC does not support legislative bans or prohibition on their use.

Sounds like we’re in the clear, right? Well, kind of. Indeed, there is no evidence that using two-way radios while driving poses significant crash risks, but what evidence are we citing that shows there isn’t a link? From the ARRL policy statement on mobile operation:

is aware of no evidence that [mobile] operation contributes to driver inattention. Quite the contrary: Radio amateurs are public service-minded individuals who
utilize their radio-equipped motor vehicles to assist others, and they are focused on driving in the execution of that function.

Hmmm… That doesn’t sound like compelling, peer-reviewed scientific research to me. What did the ARRL present in their letter to the NSC?

As ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner has observed based on more than 40 years of experience, “Simplex, two-way radio operation is simply different than duplex, cell phone use. Two-way radio operation in moving vehicles has been going on for decades without highway safety being an issue. The fact that cell phones have come along does not change that.”

This is, by definition, anecdotal evidence. Plus, would you really trust this if the National Association for Juggling president state that, after 40 years of experience, he observed that juggling is completely different from cell phone use and has been going on for decades without highway safety being an issue? I wouldn’t and neither should you. When I read this back in August, I did find this a bit amusing as the first thing that popped into my head is the final scene in the movie Thank You for Smoking. The protagonist, who used to lobby for the Tobacco industry, is talking to clients in a meeting regarding cell phone usage:

Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror: Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cellphone usage to brain cancer.

Amateur Radio is in the same position. There is currently no direct evidence that links mobile operation with accidents. The kicker is that there is no evidence that mobile operation is safe either. From what I can tell, there have been no studies regarding the issue. I think that if the ARRL was really interested in safety concerns, they would commission a third party study on this. However, like any special interest group (again, this is exactly what they are and I have no problem with it) their primary interest is promoting their interests.

Froetscher also made a statement to the ARRL that I have not seen mentioned in any coverage of the letter either:

I appreciate your focus on the use of amateur radios for emergency communications during disasters. I encourage ARRL to adopt best practices for the safe operation of vehicles that confines use of amateur radios while driving only to disaster emergencies. You may want to consider documenting this through a formal policy for all of your members.

This is the political equivalent of the NSC saying “…and the horse you rode in on.” By the ARRL using Amateur Radio’s disaster communications as a shield to hide behind in order to avoid being banned under distracted driving laws, the NSC called them out on it. If we, as amateurs,  “provide essential emergency communications when regular communications channels are disrupted by disaster”, why is the ARRL telling its members to avoid using their radios while mobile unless there is an emergency? While the obvious answer is “because we want to play radio” I don’t think the ARRL is going to say that. So, instead, since the ARRL is touting the response, I look forward to them working with the NSC to re-draft their policy to limit mobile Amateur Radio use to only emergency and disaster situations.

First off, let me thank Jeff, KE9V, for bringing this to the front burner in my mind. It’s been simmering in the back for a while but I’ve never sat down and wrote about it. Jeff shot me a message today telling me that I should write and entry about it as the “lead Twitter-Ham” (Mental note: Get that on a business card.)

The problem is simple. On twitter there are two ways to reference another twit, a reply and a mention. The difference is subtle, but it’s kind of important. First, if I start off my message with an @ and a username, it’s a reply. Twitiquette states that replies are usually used when addressing someone directly or replying to something they said via the reply feature on Twitter. For example:

@kd0bik Loved this week’s Practical Radio Amateur podcast!

A mention on the other hand is usually just a reference to someone inside a mention, not a message directly to them, but something that they may wish to know about:

Received an interesting e-mail from @ke9v discussing Twitter replies versus mentions.

Now, why are replies an mentions important? By mentioning someone in a message, that message gets displayed on their replies page or depending on if they’re using a 3rd party client, highlighted someway. For example, I use twhirl, and when someone does a reply or mention, it alerts me with a different sound and it highlights the tweet.

Now, why are replies and mentions different? Simple. Twitter has certain rules when displaying replies for your followers. If I do a reply to @ke9v, it will only show up in the stream, aka that list of tweets on your homepage of twitter, of people who follow @ke9v. If people aren’t following Jeff, it won’t show up. No big deal right? Well, for the most part, yes. However, this has interesting implications consider the following tweets:

@ke9v @ka3ddr @kd0bik #followfriday

@kd0bik has a great podcast! Everyone interested in Ham Radio should listen to it!

What’s wrong with those? Normally, I would want both these messages to go out to everyone that follows me. However, because I prefixed it with a @ and a username, it will only show up to people who are already following that user. Whoops. However, these are both simple to fix:

#followfriday @ke9v @ka3ddr @kd0bik

Wow! @kd0bik has a great podcast! Everyone interested in Ham Radio should listen to it!

These are just two examples, however, it’s a good rule to be mindful of when tweeting: If you’re not replying to someone, you should try to stay away from starting your message with a @ and a username, otherwise, it may not reach as many people as you want it to.

This just showed up in my Twitter stream: A great article by Diana Eng, KC2UHB, on the MAKE blog regarding working Amateur Radio satellites.  Diana is part of NYC Resistor, a hacker space based out of (you guessed it) New York City. I am glad to see that NYC Resistor does it’s fair share of Ham Radio projects, as I write this an article about the 2009 Flight of the Bumblebees is on their front page. It almost offsets the the like of QRZ and it’s ilk. (Speaking of which, check out K3NG’s article regarding QRZ and the possibility of starting an alternative.)

Last Saturday both myself and Matt, KB1OSV, headed down to the SEMARA clubhouse to particpate in the ARRL June VHF QSO Party. I had previously participated in the January VHF Sweepstakes at the club and had a good time. When I brought up the fact that I was going to be activating the station at the last business meeting, Matt offered to show up as well with his FT-897 so we could operate on 2M as well.

The day of, I arrived at noon and Matt had already set up his 2M beam. We attached it to the top of a 18ft painter’s pole that he had brought and lashed it to the stairs, giving it about 25ft clearance off the ground. Matt travels a lot and he has his entire station broken down into a waterproof Pelican case (radio, other electronics) and a travel bag (antennas, tools, etc.). Very impressive. We set up his 897 which I manned for 2M and he operated the club’s TS-570 for 6M.  Being both rookies, we managed to muff the start of the contest. At 1300EDT we started scouring the bands and were confused as we heard almost no activity. We then realized that we both were mistaken that 1300EDT was NOT 1800UTC, the start of the contest, it was 1700UTC. Whoops. Stupid daylight savings.

As 1800UTC FINALLY rolled around, the bands sprung to life. I made the first contact of the afternoon at 1801UTC. Unfortunately, I should have savored it, as it was one of five contacts I made during the contest. 2M was mostly dead for most of the afternoon and I was only able to work three grids. Matt had better luck on 6M, as the band occasionally opened up and he was able to work stations in the midwest and southeast United States. By the time 6PM rolled around and we both had to leave, we worked a grand total of 16 contacts and 10 grids. Not anything impressive, but definitely not bad considering our setup and time limitations.

We both had a good time. It was Matt’s first VHF contest and it was my first time running SSB on 2M. I was impressed when the band did show brief (really brief) signs of life and was able to hear as far north as Northern New Hampshire and as far west as eastern New York. If and when I am able to get a house with a permanent antenna setup, I think a 2M beam is definitely in my future. Matt and I agreed that we would definitely want to try this again and he has access to a mountaintop with a shelter and power through his astronomy club. I think that if I ever get a radio that can run 2M sideband, I may take him up on his offer.

While rolling through my RSS feeds (Hat tip to KE9v) on the train this morning, this came as shock, but not really one that I couldn’t say I didn’t see coming:

The days of Navy and Marine Corps MARS may be fast coming to an end. This, according to a directive released by the commander of the Naval Network Welfare Command. One that says that this branch of the Military Affiliate Radio Services will terminate all operations at the end of this summer. Amateur Radio Newsline’s Bruce Tennant, K6PZW, has the details:

According to the May 16th directive, the commander of the Naval Network Welfare Command has decided to sunset the Navy’s MARS mission effective September 30th. Sunset in this case means to terminate and disband. As a result, the Naval Network Welfare Command has requested that all military and civilian positions be deleted and left un-funded after that date.

MARS, for you non-hams, provides a way for families to keep in touch with deployed troops abroad via something similar to a telegram system, among other things. It’s not surprising that with the ubiquity of cell phones and Internet access in even the most far-flung areas that we’re seeing the end of MARS usefulness.

However, when I read the story, another story did pop to mind. What was Navy/Marine MARS paying attention too? Why, the fact that those new hams don’t know Morse of course!

After more than a dozen years, Morse code will soon be returning to Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) nets. In the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense (DoD) did away with CW operation across the board — including MARS nets — as automatic systems such as the Internet, SATCOM, cell phones and e-mail became available and the payroll cost of manual operators escalated.

MARS members who had embraced CW operation knew that Morse code, the most “digital” mode of all, was an important tool for Emergency Communications. After Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the need for more robust — not to mention quickly deployable EmComm resources — some MARS members led a campaign to resume CW operations on their nets. This resulted in the Chiefs of Army MARS and Navy-Marine Corps MARS calling for a census of interested MARS members as the first step to reactivating regular training nets.

…In announcing the return of CW to MARS nets, Navy-Marine Corps MARS Chief Bo Lindfors cited an emergency where CW was sorely missed: “I remember the [1998] Northeast Ice Storm shortly after I became [Navy-Marine Corps MARS] Chief and the unnecessarily lengthy effort by all of southern New England to receive one voice EEI [Essential Elements of Information Report] from a northern New England member whose antenna was covered in ice and lying on the ground. It took more than an hour when CW could have handled it in a few minutes. As more and more of our members enter MARS with no Morse code experience, I am afraid that we will soon lose that skill set if we don’t do something.”

I did it when I first read it, and I’ll do it now:

It scares me to think that what we are seeing with Navy/Marine MARS may be a portent to the hobby itself if Hams don’t start stepping it up and focusing on more relevant technologies rather then things we have been doing for generations. Instead of focusing on D-STAR, 802.11b, 802.16, APCO P25, and similar ideas large swaths of the community is dismissing them as “not real radio” and instead continue to focus on technology that is as old as the hobby itself. If we continue to ignore advances in the communications spectrum, we’re likely in a few years time going to have a conversations with the FCC straight out of Office Space:

FCC: So what you do is you take the messages from people and you deliver them to other people?
Hams: That, that’s right.
FCC: Well, then I gotta ask, then why can’t people just send their messages directly to other people?
Hams: Well, uh, uh, uh, because, uh, people are not good at the complexities of message handling.
FCC: You physically take the message from someone?
Hams: Well, no, I, I, use the telephone, or, or the fax.
FCC: Ah. Then someone other Ham must physically deliver the message to the recpient?
Hams: Well… no. Yeah, I mean, sometimes.
FCC: Well, what would you say… you do with your spectrum?
Hams: Well, look, I already told you. I take messages and I send them to other people!! I have communications skills!! I am good at making oscilators!!! I know morse! Can’t you understand that?!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!!!!!!

Could pushing new technologies have saved Navy/Marine MARS? Possibly. Do I want to be asking this same question in 20 years time after the FCC starts to disolve Ham Radio? I’d rather not bother to find out.

Happy Digitial Transition Day!

It’s the end of an era! Today, the FCC has mandated that analog TV transmissions cease by midnight and stations broadcast only in digital format.

Confirmed Boston Area station cut-over times are:

• WBZ-4 ending regular programming at 12:30 PM, then starting nightlight programming
• WSBK-38 shutting down analog completely at 1:00 PM
• WHDH-7 shutting down analog completely at 11:59 PM, then moving their DT signal from the current 42 to actual 7
• WLVI-56 shutting down analog completely at 11:59 PM

Still Unknown:

• WCVB-5 (Cutting over to nightlight service)
• WGBH-2 (Cutting over to nightlight service)

An article from from the Saginaw News from Saginaw, MI has been coming up on my Twitter feeds lately: “Ham radio? That’s not so 1950s” I try not to read Ham Radio articles from the Mainstream Media as invariably it still seems to perpetuate the stereotype that Ham Radio operators are a bunch of elderly guys who still think digital watches are a big deal. However, I decided to give it a read.

Ham radio operators are tech-savvy.

OK… Good start…

“The idea that most everybody has is from the 1950s movies where they see somebody in the basement with a telegraphy key,” said Pat Mullet, public information officer for the Midland Amateur Radio Club.

“There are guys who still do that because they love playing with the old equipment,” he said.

Good… Good…

“But today we’ve got radios the size of a couple of VHS tapes, and they can reach around the world.”

“the size of a couple of VHS tapes?!?!” What?! We’re “tech-savvy” but we’re refering to a medium that’s not just one, but two generations out of date? Come on, there has to be a better comparison.

“But today we’ve got radios that are smaller then a laptop, and they can reach around the world.”

Or maybe…

“But today we’ve got radios smaller then an XBox, and they can reach around the world.”

Or he could have played a bit fast and loose with the truth and said…

“But today we’ve got radios that fit in the palm of your hand, and they can reach around the world.”

I know I am nitpicking. It’s a throw-away quote. Mr. Mullet might be involved in cutting edge technologies and be doing stuff that I can only dream about. But when you’re dealing with something where you’re attempting to change the public’s opinions of Ham Radio these little bit matter. If we try to make ourselves out to be “hip” and “with it” and then compare our hobby to 20 year old technology, it rings hollow. These impressions matter and if we want to attract people to our hobby we need to make it interesting, exciting, and dare I say, sexy.

The article then goes on to the standard spiel about how Ham Radio operators are our last best hope when everything goes to heck (God help us), how when you’re licensed you can talk to people around the world (unlike, say, the Internet), and stuff like the International Space Station (No swarmy comment here, nice one).

Any press is good press they say and getting the hobby out to the general public is a good thing, so props to the Midland ARC for getting coverage and getting a few juicy tidbits out there. However, we, as a hobby, need to work on some talking points on some of the more “exciting” points of Ham Radio. We also apparently need to work on our comparisons.

There’s been a flurry of activity recently on AMSAT-BB about AO-27. Thanks to the efforts of the command team, the satellite, that crashed the same weekend that Steve and I built the arrow clone, has been restarted and is now operational again. The AO-27 webpage still lists the satellite as “On Orbit Checkout” which means the satellite may not fully operational yet, but there are people reporting to the mailing list that the repeater is active over North America.

Many thanks to the AO-27 command team for their efforts in restoring the aging bird to service.

Since everyone else is talking about K5D, I might as well also. I’ve only been monitoring K5D, since they have always been working split and my humble equipment can’t do such things. Although, this weekend I saw them doing something strange, they were transmitting voice on 14.140 and listening on 14.130 in order to work Japanese stations. I documented the K5D portion of this:

What is making me scratch my head is how K5D is legally operating phone on 14.140. As far as I can tell Desecheo is under FCC jurisdiction, so operating voice below 14.150 should be a no-no. Am I missing something?