In Massachusetts, there have been a couple high profile suicides over the past year by students that were the result of being “bullyed” at school. While each death is a tragedy, the Massachusetts Legislature, backed by the public’s outrage, is trying to pass “anti-bullying” legislation in order to somehow fix the problem. The legislation covers the usual bases, making it illegal to harass students at school, but the bill also covers…

…bullying through, without limitation, electronic mails, cellular phones, instant messages, text messages or websites…

…and that each school district must prohibit…

…bullying through the use of the district computer system while on or off campus…

Of course, the legislation is, like any law, vague in how the school is to accomplish such things.

With schools keen to embrace the “computers and broadband for everyone” mantra, and with the possibility of it becoming illegal for students to harass one another online, are we going to see more mandatory school issued computers for students tightly locked down with monitoring software and all activities logged? With the recent groundswell of support by parents of stiffer penalties I worry about whether or not there would be similar outrage if such an incident like the one in LMSD occurs again. Will the general public be aghast or pleased at the fact that a school district monitors such behavior in a few years time? Even more concerning, as pointed out in ComputerWorld, schools get to slide sometimes as they have a sort of quasi-guardianship of students. It scares me that  if such legislation is passed and such an incident occurs again, the school may be able to legally hide behind such legislation saying that they’re trying to protect the general student populace as required by law.

Now, I am no fan of bullies, as I’m sure any computer geek that went to public schools can attest. However, despite the fact that everyone can agree that students harassing other students is bad, the schools should not have the right to monitor and investigate any behavior that happens physically off school grounds. Such areas are the parent’s and, if necessary, law enforcement’s domain. Also, as we start going even further down this slippery slope, are we going to see schools wanting to gain more access into student’s personal accounts if they access them from a school district computer? Wow! Check it out! This slope is slippery!

Any such legislation that mandates the protection of students must also mandate due process and protect the privacy of students, both the harassed and harassers. Otherwise we may start to see incidents like the one at LMSD stop being the exception and start being the rule.

When we say that our “ham radio political leaders” should remain vigilant against possible spectrum reallocation, I think that we are shifting the responsibility (and in the future, likely the blame) to them, when the responsibility really lies with us. We as radio amateurs are simply not doing enough to justify our use of UHF+ spectrum. When we rely on political action committees to justify our use of this valuable public resource, we should be working hard to provide them with every possible justification that they can use. It isn’t Congress who is placing these frequencies in peril: it is our own inactivity which does so. If we lose 1.2GHz, or 220Mhz, or any of our other allocations, it will be because we frankly aren’t using them enough. If I thought that these frequencies could be effectively used to give Internet broadband to millions of underserved Americans, I’d have to say “take those frequencies, we will miss them, but we had our chance with them”.

Mark hits the nail right on the head with this statement. If we lose any bands it’s our own fault for lack of activity on them. While I don’t think 70cm (think PAVE PAWS) and below are in danger, everything else is fair game, and this includes my beloved 33cm. I am very much a “life begins at 50MHz” kind of amateur and I wish we would see more use of the GHz bands, especially 12cm (2.4GHz) but I realize that most Hams hardly venture above 148MHz, and 95% of the experimentation in the community is below 30MHz. What does this mean when the Feds come knocking on the ARRL’s door asking for spectrum?

Game Over Man! Game Over!

Amateur Radio, in its current state, cannot justify the spectrum it’s given. Period. Full Stop. No amount of wharrgarbling about public service or what kind of value we provide is going to change that. Go ahead and read the ARRL’s Frequency Allocation page and ask yourself how many bands you’ve used in the past week, month, or year. Heck, even go back five years. I bet that most of you have never gone above 2M. Anthony, K3NG, takes an even more dower view in the comments section which I have a hard time disagreeing with:

Even if we would start using these bands more, I’m not sure that would be enough to keep them from being reallocated, even if we could get 50% of our active amateurs on them. If we calculate how many bits/hertz are currently being used in our spectrum versus what would be used if reallocated, and perhaps even take it a step further to model the geographical aspects and frequency reuse, it’s hard to objectively argue against mobile wireless use of these bands. Unfortunately we’re not going to be able to depend on the classic defense based on emcomm use or experimentation; the potential public benefit is just too great…

So, the question is, what can we do? I think we have two options, both of which, if they happen, will cause lamentations the like we have never seen across QRZ and eHam.

#1 Roll over – This is obvious. We lose, they win their spectrum, and we’re further sidelined into obscurity. While I don’t think this will happen and I’m sure that many of you agree, there is a distinct chance that the FCC will make a power grab for the “greater good” and legislate some of our bands out of existence without giving us a second look. Why? Because the amount of people served by expanded wireless service is pretty much a “no brainer” kind of decision. Since everyone on the federal level is hopping on the “broadband for everyone” bandwagon, passing off this kind of action will easily pass the “public approval” sniff test.

#2 Play lets make a deal – We play the cards we’ve been given and we proactively start making plans to give up bands and if we see the writing on the wall, we proactively approach the FCC with options. While, yes, you are correct, this approach did not work out well for Neville Chamberlain (Please note, I am *not* comparing the FCC to Hitler) we might be able to salvage concessions that guarantee the future of the hobby and bands. Give up 1.25M, 23cm, and 3300-3500 MHz for a law or something to guarantee the rest of our spectrum? I’d be OK with that.

These are not going to be easy decisions that are forthcoming if the Feds start scrounging for spectrum. I am pretty sure we’re going to lose any battle that comes to it. I think we as a hobby need to start figuring out what we are going to do now rather then run around like chickens with our heads cut off when the tax man cometh.

The other obvious part to this is that we should also start pushing the use of more of our spectrum. Why am I not seeing the ARRL start pushing for simple 2.4GHz data projects? With the demise of packet radio beyond APRS and the HUGE FREAKING SWATH OF IPv4 ADDRESS SPACE we have why don’t we see a organized effort for creating low cost homebrew builds? Instead, the ARRL is focusing on 40M while the HSMM page is so old it has dust on it. Way to go ARRL.

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.

I, like any other red-blooded netizen, posted comments on the post and the YouTube page saying in no uncertain terms on how I thought his thoughts bore a striking resemblence to a large pile of edible offal from the stomachs of various domestic animals (“a load of tripe”). I don’t think Morse is the cat’s meow, but I do know it (despite being one of the dumb no-code hams) The bile flowed from my fingertips and my circle of Hams on twitter was abuzz at the video, most of the talk being negative.

Then it was gone…

Steve, K9ZW tweeted that he couldn’t get to the video via the weblog post. Sure enough, the video had been removed. I forwarded him the YouTube link, which he replied he also couldn’t get too. Looks like someone had second thoughts. Finally, the title and all the comments were deleted from the post and all further comments needed to be moderated. All that was left was a non-functional little nubbin of a post that previously had about six people’s comments. I assumed that it was over and that the creator of the video retreated. I would have preferred some kind of discussion or an apology, but it’s his call.

Flash forward to Friday morning, where I see that the video has been reposted. I was glad I can now link to it to talk about it some more, but it did ruffle my feathers that the creator, rjkd732, essentially tossed all the previous discussion down the memory hole. About ten people commented on the various postings and he has seen fit to flush it all down the tubes. I posted my comments regarding this and reposted my original comment regarding offal. This time, he did reply saying that he took down the video because (para-phrasing here) I was being rude and calling other people names.

He then took it down again…

Then this little gem showed up in my Youtube INBOX:

those who passed code ARE BETTER! stick that in your pipe, whiner.

Hahahaha!

Oh wait… You’re serious…

Let me laugh even louder….

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

OK. So I’m not a saint. What?

The Internet is a great place for meeting people that say things that make your blood boil and pray for the ability to punch people via TCP/IP. I seem to have a silly habit of tilting at windmills and trying to engage them and talk. What annoys me is when people do the electronic equivalent of “taking their marbles and going home” by deleting threads and comments. Although he’s well within his rights to do these things, it sets off a giant flashing red light that says he’s not interested in hearing an alternate viewpoint.

The Iowa Democratic Party website was zippy, automatically updating, and from what I can tell, AJAXified.

The Iowa Republican Party website… Well… Not so much.

Apparently my fellow political junkies flooded the Iowa GOP website off the tubes. I’m seeing some more frazzled SysAdmin who thought “Hmmm! Two T1s and a server should be find for my flash heavy, graphically intensive website!” and then cowering when hundreds of thousands of users descended onto his or her server.

Meanwhile, the Iowa Democratic website had the foresight to realize how many people will be clamoring to get to the data. They put a streamlined results page on, and moved it to Amazon’s S3 service which saw our requests and laughed as we made hardly a dent in their bandwidth. I think someone reads Jeff Atwood.

The end result is that I was on the Iowa Democratic Website almost all night, and had to turn to other sources to get the GOP results. Way to go guys.