PSR President Columns from 1993-1999.

A decade of change in amateur radio and TAPR

My involvement in TAPR dates back to 1985, when like so many others I purchased my TNC-2 kit.

With my TNC-2 on the air, I became very active in the Texas Packet Radio Society and TexNet. During a trip to the TAPR annual meeting to talk about what we were doing in Texas, Andy Freeborn, N0CCZ, got me to volunteer. It started as simply as that. Volunteering works that way.

The following articles represent the President's Columns I wrote from 1993 to 1999. During that time, amateur radio and TAPR saw a number of changes that were chronicled each quarter. I hope you enjoy reading over the history of TAPR during the 1990s reflected in these columns.

Cheers - Greg Jones, WD5IVD

Permission is granted to reproduce any materials appearing herein for non-commercial amateur publications provided credit is given to both the author and TAPR along with TAPR phone number 972-671-TAPR (8277) and TAPR web page http://www.tapr.org. Otherwise reproduction of materials from the TAPR PSR, mechanical, electronic, or photocopy, is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from TAPR.

January 1999

A few things to look for in 1999 include the ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference to be held in Phoenix, AZ, September 24-26th. The Phoenix conference looks to be as strong as this last year in Chicago, so I hope everyone that couldn't attend the 1998 conference can make it this year. Don't forget that the Dayton HamVention will be on May 14, 15, and 16. We expect another strong speaking schedule on Friday and we should have some concept of the banquet speaker for our dinner by the next PSR.

We had several new items arrive at the office since the last PSR. The DSP56002EVM Radio Interface kit, CompactFlash Card Adapter Kit, and Spread Spectrum Update Publication are now available. The PIC-E evaluation is beginning with a fifty unit participation. Work continues on several other projects as well. More in the PSR on these various projects.

The big news this quarter is the revision of the TAPR.ORG site. Four major areas for updating had been on our list for sometime. When visiting www.tapr.org or >ftp.tapr.org here are some of the changes you will encounter. First, the ftp directory structure has been flattened a level or two to make getting to those files you are looking for easier. Second, the web pages have had a total overhaul. The new design allows visitors once in a section to access all the major areas of that section without backing out of a page all the time. As part of the web page revision, a new on-line order system was developed and coded. We are planning on implementing a secure web server sometime later this year to help further with our e-commerce ability. Third, we have implemented an entirely new mail archive index and search engine. The previous utility we had used was falling far short of its requirements. The new system provides very quick access to the information databases we have on TAPR.ORG. Fourth, we replaced listproc with Lyris as our listserver. The new list package reduces the amount of daily maintenance the previous system required to zero. The old system required daily watching and was klunky. Lyris is fast, seems to be very reliable, and is easy to manage. We hope that everyone enjoys these changes to the TAPR.ORG system.

To finish this quarter, let me point out that this is election time. We have four people running for the three slots available on the TAPR Board of Directors. Each member has strong credentials, so please take a moment and look over the election information and send in your vote. The TAPR Board of Directors is responsible for setting directions and goals of the organization, so this is your opportunity to have a say. We will again be accepting ballots printed in this PSR as well as doing an on-line balloting system. Please vote!

Until next quarter and lots more fun!

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

October 1998

What a great Digital Communications Conference this year! Many thanks to PRUG and CAPRA for hosting the conference with us and the ARRL. A recap of the conference is included further into the PSR. Next years conference will be held back in Arizona. Dan Meredith, N7MRP, and Keith Justice, KF7TP, are working with us as local hosts to nail a location and date.

There sure is a lot to write about in this issue, but just not enough time to get it all down on paper, so I'll hit the highlights. Project wise, things are cooking. The TAPR SS Radio project has made some great strides since the last PSR. The operating system and TCP/IP stack are now operational and ported onto the fully operational digital board. This is a huge milestone in the project. The team is focusing on the Qualcomm and Harris chips remaining on the digital board which provide interfaces to the RF board. After this, the RF board will be focused on. A full report of the project appears later. We still need donations for the development. We have received donations from the following people John Coonly, Andrew Skattebo, KA0SNL, and Gene Pentecost, W4IMT. I would like to thank these individuals for their donations. The level of funding is going to be a critical factor as the beta testing plans are made.

The Linux Flash project that John Koster, W9DDD, has been working on is about to rollout. We hope this will be another project like the TAC-2, where we reach a new potential member outside of amateur radio to get them into what we do. Fifty kits will be available without the flash-card before Christmas. Keep an eye on the TAPR web page. Additional information on the project will appear later in this PSR.

The PIC-E development team is nearing the end of their evaluation kit (EVM PIC-E) with around fifty people to participate. John Hansen, W2FS, has written up some information concerning the project for the PSR. There was a lot of excitement at the DCC on PIC development and this kit is going to be able to help many of you who want to play without having to invest in development platforms.

We have worked a deal with a group concerning a surplus of TALNet radios/routers to be used under the SS STA. The deal will be for $550 per radio/router, plus shipping/handling. These are 160Kbps DSS TCP/IP based systems on 2.4G. Contact the office if you want a pair of radios or one to go with an existing pair.

At the AMSAT meeting this past October, Bill Tynan, W3XO, formally announced his retirement as President of AMSAT-NA. Bill and I started our tenures around the same period and the several times we worked closely on TAPR/AMSAT related projects were successful. While we didn't necessarily see eye-to-eye on Spread Spectrum technology implementation in the ham bands, he was always a dedicated leader of AMSAT who put a lot of time and effort into the job. You did a great job while at AMSAT, Bill!

I'll finish this quarter's column with an article that Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP, and I wrote earlier this year and which was just printed in the DCC proceedings. I think you will see several themes that have been discussed in previous PSR issues, but it never hurts to cover these issues from time to time.

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

A New Vision for the Amateur Radio Service

Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP
Greg Jones, WD5IVD
Reprinted from 17th ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference, p. 38

Vision Statement Concerning the Future of Amateur Radio

Amateur radio as a hobby has reached an important turning point. Many can point to various examples of why things are changing; however, some of these examples are real and some are only periodic in nature, but the trend of activity and interest now as compared to five or even ten years ago is changing. The real issue which we must face is 'does the amateur radio service (ARS) base its future on the precepts created and tested over the last twenty years or do we look at new and novel ways of growing, sustaining, and protecting the hobby that we love?'

As active members in the ARRL, since first licensed, active members at various internal levels of the League, and very active in the area of amateur radio technology advancement that TAPR represents, we would like to take a few moments of your time to share some important thoughts on the matter.

The Commercial Future of Amateur Radio and how the ARS can benefit from the change

Amateur radio has prospered over the last twenty years as commercial manufactures were able to grow radio sales in the US, with the amateur radio community as a secondary market to their already existing commercial markets. This resulted in a tremendous growth and usage of VHF/UHF and to some extent, HF, over the last several decades.

We now find many amateur radio vendors and manufactures reducing their presence or even leaving the amateur radio market for other markets or to refocus on their older commercial markets as new communication systems threaten to take market share away. Some stores that have been in existence for sometime have even begun closing their doors. This is to be expected with the sales of amateur radio equipment dropping off. Keep in mind that some say this is sunspot related, but can sunspot activity also explain the drop in the VHF/UHF market as well? Amateur radio is in the midst of a paradigm shift from the vast majority of communicators currently on the bands to a more balanced population representing technical, experimental, and hobbyist who just like to communicate with radios.

As vendors continue to leave the amateur radio market, it is up to organizations like ARRL, TAPR, and AMSAT (the three major non-profit amateur radio organizations in existence today) to grow our technology internally, instead of waiting for external forces to discover amateur radio as a market. If we wait for external market forces to come into play, we will find that these companies will probably rather seek out commercial markets where there is more profit potential, then the hobbyists market which uses our radio spectrum for recreation, learning, and public service.

TAPR has begun working in this direction, by working with the remaining manufacturers and looking elsewhere to non-traditional funding sources like the National Science Foundation (NSF). We see grants and other such efforts as just a beginning in which to grow more money and more research that will hopefully benefit all of amateur radio in the long term. However, the amateur radio rules are going to need to be more proactive to allow for these types of new technology-oriented ventures to take hold and grow. Amateur radio must have rules that allow experimentation with new modes, without the need to get an STA or waiver each and every time someone wants to do something new. If we don't see this necessary flexibility in the future we will find that most potential amateur radio projects will end up operating under Part 5, Part 15, or any of a number of other services. Or worse yet, amateur radio operators will just ignore the current rules and build and operate equipment to provide the kinds of services that they desire.

While amateur radio has a great history with a rich tradition of introducing new ideas and technology, that process seems to have slowed as more communicators joined the hobby. It became more important to make sure these communicators and people who simply enjoy the hobby aspect of the service had no problems operating and the introduction of new systems and experimentation slowed as a result. It is true that while we have seen a lot of work in new digital and RF areas niche interest, none of this research has been widely adopted or been beneficial to the larger majority of the members of the service.

As an example, an organization like the ARRL is in a position to greatly influence the realization of expanded growth of amateur radio by supporting the efforts of small, innovative companies making contributions to the hobby and not large manufacturers whose primary business and marketing interests are in other areas than amateur radio. It is in the best interest of amateur radio service (ARS) to grow this cottage industry, because these groups could well become the next Collins, Drake, and other amateur radio-founded companies in the future. What we see today is that various members of the service are starting companies, but these new organizations are focused on other services, because the current FCC rules and the 'climate' of the hobby don't really allow for the easy introduction of new types of technology. These same companies are the ones that are now asking for more spectrum from the FCC for their products and services -- and where do they look ? They look to amateur radio spectrum because they understand full well just how under utilized that spectrum really is.

What is to keep the ARRL or TAPR from creating its own "Co-Op" approach like REI or many other such organizations? Together both organizations have the membership base to easily support such an effort and the potential impact on the purchasing power from the total membership could lead to an environment where product development decisions were being made based on the needs of amateur radio operators in the US, instead of those requirement being secondary to existing market needs and requirements as viewed by technology manufacturing companies located in other countries.

Experimental and Technological development are keys to the future

It has been a concern of ours and TAPR's for some time that there is a tendency to resist change when something new or novel appears on the amateur radio scene. TAPR, AMRAD, AMSAT, and other organizations represent the spirit of change and development within the ARS. Amateur radio can either choose to support various efforts within the community for the most advancement of new technology or wait for external commercial forces to quickly take advantage and look for additional spectrum, most likely being the current ARS allocations. Not many amateur radio groups or individuals can sustain the effort required to make change happen under the current restraints to the introduction of new technologies. The expense of development, manufacturing, marketing, and to some extent the rules themselves affect the introduction of new technologies to the service. Most new operating interests within the hobby have been a result of the usage of other external technologies (i.e. Personal Computers, Internet, etc.), not of something grown from within the hobby itself.

It is important that ARRL,TAPR and AMSAT watch out for the interests of its diverse membership, but at the same time it must be working on providing support for various efforts elsewhere in the community that are emphasizing new technology and change. The ARRL doesn't have to lead, but it must be fully supportive of change and be willing to facilitate it as much as it can. While an open support policy might threaten some, it is imperative that ARS grow from within and it is equally important that the organizations take a leading role in helping to encourage the growth of new operational modes and techniques.

Amateur Radio should develop it own spectrum sharing partners

With regard to spectrum, we believe that the ARS can either continue to defend the spectrum we have, or look for those services whom we want to share our bands. We have to locate others that can help fully utilize our valuable spectrum, but not take away from the mission and operating flexibility of the ARS. This could be the form for instance of the creation of a low-power educational wireless service which could be overlaid on some part of the existing ARS spectrum or some other similar approach. The League successfully used this tactic several years ago when it joined with Apple Computer in lobbying the FCC to designate the 2390-2400 MHz band as a shared band with only the ARS and U-PCS as the incumbents.

The ARS should think about what services would be the most 'tolerable' on our bands. We can't say no to everyone forever, because that will likely result in our losing even more spectrum over time. By finding and locating or creating friendly sharing partners we 1) protect our spectrum on our own terms, 2) create a commercial need for equipment, if done correctly amateurs can leverage these devices into operational 'ham ready' units, and 3) bring users from the shared spectrum services into the ARS where applicable. This is one reason we have suggested the educational communication service concept. It would get members of the ARS into schools helping install wireless networks that might have rules like Part 15, but this direct contact with schools could easily lead to students getting interested in amateur radio because of the close working relationship formed when the local/regional ARS organization helps get the school wireless connections to the Internet.

TAPR Response to ARRL New Repeater Concept

TAPR has been working on a new 'high concept' repeater system that makes use of spread spectrum technology, in particular, frequency hopping to act as a stepping stone to a new generation of devices that can provide new levels of function and operational flexibility to the amateur radio community.

TAPR on its own as been working in this direction for the last two years. Its first steps in this direction was the submission to the NSF of a proposal for what has come to be called the 'Internet Access Radio' (IAR) in the Fall of 1996. The first member in a family of such radios is currently under development and information on it can be found on the TAPR website at: taprfhss.

TAPR believes that todayís communications technology is moving toward all digital transmitters and receivers. These advances in technology, combined with the swift evolution of cell based transmission and switching protocols is opening up a new set of possibilities for unique new services utilizing intelligent networks which will contain smart transmitter, receivers and switches. Todayís Internet is perhaps the best example of the a self regulating structure which embodies these new technological approaches to communications in the networking domain. However to date, many of these innovations have not made it over to the wireless networking arena. What TAPR feels that the radio networks of the future will involve a mixture of links and switches of different ownership, which terminate at the end-user via relatively short distance links. What will then be required is an built-in, distributed, self-governing set of protocols to cause the networks behavior to make an more efficient use of a limited, common shared resource, radio spectrum. Creating such a self-regulating structure for the optimal sharing of spectrum will require much effort. One of the major problems which stands in the way of these new approaches today is the current FCC regulatory environment and the manner in which spectrum is managed and allocated under its rules.

One of the major hurdles that a wireless entrepreneur faces who wishes to develop innovative new communications products which involves radio is access to the requisite amount of spectrum. This process makes the involvement of the wireless entrepreneur with the government mandatory, which immediately puts them at a disadvantage when compared to entrepreneurs in the computer sector where government involvement is minimal. As a result, innovation has occurred at a much slower pace since the use technologies such as spread spectrum require the use of more spectrum and not less in order for their advantages to become apparent when it is used for high-speed data transmission.

Historically, the current regulatory approach to radio has been based upon the technology that was in use at the time that the Communications Act of 1934 was framed, basically what we would call today, dumb transmitters speaking to dumb receivers. The technology of that time required reserved bandwidths to be set aside for each licensed service so that spectrum would be available when needed. Given this regulatory approach, many new applications cannot be accommodated since there is no available unallocated spectrum to ëparkí new services. However, given the new set of tools available to the entrepreneur with the advent of digital technology, what once were dumb transmitters and receivers can now be smart devices which are capable of exercising greater judgment in the effective use and sharing of spectrum. The more flexible the tools that we incorporate in these devices, then the greater number of uses that can be accommodated in a fixed, shared spectrum.

While the IAR proof-of-concept (POC) radio is under development, TAPR intends to make the case to the FCC that the current rules should be changed to reflect that use and advantages that smart spread spectrum packet radio devices can realize. TAPRís position is that a major improvement in spectrum use is feasible in the concepts to be employed in the IAR POC radio are put into widespread use. However, given the radical nature of some of the approaches in this project, it is appropriate to first, confirm the technical theories that we are putting forth and then to define the operational parameters for the implementation of these theories once they are confirmed. Then we will be able to approach the Commission with proposals that have a sound basis in fact and which should hopefully then be acted upon in a favorable fashion.

While development of the IAR POC is underway, TAPR has several projects underway that utilize existing Part 15 spread spectrum radios that are being adapted to meet amateur radio operational requirements and which will be used for general packet radio and Internet access over wide-areas. One project uses OEM modules from Lucent Technologies and the other uses a radio provided by a member of TAPR's sister organization in Japan, the Packet Radio User's Group (PRUG).

Much of what we have in mind can be accomplished today with existing Part 15 radios. One of the author's of this article has such a system currently up and operational in the San Franciso Bay Area. The system uses two mountain top sites and can currently cover all of the South Bay Area, providing voice and data services to users at ranges up to 20 miles. Here are the characteristics of the system:

Operates on 2.4 GHz.
Radios use FHSS half duplex. Output power is 1W. EIRP is within FCC limits of 4 W EIRP.
TCP/IP protocols are used.
Accepted Internet protocols are used to handle voice and data traffic.
System can be accessed by any device that uses the TCP/IP protocols and a similar dataradio.

Here are some of the things that this POC radio system can accomplish:

Can handle several separate voice conversations, bulletins, and data streams simultaneously? Yes, using standard Internet protocols. Uses the H.32x standards. At the core of the H.323 standard is a method for managing network latency, or the time it takes to send and acknowledge a packet. High-latency networks such as the Internet, where data packets must jump through many routers and subnets, have a tendency to wreak havoc on audio and video synchronization. To address this shortcoming, H.323's Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) time-stamps and sequences packets and reduces delays. H.323 also specifies the coding and decoding of video and audio signals, optimizing data for lower bit rates and low-bandwidth connections. H.323-compliant products are now quite common on the market with Microsoft's NetMeeting being a good example. More information on H.323 can be found at: .
Supports duplex (just like a telephone) and conferencing (just like a teleconference)?
Yes, again using standard Internet protocols, even though the acutal radio link is half duplex.

Lets you know who else is monitoring and lets you contact them without interrupting anyone else?
Yes.

Is resistant to deliberate interference, and allows the control operator to "lock out" stations that are not following the rules?
Yes. We have full control to lock out users as required by a number of different methods.

Can share its operating frequencies with several similar repeaters nearby, with little degradation in the performance of any of them?
Yes. We are able to add new mountain top sites without the need for coordination.

Lets you use one radio to access all of these functions, and others such as PacketCluster and APRS, simultaneously?
Yes.

Puts the amateur allocations above 1 GHz to more intensive use?
Yes. In this case, 2.4 GHz is used.

Conclusion

We believe that amateur radio has been at a crossroads for the last several years and continues to wait for the "light to change" to indicate what the future will really hold in store for the service. The ARRL, TAPR, AMSAT, and other technology-oriented groups must take the initiative and forge ahead into the future on our own. We need to be proactive to change and challenges, and not take a position of "wait and see" for attitudes to change. There will be those members in all of our organizations that will hate what the future will bring, but past history and experience shows us that adopting a position of limited or no change only means that the change and growth will occur elsewhere. Change does not mean the total abandonment of the past traditions that we believe have made the amateur radio service what it is today. We can either bring about increased growth in our ranks or see that growth occur on the Internet and other areas that many of our members will perceive as much more fun and enjoyable ways to spend their time. Not following the course of change might be the wise political approach to adopt for now -- but is it unlikely to be the most productive one.

The issues and actions the we have raised are just some thoughts about where amateur radio is today and where it might be going These are just first steps towards a new future and many more will be required to effect any real change. Long range planning is certainly important, but with the increased pace of change in society and the technology sector, amateur radio needs to take a fresh look at where it has been and just where it would like to go.

June 1998

It has been a pretty busy spring as most of you read in the last issue. Laura, a good friend of mine, was injured during a University of Texas, Austin rock climbing outing to Heucos Tank near El Paso, Texas in March. Helping her recover from her emergency neurosurgery has taken up a lot of my time. Added to this, our office manager and my mother, Dorothy Jones, KA5DWR, had surgery about 10 days after Dayton for a blockage of the lower intestine. The office is typically overflowing after our return from Dayton and now add to this Dorothy's being out of the office for four weeks means we have a big pile of stuff to handle. Then in June, I had my wisdom teeth out and to make things even worse I had a dry socket occur. The pain pills were a nice thing though :-) So, my TAPR time was nearly nonexistent for several months, which put several of my projects on hold.

Luckily, Laura is doing much better. Dorothy is on her way to a full recovery. My teeth don't hurt anymore. Which means I can get back to TAPR fun, at least after I return from my ice climbing/glacier course in August! A BIG thanks to everyone who sent e-mail, cards, and flowers to Dorothy while she was in the hospital. They added greatly in keeping her spirits high during the time she was hospitalized and later recovering at home. She sends her best and hopes to talk to many of younow that she is back in the office.

Don't forget that the ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference will be held in Chicago, IL, on September 25-27. Proceedings deadline for papers is August 15th! Deadline for booking your hotel room if you are flying in or staying overnight is September 1st! This is a full month before the conference, so don't put off getting your hotel room now while room rates are at the conference price. We normally have the word out on the DCC a little before Dayton, so with the late start in spreading the word, please make sure that everyone you see knows about the conference.

The Digital Communications Conference looks to be a great event. CAPRA is the local host and PRUG (Packet Radio Users Group of Japan) is the international host! Steve Roberts, N4RVE, of Nomadic Research Labs, will be the banquet speaker on Saturday. Also, we have just received word that Dale Hatfield, W0IFO, recently appointed as the Bureau Chief of the OET (Office of Engineering Technology at the FCC) will be attending and speaking Saturday morning. See details later in the PSR for what else is happening this year at the conference.

As an update to the Digital Communications Conference, the ARRL and TAPR have renewed the MOU between the organizations for co-hosting the conference for another three years. As of right now, the 1999 conference will be held in either Phoenix or Tucson, AZ. If you want to help with the conference, please contact Dan Meredith, N7MRP (dmeredith@phx-az.com). The location for the year 2000 will hopefully be in the southeastern part of the US. There has been some interest shown in Florida, maybe Georgia. If your group is interested in hosting the conference in the future, just visit the DCC web page (http://www.tapr.org/dcc) and check out the page on hosting.

I had several e-mails and phone calls over the past three months from people concerned with the recent changes in the Field Day rules as they pertain to digital communications. The impression is that some changes need to be attempted to better reflect how digital communications are actually done. I'll be working with some people to see if we can at least have a dialog about the issue. Hopefully, we can see some changes that better reflect how digital communications are done today with APRS and some of the other modes.

As usual, Bob Hansen, N2GDE, PSR Editor, is always looking for articles or technical information to publish in the PSR. From reading all the e-mail in the last several months, people are doing things; so please take a few minutes to write it up and send it to Bob for publication in the PSR.

Until next quarter!

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

January 1998

What a great past year! We had our ups and downs during the year, but overall, it was a very productive year. 1998 looks to be a strong year as well. Several projects should be rolling out this year, including the DGPS Reference Station, John Ackermann's Wireless TCP/IP book, the METCON-II kit, and, with luck, at least one SS radio offering. I'll let the whole of the PSR speak for what is happening, so no need for me to duplicate that information here.

I would like to thank everyone who volunteers time to make TAPR work. I can't even begin to list everyone, but let's hit on a few areas that are very important to how TAPR acts as an organization. People like Larry Keeran, K9ORP, who maintains the APRS SIG file area, you can't imagine the weekly work Larry does in answering questions and making sure all those new files get moved someplace on the system. Greg Eubank, KL7EV, who maintains the TAPR software lib. Chuck Martin, KD6NUJ, who weekly records and encodes the Newsline audio for the TAPR web page for so many others to listen to. We had over 50,000 accesses to the audio pages Chuck make possible. Lee Ziegenhals, N5LYT, who provides space and makes the TAPR.ORG system possible with its terrific access to the Internet and dedicated expertise when things are not running so smooth. To all the volunteers who answer technical and information questions like Ron Parsons, W5RKN and Keith Justice, KF7TP, to name just a few. Without the volunteers that Dorothy draws upon to help answer questions or help members debug kit problems, we wouldn't be very successful in what we do. The volunteers that help 'elmer' others past their problems are the best! To all the SIG chairs who maintain the life blood of communications on various discussions and organization sub-groups that make up TAPR. When we started the various list in 1991, I never thought that they would turn into such an important communications tool to and between our members. To all those that help with project design and development that keep coming back year after year to provide technical challenges for the rest of us to learn from and gain experience by building and getting these things operational -- you know who you are. Finally to all the members that renew each year to support what TAPR is about. Between the efforts of those actively involved personally and to those who just read the PSR each quarter, TAPR is as strong as the membership as a whole. I only see very positive things from the current membership base.

With all the great praise out of the way :-),I now want to ask everyone to help with a fund raiser for the 900MHz FHSS radio project budget. We have money allocated, but we will need more than we have available in the R&D funds to support what is needed. The project is progressing very nicely with the CPU now operational and the RF sections being tested and brought up to speed. A project report is available in this issue and photos and audio are on the web project page. Any money we can raise will allow us to continue to fund the other projects scheduled for this year as well as fully support the radio project. When this issue came up last month, someone thought this was a lot of money for the next 12-18 months. Many don't realize that the original TNC-2 effort cost TAPR a little over $100,000 to fully pull off. I hope that this project doesn't require that much cash in the long run, but it easily could if we have to do initial production of the units ourselves, much like the TNC-2 in 1984, to make the unit a reality for the amateur radio community at a price we all want to see.

A few things to look for in 1998 include the ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference to be held in Chicago, in September, with CAPRA as the local hosts. The Chicago conference looks to be as strong as this last year in Baltimore, so I hope everyone that couldn't attend the 1997 conference can make it this year. Don't forget that the Dayton HamVention will be on May 15, 16, and 17. We expect another strong speaking schedule on Friday afternoon and we should have some concept of the banquet speaker for our dinner by the next PSR.

To finish, let me point out that this is election time of year. We have four people running for the three slots available on the TAPR Board of Directors. Each member has strong credentials, so please take a moment and look over the election information and send in your vote. The TAPR Board of Directors is responsible for setting directions and goals of the organization, so this is your opportunity to have a say. We will again be accepting ballots printed in this PSR as well as doing an on-line balloting system. Please vote!

Until next quarter and lots more fun!

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

October 1997

Lots of things to report in this issue of the PSR. The big news is that you'll be reading the first information released regarding the TAPR 900Mhz SS radio project in this issue. For those who attended the ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference, you got the chance to hear the project team present their paper and show the first run of boards where shown at the meeting. The progress made so far is exciting and I look forward to continued progress towards the eventual goals of the project. Just keep in mind that this project could be at least a year or more away from completion and there is a lot to do during the project life cycle.

The National Science Foundation Grant we reported on earlier in the year was not accepted or declined. As it stands, we are rewriting it and the sending it back in again. I'll report more on this as it proceeds in the coming months.

By the time this goes out, the DCC will have been completed. This years DCC was terrific!!! The audio for all the sessions is now on the TAPR server. I got the audio recording correct this time. As it stands...most of the Dayton audio will not be able to be made available. I'll be putting some of it up as I have time. Check out the DCC writeup and photos later in the PSR. The only major error made this year was the date of the conference, but as reported earlier this year -- the organization apologizes to all those members of TAPR that practice the Jewish faith and were not able to attend due to other obligations on the weekend of the DCC. Three groups are submitting proposals to host next year's conference on September 25-27, 1998. If you see a major conflict with the date, please let me know as soon as possible! I'll write more about next year's conference as we select a site.

The TAPR SS STA has been quiet this summer -- although I know many of us have been experimenting on our own while we had time. There was another STA report generated on November 1st on activity and anyone interested in getting involved just has to check out the TAPR SS web page. We should be getting the STA renewed again November 8th.

Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP, and I attended the SW Division ARRL conference held in Riverside, CA. I'll write more about it further on and include a few photos of those we saw at the conference. Thanks to Bill Gregory, who helped out with the shipping of boxes back and forth. We got to see a lot of TAPR members and I think we found at least one or two new people to work on on-going projects. Always good news!

I continue to read from time to time quotes like "the current state of affairs [packet radio] would indicate that the future is somewhat bleak, as there do not appear to be any new frontiers to conquer, and no influx of active members to revitalize the club." (NEDA, 1997). The future is as bleak as we want to make it. I see the future of amateur radio, digital communications, and packet radio overall to be very exciting and this isn't tied into the sun spot cycle. Networked AX.25 2meter 1200 baud activity might be on the decline, but just look at AMSAT, APRS, and other types of packet radio operations. As some BBS Sysops and TAPR members asked me at the TAPR membership meeting held at the DCC, what happened to the 'P' in TAPR -- meaning packet radio. I told them nothing -- just that there has been a lot of focus on digital communications projects, not necessarily AX.25 in nature. The issue becomes, after 10 years of trying to get people to do 9600baud AX.25 or faster communications or do something more then just operate BBS systems, new projects just came to an end. The only new AX.25 system being proposed has been the 'broadcast' protocol software that John Hansen, WA0PTV, has been working on. Full details on that can be found on his web page. If you want to have lots of traffic with no congestion, check this out as the solution. As I remind people, TAPR only can work on things that people bring to the party. Rarely does TAPR just go off and do something. It might seem that way, but most of the time some person or group approaches TAPR with a concept.

I see plenty of new frontiers to approach and conquer. The limitations or possibilities for an individual, group, or club's approach to the future can either be a positive or negative one. I can guarantee that by taking a 'no growth, no future' position will only result in the club's membership becoming smaller and smaller. I have seen it in many volunteer groups in the past. It takes a positive, future-looking vision to sustain and grow the life blood of an organization -- its members. Look into the possibilities that exist today for research and development, new deployment of systems, or any other number of opportunities.

As to the possibilities of high-speed Spread Spectrum radios as a potential TAPR late night, soft drink induced "pipe-dream"....just read further on in the PSR and make up your own mind. We set a course and we intend to pursue that course, no matter how long it takes to accomplish. If you want to take an active role on the TAPR Board who sets the organization's course and direction, then read the section regarding nominations in this issue.

With the continued support of all our members, now and new members in the future, the possibilities of what TAPR can accomplish for the amateur radio service in the future could be significant!

Should APRS form a National Group ?

The discussion has begun again about trying to form some type of National APRS group to represent all APRS operators. I have posted a few things on the APRS SIG, but let me cover them in this forum as well.

This issue is always an important one to think about -- but sometimes having to many clubs or groups can be a distraction. Unlike APRS, TAPR started as an organization to sponsor the building of TNCs. It was easy to grow an organization from those beginnings. APRS on the other hand really fits better into a lose coalition of groups and individuals. That is one reason the TAPR APRS SIG has been so successful. Donít forget that APRS@TAPR.ORG is a special interest group/committee within TAPR. No one club did APRS, but it is the extension of a concept started years ago by a few that many are involved in. No one club headed the growth -- probably no one club will ever be master of it -- even a national one. It is well beyond that point. The authors work together already to ensure standards in the software.

Communications on issues and development are key. If anything, we should be working on ways to get some type of monthly bulletin put together based on what happens on the APRS SIG and put out on packet and into print -- so that clubs can retrieve and print it. This would allow discussions to reach many more and take advantage of the existing autonomous workings of local/regional groups. This approach also makes them stronger by making them a provider of information to their members, instead of taking away from that information role by creating some type of national group.

Until next Quarter.

Greg Jones, WD5IVD

NEDA, 1997. Technical Session Minutes from 6/7/97. NEDA Report v4.2 page 4.

APRS Frequency Change
Greg Jones, WD5IVD

If you are an active APRS user then by now you have heard and hopefully have read the information concerning the potential APRS frequency change. There will be more in depth information presented later in the PSR, but let me put my spin on the issue.

The issue of APRS and other packet users on the 145.79 frequency and Amateur Radio Man Spaced usage has been an issue for more than just the last few weeks. With the introduction of the ISS (International Space Station) several years ago and as amateurs within AMSAT and other groups worked on getting an amateur radio station on board the issue became more important. While the closeness in frequency between MIR/SAREX/ISS and APRS operations has been a bother to each other -- no proposals over the last four years was really acceptable to even put forth beyond simple discussion. Recently, things have changed. With the release of a satellite sub-band in the US that wasnít usable in other parts of the world, the option of relocating APRS and other amateur digital operations on 145.79 to an area that should not have anyone else operating within it is now more than possible -- allowing a single frequency for all away from lots of potential interference issues.

Many ask, why doesnít MIR/SAREX/ISS move ? Why should all of us (APRS) move ? This is easy to answer, but sometime hard to grasp. Just think about how hard it was to find a frequency in your local area to do something recently for APRS ? Some found it to be a problem and others didnít. The issue of something that orbits around the earth in about 90mins compounds the problem enormously. Most of the problems for MIR/SAREX/ISS is that other parts of the world have much smaller segments in which they can operate. Region 1 and 3 have exactly half the 2 meter space we have in Region 2. Thus, the current frequency selection that we find man spaced missions using is really the only one they can use. (see Figure 1)

Figure 1: Region 1,2,3 band usage on 2 meter. Note the size of each.

A few weeks before the deadline for papers for the ARRL/TAPR DCC, Frank Bauer, VP of Man Space Operations at AMSAT, approached me with a paper concerning the issue. I immediately put Frank in touch with Steve Dimse, K4HG, to discuss the issue for its inclusion into the Friday APRS Symposium (first National APRS meeting now that we look back at it). During that time Steve and Frank discussed and began to get closure on certain issues and the current proposal. This is what was presented at the DCC and is available in full from TAPR APRS Freq Change web pages (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/aprsqsy.html). After three years of looking at different concepts, this proposal works. While it is not prefect for everyone, APRS and satellite person alike -- it solves the problem and has big pluses for everyone involved. Frank's paper on the web site outlines the pluses and minuses of the proposal and Iíll let that article speak on this issue. If you want a paper copy, contact the office.

What has to be weighed into this potential relocation is the benefit to the ARS (Amateur Radio Service) as a whole. The FCC is convinced that no group in the US can agree on anything like this -- sure would be nice to disprove them on this for once. Also, anything we can do as a small pocket of activity within the entire amateur radio hobby that benefits the high-profile man space related activity -- __HELPS US ALL__. Having a few hams/astronauts on the ISS operating ham radio will do more in the next 10 years to keep our frequencies in place then any new technology that we invent, deploy, or use. What we can all do to promote, experiment, or whatever pales to what the amateur radio Man Space programs can accomplish in the next 10 years. We have to take the long view on this issue, not that it will cost us all a little money now to do this. We have to think about having ARS around in 50 years so that future generations can enjoy it.

As Steve Dimse has pointed out, the issue could be about a lot of things -- but it comes down to that of moving from the current frequency to the new one. We have to leave our axes at home and not in other peoples heads as we debate on this topic.

I know that many of you out there in APRS land have emotionally bought into the current frequency selection via either fights over getting the frequency coordinated (when all it needed to be done was have it recognized), spending money and time building systems, or lots of other issues involved when building and growing something. I have done my share of building repeaters, digital networks, and lots of other things --- it comes down to the fact that frequency moves are a fact of life in a hobby that is RF based. Nothing should be or can be permanent. Frequency reuse and change has to be the issue. What is best in this situation is to at look at the move more on the international scope and its potential for big payoffs in the future.

The current proposal, while many are still asking lots of questions, is the best I have seen in three years now. Frank Bauer and Steve Dimse have done an excellent job in merging all the necessary issues into something that now has a chance to happen.

Like any good proposal that is evenly balanced. We all win something and we all lose a little along the way. While from the single view point of APRS it seems one sided -- it isn't. It is very balanced for everyone involved. If there was another way to do this -- then I think we would have already presented it to someone. I have read thus far many new ways to correct the problem since the initial presentation at the DCC, but they all suffer from the same problems that we saw in the past.

Take the time to read in detail the papers that Steve has pointed to as reference materials. Take the time to understand issues outside our IARU region with regards to frequency allocations. The issue is an international one for the ISS and a regional one for us. The proposal leverages off that fact and makes it possible for everyone to benefit.

As Steve Dimse, K4HG posted, "I think this is a great opportunity for APRS to gain visibility and respectability, not to mention a true nationwide channel which we can share with Canada. It also has the potential to make us look very selfish if we don't compromise. Please think about this seriously, and if you don't like it, try to come up with constructive alternatives."

July 1997

What is a 'smart' radio and is our spectrum really utilized or just occupied with current 20+ year old technology ?

Although the concept of 'smart' radios is not something new, one of the best articles I have read in some time was recently published in the June Forbes ASAP by George Gilder, which is available on-line [Gilder, 1997]. This last year, Dave Sumner, Exec Vice President of the ARRL, wrote about these concepts after attending the Spectrum En Banc hearings held by the FCC in which Paul Baran (grandfather of the Internet) spoke [Sumner, 1996]. The basic concept is the maximum reuse of spectrum by building radios that can determine where and how to operate. "Baran's written testimony described the need to move away from the communications model of 'dumb transmitters talking to dumb receivers' and toward networking with 'smart' equipment having greater tolerance for impurity (ie, interference), maximum reuse of the spectrum through shorter range transmitters, and incentives to maximize shared use of spectrum and to minimize spectrum 'warehousing.' [Sumner, 1996]." These concepts have been a major focus for some time with those working within TAPR on the Spread Spectrum technology issues. The stormy news to some is that these modern-day 'smart radios' will be built on Spread Spectrum technology. We now find ourselves in a rules making process at the FCC that could seriously jeopardize the Amateur Radio Service's (ARS) place in history for the creation of such devices over the next five years, all because the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) regarding changes to the Spread Spectrum rules may not go far enough in some areas or may actually be worse than those written in 1985 in other areas. (SS Rule Changes).

As Gilder states "... frequency shortage is caused by thinking solely in terms of dumb transmitters and dumb receivers. With today's smart electronics, even occupied frequencies could potentially be used." [Gilder, 1997]. The approach some would take today, while TAPR is focused on working towards future spread spectrum radios, falls under the concept of less than intelligent transmitters and receivers. These less than intelligent radios are going to be less expensive to implement and easier to comprehend under the current paradigm of digital systems, but where do we find the 10-20Mhz of spectrum that doesn't interfere with anyone else, so that we can operate these more traditional high-speed radios using methods developed in the last 20 years ? Probably on bands that will be very difficult to implement them on, that also cost more to produce, and don't offer much distance for communications in either a metropolitan or local area.

With regard to the issue of 'is our spectrum being occupied or utilized...' "The chief reason for the apparent shortage of spectrum, he concluded [Baran], is regulation of it. Echoing his earlier critique of wireline communications, he declared that "the present regulatory mentality tends to think in terms of a centralized control structure, altogether too reminiscent of the old Soviet economy. As we know today, that particular form of centralized system ... ultimately broke down. Emphasis with that structure was on limiting distribution rather than on maximizing the creation of goods and services. Some say that this old highly centralized model of economic control remains alive and well today‹not in Moscow, but within our own radio regulatory agencies." [Gilder, 1997].

"The heart of the problem is the concept of spectrum as public property -- as scarce real estate or a precious natural resource. Spectrum is nothing of the kind. It has been created by a series of brilliant technical innovations, beginning with Marconi and continuing in a steady stream of high technology oscillators and digital signal processors: from magnetrons and kystrons to varactor multipliers and surface acoustical wave devices, from gallium arsenide and indium phosphide heterojunctions to voltage-controlled oscillators and Gunn or IMPATT diodes. Spectrum is chiefly a product of inventors and entrepreneurs. Americans will rue the day when foreign governments and international organizations begin auctioning and taxing, marshaling and mandating the use of these mostly American technologies. [Gilder, 1997]"

"The real estate model applies chiefly to broadcasters and others using analog modulation schemes in which all interference shows up in the signal. A television signal requires some 50 decibels of signal to noise power, or 100,000-to-1. By contrast, error-corrected digital signals can offer virtually perfect communications at a signal-to-noise ratio well below 10 decibels, or 10,000 times less. Moreover, new digital systems can divide and subdivide the spectrum space into cells and differentiate calls by spread-spectrum codes or even isolate particular connections in space by space-division-multiple-access-devices that function as "virtual wires" allocating all of the spectrum to each call. [Gilder, 1997]."

Paul Baran and George Gilder have been writing about these above issues for some time now and this subject is of particular relevance if we read the comments and reply comments to the latest comments and reply comments regarding FCC Docket 97-12 the amendment of ARS rules to provide for greater use of spread spectrum communication technologies (SS Rule Changes). Many of the comments discuss the need for less regulatory mandates to allow experimentation to drive what technology is being developed within the ARS. Others don't share these views, as you would expect within such a diverse hobby as amateur radio. Some of the comments are easily definable as the protection of existing 'spectrum warehousing,' by the fact that other amateurs don't want any new mode operating in 'their' part of the spectrum that could possibly interfer with what they do as part of the hobby, even when all of amateur radio is shared among all users. However, much of the perception of Spread Spectrum technology is driven by the yeoman service done by AMRAD in the early 1980's, which led to the current part 97 rules on spread spectrum and also the ARRL Spread Spectrum Source book. However, many of these beliefs on how Spread Spectrum behaves among other users of the spectrum is based on 1970's technology or on analogies that deal with military radars or other systems that are not relevant to digital communication systems. The 'smart' radios that Gilder talks about and amateur radio must be implementing is based on 1990's technology, not technology 20 years ago.

The only reason we can't share our amateur radio spectrum and must have band-plans is because we choose to use older analog modulation schemes in which all interference shows up in the signal. With a 'smart radio,' even if we use segments of the bands that amateur satellites, weak-signal, EME, and voice repeaters operate on, these radios can avoid certain narrow spectrum when it senses potential interference possibilities. We must view spectrum utilization as a local issue for these types of new radios, not as a national regulatory policy. Let's take a few examples. There are maybe several hundred EME operators spread throughout the US. How many hours of the day, week, or year does one of these EME enthusiasts actually operate their system ? If the EME station keys up to transmit at the moon, doesn't the local 'smart' radio hear that signal, knows what the sub-band is used for, and then avoids that segment for say 12 hours ? Take amateur satellite operations, how often is a satellite on a particular sub-band or frequency available for operation during any one day ? Again, these satellites operate on frequencies of sub-bands. When a 'smart' radio sees operations by a station could it not just keep monitoring that freq and wait for some period of time to start to use it again ? This approach works very well for voice repeater band segments in which many hours of the day voice pairs go unused, but during a few hours of the day have high-peak traffic use. These above examples are based on the fact 1) we have an amateur radio operator doing this mode in the 10-30 mile radius of a 'smart' radio and 2) that these new radios are going interfere. However, the purpose of using spread spectrum technology is to build radios that can use much lower power to accomplish their operations and at the same time not be apparent to other users on the spectrum far away. Thus, if you don't have any local EME, satellite operations, or whatever, you don't have to worry about point one and will be able to use all the spectrum you have available to you instead of following a band plan that doesn't necessarily apply to your area. Although, if you live in a metropolitan area, then much of the intelligence of the radio gets used more often. Also, if these radios really are as transparent as we hope they will be to other users in the spectrum, possibly only a small segment of the amateur radio population, say weak-signal operators, need to be worried about in regards to point number two.

With the types of 'smart' radios that TAPR intends to design, amateur radio could once again be on the leading edge of technology. However, if the FCC listens to those against new technology innovations or issues regarding protection of other operating modes --- and the FCC issues a final Report and Order that doesn't truly allow experimentation and implementation of advanced Spread Spectrum communication devices, then we could be so seriously hobbled as to be unable to contribute meaningfully to the advancement of the ongoing telecommunications revolution. This, because a small group within our hobby are afraid of new technology innovations that might or could cause a certain amount of dislocation within what they perceive to be their operating interest.

Amateur radio as a whole has a decision to make -- do we advance and participate in the wireless communications revolution underway and be a key player in it, or do we sit on the sidelines waiting for our spectrum to be taken away so that we can at least operate the way we have for the last 20 years for another 5-10 years ? If we don't become active participants with rules that allow for that participation, then other commercial services will produce the necessary technology and we will find ourselves losing our spectrum in the coming WRC conferences. These are the same frequencies that provide communications in times of emergency, proving grounds for new technology, and recreation to many that participate in our hobby, but could eventually go to other services that show better utilization and outcomes.

Another potential downfall is that there is a group of decision makers that feel that any new technology should be forced to the higher bands, because they believe "amateur radio needs to have things operating up there". This is the "use it or lose it" concept. One reason that many amateurs are not on these 'higher' bands is the cost, difficulty in making such systems work because of a lack and cost of test equipment, and the usefulness of some of these higher-bands in the 'mobile' environment. It makes sense to build these smart radios in places on our bands that offer the greatest potential for frequency reuse and utilization and also on under utilized higher-bands where we can make systems go faster because of more spectrum width. We will build 1.54Mbps and faster radios starting on 1.2Ghz and up; however, saying we shouldn't develop slower data and voice systems on 2 meters or 70cm because people already operate there is impossible to comprehend. These are the bands that need the technology described above the most. Bands where people can no longer get coordinated (ie, warehoused) spectrum to build traditional systems on or bands that are really underutilized based on the number of people using them throughout the day, but heavily occupied because of band planning that limits where people have agreed to operate.

Do we want to see amateur radio go the way of the 'Soviet economy' as Gilder points out or do we want to keep amateur radio in the spotlight of technical innovation and leadership ? I know what my answer is...do you know what yours is ?

To finish this segment, let me quote David Sumner, Exec Vice President of the ARRL, again. "First, the rules of the game are changing. As incumbent users of the spectrum, we must realize that the yardstick by which our use is measured is getting longer. Second, digital technology gives us powerful new tools to enhance our own service -- tools that we have barely begun to think about using [Sumner, 1996]." "To let the telecommunications revolution start without us would be as short-sighted as failing to convert from spark to CW, or from AM to SSB. [Sumner, 1996]."

If what David Sumner wrote about the future is correct, then the comments and reply comments filed by the ARRL and others concerning the changes in rules for Spread Spectrum don't reflect this perceived future at all. They reflect an attitude of accepting what the FCC has proposed for the new rules without question or of keeping the status quo of spectrum protection and operating modes and not encouraging experimentation and implementation of new modes to keep the hobby alive and growing into the next century.

What is a long range vision and how does the TAPR membership participate now ?

Four years ago now, several of us started looking seriously into Spread Spectrum communications techniques as a possible solution to the several critical factors that faced both the aspects of digital communicators and the hobby in general. No need for me to cover these here, since I have covered them in past columns (presidents_corner.html). I have stated in those columns that the TAPR long range plan in this area is going to take time. I have received messages on e-mail and USENET that state 'now that TAPR has said it is doing something -- why hasn't TAPR completed it yet ?' Well, the answer is 'it takes time to implement new technology, especially technology that now integrates RF into the design' and 'technology that requires rules changes to make it practical to make available'. The current rule making has been happening over two years now. I think the vast majority of TAPR members understand this, but many non-TAPR members don't see this and expect it to be happening now.

If we look back on the current long range vision statement from TAPR, we can see the roots of these thoughts as far back as 1988, when Pete Eaton proposed the TAPR packetRadio project. Pete had the correct vision and if the project had been successfully completed, no telling how much that project would have changed the face of current amateur radio digital communications. To date, the packetRadio was the only project that TAPR had attempted that involved the integration of digital and RF elements into the design. All the other successful TAPR projects to date have just focused on the digital side of things. With Spread Spectrum digital communication systems, the integration of RF and digital elements is crucial to the success of both making it work and making it available at a price amateur radio enthusiasts will perceive as useful and plunk down their cash to purchase.

To this end, at the TAPR Board of Directors meeting held in Dayton in May, the board voted to fund the initial stages of a 900Mhz 256Kbps FHSS (Frequency Hopper) design. This is one of two designs that TAPR should be undertaking in the next year. The second design, which we believe will target either 2.4GHz or 1.2GHz and operate at speeds up to 1.544Mbps (T1), is on hold awaiting for the NSF (National Science Foundation) grant to support the development project to be started. Both radios fall into a category of being intelligent. This is something that many of us have been discussing informally for the last two years and is a key part of the NSF grant proposal. The 900Mhz radio design group has asked that their identity be kept quiet so as to give them time to devote their energy to design and development. This group has past experience in the necessary areas and I think we will see something eventually. We must give them time and space to complete their work. With luck, we will all be able to read about the initial design at the upcoming Digital Communications Conference.

There are several ways TAPR members can participate in these long range plans now. First is to begin learning and educating yourself about what Spread Spectrum is and how it works today. There is a lot of information on the TAPR web page (http://www.tapr.org/ss) and at your local library. TAPR supports an e-mail list for Spread Spectrum communications. Get on that list and start asking questions. There are many on there who will help Elmer those interested in the mode. If you don't think Spread Spectrum is the answer, then research that as well. Learning and education is a lot of what technology change is about.

Second, I might be lecturing the congregation that already knows what TAPR is doing, but it is impossible for the TAPR board and a few of the movers to handle all the questions and discussions that happen on packet radio BBS traffic, USENET, and at local meetings. It will up to the TAPR membership to communicate what TAPR is about and defend if necessary when incorrect and defamatory statements are made by others. It is up to the TAPR membership to educate those that don't understand or believe that new communications technologies are based on 1970's technology. Try to help disseminate the truth as you see it, and help stamp out the rumors and conjecture.

Another aspect to your involvement is to contact your ARRL Division Director and let him/her know what you think about Spread Spectrum and what TAPR is actively pursuing. You might ask why is it important to communicate with the ARRL ? The last membership survey we did showed that over 80% of TAPR members supported the ARRL as members and we must acknowledge that the ARRL has a large voice in the future of what happens at the FCC, as well as several other important aspects of the hobby. Your director's representation at the ARRL board meetings can only be as good as the information supplied by their constituents. This is 'you', if you are in that 80% of TAPR members who are also members of the league! If you think Spread Spectrum is an important future mode in amateur radio, you need to drop an e-mail, write a letter, or call your director up that represents you and let them know what you think. Those that oppose the further use of spread spectrum in the hobby have already been doing this, so we better be joining into the process or the current FCC rules process will conclude and we might find that we have rules that really kill the current spark of interest that has begun to kindle and might one day become a bright flame in the hobby with regard to spread spectrum communications on the ham bands.

Other Organizational Issues

Don't forget that the ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference will be held in Baltimore, MD, on October 10-12. Proceedings deadline for papers is August 20th! Deadline for booking your hotel room if you are flying in or staying overnight is September 9th! This is a full month before the conference, so don't put off getting your hotel room now while room rates are at the conference price.

TAPR will have a booth at the ARRL National convention to be held in Jacksonville, FL, on August 2-3, 1997. Be sure to drop in and say hello to Steve Bible, N7HPR, and me; we will be working the booth. I don't think we will be presenting during the conference, but I am sure we will have plenty to discuss if you come by the booth. Check http://users.southeast.net/~jrmoore/hamfest.htm for more details on the convention. If anyone wants, we can try to arrange a dinner on Friday. Send e-mail to Steve Bible (N7HPR) and we can see who might be interested in doing some type of organized thing on Friday.

At the TAPR Board meeting at Dayton, we also passed the Affiliated Groups motion. There is a full writeup later in the PSR about how local and regional groups can become affiliated with TAPR.

I want to take a second to congratulate Steve Stroh, N8GNJ, for his excellent work and effort as secretary of the organization, since he took over this position shortly after last year's board meeting at Sea-Tac, Washington.

Bob Hansen, N2GDE, PSR Editor is always looking for technical papers to publish in the PSR. From reading all the e-mail in the last several months, people are doing things; so please take a few minutes to write it up and send it to Bob for publication in the PSR.

Until next quarter!

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

May 1997

What will Amateur Radio Networks look like in the future? or will amateur radio digital networks look any different in two years then they did 10 years ago ?

The past ?

Let us look back at how we began in the early 1980's with this thing called packet radio. We (amateur radio) began by building units capable of talking to each other in a local environment. It was a thrill to be able to talk to someone across town or within the county. Not until later in the process did we have any kind of long-distance networking. Networks like NetRom, ROSE, KaNodes, TexNet, etc came on the scene to provide linking to get us from point A to point B over RF over several miles or hundreds of miles. These systems did not appear until after 1984, over 5 years after the first TNCs were available. This entire trend of networking was driven by the interest within the community to build such networks and the growth of the user base who owned TNCs. As we had more people owning a common data communications interface, we had just enough critical mass to make networks happen and to keep them going and growing. Some of these networks have been operating over 10 years, which is a real accomplishment considering the volunteer nature of a few people behind the process for each network. Much of this interest and growth was because it was a new and exciting technology for amateur radio operators to be involved in.

Interest and excitement -- that is what this is all about!

As technology has remained the same (for the most part), have we not seen a general lowering of interest within the packet using community as a whole ? There are exceptions to the interest and excitement indicators -- look at APRS or continued experimental development. Resources (money/equipment) are still hung at speeds that were available in 1985, while personal interest has moved in favor of a much different type of access which is focused on speed, bandwidth, and information access and availability. Let's face it -- technology has passed us by if we say 1200 baud AFSK or 9600 baud FSK communications are the best we can do as amateur radio hobbyist. It is time to make the jump to a new technology base.

I have recently been accused of being a 'moron' or the 'evil end of amateur radio as a whole' for stressing the importance of taking a step forward with new technology, but taking a step backwards at the same time because of the need to focus on local access issues.

This is where we need to move back to now. The emphasis has to be back on creating new technology to serve the general community for local access. The reason long distance networks were created was to connect these dispersed local areas together, but this process took time -- years in fact -- and new technology was created to make it happen. However, this new technology was a result of the user interface as it was designed. There is the problem. No new user interface was really ever brought forward past the TNC-2 that was so widely adopted. There are several reasons for this, but I believe the main one was price. TAPR did too good a job on the TNC-2. The cost was so low after the first 4 years, that most amateurs just didn't want to pay any more money to do better. There was also no incentive for doing it, since if you made the technology jump, there was typically no one else to talk to and getting a group to do something together was difficult, if not impossible.

We are now looking at developing new communication systems with physical limitation different from the past era of technology that will act as a current nodal point in communications. The systems that are being developed are a jump ahead in access and usage. Why hamper them with the requirements to work with systems that were based on 1970's technology? We shouldn't.

We have to start from the beginning. Build new local access infrastructures and then begin to explore ways of intercommunications based on the tradition of amateur radio ingenuity and availability. We cannot expect much of the technology currently installed to support the speeds of access for enabling long distance communications that these new technology implementations represent. The only thing that does remain viable in many of the networks today are the sites, the sites, and the sites. Sites are one of the most valuable resources we have today and they get used with any new technology that comes along.

For the many who 'rant and rave' concerning what I am saying in this column (the possible abandonment of long distance 1200 and 9600 baud systems), they have missed a major point -- these systems have already collapsed in many parts of the US. While some are still functioning, this is because of a few dedicated volunteers maintaining them. However, without a new technology influx to stir activity once again and keep the interest of current and future participants -- total collapse and stagnation is very apparent in the future of our aspect of the hobby and possibly the hobby as a whole.

We seem to have basic choices to make. Do we remain the same, using and supporting current technology with limited people to do this or use our talent and resources to push forward into the future and develop new systems and operating benefits. There is some overlap in both, but trying to do both will limit our resources for accomplishing our goals and later implementing them in any wide scale solution that really move the hobby forward.

Now on to little lighter subjects.

Elections
The last issue of the PSR had the election ballot for Board of Directors. First, I would like to thank all those who took the time to ballot by mail or over the Internet. The web based ballot system received over 90 percent of the ballots cast. From the response we received, I will ask the board to keep this system in place for next year. If you have comments on the balloting process, please let me know so we can look at ways to improve it in the future. Now to the election results.

The results of the election are as follows:

Greg Jones, WD5IVD, 89.10%
Mel Whitten, K0PFX, 71.08%
John Koster, W9DDD, 68.67%
Steve Stroh, N8GNJ, 66.26%

I would like to welcome back to the board John Koster, W9DDD and Mel Whitten, K0PFX. This was a very close election, with one write-in vote for Ron Parsons, W5RKN. Steve Stroh, N8GNJ, will be continuing in his secretary position. Steve has brought a lot of new energy as an officer to TAPR. Thanks to all the members who voted.

Dayton 1997

Dayton Hamvention will be here before we know it. This year looks really good in the way of presenters for the TAPR Digital Forum on Friday, items being introduced and available at the booth, and the PacketBASH banquet on Friday night, which really looks better than last ever.

There are plans to transmit audio live from the TAPR Digital Forum on Friday on TAPR.ORG. There will be a special link on the home page as of Dayton to allow you to get this audio page. In addition, we will be providing audio on Saturday for another forum event with Len Winkler; keep an eye out for that one as well. If you don't get to listen to either of these events from Hamvention live, they will be on the site afterwards. It is also our hope to show off a Spread Spectrum connection between the TAPR Digital Forum and the TAPR booth on Friday to allow presenters to use the Internet or present their overheads off the server in the booth or even from their home sites! If this works out okay, there are some additional plans to use the same radios to provide Cu-SeeMe video from the TAPR booth and from the surrounding Hamvention areas onto the Internet using Spread Spectrum communications. That should really be a good show of how Spread Spectrum works even in the RF environment of the Dayton Hamvention -- or maybe that it doesn't work there :-) We will just have to wait and see as the event unfolds. Be sure to drop by any of the events and say hello!

If you haven't been to Dayton before, you should think about coming this year. The dates for this year are May 16th - 18th. Check out the web page http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/dayton.html for any last minute changes in the schedule. The schedule of events will appear later in the PSR, but things do sometime change at the last minute.

ARRL/TAPR DCC 1997

The date has been set for the 1997 ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference. It will be held on October 10-12, 1997 in Baltimore, Maryland, just a few miles from the BWI airport. I flew up the first of March and met with the AMRAD folks to select the final hotel and sign the contracts. The airport seems to have decent prices to various parts of the US and the hotel has excellent service. The full details on the conference appears later in the PSR and there are going to be some great seminars and symposiums this year to attend, along with the conference. In addition, there will be a TAPR membership meeting during the conference. That was something that was brought up last year and it has been added.

Spread Spectrum Issues

Lots is happening on the Spread Spectrum front. While many members were disappointed by the collapse of the Freewave deal (including me), we are continuing along the road of system development and rules change. The FCC released Docket 97-12 on March 3rd, 1997. Check http://www.tapr.org/ss for the text of the docket. First comment date is May 5th, 1997. The TAPR Regulatory Affairs Committee, chaired by Dewayne Hendicks, WA8DZP, is working on the TAPR comment to the rule making. TAPR will continue to attempt to make as much of the information in regards to the Spread Spectrum rule making available on the Internet as possible, so everyone can follow what is being written. Concerning system development, there are two groups working on proposals for TAPR to review in the next few months. Both groups have asked for their identity to be kept confidential for the time being so they can focus on their work. Either design could be something that TAPR could take and develop in the coming 12-18 months into very interesting outcomes.

Until next quarter and lots more fun!

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

January 1997

What an interesting year 1996 has been and it looks like 1997 is going to be as or more interesting! TAPR got lots of it goals met for 1996. That of 1) moving Spread Spectrum issues forward, 2) getting the joint ARRL and TAPR DCC off the ground, 3) increasing membership activity, 4) and lots of other neat projects and concepts. I hope we can keep up with the pace of what is happening.

The big news the last November was that the FCC granted TAPR's request for a Spread Spectrum STA. This was really great news and we already have a number of folks operating under the STA (http://www.tapr.org/ss/tapr_sta.html). If you want to participate in the STA, just use the on-line application or request one from the office.

The sad news I have to report is that FreeWave Technologies, Inc. of Boulder, CO (www.freewave.com), after deciding to sell us their DGR-115 radios at board level for $250 each, decided to cancel the agreement several days after it was announced on the TAPR web page and to the membership via the Internet list. The units were first mentioned in the last PSR. We discussed the issue with FreeWave for three weeks, but were forced to finally give up once it was apparent that no solution was possible. This is too bad, since I felt that it was an excellent opportunity for both FreeWave and TAPR. TAPR got a radio in the hands of the membership and FreeWave got high quality technical feedback for future implementation. I know there was a lot of interest in this radio and I hope that all those who showed excitement will not let this change affect their thinking and plans about doing new technology.

It is becoming obvious that Part 15 manufacturers are seeing amateur radio operations in our bands using their Spread Spectrum technology as a threat and I don't believe that getting equipment from these sources in any recognized group purchase is going to be possible or at least very difficult. The Part 15 coalition, which Proxim, Metricom, and others are involved with have stated that they plan to fight the rules changes as set forth under RM-8737. They want Part 97 operations on bands where they are selling equipment to be limited to the same technical requirements they currently have to operate under. Less power, almost no antennas, etc. While the engineers and others that we have been discussing group purchases with are enthusiastic about the possibility of getting equipment to us, by the time the decision reaches higher levels, resistance begins to build. In addition, now that the FreeWave purchase has fallen through, is it a good thing for amateur radio that we work on purchases like this ? Some at the FCC already see amateur radio as an obsolete entity. This could be one reason for the suggested Part 5 rule changes. They see amateur radio not providing the necessary technology development, so the answer is to change the Part 5 rules so more commercial entities can test their RF devices. Would we be walking into a pit if we go out and get Part 15 equipment operational on our bands. The easy answer on the part of the FCC would be to collapse Part 97 into Part 15. If all we do is make part 15 equipment operational, why allow part 97 operations. I think it is even more important now to stress the experimental and developmental nature of our hobby and to press the point on several fronts. While getting Part 15 equipment operational was a solution to several short term issues, I don't believe (now) that it would have been a good direction in say two years. Would have getting the FreeWave radios into the amateur market via TAPR set a trend that we could not recover from ? I don't know, but it might be fortunate that FreeWave decided that they didn't want to sell us radios without additional stipulations. Something serious to think about. TAPR can now focus on getting amateur technology into the amateur hobby and to that extent, several projects have been started and will be pushed to get completed.

On another topic -- I have not mentioned the following yet in the PSR, because it was still very tenuous and considered to be in the wait and see stage for several months. Now that it looks like we might get funded, let me outline what has happened. This last August I flew to Freemont, CA and spent several days at Dewayne Hendricks' home. During that period we wrote and submitted a grant to the National Science Foundation (NSF) concerning a proposal for TAPR to design and build a Spread Spectrum radio to meet some of their educational networking needs, which so happens to be just like what we need on the amateur radio bands. Anyway, the NSF grant has been progressing through channels for the last several months and we should be hearing about the outcome before Dayton. If the grant is accepted and funded, which I think we have a very good chance of now, we will have some money to invest in research and development of a TAPR Spread Spectrum radio design or designs that could be a significant contribution to the amateur radio hobby. I'll write a lot more when we know the final status of the proposal and how it will positively affect TAPR.

Dayton '97 is scheduled for May 17-19th. John Ackermann, AG9V, has informed us that we will be able to use the NCR facility again this year for the Friday evening happening. If you didn't make it last year, you really should think about attending this year.

You will find in this issue of the PSR a ballot of this year's board of directors election. We have four excellent candidates running for the three positions available. Please take the time to vote, either by mailing in your ballot or via the electronic means we are making available for the first time. This is your opportunity to select who sits on the board and determines the future of TAPR.

Until next quarter and lots more fun!

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

October 1996

No long, lengthy diatribe from the president this quarter. With the first joint ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference just wrapped up and me just a little behind with my PhD work, I'll fall back to the traditional organizational update and the presentation of the TAPR Position Statement on Spread Spectrum Technology Development.

The Position Statement is a major step forward on stating where TAPR plans to go now and in the future in regards to Spread Spectrum. The committee was formed at the Dayton BoD meeting this past May and has worked on and off on the statement throughout the summer waiting for review and adoption at the Seattle BoD meeting. The reason for this statement is that things are moving fast and are about to pay off in both equipment to use now and in the future for high-speed digital communications.

We should be announcing several major happenings next quarter, one of which should be the availability of SS 115Kbps radios. The real question becomes do we operate these 115Kbps SS data radios under part 15 or under Part 97 or under a potential TAPR STA. We currently have a STA pending with the FCC, which we hope to have dislodged and operational by the next PSR. Our attorneys are involved with getting the STA operational so we can bring this radio project on-line under amateur rules for operational testing and development. If not, then we can always operate them under Part 15. I guess it just baffles me that certain amateur elements would rather have us go off and operate under Part 15 or some other aspect of the FCC rules, instead of trying to help advance the radio art and operational skills under Part 97. Sometime I just want to give up and spend money on things that don't seem like sink holes; however, we will continue to shovel money into the belt way and will continue to budget money now and in the future for legal action on the matter. It was obvious last year that intelligence, knowledge, effort, money and lots and lots of time were going to be required to have any real advancement in the SS rules for either data or voice operations. The future looks bright, but the toll could be a step one for everyone that wants to participate in this mode.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading the statement. Please feel free to write me or anyone on the board about it and let us know what you think.

As to the 1996 DCC, it was great! One of the best I think, although I'll defer to those few that have made almost all of them. Anyway, I think we set a very good trend for the future of the joint conference. Long time attendees to the conference were more than tickled pink to have Rod Stafford, KB6ZV, President of the ARRL attend the conference. We believe this was the first time that the President of the ARRL was in attendance. Thanks for attending Rod, we hope that we didn't overwhelm you with all of our enthusiasm in the area. Lyle Johnson, WA7GXD, gave one heck of a banquet talk. Lyle summed up in about 20 minutes what several of us takes two or three hours to state. With luck, a transcription of the talk will be printed in this issue. The student papers were excellent! Thanks to co-chair Gerald Knezek, KB5EWV, co-chair Robert Diersing, N5AHD, and Frank Bauer, KA3HDO for making the first year possible. If you know a student, keep the travel award in mind for next year. Thanks to all those who presented in the Introductory Track. Especially Frank Perkins, WB5IPM, who with about 5 minutes notice filled the hole in the track that I had forgotten to fill after the initial presenter was not able to attend. Great job Frank! I would like to thank Keith Justice, KF7TP, for the work he did organizing the paper session. Also, a big thanks goes to Maty Wienberg at ARRL HQ for her work on the proceeding, which reliable sources inform me that she has done since the first one! Also, the biggest thanks to Steve and Tina Storh. Without there help locally as the co-hosts this conference would not have happened in the style that it did. Steve spent many long nights during the conference making sure that workshop materials were copied and making runs to the RadioShack for stuff and Tina ran the hospitality area nearly single handed and seemed to be able to feed an army if we had had one there :-)

TAPR activities at Dayton 1997 are already in the first stages. If you have suggestions for programs during the Friday forum or a possible banquet speaker -- let us hear. Suggestions is what makes the Dayton event very positive.

TAPR began to process the latest GPS-20 order the end of September. Units should have been out the door by the first of October, since we had to wait on the power connector parts. As soon as we have sold the 20 or so units remaining, we will start yet another collection of 100 units to ship. If you want a GPS-20 for the future TAC kit, time to get those orders in when you can. As soon as we get another 80 or so, we will place another order of 100.

While I write this, we are taking the last of the EVM56002 orders. What a ride! Looks like we will sale all 200 units in just little over a months time. Thanks to all those who purchased a unit. With this under out belt and continued communications with the DSP folks of Motorola in Austin, we should be doing other things in the future in this area. Keep an eye on the PSR and the TAPR-BB announcement list. Discussion is currently happening about doing a radio interface board for the upcoming Motorola EVM56303 board. This is one hot processor board. Something to look forward to next year sometime.

Talking about DSP, we still need another nine (9) orders on the PC-DSP software package. I'll make sure we have a reprint again in this issue. We have to have 21 purchases to make the group buy. This is an excellent set of programs for DSP development.

As of October, TAPR has a new Secretary for the organization. Steve Stroh, N8GNJ, will be taking over for Gary Hauge, N4CHV. Gary had expressed the desire at the Spring board meeting that if anyone else wanted to be Secretary, he was open to allowing them. Gary has done a terrific job since 1993 as Secretary. Thanks Gary. Steve, brings a lot positive energy to the board. In addition to his Secretary position, Steve will be working on a proposal on how regional organization can be affiliated with TAPR. There has also been interest in looking at building better communications on an international level. Steve will be working on both of these issues. Welcome aboard Steve.

Until next quarter, when I should have a little more time to write something in depth :-)

Cheers - Greg

TAPR's Position Statement on Spread Spectrum
Technology Development

TAPR was founded in 1982 as a membership supported non-profit amateur radio research and development organization with specific interests in the areas of packet and digital communications. In the tradition of TAPR, the Board of Directors at their Fall 1995 meeting voted that the organization would begin to actively pursue the research and development of amateur radio spread spectrum digital communications. At the Spring 1996 board of directors meeting, the following statement of purpose was passed:

"TAPR believes that the technical facts support our conviction that conventional and spread spectrum systems can coexist without detriment to conventional systems on all frequencies from MF to EHF. To this end, TAPR will begin to research spread spectrum systems that will develop technology for future deployment."

As stated above, the TAPR board feels strongly about TAPR's focus on spread spectrum technology and especially how it relates to the potential coexistence on frequencies that will have increased number of users occupying them. The amateur radio bands, like other spectrum will become more heavily utilized in the future. It is in the interest of amateur radio to develop systems that are interference-resistant while not interfering with other primary or secondary users on those frequencies.

TAPR understands the concerns many have with the new technology, and believes that efforts in both education and research is necessary in order to allay the fears about interference and to demonstrate the benefits of the technology.

TAPR believes that todays' communications technology is moving toward all digital transmitters and receivers. These advances in technology, combined with the swift evolution of cell based transmission and switching protocols, are opening up a new set of possibilities for unique new services utilizing intelligent networks. These will contain smart transmitters, receivers, and switches. Today's Internet is perhaps the best example of a self-regulating structure that embodies these new technological approaches to communications in the networking domain. However, to date, many of these innovations have not moved into the wireless networking arena. TAPR will work on moving these innovations into the amateur radio community.

TAPR feels that the VHF/UHF/SHF radio networks of the future will involve a mixture of links and switches of different ownership, which terminate at the end-user via relatively short-distance links. What will then be required is a built-in, distributed, self-governing set of protocols to cause the network's behavior to make more efficient use of a limited, common shared resource, the radio spectrum. Creating such a self-regulating structure for the optimal sharing of spectrum will require much effort.

One of the major problems which stands in the way of these new approaches today is the current FCC regulatory environment and the manner in which spectrum is managed and allocated under its rules.

Historically, the current regulatory approach to radio has been based upon the technology that was in use at the time that the Communications Act of 1934 was framed, basically what we would call today, 'dumb' transmitters speaking to 'dumb' receivers. The technology of that time required reserved bandwidths to be set aside for each licensed service so that spectrum would be available when needed. Given this regulatory approach, many new applications cannot be accommodated since there is no available unallocated spectrum to 'park' new services. However, given the new set of tools available to the entrepreneur with the advent of digital technology, what once were 'dumb' transmitters and receivers can now be smart devices which are capable of exercising greater judgment in the effective use and sharing of spectrum. The more flexible the tools that we incorporate in these devices, the greater the number of uses that can be accommodated in a fixed, shared spectrum.

Therefore, TAPR will focus its spread spectrum effort in the following areas:

TAPR will work to promote rules and technologies to make the most efficent use of the spectrum through power control, forward error correction, and other means to minimize interference among spread spectrum users and existing communications systems.
TAPR will work on issues and efforts with other national organizations to change the regulatory environment and rules in order to promote the experimentation, development, and later deployment of spread spectrum technology.
TAPR will work to develop information on the topic to help educate members and the amateur community as a whole about spread spectrum technology, and to disseminate this information via printed publications, the World Wide Web, presentations at conferences and meetings, and other means.
TAPR will work to foster experimentation, development, and design of spread spectrum systems, and to facilitate the exchange of information between the researchers and other interested parties.
TAPR will work to develop a national intra-network to foster the deployment of future high-speed spread spectrum systems into regional and local communities, including the development of suitable protocols and guidelines for deployment of these systems.
TAPR will work with commercial companies who manufacture spread spectrum devices which operate in spectrum shared by the amateur radio service (ARS), in order to make them more aware of the nature of ARS operations on those bands with the goal to work towards the deployment of devices which will minimize interference between all spectrum sharing partners.
TAPR will work with commercial companies who manufacture spread spectrum devices in order to identify equipments that can be either used or modified for use for Part 97 operation.

Adopted by the TAPR Board on September 20th, 1996 at Seatac, Washington Board Meeting.

Spread Spectrum Statement Committee:

Greg Jones, WD5IVD
Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP
Barry McLarnon, VE3JF
Steve Bible, N7HPR

TPRS August 1996

Amateur Radio Networks: Are Amateurs Willing to Pay the Price ?

I always hate to be taken out of context, so here is the full article as published in the Q-Report attached below. Now what Charles, N5PVL, doesn't think about is 'why I wrote it'. Who was the target audience. This is important when writing anything.

TPRS (Texas Packet Radio Society) at the time I was writing this was suffering a down turn in membership and network stagnation. The purpose was to get people thinking about the future and hopefully get them active in at least doing something. I might not be right, but at least in Charles' case my goal was fully realized. Just look at the energy he has expended over the issue. I just wish it was a little bit more constructive in nature though -- like being a part of the solution -- building, maintaining, or helping the current TPRS TexNet cause. There are to few people in the TPRS regional group that do a lot of work and another pair of active hands could be the difference in keeping links up and working between Texas and Oklahoma. Charles has never really wanted to be a part os the solution, onlt a part of the problem.

I hope the article posted below gets others to think about where we have been and the possible future. Future theory says that you can not predict the future. All you can do is prepare your mind with different concepts of reality, so that as things change you can adapt to the situation.

Also, all of my writing as President of TAPR can be found at: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/presidents_corner.html or on the top level of http://www.tapr.org If you want to see what I have been writing in TAPR then check out this page. I think you will find that I am not as anti-amateur radio or pro-telephone as many would seem to say.

Also, please note I use the term 'wireline' not 'telephone'. There is a big difference. Much of the existing TexNet network, which Charles uses to forward many of his BBS messages to others sysops transits across some of these commerical wireline pairs that TPRS (TexNet) has been able to use over the years to tie areas of Texas together that we would never be able to build RF connections into. When building networks, the concept is communications and sometimes in order to provide the service to fellow hobbiest you have to take advantage of what presents itself to make it happen. Just ask Harry Ridenour, N0CCW, first TexNet network manager.

I hope you take a second and read my thoughts below. Keep in mind that they are a several years old, but I still feel that amateur packet radio digital communication users have to make a decision 'are they willing to invest in the future of the mode ?'

Cheers - Greg, WD5IVD

Reprinted from TPRS Q-Report, August, 1996.

Amateur Radio Networks: Are Amateurs Willing to Pay the Price ?
Greg Jones, WD5IVD

What is a 'good' amateur radio network ? Is it our current 1200 baud or 9600 baud systems ? Are amateurs willing to pay the price in money, time, and manpower to make our current networks into 'better' networks ?

In 1982, it was the ability to use a local digipeater to be able to connect to the local BBS and even to chat with someone locally at 1200 baud. In 1985, it was the ability to use 9600 baud networks to be able to connect to the same type of BBS or a friend located any where across the state. In 1990, it was the ability to have access to new types of services (i.e. NWS, Radar, DX Cluster, etc). However, during the entire 10+ years, the user access speeds never increased -- even when plug-n-play equipment was available.

Why ? The equipment and technology have been here. Are 'hams' just too cheap to do it ? Why should any amateur radio operator be surprised that numerous 'hams' are leaving amateur radio for the Internet. It does many of the things that they find fun in amateur radio and access is a lot better. There are no local disputes, no club politics; it works all the time. There is no one telling them they can't get access to Houston, because there is no RF path, etc. It just works. But how can hams spend $240+ a year for Internet dial-up modem access and not spend the same amount for amateur networks that could easily have better access than they get from their dial-up Internet providers ?

Amateurs in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the rest of the US, will shortly be faced with a decision. Either spend the money, time, and energy to upgrade existing amateur networking or watch it crumble. The most valuable things in any of our networks is not the equipment or networking technology, but the site locations and the few people who maintain them. In the TexNet network, we have very valuable sites that could easily be used to build a new TexNet network on-top of the existing one. As for the networkers who work the sites, we have to design a system that does not require one of them driving 5 hours to fix a node. Eventually, we will burn them out with the current network we support. The technology is here now -- and we better do something with it, or we can forget the 10+ years of work and effort that has been put into the existing networks.

In years past, we had many discussions and meetings on where TexNet should be going. The problem always came down to 1) cost of higher-speed radios and 2) how to make a new network backwards compatible with the older system. The radio problem, with the help of TAPR and others, is about to fix itself. The second item really comes down now to jumping to a new network all together. We leave the existing TexNet network in place and build a new one on top of it using new technology. In this manner, the older users are still supported, but a newer, faster network can be put in place.

What do I mean by 'newer and faster' ? TexNet-2 should support the goal of providing high-speed local loop access, with enough RF and wire networking to tie nodes and regions together to support these higher user speeds. No user should be more than 2 or 3 hops from a high-speed link (RF or wire) to the next regional area or a system information server. We have to eliminate the need to transit the entire state to get one bit of information. Speed is everything, unfortunately, for the survival of our existing networks. Amateurs are leaving our current systems because they perceive Internet as a better service, even if we consider that our phone modems operate at around 1200 baud. If we do not go at least as fast as 38.4Kbps on the user access ports, why do anything ? We might as well leave amateur radio and go to the Internet or Part 15 devices for communications. The answer is easy -- nothing is stopping us from implementing high-speed RF within Part 97, that can't be found at twice the price in the commercial communications area.

Some might say that I have just made a pact with the 'Dark Side of the Force' by saying we should use wirelines and the Internet to connect regions in Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma and the U.S. at high-speed. My answer is no, we don't turn off the existing TexNet backbone, but use it for what it is good for, that of providing long-haul RF paths when our primary high-speed routes die. Many might say that the commercial wirelines are unreliable; however, the commercial world is learning every time there is a disaster that takes their equipment off-line. Soon, many commercial systems will not be affected by earthquakes and other such natural disasters. But when they are, we will need RF systems like the TexNet backbone which exists today to provide information flow. However, if we lose membership within TPRS because the existing network does not support what members want to do -- then the RF network goes away completely. Better to do new approaches and methods now and be able to keep things operational both with new and old systems, than to have no systems at all in place. Basically, the types of information flow amateurs want to do today, can't be supported with the existing TexNet network. This does not mean that the usefulness of TexNet has gone away. If anything, by invigorating the digital community again with new networking, we can continue to support the slower speed TexNet for emergencies when e-mail and bulletins are the only things that need to be passed some distance away.

Nothing is stopping us from putting up a backbone that operates at 2 Mbps or user access systems that operate at 64,000bps (twice as fast a any 28.8Kbps dial up modem). Using Spread Spectrum technology that is currently employed under Part 15, which can be used under part 97 (soon), and new technology that TAPR and others are working on, the tools to be able to implement a new network that provides 'faster' access to amateurs is here.

The only thing stopping us is ourselves. Do amateurs in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas want a network that they can access from home at 64K+ speeds in order to access the Internet, do digital video, or whatever you can think of doing at that speed ? If you do -- it is time to spend the money and time to make it happen. However, if you want ISDN speed access from home over amateur radio, it is going to cost more than 1200 baud 2-meter packet TNCs. Maybe a cost of more than $500+ per home unit. Will you spend that ? Many have been spending that much to do 9600 plug-n-play. Many have been spending around a $1000 to do DSY 56K technology. A $500 price point is cheap, considering that an ISDN to Ethernet box (Ascend Pipeline 25) costs $1000 for ISDN access at home, it costs you several hundred dollars to have installed and probably about $80 a month for the central office connection and Internet access fees. $500 - $1000 for a user access radio is half the cost of installing ISDN at your home for the first year. I would think hams would find that a huge savings !

In addition, will you support your local network node for the $1000 - $2000 it will cost to put up a node that can service your new radio ? Without the infrastructure to support your radio, you can't get access at the speeds you want.

Now, I keep saying 'we' above. This is a 'we' not 'me'. While several of the typical amateur operators you find running about doing things can help install new nodes and work system problems, without 'you' putting forth the energy and effort to at least state that you want to see change, then nothing will happen. 'You' have to take an interest, contact the local movers-and-shakers and say you want to see better networking. You then have to have someone in your area become the led on the technology. Find out information about what is happening and see how to get involved in what will happen next. Finally, you have to be willing to write a check to your local club or group to purchase the necessary equipment for the network node and then purchase equipment yourself.

Are you willing to pay the price for 'better' amateur networks that can perform much better than what you are probably paying for monthly ?

If so, it is time to start making a difference.

July 1996

To my surprise, many of you read my President's column last issue more than once and made verbal comments about it at Dayton and more recently during the HamCom convention in Arlington, Texas. I am glad that the time I spent writing my thoughts on the Spread Spectrum issue made many of you think about where digital communications and amateur radio as a hobby are heading and one type of technology we might have in the future. In this PSR issue, I'll hit on another area which has seen a lot of debate in the past several months -- that of the Internet and its impact upon amateur radio.

The question I hear can be boiled down to: "Is Internet Good or Bad for amateur radio ?" My answer is yes and no. This might sound like I am sitting on the fence on the issue -- but I am not. Like anything, the Internet can either be seen as a threat or as an opportunity. Depends on your perspective.

I'll start with a quote "Times - they are a changing." Easy to use and affordable telecommunication is here to stay. Better face it. Amateur radio is never going to compete with the Internet and all the future forms of communications that allow people to communicate on both wire-based and wireless systems. The number of people getting involved with these new forms of telecommunication systems indicates that it has a draw that amateur radio never has or will have.

Are amateurs moving permanently away from amateur radio to the Internet ? Yes. There have been other areas in the past that have drawn amateurs away -- it is just that the Internet is very noticeable. Price versus performance is one issue. Services versus time invested is another. People making this switch are finding these new services interesting/exciting -- probably for the same reasons they got involved with amateur radio. How many of us have changed hobbies or even aspects of the hobby within amateur radio at one time or another ? While we might lose 'hams' permanently, I bet some will rediscover the hobby again later.

Another possible reason for this change could be how amateur radio has been marketed over the last ten to twenty years. What do you remember as items that amateur radio was marketed as good for and why people should get their ticket ? Are not many of those items better done someplace else, especially with the low cost of the Internet and other services (phone, paging, fax, Internet, etc). Many of these items were pressed forward by the commercial manufacturers -- in order to expand the amateur commercial market. We are now seeing a percentage of people finding out that what they really wanted all along was commercially available communications, which is now very affordable and only getting cheaper and faster. Is yet another possible reason for losing 'hams' to the Internet is that they now have to communicate a great deal more using the Internet or similar networks in the workplace -- that by electronically communicating all day long, people want to escape even more communications (amateur radio) when they return home ?

Amateur radio is not going to compete with this commercial trend in information technology. Therefore, the digital aspect of amateur radio as a hobby must move to new niches in this changing time or the numbers of people attending hamfests and actively participating will continue to drop. Why do I say 'continue ?' Several events I have attended this year have had lower numbers of hams attending than in previous years, which were lower than the year before. Coincidence or something else ? As I talk to regional digital groups, the resounding response is that their membership numbers are headed down and the prospects don't look good unless something changes (i.e., new and exciting projects).

Why ? 1200 baud and even 9600 baud operations are not perceived as being fast enough anymore. Most amateur operating methods have outgrown what was easily delivered in 1982. 28.8Kbps or 14.4Kbps, although they operate at near 1200 baud, are perceived as being more fun, easier to use, and delivering more of what many would term 'cool' services. While Internet connectivity has reduced membership in many regional digital groups, has it not also given an understanding of the value of what a truly useful network costs ? Amateur radio can and should take advantage of this new understanding. However, to do this within amateur radio requires an increase in performance of our current network technology to something that we currently don't have readily available. Like many of us have been saying for years -- radios are the key.

Based on this perceived value of commercial services vs the amateur radio hobby, we could easily find ourselves -- if not already -- in a shrinking market. Meaning, the numbers of hams participating in amateur radio could decline in the future. I read a report last year outlying these same facts. At the time I was skeptical, but I am beginning to see what was forecast in those figures.

That is the down side of things. While the down side can be pretty depressing, I see the Internet providing valuable services to amateur radio as well. Many of us have been on 'what is now called the Internet' since the late 70's, early 80's. Electronic-mail, listservs, and news groups are nothing new. It is interesting to note that many of the amateurs that I know who were on the pre-Internet are still very active in amateur radio now, while still using the Internet. Maybe this proves that as the Internet experience becomes less new and exciting to amateur operators who have switched, we will indeed see licensed 'hams' returning. Another benefit is that the Internet is yet another way for amateurs to stay in contact with what they like to do -- amateur radio. Internet has provided a way to communicate and work on group projects that once required meeting in person several times a year at conferences and ham gatherings. Now the in-person meetings at shows and conferences can be used in even better ways.

Many amateurs will accuse me of making a pact with the 'dark side of the force', when I suggest that as amateurs we should be using and expanding the use of the Internet for linking regional digital networks, in order to tie these dispersed regions together. Many did this in the past and found that by having additional connectivity to other regions, it drew more people to what they were doing -- before speed became the main issue. We should be using wire based communications when appropriate -- when RF is just not going to happen due to money and other constraints. There is no doubt that amateur radio could design and build the much discussed 'national digital network,' but is that the correct question ? The question might be better asked, do we want to ? This is not saying that we should do away with backbones -- NO -- backbones and other types of RF networking should continue for all the reasons amateurs do things with the hobby -- it is either fun, someone is learning something, or amateur radio operators are providing a public service. However, at some point, the initial newness of learning or doing something new wears off (months or even years after the project starts) -- then what ? Having reliable and useful RF long-haul connectivity is something where areas that require such communications in time of emergency must work hard to develop and maintain. It is easy to depend on having the wire connection there all the time, but what if it does go out. It is also easy to say that we will use nothing but radios for networking and then not be able to support or provide connections to distant locations. There has to be some middle ground between wire and wireless communications as part of our hobby. We must all keep reminding ourselves during the debate of wire vs wireless networking, that we are all members of the same 'hobby'.

Another area that amateurs seem to be missing is that these 'non-hams' operating on the Internet are a new market to go after to get their tickets. Just like amateur radio worked with 11 meter operators in the past to get their tickets, why not begin to look at ways to make amateur radio the next exciting avenue for these new communicators using the Internet ? I am sure some well-paid marketing firm could think of a snappy way :-) Tie this into some of the future projects regarding higher-speed communications and we have some interesting ties with a new segment from which to recruit 'hams'. If we don't work on getting people interested in operating under Part 97 -- then Part 15 will be where people will operate. Is this something we want to happen, because we were not willing to give some on how we perceive the world ? Don't forget that Part 15 networking devices are secondary on our bands. With the growth in sales of Part 15 devices, it could be foreseeable that they could be made primary -- due to the number of devices being used on those bands ? Probably not -- but what if it does ?

Amateur radio operators in the 20's and 30's were experimenters. In the 40's, 50's, and 60's, we evolved into less experimenters and more technicians of the hobby. Since the 70's, amateur radio evolved again into what many would call a largely consumer/communicator group. Look at the recent announcement by Kenwood regarding distribution of their products. There are other indications as well. Does it surprise us that we might be moving away from the consumer era of amateur radio into a new era ? It is up to us -- active amateur radio operators -- to set that direction. A few might lead with a vision, but the entire amateur radio population will ultimately decide where we go. Do we become experimenters again or find a happy medium between the experimenters and communicators within the hobby ? I would hope we can find a more balanced point between all the participants in the hobby. One of the strongest things amateur radio has going is its ability to include others. We are a hobby of inclusion at the same time as differences. Those differences which make up the whole make us stronger in the end -- while the vast majority as a whole allows us certain access to frequencies and brings manufacturers to us. As a hobby, we have to be aware of possible trends in amateur radio so that we can include other areas in the future and continue to be strong.

Internet can be seen as a negative or positive. The perspective is one of choice. I believe that the worldwide explosion in communications and information technology offers amateur radio with a unique opportunity. We have to identify ways to take advantage of it as a hobby and move forward -- or in the long term we will be left behind.

Organization issues:

TAPR would like to congratulate Bob Hansen and his wife on the birth of their baby boy, Jeffrey Zane Hansen. Bob had to miss Dayton, because the birth was scheduled during the Dayton time frame. Jeffrey was born the Tuesday following the Dayton Hamvention. Mother and son are doing fine. I talked to Bob the other day and he reports that he will be attending the DCC in Seattle come September. See you there, Bob.

The Spring TAPR Board Meeting was held Thursday night before Dayton with a number of items being accomplished. The secretary's report for both the fall 1995 and spring 1996 meetings will be printed in this issue. The board tried something new this time by posting reports before the meeting to our mail group. This allowed more time to discuss important issues while the board was gathered in person. We plan on making that a normal function now. The board elections were reported in the last PSR. The officer elections were held at the Dayton Board meeting. Last year's officers were reelected to their positions: Greg Jones, President, John Ackermann, Vice President, Jim Neely, Treasurer, and Gary Hague, Secretary. I would like to thank each officer for remaining in their positions, because each does a lot of work that goes unnoticed in the day-to-day operations of the organization. The board, after reviewing the relevant information, voted to increase the dues. Read the section later in the PSR about the issue. Basically, printing costs have tripled in the last three years and add to this the rise in postal rates and we are only left with a choice to raise dues as an option. This is the first time since 1982, which isn't bad and we hope that the current rates will be seen as modest, but will allow TAPR to cover the PSR costs while retaining a small fraction for other membership services.

It has become obvious during the last few months and during the Spread Spectrum STA process that TAPR needed a club callsign. Working with Paul Newland, AD7I, and Bob Nielsen, W6SWE, we have begun the process to acquire a club callsign. TAPR will let the membership know the status of this request in the coming months. By having a club callsign and then requesting additional callsigns for STA's and experimental licenses, as allowed under the current rules, we will be better able to represent TAPR as an organization as we do more active things with rules, experimenting, and radios in the future. We have thoughts about trying to have a station operational at the DCC in September with the club call! More on this next issue.

Don't forget that papers for the ARRL and TAPR DCC are due by July 23rd!

Dayton was the best ever. If you didn't attend, you really should plan on attending next year. Many thanks to John Ackermann, AG9V, for arranging the new site for the Friday PacketBASH and TAPR Banquet. The NCR facility, I believe, will never be topped. Just ask those who attended the dinner. A real treat! I hope we will be able to have our dinner there for some ye

Greg Jones, WD5IVD

Organization

Audio

People

Projects

Other

A decade of change in amateur radio and TAPR

January 1999

October 1998

A New Vision for the Amateur Radio Service

June 1998

January 1998

October 1997

July 1997

May 1997

January 1997

October 1996

TAPR's Position Statement on Spread Spectrum
Technology Development

TPRS August 1996

Amateur Radio Networks: Are Amateurs Willing to Pay the Price ?

July 1996

Greg Jones, WD5IVD

Organization

Audio

People

Projects

Other

A decade of change in amateur radio and TAPR

January 1999

October 1998

A New Vision for the Amateur Radio Service

June 1998

January 1998

October 1997

July 1997

May 1997

January 1997

October 1996

TAPR's Position Statement on Spread SpectrumTechnology Development

TPRS August 1996

Amateur Radio Networks: Are Amateurs Willing to Pay the Price ?

July 1996

TAPR's Position Statement on Spread Spectrum
Technology Development