Author Archive
Character
March 16th, 2010 | 
Author: The FCC released a legal decision regarding a radio amateur who had felony convictions, in particular sexual predator type offenses. The text is located here. I won't go into the details about the case as it's been reported in detail elsewhere. The FCC as I understand will attempt to revoke the license of an amateur convicted of a felony on the grounds that they lack the requisite character requirements to be an FCC licensee. I can understand this for commercial services such as broadcasting where the licensee interacts directly with the public, but I question how relevant or practical this is in the amateur radio service.
First, let me make clear my position on sexual predators. I think they should be punished and attempts should be made to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. However, there are those who are simply incorrigible who should spend the rest of their lives rotting in prison. (The worst should probably be executed but that is problematic on several levels.) I'm not going to make any judgement of the radio amateur involved in this case as the facts are in the decision text.
The FCC action in this case and other felony conviction cases just doesn't make much sense to me. The judge in the case makes a very lucid statement regarding the defendant and amateur radio. Quite simply, even if it was proven that he was still a sexual predator, amateur radio wouldn't be a tool he would use to commit crime. Frankly, unless someone was into white, balding, overweight, older men, they wouldn't find many potential victims in amateur radio. The odds of a sexual predator being a threat to radio amateurs is about nil. Revoking a license really isn't a deterrent to committing a felony, and I'm sure someone would argue that revoking a license is additional punishment for a crime that already had a conviction and punishment specified.
Thinking back to past character license revocations, I can think of one for a convicted murderer spending life in a federal pen, and a ham that was convicted of long distance fraud. The murderer spending life in prison isn't going to have access to an amateur radio and long distance fraud isn't very relevant to amateur radio. Call me overly pragmatic, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to spend the time and effort to revoke licenses in these situations.
I recently dealt with a radio amateur who clearly lacked character. I won't go into detail, but he got caught in his own online web of lies and when he was exposed he made more lies. But amateurs, unaware or in agreement with his deception, praise him for his work. No character, but people lacking character like this are likely more detrimental to amateur radio than most of the FCC license revocation amateurs, and we tend to look the other way.
If you have a felony conviction, you probably lack character, but if you lack character in amateur radio, you probably don't have a felony conviction. Character in amateur radio isn't the FCC's responsibility, it's our responsibility. Those lacking character who threaten amateur radio don't appear on any legal docket, but they are in our midst. When we ignore those lacking character, we condone and encourage them.
First, let me make clear my position on sexual predators. I think they should be punished and attempts should be made to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. However, there are those who are simply incorrigible who should spend the rest of their lives rotting in prison. (The worst should probably be executed but that is problematic on several levels.) I'm not going to make any judgement of the radio amateur involved in this case as the facts are in the decision text.
The FCC action in this case and other felony conviction cases just doesn't make much sense to me. The judge in the case makes a very lucid statement regarding the defendant and amateur radio. Quite simply, even if it was proven that he was still a sexual predator, amateur radio wouldn't be a tool he would use to commit crime. Frankly, unless someone was into white, balding, overweight, older men, they wouldn't find many potential victims in amateur radio. The odds of a sexual predator being a threat to radio amateurs is about nil. Revoking a license really isn't a deterrent to committing a felony, and I'm sure someone would argue that revoking a license is additional punishment for a crime that already had a conviction and punishment specified.
Thinking back to past character license revocations, I can think of one for a convicted murderer spending life in a federal pen, and a ham that was convicted of long distance fraud. The murderer spending life in prison isn't going to have access to an amateur radio and long distance fraud isn't very relevant to amateur radio. Call me overly pragmatic, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to spend the time and effort to revoke licenses in these situations.
I recently dealt with a radio amateur who clearly lacked character. I won't go into detail, but he got caught in his own online web of lies and when he was exposed he made more lies. But amateurs, unaware or in agreement with his deception, praise him for his work. No character, but people lacking character like this are likely more detrimental to amateur radio than most of the FCC license revocation amateurs, and we tend to look the other way.
If you have a felony conviction, you probably lack character, but if you lack character in amateur radio, you probably don't have a felony conviction. Character in amateur radio isn't the FCC's responsibility, it's our responsibility. Those lacking character who threaten amateur radio don't appear on any legal docket, but they are in our midst. When we ignore those lacking character, we condone and encourage them.
My Contest Is On This Weekend
I'm operating My Contest this weekend. If you hear me calling CQ MY TEST, give me a shout. The exchange is just RST. Thanks for the points!
FCC: Lazy Or Just Lackadaisical? (Part 2)
Recently the FCC granted a waiver for ReconRobotics, a company that is offering a remote controlled robot to be used by law enforcement to perform reconnaissance in dangerous areas during tactical response situations. The robot sends analog video back to equipment giving personnel a remote-controlled view of an area.
The robot seems like a very clever product that will undoubtedly be successful and save lives in coming years. The only problem is the company requested to use three 6 Mhz channels with the amateur radio 440 Mhz band. Amateur radio has secondary privileges in this band which is primarily allocated to the Federal radiolocation service, which the PAVE PAWS system operates under.
Though it may not be obvious, the FCC's granting of the waiver has some parallels with the Broadband over Powerline (BPL) situation from a few years ago. From a technical standpoint ReconRobotics couldn't be more different than BPL. BPL radio emissions were just a spectral pollution byproduct of a wired network that blanketed the HF spectrum. The ReconRobotics product actually uses the airwaves for transmitting information and uses set frequencies in the UHF spectrum. What is quite similar is that the FCC allowed an unlicensed service to use licensed spectrum in a way that is not beneficial to either licensed or unlicensed users. Both BPL and ReconRobotics provide a valuable service to the public, Internet access and support for law enforcement. Although this may ruffle some feathers in the radio artisan community, it's arguable that these services are more valuable than amateur radio. (Ignore for a moment BPL isn't actually using the frequencies, but is polluting them.) Operating under Part 15 rules, BPL operators had to shut down operations if it interfered with licensed services like amateur radio. As we learned from FCC actions (or rather inactions) this wasn't going to be enforced to the letter of the law and BPL systems would be allowed to interfere with amateur radio for months or years. It just wasn't realistic to expect a for-profit business to turn off tens or hundreds of customers to investigate or stop interference, and the FCC quietly let the BPL industry off the hook.
In the ReconRobotics request it was acknowledged that a robot video system would be required to shut down if it interfered with licensed operations such as amateur radio. But we all know that this is just not practical or realistic. No law enforcement officer is going to shut down a robot during an enforcement event because it is interfering with amateur radio, nor would it be advisable or justified for an radio amateur to complain about reconnaissance robot interference. But even worse, if an amateur radio operator transmitting interfered with a robot on a mission, it's likely that the event would be reported on by local media and would it put amateur radio in a bad light. Overall it's a bad situation for all involved.
It's obvious the FCC still hasn't learned from BPL and has some things backwards. Important services like data networks or communications for law enforcement need to be in licensed and/or dedicated spectrum, not shoehorned in with quite dissimilar licensed services as an unlicensed squatter that will ultimately demand and garner licensed allocation type protection and privileges. Unfortunately it looks like this unlicensed / de facto licensed arrangement is going to be more common in coming years if the FCC continues to sidestep real spectrum management.
The robot seems like a very clever product that will undoubtedly be successful and save lives in coming years. The only problem is the company requested to use three 6 Mhz channels with the amateur radio 440 Mhz band. Amateur radio has secondary privileges in this band which is primarily allocated to the Federal radiolocation service, which the PAVE PAWS system operates under.
Though it may not be obvious, the FCC's granting of the waiver has some parallels with the Broadband over Powerline (BPL) situation from a few years ago. From a technical standpoint ReconRobotics couldn't be more different than BPL. BPL radio emissions were just a spectral pollution byproduct of a wired network that blanketed the HF spectrum. The ReconRobotics product actually uses the airwaves for transmitting information and uses set frequencies in the UHF spectrum. What is quite similar is that the FCC allowed an unlicensed service to use licensed spectrum in a way that is not beneficial to either licensed or unlicensed users. Both BPL and ReconRobotics provide a valuable service to the public, Internet access and support for law enforcement. Although this may ruffle some feathers in the radio artisan community, it's arguable that these services are more valuable than amateur radio. (Ignore for a moment BPL isn't actually using the frequencies, but is polluting them.) Operating under Part 15 rules, BPL operators had to shut down operations if it interfered with licensed services like amateur radio. As we learned from FCC actions (or rather inactions) this wasn't going to be enforced to the letter of the law and BPL systems would be allowed to interfere with amateur radio for months or years. It just wasn't realistic to expect a for-profit business to turn off tens or hundreds of customers to investigate or stop interference, and the FCC quietly let the BPL industry off the hook.
In the ReconRobotics request it was acknowledged that a robot video system would be required to shut down if it interfered with licensed operations such as amateur radio. But we all know that this is just not practical or realistic. No law enforcement officer is going to shut down a robot during an enforcement event because it is interfering with amateur radio, nor would it be advisable or justified for an radio amateur to complain about reconnaissance robot interference. But even worse, if an amateur radio operator transmitting interfered with a robot on a mission, it's likely that the event would be reported on by local media and would it put amateur radio in a bad light. Overall it's a bad situation for all involved.
It's obvious the FCC still hasn't learned from BPL and has some things backwards. Important services like data networks or communications for law enforcement need to be in licensed and/or dedicated spectrum, not shoehorned in with quite dissimilar licensed services as an unlicensed squatter that will ultimately demand and garner licensed allocation type protection and privileges. Unfortunately it looks like this unlicensed / de facto licensed arrangement is going to be more common in coming years if the FCC continues to sidestep real spectrum management.
Company Offers Biodegradable QRP Kits
Today a company called GreenKits announced a line of QRP rig kits that are designed to fit the nature of QRP kit building while being environmentally friendly.
Dick Rich, founder of GreenKits said "We discovered that most QRP kit builders build kits not because they want or need another QRP rig. Far from it. In our initial market feasibility study we found several hams that had 20 or more monoband rock-bound 40 meter QRP rigs, but were eager to build more 40 meter rigs. The primary motivators for buying and building QRP rigs was to be part of a fad and impress other QRP rig builders. Most hams only have one or two or even no QSOs on newly built rigs before they are tossed into a desk drawer."
Rich has designed a rig that lasts just long enough after powered up to make a few contacts and then the rig nonviolently self-destructs into a pile of harmless biodegradable ash, with a slight emission of hydrogen. The ash can be dumped into a garden or houseplant pot and the QRPer doesn't have to worry about storing or hiding the unused rig so his wife doesn't ask why he spent money on a rig he'll never use regularly.
GreekKits has created email reflectors for support of the rigs and also to give builders a place to brag about the contacts they made, or even didn't make. Each kit comes with a one time usable password that gives the builder ten days of access to the reflector. Once the password expires, the builder is banished from the reflector forever. Rich says this prevents flame wars about what serial number kits are better than others. GreenKits has an online virtual shrine where customers can worship company founders and kit designers. Virtual flowers can be purchased and placed at the feet of an online statue of founder Rich. Rich says, "We didn't think of the shrine, one of our customers did. We weren't really excited about the idea but several customers really bugged us to do it, so we did."
Rich noted that business is doing well, despite the recession. "We've even released a transceiver called the ESP that doesn't actually transmit any RF. It's selling like hotcakes. Surprisingly, we have customers who have announced on the rig reflector that they have made contacts. One guy has even achieved Worked All States with it and one ham worked Russia with the rig using a three foot loaded whip antenna in a basement apartment. I think this speaks volumes about the quality and performance of our kits."
Dick Rich, founder of GreenKits said "We discovered that most QRP kit builders build kits not because they want or need another QRP rig. Far from it. In our initial market feasibility study we found several hams that had 20 or more monoband rock-bound 40 meter QRP rigs, but were eager to build more 40 meter rigs. The primary motivators for buying and building QRP rigs was to be part of a fad and impress other QRP rig builders. Most hams only have one or two or even no QSOs on newly built rigs before they are tossed into a desk drawer."
Rich has designed a rig that lasts just long enough after powered up to make a few contacts and then the rig nonviolently self-destructs into a pile of harmless biodegradable ash, with a slight emission of hydrogen. The ash can be dumped into a garden or houseplant pot and the QRPer doesn't have to worry about storing or hiding the unused rig so his wife doesn't ask why he spent money on a rig he'll never use regularly.
GreekKits has created email reflectors for support of the rigs and also to give builders a place to brag about the contacts they made, or even didn't make. Each kit comes with a one time usable password that gives the builder ten days of access to the reflector. Once the password expires, the builder is banished from the reflector forever. Rich says this prevents flame wars about what serial number kits are better than others. GreenKits has an online virtual shrine where customers can worship company founders and kit designers. Virtual flowers can be purchased and placed at the feet of an online statue of founder Rich. Rich says, "We didn't think of the shrine, one of our customers did. We weren't really excited about the idea but several customers really bugged us to do it, so we did."
Rich noted that business is doing well, despite the recession. "We've even released a transceiver called the ESP that doesn't actually transmit any RF. It's selling like hotcakes. Surprisingly, we have customers who have announced on the rig reflector that they have made contacts. One guy has even achieved Worked All States with it and one ham worked Russia with the rig using a three foot loaded whip antenna in a basement apartment. I think this speaks volumes about the quality and performance of our kits."
The Problem of Closed Source and Proprietary Algorithm Modes
I've preached before about the problems posed by proprietary software in amateur radio, namely the D-STAR AMBE vocoder. I won't rehash the issues with the AMBE vocoder, but some recent events with a newly introduced digital mode (that will remain unnamed in this article) illustrate some of the problems with modes that are totally dependent on closed source software and/or proprietary algorithms.
The author of the new digital mode software became upset with several bloggers and forum posters and decided to prohibit them from using his software and any future software projects or modes created by him. He created the software, he owns the copyright, so he do with it nearly whatever he wants. Since his software is not open source, the author can add whatever code he desires into the product, without third party scrutiny. He could easily put functionality into the software that makes it become inoperable if the callsign of a prohibited user is entered into the configuration. The software could allow a prohibited callsign in the configuration and allow QSOs to be established, however the software on the other end of the QSO could recognize the prohibited callsign and automatically terminate a QSO, thus cutting off the prohibited user from the rest of the amateur radio community and embarrassing him on the air in the process. Outside of enabling vendettas against certain radio amateurs, the software could be enhanced with more features in the future (better performance, higher speed, etc.) and such features would be given only to users who pay for a premium edition of the software.
Obviously the examples above are purely fictitious and as far as I know haven't been done, but they're certainly within the realm of possibilities. With commonly available software libraries and cheap software development tools, most anyone can create a new digital mode today and as we've seen it doesn't take much for a new digital mode to "go viral" like a popular YouTube video.
I'm not an open source fanatic, but we're setting ourselves up for some bad scenarios if we continue to adopt closed source software and proprietary algorithm modes. Will ARRL or some organization take a stand against this? Or are we going to continue to drink the Kool Aid just because it tastes sweet?
The author of the new digital mode software became upset with several bloggers and forum posters and decided to prohibit them from using his software and any future software projects or modes created by him. He created the software, he owns the copyright, so he do with it nearly whatever he wants. Since his software is not open source, the author can add whatever code he desires into the product, without third party scrutiny. He could easily put functionality into the software that makes it become inoperable if the callsign of a prohibited user is entered into the configuration. The software could allow a prohibited callsign in the configuration and allow QSOs to be established, however the software on the other end of the QSO could recognize the prohibited callsign and automatically terminate a QSO, thus cutting off the prohibited user from the rest of the amateur radio community and embarrassing him on the air in the process. Outside of enabling vendettas against certain radio amateurs, the software could be enhanced with more features in the future (better performance, higher speed, etc.) and such features would be given only to users who pay for a premium edition of the software.
Obviously the examples above are purely fictitious and as far as I know haven't been done, but they're certainly within the realm of possibilities. With commonly available software libraries and cheap software development tools, most anyone can create a new digital mode today and as we've seen it doesn't take much for a new digital mode to "go viral" like a popular YouTube video.
I'm not an open source fanatic, but we're setting ourselves up for some bad scenarios if we continue to adopt closed source software and proprietary algorithm modes. Will ARRL or some organization take a stand against this? Or are we going to continue to drink the Kool Aid just because it tastes sweet?
ROS: "Run Other Software"
Just when I thought the ROS story couldn't get any crazier, it does. The author of ROS contacted the FCC and explained the mode with more clarity (i.e. it's not really spread spectrum like he said it was before) and FCC Secret Agent 3820 now agrees that the ROS mode is legal in the US. (No word from ARRL that I have seen, but frankly I don't think it matters at this point.)
Now, in a strange turn of events, the ROS author has threatened legal action against N3TL for merely asking the FCC if the mode was legal in the US and posting the FCC response on the 'zed and perhaps elsewhere. G4ILO was also told that it would be illegal for him to use ROS for blogging about the issue. The threat was later retracted. And to top things off, there's now a persona non grata list on the ROS blog of those who are supposedly prohibited from using the ROS mode and software.
I'm not on the list yet, but it probably won't be long. Not to worry, I won't be installing it in this lifetime.
Now, in a strange turn of events, the ROS author has threatened legal action against N3TL for merely asking the FCC if the mode was legal in the US and posting the FCC response on the 'zed and perhaps elsewhere. G4ILO was also told that it would be illegal for him to use ROS for blogging about the issue. The threat was later retracted. And to top things off, there's now a persona non grata list on the ROS blog of those who are supposedly prohibited from using the ROS mode and software.
I'm not on the list yet, but it probably won't be long. Not to worry, I won't be installing it in this lifetime.
FCC: Lazy Or Just Lackadaisical? (Part 1)
I hate to use a Cavuto-style question as a blog title, but to borrow a Beckian phrase this week I'm feeling like the "question needs to be asked".
Here's an inquiry to the FCC that was posted on the digitalradio 'flector regarding the new ROS rigital rode:
Summary* : Request for clarification of new amateur radio digital mode
Description* : Within the past week, a new digital mode - called ROS - has surfaced on the HR amateur bands. Its creator refers to it as spread spectrum, but there is some debate over whether the mode truly represents spread spectrum as defined by the FCC. I am writing to request a review of the creator's documentation, which I have attached, and a formal ruling on whether this mode is legal for use below 222 mHz by licensed U.S. amateurs. It would be very helpful if the FCC, upon completion of this review, would distribute a public announcement of its determination to appropriate amateur radio and media outlets. Thank you very much in advance for your time and prompt attention to this request. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL
And here's the response from the FCC:
Solution Details : Dear Mr. Lilley,
Section 97.305 is the rule that specifies where different emission types are allowed to be transmitted on different bands. "ROS" is viewed as "spread spectrum," and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created. 97.305 authorizes spread spectrum emission types (defined in Section 97.3) to be transmitted by FCC licensed amateur stations at places we regulate communications only on 222-225 MHz and higher frequency amateur bands. European telecommunication regulatory authorities may authorize amateur stations in Europe to use SS on the HF bands, but this is of no concern to us. The Commission does not determine if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. This would include determining the type of emission the station is transmitting and that the frequencies being used are authorized for that type of emission.
Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please contact the ULS Customer Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201, selecting option 2.
Sincerely,
Agent 3820
I'm guessing "option 2" routes the caller to an endless audio loop that says "I don't know, you figure it!" or "Sucks to be you! Ha ha ha!". But seriously, how lame is this answer from secret agent 3820? So the FCC just takes for granted whatever the developer determines the mode actually is? I'm sure that they wouldn't take that position in an enforcement case. However, if that's how they roll, I'm developing a new mode that is a digital micro-powered voice communication mode that is Part 15 compliant. It's actual AM running at 100kW, but with my newly developed method of measuring power for this special mode, it's really 1 mW. It says so in the documentation and being the developer of the mode, I should know. What's that? FCC enforcement officers at the door? Tell them to go pound sand! I'm responsible for determining if my emissions comply with the rules, not them. And I live in the Republic of Texas where their laws don't apply. (I redrew the map on my wall.)
I keep asking myself if this whole ROS emissions issue is a hoax. Maybe I'm getting less trustworthy in my old age, but honestly if this was April 1 I'd being laughing instead of sighing.
Part 2 of this series will hopefully be coming out tomorrow. By the way, kudos to N3TL for asking the FCC for an official ruling. At least he tried. I'm going to submit an inquiry in to the FCC Kids Zone. Perhaps Broadband the Cat will release an official ruling.
UPDATE: Now there's an article by N3TL on the 'zed regarding this issue and there's a similar inquiry going on now with CHIP64.
