This is a quick hitter post but it something I think about often.
Let’s take FM repeaters. The things we perceive as gateway systems for anyone with a HT, or for the local version of HF low-band nets. We have repeaters. The frequency pairs, tones, and networking are a mystery. We also have APRS which is great at squawking out test strings. Why are repeaters not squawking their pertinent info in a standardized format, which any modern radio has the computing horsepower to convert to a memory channel or VFO setting?
We are still using keypad menus that make a 1998 Nokia Stickphone look like a test case in great UI design. Ask most hams (this is an opinion) and they will tell you that identifying repeaters, programming repeaters, and determining where they are is a pain in the butt if not impossible.
So we have the tech but we have not integrated it. The same thing can be said for most DV systems. Hotspots, radio software, digital repeaters… all pretty much adrift. If you have great D-STAR repeaters and the right rig maybe it works for you. Otherwise forget it. You kinda use the same few rooms with your hotspot. Mostly over an internet connection… Not exactly robust. Yeah you are communicating with your micro-repeater hotspot. Technically radio but your RF contact is measured in feet. Keep telling yourself it is ham radio. Try not thinking about how that hotspot could be operating on GMRS just as easily. You’ll just get upset.
Most ham radio software is either DOS-era or WEB-0.5 era, with bad interfaces and bad hardware support. We are still tying much of your hardware interface tech to RS-232 standards. In the main we are more of a LARP or SCA hobby today than a cutting edge technical pursuit. And it is a foundation that is crumbling beneath our feet.
But what about emergency communications, you say?
With the recent questions about why Amateur Radio hasn’t played a bigger role in natural disasters like the recent (Summer 2023) Maui wildfires and such, one answer might be that our tech sucks. Half-duplex systems with little if no interconnection with public safety systems are not particularly useful in an emergency. DV repeaters and APRS are not particularly useful in an emergency if their use isn’t backed with a lot of training, coordination and the proper equipment. If I was in a wildfire and had to rely on sending messages from the keypad of my FT3D I would become a briquette before figuring out that trash interface.
And I have been into radio for about 50 years and a ham for over 30. I’m convinced that we don’t really have a useful communication network. Those Vietnam era phone patch days predate global satellite networks by 30 years. Nobody wants to go back there. We are not trained or equipped to integrate with public emergency services.
So what does that leave? Chatting about our medical situation, contesting, grid-chasing, political ranting over DV networks, pushing modes like RTTY as current when they are antiquated… You like RTTY? Great. Me too. But as a community we need to be honest about the impact nostalgia is having on the long term prospects for the bulk of our amateur radio hobby/service. Nobody is whipping out a RTTY system in an emergency. I’ll leave it at that.
As I said, a quick-hit post but I’ll close by saying we don’t need to eliminate any old tech. But, we do need an infusion of new, useful, integrated tech that will carry forward for another 100 years.
[editor’s cheap shot: From the constant stream of hams I see on internet forums and social media who can’t figure out a sound card interface I understand that I am typing this into the vacuum of space. Thanks for sticking with it. 73]
petebrunelli 
Comments
4 responses to “why are we wasting amateur radio bandwith with trash technology?”
I would agree with much of the comments here, especially with regard to use of hotspots. Not really anything interesting going on there, other than being able to participate in a net or chat that you can’t get into on any local repeater. There have been some great innovations such as FT-8 and sound cards becoming common in HF rigs, but the more “tech” and integration, the less likely it will work in an emergency or disaster situation. This is why cell networks drop, why public service networks drop, and other systems fail during disasters. They rely on too many factors to work. In my opinion, the fewer connections needed, the more likely to be working in a disaster situation. This is why I think more experience and training is needed for operating off grid, and, multiple modes. CW, packet, RTTY, and others which can be used to get information out as far and wide as possible.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, weak signal modes like FT8 have been a boon to making HF an interesting option for many hams. I got DXCC on FT8 and then kinda lost interest. I do think it is great as a propagation tool. But the WSJT-X version is really just a testbed. You aren’t passing traffic over FT8, just an ACK. The JS8 variant is good at casual keyboard chat, kinda like PSK31 with better S/N and error checking. My real concern is that we are currently boxed in. It’s like a “say it out loud” exercise. Pick a mode and frequency, then explain how it is useful in a grid-down situation (speaking with other hams only is not the goal). You have to move useful information to someone who can do something useful with it. It’s not just about competing with Starlink. We really need to look at the available spectrum and tech and say “here’s how I couple a computer to a radio and make it useful.”. Winlink/VARA… are excellent, but still rely on internet backbones to move email. What else can these modes do with respect to payload? Maybe VHF and HF mesh networking with gateways to verified EMS nodes… 73
I can agree with most of the commentary here. As hams, we have not proven to have robust networks that Public Service can rely on. That is why they don’t. Most Public service see Hams as not an asset but a hindrance to their operations.
Digital modes, such as APRS, D-Star, DMR, System Fusion were not created to be used in as an emergency response network, despite the prevailing discussion. They are too reliant on the internet or other out-of-band networking to be anything other than another local repeater system that is not interlinked.
There have been strides made in software that can interface radios and program them manually, but they rely on some sort of standardization of the data that really only seems to be collected in sites such as Repeaterbook.com. Again, it is only as good as the collected data, and while the admins work hard to keep it up to date, it’s not.
I wish there was some standardization to programming radios. There isn’t, and that is one of many reasons why Public Service will not rely on us as hams.
If Hams want to be an asset to anyone besides ourselves, we will have to actively work on these issues, both in our community and with the industry that makes these products. Hams have the skill sets to overcome these issues, between off-grid power to digital comms that will provide information both inside and outside an incident zone. We train on Disaster protocols and procedures, but act like the little kid brother who wants to play with big kids when it comes to crunch time.
I don’t believe that all the modes that Hams use and communicate on can be used in a Disaster scenario. We should not declare it, because we can’t support the infrastructure that we have reliably in normal use.
[…] an idea that I don’t take myself too seriously, even if I sometimes have strong opinions. My last post kinda took a detour into EMCOMM issues, and I stand by those […]